Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The rules are often less to do with the pub and more to do with restrictions placed on them by the local licensing authority. If I recall most pubs locally licensed by Southwark have restrictions around children being on the premises in the evening. Pubs really can't make exceptions for sleeping children or distinguish between babes in arms and toddlers otherwise things become very complicated.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> "What do you all think about children in pubs at

> night?"

>

> children in pubs at night is stoopid, they should

> be tucked, drinking cocoa, having stories read to

> them.

> obvs.


When I was young children were tolerated on special occasions.


I remember going in on carnival day and thinking what are all these men doing :)

I completely agree with a no kids after a certain time when it comes to young children, they should be in bed. I wonder though what the policy is for eating in a pub with a teenager? Obviously, at 15/16 yrs they do not go to bed at 8.00...

OP seems to have an agenda. The title of this thread should be changed to "FYI No kids in Cherry Tree after 7pm".


The line "As a side, the food isn?t good enough to get a babysitter for" just makes it sound like you want to put the boot in to this businness, I wonder why you went there in the first place.


And the bar and restaurant are not toally seperate, it's one big space with some dividers. You could be eating in the restaurant and be sitting 3ft away from someone drinking in the bar.


So simple really, either pay for a babysitter and go out, or stay in in the evenings. That's what being a parent is.

'bout now Wrote:

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

> > There is an etiquette to life in ED which you

> > would do well to

> > consider, abide by and adhere to.

>

>

> Just highlighted to give some air to this most

> entitled of sentences.


Is it possible to get hold of a copy of 'Etiquette to life in ED' anywhere? I'd hate to think I was doing the wrong thing.

  • 2 weeks later...

I would just like to say that even though they have nothing for children specifically (i.e. no play area etc) we have found the Cherry tree to be incredibly accommodating when we have been there with our highly active son. Even when he has stopped right in the way when the staff member had their hands full of plates they were courteous!


As for the 19:00 rule... I would suspect that is a licencing implication... I am grateful that they allow children at all and moreover grateful that the pub has been revived into a warm and welcoming social hub with quality food, drink and staff.

Amanda1979 Wrote:

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

> .... when we have been there

> with our highly active son. Even when he has

> stopped right in the way when the staff member had

> their hands full of plates they were courteous!


Hmmm... We took our lads into pubs from when they were quite young but they were never ever allowed to run around or get in people's way. If it even looked like that might happen, we were out of the door. Because we felt that was the right thing to do.


The Sun And Doves used to have a sign that read, "We allow anyone of any age in the bar before 7.30. However if you scream, cry or run around, we will ask you to leave." Pretty fair, I think.

Amanda's was a good and positive post about the cherry tree, so I don't like to criticise.


But yeah to be honest I wouldn't let my kids run around and get under staff's feet when they were carrying plates. That could have been dangerous for the staff and the kid.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> The Sun And Doves used to have a sign that read,

> "We allow anyone of any age in the bar before

> 7.30. However if you scream, cry or run around, we

> will ask you to leave." Pretty fair, I think.


Very small children and babies do scream and cry sometimes... it's just what they do. I would expect parents to take the kids outside to calm down if it persists. But you do need to show a little bit of patience and understanding. I wouldn't take a young child somewhere with a notice like that on the door.

Surely that's the point of putting the notice on the door? Everyone knows where they stand, sorted.


But yeah, if you want people to come in and spend their money whilst the baby sleeps in a pram, then there are going to be waking babies and crying. That's to be expected. What is unnaceptable to me is parents that seem to be able to ignore said screaming and carry on whilst everyone else's nerves are set on edge. I always want to go and pick up and crying kid, and have an irrational (well maybe not totally irrational) hatred of people that just leave them to cry. Especially on bloody buses!!!!!!!!!!!


Sorry, going off topic there.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The Sun And Doves used to have a sign that

> read,

> > "We allow anyone of any age in the bar before

> > 7.30. However if you scream, cry or run around,

> we

> > will ask you to leave." Pretty fair, I think.

>

> Very small children and babies do scream and cry

> sometimes... it's just what they do. I would

> expect parents to take the kids outside to calm

> down if it persists. But you do need to show a

> little bit of patience and understanding. I

> wouldn't take a young child somewhere with a

> notice like that on the door.


We did - the Sun And Doves was a great pub and our kids loved it too. And I think we're talking about situations where there is no give and take, and no understanding. Kid plonks a crisp on our table once. Fine. Kid repeatedly does it without parents taking a blind bit of notice or not caring. Bloody nuisance.

Otta Wrote:

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

> What is unnaceptable to me

> is parents that seem to be able to ignore said

> screaming and carry on whilst everyone else's

> nerves are set on edge. I always want to go and

> pick up a crying kid, and have an irrational

> (well maybe not totally irrational) hatred of

> people that just leave them to cry. Especially on

> bloody buses!!!!!!!!!!!



Same here.


It's a bit different on a bus though because crying children can't always be comforted, and if it was me, I'd just want to get home, not get off the bus miles before my stop :(


But pubs and restaurants - yes. Take the bloody crying kid somewhere else!

Other than allowing adults to have a chid free experience, another angle springs to my mind:


For the safety of the children and babies themselves, they shouldn't be allowed in pubs after 7.30 (even the restaurant parts)


Punters do seem to drink a bit more heavily in the evening than they do during the day.

I was impressed by the forcefulness of moondancer post even though it reminded me of my old headmaster somewhat. We are not child friendly ourselves after 7/7.30 and want to be out in adult environments, the Cherry Tree is calm and friendly in the evening, Fair bit of mobbing on this thread, unkind.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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