Restaurant bans children...

Feathers · 21-01-2013 09:37PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Up to the business themselves to make whatever decision (as long as it's legally allowed) they feel improves their profits. If you don't agree with it then don't go there, and you can gloat when they go out of business.

MrCreosote wrote: »

I want to eat in one restaurant-Belluci's- with my child between 12 and 2. Is it to make a point? Of course it is

You've changed your tune slightly, eh? :pac:

MrCreosote · 21-01-2013 09:42PM

Feathers wrote: »

You've changed your tune slightly, eh? :pac:

Not at all. The OP's question was whether restaurants CAN do this. They can.

Debate has moved on a little since then- whether it is right or not is what we're talking about...

But feels free to take my comments out of context if you want

Feathers · 21-01-2013 09:49PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Not at all. The OP's question was whether restaurants CAN do this. They can.

Debate has moved on a little since then- whether it is right or not is what we're talking about...

But feels free to take my comments out of context if you want

So your attitude was "If you don't like it, don't go there" when you thought someone was asking if it was legal; but now that we're talking about if it's morally right or wrong, you want to go there to make a point?

I'm also unclear as to how I took your post out of context

jd · 21-01-2013 09:52PM

On a related Michael Winner, he of Winner's Dinners in The Sunday Times and director (Death Wish etc) died today.

“Children should not be allowed to go on holiday. They scream, they shout, they yell. All children should be locked up until the age of 10 and only selected ones should be let out when they are 10.” — Winner’s views on children.

Always number 1 · 21-01-2013 09:53PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

http://www.bellucci.ie/

look at the website, it's not a baby friendly establishment, children are an essential part of life, not of lunch,

How long have they had the "Unfortunately Belluccis cannot cater for children under 12 Monday to Friday 12noon to 2pm and any evening after 7pm" line on their website?
I've never been there but looking at the pics on their website, it doesn't look like the sort of place you'd fit a buggy/pram/high chair too easily especially during busy times.

MrCreosote · 21-01-2013 09:55PM

Feathers wrote: »

but now that we're talking about if it's morally right or wrong, you want to go there to make a point?

That's it exactly.

Quoting two posts separated by days and multiple other posts, and ignoring what was said between= quoting out of context.

Feathers · 21-01-2013 10:03PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

That's it exactly.

Quoting two posts separated by days and multiple other posts, and ignoring what was said between= quoting out of context.

The only bit of 'context' that I removed from your first post was the last line:

However it is a shining example of the loathing that Irish society has for children and parents.

Which was relevant to what people had posted above that. The context of your last post everyone can read from this page.

Eitherway, it doesn't really affect the meaning of what you originally posted: "If you don't agree with it then don't go there", which isn't actually a comment on the legality of it to begin with.

end of the road · 21-01-2013 10:45PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Funny isn't it. I'm sure these are the same questions Rosa Parks had to answer when she decided to take that seat on the bus.

oh for god sake, don't dare put a restaurant refusing to serve children during their busiest time so they can serve everyone who comes in without having locomotives parked in the way on a par with the discrimination blacks faced just for being black, that is outrageous and you know it, so lets not go there, what is wrong with people having a choice of the type of restaurant they want to go depending on their situation? why does everyone have to cater for children and families? why do i not have the right to go to an adult only restaurant free from children if i want to? why do pearents who want a break from their children not have the right to go to an adult only restaurant to have some time out in the company of other adults? who do you think you are to dictate that those who wish to avail of such a service can't because you believe you should be able to take your children wherever you like? this is the only restaurant in the area refusing to serve children at their busiest time so its not as if every restaurant is doing it, if they were then absolutely i would agree that it is indeed outrageous that theirs no place where children can be served, nobodies suggesting all restaurants do this, nobody, we all would be outraged if every restaurant did it but what is the problem with having a few where adults can go whether they want to be free of children or have a break from their children, i and most people don't see anything wrong with some restaurants doing it.

