Restaurant bans children...

LifesgoodwithLG · 23-01-2013 11:24AM

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

I would like to think that you would raise your children with more manners than to lie to their hosts, very very poor form. Not everyone's happy, the host is not happy and the chances are your children are also not happy to be in an adult environment but you are the only one that matters right. Maybe you are so vocal about this restaurants policy as your friends have stopped inviting you around because of the above behaviour ?

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

MrCreosote wrote: »

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.

Why would I bother misquoting you when you do such a good job on your own, Please reread your above posts , they come across as very selfish and self centred. Ah so someone else was giving out about rocking up to a wedding with an invited mini guest, complaining that the wedding party would bring forward the time of the dinner and than have the audacity not to have entertainment during the ceremony for uninvited guests.

Mad there Ted :eek: ps I am not a child hater in fact I love and enjoy their company, I believe that raising a child is one of the hardest and probably the most rewarding job / duty in the world but don't forget that parents too enjoy Child free moments.

L.Jenkins · 23-01-2013 11:28AM

In one way, the parents would be affected because they must find a minder for the child. In another sense, it would bring some possible peace and quite to a premises. As I said, I don't support such a ban, but I can see some benefit of it.

23-01-2013 11:45AM

Itzy wrote: »

In one way, the parents would be affected because they must find a minder for the child.

They don't as they could just find another restaurant. It's important to remember that supporting a restaurant's right to refuse customers with children doesn't mean that all or even most restaurants would start refusing children. I would imagine that the places that would want to impose such a restriction probably weren't a suitable place to bring a child anyway (as in they were probably always adult oriented). If parents were so insistent on going to one particular restaurant, which was never child friendly in the first place, to the point that the feel they 'must' find a minder in order to facilitate going to that particular restaurant, then they must prefer the feel of an adult-focused restaurant and therefore were probably craving an adult focused environment anyway, so maybe it's good that those people can find an excuse to splash out on a minder and then they'll get a proper grown-up evening.

Katgurl · 23-01-2013 01:20PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

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.

No the parents can go. Without their kiddies.

old hippy · 23-01-2013 02:13PM

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

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

Only if one is the sort who finds makey uppy foreign names amusing, I suppose.

old hippy · 23-01-2013 02:17PM

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

It is entirely different.

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 07:08PM

true-or-false wrote: »

It's important to remember that supporting a restaurant's right to refuse customers with children doesn't mean that all or even most restaurants would start refusing children.

It doesn't mean that it necessarily would happen, but it means that it could. One restaurant doing it could start a snowball effect, and before you know it all that's left is McDonald's. It should be legislated for to prevent this actually.

Leave it up to restaurants to remove people AFTER they've become disruptive, not before.

starlings · 23-01-2013 08:14PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

It doesn't mean that it necessarily would happen, but it means that it could. One restaurant doing it could start a snowball effect, and before you know it all that's left is McDonald's. It should be legislated for to prevent this actually.

Leave it up to restaurants to remove people AFTER they've become disruptive, not before.

If such a snowball effect were to occur, which I doubt, it wouldn't be long before some enterprising restauranteurs targetted the parents & children market, with smaller portions, play area, colouring books etc.

I would rather see a child-friendly/childfree sign on the door and in advertising than see people embarrassed after bringing children in, or worse, being embarrassed by being asked to leave after causing disruption.

If you go to a restaurant in a visitor attraction or recreation facility, you expect to see and hear children. If you go for fine dining, or for a lunch on the clock, you shouldn't have to put up with noise and delays which are often caused by children.

Feathers · 23-01-2013 08:31PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

It doesn't mean that it necessarily would happen, but it means that it could. One restaurant doing it could start a snowball effect, and before you know it all that's left is McDonald's. It should be legislated for to prevent this actually.

Leave it up to restaurants to remove people AFTER they've become disruptive, not before.

Maybe not even McDonald's!

