Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Took my two children, My daughter aged 5 and my son aged 6 out for Valentines dinner today at fox on the hill only to find out that they had removed the children?s play area which was the main reason why we come here.

Absolutely devastated.. I used to come to Fox on the hill and play in the children?s play area when I was a little girl with my brother and my children have been since they were babies and they?ve removed the main thing which attracted most people.

You could sit and eat your dinner outside while the children played safely in the children?s play area. Now there is absolutely nowhere for children to run around.


Would have highly recommended this place for parents with children who have Autism or ADHD as they could literally run around as they pleased without people staring..But now I wouldn?t bother.


Now it?s just like any other Wetherspoons


Fox on the hill certainly won?t be my first choice anymore

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hoooooray!!!!

>

> "You could sit and eat your dinner outside while

> the children played safely in the children?s play

> area. Now there is absolutely nowhere for children

> to run around. "

> How about the park... just across the road!



Why would you send your children to play out of sight in a park across a main road while you were eating?

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn?t have thought Wetherspoons would be

> anyone?s first choice anyway?



Because they had a children's play area?


Because they have a good range of well kept and well priced drinks?


Because they have reasonably priced food which may not be the East Dulwich gourmet's food of choice but is child friendly and filling?

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KalamityKel Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Hoooooray!!!!

> >

> > "You could sit and eat your dinner outside

> while

> > the children played safely in the children?s

> play

> > area. Now there is absolutely nowhere for

> children

> > to run around. "

> > How about the park... just across the road!

>

>

> Why would you send your children to play out of

> sight in a park across a main road while you were

> eating?


I think you missed the point Sue. Where did I suggest sending children to play unattended in another part of the world whilst parents/those responsible for children enjoyed their time in a pub? I didn't.

My point was that if the OP was concerned there was no where to take the children in the area then they have missed the opportunity which is opposite the site in question.

I don't agree with children in pubs - my own opinion, to which I'm entitled to and many would also agree.

There are other places to go with children to dine whether it's with an outside space to let children run riot or not. Simple.

Have you spoken to the FotH management to see if this is permanent ? seems a shame if so.


I can understand if looking after kids with S/needs, a meal in a decent shared space would be a treat for everyone involved and give both kids and adults some down time.

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > KalamityKel Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Hoooooray!!!!

> > >

> > > "You could sit and eat your dinner outside

> > while

> > > the children played safely in the children?s

> > play

> > > area. Now there is absolutely nowhere for

> > children

> > > to run around. "

> > > How about the park... just across the road!

> >

> >

> > Why would you send your children to play out of

> > sight in a park across a main road while you

> were

> > eating?

>

> I think you missed the point Sue. Where did I

> suggest sending children to play unattended in

> another part of the world whilst parents/those

> responsible for children enjoyed their time in a

> pub? I didn't.

> My point was that if the OP was concerned there

> was no where to take the children in the area then

> they have missed the opportunity which is opposite

> the site in question.

> I don't agree with children in pubs - my own

> opinion, to which I'm entitled to and many would

> also agree.

> There are other places to go with children to dine

> whether it's with an outside space to let children

> run riot or not. Simple.




No, I think you missed the OP's point :))


She was talking about somewhere for her kids to play whilst the adults had a Valentine's dinner.


She wasn't talking about somewhere for her kids to play in general.


And if pubs didn't allow children, there would be even more pubs closing down than there are now. With the availability of cheap drink in supermarkets etc (at least cheap compared to pub prices) many people now drink at home.


Obviously if you aren't keen on children in pubs, go to a pub which doesn't have them, while you still can....

Fox and the Hill has been amazing for years. I used to take my children over 20 years ago and later my Grandchildren! sorry to hear the play area is gone. When on a limited budget and looking for a family accessible place for a meal, it was perfect! Others without children could choose to sit in a different part. Obviously we all know we can use parks and have picnics. Having somewhere with a good outside space for families with food is rare!!!

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are other places to go with children to dine

> whether it's with an outside space to let children

> run riot or not. Simple.


Not really. I can't think of any other places to eat or drink nearby with an outdoor play area. It seems very mean spirited to essentially say "good riddance" to the only one.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn?t have thought Wetherspoons would be

> anyone?s first choice anyway?

>

> Louisa.


Used to be mine when I lived opposite, really good beer, reasonable if hardly earth-shattering food and cheap. It's a shame the small play area has been removed, it was nice for visiting friends with small children, and if one wanted to avoid children there are child-free areas inside the pub, the front terrace and the huge lawned area (which in my opinion is much nicer to sit in than the rear garden anyway). Seems a shame - wonder if there were H&S concerns? I could imagine corporates getting nervous about the prospect of being sued if a child was injured playing there unsupervised (and no I don't think that's right but it's a fact of life these days!).

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Write to Tim Martin, he seems like a nice chap.

> He has a really sensible stance on Brexit and I am

> sure would happily intervene.


Loads of Pro-Brexit beer mats in WS these days.


Maybe the removal is temporary ?

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> malumbu Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > Loads of Pro-Brexit beer mats in WS these days.

>

>

> Is that true? Wow.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/jd-wetherspoon-pro-brexit-beer-mats-2017-12


They're actually campaigning for a "no deal" brexit - doesn't stop me drinking there of course.

  • 11 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...