Well I seem to have interpreted your comment the same way too, so I apologise if I misinterpreted. However, since people on forums are not psychic, we do have to rely on your being able to express what you mean and meaning what you say. And what you said was "They have the right to run around just as you have the right to eat your meal in peace". The context was restaurants. This statement, in the context of restaurants unless otherwise stated, is clearly going to be interpretted to mean that you think children have as much right to run around in restaurants as a paying customer has to eat in peace. If that's not what you meant, then you used the wrong context for it and should have clarified that.
You appear to be attributing somebody else's quote to me. What I said (in response to Spud U Like saying children have no place in restaurants) was;
"If Management deem it so then they have just as much right to be there as you."
I think that is pretty clear. I really don't know why people are getting confused? I took issue with Spud's statement and responded to his post and that alone. I have offered no other point of view. I think it's pretty simple (well to me it is).
It was a country pub/restaurant. Not posh, but slightly more upmarket than your usual two for one place. They do have a kids menu and I've seen children in there before but this is the first time I've seen one running around getting under feet.
always speak to management, especially in a nice place like this sounds. I assume you did.:)
Teaching children the correct way to behave in a restaurant and encouraging good manners seems like common sense to me. I don't have kids myself but if I did, I definitely wouldn't tolerate bad behaviour like running around and getting under peoples feet, approaching other diners or anything like that. How rude is that? and embarrassing as a parent!
I'm with those who don't think children should be banned from restaurants. My parents took me from being tiny and it was never a problem. I was taught how to behave but it never felt oppressive or restrictive. It just seemed natural. The same applies to my cousins and their children (some now adult themselves). We just learned the boundaries. There were certain times and places where you could let off steam (i.e. if the eaterie had a child play area, usually just outside) and yet we knew that if we were indoors, having a family meal, that we had to be reasonably quiet and polite. Our parents just included us in their conversation and didn't take any nonsense. Made the whole experience far more enjoyable for all of us. It was just no big deal. This is no 'model' family, either.
All the same, it seems that there are two extremes of parenting that cause the most problems- those who don't give a damn what their offspring are up to and have little idea about how others might be affected by a child's disruptiveness. At the other extreme, there seem to be the self-absorbed, over-indulgent kind of parents who cannot 'get' that their little darling's precocious behaviour and 'self-expression' (aka 'being a pain in the butt) can be regarded as anything other than cute and wonderful by complete strangers. Either way, it is usually the parents with the problem but these would also be the first to complain/ threaten to sue if said child/ children were injured as a consequence of their bullishness. They are also likely to be extremely defensive if someone challenges their stance, no matter how politely.
However, there are just some people who don't like seeing kids at all in restaurants and even the least little blip in a child's behaviour is likely to cause offence. I once saw an older couple make a big scene and storm out of a pub restaurant because they felt that a family had not controlled their children well enough and that it had spoiled their meal. I don't know what had triggered this because we'd only just arrived. All I know is that the family in question weren't chucked out and that their childrens' behaviour seemed reasonable enough to us while we were there. Had they been running riot beforehand and the incident with the older couple caused the parents to get their kids to simmer down and behave? Alternatively, were the older couple a bit misguided in what they expected from Sunday lunchtime in a family friendly pub dining area? Guess we'll never know.
I think you have made a mistake. The post I responded to was the second post of the thread. You didn't post until page 2.
My apologies, but you are posting on a thread where others can read and reply to your posts. You can't demand as you did to only interact with one person and shout us down if we reply to you as well.
I went out for a meal with family earlier and the family sat behind us had two young children with them, a baby and a toddler of around two or so. They continually let the older child run riot around the restaurant, she wasnt being naughty as such but she was getting under the feet of the staff who were carrying hot food and trays of drinks. She also kept wandering up to other people's tables as they were trying to eat. At no point did her mother try and stop her, she just smiled at her adoringly like she was doing nothing wrong.
I'm not against children being in restaurants at all, far from it. But why do some parents think its acceptable to allow their precious darlings to run riot when not only are other people trying to enjoy a nice meal, but when staff are trying to work? I'm sure these parents would be the first to kick up a fuss if hot food got spilled on the child wouldn't they? So why allow your child to put themselves in potential danger?
