KFC Bans Woman From Breastfeeding In Public

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:26 pm

Well under normal circumstances I'd consider it unacceptable, but....

76 Year Old Expelled From KFC For Breastfeeding Her 42 Year Old Son | Smile Sumo

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:52 am

I would recommend, when considering the possible contamination of news reports with what may turn out to be hoaxes, that snopes.com is a useful reference point.

There are several hints to look out for. Vague unverifiable location, for example, or untraceable names.

If it reads like The Sun, it's unlikely to have actually happened.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:01 am

Not worth considering as true.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:03 am

Actually, I had heard something about KFC kicking a woman breastfeeding her baby out. I thought this might have been a protest against that.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:03 am

Bruv;1478263 wrote: Not worth considering as true.

There's astounding things which are, despite their apparent impossibility. The photo at is genuine, for instance. Who'd have thought that.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:03 am

spot;1478262 wrote: I would recommend, when considering the possible contamination of news reports with what may turn out to be hoaxes, that snopes.com is a useful reference point.

There are several hints to look out for. Vague unverifiable location, for example, or untraceable names.

If it reads like The Sun, it's unlikely to have actually happened.

I take it from your post, Mr. Spot, that you have checked Snopes concerning the item in the OP and possibly found it to be a hoax ?

If this story is true (seems most unlikely though !), it is tantamount to incest, in my opinion. A most revolting vision. Would merit calling in the law for gross indecency at the least !

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:07 am

G#Gill;1478266 wrote: I take it from your post, Mr. Spot, that you have checked Snopes concerning the item in the OP and possibly found it to be a hoax ?

I linked to their report, did you not click it?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:08 am

spot;1478265 wrote: There's astounding things which are, despite their apparent impossibility. The photo at is genuine, for instance. Who'd have thought that.

If it doesn't make reference to 76 year olds lactating, and it's not on a site called SmileSumo....................I am willing to believe it

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:04 am

If it IS true, then it's truly grotesque. Make you think twice if he offered you milk in your coffee...

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:09 am

Smaug;1478270 wrote: If it IS true, then it's truly grotesque.

Are there degrees of grotesquerie? Would it be less grotesque if he were a year-old child, or she were his age? Or if either of them were dead at the time? Where do you draw the line and say bad form, KFC, leave them be to do what they gotta do.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:31 am

spot;1478271 wrote: Are there degrees of grotesquerie? Would it be less grotesque if he were a year-old child, or she were his age? Or if either of them were dead at the time? Where do you draw the line and say bad form, KFC, leave them be to do what they gotta do.

That may well be THEIR choice in private. In public, it's a revolting, unnatural spectacle!! (No-where in nature does a Mother suckle her offspring for such a protracted period, that I know of...)

Even if they WERE dead, it would scarcely be more revolting, would it?

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:25 am

Smaug;1478273 wrote: Even if they WERE dead, it would scarcely be more revolting, would it?
Are we now back full circle to "a boy gives up his life at 19 years old and ends up in a comingled grave marked as 'unknown' isn't proper"?

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:29 am

FourPart;1478258 wrote: Well under normal circumstances I'd consider it unacceptableThe sole reason I know for any indoor public space to ban breastfeeding is when a half dozen mothers suddenly decide to start a squirt fight out of nowhere.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:45 am

spot;1478276 wrote: The sole reason I know for any indoor public space to ban breastfeeding is when a half dozen mothers suddenly decide to start a squirt fight out of nowhere.

You rascal you, expect there might be a queue for such a sight.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:49 am

Sounds like a good script for a Comedy Sketch. I could just imagine Smith & Jones doing something like that.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 03, 2015 1:38 pm

Princess Anne's 65.

Now there's an image the press would pay good money for.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 03, 2015 3:01 pm

spot;1478497 wrote: Princess Anne's 65.

Now there's an image the press would pay good money for.

