Should Under-18s be aloud in pubs?

chill

ionapaul wrote:

If we are still talking about children in pubs after 9pm I think most people will agree, they should not be there, supervised or otherwise.

I don't agree. Why ?

Of course everyone can point out exceptions (the trad night in Doolin on a sunny July evening!) but by-and-large Irish pubs at night are NOT suitable for children,

Why ? I would suggest that we have allowed Pubs to BECOME unsuitable places because of us PREVENTING children coming into publs.
Pubs have been allowed to become the refuge of sad child-phobic people which leads to over drinking and bad behavious.
We need to bring children back into pubs to transform this atmosphere and start the process of ridding our country of this obsession with drink.

whether their parents are there or not (once the parents start drinking, the element of responsibility people hope for may disappear). Maybe I don't have the perspective angry parents who want to visit the pub have, but certainly have been in enough pubs (particularly in the oft-mentioned Salthill, where I grew up) after 9pm to know that kids are better off elsewhere and leaving it to parental discretion is not enough (like in a lot of things regulated by the government, such as compulsory schooling, etc...)

what a rediculous answer. What has a familiy wishing to sit in a quiet pub with a drink with their children got to do with sending children to school ?

You make no valid argument why Parents should not be allowed to decide to take their children into a pub for a drink in the evening.

chill

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The question for me simply comes down to whether or not a pub is a good environment for a child after nine o'clock. yes or no: I think a pub is tha last place a responsible parent should bring a child after 9/10 o'clock .

I suggest that we need to jettison this puritanical attitude that has produced the current obsession with drinking and alcohol.

Mighty_Mouse

We need to bring children back into pubs to transform this atmosphere and start the process of ridding our country of this obsession with drink.

You think that the solution to removing an Irish "in-bred" obsession with drink is to allow kids in pubs at night-time? Theres two ways of looking at the irish drinking situation. Either we go for the puritanical viewpoint and ban alcohol/strictly regulate it or we take the european viewpoint where drink is no biggy and everyone drinks wine from an early age.

But I still don't think a pub is a good environment for children at night-time. .

ionapaul

chill wrote:

I suggest that we need to jettison this puritanical attitude that has produced the current obsession with drinking and alcohol.

Argh!!! There is no moving you on this belief, I can tell Fair play to you for sticking to your guns.

Do you think pubs were more enjoyable and suitable for children a few years ago, when they were allowed in after 9? I suppose at least now they cannot be poisoned by second-hand smoke so the air is better for them than previously. If the government continues to regulate alcohol comsumption, will we become even more obsessed with alcohol, will children start drinking even earlier, and will Irish society finally break down into drunken anarchy? A pretty depressing thought, and if letting children spent a few late nights a year in a pub with their parents will halt this slide towards national destruction, well, the children's sacrifice will be worth it

bonkey

chill wrote:

I would say yes.

The publican should decide what style of premises he wants to maintain and what kind of clientele he wishes to attract, NOT the government.

So you would also believe it would be perfectly acceptable for a publican to say "no blacks", or "no arabs", and so on???

jc

grumpytrousers

bonkey wrote:

So you would also believe it would be perfectly acceptable for a publican to say "no blacks", or "no arabs", and so on???

jc

well y'see in the case of kids, and this 'discrimination' you allude to....come their time (18th birthday) they will be allowed. I've no problem with discrimination based on age. It's the inverse reason of the one that's kept me off most bouncy castles this last x years.

Dammit...

bonkey

grumpytrousers wrote:

well y'see in the case of kids, and this 'discrimination' you allude to....

Ehh, no Ted. Go back and read the comment of Chill's that I was answering.

He didn't say that a publican should be allowed choose whether or not he allowed kids - he made an open statement that a publican should be allowed to choose "his kind of clientele", and that it is not the government's job.

If Chill wishes to rephrase that to mean that - when it comes to kids - he doesn't believe it should be government mandated either way, thats fine. I'm just trying to clear up whether or not thats what he meant, or if he genuinely thinks the government have no grounds telling a publican he/she cannot be racist.