Some parents are utter cretins! She's obviously not bothering to teach her child how to behave.
Children misbehaving in restaurants /cafes is one of my pet hates :mad: When mine was small they were warned before hand in no uncertain terms what would happen if they didn't sit still at the table before we went ,and they knew from an early age that was one place they couldn't getaway with playing up
^^ This! My mum was one of the most laid back parents imaginable but even I knew that a restaurant was one place I shouldn't play up at. For me it was also a case of having been warned beforehand to not misbehave or at least informed that dessert was a reward if I behaved.
I agree that there is something incredibly annoying about children running around restaurants and up to other people's tables - the latter seems to be getting increasingly common. I make a point of avoiding eating out during half term breaks etc. and choosing times/places where it's unlikely lots of children will be present.
My apologies, but you are posting on a thread where others can read and reply to your posts. You can't demand as you did to only interact with one person and shout us down if we reply to you as well.
I have no issue with people responding to me but what you said to me was irrelevant to my post. If I had in some way suggested children were ok to run around or tried to justify it then fair enough, but I hadn't so I don't get the logic of you responding to me as you did.
I'm with those who don't think children should be banned from restaurants. My parents took me from being tiny and it was never a problem. I was taught how to behave but it never felt oppressive or restrictive. It just seemed natural. The same applies to my cousins and their children (some now adult themselves). We just learned the boundaries. There were certain times and places where you could let off steam (i.e. if the eaterie had a child play area, usually just outside) and yet we knew that if we were indoors, having a family meal, that we had to be reasonably quiet and polite. Our parents just included us in their conversation and didn't take any nonsense. Made the whole experience far more enjoyable for all of us. It was just no big deal. This is no 'model' family, either.
All the same, it seems that there are two extremes of parenting that cause the most problems- those who don't give a damn what their offspring are up to and have little idea about how others might be affected by a child's disruptiveness. At the other extreme, there seem to be the self-absorbed, over-indulgent kind of parents who cannot 'get' that their little darling's precocious behaviour and 'self-expression' (aka 'being a pain in the butt) can be regarded as anything other than cute and wonderful by complete strangers. Either way, it is usually the parents with the problem but these would also be the first to complain/ threaten to sue if said child/ children were injured as a consequence of their bullishness. They are also likely to be extremely defensive if someone challenges their stance, no matter how politely.
However, there are just some people who don't like seeing kids at all in restaurants and even the least little blip in a child's behaviour is likely to cause offence. I once saw an older couple make a big scene and storm out of a pub restaurant because they felt that a family had not controlled their children well enough and that it had spoiled their meal. I don't know what had triggered this because we'd only just arrived. All I know is that the family in question weren't chucked out and that their childrens' behaviour seemed reasonable enough to us while we were there. Had they been running riot beforehand and the incident with the older couple caused the parents to get their kids to simmer down and behave? Alternatively, were the older couple a bit misguided in what they expected from Sunday lunchtime in a family friendly pub dining area? Guess we'll never know.
And per my previous post I have some lovely children with nice manners in restaurants and they certainly shouldn't be banned and should also be allowed to enjoy their meal.
You are completely right its the parents that are too blame and they are the ones who should be banned if they don't really care how their kids are behaving, just a shame that the children then suffer.
I have no issue with people responding to me but what you said to me was irrelevant to my post. If I had in some way suggested children were ok to run around or tried to justify it then fair enough, but I hadn't so I don't get the logic of you responding to me as you did.
Your stance appeared to be that you were supporting the people saying the children should be able to be there, thats fair enough. But others like myself didn't say they shouldn't be there, but should be well behaved when they are. Anyway it's pointless going round in circles.
If people are going to take their children to a restaurant don't let them behave like little brats, running around and screaming and ruining others diners meals.
Your stance appeared to be that you were supporting the people saying the children should be able to be there, thats fair enough. But others like myself didn't say they shouldn't be there, but should be well behaved when they are. Anyway it's pointless going round in circles.
If people are going to take their children to a restaurant don't let them behave like little brats, running around and screaming and ruining others diners meals.
