Look at it this way, if you stayed home, no one would ever bother you again.

Well, there are always Jehovah's Witnesses

Look at it this way, if you stayed home, no one would ever bother you again.

And society will break down because nobody's left to point out the inconsiderate behaviour of others. Don't come crying to me then.

In particular, don't send your kids crying to me.

I trust there is some winding- up going on from both sides and not all the comments are serious?

I have a right to go where I want, when I want, without having my leisure time ruined by other people's children. Parents shouldn't feel they are marooned at home, isolated with nowhere to go. However, are these two ideas compatible?

Let's get this straight. Random dogs bite you. Children cry when then see you and fireworks mysteriously explode near you. Hmmmmmmmm............

Life as an episode of Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em

Let's get this straight. Random dogs bite you. Children cry when then see you and fireworks mysteriously explode near you. Hmmmmmmmm............

Two random dogs have bitten me in my 35 years, yes. On both occasions after the owner glibly assured me that this was not about to happen.

Children cry, run about, make noise, and behave badly. This may be hard for you to believe, but this phenomenon is not unique to me. I don't think it's beyond the bounds of human capacity for parents to realise when their little darlings are annoying other people, but maybe I'm crediting some people with too much intelligence.

I have had fireworks thrown at or near me.

Big deal. If that makes me some kind of Unlucky Alf, so be it.

And I don't use smileys.

A carelessly handled emoticon can be a dangerous thing indeed.

And I don't use smileys.
[/quote]

You mention that oneof these has never happened. I'm assuming that particular piece of phraseology doesn't exlude the possibility that noneof these has ever happened to you.

Why are you assuming that?

Whilst I may not see eye-to-eye with some of the contributors to this thread, I do defend their right to make their point (even if some appear a little too forceful).

I do not think that this thread, or this site, should become a Baboon-baiting exercise (surely that was made illegal along with everything else?).

I suspect, as even Baboonery mentioned earlier, that we have taken this as far as it will go. I also think that this thread has thrown up (!) the fact that in reality the issues are nothing to do with pubs but with proper parenting and generally better consideration for others. Maybe that could be a separate, and hopefully more dispassionate, discussion?

This is obviously a topic of interest to us looking at the current threads: train carriage logistics, chopping off hands, chilly smokers, and more.

I dont have a prooblem with Baboonery or any others on this site, it is afterall the internet. We are are all allowed our own opinion and I have to say that a lot of what I post is in jest and is not a personal attack in any way (unless of course you have a problem with my loud kids dancing on your table in the pub)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7170939.stm

They've also said that people may be refused soft drinks and coffee in order to get rid of them.
I can accept that older children may get bored and play up and its not on to sit and actively get drunk with kids around but most pubs these days actively rely on family custom for their revenue following the smoking ban so it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the policy but it probably is a little hypocritical of some establishments to take the dosh for say a family meal and then throw people out an hour or so later using a pretentious moral argument of child protection. I'm listening to the guy from Wetherspoons as I write and it all sounds a bit unclear and messy.

The root of the problem is probably that they are all struggling with business right now and are scrambling around desperately for scapegoats and ways of getting people spending.

PS if its any comfort to Wetherspoons, your food is cr~p, your pubs are dire, so I've no wish to go in there anyway let alone bring my child in there unless I need to change her nappy. Then there is your propensity to attract CS gas attacks, something which I would not want my child to experience. So, no, I won't feel hard done by in Forest Hill. There are plenty of better establishments locally for family outings.

If it is of so little interest or relevance to you, why go on about it?

What on earth do you mean by such nonsense as "the root of the problem is probably that they are all struggling with business right now and are scrambling around desperately for scapegoats and ways of getting people spending"?

You also manage to present two entirely conflicting views, the first that one ought not to go boozing with kids in tow, and the second that it is somehow wrong to set a guideline that prevents this, whilst allowing a sensible level of consumption.

Then we have your second post, which verges on the hysterical. I don't really care for Wetherspoons either, but there is a market for reasonably priced pubs and they deserve some credit for their rescuing of derelict historic buildings across the country. But rather than wotk myself into some funny froth on the subject, I just go elsewhere.

HTG, its a shame that you've arrived in 2008 with that huge chip still on your shoulder and continually intent on being unpleasant to posters on this site. Looking back at your 2007 posts, it seems you only post to ridicule others. I can only imagine that you have a great deal of unhappiness in your life at the minute, and I sincerely hope that things improve for you in the coming year.

Thank you for your concern.

The only thing making me unhappy is people writing rubbish, and I go into 2008 with my hopes undimmed of helping people to wean themselves from this habit.

97% of posters here will no doubt continue to post without ridicule.

I heard the article about Wetherspoons on the telly this morning and sighed - I just knew there'd be reaction here....

Although I agree with the spirit of Wetherspoons decision, I think it's a shame that they have to be explicit about it.

Just as well-behaved children should be welcomed in pubs (especially at lunchtimes, as opposed to evenings), rather than there being an outright ban or not to prevent poorly behaved children disrupting adult enjoynment, similarly responsible parents would not be "drunk in charge" and there should not need to be an arbitrary limit - set in this case at two drinks - does two halves count at one or not? - just to give the pub an excuse to eject such families who are irresponsible (and probably also have the disruptive children in the first place!)

Education not legislation!!