keano77

You do like the word offensive Rendel, you've used it a number of times. I haven't mentioned offend, offensive. Inappropriate, inconsiderate and possibly selfish I think I've used. I gave three high-profile examples. The Australian Senator example was a publicity stunt by a woman who, it transpires, wasn't eligible to be in Parliament in the first place because of dual-nationality laws. The Claridges example wasn't as straight forward as I thought thanks to fatcats' explanation. I still find the Tesco example questionable. The woman was a teacher who complained that she felt humiliated yet chose to ignore alternatives. What I find difficult to understand is the blinkered thinking that nobody is allowed to question or complain. Woman sitting at a bar breast feeding where people are trying to get served? How dare you suggest she's making a statement, seeking attention, is selfish, inconsiderate. It's irrelevant that there are plenty of other places in the pub for her and her friends to gather. I suppose that's the world we live in - if you're not with 'em you're against 'em.

fatcats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Much of what you say is true. I'm simply > > questioning your inability to see that not > > everybody might have thought it appropriate > while > > they're eating their dainty sandwiches and > yummy > > cakes. Some might have thought it inconsiderate > of > > the other diners. > > It's not an inability. Neither am I saying like it > or lump it. The reality is that the alternatives > you have put forward are not feasible, if you care > to understand the mechanics of breastfeeding and > how it works. > > Everyone has an opinion of course. But mothers > can't simply 'grab a bottle' 'disappear off for 5 > minutes' or 'feed before they go out' because this > simply isn't it how it works. These are statements > bandied around by a lot of anti-public > breastfeeding types/misogynists and because such a > tiny proportion of women actually breastfeed they > don't get challenged anywhere near enough. Read > the comments beneath any Daily Mail (one of the > most read websites in the world) article on > breastfeeding - the level of ignorance is > frightening and it's amplified time and time > again. Seriously fatcats I have found your posts very informative and I've learnt that's it not a simple as I imagined. Thank you for that. It does put the Claridges example in a different context.

Good Rendel we agree - it's not always appropriate, Surgeons during an operation or dentists giving you fillings might be ill-advised. How did you get on with the thought experiment?

I'm not sure you are genuinely interested Jacks09. But here's a little thought experiment for you. People are in the fresh fruit aisle of a supermarket trying to decide between the raspberries, grapes, plums and all sorts of exotic fruit. The supermarket attracts people from all walks of life, young, middle-aged, old, all races, creeds, colours and genders. A woman is breast feeding in that aisle and one person complains to a supermarket employee that it is not appropriate. Can you image any situation where the complainant is not irrational, bigoted, misogynistic, antediluvian, a dinosaur, hold archaic views and so on? Is it possible the complainant just thought 'why are you doing that here, in the middle of the aisle when there are plenty of other places you could choose to feed your child'?

Rendel, you've already conceded on your over-generalisation above because you stopped and thought about it for a minute. There are times and places where it is not appropriate - courts for example. If you think a bit harder and deeper it may become apparent that others who may not agree with you are not necessarily irrational. They might have been brought up with different standards as to what is or is not acceptable or desirable in polite society. I've given some high profile examples. I don't think beast feeding should be encouraged in important institutions like national debating chambers for example. I could get all pompous and philosophical about the confusion between the public and private realms in modern society and the role of social media in exacerbating this confusion but I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

The 'like it or lump it' school of thought seems to be winning on this thread.

Much of what you say is true. I'm simply questioning your inability to see that not everybody might have thought it appropriate while they're eating their dainty sandwiches and yummy cakes. Some might have thought it inconsiderate of the other diners.

fatcats Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Some good points there fatcats but the woman in > > Claridges could still have asked for a discrete > > comfortable area rather than be in full view of > > other diners. If Claridges can't provide such > > facilities then there's no hope for anywhere > else. > > So she should have isolated herself from her > group? If so what would be the point of joining > them in the first place? She could have chosen to remove herself temporarily. Instead the whole room full of diners shared the experience and when the poor waiter offered her a serviette she felt humiliated

Some good points there fatcats but the woman in Claridges could still have asked for a discrete comfortable area rather than be in full view of other diners. If Claridges can't provide such facilities then there's no hope for anywhere else.

