Restaurant bans children...

MrCreosote · 22-01-2013 08:56PM

B0jangles wrote: »

If you're not trolling you have to be one of the most self-centred people on the planet.

You simultaneously express the opinion that people should plan their wedding day around your child's entertainment needs and feeding plan, but also happily admit to pissing off brides on their wedding day by bringing uninvited children along?

Maybe before going on a rant you should read my posts again...I said quite clearly that I didn't do it, but was at a wedding where others did. And guess what-everyone survived, the world didn't end!

The other thing I said was that if kids are going to be at a wedding, it's nice if there's something for them to do, not that the whole day should be planned around them.

Anytime you want to get off that high horse is fine by me.

Paranoid1 · 22-01-2013 09:01PM

This is no different to the couple who who wouldn't allow the gay lads to stay in their B and B. discrimination is discriminatin whether you are a baby, black or gay

B0jangles · 22-01-2013 09:03PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Maybe before going on a rant you should read my posts again...I said quite clearly that I didn't do it, but was at a wedding where others did. And guess what-everyone survived, the world didn't end!

The other thing I said was that if kids are going to be at a wedding, it's nice if there's something for them to do, not that the whole day should be planned around them.

Anytime you want to get off that high horse is fine by me.

I have read your posts and to be honest, I didn't bother responding since I was fairly sure you were trolling. but that pair of opinions were so ludicrously self-centred, I just had to comment.

In the first quote, you suggested entertainment at the church and an early dinnertime to acccomdate children. The occasion is somebody's WEDDING, not a party for the kiddies.

In the second quote you made it perfectly clear that you approved of people bringing children along even when they were specifically asked not to, even though you noticed it annoyed the woman WHOSE WEDDING IT WAS.

Pessimist · 22-01-2013 09:03PM

I can actually see both sides of the argument... I have a toddler myself and she can be very loud, wriggly & just want to run around at restaurants. I often have to walk out with her until she calms down and realises she can't have her own way as it would be dangerous if she ran into someone. It's very stressful on us, it annoys other patrons and it mustn't be that nice for her as she can't understand (at 22 months) why she can't have her fun. For this reason I prefer to go to family friendly restaurants when eating out as a family.

That said, as a parent I really am doing my best - I don't want to overly discipline my child at such a young age just so she'll be programmed to be submissive. Parenting is hard work :-) and I don't think any parent appreciates their child being labelled as brats just because the child is being loud. Fair enough, running wild is not on but children are noisy and should be allowed to be kids!

Btw, I strongly believe in the wedding couple's right to choose whether their wedding is child free or not. It is their big day and as long as the invite is clear, a parent has loads of time to organise a sitter (or decline the invite if need be).

Ranicand · 22-01-2013 09:04PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're someone that would like to have child-free flights as well?

I think ill behaved children who kick the backs out of the seats on flights should be put in a family section yes and I make no bones about it.

Four and a half hours on a flight with two brats kicking the back out of my seat was no joke.

The same brats where then jumping on the belt on the luggage reclaim and pulling at other peoples bags while the parents watched and said nothing.

super_furry · 22-01-2013 09:13PM

Paranoid1 wrote: »

This is no different to the couple who who wouldn't allow the gay lads to stay in their B and B. discrimination is discriminatin whether you are a baby, black or gay

Yeah well lets see the babies and kids organise themselves, they can have their Rosa Parks or Stonewall moment, form an advocacy group and effect real political change.

Or they can just cry and sh1t themselves. Either's good.

MrCreosote · 22-01-2013 09:18PM

Ranicand wrote: »

Look at the location Kerry the same lot who want special permits to drive around pis*ed.

Don't tar us all with the same brush (sort of like you're doing with parents). I'm never voting for the healy-rae's again.

B0jangles wrote: »

In the first quote, you suggested entertainment at the church and an early dinnertime to acccomdate children. The occasion is somebody's WEDDING, not a party for the kiddies.

In the second quote you made it perfectly clear that you approved of people bringing children along even when they were specifically asked not to, even though you noticed it annoyed the woman WHOSE WEDDING IT WAS.

If kids are there is it a bad thing to have something for them to do?!

And on the second point- I was asked not to bring kids, I didn't. Where's the crime.

Ranicand wrote: »

I think ill behaved children who kick the backs out of the seats on flights should be put in a family section yes and I make no bones about it.

Four and a half hours on a flight with two brats kicking the back out of my seat was no joke.

The same brats where then jumping on the belt on the luggage reclaim and pulling at other peoples bags while the parents watched and said nothing.

You paid to get flown halfway around the world. You got flown halfway around the world. And you are seriously complaining about a couple of boisterous kids?

I've yet to hear of a flight being diverted because of kids- hear about it all the time because of pissheads

Ranicand · 22-01-2013 09:22PM

Paranoid1 wrote: »

This is no different to the couple who who wouldn't allow the gay lads to stay in their B and B. discrimination is discriminatin whether you are a baby, black or gay

Being black is a skin colour so the point is mute.

