Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just as an FYI The Cherry Tree is no longer a child friendly pub. My sleeping baby was recently kicked out of the restaurant. I understand not wanting toddlers running around the bar, but if the restaurant is to survive, especially in this area, I think well behaved children should be allowed in the restaurant if parents are having a meal and they aren?t disturbing other guests. As a side, the food isn?t good enough to get a babysitter for, so we probably will never return. Good luck!
We were there on 3 January, three large parties with young kids, all having a great time. I am one of the naysayers about having kids in pubs but everyone seemed happy - so did you just have bad day eliz01? Struggling to recognise the picture you have painted.

Sleeping babies tend to wake up .. and when they do they tend to let it be known that they too are hungry

or need changing..

People who may not get the chance to get out much and may of paid a baby sitter to have a rare night off, away from kids need some reassurance that they can enjoy a nice meal and a drink in peaceful surroundings..


I think it I reasonable that 19.00 is the cut off for kids in bars. These days parents have all day/afternoon

to have a family meal together. Like a 7 hour time slot..


DulwichFox

So the Headline is actually. The Cherry Tree Pub is adults only at night but welcomes families during the daytime.


I am upset because I should be an exception to this stated, and common practice, rule. My solution is to try and hurt this new local business with a misleading headline on a local forum.

the Cherry Tree is indeed child friendly. However, post 19.00 children and babies should by rights be abed. This is the time when grown ups want to come out to play.

As DF so correctly opined, sleeping babies awake and demand, usually vocally.

You are out gunned I am afraid, and identified yourself as unreasonable, entitled, selfish. There is an etiquette to life in ED which you would do well to

consider, abide by and adhere to. And not attempt to ruin the still building reputation of a local establishment happy to welcome well behaved little ones for lunch.

Eliz01 are you saying that you were in the middle of dinner, having arrived earlier than 7pm then as you are, you were told the baby wasn't supposed to be there post 7pm? I can understand how that would be really annoying for you, but surely they didn't quite 'kick you out'?

I have been to the Cherry tree 3 times now with my kids and they are perfectly accepting of children. We even did sit in the bar area on New Years Day with friends and there was no problem.

I think all pubs around here, despite serving food, don't allow kids after 7pm

And I agree that is pretty reasonable. Sometimes when you have a young baby it will of course sleep in the buggy and you could feasibly sit and enjoy a meal but a rule is a rule and I think it's fair enough for it to be there.

This all comes down to how you were told about the 7pm rule really, but if it was a polite reminder it is just them doing their job.

We love kids at the cherry tree and always make a fuss. They're part of us aren't they?


We have a 'no children' after 7.30pm policy.



Has anyone been before 7.30pm when children are permitted and can say The Cherry Tree isn't child friendly?




What do you all think about children in pubs at night? A pub is a pub....

I was in the cherry tree on Sunday 3rd and saw an appalling family sitting at a table by the bar area. their children certainly weren't asleep. they were running riot. one of the adults actually took a picture of said kids clambering over the bar stools oblivious to the fact this was seriously pissing everyone else off.

Sorry to hear of your experience eliz01, I think would have let a sleeping baby stay but do generally agree with the no kids after 7 rule.

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

    • Mad that on a thread about the telegraph (and are we saying they  are a paragon of reporting? Are we?) it just happens to be the bbc and only the bbc copping the flak headnun - I’m not sure your point about despicable people “hanging themselves” holds up in a world where despicable people appear to be taking over in so many places  for too long, these people have been given equal airtime to normal people, creating a false equivalence - the result being a lot of people seem to think “well if one person thinks smoking is bad for you and one person thinks it’s good for you, who am I to say who is right and wrong”      
    • you're witnessing "Natural Selection" the core mechanism behind the theory of evolution which determines if organisms will survive long enough to produce offspring
    • Maybe Angelina did see them, however how many people and drivers didn't?  Just takes one to cause life changing for both.  Wouldn't it be more sensible if cyclists realised lights and reflective gear is not just to help them see but to potentially save their lives by making them visible to all. 
    • I agree with this, I'm afraid.  I see it every day within the industry - a lot of it is to do with the fact that the people working in it are younger now and don't realise how much they're being subconsciously indoctrinated by certain forces (social media and group-think), so they're now pathologically incapable of objectivity. Also, they don't read books, pick up the phone to experts, or generally know how to research properly.  On a lot of documentaries I've worked on, I've been leant on hard to peddle narratives that are not only heavily biased, but often outright inaccurate, and I've fought back where I can. It's really depressing,  I'd like to think that, at the BBC, I'd be immune from these influences, and allowed to project a 360 view, but it's sadly  not the case. You'd also be surprised at how toothless the BBC can be when presented with something that's irrefutable but could, say, upset Murdoch or the DM...  Hands up, I'm guilty of platforming extreme right-wingers, misogynists, anti-abortionists, racists, anarchists, pro gun lobbyists, rape-apologists... you name it, I'm all for putting them in a programme. Even though I deplore what they stand for, it's important to me to have a counter-view, and they almost always hang themselves.  (Job done.)  It's funny that certain people are up in arms about Rockets posting 'misinformation' in the Traffic threads, but  seem OK with it in broadcast, as long as it aligns with their views. You have to ask yourselves, what is it that you really want? If it's an echo chamber then just watch Fox News or CNN, however you lean. But then what's the point of it all? I fear the ship's sailed, so I don't know why I bother. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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