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

Doc_N

gik wrote: »

I don't find your account in any way credible. Your account is third hand and you refuse to identify the M&S store. Please put up or....?

This will be the very last feeding time for the trolls, but I really don't care whether you believe it or not. It happened, M&S will be made aware of it, and there will be consequences for the store. I'm very confident that this particular store will not repeat the incident.

But that's between my wife and the store in question - not for general publication here for the reasons already given. Giving the name of the store will not help you accept or reject what I've said in any way - simply because you have no way of checking it. But it will be checked very shortly, and I'm confident that the person responsible will be identified and retrained.

So, trolls, no more food for you now. You've had your fill. Try somewhere else for your fun. :rotfl:

Azari

Doc_N wrote: »

No - it's not in any way a problem for me if you and one or two other people choose (for whatever reason - and I doubt your motives every bit as much as you doubt mine) to believe that M&S can do no wrong and that the story has been manufactured.

Except that I never said they can do no wrong. I explicitly stated that I believe this sort of incident could happen anywhere.

Your tale lacks credibility because it's hearsay based on hearsay, it makes an allegation that this wasn't a one off, and that according to you this branch of M&S are repeatedly flouting the law without backlash.

You haven't managed to give any possible reasonable motive for anyone (me, the wife or the young woman) wanting to make the story up - because there isn't one. Why would anyone bother to do it?

You clearly have a something against M&S as shown by your absurd 'can you see this happening at Waitrose' comment. I think there was some basis in fact for this story but that you have significantly embellished it in an attempt to show M&S in the worst possible light and in so doing - and by not properly thinking through the implications of the embellishment - you have made the tale unbelievable.

Still, you go on sticking to your delusions. I'll demonstrate how much it bothers me by treating all of your future posts with the derision which they deserve, and this will be the last time I waste any time on replying to your rabid posts.

My posts are hardly 'rabid'. They are calmly and clearly stating the reasons why your story lacks credibility.

If the story were genuine and unembellished you would simply have named the store. Unfortunately, you do not dare do that as with a site with as many members as this there is a good chance that someone here either works there or knows someone who does and could embarrass you by revealing the true facts of the case.

Azari

Doc_N wrote: »

It happened, M&S will be made aware of it, and there will be consequences for the store.

Good grief!

This allegedly happened over a week ago and the reporting to M&S is still in the future.

Giving the name of the store will not help you accept or reject what I've said in any way - simply because you have no way of checking it.

There is no way any individual could be identified by naming the store - least of all the alleged victim.

On the other hand there is a very good chance that someone here either works there or knows someone who does and if you publish the name your tale might be checked and the results posted here - to your embarrassment.

... there will be consequences for the store. I'm very confident that this particular store will not repeat the incident.

I'm confident that the person responsible will be identified and retrained.

I can just imagine M&S CS getting an email that reads: "Just over a week ago I was in that lavatories in your <redacted> store and someone told me that they had been asked to leave the cafe because they were breastfeeding. I think this is outrageous and the people responsible should suffer consequences and retraining."

If they take the report seriously the most likely result would be a general memo to managers reminding them of their obligations under the relevant legislation.

Pollycat

Doc_N wrote: »

It happened, M&S will be made aware of it, and there will be consequences for the store. I'm very confident that this particular store will not repeat the incident.

But that's between my wife and the store in question - not for general publication here for the reasons already given.

Does that mean that you are not going to share the response from M&S to your complaint?

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Doc_N wrote: »

It happened, M&S will be made aware of it, and there will be consequences for the store. I'm very confident that this particular store will not repeat the incident.

I'm curious as to what 'consequences' there will be for this particular branch and on what basis you have such confidence that this incident will not be repeated.

Doc_N wrote: »

This will be the very last feeding time for the trolls, but I really don't care whether you believe it or not.

So, trolls, no more food for you now. You've had your fill. Try somewhere else for your fun. :rotfl:

Actually, I really dislike posters who scream 'troll' just because someone has a difference of opinion to you.

The poster you are referring to as a troll has been a member of MSE at least as long as you have and has a similar post count to you.

From MSE rules:

A troll is someone who deliberately joins the forum to cause disputes. It may be a long-standing user, or someone completely new.

I've read a lot of posts from Azari - and disagreed with some of them too - but I don't think you can class him as a troll.

Sheldon_Cooper

Just to give you an idea of what REALLY happens when a company gets it wrong, look at this.

The idea that any large company could be doing this repeatedly at a branch without creating a massive publicity storm, as this story suggests is frankly laughable.

Pollycat

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

Just to give you an idea of what REALLY happens when a company gets it wrong, look at this.

The idea that any large company could be doing this repeatedly at a branch without creating a massive publicity storm, as this story suggests is frankly laughable.

But that was a US company, you can't necessarily compare what US citizens and companies do with how people and companies act/react here in the UK.

The main difference between what the OP has posted on here and the link you provided is that this 'incident' is hearsay.
It was the OP's wife who was told in M&S toilets what had happened.
Apparently the 'victim' in this incident did not want to complain.

Your link is very different as it was the 'victim' herself who chose to put it into the public domain.

Money-Saving-King

Doc_N wrote: »

M&S will be made aware of it, and there will be consequences for the store.

This is what people who complain always say but it's only dreams in their heads!

Azari

Pollycat wrote: »

But that was a US company, you can't necessarily compare what US citizens and companies do with how people and companies act/react here in the UK.

The main difference between what the OP has posted on here and the link you provided is that this 'incident' is hearsay.
It was the OP's wife who was told in M&S toilets what had happened.
Apparently the 'victim' in this incident did not want to complain.

Your link is very different as it was the 'victim' herself who chose to put it into the public domain.

I also saw that story this morning and agree that it's not a direct parallel to this alleged case.

Surely, though, the chances that M&S are repeatedly picking on just this one customer* are remote. If one customer is being repeatedly asked to leave you can be sure it's happening to others and there are not that many people who would take that sort of thing without either complaining themselves of relating the tale to someone who would kick up a stink on their behalf.

Where the company is located is pretty much irrelevant as it would only take one post on mumsnet and all hell would break loose.


* I still feel that one of the least believable aspects of this story is that a mother would be forced to feed her baby in a lavatory after suffering the embarrassment of being turfed out of a cafe and yet go back and put herself in exactly the same position again..

It's why I think that the most probable explanation is that the OP has taken an actual, more minor, incident (such as the other one mentioned in this thread) and 'beefed it up' to make the store's behaviour seem more egregious. Which is why he can't name the store.

Sheldon_Cooper

Pollycat wrote: »

But that was a US company, you can't necessarily compare what US citizens and companies do with how people and companies act/react here in the UK.

I agree that it is a US company but the social media sites are all international and I was trying to show the way things can blow up as a result of a single tweet/post/update.

Pollycat

Azari wrote: »

* I still feel that one of the least believable aspects of this story is that a mother would be forced to feed her baby in a lavatory after suffering the embarrassment of being turfed out of a cafe and yet go back and put herself in exactly the same position again..

I can't argue with the above.