Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To follow up, I received the following email from the managing director of the charity shops


The Mind Shop - East Dulwich

Mon, 1 March, 2010 16:58:10

From: "[email protected]"


Your email of complaint regarding the breast- feeding incident in the East Dulwich Mind shop has been passed on to me as Managing Director of the Mind Shops from Paul Farmer (CEO).

I am extremely concerned by your experience within the shop and I would like to offer my sincere apologies for any offence given.

An investigation of the whole incident is being undertaken by Mrs Anne Gowland this week. She may contact you directly. However if there is anything you wish to add to the e-mail you have already sent to Paul Farmer please send it on to me.

Mind shops are non-discriminatory and we do try to accommodate the needs of customers in every way we can, and while we have no specific policy on breast feeding, we will look into developing separate guidance for all of our shops so incidents of this nature do not happen again.

I assure you this matter is my first priority at this time and I hope we can come to a speedy and satisfactory resolution.

Regards

Bob Monteath

Managing Director

I also had two men chase me down the street on my way to the train saying they were from the Daily Mail.. it took me by surprise and they took some photos so I think this may well be in the news tomorrow! I am a little nervous about which angle they will take and I'm more than a little shaken up that they could figure out which street I live on, but done is done.


It seemed like the reporters were clear that people high in the company had the right policies, they just haven't been communicated or taken up by the people I dealt with. Hopefully that comes across in the article.


I also want to say that I think Mind does some very good work and that I do not want publicity to take away from this.


I would like to focus on how to make sure women are not harassed or stopped from feeding their babies, no matter where they are.

Could I just comment, before this witch hunt goes much further, that I have always found Steve to be charming and helpful. He was also very encouraging to my daughter when she worked at the shop for her Duke of Edinburgh award.


That doesn't denigrate what happened to localmamma and that issue clearly needs to be dealt with, but I am very perturbed by the total slur on his character that has gone on in these pages.

I am very pro breatfeeding, and also sympathise regarding this incident. However, I find some responces on here rather disturbing. Yes society should bend over backwards to accomodate breastfeeding, but equally, women should respect the feelings of someone who finds it offensive. Not talking about the chap in the shop, more a general point. I do hope this man doesn't get demonised by some tabloidesque trash on telly though.

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

but equally, women should respect

> the feelings of someone who finds it offensive.


I don't think we should. Breastfeeding a baby is never offensive and if someone finds it so they need to adjust their attitude. Some people may find themselves uncomfortable around breastfeeding women in which case mothers can be discrete.


Yesterday I had a conversation with my 11yr old son about the subject. (They had been discussing it at school because of the case of the lady being thrown off the bus for feeding her baby.) He said - if people don't like seeing it they can just look away.

Breastfeeding a baby is never offensive


Well clearly to some people it is.


and if someone finds it so they need to adjust their attitude


Nice.


But you then go on to say that a mother could be discreet, which seems to be the ideal solution doesn't it?


Just to be clear, I think women should be able to feed wherever they like, but I also think they should try to be discreet, and should respect the views of others.

Hi All


I work in TV and just wanted to say that I'm not interested in the story from the point of view of focusing on this individual in particular or the shop - in fact prob wouldn't even mention him or the MIND store - I am just interested in using it as a starting point for the debate.


And the lady on the bus story last week, according to the latest press reports after CCTV footage was looked at by the bus company, doesn't stack up...though the woman in question is stickign by her story.


Thanks

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Breastfeeding a baby is never offensive

>

> Well clearly to some people it is.

>

> and if someone finds it so they need to adjust

> their attitude

>

> Nice.

>

> But you then go on to say that a mother could be

> discreet, which seems to be the ideal solution

> doesn't it?

>

> Just to be clear, I think women should be able to

> feed wherever they like, but I also think they

> should try to be discreet, and should respect the

> views of others.



The point I was making was the difference between people finding breastfeeding offensive and and those who find being near a women breastfeeding makes them uncomfortable.


The difference is that people who find it offensive are not satisfied with a woman feeding discreetly. The example of localmama is a perfect example. Their reaction is unreasonable and should not be respected.


Those who find themselves being uncomfortable when a mother is feeding her baby are satisfied when it is done discreetly. This is reasonable for mother, baby and bystander. This view should be respected.

Well then we're in complete agreement, something was just lost in translation. I was using the word "offensive" for what you were calling "uncomfortable".


I was just riled by a comment earlier that seemed to suggest a person was being unreasonable if they didn't want to see a breast/nipple. I don't think that is unreasonable. I personally have no issue with it, but someone does, then fair enough.


If someone just finds breast feeding as a whole, "unacceptable" in any public place, and are not satisfied with a lady being discreet, then they are clearly unwilling to compromise, and that is unfortunate, as compromise needs to be made in most areas of life.