Its not as daft as it seems - there's been plenty of people on similar threads before who believe that someone deciding that you don't want to hire/employ/serve/whatever someone for any reason is perfectly reasonable and not racist in the slightest.

jc

Villain

bonkey wrote:

So you would also believe it would be perfectly acceptable for a publican to say "no blacks", or "no arabs", and so on???

jc

That happens everyday of the week in Ireland, but obviously they give other reasons.

grumpytrousers

fair dinkum, I suppose I was just trying to give my own 2c in the context of the threads title...

gt

chill

ionapaul wrote:

Alright, once more I will attempt to counter the 'if you regulate it, they will come' argument...cigarette smoking is much MUCH more regulated now than 10, 20, 30 years ago .......

SNIP....

No. Teenagers and in fact people in general smoke less in 2004 than 10, 20, 30 years ago. Despite the impressive increase in governmental regulation.

Regulation = obsession is a non-starter with regards to alcohol, IMO. Again, I think we'll just agree to disagree on almost every aspect covered in this debate

A fair attempt but of zero value. Smoking is not comparable to drinking in any shape or form. Smoking KILLS. Alcohol does not. Pubs are places to visit and have a drink or three, with no implication or danger to one's health. Smoking has no social value.
If you know any teenagers you must know how high a proportion of them insist on smoking... and it's mainly because they are so frowned upon, regulated etc.
The only serious inhibiting factor on their consumption is the price.

The truth remains that social drinking is a healthy and positive social activity that is being destroyed by the restrictive regulation and legal precription of opening hours and the totally unacceptable restriction of parents rights.

chill

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

You think that the solution to removing an Irish "in-bred" obsession with drink is to allow kids in pubs at night-time?

I don't for one minute believe in this 'in-bred' idea.

But I still don't think a pub is a good environment for children at night-time. .

Fine - but it is that kind of anti -children attitude that created our present drink obsessed nation.

chill

ionapaul wrote:

Argh!!! There is no moving you on this belief, I can tell Fair play to you for sticking to your guns.

haha.. thank you ... I think

.....if letting children spent a few late nights a year in a pub with their parents will halt this slide towards national destruction, well, the children's sacrifice will be worth it

I don't accept your continued assumption that a child in a pub in the evening is somehow hurting it. On the contrary, the child is with their parents, it is learning about one of the core social activities in our country and is having a ncie drink. What's the big deal ???

bonkey

chill wrote:

I don't for one minute believe in this 'in-bred' idea.

Convenient that. Ignore the experts who say it exists because its inconvenient. Good approach.

jc

chill

bonkey wrote:

Ehh, no Ted. Go back and read the comment of Chill's that I was answering.

He didn't say that a publican should be allowed choose whether or not he allowed kids - he made an open statement that a publican should be allowed to choose "his kind of clientele", and that it is not the government's job.

If Chill wishes to rephrase that to mean that - when it comes to kids - he doesn't believe it should be government mandated either way, thats fine.

It may have seemed very funny at the time but your comments are just being pedantic.

It was completely obvious and apparent to anyone that my comment was in respect of 'children'.

bonkey

chill wrote:

It may have seemed very funny at the time but your comments are just being pedantic.

The only pedanticism - if you will - was that I wanted to know if you meant what you had actually written, or if you meant it to be re-interpreted to mean something else more directly relevant to the context of the discussion.

You've been around long enough to know that people make both types of statement.

You've also been around long enough to know that, generally speaking, people fly off the handle when you put words in their mouth, re-interpreting what they said away from what they actually said to mean what you think they said.

All I did was ask (and then explain why I asked) whether you meant what you wrote to be taken as it was written, or not. It wasn't an attempt at humour - it was an attempt to figure out what were actually saying.

It was completely obvious and apparent to anyone that my comment was in respect of 'children'.

Well it wasn't completely obvious and apparent to me, which is why I asked the question.