We are obviously on completely different wavelengths. You have taken my comment directed at another poster and due to an ongoing debate between yourself and other posters at that time, assumed I was joining in. I wasn't.
I just thought Spud's comment was ridiculous so I responded to it.
We are obviously on completely different wavelengths. You have taken my comment directed at another poster and due to an ongoing debate between yourself and other posters at that time, assumed I was joining in. I wasn't.
I just thought Spud's comment was ridiculous so I responded to it.
The End!
The problem is that when Michelle responded to your initial comment you didn't clarify, you made the famously self satisfying but ultimately useless "and when did I say that? " reply.
You are correct, children do have a right to be in restaurants if management deem it so.
But it's clear to me that Michelle simply expanded on that by saying their right should not include the right to run around as if it were a playground.
If you'd simply replied that you concurred, or made clear what you did think, you would not have become so misunderstood.
The problem is that when Michelle responded to your initial comment you didn't clarify, you made the famously self satisfying but ultimately useless "and when did I say that? " reply.
You are correct, children do have a right to be in restaurants if management deem it so.
But it's clear to me that Michelle simply expanded on that by saying their right should not include the right to run around as if it were a playground.
If you'd simply replied that you concurred, or made clear what you did think, you would not have become so misunderstood.
PS it's Stud . - although I have my doubts
You summed that up so much better than I did. Thanks
The problem is that when Michelle responded to your initial comment you didn't clarify, you made the famously self satisfying but ultimately useless "and when did I say that? " reply.
You are correct, children do have a right to be in restaurants if management deem it so.
But it's clear to me that Michelle simply expanded on that by saying their right should not include the right to run around as if it were a playground.
If you'd simply replied that you concurred, or made clear what you did think, you would not have become so misunderstood.
PS it's Stud . - although I have my doubts
I made the self satisfying (as you put it) statement of "when did I say that" as it appeared to me that she had already assumed that was my opinion. For what it's worth I actually agree they shouldn't be allowed to run around and I said as such in a later post.
I think there are some children who are badly behaved, but I think there are far more people who have no tolerance at all for children. Children are treated like shit in our culture, and that should really stop.
I have no problem if a little toddler walks up to my table briefly. It is annoying if they start doing something like kicking you and the parent does nothing.
Manners only exist so that intolerant people don't have to learn tolerance.
I will always try and keep my children well behaved in restaurants, but only because there are people who, incorrectly IMO, are offended but the mere sight of them.
I made the self satisfying (as you put it) statement of "when did I say that" as it appeared to me that she had already assumed that was my opinion. For what it's worth I actually agree they shouldn't be allowed to run around and I said as such in a later post.
PS I know but I'd say Spud is more apt.
So you responded to what you perceived as an incorrect assumption by making an assumption of your own and then getting a bit huffy?
I don't think she was assuming your opinion, as I said, she simply used your post to expand her own view. Or so it seemed to me.
I think , if you had simply extended us the courtesy of clarifying your view, the ensuing (albeit minor) spat would never have occurred.
I could see what you were saying, but if you review the correspondence in isolation you can surely see that your " where did I say that " response was the onset of the rot.
Shame really as, ironically, you and Michelle appear to agree and you could now be chatting along famously.
I am proud to say that my granddaughters are an absolute delight to take out to a restaurant. All credit to my daughter and son-in-law but the girls do have a nice temperament whereas my son when little was a little sod and ruined every family outing we ever had. I did try to control him but believe me it wasn't easy, It wasn't till he was a teenager that he was diagnosed with dyspraxia and his bad behavoiur was due to frustration.
As to children not been allowed in restaurants...........such a british viewpoint. I think we must be the only country in the world with that atitude. My kids when little were welcomed in Europe, USA and latin america with open arms. In fact they were usually made more of a fussof than us
So you responded to what you perceived as an incorrect assumption by making an assumption of your own and then getting a bit huffy?
I don't think she was assuming your opinion, as I said, she simply used your post to expand her own view. Or so it seemed to me.
I think , if you had simply extended us the courtesy of clarifying your view, the ensuing (albeit minor) spat would never have occurred.
