Babies and prams in Pubs!

[Damian H]

Otta Wrote:

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

> If my cafe was in an area like East Dulwich, I'd

> accept that it wad par for the course.

>

> It's good of you to get so wound up on behalf of

> the business owner.

I don't believe you, simple as that.

But perhaps you can give us all lessons on how to retain a zen-like unconcern and detachment when we perceive unacceptable behaviour on the part of others - or is it just another type of selfishness, "It doesn't affect me personally so I don't care"?

[Damian H]

Damian H Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If my cafe was in an area like East Dulwich,

> I'd

> > accept that it wad par for the course.

> >

> > It's good of you to get so wound up on behalf

> of

> > the business owner.

>

> I don't believe you, simple as that.

>

> But perhaps you can give us all lessons on how to

> retain a zen-like unconcern and detachment when we

> perceive unacceptable behaviour on the part of

> others - or is it just another type of

> selfishness, "It doesn't affect me personally so I

> don't care"?

Let me rephrase that - you may well accept it as par for the course bacause you have no real choice, but I am betting you would be pretty pissed off and would think the people in question selfish and wish they would leave at the earliest opportunity. In other words - you would have the same type of opinion as me.

[helena handbasket]

Damian H - I'm wondering why someone with so little patience for mothers would post your services in the Family Room? You make it sound as if the cafe owner shouldn't value the business of mothers, yet you yourself would like our their business. Or maybe just the ones you can tolerate? Or maybe you can tolerate them if they pay you enough?

I'm confused.

[peterstorm1985]

Damian H Wrote:

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

> Let me ask you a question, Otta. If you owned a

> cafe wich made its greatest revenues during the

> lunch hour by serving the local community and you

> saw about thirty per cent of your capacity taken

> up during that time by two mothers stretching out

> a long lunch while their toddlers sat eating tiny

> portions, and you watched other potential paying

> customers walking out the door because they

> couldnt get a seat, how would you feel?

I believe you mentioned earlier that the problem was of pushchairs taking up space. If the cafe owner considered this a problem he/she could just put up a notice saying "No pushchairs in cafe between 12 and 2 without express permission", or something similar. They don't have to suffer it as perhaps someone in charge of a publicly funded enterprise might. So, if the owner's happy, why worry about it? Anyone being turned away just has to accept that the owner prefers someone else's custom to theirs.

[Sue]

Damian H Wrote:

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

>

> Sue, I think you'll find if you read DaveR's

> previous post to which I replied that my response

> matched the tone of his and was a response to it.

> Nothing quite like making a fool of yourself by

> coming into the middle of a tread wihout reading

> back, is there?

xxxxxxxxx

I don't think it's me who has been making a fool of myself on this thread :))

Or tread, even.

[Damian H]

helena handbasket Wrote:

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

> Damian H - I'm wondering why someone with so

> little patience for mothers would post your

> services in the Family Room? You make it sound as

> if the cafe owner shouldn't value the business of

> mothers, yet you yourself would like our their

> business. Or maybe just the ones you can

> tolerate? Or maybe you can tolerate them if they

> pay you enough?

>

Helena, I was just waiting for a comment like this and it is as irrelavant and inaccurate as it is cheap. Obviously you have been trawling through all my other posts in order to find something you could try to throw at me which really is a sign of desperation. To be honest, I am surprised it has taken as long as t has for smeone to throw this red herring in.

I doubt you are confused at all as you claim, and I suspect that the obvious answers to your affected question have already commended themselves to you but you pretend otherwise.

Let me elaborate however -

1. "little patience for mothers"? I am extremely patient with the majority of people of all roles and types. I am not, however, patient with people of any sort who behave selfishly and with no regard for others in the manner I have described. If a client treated my time and business with similar disregard I would not want their business and would decline it. So, again, you are engaging in a Straw Man argument by ascribing to me a position I just do not hold ad then attacking it.

