A pregnant mother who claims she wet herself after being refused use of a supermarket toilet has been branded 'entitled'.
The heavily pregnant mother-of-two, believed to be from the UK, was so desperate that she ended up losing control of her bladder and 'completely soiling' herself in the shop, leaving her 'humiliated'.
Deeply embarrassed by the incident, the expectant mother took to parenting forum Mumsnet to share her frustration - but she didn't find much sympathy.
Instead, many insisted it was supermarket 'policy' to refuse access to staff loos, and one particularly harsh critic told her to try 'adult nappies'.
Describing the ordeal on a forum titled 'Am I Being Unreasonable', the poster began: 'I'm imminently due my third baby and have a massive bump'.
While out on the school run, she suddenly found herself 'desperate for the loo' and so popped into her local convenience supermarket in the hope of being able to use the store's toilet.
'My pelvic floor is pretty shot from previous two kids; the baby had dropped during the school run walk so I was feeling like I could not wait,' she explained.
Seeing that the shop was 'empty bar a couple of pensioners', she was confident that in asking to use the staff loo, she would readily be granted permission.
'I asked if I could use the staff loo as I was desperate. There are no other loos nearby and I was unlikely to make it the half a mile home in time,' she said.
But her request was quickly turned down by a member of staff, who explained that it was 'against policy' for customers to have access to employee facilities.
Unprepared to be turned down and unable to wait until the journey home, the mother ended up losing control of her bladder.
'I soiled myself before I even made it the front door of the shop,' she admitted.
She described the accident as 'completely humiliating', and was left making her journey home in soiled clothing.
The mother was adamant that the incident was the fault of supermarket staff and concluded that it 'could have been avoided if a little kindness shown'.
'Am I being unreasonable to expect some flexibility in branch policy to accommodate for those in need?', she asked the forum.
However, much to her dismay, few commenters shared the view that it was the fault of the supermarket staff, with several arguing that it was 'standard everywhere' for staff loos to be off limits - even to those with disabilities.
An unsympathetic reader said: 'Wear those nappies for adults. Kindness has nothing to do with it - they can't lose their job for you.'
One wrote: 'Lots of stores have this policy, I'm on water tablets and even have a card to confirm the urgency but I wouldn't expect them to bend the rules to me. Unfortunately, you need to plan better.'
'Even if you have a toilet urgency card/disability radar key most shops wouldn't allow you to use the staff toilet for insurance and liability purposes. This is standard everywhere,' a second pointed out.
A third said 'it would be nice if we could use any toilet we needed if desperate' but said that most won't allow it according to 'insurance' policies.
'The problem is that you'll probably have to go through the stock room, maybe staff room etc. there might be the staff member's phones/ purses in the area,' said another.
Though they offered some sympathy, describing their own experience of needing 'to wee probably every 45 mins to an hour'.
'You just have to plan where you're going. I did wee in a lot of bushes over those months,' they wrote.
'Return home and go back out. I'm not being funny, you are pregnant not disabled,' fumed another.
One harsh critic insisted she was 'entitled' and said it was her own responsibility to prepare for the worst.
'The onus is on you to make sure you don't wet yourself. Your attitude is entitled.
'You take precautions such as emptying your bladder before you go out on a short trip or you wear those Tena pads if you think you may spring a leak.'