personally i love this idea and wish there was one in my town a few times my lunch or dinner has been ruined cause of screaming kids or kids running around and bumping into everyone.. now we just need a theatre that dont allow children i tend to go to midnight showing anymore so i dont have to deal with a mom and her screaming child.
I would love it if there were child free plane flights or child free carriages on trains! I once spent 8 hours on a plane with a crying child sitting behind me, by the end I was just about ready to open the door and push them out!
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.
They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I would love it if there were child free plane flights or child free carriages on trains! I once spent 8 hours on a plane with a crying child sitting behind me, by the end I was just about ready to open the door and push them out!
i went to see hansel and gretel ln january now stay in mind its rated r i had to listen to what looked like a 5-6 yr old and 2 3yrs olds talk thru it i was irate and ended up throwing peanut mm's at the parents
It just seems unnecessary to me. I think most parents have the discretion not to take their young children to an upscale restaurant like that if they have a habit of misbehaving in public. It's not that I disagree with the concept, I just think the policy is unnecessarily preemptive because it's probably not going to be an issue. I think they would be better off to kick out customers who are loud and rowdy and causing a disturbance, regardless of their age, rather than exclude an entire age group simply because they might cause a disturbance.
That being said, I could understand things like child-free air flights or train rides because being stuck in transport for possibly several hours with endlessly screaming children is quite different from a restaurant where they could easily be asked to leave.
It just seems unnecessary to me. I think most parents have the discretion not to take their young children to an upscale restaurant like that if they have a habit of misbehaving in public. It's not that I disagree with the concept, I just think the policy is unnecessarily preemptive because it's probably not going to be an issue. I think they would be better off to kick out customers who are loud and rowdy and causing a disturbance, regardless of their age, rather than exclude an entire age group simply because they might cause a disturbance.
That being said, I could understand things like child-free air flights or train rides because being stuck in transport for possibly several hours with endlessly screaming children is quite different from a restaurant where they could easily be asked to leave.
there have been case where
people have been asked to leave a place and then trying to sue the place.. to prevent it in the first place is better i think and from what i read about the place it aint really for children couches and probally low lights and romantic music
I think child free restaurants can be a good idea and I dont see a problem with it,I do find it funny when the parents get all uppity!
I think it banning anyone under the age of 18 is a bit much as if theyre trying to avoid running around/crying etc then most teens are capable of behaving!
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
I like kids and screetching, wailing babies don't bother me. BUT - when a baby is blue and crying for 5 or 10 minutes on end in a movie theater things are out of hand. Little peeps and murmurs are fine but when little baby toots is testing out her full lung capacity its time for mum or dad to show toots the lobby.
Regarding child-free transport, I'm not fussed. A parent and child have every right to travel on public transport (and a plane is still public!) as anyone else. If it bothers you that much then pay the extra and bump yourself up to Business/First Class.
A child (especially a baby) doesn't have the capability to communicate their feelings (think of popping ears on planes), and public transport isn't exactly the most comfortable place for a sleep.
Regarding child-free transport, I'm not fussed. A parent and child have every right to travel on public transport (and a plane is still public!) as anyone else. If it bothers you that much then pay the extra and bump yourself up to Business/First Class.
A child (especially a baby) doesn't have the capability to communicate their feelings (think of popping ears on planes), and public transport isn't exactly the most comfortable place for a sleep.
id have to disagree if someone is disturbing other consumers then they should be ejected from the place of business dont matter if its a plane,bus,train,place to eat or the movies. just telling people if "you dont like then send more money and go to first class" maybe have a section of the plane just for screaming kids with a sound barrier between classes ?
You can't eject someone from a plane. Rowdy passengers will be removed from a bus or train, but a crying child won't come into that category.
Why should a parent of a child (who has no idea whether or not that child will cry or be noisy) have to be subjected to an enclosed space of other parents with children?
What if I don't want to listen to the inane chatter of the person next to me? They are annoying me and disrupting my travel, can I get them removed?
You can't eject someone from a plane. Rowdy passengers will be removed from a bus or train, but a crying child won't come into that category.
Why should a parent of a child (who has no idea whether or not that child will cry or be noisy) have to be subjected to an enclosed space of other parents with children?
What if I don't want to listen to the inane chatter of the person next to me? They are annoying me and disrupting my travel, can I get them removed?
to argue the last point chatter dont bother multiple people but i can guarantee a screaming child will annoy everyone in that section of the plane.
as for the second point they chose to have children so they can live with the choice and they chose to fly.. maybe they should just have a airline for adults or flights just for adults and charge a bit more (not alot like maybe 20-30bucks per seat) im sure most people would pay the extra i would.
you can eject someone from a plane just give them a parachute and give them the choice of shutting the kid up or going for a bit of fresh air
i just know if i acted like some of these kids do these days my ass would have been tanned by dads belt.
