Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Little bit shocked, today I went with a couple of friends and our 3 babies to a cafe in Forest Hill. We ordered cake, coffee etc and I proceeded to feed my 11 month old some raisins I had bought with me (mainly to keep her occupied) my friend's son was eating a rice cake. The waitress came over and very politely said that in the future would we only feed our children food bought on the premises and showed us some shelves full of Ella's kitchen baby foods. I pointed out that my daughter doesn't eat purees and the waitress said any suggestions for baby suitable foods they could stock would be welcome.


I think this is outrageous and I will not be going there again (which is a shame because it is a lovely place with lots of room). Has anyone else encountered this rule anywhere else?! Am I over-reacting?!

I think you're not overreacting. I'd be really irritated, toddlers have to eat lots of snacks every day to maintain energy levels and unless the restaurant was specifically selling healthy individual snacks at a reasonable price (e.g cut up bits of cucumber, individual packet of raisins, single rice cake etc) I don't see how they'd be within their rights (certainly don't count pur?ed shop bought meals as equivalent). Even if they did I feel that they should be longsighted enough to realise a happy munching toddler is much more preferable to a grumpy one and will probably be accompanied by a mum who buys more cake and coffee!!

They should really take a food order for the baby at the same time as for the mum/carer to make it clear.

Having a ramp out the front makes it seem baby and pram friendly but do they have formula on offer?


They don't have fruit, or individual bags of raisins etc on offer, just one brand of baby food. It was quite a shock to hear a couple of rice cakes wasn't allowed.


I was quite stunned when this happened. And yes, I was with pincushionqueen at the cafe in question.

Name and Shame!

Where was it?

More fool them, I'm guessing you won't be going back there!


I haven't been to Green and Blue since a waitress there rolled her eyes and said "for fuck's sake" when she saw the mess my daughter and another baby made with their snacks. (She didn't realise I was there, I was behind my buggy putting something in the underneath!) We used to go every week as well.


Someone at Le Chandelier once sent a friend of mine to the loo to breastfeed. I've never been there since either.

i find that unbelievable, I always bring my daughter her own lunch as she can;t eat much in cafes due to an allergy and also it's very rare that what is on offer is that healthy.


i def think you should name and shame - the beauty of this forum is so that you can do just that!


susypx

Yes please PM the name if you don't want to do it publicly ;)


I think it's extra outrageous if not even fruit was on offer! I find that if I am in a coffee shop (fairly rare with my toddler now as he's so active), I am always up for buying him something if there is something a) healthy and b) well priced, but I would have no qualms about feeding him something I brought with me; funnily enough I don't think he'd understand if I explained the finer points as outlined by the waitress.


RE: The Chandelier - they are so anti-parents/kids in there, awful, I haven't been back since they told me that they had too many prams (I was entering with a 4mo in a sling!) already....


I wish we were more Continental in our approach to dining with kids, although having said that I went to the relaunch of the Rye last night (really fab inside and out btw) and they were wonderful with our 22mo. We ordered him a small side and gave him some healthy bits off our plate but didn't bat an eyelid while he munched on oranges and strawberries before the food turned up - presumably because they had some experience/knowledge of under-3s and their patience thresholds?!

nikki73 - not sure actually, good point. We were there at 5pm and left by 6pm but that was our choice! No mention was made of a latest time for little ones and there were quite a few kids there when we left (the outside space and table tennis table makes it have a real family vibe).

Canvas and Cream. Named and shamed.


Thanks for your responses, I would like to add that the other cafes in Forest Hill have all been very accommodating with my daughter-The Teapot, St Davids and From the Forest are all favourite haunts of mine (though usually with pincushionprincess in a carrier as they are all very small).

out of curiosity just went onto the cafe's website. there seems to be a health and safety argument behind their policy. Wonder what it is:

http://www.canvasandcream.com/events/tuesday-treats-for-toddlers-from-tues-12-june/

I went there a couple of months ago so I don't know if things have changed since but they offered no baby changing facilities. They had a huge downstairs with unisex open plan toilets and seemingly ample space to fit a changing table but nothing. I ended up changing the poor mite balanced between the two sinks. For me that was a clear indication that this was a place not really catering for families. Perhaps that has now changed if they are offering storytelling for children.

I am glad you named the cafe as I do know it and had been tempted to go but I have an issue with this. If you and your 3 friends were having coffee and cake you must have spent close on ?15, the fact that they are willing to lose this money for the sake of a rice cake seems short sighted in the extreme. To me this would mean they really don't want mothers with kids in tow.