2. You claim I say that cafe owners should not value the business of mothers. I have said no such thing and no reasonable person could infer it from what I have said. I have said that if people park prams in his premises that prevent him making use of a significant part of his commercial space he would be fully entitled to view such behaviour as inconsiderate and resent it. He may chose for diplomatic reasons not to make an issue of it and expect that people shold have the basic sensitivity and consideration not to need to be told but that is up to him. On numerous occasions I have been n MPC sitting at a four person table and have moved to a two person table without being asked when it got busy. Sometimes I have had to be politely asked by the staff as I had not noticed myself and I imagine they felt able to make the request because they perceived me to be a reasonable person who would not start complaining and attacking their business (as you appear to be attempting now to do with me) just because I was asked to behave in a considerate manner. I am sure that cafe owners are very happy to have the business of mothers who at least show some consideration and understanding of the fact that the owner is actually running a buiness and that taking up one third of his space for two adults and two toddlers during lunchtime shows no such consideration.

3. I appreciate and accept the business of any customers who engage my services in a mature and reasonable way - man of these are mothers who I work with in a co-operative and successful way. If I encounter clients of any complexion who behave as if my professional time or services can be wasted or toyed with to satisfy their selfish whims, I decline to work with them. It is a mater of boundaries - as indeed are many of the issues on this thread and, sadly, some people just don't seem to have many.

I hope ths answers your questions.

[Sue]

I rest my case :))

[Damian H]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Damian H Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > Sue, I think you'll find if you read DaveR's

> > previous post to which I replied that my

> response

> > matched the tone of his and was a response to

> it.

> > Nothing quite like making a fool of yourself by

> > coming into the middle of a tread wihout

> reading

> > back, is there?

>

> xxxxxxxxx

>

> I don't think it's me who has been making a fool

> of myself on this thread :))

>

> Or tread, even.

Oh touche!

[Damian H]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

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

> Damian H Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Let me ask you a question, Otta. If you owned a

> > cafe wich made its greatest revenues during the

> > lunch hour by serving the local community and

> you

> > saw about thirty per cent of your capacity

> taken

> > up during that time by two mothers stretching

> out

> > a long lunch while their toddlers sat eating

> tiny

> > portions, and you watched other potential

> paying

> > customers walking out the door because they

> > couldnt get a seat, how would you feel?

>

>

> I believe you mentioned earlier that the problem

> was of pushchairs taking up space. If the cafe

> owner considered this a problem he/she could just

> put up a notice saying "No pushchairs in cafe

> between 12 and 2 without express permission", or

> something similar. They don't have to suffer it as

> perhaps someone in charge of a publicly funded

> enterprise might. So, if the owner's happy, why

> worry about it? Anyone being turned away just has

> to accept that the owner prefers someone else's

> custom to theirs.

I'm sorry, PeterStorm, I completely disagree. We have seen threads on this forum before where local cafes (Le Chandalier) who had the audacity to object to children dropping food on expensive upholstered chairs and parents feeding their children from food bought elsewhere, were vilified and subjected to hand-rubbing gleeful expectation that they would go out of business. I doubt any local trader would subject himself to the risk of such mean-spirited viciousness.

Also,I am not suggesting that anyone put up signs banning buggies or the like (in fact there would be a good chance that that would constitute indirect gender discrimination) or that anyone should even WANT to ban buggies or mothers with childen. WHat I am saying is that there is a reasonable expectation that if someone brings children and prams into a commercial establishment they should ake some responsibility to minimise the disruption caused and be aware that a trader has to earn a living. Blocking an entire row of seating and then sitting a length as if oblivios to the fact reflects no such awareness or sensitivity.

THIS IS A DEGREE OF COMMON COURTESY THAT SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE PUT ON SIGNS!!!!

[Damian H]

Sue Wrote:

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

> I rest my case :))

Sue, you havent even begun to make a case to rest. Are these just random noises from the wings or do youactually have something to say?

Let's hear an opinion on the subject under discussion rather than just this bizarre flow of meaningless comments.

[michaell]

Last time I tried to go into Chandelier they refused me and my friend entry as they already had the one pushchair spot allocated... I wondered why it was always half empty compared to Lucas - I guess that's the price you pay in ED - no children = no customers!

[Otta]

Damian, were customers honestly being turned away because of the buggies?

I find it hard to believe that if someone had come in wanting a table, that the staff wouldn't have asked the ladies to shift the buggies a bit.

It seems you've seen them, tutted indignantly, and decided it was an issue.

[Damian H]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Damian, were customers honestly being turned away

> because of the buggies?

>

> I find it hard to believe that if someone had come

> in wanting a table, that the staff wouldn't have

> asked the ladies to shift the buggies a bit.

