I was drawn to the story about a baby buggy being evicted from the Shaw house building.

What an idiotic decision to use a carpet that apparently lacks the resilience to cope with the traffic of baby buggies. This presumably means that the users of wheelchairs, that are legally entitled to use the building, will prematurely destroy the carpet!

The situation is exacerbated by the alleged rudeness and incompetent conduct of the staff, who, if the story is an accurate portrait of events, clearly need re-training (I think is the usual remedial action).

I have two comments, one is rules are rules, it's not down to the management to have to explain themselves, and it's not down to the visitors to decide which ones they follow. Secondly, following that experience and having been told that they can't take the buggy in, why would complimentary tickets for a return visit be a good idea? If I were the family I'd run around in the grounds getting as much mud on me as possible then go for the free wa;lkaround inside, all over the cream carpets.

This wasn't a prison visit and it's implied the family were unaware of the 'rule', which seems an obsurd one. Just because 'rules are rules' doesn't entitle management to be rude. I'd behaved the same as the family if I felt something was unjust and I do think the management are obliged to explain. If it were me involved and knowing what my mouth can be like, I'd created a bigger stink than the one stated. I'm sure had someone politely pointed out to the family at the beginning of the tour that they would not be able to take the buggy round, this unnecessary scene wouldn't have happened.

Can anyone explain why the wheels on a few buggy should be any more dirtier on a cream carpet than the much more numerous pairs of shoes walking on it?

It's an absolute joke. There's no logic behind it! Buggies aren't allowed but wheelchairs are? The council should be embarrassed

‘Rules are rules’. Didn’t they use this as a defence at the Nuremberg trials? People seem to think that because something must be obeyed it must be obeyed. Where does democracy come into all this. Iommi make a good point; what if it was a disabled wheelchair? The law is on the side of the handicapped person. And disabled wheelchair’s are heavier than buggy’s. Sometimes common sense should trump rules.

Good point; maybe people are made to take their shoes off and wash their feet in boiling water. Then a foot fetish expert licks the remaining particles off the feet.

Idiots don’t need logic; just rules and a backward mentality.

A wheelchair is heavier, but I am guessing (based only on my own thoughts, no research done, no evidence acquired), that there are less wheelchairs than there are buggies, on average, therefore there is likely to be less damage overall. I don't agree with the decision, but I am empathetic to the management for having to have made it. Also who'd want to take a buggy there? Can't imagine young children enjoying themselves there.

You’ve got to remember this was a reunion; babies+school+reunion. Are you getting my drift now my friend? They probably wanted to take the babies to see if they could get a positive match with the kids’ features. A lot of bike sheds didn't have lighting

By empathy, presumably you are not impartial in this matter? If the article is accurate, the management were rude and incompetent. If buggies were not allowed, it should have been handled more sympathetically and effectively. As for resilience of the carpet under buggy traffic, what do they have on show, a Dr Who exhibition?

Are you both Betazoid’s? As you both have telepathy/ or empathy.

Just one little thing Mr G. What are you talking about?

You’ve obviously never watched Star Trek the next Generation. Their ships councillor was Diana Troy... she was a Betazoid. Actually she was half human half Betazoid. Their unique talents were telepathy/ empathy. Usually amongst their own species, but they could read the minds of humans. I hope I’ve cleared that up for you?

Oh, in case you don't know: i am a Vulcan. Do you need any explanation on that one?

