Tombo2001 wrote: » Push boundaries can mean lots of different things. Children of smokers are more likely to become smokers. Children of drinkers are more likely to become drinkers.
Malari wrote: » No, but that's coming from the other side of the argument I agree with you, and I most often choose places that are not child-friendly for this reason.
Andy From Sligo wrote: » I dont know the full ins and out of pub law (come to think of it I dont know hardly anything of pub law) - so if they did operate setting out their own rules and prohibit entry under a certain age , but it wasnt law , couldnt the pub be then sued or done for discrimination or something?
Andy From Sligo wrote: » ah no, not at all. there are times you want a nice relaxing meal without tired bored crying kids running around playing chase and acting up.. but wouldnt it be lovely that if you so wish a quiet meal like that , that you could book up in the comfort of that there is no blurred lines and that "This restaurant/pub prohibits under 18's by law" (or under 16' or 12's if you think over 18's is too harsh) we might then be able to say I want to go out for a bite to eat , I now have a choice of tired bored crying kids running around playing chase and acting up in a fast food restaurant ... or do you know what I want to leave that all behind and relax , so lets go to that lovely quiet restaurant down the road...
armaghlad wrote: » Think the onus is on parents to have consideration for other people dining/drinking in the establishment. If you've a young child/baby/toddler who is likely to start crying/squealing/jumping/climbing/running about the place, maybe Nando's, TGIs, Frankie & Benny's, Mcds etc are more suited for you and your family. Working in the trade I know that most staff would prefer this to be the case; and while we are more than family friendly, it does get annoying when when a crowd come in for lunch at 1pm and stay pinting until 6 (when we kindly ask them to leave) while their kids run about the place like demented eejits
pilly wrote: » Drives me nuts. Especially when kid comes over and sits beside you and you're supposed to laugh and find them cute. Fcuk off!
Winterlong wrote: » In fairness, whether you are in a pub or in a cafe, restaurant or where ever, parents need to keep their kids under control.
dub_skav wrote: » We already have laws about serving intoxicated people, perhaps enforcing that existing law would take away some of your concerns Andy. Antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated, the fix is not to remove kids, it is to remove those acting in an antisocial manner.
Andy From Sligo wrote: » and a lot of parents are failing at being parents these days and let their kids just do what they want to do. Its not the fault of pubs/restauant or anyone else but the parent I totally agree ... But do you know what , when you have to *rely* on parents to do something and they cannot bring their children up properly (and maybe keep them safe) then its time for the nanny state to step in and take control ... sure , everyone suffers then , even the parents who are responsible, but what can you do. apart from a few silly stupid laws , laws are there for a reason .. and normally a good one. And to help protect people and people around them.
Andy From Sligo wrote: » I often think there is more to drinking than just Sober and then drunk .... many levels in between as the person drinks more, I have always thought that . As soon as a couple of drinks have been consumed the barriers start coming down - they dont have to be blind out of their head drunk as a skunk to start becoming a problem or threat - I have seen and hear people get a bit more instrumental and graphic just after a couple of drinks .. especially if they are not used to drinking ... children should not be placed in or around that situation, there should be a certain amount of shielding we should still install, to make kids be kids and not rush their childhood. - (if it were enforced) we already dont sell them fags or knives under a certain age, they are controlled what they can see and not see at the cinema, what computer games they can buy/play , what they can see on TV before 9pm. (nanny state in full force with all them rules) What do we do , ditch all them shall we as well, i presume these were all put in place to protect children ... but children dont need protecting from drunk adults in establishments that sell alcohol ? - something doesnt seem to add up and its very disjointed way of protecting children against some things ... but not others!
Shenshen wrote: » Certainly. So what you are advocating is for parents never to set foot into a pub themselves? To reduce the statistical probability of their own children ever going to a pub?
meeeeh wrote: » What you are suggesting is a law that will cost pubs and restaurants customers (Sunday trade will be certainly limited) and will seriously limit the choice for families. You might be happy eating fast food slop but people want to be able to eat decent food when going out for family meal.
dub_skav wrote: » But all of these are already in place for alcohol (bar the cinema one). What you are saying is that they should not be able to watch someone preparing dinner if they use a knife, not be able to enter a shop that sells tobacco and not be able to watch TV at all because it may be inappropriate when they are not there. They are more likely to see people with too much drink acting inappropriately in the street, as that is where the majority of fights (both verbal and physical) happen. Plus, have you ever seen a row or lewd conversation in a restaurant?
Jack the Stripper wrote: » Ban the pool table, ban the bacon fries and the johnny machine.
Andy From Sligo wrote: » I think all under 18's should be banned from pubs or any establishment that serves alcohol on the premises come to think of it, like restaurants etc if they sell drink - what do reckon? - too severe or do you agree?
Boom_Bap wrote: » Ban chewing gum from the johnny machine
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Pretty sure the trade discriptions act already does that?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » It;s not the worst idea ever expressed in AH but it's in the top three...
pilly wrote: » The alcohol free pub has to be No. 1 surely? :P
Tombo2001 wrote: » I dunno - I think the idea of a place where someone could just go to get a coffee - that might catch on.
Senor Fancy Pants wrote: » Andy, you have lost the run of yourself. Can you bullet point your argument, you have moved on from the opening post. Also, I only bring my kids to titty bars.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » That's currnetly held by the guy who suggested you should only get an Irish passport if you speak Irish.