spookwoman · 21-01-2013 11:38PM

Is it MrCreosote or DrCreosote? If DrCreosote what medical establishment should we all avoid? if dealing with the public and I has to see them for treatment with an attitude like that... Can you imagine questioning their treatment FFS doesn't bear thinking about.

lounakin · 22-01-2013 01:09AM

I don't see the difference between refusing some members of society and not others.
Wherever we go, may it be lunch, a film, walking down the street, going to work, we expose ourselves to a variety of nuisances that we expect and are ready for yet some of you seem to focus on one and you defend it like a rabid dog! It's amazing that you would gladly embrace any of those variables (loud teenagers, foreigners who take much longer to order as they are figuring out the menu, obnoxious people talking loud on their phones, a couple of giggly young women taking up 4 seats with their bags, people reeking of cigarettes, people reeking of perfume, people coughing in your face, a stumbling drunk, a group of rowdy bachelors, a server's bad day, the clutz at the next table knocking over a cup of tea etc...) but are fighting tooth and nail not to be confronted to someone whose lack of years makes you angry- not because they have misbehaved- but because they may misbehave. I have a big problem with this. Not with restaurants not wanting to serve kids, but with the fervour with which some of you defend that right like it even matters.

Millicent · 22-01-2013 01:22AM

mr kr0nik wrote: »

Why stop at kids. I can't wait for a restaurant that bans wheelchairs or mentally handicapped people (sure they can make loads of noise as well).

Can people stop comparing people with disabilities to children, please? It's very insulting to people with disabilities and this about the fifth time the comparison has been made in the thread.

Grayson · 22-01-2013 01:33AM

Millicent wrote: »

Can people stop comparing people with disabilities to children, please? It's very insulting to people with disabilities and this about the fifth time the comparison has been made in the thread.

And it'd be nice, if they had to mention them, if they didn't use the word retarded.

MrCreosote · 22-01-2013 01:39AM

end of the road wrote: »

what is wrong with people having a choice of the type of restaurant they want to go depending on their situation? why does everyone have to cater for children and families?

You talk a lot about choice. That's the issue here- any choice a family has is being removed from them.

It's not that they have to specifically cater for children and families per se. It's just that it would be nice that they're not blatantly discrimated against.

Lounakin summed it up very well there.

chrissb8 · 22-01-2013 01:44AM

I remember once being in a coffee shop and telling the mother to shut up.She knew I was talking about her kid who was tearing around screaming.Very unlike me.She deserved it.She didn't deserve the mannerly way.Because she didn't observe manners herself.But oh no.She had to have a chat with her friend.Acted as if the kid wasn't there.She replied "he's only a child!" so what.So damn well what.It's loud.It's distressing having this child buzz around your table when you're trying to talk and drink and eat with your friends.It was her lifestyle choice to have a kid.You think that I must accomodate this? No I don't.What you must accomodate is the fact that you have brought a loud needy child to a public place and decided that society must accept her loud child. Some people are idiots.

This extends to the tools on this thread who are saying lets clump the disabled and old people.No.Just no.Mentally unstable people have no choice in their lot.Children can be teached how to behave.I use myself as an example.Once a very loud child.Who always got taken out of places by my parents until I learned my lesson.Then, voila! no more tantrums.Isn't that amazing.The capacity for an average human being to learn the capacity for respect and tranquility.A happy ending for all involved.So yes to all the arguments for kids not allowed in restaurants, especially at lunch time.

p.s Too many politically correct people.People need to stop being so sensitive.Grow a backbone.

osarusan · 22-01-2013 01:48AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

You talk a lot about choice. That's the issue here- any choice a family has is being removed from them.

Exaggerating a bit aren't you? Choice has been removed in one restaurant, not all restaurants. Comparisons with Rosa Parks are laughable.

Millicent wrote: »

Can people stop comparing people with disabilities to children, please? It's very insulting to people with disabilities and this about the fifth time the comparison has been made in the thread.

