Stella Creasy told it’s “against the rules” for a baby to be brought into the Commons chamber
Sir Woke XR Re… 24 Nov 21 09:57
Reply |

er, somehow I very, very much doubt this scenario is covered in the rules 

I would have thought it was against the rules to bring anyone at all into the chamber with you, regardless of age.

Creasy herself has criticised the express rule which exists and says MPs cannot bring children into the chamber.

A man in the same position would need to bottle feed - I hope Stella is proposing to allow men to bottle feed in the HoC.

Otherwise this is pure sexism against men (misandry).

As usual the “feminists” aren’t really bothered about equality, just women’s rights.

Lol @ Hotnow.  Yeah blokes on their pat leave are just BEGGING to bring babies into the house.  Can't believe nobody has noticed the massive stink they've been causing demanding this for so long.

Its not really an unreasonable rule is it. 

I know we have to be woke, and all the rest of it, but is it really something that needs to be a thing. you can't bring a baby to other places of work.  Because its a place of work. 

nobody brings babies into my office. we have had a bring your child to work day before though.  I didn't like that

It was always in the rules apparently but not enforced

and MPs were only eligible for maternity leave as of this year thanks to Creasy, and even then it is still not enough as they still have to work

how dare she have children eh

 

I thought this had been dealt with ages ago. Was that just a special covid allowance or something?

(I don't think babies should be in the chamber any more than they should be in court)

(there IS a nursery)

Occam, thou brightest of gleaming knights.

Did you notice the bit where I said I was opposed to it?

No, because I didn’t say that.

I just said I hope this isn’t yet another sexist piece of legislation or guidance which penalises men on the basis of their sex.

I just said I hope this isn’t yet another sexist piece of legislation or guidance which penalises men on the basis of their sex.

It's not legislation, it's the house rules of conduct.  

Would be interested to hear your list of pieces of legislation which penalise men on the basis of their sex.  Perhaps leave out maternity legislation given men don't actually give birth (although I would agree with you if you were advocating more equal options for men on maternity leave and pay than exists now).

Occam let’s start with the basics.

96% of prisoners in the U.K. are men.

men are being let down at a very basic social level. 

much more likely to be prosecuted, much more likely to get a custodial sentence.

 

oh yes, the nursery that operates 8am to 6pm

very much in keeping with parliamentary hours

And I’d reverse the question - show me a piece of legislation which penalises women on the basis of their sex. If legislation alone could solve inequality we’d be home and hosed.

Occam let’s start with the basics.

96% of prisoners in the U.K. are men.

men are being let down at a very basic social level. 

much more likely to be prosecuted, much more likely to get a custodial sentence.

None of this is legislation which penalises men on the basis of their sex

And I’d reverse the question - show me a piece of legislation which penalises women on the basis of their sex. If legislation alone could solve inequality we’d be home and hosed.

I didn't say there was any you mad khvnt.

yet another sexist piece of legislation or guidance which penalises men on the basis of their sex.

So, by your own post there are multiple pieces of legislation.  List them.

 

The nursery is open for evening sessions too, QE. It's better provision than any other parent in the country gets.

And kids should not be in some workplaces. It's not her private office.

"it's so unfair I'd have to walk down the corridor!"

Costs £1,200 a month for five days for under 2s. Is that... Good for central London? *disingenuous blink *

Yes, that is very cheap for under 2s. Shold be more liek £2k

the evening sessions that run until 6.30pm or 7.30pm?

except on a Monday when it's 10.30pm?

perhaps she ought to request that votes only happen on a Monday and stop being a whining bitch then eh

(she would only need 4 days cover though because MPs don't visit the house of commons on Fridays)

The rule in question:

Accompanying children

42. You may take babies or toddlers with you into the division lobby, and – if necessary to get to the division lobby – take them through the Chamber. For safety reasons, you are asked to carry your child and not to bring pushchairs through the lobby. You should not take your seat in the Chamber when accompanied by your child, nor stand at either end of the Chamber, between divisions.

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/media/rules-of-behavio…

Still in doubt, Laz?

Queenie, do you think that only MPs have to work past 6pm and that it is uniquey the House of Commons nursery that shuts at 6pm?