I could see what you were saying, but if you review the correspondence in isolation you can surely see that your " where did I say that " response was the onset of the rot.
Shame really as, ironically, you and Michelle appear to agree and you could now be chatting along famously.
PS again- Scud may be even more apt
I don't get huffy, there are bigger things in life to get in a strop about. Off to bed now anyway. Let's just leave it at that.
Little brats should not be anywhere near any decent restaurant. They have McD's, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut etc for all that kind of nonsense. It's probably mostly the parents fault because the kids are bored stiff at a restaurant. If parents want to eat out at a place like that they shouldn't take the squirts.
As to children not been allowed in restaurants...........such a british viewpoint. I think we must be the only country in the world with that atitude. My kids when little were welcomed in Europe, USA and latin america with open arms. In fact they were usually made more of a fussof than us
Little brats should not be anywhere near any decent restaurant. They have McD's, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut etc for all that kind of nonsense. It's probably mostly the parents fault because the kids are bored stiff at a restaurant. If parents want to eat out at a place like that they shouldn't take the squirts.
I am right in my point though. Why do parents think their kids would want to eat at a restaurant? Why bother taking them there if they're gonna be bored and cause mayhem. There's plenty of kids places about. If they want to eat fancy the parents can go on there own. A lot of restaurants don't do kids menus anyway, and there's a reason for that...
It was a country pub/restaurant. Not posh, but slightly more upmarket than your usual two for one place. They do have a kids menu and I've seen children in there before but this is the first time I've seen one running around getting under feet.
You may have just come at a bad time. Though from what you described in terms of the restaurant, it seemed unusual from your McDonalds and Pizza Huts.
Sometimes we're our own busy lives that we don't anticipate this sort of activity and when you get a kids that run loose, it's not often easy to try and keep your cool and be diplomatic.
The employees at the restaurant could have done more to support you.
At the end of the day, there's bound to be a cross section of people from different walks of life, but it's often the case that ones with children tend to want to be prioritized with it comes to public places - it's often as if we owe them something.
Comments
You appear to be attributing somebody else's quote to me. What I said (in response to Spud U Like saying children have no place in restaurants) was;
"If Management deem it so then they have just as much right to be there as you."
I think that is pretty clear. I really don't know why people are getting confused? I took issue with Spud's statement and responded to his post and that alone. I have offered no other point of view. I think it's pretty simple (well to me it is).
I think you have made a mistake. The post I responded to was the second post of the thread. You didn't post until page 2.
always speak to management, especially in a nice place like this sounds. I assume you did.:)
All the same, it seems that there are two extremes of parenting that cause the most problems- those who don't give a damn what their offspring are up to and have little idea about how others might be affected by a child's disruptiveness. At the other extreme, there seem to be the self-absorbed, over-indulgent kind of parents who cannot 'get' that their little darling's precocious behaviour and 'self-expression' (aka 'being a pain in the butt) can be regarded as anything other than cute and wonderful by complete strangers. Either way, it is usually the parents with the problem but these would also be the first to complain/ threaten to sue if said child/ children were injured as a consequence of their bullishness. They are also likely to be extremely defensive if someone challenges their stance, no matter how politely.
However, there are just some people who don't like seeing kids at all in restaurants and even the least little blip in a child's behaviour is likely to cause offence. I once saw an older couple make a big scene and storm out of a pub restaurant because they felt that a family had not controlled their children well enough and that it had spoiled their meal. I don't know what had triggered this because we'd only just arrived. All I know is that the family in question weren't chucked out and that their childrens' behaviour seemed reasonable enough to us while we were there. Had they been running riot beforehand and the incident with the older couple caused the parents to get their kids to simmer down and behave? Alternatively, were the older couple a bit misguided in what they expected from Sunday lunchtime in a family friendly pub dining area? Guess we'll never know.
My apologies, but you are posting on a thread where others can read and reply to your posts. You can't demand as you did to only interact with one person and shout us down if we reply to you as well.
Some parents are utter cretins! She's obviously not bothering to teach her child how to behave.
^^ This! My mum was one of the most laid back parents imaginable but even I knew that a restaurant was one place I shouldn't play up at. For me it was also a case of having been warned beforehand to not misbehave or at least informed that dessert was a reward if I behaved.
