Mother criticises commuters who forced her to stand on a packed train while she breastfed her baby

First topic message reminder :

A mother has shamed commuters who forced her to stand on a packed train while she fed her 15-month-old baby in a corridor.
Bryony Esther, 32, shared a photograph of her attempting to breastfeed her child while surrounded by men taking up all nearby seats.
The mother-of-three revealed no one offered to give up their spot for her and one man just chose to gawp at her instead.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4706238/Mother-forced-stand-packed-train-breastfeed-baby.html?param_usr=1¶m_targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-4706238%2FMother-forced-stand-packed-train-breastfeed-baby.html¶m_geolocation=gb¶m__host=secured.dailymail.co.uk¶m_hideMasthead=¶m_hideFooter=&base_fe_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdailymail.co.uk%2F&validation_fe_uri=%2Fregistration%2Fp%2Fapi%2Ffield%2Fvalidation%2F&check_user_fe_uri=registration%2Fp%2Fapi%2Fuser%2Fuser_check%2F&isMobile=false

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yes BUT...they STILL wear life jackets even next to still water ponds.....unless they are harmlessly shallow...

you can teach the kid not to run into the road...but untill you are SURE they wont, they wear the reins

Victor, we both know you can teach kids not to run into roads, and they still do way past toddler age and sadly are run over. In fact way older. So how long then are you going to enforce this over protectiveness? And stifle their independence?
Seriously, by using the reins, what are you hoping to teach them?
That they cannot learn, and that you have to rein them in constantly?
How rare are these incidents to warrant such over protection by parents?
Surely the earlier a child understands that danger, the better it will understand not to run out in harms way.??

"if it saves one life...etc etc etc....."

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Victor, we both know you can teach kids not to run into roads, and they still do way past toddler age and sadly are run over. In fact way older. So how long then are you going to enforce this over protectiveness? And stifle their independence?
Seriously, by using the reins, what are you hoping to teach them?
That they cannot learn, and that you have to rein them in constantly?
How rare are these incidents to warrant such over protection by parents?
Surely the earlier a child understands that danger, the better it will understand not to run out in harms way.??

"if it saves one life...etc etc etc....."

Does it, if the child has never learned boundaries and consequences of their actions when later free from those reins?
Hence the point. How long would you keep them in chains?
So do reins really save lives or just give peace of mind to over protective parents?

Both....

Lord Foul wrote:Both....

You are avoiding my point mate.

As is it really teaching kids to learn what dangers there are and to be safe when in unsafe areas?

Reins never do that, as it allows parents to not require needing to teach them when out in reins. The child is controlled by the reins and learns nothing of the dangers.

You can instil road sense in a young child but as soon as they see a friend over the other side of the road, or their ball drops into the road, they will forget.
Very small children don't have the capability to see danger instinctively.

Syl wrote:You can instil road sense in a young child but as soon as they see a friend over the other side of the road, or their ball drops into the road, they will forget.
Very small children don't have the capability to see danger instinctively.

Then why are you allowing them to play outside the front of the house where there is a road without supervision?

Not being funny syl, but that is asking for an accident to happen if parents did.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:You can instil road sense in a young child but as soon as they see a friend over the other side of the road, or their ball drops into the road, they will forget.
Very small children don't have the capability to see danger instinctively.

Then why are you allowing them to play outside the front of the house where there is a road without supervision?

Not being funny syl, but that is asking for an accident to happen if parents did.

Well obviously you wouldn't allow that.
I was meaning when a child is out with a parent...IF the parent cannot always hold the childs hand for whatever reason, imo the parent would be wise to use reins.

Reins are supposed to control a child and stop them running off or causing chaos. I see nothing wrong with that.

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Both....

You are avoiding my point mate.

As is it really teaching kids to learn what dangers there are and to be safe when in unsafe areas?

Reins never do that, as it allows parents to not require needing to teach them when out in reins. The child is controlled by the reins and learns nothing of the dangers.

THAT depends on how they are used....and whether the parent not only uses the reins but instils the necessary behaviour.....they are NOT a teaching aid , they are rather a safety aid to be used untill the child appreciates the whys and wherefores of road safety.....

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Then why are you allowing them to play outside the front of the house where there is a road without supervision?

Not being funny syl, but that is asking for an accident to happen if parents did.

Well obviously you wouldn't allow that.
I was meaning when a child is out with a parent...IF the parent cannot always hold the childs hand for whatever reason, imo the parent would be wise to use reins.

You could say the same where a parent could not hold the reins could you not syl for whatever reason?

The problem with reins Syl, is they place parents into a false sense of security. Where they have the control with the reins when out and that child then is not learning anything of the dangers. The parents just holds back the child from any danger. They are normally in front and not next to the parent learning. The reins allow the parent to become more relaxed and place faith in this form of control. By doing this, they fail to teach the child the dangers, as they would do, when if they were walking and holding their hand. The reins provides takes away the fear off the parent and thus the child never learns. As it would certainly, with a parent far more focused not using one. As they are then engaged and up close teaching that child when out.

