Kids in Cafes

DrPhilG

Smondie wrote: »

You mustn't have children if you cannot tell when a child is taking a ****. Big red face and then the smell.

I once watched a parent walking through a monkey enclosure in London (I think) zoo pick their 3 or 4 year old kid up, drop his togs, held the boy's back against their chest with his legs held up towards her shoulders (basically folded the child into a v shape with his arse at the point of the v) and let him unleash a stream of poop into the bushes. Assuming he peed at the same time but I was fortunate enough not to see that as clearly as the chocolate fountain.

I nearly took a crap myself with the shock.

learn_more

goz83 wrote: »

Spot on there Smondie. That is indeed the key word. A child will quickly forget any tantrum, meltdown, or SO and get on with it. Other precious people of an older age may not.



Your predispositional belief that I am attempting to rile you is wrong. Though any intended humour is partly lost on the written word and on our opposing views.

I am very aware of what you were trying to do with caps, but sometimes you're just wrong. It's EMPHASIS. And when caps are used a number of times, the emphasis becomes SHOUTING. See what I did there?

Point to consider: if the vast majority of people on this thread (see, I did it again) missed your point.....well, perhaps you

A) Didn't make your point clear, or
don't have a coherent point to make.

Tell me, what is sophisticated about coming to AH (of all places) to start a b1tching thread about kids in cafes and highlighting the "crumbs"? Plenty of adults leave awful messes behind them and it's not restricted to your average cafe, or your chav filled ones either :rolleyes:

learn_more wrote: »

It's just a total lack of consideration that parents have these days which is a sign of our times. Sigh.

There is the point right there from the OP. Lack of consideration for others, particularly in public places. Never once mentioned badly behaved children or bad parenting.

Point to consider: See how succinct factually correct posts are far more effective that long-winded waffly ones.

Elliott S

Penny Tration wrote: »

It's great that your cousin liked that, but many wouldn't. I know if that happened during my wedding, I'd be telling the parents to sit their child down, and if it happened again, to take the child outside.

In the middle of the vows? In the middle of saying your vows, you'd stop the ceremony to tell off a child's parents? Sure you would. :pac:

It's not ideal of course but personally I think I'd be more focussed on something else at that moment in time. I don't even think I'd notice a toddler running around. Slightly more important matters at hand.

I don't believe at all that you would do what you say you would

This thread is entertaining to read. So many keyboard warriors.

Elliott S

Deleted User wrote: »

Allowing ones child run around the altar at another persons wedding is incredibly ignorant. I'd be hesitant about bringing a child unless the couple insisted on it.

The child was the groom's nephew and was very much wanted there. And he was very sweet actually, looking up curiously at the priest and the ceremony, wondering what was happening. It's one the the things I remember from that day. He made everyone in my vicinity in the church smile.

See, these things tend to be less black and white than people make out. Anyone who tutted at that child on the day would have looked like humourless, joyless sod and I'd honestly hate to be like them. No ability to spot the joy in something. Thankfully nobody did, that was sitting near me anyway. If any one of you reading my description of the event still thinks it unacceptable, then yes you are a joyless sod and I feel sorry for you that life has leeched from you the ability to see the colour that spontaneous happenings can bring to events and to life.

Oh, and during that ceremony, a crying baby, the bride's niece was brought out of the church for a few minutes to calm down.

Imagine that two different scenarios involving two different children warranted different approaches and were both dealt with well?

And it's the same with children in any public setting. People here ranting about what they would do in a certain situation when it can hard to appreciate what it is actually like unless you are there.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Elliott S wrote: »

In the middle of the vows? In the middle of saying your vows, you'd stop the ceremony to tell off a child's parents? Sure you would. :pac:

It's not ideal of course but personally I think I'd be more focussed on something else at that moment in time. I don't even think I'd notice a toddler running around. Slightly more important matters at hand.

I don't believe at all that you would do what you say you would

This thread is entertaining to read. So many keyboard warriors.

I personally wouldn't allow children at my wedding so hopefully that would remove any of the risk of that happening, though if there was children in the church on the day id have the priest say it at the very start, children to remain seated at all times, or parents must take them outside.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Elliott S wrote: »

The child was the groom's nephew and was very much wanted there. And he was very sweet actually, looking up curiously at the priest and the ceremony, wondering what was happening. It's one the the things I remember from that day. He made everyone in my vicinity in the church smile.

See, these things tend to be less black and white than people make out. Anyone who tutted at that child on the day would have looked like humourless, joyless sod and I'd honestly hate to be like them. No ability to spot the joy in something. Thankfully nobody did, that was sitting near me anyway. If any one of you reading my description of the event still thinks it unacceptable, then yes you are a joyless sod and I feel sorry for you that life has leeched from you the ability to see the colour that spontaneous happenings can bring to events and to life.