I don't think the courts allow it Siduhe. Would you be happy if you were on trial for murder and the jury was breast feeding. Anytime, anywhere is not always appropriate.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... whereas any reasonable person sees no reason a woman shouldn't breastfeed where she wants without being accused of attention seeking or having psychological issues ... Okay, let's take the case of the former Australian Senator and spend a couple of seconds analysing her actions. 1. What was a baby doing in a debating chamber in the first place? Presumably the Australian Parliament has a creche and anyway she could probably afford a nanny 2. The woman then decides to breastfeed her child. Why? Why there? We know the reason, she was a member of the Green Party and was making a point. It worked, the Guardian was ecstatic in its coverage, a world first etc etc I mentioned psychological issues because they obviously apply in some cases. Let's take the case of the woman in Tesco. Tesco promotes and encourages breast feeding and provides areas for the comfort and convenience of mother and child. A woman decides not to take advantage of the facilities offered, nor to walk 30 metres or so back to her car parked in the mother and baby zone, and instead breast feeds more publicly. Some customers complain and a member of staff speaks with her. She then takes to social media saying she felt humiliated and so on. But surely the fact that she took to social media was because she was seeking solace, support, approval, justification - woe is me, aren't I hard done by. Such inappropriate behaviour is what I'm objecting to Rendel, not the day to day practice to satisfy basic human needs.

You deliberately miss the point of DulwichFox's post Rendel. He or she was criticising what was obviously attention seeking on the part of the mother (look at me ... I've got a baby). She was sitting at the bar. There was no need to breastfeed her baby there. There may well be psychological reasons behind this - vulnerable new mother, has given up a career to bring up children, feels like she's losing her identity etc etc

I agree lavender and nobody is doing anything wrong by breast feeding in public. The point I'm making is there is a time and a place for everything and manners and consideration for others ought to come into consideration. There has been a spate of stories in the news where women have been stopped from breast feeding or asked politely to do it discretely only for them to take to social media claiming how humiliated they felt and so on. Off the top of my head some recent high profile cases were a lady having tea at Claridges, a woman in the V&A and a former Senator making a point in the Australian Parliament. The woman in Claridges could easily have expressed milk in advance and used a bottle or asked to use a discrete place. Why did she assume other guests paying up to ?150 for dainty sandwiches and fine cakes and pastries would be happy to see her breast feed in front of them. There is an attitude among some that it's my right to breast feed my child anytime any place and if others don't like it they can lump it

SLad Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------> > Happily I don't give a monkeys where I whap my > boobs out to feed my babies but I can totally > empathise with women who do. Sorry to burst your bubble but in my opinion well-brought up women do not ..."whap my boobs out..." in public. Ever heard of bottles for hungry babies? I've travelled to poor parts of the world over the years and seen women breast feed their children on buses, trains and in public generally. I have no problem with that - they are poor. To see people in the likes of East Dulwich do it, or the Australian Parliament or elsewhere, there is no excuse - they are only trying to make a silly statement. I suspect many people who have read this silly thread are too frightened to tell it as it is.

I understand. However I suspect the EU Parliament will wait to see if the UK Parliament ratifies the deal first so as not to waste its time. However if it then rejects the deal ...

