Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hmm, the same can be said about pubs, particularly on a Sunday. But then again if the families bring in the business.


So a few comments - partly from a position of strength having more grown up kids.


We all think that we will be better parents than ours, but as you get older you see that our parents weren't so bad after all.


We all think that we know best with regards to bringing kids up as opposed to other families. We don't.

Trying to step back I think there is less control of young kids than say 10 years ago. Our parents would say the same about us no doubt. A difficult balance between encouaging creativity, individuality and confidence. Vs peeing other people off.


Odd that in turn many of us are so risk adverse with letting our kids out as opposed to my generation (here's a few pence to buy sweets and you can keep the deposit on the drinks bottles that you are retuning).


Each situation is different - we take our teenage kids out and they are reasonably well behaved and then you get a jobs worth telling you that it is curfew. Dulwich Woodhouse BTW.


I suppose it is a case of knowing where best to go - certainly not Pizza Expreses in the Village, as you will not be able to hear yourself in the upstairs room. I can say the same about some of the trendy places for younger drinkers.


But I do feel at times that I'd happily lecture someone and their kids when they are out of control and ruining an evening.


Odd that in many other parts of Europe they seem to do it much better.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> As Louisa suggests, it's a question of cultural

> expectations. In some other countries it's quite

> normal for very young kids to still be up in the

> evening, and taken to restaurants. But in the UK..

> despite the undeniable shift L talks about... I

> think we still expect restaurants to be adult

> environments after 7:30 or so.


> While I agree it's hard for restaurants to

> enforce, I think a 4 yr old in a restaurant at 8pm

> is pushing the social norms a bit.


I am happy for kids to be in restaurants at any time, providing they are (reasonably) well behaved. This is the crux of the matter to me. Parents who you ask to quieten kids down (and I don't mean normal conversations, I mean screeching at the top of their voices, playing on video games at full blast volume, and/or running around, tripping over, crying etc etc) INEVITABLY riposte with "HAVE YOU GOT KIDS, EH ? EH ? EH ?". Because, apparently if you don't, you are not allowed an opinion or even an expectation that your meal will be served in a restaurant without too much brouhaha if you are childless. And I understand and sympathise with parents of small children/babes in arms who are too young for one to expect a modicum of good behaviour from.

Yep, running around or games/videos with volume up is unacceptable at any time of day in a restaurant, pub, or cafe.


Crying... can be difficult if there's more than one kid. And if you insist in keeping them up past their normal bed time, it is pretty likely to happen!

entirely reasonable that a family should be eating at that time, but equally reasonable for you to have a word if they were too loud, the same as you presumably would if adults were too loud, which is fairly common in a curry house. The time is the key for me as if i was in a restaurant at 5pm with my family I would hope for other diners to tone down their language for example, however if i was in a pub with my family at 8.30pm or later then i would consider it our choice to be in an environment where people may freely use expletives so that would be fair enough.

mako Wrote:

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

> entirely reasonable that a family should be eating

> at that time, but equally reasonable for you to

> have a word if they were too loud, the same as you

> presumably would if adults were too loud, which is

> fairly common in a curry house. The time is the

> key for me as if i was in a restaurant at 5pm with

> my family I would hope for other diners to tone

> down their language for example, however if i was

> in a pub with my family at 8.30pm or later then i

> would consider it our choice to be in an

> environment where people may freely use expletives

> so that would be fair enough.


Exactly right.


I guess the only difference is that the OP seemed to think it was the waiter's / restaurant's responsibility to assess the level of noise and act on behalf of other diners - which I would agree with if it was extreme, but it seems from the conversation with the waiter afterwards that the waiter had not noticed, so it may have been debatable whether the noise was disruptive in this case.

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

    • Let them go bust.  Enact emergency legislation to ensure that the water still flows and the rest of the network operates. Why should we care what happens to the investors.  Have no idea could or would this work, and where next. And the workers will still be needed whoever runs the show.
    • I think you might mean 'repossession' rather than 'reprocessing'.  
    • I think this is a bit of a myth.  It's true that some of the current owners are pension funds (chiefly the Ontario Universities') but they're global outfits, big enough to know what they're about. As for ordinary UK pension funds, they mostly invest in publicly-tradeable stocks, which Thames no longer is (it's a private limited company, not a PLC), so even those that lazily track the markets by buying everything in the index won't be exposed as Thames isn't in any index. In other words, it's a lot less complicated than Thames, the Government or innumerable consultancies and PR outfits would like you to believe. In case, incidentally, the idea of a cooperative offends any delicate Thatcherite sensibilities, I'd argue that it fits the Thatcherite vision of a stakeholding democracy much better than selling tradeable shares to the public very cheaply. The public, despite their blessable cottons, are too easily tempted by the small but easy win (which is how they sold off their own building societies, preparing the ground for the credit crunch and then the crash) and, as became obvious after every privatisation before or since, their modest stakes inevitably end up in the hands of financial engineers whose only priority is to siphon off the assets and leave the husk to either go bankrupt or get "rescued" by the taxpayers (who thus get to pay twice for nothing). The root of that is the concept of "limited liability" which makes it all possible, but even the most nauseating free-market optimist would struggle to predict the demise of that.  
    • Repossession? Oh no, that's really sad 😢 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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