Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As I observed, this was an establishment which has child changing facilities that would have been in full view of the mother in question. Furthermore, as it was not busy there would have been no problem enquiring of the staff whether they had facilities, even if the mother had not been aware of them. Furthermore, the ladies toilets (which used to be unisex so I know what it is like) is extremely spacious and offers ample space for nappy changing even if the specific child-changing facilities had been occupied (which they weren't). No. As far as I am concerned this was just an example of utter lack of thought for others and I am glad I spoke my mind. From what I could see at a distance (and I didn't want to get too close) we were definitely talking about a number 2.


I had already sat with considerable frustration as this mother and her friend had allowed their children to run rumpus around the place, knocking things over and screaming and shouting. I said nothing. But changing a nappy on a fabric covered sofa was just too much and I expressed my feelings with what I thought was heroic courtesy and understatement.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

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

> Bigbadwolf produces an empty revolver, BN5 loads

> one of the chambers. The Administrator spins the

> magazine, lays it on the velvet covered table and

> says 'when you dance with the Devil, you wait till

> the music stops'.


But are you skinner or krusty?

http://thumbnails.hulu.com/8/69/20331_145x80_manicured__OSReU2psi0+Z5GW2a4oFSQ.jpg


last stray from topic, promise ;-)

Bignumber5,


A rovolver does'nt have a magazine, just as a kalashnikov does'nt have a barrel.


Speaking of kalashnikov's my mate took one to a shooting range and got told dont bring it again or you wont be welcome here. Reminded me of when Del boy took a sawn off shotgun to a clay podgeon shoot.

Any nappy changing in a public eating place is unacceptable. On a table! When changing facilities are unavailable! And above all when faeces is involved! Disgusting and abhorrent.




BN5, I do hope you are wrong.


bignumber5 Wrote:

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

> But then I don't have kids, and I'm fairly sure

> that makes my opinion on this almost entirely

> in-valid in the eyes of the nappy-changer.


This isn't parents or non-parents, this is about basic standards of hygiene and consideration for others. I wouldn't change a shitty nappy in front of friends even in my own home - who wants to smell that!?

How utterly revolting. There is no excuse for this, she should absolutely have been asked to leave. I am a mother of a toddler and a baby and I am appalled. It's people like this who give mothers in ED the name of arse. We are not all mentalists who think it's perfectly acceptable to express breastmilk in the front window of the Bishop, let our children run riot around tables where people are eating or indeed change stinky nappies in a public place. I am impressed Domitianus used 'heroic courtesy and understatement,' I'd have been much less restrained.
Bignumber5, A rovolver does'nt have a magazine, just as a kalashnikov does'nt have a barrel


Addressed to the wrong person and jam-packed with spelling mistakes, but otherwise faultless. Almost. ish...


------


Moos, it wasn't a swipe at parents in general, it was unfortunately based on experience: when I have previously followed a course of action such as saying "excuse me, could you please not do that" the response has been pretty ranty (defensiveness, mostly, and that's not unexpected given the circumstances) but the phrase that sneaks in is "...it's ok for you to say things like that, I bet you haven't even got children" at which point I have given the whole business up as a bad job. I rarely bother saying anything now, nor do I involve a manager of anykind as recommended earlier in this thread as I believe quite vehemently that it's not fair to send someone else over to say what I no longer have the energy or faith in the goodwill of others to pursue.

sorry, i may have missed this but who was the mother with and did they not have any objection to the nappy change??? i too am a mother of a toddler (with a bugaboo!!) and would never ever dream of changing his nappy in such a way and place... gross..
If i had been present when this happened, i would have either mentioned it to the management or the actual woman. That is so wrong. I have a young baby and would not even think about doing this sort of thing. Totally unacceptable and damn right rude

bignumber5 Wrote:

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


> Moos, it wasn't a swipe at parents in general, it

> was unfortunately based on experience: when I have

> previously followed a course of action such as

> saying "excuse me, could you please not do that"

> the response has been pretty ranty (defensiveness,

> mostly, and that's not unexpected given the

> circumstances) but the phrase that sneaks in is

> "...it's ok for you to say things like that, I bet

> you haven't even got children" at which point I

> have given the whole business up as a bad job. I

> rarely bother saying anything now, nor do I

> involve a manager of anykind as recommended

> earlier in this thread as I believe quite

> vehemently that it's not fair to send someone else

> over to say what I no longer have the energy or

> faith in the goodwill of others to pursue.


Oh dear, and mine wasn't a swipe at you, I was on your side - as I said I don't think this is a parenting issue, it's a hygiene and manners issue so I don't see how anyone in his/her right mind could take that line. I can see how someone might think it when it comes to kids' behaviour - I've thought it myself when I see people glaring at me as my child is howling vilely on the bus and I'm wishing the floor would open up and swallow us both down - but in any circumstance it's pretty rude to say it out loud.

Not sure it's "sick", "vile", "shocking" or "horrific."


But it is distasteful. And surely any civil person would avoid causing distaste. This woman was clearly not a civil person. Not like us. ;)


And although it's off topic, I wish I could remember where I recently heard the phrase "aggressive selfishness" used to describe the blight of many modern parents.


: P

I would have said something to the mother doing this. It is absolutely disgusting in a restaurant, wine bar, where ever in public. Did this place not have a loo? I have changed many a nappy in the smallest, dirtiest loos, without baby facilities, on the window sill, on my lap, on a filthy wet floor (on my coat) at Heathrow, on the pushchair fully reclined, in some scariest of places in China, but NEVER in public to some poor unsuspecting stranger. ICK!

Just to reiterate folks. I did raise the matter with the mother in question, pointed out that there were changing facilities right in front of her and pointed out that other people do eat in the establishment. The nature of my complaint still didn't quite seem to penetrate and the best I got was an "Oh, sorry" as if I had just objected to her brand of buggy or her favourite colour and was some poor chap in need of patronising.


In defence of management, the part of the establishment where this happened was out of sight of the bar area and I don't believe staff or management noticed it, otherwise I am sure discrete words would have been spoken. I, however, was in the same area and certainly did notice and was quite repelled by what other posters here have rightly described as the utter inconsideration and arrogance of this woman in appearing to think she had the right to do whatever she pleased with her child without thought for others. If the woman had appeared stressed or harassed or in a state of urgency I might feel some sympathy but the whole thing was done in such a casual manner by someone who appeared quite leisurely in her manner and mood. As I say, facilities were available just a matter of feet away.


I like the place in question and shall certainly return and just hope that this type of thing does not recur there or anywhere else.

" the mother in question who just uttered a vague "Oh, sorry" as if she didn't quite understand what all the fuss was about"


......mmmm that can happen to a sleep deprived individual, brains rolling around in the head like two fragile marbles, and the sounnd of a crying baby ringing in your ears even when the things alseep.......your lucky she did not drop the nappy in your handbag !

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

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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