Yeah tbh I think she should stop being such a whining bitch.

There should be a lot more done to help women with young kids get back to work.

This isn't one of them. And it makes her seem spoilt to be complaining tbh.

Plus she's currently on a well funded maternity leave isn't she?

How many jobs are there where you can have your baby strapped to you and still fulfil your duties?  

Rather than a strike for equality, this just shows her to be out of touch with the majority of parents in the country and how MPs believe themselves to be special cases. 

Where was hotnow on international men's day eh 

Completely fvcking silent ofc 

FAOD I don't think she should be allowed to take her baby in the chamber of the House of Commons 

She is a total pain in the arse. As someone above said, you can’t bring babies to work in the vast majority of professions. Many professions have worse, anti social hours than MPs. What about female cleaners in their offices? Maybe she could advocate for better working conditions for them instead of this constant woke, militant feminist nonsense

she probably had the baby just to score political points tbh. Poor child has no chance 

I wish MPs would just get on with their job and stop all these constant debates about how they should regulate themselves. It’s like watching an HR conference at times. Just do your bloody job, nobody cares about the rules of your massive palatial office and the hundreds of thousands of quid you all spaff on nothing 

just trying to imagine someone bringing a baby into a late night tribunal hearing

also what is her partner up to? does he have a job besides being former head of Labour for Israel? I bet it's a rung below MP whatever it is.

I wish MPs would just get on with their job and stop all these constant debates about how they should regulate themselves.

 

Agreed tbh

I think her point is that while she can now take maternity leave she is not able to appoint a locum or replacement to carry out her duties, so if you actually care about your seat, so to speak, you are forced to come to work.
 

And tbf she is campaigning generally on this not just on her specific position (which in this case is that she has been allowed to do this previously so why not now). 
 

Re what the hours polloi can do or not do, most of you lot have been sat on your sofas watching This Morning for the last 18 months, do you think a bus driver can do that?

 

if it isn’t interfering with her work in the commons what is the issue?

if she can take her kid then so can everyone and then it becomes a SECOND creche

is she campaigning generally? her success mostly seems to have been to the benefit of one S. Creasey.

"Re what the hours polloi can do or not do, most of you lot have been sat on your sofas watching This Morning for the last 18 months, do you think a bus driver can do that?"

Er what no we haven't 

and given that her seat is in Walthamstow, it's not like she has a huge commute to do the vote

also what Linda said

(and MPs did get to vote remotely for a huge chunk)

What Rham said.

She is the very definition of LOOK AT ME 

I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you have worked from home during lockdown etc? Are you still doing so?

Where was hotnow on international men's day eh 
 

I was off donating £200 to refugee charities, given that 70% of asylum seekers are men.

thats right, asylum seekers are very disproportionately men, which makes it very much a men’s rights issue.

Yes I was *working* from home, and simultaneously home schooling, not sat on the sofa watching this morning or anything else 

Occam what about this one:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2718 

This is a private members bill which is not legislation, and has no chance of becoming legislation.

I'll try to find my comments on an earlier thread on this very topic which were along the lines that this legislation could never be passed on the basis of hate against women only and not hate against men.  

So, in summary if this was legislation I agree with you.  But it isn't, and never will be.

Any other examples from your long list?

Yes I was *working* from home, and simultaneously home schooling, not sat on the sofa watching this morning or anything else 

I bet you sat on the sofa and watched something a tiny bit.

No, I did not, I don't watch daytime television 

 

Sorry Hotnow I can't find my thread / comments on the proposed misogyny hate crime bill, but it was along the lines of "there is no way hate crime legislation can be introduced only criminalising hate against women and not hate against men".  IIRC I was shouted down as being a massive fvcking SEXIST at the time.

I think watching daytime television should be symptom 1 of moderate to severe depression in the DSM

The point is that up there it was said that other people can’t take their kids to work, why should she?

My point is that if it doesn’t affect what she’s actually doing then what is the issue? Flexible working is out of the bottle now so if you can work from home (which most middle class office drones now do at least half the week at least), what is the difference here? 
 

This Morning viewing slightly facetious I accept. 