I actually think the comparison is valid. While there is no problem at all most of the time, people with certain disabilites are more likely than people without those disabilites to behave in a way which causes danger/discomfort to other diners and staff. Just like kids. And because of their condition/age, it's difficult to consider them responsible for what they are doing.

But if, as part of targetting a particular audience, a restaurant were to decide they 'cannot cater' for people with certain disabilities at certain busy times, there would be justified outrage.

goz83 · 22-01-2013 01:50AM

I wouldn't want to eat at a restaurant that serves children. It's bad enough having horses in our burgers

lounakin · 22-01-2013 01:58AM

chrissb8 wrote: »

I remember once being in a coffee shop and telling the mother to shut up.She knew I was talking about her kid who was tearing around screaming.Very unlike me.She deserved it.She didn't deserve the mannerly way.Because she didn't observe manners herself.But oh no.She had to have a chat with her friend.Acted as if the kid wasn't there.She replied "he's only a child!" so what.So damn well what.It's loud.It's distressing having this child buzz around your table when you're trying to talk and drink and eat with your friends.It was her lifestyle choice to have a kid.You think that I must accomodate this? No I don't.What you must accomodate is the fact that you have brought a loud needy child to a public place and decided that society must accept her loud child. Some people are idiots.

This extends to the tools on this thread who are saying lets clump the disabled and old people.No.Just no.Mentally unstable people have no choice in their lot.Children can be teached how to behave.I use myself as an example.Once a very loud child.Who always got taken out of places by my parents until I learned my lesson.Then, voila! no more tantrums.Isn't that amazing.The capacity for an average human being to learn the capacity for respect and tranquility.A happy ending for all involved.So yes to all the arguments for kids not allowed in restaurants, especially at lunch time.

p.s Too many politically correct people.People need to stop being so sensitive.Grow a backbone.

If you learned your lesson by being take out of places it's because you were allowed in in the first place. Had children been banned you'd still be a loud... Person.

chrissb8 · 22-01-2013 02:04AM

lounakin wrote: »

If you learned your lesson by being take out of places it's because you were allowed in in the first place. Had children been banned you'd still be a loud... Person.

Such bad logic.Did you think as a child I said to myself yes, here I am in a restaurant now only now can I explode with anger.Secluded to that one establishment.I fondly remember my dad carrying me over his arms after me screaming the place down out of many various shops, parties, weddings, mass....took a while but by age 7 I understood that you can't demand a thomas the tank engine video everytime and anytime I go out with my parents.

Popinjay · 22-01-2013 02:05AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

You talk a lot about choice. That's the issue here- any choice a family has is being removed from them.

Brilliant!

Shine on you crazy diamond.

When you can actually discuss what's really going on, instead of what's going on only inside your head, you may have a few more people take your points seriously.

Otherwise, carry on. You're a gas man.

Junco Partner · 22-01-2013 02:08AM

lounakin wrote: »

, but with the fervour with which some of you defend that right like it even matters.

That line can be turned right back around on the people screaming blue murder over this.
I've seen Rosa Parks and disabled people mentioned , that is both horribly offensive and not helping their argument at all. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to compare junior not being able to eat his nuggets in a particular restaurant at lunch-time to horrors of the Holocaust.
People need to grow up and be reasonable.

We are after all talking about a single two hour period in just one of the hundreds of restaurants in Dublin City. No one's sending you to mcdonalds folks. There's a plethora of restaurants that are kid friendly why is it such an imperative that junior eats in the one place deemed adult only. It's lunchtime, workers will be trying to pick a place to eat. if they see a convoy of parked buggys and kids screaming they're likely to move along. In a recession i'm sure people can understand that in a choice between 10 or 15 workers coming in and giving custom rather than having them move along because there's one family of savages running amok they'll choose the people on lunchbreak over little johnny temper tantrum.
Is it fair on the good parents ? no.
but until the others get their kids in line it's the only way that will work.