I know it's a long way off yet but does anyone know which Parliament will vote on the deal first - the EU Parliament or the UK Parliament? The implications here are huge

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/09/g > lobal-powers-lobby-to-stop-special-brexit-deal-for > -uk > > It's about to get more difficult for the UK. Is this the dawning recognition by the likes of Canada that after 7, 8 or 9 years of negotiation they've been sold a pig in a poke by the unelected EU bureaucrats? :)

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Genuine question Keano - given that the question > was Leave/Remain, and we have triggered A50, how > is it potentially undemocratic (forgive the crude > phrasing)? > > I've long worried that part of the problems we > face is that people voted Leave for many reasons, > and they will be cheesed off when events don't > mirror their vision of the UK. But I'm not sure > how it could be otherwise? We were asked a > question, that's all. We don't get a say in how > the implement the result (general elections > aside). Only in the sense that the answer to the question was leave. I'm not too worried about the transition deal itself. The country needs time to adjust and effectively we will still be tied to the EU. It's understandable that we will still need to abide by EU rules in this period, so called alignment. Also when we finally, finally, manage to break away obviously when we sell products and services to the EU those will need to comply with their rules and standards. What worries me is that the EU will try to do two things: a) Grant a transition deal with all sorts of restrictive conditions on the basis that b) when the transition deal expires we cannot do x, y, or z when striking deals with other nations on the basis it would be a competitive advantage and they'll fine us etc etc If that happens the Leave answer, and democracy in this country, will have been sabotaged and betrayed. What the EU has to realise is they cannot impose conditions 'in perpetuity' on what will then be a sovereign country again as to what it can and can't do with others. If the UK decides to introduce chlorinated chicken plants to sell those chickens to half a dozen non-EU countries it is nothing to do with the EU as long as we don't sell them into the EU. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU banned EU citizens from working in such plants. The EU will be up to every trick to preserve its protectionist trading bloc. I'm not sure Theresa May and our current negotiating team are the right people for the next stage of negotiations.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I'm not a great fan of The Guardian but who > wrote that crap? > > > >> In other words, the UK may not be a member of > the single market, > > > > We don't want to be > > But that's exactly the 'compromise' - that the UK > won't be a member of the single market, but it > will have to align it's rules and regulations to > the EU. All the disadvantages of being in the > single market, but with few of the advantages. > > A special kind of brilliant, don't you think? > > > > > > or have any direct ability to shape its rules in > future? > > > > How does half-wit writer draw this conclusion? > > Easy. At the moment, the UK has quite a say in EU > rules and regs. It also must abide by them. > > As from Brexit, the UK has no say in EU rules and > regulations (as it will no longer have any voting > capacity), but must align it's rules and regs. > > > > > >> , but it could yet have to play by them in > perpetuity. > > > > The EU probably won't exist in 25 years let > alone > > perpetuity. > > It might not. But if it does, then the UK will be > aligned to it's rules. > > In other words, Brexit in name only, except that > the UK will be voiceless. So the whole 'take back > control' has become 'lose any semblance of > control'. > > Remainers like me are very happy with the deal. > You, on the other hand, just got sold down the > river. I'm not sure about that Loz. I haven't seen the 15-page document and as usual the devil will be in the detail. You say "Remainers like me are very happy with the deal. You, on the other hand, just got sold down the river." If by 'you' you refer to Brexiters, what you are really saying is democrary has just been sold down the river. 1f you are gloating over that then it is very sad. I don't think that was your intention. However I'm not sure anyone has been sold down the river just yet. It will depend on the terms of the trade deal and we'll need to be very careful there. It is well known that the EU does not want the UK to have a competitive advantage when we leave and will try to insist on all manner of stipulations to shackle our negotiations with the rest of the world. As regards the deal just reached on the first part. Overall it doesn't seem to be a disaster. We'll need a transition deal of at least a couple of years so in effect we won't really have left during this time so will have to adhere to the rules. Our divorce bill be will phased over many years rather than paid in a lump sum so the ECJ still having influence for eight years can be viewed against that. And personally I have no problem with protecting EU citizens already in the UK at the time we leave but please don't send us any more of your criminal classes before that deadline. As far as I can see 'alignment' only applies to trade with the EU. When we are finally free to make our own trade agreements there is nothing to stop the UK importing chlorinated fowl from the US for UK consumption for example, or indeed to produce it here for sale to other non-EU countries should we wish to. Don't forget many countries have different food safety laws. The US for example bans certain French cheeses as being unhygenic. We would need to adhere to the laws of the countries we were trading with. But the EU will try to insert conditions to prevent anything that will affect its markets. It doesn't want cheaper US beef, chickens and turkeys coming in to the UK as it will affect its exports to us. We need to be very careful what we sign up to otherwise democracy really will be sold down the river.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe this from the Guardian explains it > > "The first, and biggest, concession is buried in > paragraph 49 of the 15-page report published early > on Friday morning. Its implications will be > anything but quiet in the weeks to come, for it > undermines the prime minister?s previous > insistence that Britain will be leaving the single > market. > > It states clearly: ?In the absence of agreed > solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full > alignment with those rules of the internal market > and the customs union.? In other words, the UK may > not be a member of the single market, or have any > direct ability to shape its rules in future, but > it could yet have to play by them in perpetuity." > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/08/n > ot-much-remain-theresa-may-red-lines-brexit-deal I'm not a great fan of The Guardian but who wrote that crap? In other words, the UK may > not be a member of the single market, We don't want to be or have any direct ability to shape its rules in future? How does half-wit writer draw this conclusion? , but > it could yet have to play by them in perpetuity. The EU probably won't exist in 25 years let alone perpetuity. I'm amazed Schultz is demanding a US of Europe by 2025 as a condition of joining Merkel in coalition. I await with interest the response of the V4 (Visegrad group). However, hopefully it won't be our problem