Do you think management's right to refuse admission should be revoked completely?

super_furry · 23-01-2013 08:32PM

I can't bring my dog to a restaurant because of what it might or might not do. Is that discrimination too?

Saab Ed · 23-01-2013 08:32PM

While we're talking about bans in restaurants for children, here's some other viable opportunities to get those pesky little feckers outta the way ......

Peak hour trains:

You're still knackered first thing in the morning on that commute to work. Kids are loud and offensive plus they destroy your snooze. No place for kids here.

Busy foot paths:

Like in fairness, theres nothing worse than kids meandering all over the path when you're in a hurry. No respect. Adult only paths are clearly the way forward (excuse the pun) here .

Newsagents in the evening:

All you want is your paper and a box of fags. You've even got the right amount of money in your hand ready to go. The audacity of kids taking an age to pick between a kit kat and a moro. It's got to be dealt with. You don't have to put up with such delays. Ban them outright I say.

Laugh if you will but there's no difference what so ever between these examples and the restaurant ban idea.

Anybody feeling stupid now after thinking about this !

starlings · 23-01-2013 08:41PM

Saab Ed wrote: »

While we're talking about bans in restaurants for children, here's some other viable opportunities to get those pesky little feckers outta the way ......

Peak hour trains:

You're still knackered first thing in the morning on that commute to work. Kids are loud and offensive plus they destroy your snooze. No place for kids here.

Busy foot paths:

Like in fairness, theres nothing worse than kids meandering all over the path when you're in a hurry. No respect. Adult only paths are clearly the way forward (excuse the pun) here .

Newsagents in the evening:

All you want is your paper and a box of fags. You've even got the right amount of money in your hand ready to go. The audacity of kids taking an age to pick between a kit kat and a moro. It's got to be dealt with. You don't have to put up with such delays. Ban them outright I say.

Laugh if you will but there's no difference what so ever between these examples and the restaurant ban idea.

Anybody feeling stupid now after thinking about this !

Your examples are all public and transitory. A restaurant is not entirely public, as the management have the right to refuse admission, and the public who are admitted expect to stay and enjoy themselves for at least 30 minutes at lunch, more in the evenings. As managements differ in admission policies - and the case that started this thread is a rare one - there is clearly a dining option for everyone.

(The shop falls under the semi-public category, but customers don't expect to spend so much time there.)

twinQuins · 23-01-2013 08:45PM

Saab Ed wrote: »

[...] Peak hour trains:

[...]Busy foot paths: [...]

Both are public services so... you know, your argument sort of falls flat on its face there.

Newsagents in the evening: [...]

Laugh if you will but there's no difference what so ever between these examples and the restaurant ban idea.

Anybody feeling stupid now after thinking about this !

Nope. There's no reasonable expectation of kids not being in a newsagent; there is in an upscale restaurant, however.

oldyouth · 23-01-2013 08:56PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

Leave it up to restaurants to remove people AFTER they've become disruptive, not before.

Look, it's your predecessors with their disruptive children who have done this to you, it's not the restaurant's fault. Have a go at the parents who didn't give a fig what their rugrats did in public for making the restaurant take this course of action.

The restaurant doesn't know YOU or YOUR kids but it has experienced what seemingly good families have done on their premises and has made a commercial decision to refuse kids. I'm trying not to be too personal about this but if your kids were to constantly demonstrate the same degree of righteous entitlement as their father, then perhaps they are not suited to the convivial atmosphere that a nice restaurant aspires to

It is obvious that you want to keep this thread going until you get the 1,000th post, but you will never change the fact that the restaurant business, like any other can "reserve the right to refuse admission".

Jaden · 23-01-2013 09:28PM

Let's be honest, it's a great idea. Two whole hours of no kids in sight? Heaven. I'm going there for lunch tomorrow, simply because I know there won't be kids/babies wrecking the place.

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 09:46PM

oldyouth wrote: »

but you will never change the fact that the restaurant business, like any other can "reserve the right to refuse admission".