Put me in mind of this story from a few years back,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-13411614

There were no baby changing facilities yesterday when this happened. I had to change boy on a big chair downstairs, despite a huge area to easily put changing facilities in.


Sometimes I think cafes etc forget that it's 'coffee mums' that keep them ticking over.

It was also quite empty when we were there so you'd think they'd be trying to NOT put parents off with this food rule.

bizarre. I have taken my own food for my baby into John Lewis / Peter Jones cafe without ever being told I had to buy food there (good thing too as in those days there would be nothing that she would eat) - given that the baby's carers (parents / grandparents / random chum) are spending a decent amount of money it seems spectacularly shortsighted. I think it would be actually quite unfair for parents to assume cafes would provide baby-suitable food, on top of childrens' and adults' meals, much better for parents to provide their own. If you like the place you'll keep going and as your child gets older they'll be eating off the menu. Not rocket science!

Okay, I have mixed feelings about this post. I also go to this cafe quite a bit as I live in Forest Hill. Sometimes on my own and sometimes with my very little one, who is breast fed and sometimes with my 2 1/2 year old. It is really lovely addition to the High Street and I think that it would be a shame if people did not try it due to this post. When we have gone with our big girl we did buy her an item from the menu which is what I expect to do with a child of her age.


It is a fairly new place and I think that they are probably still finding their feet / trying out things. I have also noticed that they don't have changing facilities but there is a really large area downstairs and I just used my mat on the floor when I was there. They also have a notice on the menu that they don't want more than 3 pushchairs at a time in the cafe despite having lots of room. However, I was in there recently with my baby and there were at least 6 Mums and babies with buggies and they were not complaining.


It does seem an odd rule not to allow babies to eat food from home but at the same time it is their choice to make these rules and they are not a publically funded creche / park cafe / leisure centre. It is a really lovely cafe that they have put a lot of time and work into creating and not sure naming and shaming in this way is that helpful. Aside from all of this, not everywhere has to cater for Mums / babies (and I am saying this as a Mum who likes a coffee / cake).


Maybe worth emailing though to explain your point and offer some suggestions for healthy snacks.

I think if they're going to exclude people from feeding their own babyfood from home, then they really do need to provide better changing facilities than on the floor! Yes, someone please email them and get back to the EDF with your news. I haven't been to this cafe yet, otherwise I'd email them myself. xx
I have to agree with canadianlisa, not ALL cafes need to be child-friendly and I totally understand places like Le Chandelier and this cafe in Forest Hill for maybe not wanting it to be a child-friendly place, despite being in the middle of nappy valley. I sometimes go to Le Chandelier because it is the only place in ED where I know I will be able to drink my tea and eat my cake without the feeling of being in a creche.
Some people here may even appreciate a cafe that isn't baby friendly in a couple of years when you have a morning all to yourself. I would love to be able to sit in a quiet cafe with newspaper, but I know I won't be able to for a couple of years yet :)

mrsS Wrote:

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

> I have to agree with canadianlisa, not ALL cafes

> need to be child-friendly and I totally understand

> places like Le Chandelier and this cafe in Forest

> Hill for maybe not wanting it to be a

> child-friendly place, despite being in the middle

> of nappy valley.


Erm, but their website says they have baby/toddler activities at the cafe... hence my point about providing baby/toddler changing facilities, which goes for any eatery doing the same!


> I sometimes go to Le Chandelier

> because it is the only place in ED where I know I

> will be able to drink my tea and eat my cake

> without the feeling of being in a creche.


I haven't been there recently, but the cafe at the community centre in Telegraph Hill used to do a "quiet Friday". Quiet older children or babes in arms were fine, but patrons were respectfully asked not to bring loud and boisterous youngsters on Fridays. If you're on the Nunhead side of ED, might be worth a look. xx

Hi,

Personally i would be reluctant to go back if i had been told this. I was there with baby ivydale earlier in the week and staff was lovely. I had a lovely falafel and the lady that served was v baby friendly. Hopefully they will respond positively to any feedback and change their ways.


Re le chandelier i am in two minds. I have been greeted v rudely when entering with push chair actually i was told to leave. I understand but come on, there is no reason to be rude. Be polite about it. However, i do like the fact that there is an establishment here in nappy land that caters for the not with child market. I think it goes someway to create a teeny tiny bit of diversity in nappy land. And i love the fact that when i have the rare mornng off i dont have to spend it listening to other peoples screaming babies :).

If only they were not so damn rude!

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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