vito Wrote: > > IS that the Brexit is brexit UK has been voted > for? ..or perhaps EU sees May s government > collapse as a disaster and so decided to move on > to phase 2 just to keep her alive....?? I think you've hit the nail on the head here on this point vito. None of us know exactly what has been agreed at this stage because of the tit-bits in the public domain most of it is diplomatic double-speak. However I think the EU crapped itself when it feared the '?39 Billion' (multiply this by factor of 3 - we'll never know the true figure) might be snatched back if May fell. The next stage is the EU Parliament has to ratify sufficient progress has been made. Is Guy Verhofstadt being musselled ?

Yes JoeLeg, I see your point and it does look a big mess at the moment. However, we are not being given the full picture and we don't know what discussions are really going on behind closed doors. I'm not sure the Northern Ireland border question is really such the big deal that it's being made out to be. It's a distraction and there's a whiff that the Republic of Ireland is being used by the EU as part of a bigger game. One thing you have to admire about the EU is it's ability over the years to fudge matters with impenetrable ambiguous jargon that allows wriggle room. So a solution will be found. The real problem is what it has always been - the EU cannot agree a deal whereby Britain would be seen to be better off outside the bloc than within it without risking the collapse of the whole edifice. This has nothing to do with punishing Britain, rather it's self-preservation.

pato Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps the most scathing verdict was that of the Deutschlandfunk commentator Peter Kapern, who described Brexit as ?the biggest political nonsense? since the Roman emperor Caligula made his favourite horse a senator. ?Anyone who needed further proof of this thesis has received it today,? he wrote. Given that Germany, Europe's most powerful country and the driving force behind the EU project cannot even form a government at the moment Peter Kapern may be tired and emotional and drowning his sorrows in bierkellers. When he sobers up he might realise Caligula, although mad, was ahead of his time in granting rights to sentient animals. In fact, his equine senator might have made a better job of the Brexit negotiations than the current parties.

Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way. With all the demands from competing interests to stay in the single market, customs union, passporting rights, ECJ still calling the shots on Citizens rights etc and even sentient animals wagging their tails why don't we just say to the EU you pay us ?10 Billion a year and we'll carry on as normal.

Yes lavender27, but immediately recycled I'm afraid.