Occam presumably legislation which is sexist could be challenged under the HRA or something. So like I say it may be the laws and rules and guidance but the evidence of structural sexism is clear: men punished more, locked up more, die earlier, don’t get custody as often, less likely to access healthcare services. 

There is a crèche on site where she can leave the baby. I wouldn't sit on a zoom court hearing with a baby attached to my boob or any other part of me, her sitting in the chamber is the same. In her private office or working at home, she can do what she likes 

I don’t care if she feeds her kid at the dispatch box as long as a man can also bottle feed from the dispatch box.

A rare and extremely hard agree with Clerg’s 11.26.

I don't have kids myself but don't imagine much work involving full attention can be done with a baby strapped to you whether that's at home or elsewhere.  

Even if a little can be done that way in professional services - why are those careers then afforded different treatment than shop workers, nurses, etc, who don't have the choice and have to find childcare on salaries a lot lower than an MPs. 

 

The argument of 'because everyone in every situation cannot avail themselves of a benefit' is not an argument against some people receiving that benefit. Hth. 

Parliament is responsible for the level of provision afforded to ordinary people across the land. Therefore, in her job, it absolutely is relevant if she is receiving vastly preferential treatment relative to ordinary women (which she already is).

and, again, it is relevant to determining whether or not her situation is "fair".

"should MPs get a pay rise?"

"no, ordinary people are not getting payrises and (aside from the question of fairness and taxpayer funds) it's good if MPs have a sense of the difficulties faced by ordinary, even quite well paid ordinary, people"

same thing, no?

and why isn't it with her partner? I don't think it's a strike for feminism that he can't "babysit" for a couple of hours.

I think it is very very silly of her to think she is striking some kind of blow for the sisterhood. Walthamstow may have gentrified a bit in the last 30 years, but not so much that the optics of her crusade on her own behalf don't look rubbish to get own constituents 

For a start, that wasn't the argument. It was 'why would professional careers be afforded flexibility that other jobs do not'.

Would you like to reconsider your response?

no - because as I said before, if you are in a position of influence over conditions you should not expect to craft for yourself the best conditions

So you reject the premise that some jobs would lend themselves better to flexible child arrangements than others?

Occam presumably legislation which is sexist could be challenged under the HRA or something. So like I say it may be the laws and rules and guidance but the evidence of structural sexism is clear: men punished more, locked up more, die earlier, don’t get custody as often, less likely to access healthcare services.

My point on the other thread was exactly that the same crime being punishable as a hate crime if against women but not men would be susceptible to challenge as being unlawful.

I don’t agree with you that there is any evidence that society is structurally sexist against men, despite the examples you have picked.  Men are punished and locked up more because they commit more crime.  Society is clearly structurally sexist against women overall.

Your point was - though - that this was yet another example of sexist legislation against men.  I’m glad you’ve accepted you’re wrong and that there isn’t any.

No - but we aren't talking about flexibility here, we are talking about special treatment

No

Good. 

Do you disagree with the following: "working mothers are discriminated against in the workplace and job market due to the paucity of options for them in terms of flexiblity of working hours and the availability of cheap, flexible childcare"?

She's got flexible arrangements. She's taking her baby in the chamber to make a point. She had no need to do so 

yeah it is all very "we can't be sexist look how we treat members of the elite! oh fook off and clean the toilets, Vera, we're talking"

and, as above, her nursery costs £1200 a month for full-time under 2s and is open many hours later than normal people nursery

smiling tear face emoji followed by tiny violin emoji

*sigh* what Clerghs said to be honest. 

Sort of agree with the clerg side of this - she makes good money and already has flexi options (more than most professions).

Bringing the baby into the chamber where it may cause interruption is both unnecessary and probably inappropriate.

If she was a cleaner who couldnt afford childcare and needed the kid with them I would have more sympathy, but I cant think of any other job where you can bring a screaming child to meetings with you.

on the other hand I am 100% behind Holly Willoughby bringing her puppy on This Morning

If she wants the baby to sit in parliament she should have it stand in Tower Hamlets at the next election 

She should be careful what she wishes for tbf. Imagine it Boris starts brining all his waines in? She’d have nowhere to sit 

So upto what age should kids be allowed in the chamber?

