No alcohol for people with kids

[loulou]

Adults with children are allowed only two alcoholic drinks at JD Wetherspoon pubs in order to limit their stay, the chain has confirmed to the BBC.

A spokesman for the company said it was "uncomfortable" with children being on the premises for long periods because of a lack of play facilities.

And he said parents visiting its pubs could even be refused soft drinks or coffee to curtail their stay.

I like this idea as quite often I see people getting a little too tipsy and letting their kids run amok. Banning kids from pubs would be the best move.

[oldspice]

I think there is a simple solution. Two types of pubs. Family friendly pubs where families can enjoy a meal together with a limited amount of booze and kid-free pubs for adults only.

 

When my children were small, we used to go to a pub that welcomed families, had a kid's menu and play facilities in the garden. It worked well. People who wanted a peaceful meal avoided this pub and people with children flocked to it. I never go there now as I want different things from a pub.  My ideal pub is one where there is no music, no children, decent  beer and food and coffee available if you want it. I like to relax and chat over a pub meal.

 

I agree that parents should limit their alcohol intake when in the company of their children - especially if they are driving them home afterwards.

[Logger]

The vast majority of parents do not drink large amounts of alcohol when out with their kids OR let them run riot in pubs/restaurants. 

Where I live there is a lack of restaurants and pubs with childrens facilities so places like Wetherspoons are often the only option if we want to eat out as a family.  I am a responsible parent and I don't see why my family should be rushed off the premises if we are causing no bother to anyone else.

 

Lets hope Wetherspoons are responsible in enforcing these rules.

[smurfboy]

I think if Wetherspoons don't want parents with children to stay in their pubs for a long time, the solution is simple - make all their pubs over 18 only and don't serve a children's menu. But they won't do that, will they? Not while they can make a nice profit out of family dining.

You can't have it both ways. This chain needs to decide whether it is family friendly or not and act accordingly. Of course it is irresponsible to drink heavily whilst responsible for children, but it should be up to the parent, not a company, to decide what their limit is. I don't have kids, but if I did I would definitely think twice about spending my money in Wetherspoons again after reading this.

[oldspice]

I absotuley agree with you Smurfy. You either market yourself as a family-friendly pub and welcome kids on all terms, or you make a no-kids rule. That way there is a valid option for all drinkers. If they don't want kids around, they can go to a kid-free pub.

 

I used to like Wetherspoons because they used to have a no-music and no fruit-machines environment and they served great beer and food. In recent years they have tried  to broaden their market but their pubs have suffered as a result and I avoid them now because they do no meet my needs.

[loulou]

I don't mind kids in pubs as long as they are not running about. Noise doesn't bother me but I get irritated if they are running around. A lot of pubs have good play areas.

[oldspice]

When I go to a pub, I either want to chat over a drink and perhaps a meal, or maybe listen to live music being performed.  Those are the sorts of pubs I like. I don't mind chatting noise,  but I hate to go for a pub meal and find awful music blasting from a speaker above my head. 

[goldencup]

I don't like muzak anywhere - especially in supermarkets.  I like going to pubs for live music but lately my local one has it so loud that it's impossible to carry out a conversation and everyone who goes has a sore throat for the next few days. 

[loulou]

Put cotton wool in your ears and use sign language.

[Logger]

I think it would be a very good idea for a popular chain such as Wetherspoons to try and accommodate everybody. 

I've been to many places in the past that have one side as a child free 'bar' and the other side as a family 'lounge' with some play facilities such as one of those ball pit things.  It works perfectly well.  There is no need to limit the time that any paying customers are allowed to spend on the premises.

I will be thinking twice about taking the kids in there in the future as a matter of principle.  I think Wetherspoons could do with having a long hard look at where their best interests lie...

It's a shame that we live in a country where organisations and government have to proscribe and prescribe actions that make the world a better place.  (The smoking in public ban excepted)  This would never have happened voluntarily.

 

However, drinking is different.  The problems caused by alcohol in this country are astronomical.  It is crippling the A&E depts.  The social and health problems it causes can hardly be exaggerated.   A pat on the back to Wetherspoons on one level but wont these people take their business elsewhere?  Or just drink at home?

 

It's about time there was a massive advertising campaign to do something about the drink problem here.  The opening hours have just allowed people to drink more for longer.

[oldspice]

The trouble is, it's not just in pubs that parents can over indulge in drink.  Drink is available almost twenty four hours a day (except on Sundays) and people can drink at home to their heart's content.

 

Clear messages about the health problems caused by drink are not getting through.  Young people in particular are binge drinking to the point where they are admitted to hospital due to alcohol poisoning.  It seems every night, drunken brawling is seen on our cities' streets. It's a sad sign of our society.

 

However, as you say Bounty, the answer is not to dictate to people how they should live their lives. the answer is to inform people of the dangers and allow them to decide for themselves what a sensible level of drinking is. Help is, and should always be, available to people who admit their drinking is out of control. People who are drunk and disorderly are, and should be, arrested for their own protection. Licensing hours have been relaxed far too much, however, it is still the individual who has  to control their own behaviour.

 

If you know anybody who has drunk themselves to death (sadly, two friends lost long-term partners through alcholism) it is not a pretty sight. It is a nasty, painful death but nobody could stop those men from drinking, only themselves.

[smurfboy]

However, drinking is different.  The problems caused by alcohol in this country are astronomical.  It is crippling the A&E depts.  The social and health problems it causes can hardly be exaggerated.   A pat on the back to Wetherspoons on one level but wont these people take their business elsewhere?  Or just drink at home?

 

Maybe I'm stereotyping, but aren't crowds of single people more likely drink to excess than parents out with their children? And if they're pushing out families, Wetherspoons will need to make their profits through other customers - most likely those who do drink to excess. Limiting parents with children to two drinks will have little or no effect on overstretched A and E departments.

I have to disagree with those who claim the relaxing of licensing laws was a bad idea. Yes, people can drink for longer now, so invariably there will be people who drink more, but it has also removed the problem of 'chucking out time'. Dozens of drunken people all pouring out onto the treets at 11pm - it doesn't take a genius to work out that it's a recipe for trouble. I can only speak for where I live, but there has been a major reduction in alcohol-related incidents in Birmingham since the change of the law. And besides, why should the majority who can drink responsibly be told by the government when they have to stop just because of the irresponsibility of a minority?

[Logger]

why should the majority who can drink responsibly be told by the government when they have to stop just because of the irresponsibility of a minority?