Marks & Spencer cafe: breast-feeding mother asked to leave & feed baby in toilets:OK?

OnanTheBarbarian

If a woman wants to get her baps out in public, what's the beef?

lakes17

What I find curious about the OP's explanation of events is that neither he nor his wife were in the cafe to witness first hand how the situation unfolded.


You have a young mum breastfeeding in the cafe, is it not possible that a customer complained about it and the staff had to take action?

Another reason could be that the mother hadn't bought anything from the caf! to use the facilities.

Or it could be both of the situations above - mum breastfeeding baby without buying drink for herself. Paying customer complains to staff who then inform the lady that she can no longer feed her baby there unless she is prepared to buy something from the cafe.

I am also a bit sceptical when the story is relayed 3rd hand.

Woman explains to your wife - exaggerates/misses something out. When wife gets home relays story to OP but forgets some of the content then OP puts his version of events = a post that is missing quiet a lot of relevant facts due to OP and wife not being present when incident happened.

marliepanda

I might sit in MnS toilets from now on telling everyone I just got punched in the face by a staff member...

Anyway even if this DID happen, its a 'individual' problem, not a MnS problem, as they certainly don't tell their staff to do that, and if you were caught doing that you'd get shot.

Yes I used to work there. No I have no particular need or desire to 'stick up for them' I do know however I had to bend over backwards for the most awkward of customers, and some of the things they did to accommodate people were ridiculous, so the idea of a staff member 'getting away' with doing that is highly unlikely.

vyle

So far, I have established through sleuthing that this probably didn't happen in Widness.

This is going well.

Azari

Doc_N wrote: »

1 What possible motive would I have for making all this up?

You clearly have some axe to grind w.r.t. M&S, hence your ridiculous "No wonder M&S are losing their trade if they manage to alienate what few younger customers they still have left. Can you imagine this happening in Waitrose?" comment.

If you want to continue to delude yourself (for whatever reason) into thinking this is all fiction, that's fine by me. I have reported the facts - nothing more, nothing less.

I can only take an opinion based on what I've read.

What I see is that someone who seems to have a problem with M&S posts a story - with very limited information.

Each time something comes up, whether a response from the store or suggestions as to background, more information to is added to disqualify the explanation.

The poster is perfectly happy to post something that is detrimental to an entire company but refuses, point blank, for no credible reason, to name the store involved in the story. (Which might lead a suspicious person to wonder if he is afraid of having the tale checked.)

Whilst I can accept that an incident like this could happen (e.g. very inexperienced staff member gets a complaint and reacts inappropriately), your comment about it being related to M&S sales and comparing it to Waitrose - which implies that the incident was caused by some sort of corporate policy - is nonsense.

I say that as a husband (and father) who strongly feels that breast feeding (where possible) is the best and most natural way to feed a child - and that barriers like this are incredibly unhelpful to mothers trying to do their best for their children.

I quite agree and I'm sure that the managements of both M&S and Waitrose do as well.

Doc_N

Azari wrote: »

You clearly have some axe to grind w.r.t. M&S, hence your ridiculous "No wonder M&S are losing their trade if they manage to alienate what few younger customers they still have left. Can you imagine this happening in Waitrose?" comment.

What I see is that someone who seems to have a problem with M&S posts a story - with very limited information.

Just for the record, I have no axe to grind with M&S - I shop at M&S and I shop at Waitrose. And it's simply being able to make that comparison (including the cafes) that causes me to make the remark above which you keep harping on about for some reason.

I experience customer service in both stores, and I can tell you that Waitrose is light years ahead of M&S in looking after customers of all ages, and really responding to their needs. They go out of their way to be nice to all their customers, in a way that M&S could now only dream of, and I think it's far less likely that this sort of incident would happen. M&S seems to manage it enough times for it to appear online - I haven't noticed any similar incidents at Waitrose.

That's the reason for the comment, but if you prefer to read into it motives that simply aren't there, that's your problem, not mine.

I've also explained to you (twice) why I won't name the store online, though my wife will be raising it with M&S directly. Again, if you choose not to accept the explanation, that's your choice.

You haven't dealt with the points I raised above about your own motives in blindly supporting M&S and trying to pretend that it didn't happen (worried about the share price?). And you haven't explained any possible motive I might have for making the story up, as you seem to be suggesting. And as for the ludicrous suggestion that information is being added just to add credibility, I just don't follow you. The original post was just a brief observation, with very little detail. As other posters made suggestions as to what might have happened, I responded. Is that so odd? You'll find it's precisely what happens in courts every day.

And as to Facebook, when somebody reposted this incident, I wonder why it was that M&S responded with a reference to what was clearly another incident altogether. Surely this isn't happening that often?

It happened. And it happened exactly as I've said it happened (I'm well aware of the law in this area). Unless of course the mother was lying about the whole thing - but why would she, in response to a simple comment about feeding a baby in a toilet?

Your steadfast refusal to accept that it happened puzzles me. As does your motive. If you have M&S shares, I hope they do well for you.

Pollycat

Doc_N wrote: »

though my wife will be raising it with M&S directly.

I for one would be interested in the response you get back from M&S, if you care to share it on here.

Money-Saving-King

Doc_N wrote: »

Your steadfast refusal to accept that it happened puzzles me. As does your motive. If you have M&S shares, I hope they do well for you.

It's posts like this that have caused me to write my sig!

Doc_N

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

It's posts like this that have caused me to write my sig!

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but in this instance the individual in question is accusing me of having some ulterior motive for making a perfectly straightforward post about M&S. And given that I don't have one, and that the accusation has no basis whatever, I have to wonder whether the individual in question does himself have a motive for constantly trying to defend M&S against the indefensible!

lakes17

Quote "It happened. And it happened exactly as I've said it happened (I'm well aware of the law in this area)".


But you don't know that it happened exactly as you said as neither your wife or yourself witnessed the incident first hand.


Quote "My wife will be contacting them direct to complain"


Your wife would struggle on this as she wasn't in the caf! when the incident happened therefore her side of the events would be classed as hearsay. The only person who would be able to complain would be the mother concerned