And I see people saying "oh what about the drunks, the obnoxious suits,people talking loudly etc." grow a pair and tell them to shut up it works most of the time, if they don't listen to you have the staff talk to them, I've lost count of the amount of drunks i've kicked out the door on a saturday night. people are disruptive sometimes yes but unlike kids it seems you can ask them to behave or to leave when they won't without much fuss . this is something that can't really be done with young kids because parents don't take kindly to having it pointed out that it's a brat rather than an angel they have. We've all gotten that look off of a parent when we dare to say "could you please keep it down?"

spookwoman · 22-01-2013 02:09AM

Give over with the discrimination. Parents get maternity and paternity leave. You get maternity benefit, can claim maternity clothing allowance, childrens allowance, free schools, back to school allowance, buses to take the kids to school, a house if single parent and god knows what else. What do people get when they have no kids?

More and more people all over the world are getting fed up with other people's kids being unruly in public places and because of that there is a growing trend for places to stop catering for children full stop. When you look at that does it now tell you in itself that there is a serious problem of uncontrollable kids and its on the increase.
ASBO's are getting issued and that's on the increase. Does anyone remember growing up in the 80's and this type of thing happening?

Heres a very good article called Teach your brats some manners - or don't bring them to eat in my restaurant! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1383649/Teach-brats-manners--dont-bring-eat-restaurant.html

lounakin · 22-01-2013 02:11AM

chrissb8 wrote: »

Such bad logic.Did you think as a child I said to myself yes, here I am in a restaurant now only now can I explode with anger.Secluded to that one establishment.I fondly remember my dad carrying me over his arms after me screaming the place down out of many various shops, parties, weddings, mass....took a while but by age 7 I understood that you can't demand a thomas the tank engine video everytime and anytime I go out with my parents.

All I mean, obviously, is that you were given the chance to misbehave and you learned to be more appropriate, so can other children. Most people would not let their kid scream a place down and would -just like your dad- carry them out and then voilà! They have learned and can behave in restaurants.

lounakin · 22-01-2013 02:24AM

Junco Partner wrote: »

That line can be turned right back around on the people screaming blue murder over this.
I've seen Rosa Parks and disabled people mentioned , that is both horribly offensive and not helping their argument at all. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to compare junior not being able to eat his nuggets in a particular restaurant at lunch-time to horrors of the Holocaust.
People need to grow up and be reasonable.

We are after all talking about a single two hour period in just one of the hundreds of restaurants in Dublin City. No one's sending you to mcdonalds folks. There's a plethora of restaurants that are kid friendly why is it such an imperative that junior eats in the one place deemed adult only. It's lunchtime, workers will be trying to pick a place to eat. if they see a convoy of parked buggys and kids screaming they're likely to move along. In a recession i'm sure people can understand that in a choice between 10 or 15 workers coming in and giving custom rather than having them move along because there's one family of savages running amok they'll choose the people on lunchbreak over little johnny temper tantrum.
Is it fair on the good parents ? no.
but until the others get their kids in line it's the only way that will work."

Most of the (let's call it) pro-kids arguments here would not disagree with you and I'm sure a majority of parents would control their children, would not bring them out everyday, would not team up with 14 other unruly kids and run amok in Rolly's Bistro! There's a huge community of mothers in Dublin (of which I am a part of) who choose to sling and not take buggies when going out. How about just getting along? How about not being outraged by the sight of a family on lunch with a quiet baby? Perhaps the father misses him all day at work and the mother hasn't fed herself and is happy to get out? I don't know the last time I saw a scene like the one you describe with a dozen furious children running amok. In fact the last time i was bothered by a bawling baby in a restaurant was 2 years ago.

lounakin · 22-01-2013 02:25AM

Junco Partner wrote: »

That line can be turned right back around on the people screaming blue murder over this.
I've seen Rosa Parks and disabled people mentioned , that is both horribly offensive and not helping their argument at all. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to compare junior not being able to eat his nuggets in a particular restaurant at lunch-time to horrors of the Holocaust.
People need to grow up and be reasonable.