Its ridiculous, there is more than adequate child care provision, how about Barristers and solicitors taking babies into court.

I have no idea if the creche fees are cheaper than normal people (on less money) pay, if they are thats taking the piss too and normal peoples fees should be reduced inline with MPs.

Might take my son into work tomorrow and complain to HR if anyone tuts 

3-ducks24 Nov 21 15:07

I generally consider myself quite woke, but turning the Mother of Parliaments into a fcking creche is a step too far. We're enough of a global laughing stock already. 

Stella Creasy's narcissism becomes more comprehensible if you are aware that when she failed her 11+ in Trafford her parents relocated the whole family to Colchester so she could have another go at sitting the 11+ there. 

I think she's got narcissistic personality disorder. Less than two weeks ago there was this story about a bus driver refusing to allow her to board because there were already two pushchairs on the bus:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/walthamstow-mp-stella-c…
She then tweeted about it tagging Sadiq Khan and half the London Assembly. The story does not say it expressly, but given the ages of her children and that she had two of them with her, she may well have had a double buggy. 

I've raised two children in London from age zero never having a car and exclusively using public transport. The only times that I was in a taxi with either of them was on the way back from UCH after they were born. And even I have no sympathy with Creasy.
 

Another said: “Same thing happened to me 10 years ago. Ridiculous rules. Passengers with babies/kids in pushchairs should be prioritised alongside individuals in wheelchairs and buses should be remodelled to be able to take more of these passengers”.

Let’s change ever bus in London to address something that happened to me once in 10 years lol

That article is amazing.

She is complaining that one of her waines was very sick too. Dragging a sick waine on a disgusting bus, and pausing to take pics and tweet instead of getting it home. 

Is that the same waine that she took to parliament? Hopefully social services will step in

If I were the mother of a baby that was three months old and being exclusively breastfed, I would not be working. Because I wouldn’t be able to hand it over to the father or place it in a nursery. Babies that young do not take the bottle if they’re not used to it and do not have a fixed feeding schedule.

So if she didn’t need to be there, she shouldn’t have been.

But if she did, then seems reasonable to take the baby along.

Backlash against her complete. Speaker says he has had lots of input from other MP mothers saying not to change the rules (understandably). 

If there was a scintilla of support for her over needing to speak in the chamber and needing to have the child with her at the time instead of in the crèche below, it has evaporated with ophotos of her plus same child strapped to her at a fooking awards show at 10pm. Either she needs a live in nanny which she can well afford or her husband needs to man t f up, OR she understands that having a newbie means you spend a brief time focussing on the baby’s needs and not your wish to go to a fooking Spectator party

I must admit I am tug light about how other people parent 

Maybe she doesn't want to put it in nursery? That's her business not mine  

MP seems a bit easy job to do, don't see having a baby strapped to you means you can't do it 

There was a comment in The Times saying that the writer worked for an "international law firm" in London which allowed children (implying babies but unclear) to be brought into the office whenever.  Which one is that?

Probably Lydia LLP where the children were brought in by the nanny to curtsy at bedtime

Whilst I’m first in line to bang the drum for women in the workplace this all smacks of “look at me I’ve got a baby”. It’s the same thing as the local mums clogging the doorway of the local coffee place with their Subaru Impreza style buggies each morning and the lack of special awareness that some mothers have. If people come to court they don’t bring their kids. Have a bit of common sense. 

Imagine Nancy Astor or Megan Lloyd George bringing their screaming brats into the chamber of the House of Commons. Unthinkable. This showmanship makes a mockery of our great democracy.

Screaming children, no. Three month old baby that sleeps 16 hours a day, no problem. Babies that young are usually most awake in the middle of the night anyway!

I don't believe that Megan Lloyd George had any children, brattish or otherwise.

And at least one of Nancy Astor's children was in the House of Commons with her.

 

Law Firm Satisfaction Survey

If you work in private practice, please take RollOnFriday's quick survey measuring how happy you are with your firm. We use the results to rank firms and write stories and reports.

Your firm*
Your role*
Your sex
How satisfied are you with your pay?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's management?*
How satisfied are you with your career development?*
How satisfied are you with your work/life balance?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's culture?*