Restaurant bans children...

Gingernut125 they do speak for themselves the numbers.

I am going to refrain dealing with MrCreosote at this point cause I more than likely will pick up a ban. He will prob start going an about winning etc but the fact is that restaurant is still not going to serve him when he has kid with him

MrCreosote wrote: »

they have NO CHOICE.

Unbunch your kinckers for crying out loud.

This is one restaurant in Ballsbridge.

Ballsbridge has this many places to go (http://www.menupages.ie/dublin/south_dublin/ballsbridge) and only one of them has said no kids for 2 hours in the day.

Edit: Now apparently 45 hours in the week, hadn't read to the end before posting, mea culpa.

That is the widest range of 'no choice' I've seen in a long time.

Grayson wrote: »

I can't think of anyone that said all kids should never be allowed outside or even in a restaurant.

In fact, I'd love to be pointed to where anybody has said, or even hinted at, this.

As opposed to the more than one person who has said that if we don't want to share our restaurants with children every time (note: not any time, every time. We've all said we're happy for parents and kids to go to retaurants) then we should stay at home.

It's a bit rich to be wrongly and falsely accused of doing something by the only people that are actually doing it.

BizzyC wrote: »

Crap, voted the wrong way.
Meant to say it should be allowed.

Management has the right to refuse to serve anyone.

Others shouldn't be forced to deal with the extra noise that comes from a place full of kids.

does this include Asians , blacks , travelers or maybe muck savages ?

spookwoman wrote: »

I am going to refrain dealing with MrCreosote at this point cause I more than likely will pick up a ban. He will prob start going an about winning etc but the fact is that restaurant is still not going to serve him when he has kid with him

Your admission that I'm right is gratefully received!

Popinjay wrote: »

Unbunch your kinckers for crying out loud.

This is one restaurant in Ballsbridge.

Ballsbridge has this many places to go (http://www.menupages.ie/dublin/south_dublin/ballsbridge) and only one of them has said no kids for 2 hours in the day.

Edit: Now apparently 45 hours in the week, hadn't read to the end before posting, mea culpa.

That is the widest range of 'no choice' I've seen in a long time.

Actually it bans kids and their parents for 7 hours of the 12 its open, and these happen to be the times when people usually want to eat

Madam_X wrote: »

The people who feel children should not be allowed in any public place (resulting in times when the parent therefore cannot leave the house, even when they really have to, because there is nobody available to mind the children) are the selfish ones.

If you do not have children, the world is not out to get you. Much of that idea is self imposed.

A big +1 to this

Popinjay wrote: »

In fact, I'd love to be pointed to where anybody has said, or even hinted at, this.

As opposed to the more than one person who has said that if we don't want to share our restaurants with children every time (note: not any time, every time. We've all said we're happy for parents and kids to go to retaurants) then we should stay at home.

It's a bit rich to be wrongly and falsely accused of doing something by the only people that are actually doing it.

There's any number of posters suggesting parents should be happy just with McDonald's or some other slophole. The attitude is that crappy holes like McDs are fine for families but "badly-behaved" kids should be kept out of everywhere else. And as any child has the risk of being badly-behaved, better to ban the lot of 'em eh?

As usual it's the ones who have least reason to complain- not having to worry about kids and able to go to a restaurant whenever they want- that are making the loudest whiney noise.

Some substances should be avoided that are toxic and carcinogenic, could be the same with some people.

MrCreosote wrote: »

Of course you don't. You just demand that they aren't allowed in in the first place.

No I don't. I just go to places where they're not allowed. I haven't asked that more restaurants do it.

Nobody has demanded that other restaurants follow suit, people have just said that they will frequent restaurants that don't allow kids.

The only people demanding anything are the ones that insist that they be allowed to bring their children wherever they please, that is, you.

As I say- try that on with an other ethnic group and see what happens. No matter how you sugarcoat it, it's still discrimination based on prejudice.

Once again, do you need help reading the thread?

There are countless examples in this thread of times where I, or others, am/are unwelcome somewhere or unable to do something, based on being male (Curves), female (admittedly couldn't find one in thread, but they do exist, as everybody is aware) , too old (kiddies discos), too young (over 60's groups), too heterosexual (my own experiences at the George), not having kids (family swim times, etc).

Everybody has accepted that this is ok.

The overblown sense of persecution dripping from your posts is hilarious to be honest.

Everybody isn't out to get you.

MrCreosote wrote: »

What you're looking for with restaurants is deliberately reducing the opportunities for an already oppressed group.

Hahahahahaha!

That's mental.

Onthe3rdDay wrote: »

No you don't, the poll at the top of this page proves that point, by a huge margin.

You forget one thing, there is slightly over 696 people in this country who have children.

That poll is loaded, it's a simple yes or no. Real life is not all black or white, there is a lot of grey in the middle.

MrCreosote wrote: »

As I've already said there's a huge difference between offering a service for a marginalised group like in women-only gyms

You're about 40 years too late to describe women as a "marginalised group".

MrCreosote wrote: »

What you don't seem to realise is that I represent the silent majority on this. Most people frankly don't care whether kids share restaurant space with them, most parent agree that they should. You're part of the loud and very small minority that don't.

Based on...? Regardless of the amount of single people without kids that weight
AH opinion, even the majority of parents on here supported the restaurant in setting their own policy.

dj jarvis wrote: »

does this include Asians , blacks , travelers or maybe muck savages ?

Yes actually, as long as they don't state that as their reason.
Have you not heard of bars using "locals only" to stop travelers at the door?

A business is not obliged to serve everyone who walks in the door.
Until money has changed hands, there is no legal requirement for the business to provide service.
By advertising goods at a price they are providing what's called an "invitation to treat", which is effectively inviting you to make an offer for their services at this price. They have every right to refuse that offer and don't even have to provide a reason.

As long as they are not racist/offensive in their refusal of service they can get away with it.

MrCreosote wrote: »

What you're looking for with restaurants is deliberately reducing the opportunities for an already oppressed group.

Parents with Children are an Already oppressed group?

MrCreosote wrote: »

What you don't seem to realise is that I represent the silent majority on this. Most people frankly don't care whether kids share restaurant space with them, most parent agree that they should. You're part of the loud and very small minority that don't.

Nearly everything in that paragraph is wrong. You represent nothing, and certainly not a silent one. A majority is also, very seldom silent.
Nor would i call the People that prefer to pay for nice food in a relaxing environment, without their children or anyone elses a "very small minority".

You seem to think that people wanting to go to a restaurant and not have to listen to kids running around, and not have an obstacle course to the toilet, is a personal attack on you and yours.
It's not.
If people are paying to dine out and enjoy the comforts that they have paid for, then they are entitled to. The restaurant owner/manager/staff would like them to get what they paid for, and also to enjoy their time there, as they may come back. If children are misbehaving around them, some people may not come back.
Their custom is more valuable then the childrens. As they would be the customers that would be more likely to eat there twice in a week, or 4 times in a month, also they arrive, eat, leave. Very seldom do they cause any problems.

Whilst your children may be Angels, and dedicated epicureans, some children are not.
All sorts of things are taken into account when children enter a premises, from the waiter/waitress having to be extra careful whilst trying to dodge kids running around, to the customers trying to get by a table with 3 buggies around it. Screaming and crying children can make the experience of dining there again less than desirable, and a million other things.

Nobody here is really against children. They are just saying that (I'm just saying that) If hard earned money is going to be parted with, to eat in restaurant that has good reviews, and enjoy the food and comfort etc.. It would be preferred to do it without having toys flung beside you, and screaming ringing out in your ear amongst other things.