I agree that there is something incredibly annoying about children running around restaurants and up to other people's tables - the latter seems to be getting increasingly common. I make a point of avoiding eating out during half term breaks etc. and choosing times/places where it's unlikely lots of children will be present.
I have no issue with people responding to me but what you said to me was irrelevant to my post. If I had in some way suggested children were ok to run around or tried to justify it then fair enough, but I hadn't so I don't get the logic of you responding to me as you did.
And per my previous post I have some lovely children with nice manners in restaurants and they certainly shouldn't be banned and should also be allowed to enjoy their meal.
You are completely right its the parents that are too blame and they are the ones who should be banned if they don't really care how their kids are behaving, just a shame that the children then suffer.
Your stance appeared to be that you were supporting the people saying the children should be able to be there, thats fair enough. But others like myself didn't say they shouldn't be there, but should be well behaved when they are. Anyway it's pointless going round in circles.
If people are going to take their children to a restaurant don't let them behave like little brats, running around and screaming and ruining others diners meals.
We are obviously on completely different wavelengths. You have taken my comment directed at another poster and due to an ongoing debate between yourself and other posters at that time, assumed I was joining in. I wasn't.
I just thought Spud's comment was ridiculous so I responded to it.
The End!
The problem is that when Michelle responded to your initial comment you didn't clarify, you made the famously self satisfying but ultimately useless "and when did I say that? " reply.
You are correct, children do have a right to be in restaurants if management deem it so.
But it's clear to me that Michelle simply expanded on that by saying their right should not include the right to run around as if it were a playground.
If you'd simply replied that you concurred, or made clear what you did think, you would not have become so misunderstood.
PS it's Stud
You summed that up so much better than I did. Thanks
I made the self satisfying (as you put it) statement of "when did I say that" as it appeared to me that she had already assumed that was my opinion. For what it's worth I actually agree they shouldn't be allowed to run around and I said as such in a later post.
PS I know but I'd say Spud is more apt.
I have no problem if a little toddler walks up to my table briefly. It is annoying if they start doing something like kicking you and the parent does nothing.
Manners only exist so that intolerant people don't have to learn tolerance.
I will always try and keep my children well behaved in restaurants, but only because there are people who, incorrectly IMO, are offended but the mere sight of them.
So you responded to what you perceived as an incorrect assumption by making an assumption of your own and then getting a bit huffy?
I don't think she was assuming your opinion, as I said, she simply used your post to expand her own view. Or so it seemed to me.
I think , if you had simply extended us the courtesy of clarifying your view, the ensuing (albeit minor) spat would never have occurred.
I could see what you were saying, but if you review the correspondence in isolation you can surely see that your " where did I say that " response was the onset of the rot.
Shame really as, ironically, you and Michelle appear to agree and you could now be chatting along famously.
PS again- Scud may be even more apt
As to children not been allowed in restaurants...........such a british viewpoint. I think we must be the only country in the world with that atitude. My kids when little were welcomed in Europe, USA and latin america with open arms. In fact they were usually made more of a fussof than us
I don't get huffy, there are bigger things in life to get in a strop about. Off to bed now anyway. Let's just leave it at that.
Cheers! Night!
Well I'm glad you are not huffy.
Goodnight
Lovely tolerant attitude.
I am right in my point though. Why do parents think their kids would want to eat at a restaurant? Why bother taking them there if they're gonna be bored and cause mayhem. There's plenty of kids places about. If they want to eat fancy the parents can go on there own. A lot of restaurants don't do kids menus anyway, and there's a reason for that...
You may have just come at a bad time. Though from what you described in terms of the restaurant, it seemed unusual from your McDonalds and Pizza Huts.
Sometimes we're our own busy lives that we don't anticipate this sort of activity and when you get a kids that run loose, it's not often easy to try and keep your cool and be diplomatic.
The employees at the restaurant could have done more to support you.
At the end of the day, there's bound to be a cross section of people from different walks of life, but it's often the case that ones with children tend to want to be prioritized with it comes to public places - it's often as if we owe them something.