Oh, and during that ceremony, a crying baby, the bride's niece was brought out of the church for a few minutes to calm down.

Imagine that two different scenarios involving two different children warranted different approaches and were both dealt with well?

And it's the same with children in any public setting. People here ranting about what they would do in a certain situation when it can hard to appreciate what it is actually like unless you are there.

To be honest, dress it up whatever way you like, the child's parents couldn't be bothered to ensure their 3 year old wasn't running around a church. I find a lot of joy in situations around me. Selfish parenting isn't one of them.

wexandproud

LexieOnRale wrote: »

To be honest, dress it up whatever way you like, the child's parents couldn't be bothered to ensure their 3 year old wasn't running around a church. I find a lot of joy in situations around me. Selfish parenting isn't one of them.

there has been lot of talk in the thread about kids with various disorder but the biggest problem is parents with 'accld' . also known as 'acquired couldn't care less disorder '

Jawgap

LexieOnRale wrote: »

To be honest, dress it up whatever way you like, the child's parents couldn't be bothered to ensure their 3 year old wasn't running around a church. I find a lot of joy in situations around me. Selfish parenting isn't one of them.

I'm not religious in anyway but if people are choosing to use a church to get married they should respect the sacrament and the sanctity of the church. If they are agnostic or atheist then, fine, go find another building to get married in, there are plenty.

Alf Veedersane

Elliott S wrote: »

The child was the groom's nephew and was very much wanted there. And he was very sweet actually, looking up curiously at the priest and the ceremony, wondering what was happening. It's one the the things I remember from that day. He made everyone in my vicinity in the church smile.

See, these things tend to be less black and white than people make out. Anyone who tutted at that child on the day would have looked like humourless, joyless sod and I'd honestly hate to be like them. No ability to spot the joy in something. Thankfully nobody did, that was sitting near me anyway. If any one of you reading my description of the event still thinks it unacceptable, then yes you are a joyless sod and I feel sorry for you that life has leeched from you the ability to see the colour that spontaneous happenings can bring to events and to life.

To be fair, the parents didn't know that it would be as well received by the people around you so that could have gone very differently.

It also begs the question 'where do you draw the line?'. When is it ok for me to let me little one run around because she's just being curious? When it turns out it's not bothering anyone?

Elliott S

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

To be fair, the parents didn't know that it would be as well received by the people around you so that could have gone very differently.

It also begs the question 'where do you draw the line?'. When is it ok for me to let me little one run around because she's just being curious? When it turns out it's not bothering anyone?

You judge each instance individually and it's hard to judge without being there. So people bleating about what they "WOULD DO!!!" in every scenario presented here sound a tad hysterical and sanctimonious.

Elliott S

LexieOnRale wrote: »

To be honest, dress it up whatever way you like, the child's parents couldn't be bothered to ensure their 3 year old wasn't running around a church. I find a lot of joy in situations around me. Selfish parenting isn't one of them.

I find that hard to believe. Pretty much every thread you participate in, you come across as incredibly wound up. And judgmental. Relax a bit, for jaysus sake.

Alf Veedersane

Elliott S wrote: »

You judge each instance individually and it's hard to judge without being there. So people bleating about what they "WOULD DO!!!" in every scenario presented here sound a tad hysterical and sanctimonious.

Tbh, I still don't think it's entirely appropriate regardless.

I'd probably have been one of the people who smiled at the child's playfulness but I don't think I'd have sat back and let it play out if I were their parent. But that's just me.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Elliott S wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. Pretty much every thread you participate in, you come across as incredibly wound up. And judgmental. Relax a bit, for jaysus sake.

Well look, if me not fawning doe eyed over other people's children misbehaving makes me joyless, then I'm happy enough with that.

Elliott S

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Tbh, I still don't think it's entirely appropriate regardless.

I'd probably have been one of the people who smiled at the child's playfulness but I don't think I'd have sat back and let it play out if I were their parent. But that's just me.

It was the groom's sister so I'm sure she was close enough them to know it was fine. She probably wouldn't have let him run amok at any wedding. If she and the marrying couple enjoyed it, why on earth would anyone else be bothered? It's like getting offended on someone else's behalf.