Born at Clarence House, London, on 15 August 1950.............and I thought you was a Royalist.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 03, 2015 3:35 pm

I'm not sure what Royalist has meant since the Restoration of 1660. During the Civil War, the Royalists were the side wanting the return of the monarchy and the end of Parliamentary sovereignty. Since then, what has it meant: the monarchy was tamed in 1688 and a new bunch of Germans imported to do the job. Ever since then, they've been preventing anyone from exercising the levers of absolute power while abstaining, on constitutional grounds, from pulling the levers themselves. They're enslaved at birth. One chap escaped, Edward the Eighth, the Duke of Windsor, but he didn't stop the system from continuing. Nobody in their right mind would want to be born in their shoes but they do it, I'm pleased they do it, I prefer the system to one in which we'd have to put up with an elected head of state. On the other hand I've no desire to ever meet any of them.

Does that make me a Royalist, or do I lack the implied enthusiasm?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 03, 2015 3:59 pm

spot;1478502 wrote: I'm not sure what Royalist has meant since the Restoration of 1660. During the Civil War, the Royalists were the side wanting the return of the monarchy and the end of Parliamentary sovereignty. Since then, what has it meant: the monarchy was tamed in 1688 and a new bunch of Germans imported to do the job. Ever since then, they've been preventing anyone from exercising the levers of absolute power while refusing, on constitutional grounds, from pulling the levers themselves. They're enslaved at birth. One chap escaped, Edward the Eighth, the Duke of Windsor, but he didn't stop the system from continuing. Nobody in their right mind would want to be born in their shoes but they do it, I'm pleased they do it, I prefer the system to one in which we'd have to put up with an elected head of state. On the other hand I've no desire to ever meet any of them.

Does that make me a Royalist, or do I lack the implied enthusiasm?

Royalist is somebody who likes royalty................stop showing off.

Princess Anne will be 65 in August.....................ever thought of taking up politics ?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon May 04, 2015 1:56 am

I, too, am a devout Royalist. However, I'm not one of those who go all goo-goo-eyed at the slightest Royal Event, be it a Birth, Death, Marriage or Reltionship / Break Up Of Relationship. I see them as a typical family. From the moment of conception (and before) they have their entire lives laid out before them. They have no real choice in the matter, yet they continue to work a 24 / 7 / 365 day with little or no privacy. They are a foundation to the UK way of life - in fact, if there were no Royalty then, by definition, there could be no no U.K., as there would be no Kingdoms to unite. Without the Royalty of this nation the economy would probably suffer greatly, or collapse altogether from the Billions it brings in via Tourism. Furthermore, the Queen is a Statesman, second to none, respected throughout the world.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 04, 2015 3:04 am

FourPart;1478510 wrote: I see them as a typical family.Perhaps removing all but the monarch as beneficiary of the Royal List would improve the resemblance. Princess Anne being 65 in August would matter more if she'd not been drawing a state pension since puberty.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon May 04, 2015 3:17 am

I've never quite seen the logic in demolishing the monarchy and replacing them with a politicised president. Her Madge commands more respect abroad and does better job than any President that we could muster. I doubt any costs would be significantly different.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon May 04, 2015 3:55 am

Snowfire;1478515 wrote: I've never quite seen the logic in demolishing the monarchy and replacing them with a politicised president. Her Madge commands more respect abroad and does better job than any President that we could muster. I doubt any costs would be significantly different.

Indeed not. In fact, a few years ago, there was a TV programme on the Royals,quite interesting. The Royals cost (then) approx. £60 million to the nation, but returned approx. £100 million in tourism revenue. I'm sure that part of this is down to the fact that the royal palaces are still lived in, rather than being museums. A living Monarchy is so much more interesting than a President, anyway. A living link with the past.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon May 04, 2015 4:00 am

spot;1478276 wrote: The sole reason I know for any indoor public space to ban breastfeeding is when a half dozen mothers suddenly decide to start a squirt fight out of nowhere.

Ye gods!!...:yh_rotfl