As I've already said, people have made the case previously that publicans should not be prevented from discrimination of any kind as it should be their own choice who they do business with. I was enquiring as to whether or not that is what you meant (because its a more accurate interpretation of what you said), or not (i.e. where by "clientele" you meant "children" or "underage clientele only").

jc

ionapaul

chill wrote:

A fair attempt but of zero value. Smoking is not comparable to drinking in any shape or form. Smoking KILLS. Alcohol does not. Pubs are places to visit and have a drink or three, with no implication or danger to one's health. Smoking has no social value.
If you know any teenagers you must know how high a proportion of them insist on smoking... and it's mainly because they are so frowned upon, regulated etc.
The only serious inhibiting factor on their consumption is the price.

The truth remains that social drinking is a healthy and positive social activity that is being destroyed by the restrictive regulation and legal precription of opening hours and the totally unacceptable restriction of parents rights.

Come on! Honestly, I am beginning to think you must work for the industry in question. Smoking kills, as does alcohol. If you don't believe me, ask for a life insurance quote (or car insurance quote) and tell them you don't drink. Then do the same a week later, and mention that you have drink (for example) five pints each weekend in a moderate fashion. See if there is a difference in your quote. The difference is down to the reduced life expectancy you deal with as an alcohol drinker. People die each and every day from alcohol poisoning. As for drink driving - it is the car that kills, but the lack of control that leads to the crash is a result of the alcohol.

The reason I disagree with you on children's opportunities to spend time in pubs at night (or rather their parents opportunity to bring their children along, its not like the child particularly wants to be there) is that although I agree that the pub should be a place for 'a drink or three', it is too often (especially in Ireland IMO) a place to get twisted and engage in behaviour completely unsuitable for children to witness. It could be we visit different types of pubs - I do know that the oft-mentioned 'resort' pubs of Salthill (oft-visited, indeed, during my earlier years!) are definitely included in those I would deem completely unsuitable for children at night.

I don't really consider drinking in the pub a 'positive social activity', merely a social activity suitable for adults in an adult environment.

BuffyBot

Smoking KILLS. Alcohol does not

There's a whole raft of evidence and experts out there which may disagree with you..

chill

ionapaul wrote:

Come on! Honestly, I am beginning to think you must work for the industry in question. Smoking kills, as does alcohol.

I don't know if you came down in the last shower..... But alcohol has been cited by the medical sciences as being 'good for you' ! it does not kill. The fact that some people abuse it and die from alcohol poisoning is irrelevant.

If you don't believe me, ask for a life insurance quote (or car insurance quote) and tell them you don't drink. Then do the same a week later, and mention that you have drink (for example) five pints each weekend in a moderate fashion. See if there is a difference in your quote. The difference is down to the reduced life expectancy you deal with as an alcohol drinker. People die each and every day from alcohol poisoning. As for drink driving - it is the car that kills, but the lack of control that leads to the crash is a result of the alcohol.

My doctor advised me to have a glass of wine with my dinner for my health. Is he lying ? Is medical science lying now ?

The reason I disagree with you on children's opportunities to spend time in pubs at night (or rather their parents opportunity to bring their children along, its not like the child particularly wants to be there) is that although I agree that the pub should be a place for 'a drink or three', it is too often (especially in Ireland IMO) a place to get twisted and engage in behaviour completely unsuitable for children to witness.

Yet no one has provided any evidence that this is happening ona regular basis .... I am regularly in pubs in the evening in suburban settings and haven't seen a drunk behaving in any manner that could be construed as bad for achild for well over a year !

It could be we visit different types of pubs - I do know that the oft-mentioned 'resort' pubs of Salthill (oft-visited, indeed, during my earlier years!) are definitely included in those I would deem completely unsuitable for children at night.

Pehaps but firstly I suggest that this behaviour is triggered, exascerbated and made worse... by the fact that families are unable to occupy these pubs and hence these sad boozers end up in an atmosphere where their pathetic behaviour is acceptable. Secondly I have said previously that yes there is an argument for certain kinds of pubs etc to be unsuitable. But I believe that they shodl be assumed suitable unless a reason is specified and justified.

I don't really consider drinking in the pub a 'positive social activity', merely a social activity suitable for adults in an adult environment.