>

> It seems you've seen them, tutted indignantly, and

> decided it was an issue.

Otta, the buggies were sitting in the window aisle between the counter and the bar-style stoolsin the window. The entire row was blocked by the two buggies and there was no way to get past them and sit in any of the five window seats. Merely shifting the buggies a little would have made no difference as there was nowhere to shift them to. SInce this was at luchtime and MPC is aways extremely busy then and there are always more customers than tables avalable (I regularly see customers come in at lunch to find a completely full house) there is no question that there are people who would have sat at those window seats who were therefore unable to.

I observed what was going on, watched while I was in the place myself, did not tut or comment at all but noted the self-evident facts of the situation.

[Damian H]

michaell Wrote:

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

> Last time I tried to go into Chandelier they

> refused me and my friend entry as they already had

> the one pushchair spot allocated... I wondered why

> it was always half empty compared to Lucas - I

> guess that's the price you pay in ED - no children

> = no customers!

I suspect location and bill of fayre may have more explanatory power.

[Sue]

Damian H Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I rest my case :))

>

> Sue, you havent even begun to make a case to rest.

> Are these just random noises from the wings or do

> youactually have something to say?

>

> Let's hear an opinion on the subject under

> discussion rather than just this bizarre flow of

> meaningless comments.

xxxxxxxx

I was commenting on the way you put your points across, as I thought might have been clear.

Are you like this in real life, or is it just your forum manner?

I'm genuinely interested to know.

[helena handbasket]

Perhaps if you exaggerated a bit less on here we could buy the notion that the rest of your opinions aren't exagerations as well.

As much as I love the image of me spending the weekend "desperately trawling" the internet looking for "red herrings" (a bit over the top, no?), in reality all I did was click your name to see a history of you complaining about mothers. And of course your business ad.

It is relevant, actually, because personally I would prefer to know that if I was going to have highly personal services done, I won't be judged harshly and bitched about on the local forum later. And there is little evidence of you having any patience for what are actually normal behaviors of people who spend three years going about their day with a small person and massive pram attached to them.

[Damian H]

helena handbasket Wrote:

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

> Perhaps if you exaggerated a bit less on here we

> could buy the notion that the rest of your

> opinions aren't exagerations as well.

>

> As much as I love the image of me spending the

> weekend "desperately trawling" the internet

> looking for "red herrings" (a bit over the top,

> no?), in reality all I did was click your name to

> see a history of you complaining about mothers.

> And of course your business ad.

>

> It is relevant, actually, because personally I

> would prefer to know that if I was going to have

> highly personal services done, I won't be judged

> harshly and bitched about on the local forum

> later. And there is little evidence of you having

> any patience for what are actually normal

> behaviors of people who spend three years going

> about their day with a small person and massive

> pram attached to them.

Helenahandbasket - I thnk this is actually one of the most dishonest posts I have read in quite a while. I will tell you why:

1. You talk about exagerrations but have specified none - your comment is therefore utterly meaningless.

2. You imply that you merely casually had a look at some of my previous posts and came across a history of complaints about mothers and a business ad. That is a completely exagerrated distillation of my posting history. In engaging in the current discussion I have not taken as much as a moment to look at the posting history of any of the other contributors - such behaviour is unecessary to discuss a subject on a thread. Your trawl of my historic posts was clearly not made with good intentions.

3. Your decision to refer to my business activities and services quite evidently had one purpose and one purpose only - it was an attempt to embarrass me and attack my business interests in a spiteful, vicious and shameful manner. It reflects very poorly indeed on the quality of your character. You have completely failed in your intention as I do not post opinions that I am remotely ashamed of. Whereas my identity is easily discovered on this forum you and most of my other critics snipe from the anonymity of pseudonyms.

4. I don't harshly judge or bitch about any of my clients, nor do I ever reveal the identity of anyone I work with. Indeed I don't bitch about anyone. If I have comments to make or criticisms to impart I do so in an open, reasoned way and back up my arguments with evidence and examples and carefully elucidated opinions. To be accused of 'bitching' by someone who has come on this thread and attacked me as you have done with snide comments such as calling me a 'j@@ckass' etc really takes the biscuit. If you are attempting to insinuate that I judge harshly and bitch about all mothers - you must know this is simply untrue even as you post it. I have repeatedly stressed in historic threads that I am very supportive of considerate parents and very much like children, that I have a nephew I am devoted to and have appreciation for the difficulties of parenthood. WHat I have criticised, and make no apology for criticising, and have repeatedly clarified as being the sole subject of my criticism, is the behaviour of those parents who behave with a degree of inconsiderate entitlement and selfishness that inconveniences other people who equally have the right to enjoy local businesses, amenities and public spaces.