They can, but that right is not absolute. You have to base refusal on particular grounds- like someone being already drunk. You can't just refuse say an entire ethnic group just because you don't like them.

There's a balance that has to be struck between the right of a business to make their own decisions, and the right of a segment of the population not to be discriminated against.

Ihatecuddles-old · 23-01-2013 09:53PM

I bring my almost 3 year old to restaurants, believe it or not he's very well behaved. Doesn't raise his voice or complain to get out of his seat. If he ever did, which he never has, I'd leave.

I've had people come over after plane journeys and in restaurants and ask what my secret is! I don't know, he's an angel at home too

That said, I'd hate for anyone to see me walk into a restaurant and for them to leave because they thought their dinner would be disrupted.
I'd consider not bringing him, but that would mean I don't go, and he loves dining out and eating different food to what we'd normally have, so its a treat for him too.

Fair enough if they want to ban kids, plenty of other places. I just hope it doesn't catch on.

Electric Sheep · 23-01-2013 09:58PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

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.

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.

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

http://digitaljournal.com/article/321067
http://www.kgw.com/news/Out-of-control-child-gets-family-removed-from-plane-in-Portland-144545095.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1772347/posts

It happens quite a lot.

oldyouth · 23-01-2013 10:05PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

They can, but that right is not absolute. You have to base refusal on particular grounds- like someone being already drunk. You can't just refuse say an entire ethnic group just because you don't like them.

There's a balance that has to be struck between the right of a business to make their own decisions, and the right of a segment of the population not to be discriminated against.

You can (in practice) refuse who you like without giving reason. If you think different, why don't you take a case against this particular restaurant as the self appointed representative of the silent majority. When you win your case, you are likely to get costs awarded in your favour, so it won't cost you a thing and you will be striking a blow for oppressed children throughout Ireland

emuhead · 23-01-2013 10:09PM

BizzyC wrote: »

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...

+1

MrCreosote · 23-01-2013 10:16PM

oldyouth wrote: »

You can (in practice) refuse who you like without giving reason. If you think different, why don't you take a case against this particular restaurant as the self appointed representative of the silent majority.

My job description as representative of the silent majority only extends to ranting on boards.ie I'm afraid.

I agree that's what can happen in practice, but this restaurant hasn't done that- they've said children and accompanying parents are banned. All of them. Banned.

oldyouth · 23-01-2013 10:30PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

My job description as representative of the silent majority only extends to ranting on boards.ie I'm afraid.

I agree that's what can happen in practice, but this restaurant hasn't done that- they've said children and accompanying parents are banned. All of them. Banned.

Yep, that's what happened.

And do you know what else happens, Day follows night. Accept it, get over it, or change it

I'm done here Mr Troll ( I mean Creosote)

Tombo2001 · 23-01-2013 10:35PM

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.

Nobody is comparing disabled people to children.......

They are comparing discrimination against people with disabilities with discrimination against children, and it is a perfectly valid point to make.

I'd be interested to know what makes you the spokesperson for disabled people, so that you can be the arbiter of whats insulting to them and whats not.

end of the road · 23-01-2013 10:59PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

this restaurant hasn't done that- they've said children and accompanying parents are banned. All of them. Banned.

yeah, for their busiest 2 hours of the day as it gets so busy and the restaurant is so small that they can't cope and cater for kids during those 2 hours.

Grayson · 23-01-2013 11:13PM

MrCreosote wrote: »

They can, but that right is not absolute. You have to base refusal on particular grounds- like someone being already drunk. You can't just refuse say an entire ethnic group just because you don't like them.

Why refuse drunk people? I'm drunk right now and I demand a nice nosh up.

Grayson · 23-01-2013 11:15PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what makes you the spokesperson for disabled people, so that you can be the arbiter of whats insulting to them and whats not.

The same thing that made you the poster boy for indignation. And me the banner man for sarcasm.