And a lot people on-thread suggesting what they would do in a certain situation wouldn't actually do it. People love to pontificate. Talk is cheap. I think that is what is causing my eyes to roll back in my head so much reading this thread. So. Much. Guff.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Oh no, when I say that's what I would do, that's 100% what I would do. If I'm paying a lot of money for a wedding, you can be sure I'm not shy enough to leave my guests under any illusions that children would not be welcome.

lawred2

s4uv3 wrote: »

When I open my seaside café, children under ten will not be allowed in. The sign will say "LEAVE YOUR STICKY SNOTTY ****S AT HOME PLEASE"
Well behaved dogs are allowed though.

Dogs in a cafe. Yuck.

lawred2

McGruber wrote: »

Yeah but they are outnumbered by little noisy cnutbags, throwing sh1t off the tables and screaming and screeching so loud that you try to telepathically shut the fcuker up.

All the while the gombeen fcuktard parents are seemingly oblivious to their little demon spawn causing people to be ear fcuked.

Fcuk off to McDonalds with your kids, cnuts.

And yet you think children and parents are the anti social ones.

Elliott S

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Oh no, when I say that's what I would do, that's 100% what I would do. If I'm paying a lot of money for a wedding, you can be sure I'm not shy enough to leave my guests under any illusions that children would not be welcome.

Lots of people don't allow children at their weddings, that's not unusual. And it's not relevant at all. Obviously I was talking about a wedding where children were welcome.

Why be so strident about a really mundane thing that people do all the time? Child-less weddings are very commonplace.

kunst nugget

Elliott S wrote: »

In the middle of the vows? In the middle of saying your vows, you'd stop the ceremony to tell off a child's parents? Sure you would. :pac:

It's not ideal of course but personally I think I'd be more focussed on something else at that moment in time. I don't even think I'd notice a toddler running around. Slightly more important matters at hand.

I don't believe at all that you would do what you say you would

This thread is entertaining to read. So many keyboard warriors.

I've brought my children as toddlers to weddings. If there was any restlessness or noise, I was straight out the door with them. It's incredibly rude to let your children continually shout or cry during a wedding, ESPECIALLY during the vows.

Elliott S

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've brought my children as toddlers to weddings. If there was any restlessness or noise, I was straight out the door with them. It's incredibly rude to let your children continually shout or cry during a wedding, ESPECIALLY during the vows.

There was not a peep out of the child and I never said there was in my original post on the wedding, if you care to go back and read it. So the idea of somebody stopping their vows for what I described is laughable. That's some odd priorities!

kunst nugget

Elliott S wrote: »

There was not a peep out of the child and I never said there was in my original post on the wedding, if you care to go back and read it. So the idea of somebody stopping their vows for what I described is laughable. That's some odd priorities!

Just read back now. A toddler running around an altar during a wedding is ridiculous. While it wouldn't bother me during my own ceremony, never in a million years would I let a child of mine act like that. The ceremony is about the two people exchanging their vows not some random toddler running around the place because the parents can't be arsed keeping them under control.

Elliott S

kunst nugget wrote: »

Just read back now. A toddler running around an altar during a wedding is ridiculous. While it wouldn't bother me during my own ceremony, never in a million years would I let a child of mine act like that.

As said a number of times before, it was the groom's nephew, so the son of a very close relation. She must have none it wouldn't be a big deal and, lo and behold, it wasn't. As again, as previously said, I'm sure she wouldn't have allowed it at any wedding she was at.

So, for people to be bothered and judgmental about this is absurd and just shows them up to be the joyless pontificaters that they are.

And then it brings some people onto a wholly irrelevant rant about not having children at their wedding as if not inviting children to weddings is a revolutionary idea that is going to come against opposition when in reality it's an everyday thing. Talk about dramatics!

TSMGUY

learn_more wrote: »

I like to go out for the occasional coffee either by myself or with friends. Impossible nowadays to find a cafe that doesn't have the atmosphere of a school playground or a creche.

Maybe parents live in a dream-world where they believe that other patrons are only too happy to see their little darlings re-enact world war 2 with some plastic toys they've given them. I recall a time when kids were given things to shut them up - not to give them an opportunity to make even more noise.

And visually, it's the way the really mess up their table with crumbs, straws, sweet wrappers, on the plates , on the tables, on the seats, on the ground, while their parents light up and gossip; giving the occasional roar as to give the impression their being responsible parents. Really not the type of environment a grown adult would like to spend his or her time in.

