Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not trying to be negative, I just don't like the idea of dumping my kid somewhere whilst I have dinner. That said, I admit we are very lucky having all the grandparents very close, so kids can be dumped with them instead.


If kids came to the pub with me, I'd expect to be watching them / with them at all times.


Just for clarity, I'm talking about toddler. Would be different if they were a bit older.

It's not really about dumping a kid tho' - mine is a toddler and she doesn't get dumped in there


More likely we all sit around for some grub or a catch up, toddler included - but instead of after an hour of sitting in a high chair followed by scratchiness, one of the group can take her in to the playroom where she gets to run around, dress up in fancy costume and generally have a ball. Having the Tv means everyone else can see what's going on and join in or swap as needed


And yeah not having family living nearby probaly does play a part


But I do recommend having a look at the reality and seeing how much fun both toddler and parents get out of it compared to a normal couple of hours at home or cafe or whatever

We do the same as StraferJack at The Victoria.


We generally try to get there an hour or so before we all want to eat and let Baby Knomester have a good run around in the playroom (taking it in turns to stay in there with him) then he's usually more than happy to sit in his highchair for a good hour or so whilst we all eat together.


I'd never leave him in the playroom - I don't think that's what it's designed for is it? The one at The Florence is probably a bit different because you can see everything going on in there if you're sat outside so you could maybe leave older children to play and watch them from outside.

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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