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You are avoiding my point mate.

As is it really teaching kids to learn what dangers there are and to be safe when in unsafe areas?

Reins never do that, as it allows parents to not require needing to teach them when out in reins. The child is controlled by the reins and learns nothing of the dangers.

THAT depends on how they are used....and whether the parent not only uses the reins but instils the necessary behaviour.....they are NOT a teaching aid , they are rather a safety aid to be used untill the child appreciates the whys and wherefores of road safety.....

Interesting point. So if the parent has a form or control, that they need not even need to teach the child. Then why would they then need to instruct the child, when they are using reins? The control method allows the parent to become complacent in teaching mate. They feel more safe when out and fail to instruct their child when out. Not in all cases, but the vast majority they will. As the parent feels secure in the knowledge they have control using the reins.

Well I can only suggest you take that up personally with parents you consider to be being lax in this matter...

mine wore reins...AND I held their hands and taught them....

they could not then slip my hand and escape....

your whole argument here seems predicated on those parents who "misuse" or dont know how to use the reins....

and thus in generality is somewhat moot.

Lord Foul wrote:Well I can only suggest you take that up personally with parents you consider to be being lax in this matter...

mine wore reins...AND I held their hands and taught them....

they could not then slip my hand and escape....

There you go then Victor..

You did not take the reins for granted and also taught the dangers.

Can you thus vouch for many other parents who clearly do not?

You know very well what I am saying is true.

The reins allow for parents to be far more relaxed when out and thus negating to teach a child of the dangers. As they feel that more safe using such a control.

Lord Foul wrote:your whole argument here seems predicated on those parents who "misuse" or dont know how to use the reins....

and thus in generality is somewhat moot.

Has it?

Is my argument about misuse?

I dont think so mate.

Its about how the reins allow for parents to be complacent in teaching safety when out. As they feel safe and in control using reins. The edge of danger has been taken off. They are in control using the control method and the child learns little of the dangers.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well obviously you wouldn't allow that.
I was meaning when a child is out with a parent...IF the parent cannot always hold the childs hand for whatever reason, imo the parent would be wise to use reins.

You could say the same where a parent could not hold the reins could you not syl for whatever reason?

The problem with reins Syl, is they place parents into a false sense of security. Where they have the control with the reins when out and that child then is not learning anything of the dangers. The parents just holds back the child from any danger. They are normally in front and not next to the parent learning. The reins allow the parent to become more relaxed and place faith in this form of control. By doing this, they fail to teach the child the dangers, as they would do, when if they were walking and holding their hand. The reins provides takes away the fear off the parent and thus the child never learns. As it would certainly, with a parent far more focused not using one. As they are then engaged and up close teaching that child when out.

I never did use reins, I held my sons hand when I wanted him by my side, but I imagine holding on to a strap is a lot easier than holding on to a hand squirming to be set free.
I don't think reins would lull a parent into a false sense of security Thor....you are always on guard when you have small children with you and there are potential dangers around, and I don't think using reins is a substitute to teaching...its an aid thats all....and if it helps keep the child safe till they DO understand and can follow orders, they certainly have a usage imo.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You could say the same where a parent could not hold the reins could you not syl for whatever reason?

The problem with reins Syl, is they place parents into a false sense of security. Where they have the control with the reins when out and that child then is not learning anything of the dangers. The parents just holds back the child from any danger. They are normally in front and not next to the parent learning. The reins allow the parent to become more relaxed and place faith in this form of control. By doing this, they fail to teach the child the dangers, as they would do, when if they were walking and holding their hand. The reins provides takes away the fear off the parent and thus the child never learns. As it would certainly, with a parent far more focused not using one. As they are then engaged and up close teaching that child when out.

I never did use reins, I held my sons hand when I wanted him by my side, but I imagine holding on to a strap is a lot easier than holding on to a hand squirming to be set free.
I don't think reins would lull a  parent into a false sense of security Thor....you are always on guard when you have small children with you and there are potential dangers around, and I don't think using reins is a substitute to teaching...its an aid thats all....and if it helps keep the child safe till they DO understand  and can follow orders, they certainly have a usage imo.

Syl you dont have to convince me you are a good Mother, I know you are.
Safety measures do allow for people to feel that much more secure, but this is not even about that. This is about how they feel that much more secure. They need not pay as much attention to teaching safety when out with that child. As the reins allows them to feel completely in control. You need only see an example of this when people wear seat belts and use their phones whilst driving. They allow themselves to think they are safe due to the safety measures they place trust in within the car. It lulls them into a false sense of security. Where many sadly die because of this.

When someone feels in control of a situation, it does allow people to negate teaching and showing what the possible dangers there are when out. They become reliant on this control and feel safe with this.