Well I sugggest that a majority of Irish, British and American and indeed European people would disagree. Their popularity is evidence of this.

lucernarian

originally posted by ionapaul
(or rather their parents opportunity to bring their children along, its not like the child particularly wants to be there)

Who are you to comment on exactly what children want?

originally posted by chill
If you know any teenagers you must know how high a proportion of them insist on smoking... and it's mainly because they are so frowned upon, regulated etc.
The only serious inhibiting factor on their consumption is the price.

Do YOU know any teenagers as most of the teenagers I know do not smoke and the few which do certainly do not smoke because of the old cliche of "defying authority".

Cabaal

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Who are you to comment on exactly what children want?

My family owned a pub for 75 years and I can tell you kids don't want ot be in a pub, they get bored quickly they end up playing on the very busy main street outside with NOBODY watching them, they are given money to buy junk just so there parents don't have to listen to them and because there to lazy to pay for a baby sitter.

Oh the most annoying part from a business point of view is
- There make alot of noise, run around the place, jump on seats etc
- They litter outside the premises
- They throw chrisps etc around inside the premises

In short although we don't stop kids from coming to a bar but we don't luck forward to it, kids have no place in some pubs just like they have NO place in nite clubs.
If the pub serves food then there has to be allowences but otherwise must pubs don't look forward to kids been brought in.
Pubs are not there to baby sit kids!

lucernarian

It seems there are too many places which have no places for kids.
Why dont we start providing places where kids have a place and are welcomed? Of course, we live in a country where there are more golf courses than playgrounds. Considering children have absolutely no power it's not suprising that we have a situation where children are not provided for in practically any way. Perhaps these pubs who are so experienced at criticising young children and teens should start doing something proactive for a change and provide areas in bars and restaurants where children can be looked after and served. These need only be open until perhaps 9-10 pm. After that time, children can be barred from the premises.

Cork

It is not acceptable to bring kids into pubs after 9pm.

It is not acceptable to use pubs as a defacto creche where parents out for a night out can bring their kids after 9pm.

I don't think that leaving young kids into pubs untill closing time makes sense.

I really don't buy the tourism arguement - it is only being used as a red herring.

This country has a high level of ancahol consumption. Pubs and the Drinks industry needs to ackmowdege this.

I think pubs should even examine the costs they sell soft drinks. It is crazy pricing.

Often, it is cheaper to buy a pint of beer than a pint of cola.

But what is the drinks industry doing to readdress this?

Disallowing young kids into pubs makes social sense. It is sad that our media is giving lobby groups air time and news print coverage.

teaser

Absolutely not, a pub is no place for children, especially after 9 pm, when people are getting drunk

AngelofFire

Cork wrote:

It is sad that our media is giving lobby groups air time and news print coverage.

I take it you dont believe in freedom of speech

simu

I don't see what's wrong with having children in pubs now and again. I'm thinking especially of country pubs that function as meeting places for the community rather than city centre meat markets. I think that most parents are able to distinguish between the type of pub atmosphere that's suitable for kids and the type that isn't. Of course, there's a minority of parents who would think nothing of getting drunk, fighting etc in front of their kids but it will take a lot more than a ban on kids in pubs to make good parents of such people.

ionapaul

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Who are you to comment on exactly what children want?

Hmm..interesting question. Maybe 'cause I (like everyone else) was a child for a number of years. I have a memory, which allows me to remember (subjectively, of course) what it was like to be a child. I am a human, which allows me to make judgement calls (again, subjective of course) on situations others find themselves in that I have experienced.

Your question was a tad idiotic. Follow your line and we shouldn't offer any opinions on things we are not currently experiencing - after all, even if it happened to us in the past, human memory is a subjective and incomplete process and thus we cannot properly base any opinions on prior experiences, only events occurring in the present. Even then, the way we experience the present is only from a human perspective - objective reality may well be something completely different. Therefore no opinion can be seen as 100% informed or 'correct'. Right?

That said, maybe I am wrong, children could be different animals in this millennium.