I really think cafe owners should take some responsibility for all this. It's in their interest to come to a better arrangement after all. A one kid per table policy would be reasonable and wouldn't it make financial sense to have more paying adults seated that to have low spending riff raff sullying their establishment who scare off the more desirable clientèle ! I was never taken to cafes when I was a child. And quite right too. It's just a total lack of consideration that parents have these days which is a sign of our times. Sigh.

the sign off of every Katie Hopkinsesque solipsistic whiner who thinks the universe revolves around them.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Elliott S wrote: »

It was the groom's sister so I'm sure she was close enough them to know it was fine. She probably wouldn't have let him run amok at any wedding. If she and the marrying couple enjoyed it, why on earth would anyone else be bothered? It's like getting offended on someone else's behalf.

And a lot people on-thread suggesting what they would do in a certain situation wouldn't actually do it. People love to pontificate. Talk is cheap. I think that is what is causing my eyes to roll back in my head so much reading this thread. So. Much. Guff.

Hold on... As far as I know only myself and penny said what we would do in the situation, ie 2 people. Hardly "a lot". And you were the one who said it was guff, that we wouldn't do it. I reiterated yes I would, I wouldn't think twice about doing what I said I was going to do, so what are you going on about a child free wedding not being a revolutionary idea?

Also FYI while I'm making my point, you were actually the one who brought vows into it. Penny stated she would ask the parents to remove the child and you asked if she'd interupt the vows. Then you went and said it wasn't anything to do with the vows.

Do you want a stick to stir that sh1t you're trying to create fam

Penny Tration

For the record, it's not guff. If for some reason a child was present at my wedding, IF they were running around because their parents weren't arsed actually parenting, I would absolutely stop and tell the parent to sort it out.

The likelihood of the child choosing the PRECISE moment i start to say my vows, to go wandering, is miniscule, as children get bored long before that.


If by some streak of bad luck, the child chooses to run around at the precise moment i say my vows, I'll continue to say my vows, and after I've officially been wed, I'd forget about asking the parents to seat the child - I'd ask them to remove the child entirely, as my wedding would already have been tarnished.



That said, it'll be a cold day in hell before I willingly have anyone under 18 at my wedding.

TSMGUY

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Hold on... As far as I know only myself and penny said what we would do in the situation, ie 2 people. Hardly "a lot". And you were the one who said it was guff, that we wouldn't do it. I reiterated yes I would, I wouldn't think twice about doing what I said I was going to do, so what are you going on about a child free wedding not being a revolutionary idea?

Also FYI while I'm making my point, you were actually the one who brought vows into it. Penny stated she would ask the parents to remove the child and you asked if she'd interupt the vows. Then you went and said it wasn't anything to do with the vows.

Do you want a stick to stir that sh1t you're trying to create fam

I'm a native Londoner and I really ****ing hate how much the word "fam" has caught on. Everyone, please stop using it, for Christ's sake! I blame Noel Clarke.....

Keane2baMused

Smondie wrote: »

Where did I say anything about a sensory processing disorder? I said sensory overload. Please read the link I provided. It will explain what sensory overload is, you seem to be misunderstanding what sensory overload is. You don't have to have any disorder to be affected by sensory overload.

I know what sensory overload is. Thanks for the link but it's actually the area I work in so I don't need an explanation, certainly not a wiki one.

My point was you suddenly jumped to the sensory overload conclusion. Just because you don't like or find something irritating doesn't mean you're in sensory overload. You're jumping way ahead of yourself.

For example,crowds make me uncomfortable, loud music in the morning really drives me mad. Bright lights don't sit well with me either.

None of those things induce sensory overload for me however, they're just highly irritating. Sensory overload is on a completely different spectrum to what you seem to understand.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

TSMGUY wrote: »

I'm a native Londoner and I really ****ing hate how much the word "fam" has caught on. Everyone, please stop using it, for Christ's sake! I blame Noel Clarke.....

Sorry for your troubles fam

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Keane2baMused wrote: »

I know what sensory overload is. Thanks for the link but it's actually the area I work in so I don't need an explanation, certainly not a wiki one.

My point was you suddenly jumped to the sensory overload conclusion. Just because you don't like or find something irritating doesn't mean you're in sensory overload. You're jumping way ahead of yourself.

For example,crowds make me uncomfortable, loud music in the morning really drives me mad. Bright lights don't sit well with me either.

None of those things induce sensory overload for me however, they're just highly irritating. Sensory overload is on a completely different spectrum to what you seem to understand.

With all due respect I don't think it's appropriate that tell someone what they said they're experiencing isn't what they're actually experiencing without knowing more about them.

It's that attitude towards autistic children that you're trying to defend

OldNotWIse

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

But in an earlier post you said

"What I won't do is apologise for something beyond his or my control. I learned to stop doing that some time ago"

I asked for an example of such an event and I don't think you've provided one

I suppose the thinking is that the behavior (and stopping it) in this instance IS within his control.