We are after all talking about a single two hour period in just one of the hundreds of restaurants in Dublin City. No one's sending you to mcdonalds folks. There's a plethora of restaurants that are kid friendly why is it such an imperative that junior eats in the one place deemed adult only. It's lunchtime, workers will be trying to pick a place to eat. if they see a convoy of parked buggys and kids screaming they're likely to move along. In a recession i'm sure people can understand that in a choice between 10 or 15 workers coming in and giving custom rather than having them move along because there's one family of savages running amok they'll choose the people on lunchbreak over little johnny temper tantrum.
Is it fair on the good parents ? no.
but until the others get their kids in line it's the only way that will work."

Most of the (let's call it) pro-kids arguments here would not disagree with you and I'm sure a majority of parents would control their children, would not bring them out everyday, would not team up with 14 other unruly kids and run amok in Rolly's Bistro! There's a huge community of mothers in Dublin (of which I am a part of) who choose to sling and not take buggies when going out. How about just getting along? How about not being outraged by the sight of a family on lunch with a quiet baby? Perhaps the father misses him all day at work and the mother hasn't fed herself and is happy to get out? I don't know the last time I saw a scene like the one you describe with a dozen furious children running amok. In fact the last time i was bothered by a bawling baby in a restaurant was 2 years ago.

lounakin · 22-01-2013 02:31AM

spookwoman wrote: »

What do people get when they have no kids

They get time to work and earn money to spend all on themselves. They get to sleep and go out anywhere they like ;-)

Junco Partner · 22-01-2013 02:35AM

lounakin wrote: »

Most of the (let's call it) pro-kids arguments here would not disagree with you and I'm sure a majority of parents would control their children, would not bring them out everyday, would not team up with 14 other unruly kids and run amok in Rolly's Bistro! There's a huge community of mothers in Dublin (of which I am a part of) who choose to sling and not take buggies when going out. How about just getting along? How about not being outraged by the sight of a family on lunch with a quiet baby? Perhaps the father misses him all day at work and the mother hasn't fed herself and is happy to get out? I don't know the last time I saw a scene like the one you describe with a dozen furious children running amok. In fact the last time i was bothered by a bawling baby in a restaurant was 2 years ago.

if you'll read my last two posts my position on kids in restaurants should be clear, I never get "outraged at the sight of a family on lunch with a quiet baby" I said the majority of the time kids are well behaved . I said it's a very small minority of parents who let their kids run riot and ruin it for everybody. I said i didn't think it was fair to put a blanket ban on all kids because of this but i see it as the only way of working it. I love kids, it's the " he's just a child !!!!" brand of parent that i can't stand and unfortunately they are a very vocal minority.

spookwoman · 22-01-2013 02:38AM

lounakin wrote: »

They get time to work and earn money to spend all on themselves. They get to sleep and go out anywhere they like ;-)

So do you. You went to France and had your baby crying through most of the flight. :pac:

mitch_93 · 22-01-2013 02:40AM

black francis wrote: »

Doubt if a newborn baby was going to be doing much running around.

I'd like to see what specific H+S reasons they give as a basis for refusing entry to that young woman.

Hopfully she'll take a case against them - I suspect she'd win.

unlikely, I think the discrimination card or racism card is played far too often,
at the end of the day its his restaurant why shouldn't he have the right to decide who goes in.

lounakin · 22-01-2013 02:42AM

spookwoman wrote: »

So do you. You went to France and had you baby crying through most of the flight. :pac:

Indeed, it's where I come from. Despite aaaaall the governement help we still couldn't afford the flight but my family pitched in because for some reason they love to see this little person once a year!
Baby didn't cry on the flight actually, it was in the car ride!

awec · 22-01-2013 02:43AM

black francis wrote: »

Doubt if a newborn baby was going to be doing much running around.

I'd like to see what specific H+S reasons they give as a basis for refusing entry to that young woman.

Hopfully she'll take a case against them - I suspect she'd win.

On what grounds?

Restaurant bans children...

Comments