Firstly I'd like to thank everyone who has written on this forum, when I wrote to the NWN I thought that no-one would be interested, so when Sarah wrote the story I was astounded-in this day & age, us getting evicted from a public building over a buggy is hardly breaking news, let's be honest. However, I decided to write anyway, even if no-one listened. So the fact that you guys read AND commented gladened me. I must say that I can't disagree with any of the comments; Iommi was correct on several points, we weren't aware of the ruling until the manager approached us, the rudeness of staff did exaxerbate the situation & staff do need training; Strafin is right, rules are rules; Andy's observation about muddy buggy wheels being no different to muddy shoes is right; GMRs answer of foot sterilization is fab, as is his comment on Nuremberg (& by the way, Shaw House's bike sheds saw little action as it was a girls only school back then te he! ) ; and Andrea, you are spot on too, there is no logic & the council should be embarassed. I've never joined any of these forums before but felt duty bound to join this one out of gratitude, so here goes!
All we wanted to do on Sunday was have a family day out at a public building where there was an exhibition that was of particular interest to my Mum & her sister. Grace is part of our family so joined us-my Mum & Aunt would have been delighted to show her off if they'd bumped into an old school friend at the re-union. Had we been asked at the door to carry Grace, we would have done so between us (though what a mother of more than 1 would do I don't know). Personally, I think the safest place for any under 2 yr old is a buggy, not least because as they get older & you can keep a store of entertainment for when they tire of grown up stuff & also as they are safe from running off, touching what they shouldn't & sleeping if needs must.
So, my 'Top Tips' for the preservation of a public building!
1. Encourage as many paying visitors as possible (discriminate against no-one)
2. Choose a suitable floor covering ( especially as the tax payer is part-funding it, & I doubt Shaw House ever had cream carpet historically)
3. Encourage the use of buggies to keep little people safe from stairs etc & to keep little hands away from historical artefacts
4. Ensure all staff are fully versed in the regulations of the property
5. Remember-Common sense should ALWAYS trump rules!
I hope that the beautiful building that is Shaw House stands in it's glory for many years to come, giving many generations the opportunity to visit - it really is a fantastic place. I WILL take the council up on their offer of complimentary tickets if my Mother & Aunt want to re-visit, life is way too short to be bitter. But I genuinely hope they think about the points I and all of you have raised, & that they are big enough to change this ruling if they can see the whole picture now.
Thanks again you all, That's All Folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good on you Rachel. That is what it’s all about; open debate. You were right to voice your concerns. The trouble is there are too many do-gooders out there that follow the letter of the law until they disappear up their own backside.

On another note; you are correct about the girls only school as I had forgot about that. On a side issue; a former head Master of Shaw school – Mr McCloud - wrote a book about Shaw House. It is worth a read. Mr McCloud was there when my kids went to Shaw House in the 80’s or 90’s.

What a nice reasoned response from Rachel. Good on you girl!

That is what we need on here; more intelligent people

Mrs Carden, if I may interject here. Maybe that was why they picked such delicate carpets. People love nothing better than the sound of their own voice and the responsibility they are given and that can be a dangerous combination in the wrong hands. It was only a little thing that triggered Hitler’s megalomania (no, not that little thing, he may have had only one... but according to legend he got a fine tune out of it ). No, it was his moustache; by growing it and then spying a mirror one fine day he was fixated. From such a small acorn grew a tyrant. From one rugged carpet can trigger the seeds of lunacy. Just a thought my dear

Say goodnight to the troops Gracie.

Don't go Iommi-If I knew you were coming I'd've baked a cake!
Blimey, you lot really know how to 'debate', don't you?!! Maybe some of your humourous & intellectual comments will be read by those in higher places than this mere mortal working in the ranks?!! Hitler's demise could partly be atributed to his narrow minded, blinkered views, that be food for thought for others thinking of growing a mousthache!
Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye, until the 12th of never

Good night troops.... we shall win the war in the end... remember; it is the end that a lot of beginnings started

Good luck old girl, think of us in the trenches

Well, just when I thought there was nothing left to be said.....! Out of the blue I had a phone call today from a lovely lady who'd read the story in the Advertiser, saying how disappointed she was on my behalf. She'd gone to the effort of looking me up in the directory, bless her.
She'd recieved an invitation as a former pupil (Head girl, no less) & had gone along to meet up with old friends. She was shocked to be asked to pay (as had another poster-Graham, I think), had been disappointed at the restricted access, felt some of the renovations were ill advised & was very sad that the grounds were not as well kept as she thought they could have been, particularly that the mulberry tree wasn't pruned. She also knows the lady who was so rude, & felt that the staff there were rather officious.
BUT.......the most interesting thing to me was that she had enjoyed a cup of tea in the tearoom with a friend & her daughter who had a baby in a buggy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She also insisted that she had seen other buggys being pushed around the building during the 4 hours or so she was there.

And, no, I still haven't recieved the access policy which I requested from Judith Mundy, manager at Shaw House.