I dunno, I don't really agree with it, afterall there would be a massive uproar if they were to ban homosexuals or people from ethnic minorities, homophobia and racism are stood up against so why is society so happy to allow discrimination against younger people if it makes their own lives easier? I think everyone should have equal rights-and that includes children.
to argue the last point chatter dont bother multiple people but i can guarantee a screaming child will annoy everyone in that section of the plane.
as for the second point they chose to have children so they can live with the choice and they chose to fly.. maybe they should just have a airline for adults or flights just for adults and charge a bit more (not alot like maybe 20-30bucks per seat) im sure most people would pay the extra i would.
Chatter can, and does, bother multiple people. Or what about music leaking? When does something stop being an annoyance for one/two people and become big enough to warrant drastic action? There are multiple things which will annoy you when you travel on public transport, and learning to deal with it is part of life. Public transport is completely different to a private business.
You choose to fly, and choose to use a public means of travel. If you want to seclude yourself pay more. You were a child yourself once and I'm sure your crying irritated someone somewhere.
Considering how busy airports are, I doubt specific flights would be a viable option, at least not for all destinations. If you are flying to a "family-friendly" destination and/or flying during the school holidays it should simply be expected that there will be a child on the flight who may or may not make noise.
Last edited by The One Who : 18-06-2013 at 09:33 PM.
I would eat there and if I had kids and thus a partner I would be like yay time for the babysitter!!
Planes and so on are difficult and kids fly business and first class indeed back in the day when my dads company paid for tickets I used to be an expat brat who was probably incredibly irritating to everyone bar my parents!
That said I would contemplate flying a kids free plane if the cost wasn't to prohibitive!
When we lose twenty pounds... we may be losing the twenty best pounds we have! We may be losing the pounds that contain our genius, our humanity, our love and honesty. ~Woody Allen
Is a chocolate muffin loving glitter ball
Chatter can, and does, bother multiple people. Or what about music leaking? When does something stop being an annoyance for one/two people and become big enough to warrant drastic action? There are multiple things which will annoy you when you travel on public transport, and learning to deal with it is part of life. Public transport is completely different to a private business.
You choose to fly, and choose to use a public means of travel. If you want to seclude yourself pay more. You were a child yourself once and I'm sure your crying irritated someone somewhere.
Considering how busy airports are, I doubt specific flights would be a viable option, at least not for all destinations. If you are flying to a "family-friendly" destination and/or flying during the school holidays it should simply be expected that there will be a child on the flight who may or may not make noise.
actually i was in a hospital most of my childhood so none really had to deal with me but my parents and people paid 2.
i wouldnt consider planes public transport since usually flights are a couple hundred bucks which some cant afford.
Hmm, here's my second thoughts on this after thinking about it some more. Just for the record, this is very general, not specific to this one restaurant situation.
I don't think it teaches a very good societal lesson. For one, it restricts parents from being able to make the discretion of what is or is not an appropriate place to take their children so it doesn't encourage responsible parenting in that way. Small children are going to act up in public at some point and parents need to know how to be able to handle it. If a child is acting up, at what point do they need to leave the situation and how do they correct that behavior in the future? Obviously it will differ with age but this is certainly an issue of parental responsibility particularly when the child is very young and that takes practice and learning for new parents. Secondly, part of socialization for children is learning what they are suppose to do in those situations and how to act in public and if they are restricted from certain places, they are not going to learn how to behave around adults and in formal situations and whatnot if they are not allow to do so or not expected to do so. That's a very important part of growing up and learning responsibility. Also learning to respect adults and the value of adults and not just being stuck in "kid world" all the time.
I don't think it's a huge deal for one restaurant, but if it becomes the norm to disallow children into certain places simply because they are deemed not to fit that environment, not because it is an issue with safety or legality but simply because they are not wanted there, it doesn't teach them how to integrate into society and interact with adults. It creates a divide between the world of adults and children, which already exists, but children are an unavoidable part of society and they need to be integrated into it and learn how to become functioning adults in society one day. It also creates a sense of entitlement as the child grows up and reaches that age that they then can go to that place/do that thing/are an adult simply because they have reached that age. It doesn't have anything to do with maturity, responsibility or respect. There becomes an expectation that children are to misbehave and be immature and are going to act out but it's okay because we can just ban them from places and not have to deal with the actual problem which is teaching kids how to integrate into society.
Like I said, this isn't specific to this restaurant situation, it's not a big deal for one private place but I think it's dangerous for what it says about our society if becomes the norm to disallow children in places simply because we don't want to "put up" with them being there. I just think in general it should be an issue of discretion and responsibility, not policy and exclusion.