ColoradoGal

Deleted User wrote:

Ireland already has enough of a problem with drink without allowing teenagers into a bar. You see, i'm for the gradual destruction of the pub culture, and keeping children out of pubs is a very good step in the right direction. We already have smoking bans in place, lets move forward and apply the same to alcohol, for all ages.

Can anyone honestly tell me that a pub is a good environment for children to expierence? I certainly don't think so, and I spent enough time in pubs as a teenager/child to appreciate that.

Although I wish we had a bit more of a pub/social culture for post 40-year olds in America - or something that would get older groups to turn off the TV and get out of the house on a Friday night to socialize. There is some of this in my country (variable by region), but nothing like that in any part of Europe, it seems. A happy medium would be a good idea. I love "Irish" pubs over here, but they do tend to be the smokiest of the bars unfortunately.

Regarding having youngsters in a pub might not be a good idea based on some studies I just heard today regarding addiction. Apparently a person who starts drinking socially (even lightly) before 15 years doubles their chance of later becoming an Alcoholic later in life!

lucernarian

originally posted by ionapaul
Hmm..interesting question. Maybe 'cause I (like everyone else) was a child for a number of years. I have a memory, which allows me to remember (subjectively, of course) what it was like to be a child. I am a human, which allows me to make judgement calls (again, subjective of course) on situations others find themselves in that I have experienced.

Your question was a tad idiotic. Follow your line and we shouldn't offer any opinions on things we are not currently experiencing - after all, even if it happened to us in the past, human memory is a subjective and incomplete process and thus we cannot properly base any opinions on prior experiences, only events occurring in the present. Even then, the way we experience the present is only from a human perspective - objective reality may well be something completely different. Therefore no opinion can be seen as 100% informed or 'correct'. Right?

And vice versa. When I was younger I had no problem with being in a pub. To me, it was a place where I could get sausages and chips

If your logic is correct then the situation aforementioned about playgrounds and golf courses should not occurr. By using your logic, we should have built hundreds of playgrounds across the country as we would have remembered the very rare occasion (depending on location) that we experienced the fun of a playground. Before you start making sweeping statements like that you should see if your statements are "a tad idiotic". Also, it is somewhat contradictory to state the nature of human memory and then go on to say that our opinions are subjective and therefore incorrect. That would mean that the basis for your theory, the subjective, incomplete nature of human memory, can be easily challenged as an inaccurate opinion.

originally posted by cork
Disallowing young kids into pubs makes social sense.

What exactly makes social sense about disallowing kids into pubs? It has already been discussed that there are several scenarios that exist where kids would even benefit from being there.

You have made several statements with absolutely no facts or logic backing them up. Please make some sort of valid point instead of radical statements with no reasoning behind them.

Of course, my suggestion to pub owners has been overlooked. One would have to think that many people were never children in this country if the fact that that would be biologically impossible was overlooked.

ionapaul

To_be_confirmed wrote:

If your logic is correct then the situation aforementioned about playgrounds and golf courses should not occurr. By using your logic, we should have built hundreds of playgrounds across the country as we would have remembered the very rare occasion (depending on location) that we experienced the fun of a playground.

If playgrounds made the owners money, we would have more. Once we are out of childhood we get very conservative with our money and only a very generous person who cares not for the cost would pay for a playground. Golf courses make money AND are built for middle and upper class men (typically) with money and time to endulge themselves. That is the reality of the situation.

You correctly read my comment on the incomplete nature of human memory and knowledge. Almost all opinions or statements, no matter what evidence is provided to back them up, can be questioned. Your beliefs, mine, anyones arn't worth a damn if you choose to look at it like that.

It would be great if there were more playgrounds than golf courses, and more playgrounds than pubs, but despite our currently obsession with youth, children simply are not valued enough for that to happen, and love of profit will always win out over philantropy.

ionapaul

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Also, it is somewhat contradictory to state the nature of human memory and then go on to say that our opinions are subjective and therefore incorrect. That would mean that the basis for your theory, the subjective, incomplete nature of human memory, can be easily challenged as an inaccurate opinion.

Oh, I meant that human memory is subjective therefore any opinion or statement, despite evidence, can be discounted. Sorry if that was a little confusing.