That is the danger here. The child on a leash, has restricted movement and is simple and often held back when near any danger. With parents often never needing to give a second thought to explain why. The reins have made them feel more comfortable when out. When you take the edge off a situation that could be dangerous. Then people end up more lax on that. Then the child is never learning.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I never did use reins, I held my sons hand when I wanted him by my side, but I imagine holding on to a strap is a lot easier than holding on to a hand squirming to be set free.
I don't think reins would lull a  parent into a false sense of security Thor....you are always on guard when you have small children with you and there are potential dangers around, and I don't think using reins is a substitute to teaching...its an aid thats all....and if it helps keep the child safe till they DO understand  and can follow orders, they certainly have a usage imo.

Syl you dont have to convince me you are a good Mother, I know you are.
Safety measure do allow for people to feel that much more secure, but this is not even about that. This is about how they feel that much more secure. They need not pay as much attention to teaching safety when out with that child. As the reins allows them to feel completely in control.

When someone feels in control of a situation, it does allow people to negate teaching and showing what the possible dangers there are when out. They become reliant on this control and feel safe with this.

That is the danger here. The child on a leash, has restricted movement and is simple and often held back when near any danger. With parents often never needing to give a second thought to explain why. The reins have made them feel more comfortable when out. When you taker the edge off a situation that could be dangeroeus. Then people end up more lax on that.

No, I'm not trying to say I was a good or bad mum Thor....just pointing out I didn't use reins myself.

But....had I been pushing a pram or looking after more than one toddler, especially a hyperactive one I very well may have done.
Also....would a child in reins have less freedom? they have two arms and hands free....that's one more than they would have if being held in a vice like grip.

Anyway...off to eat, have a good night. x

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:your whole argument here seems predicated on those parents who "misuse" or dont know how to use the reins....

and thus in generality is somewhat moot.

Has it?

Is my argument about misuse?

I dont think so mate.

Its about how the reins allow for parents to be complacent in teaching safety when out. As they feel safe and in control using reins. The edge of danger has been taken off. They are in control using the control method and the child learns little of the dangers.

you mean "allows for *some" (unquantifiable number of) parents to be complacent....

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Syl you dont have to convince me you are a good Mother, I know you are.
Safety measure do allow for people to feel that much more secure, but this is not even about that. This is about how they feel that much more secure. They need not pay as much attention to teaching safety when out with that child. As the reins allows them to feel completely in control.

When someone feels in control of a situation, it does allow people to negate teaching and showing what the possible dangers there are when out. They become reliant on this control and feel safe with this.

That is the danger here. The child on a leash, has restricted movement and is simple and often held back when near any danger. With parents often never needing to give a second thought to explain why. The reins have made them feel more comfortable when out. When you taker the edge off a situation that could be dangeroeus. Then people end up more lax on that.

No, I'm not trying to say I was a good or bad mum Thor....just pointing out I didn't use reins myself.

But....had I been pushing a pram or looking after more than one toddler, especially a hyperactive one I very well may have done.
Also....would a child in reins have less freedom? they have two arms and hands free....that's one more than they would have if being held in a vice like grip.

Anyway...off to eat, have a good night. x

Of course that child is restricted. They just have far more wiggle room, than a child being held by hand or in a pram. They are still effectively restrained and this is the danger. Where it allows the parents to neglect teaching any dangers. As they feel totally in control with the reins and they are. They thus feel so confident, they neglect to teach and show what they real dangers are.

That is why its always going to be best to teach a child when walking hand in hand with them. It makes the parents more wary and far more conscious of all dangers to their surroundings. Reins allow for parents to be far too relaxed. 

All the best Syl..x

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Has it?

Is my argument about misuse?

I dont think so mate.

Its about how the reins allow for parents to be complacent in teaching safety when out. As they feel safe and in control using reins. The edge of danger has been taken off. They are in control using the control method and the child learns little of the dangers.

you mean "allows for *some" (unquantifiable number of) parents to be complacent....

We can get mathematical about this mate, but does it allow for people to feel more secure using this?

Yes

Ask yourself, would parents be more conscious of road safety using the reins or without them when out?

Now add in to the equation people constantly using their phones today in one hand and reins in the other?

What is then the reins being used for?

yeah but all you are showing is that "some" parents are assholes....

and we know that already

Lord Foul wrote:yeah but all you are showing is that "some" parents are assholes....

and we know that already

That is not what I am showing mate.

I am showing that such a safety measure always can and always does make people complacent.

Just look how in fact people now drive even more faster, because they feel safe, based on seat belts, safety bags etc?

If people were really taught facing dangers, they then would certainly respect other users on the road and pedestrians. Its when people take the safety measures for granted. That they never truly learn and then a child learns this from the earliest age with the reins. It allows for a false sense of security. The worst thing about this is. That the more technological advanced we become. The more the future generations will not respect or know how to be safe, until its too late.