The one good thing that you did was put the story in the public domain. The trouble with our society is that we just moan and never do anything, you did (as I do – often if I am not happy with something). If we don’t complain how are those officials going to learn? Writing private letters/ emails just get torn up and thrown away. Putting it in the public sphere tells everybody what crap service such-and-such place gives; which hopefully will embarrass them and force them into a retreat. So good on you .

This is a link to the PDF on the West Berkshire Council's website. It has no mention of 'buggy' access. Indeed, it says in the document:

If you need any assistance while at Shaw House please ask one of our friendly staff who are there to help you.

Here's the link: Access Guide to Shaw House Visitor Guide


Elsewhere on the site it says:

Young Visitors

Shaw House is very child friendly and young people are very welcome.

High chairs are available in the café.

Baby changing facilities are located in the men's and women's accessible toilets in the basement.

In the 1581 Chambers there are activities for you to do as a family and a Wheelie-Do trail of activities around the house.

We ask you not to bring prams/buggies into the house to protect the historic fabric. Please leave them in the buggy park outside. Hip seats are available from Reception.

Please supervise your children at all times and be aware of the possible risks, particularly staircases and lifts.

It says that chairs are unwelcome to 'protect the historic fabric of the building'. I wonder what is historic about a new beige carpet!

Here's the link: www.shawhouse.org.uk

Iommi; what about handicapped people in wheelchairs?

I highlighted the pertinent text, the links provided take you to the relevant information.

Thanks for that Iommi, at least I've now seen it for myself. It hasn't changed my opinion, but I appreciate you finding that out for me.

Again, you'd think that the manger, who it seems to continue to treat you with contempt (I understand they are public servants - we tax payers fund their wages), would have made every effort to make up for her staff's alleged rubbish performance and poor publicity.

Wheelchairs:

Wheelchairs

To make your visit more comfortable we can loan you a wheelchair. We
have a 114kg (250lbs) chair which can be made available free of
charge, subject to availability

I wonder if the precious carpet can cope with a 250lb chair!

By 'fabric' they don't mean it literally, carpets curtains are 'furnishings'.

By fabric they mean the bricks and mortar along with woodwork etc.

Buggies have wheels that can catch on corners (especially when parents allow their little darlings to push them around), doors and frames, along with other parts of the building. Wheelchairs are much less likely to be 'rammed' into walls.

Unless i read it wrong it wasn't very helpful.

I know that, but I would like to refer you to the original news item:

“Mrs Carden said, the family wanted to know the reason why and were kept waiting for around 15 minutes before the manager came and told them it was to preserve the cream carpets laid down during the multi-million pound renovation works. Wheelchairs are permitted into the building whatever the weather.”

Source: Buggy ban ruins family day out

The thrust of the issue, however, was the alleged rudeness of some of the staff. They could have at very least had offered to go and fetch a Hip seat (that they have available from reception).


Er... what were you expecting... the hanging gardens of Babylon! It is there in B&W

But just for you: Visitor's Information & Access Information

I'm always curious when I hear the thrust of a complaint being 'rudeness'. In my experience most people who work in any customer service role are rarely rude. On a recent flight from San Francisco, a mother who was determined to have her 5-year old sat on her lap for take-off accused the cabin crew of being rude. I heard the whole exchange, and rude is one word that did not sum up the actions of the crew.

Rude is a word used to describe someone who tells another what they really don't want to hear.

Another point, this is a public forum and the member of staff being accused of being rude may well come here and read that. I believe the word Slander may apply. Just a thought...

Sue me. I read the story in good faith and I would welcome the comments of the 'accused', but I did qualify the statement at the beginning of the thread with, 'if the story is an accurate portrait of events'.

In any case, the definition of rude as far as I am concerned is discourteous or impolite.

I doubt we will ever hear the other side as the council, along with many companies and organisations have strict policies on staff speaking to the media or engaging in forums regarding their jobs.

I saw that... still not impressed.

So if I was handicapped and in a wheelchair I'd have to swap my trusty old friend for a piece crap? That is not handicapped friendly in my view.

Clearly, which includes apologising for their staff's rudeness. Alleged or otherwise

I don't think they are referring to turfing you out of a standard wheelchair (if you have one) but having on available for someone who may not need one normally.

Alledged rudeness.

If it makes you feel better, alledged rudeness. I've edited all previous posts where necessary.