ChatterBank2 mins ago
Could This Be A Case Of 'don't Believe All You Read'?
57 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
why would anyone over eight believe all they read? It appears someone has indulged in a petty act of revenge for something and been caught out; we'll know if this is the case once it's been to court.
Of course, the Guardian ran the story earlier
http://
Of course, the Guardian ran the story earlier
http://
I stood my ground and stated my rights.
Words of a typical activist insisting their right supersedes everyone else's.
Although I would not breast feed in a shop (it is hardly appropriate as far as I am concerned) I sympathise with a mother wanting to feed a baby but attention seekers STOP IT.
It seems to me she may have mental health issues. To go to this extreme and accuse the security guards of basicly abduction is bordering on some sort of psychosis.
Words of a typical activist insisting their right supersedes everyone else's.
Although I would not breast feed in a shop (it is hardly appropriate as far as I am concerned) I sympathise with a mother wanting to feed a baby but attention seekers STOP IT.
It seems to me she may have mental health issues. To go to this extreme and accuse the security guards of basicly abduction is bordering on some sort of psychosis.
CCTV mentioned here Mickey
///Primark denied the incident took place and passed CCTV to the police.///
FROM
http://
-- answer removed --
Thanks jno...I can see that now ! Although it doesn't say the CCTV footage showed anything or not. Maybe she was in the store, shopping but made the rest up.
If that is the case, then she must be a bit dim, knowing that the CCTV footage would ether confirm or deny her story. Its inconceivable that a Security Guard would snatch a baby and for it not to show up as evidence.
If that is the case, then she must be a bit dim, knowing that the CCTV footage would ether confirm or deny her story. Its inconceivable that a Security Guard would snatch a baby and for it not to show up as evidence.
cassa333 - //I stood my ground and stated my rights.
Words of a typical activist insisting their right supersedes everyone else's.
Although I would not breast feed in a shop (it is hardly appropriate as far as I am concerned) I sympathise with a mother wanting to feed a baby but attention seekers STOP IT.
It seems to me she may have mental health issues. To go to this extreme and accuse the security guards of basicly abduction is bordering on some sort of psychosis. //
I must echo your sentiments.
If the case is proven against her, this woman has done nothing for the thousands of mothers who are trying to enjoy the right to discreetly feed their babies when privacy is not available.
Words of a typical activist insisting their right supersedes everyone else's.
Although I would not breast feed in a shop (it is hardly appropriate as far as I am concerned) I sympathise with a mother wanting to feed a baby but attention seekers STOP IT.
It seems to me she may have mental health issues. To go to this extreme and accuse the security guards of basicly abduction is bordering on some sort of psychosis. //
I must echo your sentiments.
If the case is proven against her, this woman has done nothing for the thousands of mothers who are trying to enjoy the right to discreetly feed their babies when privacy is not available.
Naomi - //I'm wondering why anyone would want to cause trouble like this? Perhaps she thought she'd get her fifteen minutes of fame. //
I am sure that you, like me, and many others here on AB, look for a rational explanation to irrational behaviour, and often, and I think this is a another example, there simply isn't one.
This is not the behaviour of someone who thinks about things - looks ahead, sees consequences to actions, understands that impulsive actions are not always a good idea.
I would bet that if you sat this lady down and asked her why she behaved in this way - if it is proven that she did, her response would be 'I don't know ...' and frustrating and unfathomable as that response may be, I believe it is absolutely the truth.
I am sure that you, like me, and many others here on AB, look for a rational explanation to irrational behaviour, and often, and I think this is a another example, there simply isn't one.
This is not the behaviour of someone who thinks about things - looks ahead, sees consequences to actions, understands that impulsive actions are not always a good idea.
I would bet that if you sat this lady down and asked her why she behaved in this way - if it is proven that she did, her response would be 'I don't know ...' and frustrating and unfathomable as that response may be, I believe it is absolutely the truth.
It is not a case of not believing all you read. What the papers reported was perfectly accurate. They reported it was her version and it was an allegation. And they reported the store refuting her version of events. So if they reader decided to believe this woman's lies instead of the store, then that is their own fault.
From the report at the time...
//
http://
Mother says Primark security guard grabbed her baby while she was breastfeeding and told her: 'If you want your baby back follow me'
Caroline Starmer, 28, allegedly had baby snatched from breast in Leicester
A mother claimed today that a security guard allegedly ordered her to stop feeding her daughter in Primark - before tearing the child off her breast, saying: 'If you want your baby back, follow me'.
Mother-of-four Caroline Starmer, 28, maintains that she was feeding nine-month-old Paige behind a mannequin in the clothing retailer’s store in Leicester when the worker forced her to stop.
Mrs Starmer said she chased after the man - described as a 5ft 10in Asian
He added: ‘The CCTV footage, reviewed by store management, shows the customer in the Leicester store quite clearly during the time in question.
‘We can see no evidence that she was approached by anyone during this period. We have spoken to the security guards on duty. They categorically deny behaving in the way alleged.
‘Furthermore the individuals do not fit the description given by the customer. We have therefore concluded that the customer allegation is not supported by the available evidence to date.
‘The company would obviously be happy to work with any police investigation into this incident, should this be needed.
‘We have tried to contact the customer to reassure her about Primark's practice on breastfeeding. At Primark, we work hard to provide all the comfort and facilities possible to our customers.
‘Our policy is quite clear. We do not prohibit breastfeeding. In addition, any customer can request a quiet or private area within the store to breastfeed her child and our staff will do all they can to accommodate such a request. Please do not hesitate to ask staff for assistance.’ //
However, despite there being no evidence to support the story, the newspaper gleefully printed her lies anyway, so if I were you I would stop reading the paper.
From the report at the time...
//
http://
Mother says Primark security guard grabbed her baby while she was breastfeeding and told her: 'If you want your baby back follow me'
Caroline Starmer, 28, allegedly had baby snatched from breast in Leicester
A mother claimed today that a security guard allegedly ordered her to stop feeding her daughter in Primark - before tearing the child off her breast, saying: 'If you want your baby back, follow me'.
Mother-of-four Caroline Starmer, 28, maintains that she was feeding nine-month-old Paige behind a mannequin in the clothing retailer’s store in Leicester when the worker forced her to stop.
Mrs Starmer said she chased after the man - described as a 5ft 10in Asian
He added: ‘The CCTV footage, reviewed by store management, shows the customer in the Leicester store quite clearly during the time in question.
‘We can see no evidence that she was approached by anyone during this period. We have spoken to the security guards on duty. They categorically deny behaving in the way alleged.
‘Furthermore the individuals do not fit the description given by the customer. We have therefore concluded that the customer allegation is not supported by the available evidence to date.
‘The company would obviously be happy to work with any police investigation into this incident, should this be needed.
‘We have tried to contact the customer to reassure her about Primark's practice on breastfeeding. At Primark, we work hard to provide all the comfort and facilities possible to our customers.
‘Our policy is quite clear. We do not prohibit breastfeeding. In addition, any customer can request a quiet or private area within the store to breastfeed her child and our staff will do all they can to accommodate such a request. Please do not hesitate to ask staff for assistance.’ //
However, despite there being no evidence to support the story, the newspaper gleefully printed her lies anyway, so if I were you I would stop reading the paper.
-- answer removed --