Keef,


If you were riled by my earlier comment I apologise, but I was simply trying to establish what it is that might be offensive about the act itself. I also said being discrete is appropriate in certain circumstances (though should not be demanded, as you say it shows a level of compromise from both sides of the fence).


From my own point of view I was asking what it is that offends people because I don't understand. A fair question I feel, but only a question, nothing more.


In this instance localmama was behind a curtain, couldn't have been more discrete, but still got treated very badly. Steve may be a nice chap in general, but in this particular moment he behaved badly - as we all can at times, and personally I think he should apologise, and reconsider his attitude.


As I said in an earlier post I probably sound over passionate about all this, I guess I was just upset on localmamas behalf.


Molly

From my own point of view I was asking what it is that offends people because I don't understand. A fair question I feel, but only a question, nothing more.


Well I can't answer with any degree of certainty, as I don't find it offensive. But some people are less comfortable about seeing a bit of flesh. I guess there are also cultures where it is deemed unacceptable by some, for women to show ANY skin in public, let alone a breast.


It would seem we are all really saying the same thing, but in a different way. I have been trying not to post on the forum lately, as it annoys me (not this bit, but other sections), but felt this worth talking about.


A friend of mine used to work in a popular bar on LL, and he was sure that a particular trio of ladies used to actively try to make him uncomfortable with their feeding, almost challenging him to look, or to say something. Of course, he could have been being completely paranoid, but I cam imagine what he meant, having spoken to SOME women about these things.


Just for the record, I wasn't really commenting at all on this particular incident. I do however agree with PGC, that it is very dangerous for a person to be torn apart on a forum like this, when they've not had a chance to express their side of the story. After all, it is not outside the realms of posibility that there was some misunderstanding here, and that he didn't come across as he had meant to.

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Doesn't it seem a bit odd to breastfeed in a

> changing room of a charity shop?


You know, I thought that at first - but actually thinking about it what a great idea - much more discreet than me in cafe nero...And I have often trekked round with increasingly hungry baby looking for somewhere 'suitable' to feed. Never occurred to me.


And the mind man should not have been looking in a changing room, should he?

Actually if you ask most stores if they have somewhere where you can feed your baby they will say you can use a changing room, Topshop certainly does, as do Marks and Spencer in smaller branches and I think this is a great idea if they are not big enough to have the facility of a 'Family room' like John Lewis or Places like Bluewater. Quite commonplace practice I believe rather than uncommon, and great if you are not comfortable feeding in an open place like a cafe.
But a charity shop? Really? Also how long does it take to get the baby fed? If we are talking 5 - 10 mins again you can see why someone may be a bit confused as to why the single changing room in a shop is being used as a mobile canteen. Perhaps it would have been polite to ask first?
magpie - the mum in question has explained her baby is very quick and she'd looked round the shop and there was only one other person in there, plus one changing room was free (there were two). She also said she was already in there trying on tops. So in that context I really don't see the problem. It wasn't like she was walking down lordship lane and thought, ooh that'd be a good spot to feed my baby. I've frequently had to bottle feed my baby on the street and all sorts of other places (classy) - doesn't seem fair that a breastfeeding mother be criticised for doing exactly the same thing.

OH FGS Magpie - have you any experience at all of dealing with the demands of a small baby? because you don't sound like you do. Babies don't "ask first", they need feeding NOW! Sadly they don't operate on the same rules and manners system as 'civilised' society.


There's no need for any justification for feeding a baby anywhere at all, for however long it takes. The problem doesn't lie with this Mum, nor where she was when the baby needed feeding, the problem lies with outdated and unjustifiable attitudes like yours. I'm with Molly on this - does the sight of a woman's breast or maybe a glimpse of (whisper it) nipple offend you? If so - why? Is it because you associate these body parts with sex & therefore consider that that they shouldn't be exposed in a public place? YOu shouldn't have to run the risk of seeing such a shocking sight? Do you think it more appropriate for her to feed her baby in public with a bottle despite the fact that the health benefits to her baby could be less or compromised? Really - who does have the problem here, and what kind of a civilisation are we where these attitudes are allowed to be considered reasonable?

Exactly Sillywomen, on the basis that I think it would have been polite for the mother to ask the shop whether it was ok, I am an evil breast feeding denier, am scared of nipples, and am demanding that all babies are bottlefed.


Please carry on with your hysterical lynch mob attempting to get the guy fired.

That is exactly the problem with this particular part of the forum. A lot of the topics are somewhat emotive, because they re based on peoples beliefs about parenting and family. Therefore, people get somewhat protective / judgemental (I am as guilty as anyone else).


Sillywoman, Magpie said nothing nasty, and was just voicing an opinion, and frankly, you've gone a bit mental at her/him. A baby might not want to wait for a feed, but would 5 seconds to say "excuse me, do you mind if I just nip in to the changing room to feed the baby?" make such a huge difference? I think not.


I'm not saying that she should have had to ask, but it's not such a bad idea, and the suggestion certainly didn't deserve the response it got.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...