5. If you consider acting selfishly and with a lack of consideration for others to be the "normal behaviours" of parents, then you obviously have a completely different perception of normality to me. I am aware of many, many mothers and fathers with prams and small children who behave with courtesy, consideration and an awareness of others. That should be the norm and I am enormously patient with people who show such social graces. I am equally very patient with others who are struggling with children or having difficult experiences that they are attempting to deal with considerately and responsibly, even if they aren't completely successful. Patience with rudeness, selfishness, self-centredness, narcissistic entitlement and inconsderateness with regard to others, however? No!

Your post really sinks to a new low.

[Administrator]

This thread seems to be descending this thread into a personal. Please stop it. And to those who don't recognise that quite a few people are directing comments at you and your attitude, please try and recognise it.

[Damian H]

Administrator, I am out of this thread thank you. I have expressed firm but reaoned opinions that have resulted in personal attacks and insults from a range of other posters who seem to be intolerant of divergent opinions and who have engaged in what in any other context would be considered concerted cyber-bullying. SUch attacks have descended into what was clearly an attempt to work out a grudge by identifying and attacking my business interests. I have no desire to continue to engage with posters who behave like thgis.

[Mick Mac]

I think some people are looking at this in the wrong way.

Its not necessarily whether children should be allowed in pubs as a general rule, but whether a particular pub has consciously tried to attract parents with children.

I think most ED mums and dads are capable of judging whether a particular pub is the right environment to bring children into.

Most of these are gastro pubs, with childrens menus and are clearly set up to encourage families visiting. Its the management who decide who they want as their prime customer base, its not for the grumpy old/youmg man in the corner to decide this.

Clearly if your children are with you, you need to ensure they behave appropriatley which is the same whereever you go.

[Otta]

Spot on Mick!

[LBGBPR]

....

[Sue]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> I think some people are looking at this in the

> wrong way.

>

> Its not necessarily whether children should be

> allowed in pubs as a general rule, but whether a

> particular pub has consciously tried to attract

> parents with children.

>

> I think most ED mums and dads are capable of

> judging whether a particular pub is the right

> environment to bring children into.

>

> Most of these are gastro pubs, with childrens

> menus and are clearly set up to encourage families

> visiting. Its the management who decide who they

> want as their prime customer base, its not for the

> grumpy old/youmg man in the corner to decide this.

>

>

> Clearly if your children are with you, you need to

> ensure they behave appropriatley which is the same

> whereever you go.

xxxxxxxxx

Absolutely.

And a clear, concise, pleasant post, thanks.

[DulwichFox]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

I think some people are looking at this in the

wrong way.

Its not necessarily whether children should be

allowed in pubs as a general rule, but whether a

particular pub has consciously tried to attract

parents with children.

I think most ED mums and dads are capable of

judging whether a particular pub is the right

environment to bring children into.

Yes they are capable of such judgement, but seem to ignore their own judement.

Most of these are gastro pubs, with childrens

menus and are clearly set up to encourage families

visiting.

Most ??? The Bishop Probably has the most kids but no kids menu.. The Actress has no kids menu. Not sure if the EDT has a kids menu.

Its the management who decide who they want as their prime customer base,

Pubs have to make money. If that means tolerating screaming kids or drunk noisy yobs

then that's what they will do. Is it OK to have Kids in the same environment as foul mouthed drunks

its not for the grumpy old/youmg man in the corner to decide this.

Yes why do grumpy old/youmg men (not women ??) ALWAYS sit in the corner ???

Clearly if your children are with you, you need to

ensure they behave appropriatley which is the same

whereever you go.

Fox

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

--

The Actress has no kids menu.

xxxxxxxx

It doesn't have a separate menu specially aimed at kids, though it sells things like pizza by the slice.

It does have an area specifically designated for parents with children (and other customers if they wish, obviously), and another area where children are not allowed to sit.