Feathers · 23-01-2013 11:28PM

Saab Ed wrote: »

Newsagents in the evening:

All you want is your paper and a box of fags. You've even got the right amount of money in your hand ready to go. The audacity of kids taking an age to pick between a kit kat and a moro. It's got to be dealt with. You don't have to put up with such delays. Ban them outright I say.

If you'd the density of newsagents around my area as a kid as Ballsbridge has restaurants, & you told me that some were child-friendly newsagents where I wouldn't get skipped in the queue by adults who came in after me for their paper, I'd have had no problem if you said others were adult only newsagents that I couldn't buy my sweets in.

Laugh if you will, but it was your metaphor.

MrCreosote wrote: »

There's a balance that has to be struck between the right of a business to make their own decisions, and the right of a segment of the population not to be discriminated against.

You've no right not to be discriminated against, accept under the 9 grounds as laid down by the equality act (which in the case of ageism, is only applicable to adults, and even then restricted in some cases.)

dub_skav · 24-01-2013 03:19AM

starlings wrote: »

If such a snowball effect were to occur, which I doubt, it wouldn't be long before some enterprising restauranteurs targetted the parents & children market, with smaller portions, play area, colouring books etc.

I would rather see a child-friendly/childfree sign on the door and in advertising than see people embarrassed after bringing children in, or worse, being embarrassed by being asked to leave after causing disruption.

If you go to a restaurant in a visitor attraction or recreation facility, you expect to see and hear children. If you go for fine dining, or for a lunch on the clock, you shouldn't have to put up with noise and delays which are often caused by children.

For a lunch on the clock could people not go to McDonalds or TGI Fridays? They cater to those in a rush.

I don't like the idea of behaviour being judged in advance and banning a group of people based on the actions of others is definitely discrimination. Unfortunately, this thread has descended very far with people on both sides taking stupid pot shots and using more an more outlandish statements

davyjose · 24-01-2013 03:41AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Food is expensive enough in these places, I'd at least like to enjoy it in the company of adults and not little urchins on the brink of having a tantrum.

What the fcuk are you talking about? If youre food is so expensive that you cant enjoy it around regular families, then maybe you should save your money for something else. Most kids are well able to behave themselves.
It's a fcuking horrible feeling taking my three year old to lunch in Ireland. Made feel like we're fcuking lepers. Over here kids are more than welcome (all restaurants have kids menus, crayons etc.), and my son has ruined all of... Zero people's meals.
It's a joke that people feel that a meal is such a sanctimonious event, the mere prospect of sharing a rooom with a child while eating is abhorrent. It's one of the grotesque parts of Ireland that the death of the Celtic tiger still hasn't washed away. "I'm too important to share my dining experience in the vicinity of your grimy little sh!t."

Pathetic!

Millicent · 24-01-2013 07:11PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Nobody is comparing disabled people to children.......

They are comparing discrimination against people with disabilities with discrimination against children, and it is a perfectly valid point to make.

I'd be interested to know what makes you the spokesperson for disabled people, so that you can be the arbiter of whats insulting to them and whats not.

No, no, it's not. It's completely fucking insulting to the struggles people with disabilities are forced to go through in this country.

I am not the spokesperson for all disabled people. However, I have been out on many occasions with my friend who is a wheelchair user, and seen how often we cannot enter a premises because it's not accessible, or heard her ring ahead to see if she can be accommodated. None of this is illegal, btw, in case you care.

She has no choice not to use that chair. She requires it for mobility. Parents have a choice to take their child out of a buggy or fold it up. They can choose to eat in one of the hundreds of other restaurants that cater for children. Children are not discriminated against in the way that people with disabilities are.

Comparing one restaurant not allowing children in for 10-14 hours a week with what she has to put up with everyday from asshole businesses is disgraceful and anyone who is making that comparison should be ashamed of themselves.

Restaurant bans children...

Comments