Baby Olympics
Posted by: Dungassin on 25 January 2012
I see they want to charge newborns full adult price if mum takes them to see an Olympic event. Where do all these idiots come from? I suppose a push charir could be a little in the way, but what about kids in slings? 
It is reality that we live in a world where money rules the roost. A country has to commit to spending a fortune, largely publicly financed, on facilities just to get an Olympics. Under the microscope of public and media scrutiny, the concept of cost recovery makes few exceptions, even for small children. It is sad.
Why would one want to take a mewling puking babe to sit in a stadium in the open being subject to all that the UK weather can offer. Or in an indoor stadium where any noise will echo around.
The people surrounding the mewling puking infant will not be impressed have spent so much money to be distracted by the parents and babe.
The question should be - why do people think that they should be able to take their child to the Olympics.
I am sure that the grandparents would be only to keen to do a bit of bonding with the new child.
If you want to ban mums with babies from such events, then "bah humbug" to you, too. What about the mum who's paid for her ticker, has a newborn, and is breastfeeding? Must mum forgo using her ticket because of something which may not have been made clear at the time of purchase?
Anyway, to clarify : Why should a small baby be charged who cannot enjoy/appreciate the event be charged a full price ticket?
I'm with you on this one, Derek. People choose to reproduce. They make that choice, presumably because they see some personal benefit to do so. However, with that benefit, comes responsibility. In my view, that responsibility extends to courtesy to the rest of the world they inhabit. Dragging young children to events they have no interest in, or that they can't even possibly understand is ridiculous.
What about the mum who's paid for her ticker, has a newborn, and is breastfeeding? Must mum forgo using her ticket because of something which may not have been made clear at the time of purchase?
Yes. It is called a compromise. She's getting the enjoyment of the newborn. Giving up other pleasures is all part of the deal. It applies to everything in life.
We must, as a society, make the decision to create planet-f^&%ng spawn one that is VERY carefully considered. If someone chooses to cast their genetic code into the future by creating the next generation of consumers, they must bear the full cost.
And do you also subscribe to the view that young children should not be taken to expensive restaurants just in case they misbehave? My girls could be taken anywhere at the age of 2 and would behave themselves. Never had any trouble with them at such venues, or the theatre, cinema etc. If they had, I or SWMBO would have taken them out.
Jolly good - then you should set up classes for the irresponsible parents that can only see as far as their fecal extruding noisy brats.
We had a dinner in a very nice restaurant ruined by a very noisy set of rug rats.
It appears from reading The Times recently that the french are very good at bringing up their kids to behave well and eat the food that is placed in front of them.
And do you also subscribe to the view that young children should not be taken to expensive restaurants just in case they misbehave? My girls could be taken anywhere at the age of 2 and would behave themselves. Never had any trouble with them at such venues, or the theatre, cinema etc. If they had, I or SWMBO would have taken them out.
Yep, pretty much. If the little future-consumers misbehave, they should not do so in a place that where that behaviour impacts the experience of other, perhaps more responsible people. If they behave, I have no issue, but do wonder why would anyone bring a two year-old to an expensive restaurant? What does the two year old get from the experience?
I don't dislike children, just other people's children. My stepkids are OK - it's everyone else's that are the problem.
OK. Obviously our attitudes towards children differ. My grandkids (and daughters when small) are not angels, BTW, but don't (didn't) misbehave when out.
Back to the original point. What I object to is that a child who is not going to occupy a seat being charged the same as an adult. Is it just that the Olympic officials just don't want small kids there, but arn't prepared to say so?
Incidentally, my youngest has Olympic tickets, but her kids will be looked after by us (staying overnight) or stay with nearby friends. Hope that meets with your approval.
....that a child who is not going to occupy a seat being charged the same as an adult. Is it just that the Olympic officials just don't want small kids there, but aren't prepared to say so?
It's not that the Olympics don't want kids, it is that they want money and power. That's all the corrupt @re$h01e$ want. They care nothing for the public, only the corporate sponsors who shovel the cash into their bank accounts and treat them with the grovelling reverence that is sickening. I'll do my best to never do any transaction that results in financial support of any kind for the IOC and their cronies. It sickens me to my boots.
I'll add that I also think it's a not a good idea to take very small kids to the Olympics, but I DO object to the profiteering of the IOC.
Guess who has to make up for any losses on the Olympics - 'tis me and thee and a few others in the country - so the more they can screw out the people attending the better.