Why would anyone lie about this?

Tropez

tomtontom wrote: »

Yes, that is correct - I can't think of anywhere that it should not be permitted.

I'm not having folk breastfeeding in my house.

Lotti1982

theoretica wrote: »

It would be pretty hard in a moving car when the baby legally has to be in a car seat.

It is still possible but you do have to ba a bit of a contortionist, I have done it twice, at extreme discomfort to myself whilst sat in between a toddler and a baby seat with the baby safely strapped in of course. (And whilst wearing a seatbelt myself although i was leaning rather far forward.)

gayleygoo

Perhaps she wanted to be seen as a victim of discrimination for breastfeeding - some mums get asked to move or cover up to feed, they publicise it and shame the store etc (rightly so) and it usually ends up all over social media.

She went one further - and way too far - by saying the baby was taken out of her arms while feeding. I remember reading that and thinking that if it happened to me, I'd be screaming to everyone around me that that man/woman was STEALING my baby, and see how far they got. Did a mother really just meekly follow a person who was walking away with their baby without permission? I'm a non-violent person, but someone taking my baby out of my arms would soon regret it.

She must have been hoping that Primark would be unable to deny the claims, offer apologies and vouchers and that would be the end of it. Pretty stupid and incredibly embarrassing :rotfl:

amistupid

The most amazing part of the story is Primark have security guards. Who'd want to steal their tat?

fizz

It's a non-story really. Trouble is the 'breast-feeding' !!!!!:rotfl: get loads of press and those who are too daft to realise the agenda get sucked in.

And before I get virtually stoned.....express and bottle it, re-arrange your schedule or don't feed on demand.....feel free to throw rocks:D

fizz.x

meritaten

I think its 'Munchuasens Syndrome' tbh. and yes, its attention seeking - but unlike where a child is deliberately made ill and the attention is given by medical staff - here its given by 'the media'. and at least the child is not harmed. just a perfectly innocent company whose reputation could have been damaged.

meritaten

amistupid wrote: »

The most amazing part of the story is Primark have security guards. Who'd want to steal their tat?

People steal from Charity Shops ami! people who steal do NOT care who they steal from!
Hell - they even steal from Poundshops!

Gingernutty

Impulsive attention seeking, no one pays attention to people these days unless it sounds truly awful, so she lied about the child.

Combine that with a level of intelligence so low that she forgot even Primark have security cameras and you've got this mess.

seven-day-weekend

Because the breast feeding Maf1a are not above losing a man his career and reputation to get their cause across.

He's only a man after all.

Madmel

I heard on the radio that she is facing q jail sentence as attempting to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence. So the saddest aspect of all is that the child will now be without its mother (housed at the tax-payers' expense in prison) for a period of time.