Anyway I am of a younger generation and I have no problem with people who are gay or black or disabled or whatever.

However there is nothing wrong with discrimination.
If I refuse to eat a rotten apple is that not discrimination?

I would be happy to have a black couple a gay couple around if like me they were just interested in having a peaceful meal.

Having ill behaved brats around me with selfish parents who do not care about anybody else I would not have.

An expensive dinner is kind of formal and it is right to expect a decent standard of behavior.
Kids running around is not on.

Have you a problem with black people and gay people?

The reason I ask is I have never seen black or gay adults running around screaming while other people were trying to eat?

How Soon Is Now · 22-01-2013 09:33PM

While i agree with the original theme of this thread and the idea i think some just love to bash people with kids.

Ill be the first to admit when im in a pub having few drinks or out having bit to eat i fecking hate seeing kids running around acting the bollox while there ma and da sit back like as if there in there own house couldnt give a ****e in other words.

BUT not every family raised there kids this way i wasnt allowed go on like that when was a kid neither where any my brothers and we were brought to pubs and places to eat without any hassle.

The same will happen when i have my own family i believe in kids been disciplined far as im concerned there aint enough of it now a days people from a young age do what the **** they like.

There are just more and more people out and about now though who look down on familys with kids and feel just because they made the choice not to have any everyone else should agree with this and cater to there beliefs.

Theres a time and place to have children around but theres also a time when u should just shut ****ing up and get on with your own life and let others get on with theres when they are clearly doing no harm to u.

Paranoid1 · 22-01-2013 09:36PM

Kids make noise and are disruptive, get over it, your enemy is nature and not nurture

oldyouth · 22-01-2013 09:48PM

This troll doesn't need to go to restaurants at all. We are all (over)feeding him in the comfort of his own home

Paranoid1 · 22-01-2013 09:55PM

I'm not trolling, I'm just saying that people never stop giving out

B0jangles · 22-01-2013 09:59PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

I'm never voting for the healy-rae's again.

Are you saying that you voted for them in the past?

:eek:

super_furry · 22-01-2013 10:01PM

Paranoid1 wrote: »

I'm not trolling, I'm just saying that people never stop giving out

Ah come on now, they do.

oldyouth · 22-01-2013 10:01PM

Paranoid1 wrote: »

I'm not trolling, I'm just saying that people never stop giving out

I know you are Paranoid, but not everybody is talking about you

RainyDay · 22-01-2013 10:47PM

super_furry wrote: »

Yeah well lets see the babies and kids organise themselves, they can have their Rosa Parks or Stonewall moment, form an advocacy group and effect real political change.

They don't need 'real political change'. The current political and legal position will do quite nicely. All they need do is lodge a complaint with the Equality Tribunal and they're quids in.

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/uploadedfiles/Press/DECS2003056.pdf

Ranicand wrote: »

Being black is a skin colour so the point is mute.

Anyway I am of a younger generation and I have no problem with people who are gay or black or disabled or whatever.

However there is nothing wrong with discrimination.
If I refuse to eat a rotten apple is that not discrimination?

I would be happy to have a black couple a gay couple around if like me they were just interested in having a peaceful meal.

Having ill behaved brats around me with selfish parents who do not care about anybody else I would not have.

An expensive dinner is kind of formal and it is right to expect a decent standard of behavior.
Kids running around is not on.

Have you a problem with black people and gay people?

The reason I ask is I have never seen black or gay adults running around screaming while other people were trying to eat?

It is discrimination when the ruling is based on the person's age, not their behaviour. A restaurant is quite entitled to require patrons to comply with certain standards of behaviour. If kids can meet the standard, they get served. If they don't, they get out.

Banning kids because they're kids is discrimination.

Paranoid1 wrote: »

Some Kids make noise and are disruptive, get over it, your enemy is nature and not nurture

FYP. Our little ones have eaten in Shanahans, in Rolys, in a posh place in Wexford (Forde?) and others.We don't eat in these places every week, but when there are important family events in these places, the kids are part of those events. They behave themselves. If there is a problem, we take them outside, so they don't inconvenience others.

Banning kids because they're kids is discrimination.

InTheTrees · 22-01-2013 11:06PM

This thread just keeps on giving...

:rolleyes:

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 12:27AM

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you saying that you voted for them in the past?

:eek:

They've done great things with the roads around Kilgarvan. but it's back to FF for me.

RainyDay wrote: »

They don't need 'real political change'. The current political and legal position will do quite nicely. All they need do is lodge a complaint with the Equality Tribunal and they're quids in.

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/uploadedfiles/Press/DECS2003056.pdf

It is discrimination when the ruling is based on the person's age, not their behaviour. A restaurant is quite entitled to require patrons to comply with certain standards of behaviour. If kids can meet the standard, they get served. If they don't, they get out.

Banning kids because they're kids is discrimination.

FYP. Our little ones have eaten in Shanahans, in Rolys, in a posh place in Wexford (Forde?) and others.We don't eat in these places every week, but when there are important family events in these places, the kids are part of those events. They behave themselves. If there is a problem, we take them outside, so they don't inconvenience others.

