Just a wish...(there was a baby/pram/child free pub in ED)

[DulwichFox]

In the 50's when I was a young kid. My parents used to take me to the White Horse (Peckham)

which had a small garden.

Kids were not allowed in the bar, to the extent that when my dad took me to the loo for a wee

he was barracked and shouted out by all the customers.

The Landlord went berserk and I had to go outside and have a wee in the alleyway outside the pub.

That's how things were in most pubs.

DulwichFox

[Andrew1011]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> 8.30pm - is that what it's come to ?

The thing is, no pub can survive these days with just a few old codgers propping up the bar during the day, downing the odd pint of mild. They have to be imaginative in order to ensure continued trade and most do that these days by catering for the family market.

Perhaps a brave local licencee will be innovative soon and advertise their pub as uniquely child free. They may make a killing.

[peckham_ryu]

Wetherspoons keep the kids corralled in a family section, leaving plenty of space for uncensored beer chat.

[Curmudgeon]

I like children in pubs when their parents appreciate that it is their role to ensure their children know how to behave which does not involve running around, being loud or in any way impacting on other people's rights to enjoy themselves, hold a conversation etc ...I like children in pubs if their parents don't do that overly loud "look at me parenting" thing and take them outside to calm down if they are crying, tantrumming, being boisterous or generally acting like it's a park or playzone or their own home

And now you can take that entire sentence and replace the word "parents" with "friends" and "children" with "other adults"

[Andrew1011]

peckham_ryu Wrote:

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

> Wetherspoons keep the kids corralled in a family

> section, leaving plenty of space for uncensored

> beer chat.

That's the solution then, East Dulwich urgently needs a Wetherspoons.

[KidKruger]

Andrew1101010011111: The thing is, no pub can survive these days with just a few old codgers propping up the bar during the day, downing the odd pint of mild. They have to be imaginative in order to ensure continued trade and most do that these days by catering for the family market.

Fair point.

[DulwichFox]

Mild ?? Where can you buy 'real' mild. :)

Foxy.

[I hammer]

It's a knock-on effect of the smoking ban.

[KidKruger]

Never thought of that IH, probably some truth to it.

[Jeremy]

Victoria Inn, Actress, and probably a few others have separate family areas. Kids aren't allowed in the adults-only area at any time of day. Seems like a good compromise.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

bermygirl Wrote:

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

> Yeah kidkruger. I had a mum ask me not to spoke on

> the back patio of a pub. I told her that since

> smokers can't go inside that space is used by

> smokers and so I had no intention of not smoking.

Anyone that wouldn't not smoke in the presence of children, regardless of the location, is a skank of the lowest order.

[JohnL]

Most pubs seem to be child free when I go (but I'm a nightime drinker).

In the Alex in Clapham on Saturday - and most of the (Irish) drinkers seemed to have been

on an all dayer - not a place for children. When people can't walk straight in a pub

then children shouldn't be there.

So Irish pubs don't do children I think.

[Otta]

If a smoker is in situ outside a pub, and a family decide to park themselves next to said smoker, then they have no right to expect the smoker to not smoke.

[Jeremy]

smokers vs kids - not always easy because you don't necessarily know if you're amongst smokers when you sit at a table. But if we were sitting down first, and then a smoker came along and lit up right next to us, I'd ask them to stop or move. Or more likely, just sit indoors in the first place - seems a shame on a nice day, but for the other 9 months of the year, it works in our favour so can't complain too much.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

couldn't disagree more. a small minority of the population who's habit affects the vast majority of the population.

Can't stand the idea of a nanny state but the day smoking in public places is banned, can't come soon enough.

[????]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> In the 50's when I was a young kid. My parents

> used to take me to the White Horse (Peckham)

> which had a small garden.

>

> Kids were not allowed in the bar, to the extent

> that when my dad took me to the loo for a wee

> he was barracked and shouted out by all the

> customers.

> The Landlord went berserk and I had to go outside

> and have a wee in the alleyway outside the pub.

>

> That's how things were in most pubs.