Banning kids because they're kids is discrimination.

+1

Interesting about the equality authority. Hopefully somebody will take them up on it.

What's interesting about children is people seem just so happy to discriminate against them. Didn't we recently have to have a referendum just to say that children have individual human rights themselves? And people say Ireland is child-friendly? Please.

B0jangles · 23-01-2013 12:42AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

They've done great things with the roads around Kilgarvan. but it's back to FF for me.

Ah now, you've just crossed the troll event horizon there.

Nicely done overall, "Iseult" showed a very delicate touch.

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 02:13AM

B0jangles wrote: »

Ah now, you've just crossed the troll event horizon there.

In truth I may have voted for Jackie once (to my eternal shame). And all joking aside in true parish pump fashion the road to Kilgarvan has improved massively.

They're a total embarrassment though.

Sir Gallagher · 23-01-2013 02:25AM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I once saw a white woman with a toddler that was adopted and was Chinese.

I wonder if it'd be considered racist if they banned that baby.

donalg1 wrote: »

How do you know the toddler was adopted?

Too late for a "Cream of Sum Yung Gai" joke?

Newaglish · 23-01-2013 02:26AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

In truth I may have voted for Jackie once (to my eternal shame). And all joking aside in true parish pump fashion the road to Kilgarvan has improved massively.

They're a total embarrassment though.

I think it's too late to backtrack on your trolling now, it has been becoming increasingly obvious anyway.

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 02:34AM

Newaglish wrote: »

I think it's too late to backtrack on your trolling now, it has been becoming increasingly obvious anyway.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm trolling. It's a bit of a lazy argument.

One other thing- I mentioned a while back about a silent majority. A bit tongue-in-cheek I'll admit. But since then the posts have been running pretty even in favour and against banning children, maybe a majority against banning. Suggests to me that there actually is a silent majority on this subject

BizzyC · 23-01-2013 09:11AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

It's totally different. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I've always been able to get a babysitter in the past.

But I've been at plenty of weddings where kids are supposedly "banned" and there are loads of them there. And do you know what- it had no effect whatsoever on the day, apart from pissing the brides off! Everyone else couldn't care less.

Same thing in a restaurant by the way. Apart from a few loud (and usually drunk) cranks nobody actually minds if there are kids there

Ah well, as long as it's only the bride who's pissed off at her own wedding.
If you're happy then that's all that matters...

LifesgoodwithLG · 23-01-2013 10:23AM

MrCreosote wrote: »

The only ignorant thing is banning a chunk of the population because of something they haven't even done yet

It's hardly bad manners to turn up to a wedding to which you were invited- your presence is desired at it after all. As far as I can see if some people are getting married and don't even have the decency to accommodate kids (stuff like entertainment at the church to keep them quiet and maybe an earlier eating time for them) they're not going to have many people there. So really you're doing them a big favour by turning up, kids in tow or not.

Maybe it'd be better to send a card instead of a present saying "Sorry we couldn't afford a present, because we had to spend the cash needlessly on a babysitter instead"?

That's off-topic anyway

I was erring on the side of caution but your above post belongs under the bridge with the other trolls, you turn up with an invited guest ( your child / children ) and than complain that the hosts did not provide entertainment in the church for someone they did invite and change the meal times to suit you. Cash needlessly on a babysitter eh. Rediculous :pac:

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 10:32AM

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

I was erring on the side of caution but your above post belongs under the bridge with the other trolls, you turn up with an invited guest ( your child / children ) and than complain that the hosts did not provide entertainment in the church for someone they did invite and change the meal times to suit you. Cash needlessly on a babysitter eh. Rediculous :pac:

Dude, read what I said- it's quoted in the post just above yours.

I made it pretty clear it was someone else at a wedding I was at.

Please stop misquoting me and misrepresenting me.

IM0 · 23-01-2013 10:44AM

its the customer who decides to use the business not the other way round. go somewhere that suits you and your needs.

Katgurl · 23-01-2013 11:09AM

Where is this utopia? I can't find name of restaurant.

Anyway, plenty of my friends have children. We eat out a lot. Before booking we always phone and check its ok to bring the kiddies. I don't see the problem with banning kids at lunchtime to attract a business crowd. Other restaurants will continue to welcome families to cash in on that market. How is it discrimination? The babies don't care. Most parents I know don't want to be an unconvience so they go places where children are welcomed.

As for the wedding conversations, are you kidding me? Who the hell brings extra uninvited guests to a wedding? They'd be f**ked out the door on sight if it was my wedding.

L.Jenkins · 23-01-2013 11:11AM

I don't support a ban on Children from every premises, but being able to take my fiancee to one restaurant with children would be nice.

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 11:20AM

Katgurl wrote: »

How is it discrimination? The babies don't care.

It's discrimination because a group are being banned purely based on something they might do, rather than something they have done.

And even if the babies don't care, the parent do. And they're banned too.

Restaurant bans children...

Comments