>

> DulwichFox

That was mainly because that was the law then Foxy - kids under 14 were not allowed in a pub legally then

[Otta]

Can't stand the idea of a nanny state, except when they're doing what I want.

Totally agree with Jeremy, in that if I was sat somewhere and someone came and lit up next to my kids I'd ask them to move away.

But if I arrive at a pub with my kids and there's someone smoking at an outside table I would sit elsewhere, and I wouldn't dream of asking them to stop.

[Otta]

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

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

> a small minority of the

> population who's habit affects the vast majority

> of the population.

I know. All that money they Plough in to the coffers. Bless the smokers for improving our public services.

[DuncanW]

I'd always understood that smokers were a net burden on the state.

This is the first thing I found on the net so don't consider it definitive proof, nonetheless illustrating the point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7463690/Every-cigarette-smoked-costs-taxpayer-6.5p-think-tank-warns.html

*Research conducted by Policy Exchange found found that while tax on tobacco raised ?10 billion a year for the Treasury, the annual cost of healthcare and other consequences of smoking totalled ?13.74 billion*

Back on the subject of pubs, they are businesses that cater for what's wanted by the market. If there were that many people who'd actually spend much money in the that sort of place (no kids, plenty of smoking and swearing), some entrepreneurial soul(s) would open one up. But clearly the reverse is true. Pubs like that struggle to stay in business whereas the more modern version with a decent quality food offer, seems like a licence to print money when delivered properly.

[Otta]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but I am sure it's very easy to make the figures work for you in terms of healthcare spend on smokers.

Something like lung cancer is pretty straight forward, but with (for example) heart issues, you can never prove that it's a direct result of smoking, but you can bet that they'll be included in those figures.

But anyway, people lime ED NAGAIUTB calling people "skank skank" is pretty out of order.

[MissKing]

I don't mind children being in the pub as long as they are well behaved and not shreiking or being generally annoying. (which often they are). If children are being annoying in the pub, unfortunately it is usually the parents that are to blame! Just keep your children quiet and entertained if you want to take them to the pub. I am afraid I do not find your children as endearing as you do! :)

[JohnL]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> I'd always understood that smokers were a net

> burden on the state.

>

> This is the first thing I found on the net so

> don't consider it definitive proof, nonetheless

> illustrating the point.

>

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/746369

> 0/Every-cigarette-smoked-costs-taxpayer-6.5p-think

> -tank-warns.html

>

> *Research conducted by Policy Exchange found found

> that while tax on tobacco raised ?10 billion a

> year for the Treasury, the annual cost of

> healthcare and other consequences of smoking

> totalled ?13.74 billion*

>

> Back on the subject of pubs, they are businesses

> that cater for what's wanted by the market. If

> there were that many people who'd actually spend

> much money in the that sort of place (no kids,

> plenty of smoking and swearing), some

> entrepreneurial soul(s) would open one up. But

> clearly the reverse is true. Pubs like that

> struggle to stay in business whereas the more

> modern version with a decent quality food offer,

> seems like a licence to print money when delivered

> properly.

Depends when you go really.

I never see children in pubs - I'm in work in the day and

pop out for a drink post watershed. When I go earlier I

see couples eating sometimes (7PM ?)

There is bad behaviour at that time I'm sorry to say :)

and it's the Adults.

In the West End loads of tourists try and bring children in

and they are chucked out after 9.

[Jeremy]

MissKing Wrote:

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

> Just keep your children quiet and

> entertained if you want to take them to the pub.

Do you have kids?

[KidKruger]

Obvs not !

Also, once a chap has bought himself a pint, his missus a wine , the two kids a lemonade and crisps each he's already like ?18 in. If one of his kids starts acting up he can't leave until he's finished - proper bind.

Sometimes I'm not sure what I dislike most, the shrieking kids or the parents jumping on their kids every time they look like they're GOING to be noisy, therefore creating a racket anyway of endless bloody chastisement.

It's not the kids' fault anyway, their parents drag them down the pub.

[astrid83]

The clockhouse - kids are not allowed in the room at the front where the bar is.