Charged for an empty plate?!

I didn't make an argument about quantity of food. That's a reductive argument.

I was purely responding to the argument about affordability for the restaurant of the quantity of food.

A potato costs them the same regardless of who eats it (or bins it).

You could argue that it IS a fixed portion meal - if it's a single-visit carvery: the fixed portion being as much food as anybody can possibly cram on to a plate; so if they price it accordingly, every single person who willingly has less than that is voluntarily overpaying!!

Also, it's obviously socially awkward - and likely seen as grabby - but I've never been to a carvery where they've stipulated that the food has to be eaten on the premises.

Taken simply, you could argue that the price you pay is for a full plateful, so if you only want to eat half of it there, you can quite legitimately take the other half home and heat it up tomorrow.

Yes, it's seen as very poor form if you do so; but some people with small appetites might see it as perfectly fair to pay the same price for the same amount as a large person with a very big appetite.

It's 'only' a social contact that dictates you don't take more than you can eat there (and yet many people still do just that, and waste loads).

'Whataboutery' arguments don't excuse people from paying from what they are consuming/using - it's really not that hard. If there is a baby rate, pay the baby rate. Or go somewhere else. Or eat at home.

Also sounds to me like Big Barry would finish his meal - the meal that he paid for.

Because mum is setting the precedent that if you don't eat a lot, you don't have to pay for your food.
There was an option for her to have a baby bowl, and rather than paying a small sum for the food she was going to feed her child, she decided that she wanted the use of the crockery and the food for free.
Carvery is paid by the person, not the amount. If you don't like those terms, pay for a fixed amount dinner and feed child off that plate instead

I think it's very different if it's an adult rather than a baby. Even though the baby obviously won't be paying for their food themselves, it's normal to make allowances for babies; just like 5yo children pay a reduced fare on the bus, even though it's their parent paying anyway.

Another factor is that the adult who is invited to a high-priced AYCE meal, but who can barely eat anything, has the agency to decline and sit this one out. Babies just go wherever their parent takes them.

So how is it better for the restaurant's bottom line if Big Barry takes a huge plateful - whether he eats it all or wastes half of it - than if a mum takes a reasonable amount and an extra potato and a dozen peas?

And also, if op normally eats 3 potatoes, and picks up 4 to feed child, that's extra food....

But OP didn’t say anywhere she got extra food or a larger portion….this is all just assumptions.

Again that would be fine.

As I said above

Its like the difference between ordering a pint of lager and sharing it, and refillable coke where you keep getting more.

With the lager its a fixed amount - say £5 per pint (yes showing my age) no matter who drinks which ever part of it, the cost to the business is fixed.

Refillable - say you normally drink a pint of coke £3 cost (and say cost to business 50p for the drink only not staff rent etc) - now you're sharing and you both drink 2 pints - which should have been £6, but you only pay £3, but the cost to the business is £1.

And also, if op normally eats 3 potatoes, and picks up 4 to feed child, that's extra food....

Would we be having this same debate if OP was describing ordering a fixed portion plate? Would it still be an issue for her to cut up some bits and pieces for her little girl - and either requesting or bringing along her own little plate then?

@Reallyneedsaholiday its not unilateral though is it - there are equally as many people saying its fine - I worked at a pub (with a carvery) for over a decade and I wouldn't have given a shiny shit about this, it is totally normal behaviour - and yeah people often had big portions but I have never once seen any of the mental behaviour described on this thread - the matterhorn of roasts split between a family of four etc.

Equally these days we love a carvery, probably go once a month to various brands and not once has a fuss been made to my daughter sharing with me and DH and she is 3 now, even though we always get her an empty plate

So why should OP accept it when there are plenty of mixed views and last time I checked mumsnet posters are not the ~ International Carvery Police.

So you still feel entitled to their time and expense free of charge? After all the people telling you you are being unreasonable, and you refuse to accept it, so why DID you post?

@sandwichh just a thought experiment - what do you think the consensus mumsnet response would be if someone posted something like this in AIBU:
some friends are going out for a celebratory meal at an all-you-can-eat carvery where they charge you £24.99 per plate, but as I am on Wegovy I have hardly any appetite and will probably only eat about half a potato and a few morsels of chicken, possibly a few peas. AIBU to swerve the plate price and just take a little dish from home in my handbag, and just take a few bits and bobs from friends plates?

I think such a person would be universally decried as a cheeky fucker. And I don't see any ethical difference between that and doing the same for a small child - in fact it's worse because you were only being expected to pay the small child price not the full adult price.

The pub are charging a couple of quid to let your child eat with you. Like others have said, this is quite normal with 'baby bowls'. Pay up and don't be a dick.

Please, don't take own plate from own home because you disagree with their policy, that's overstepping by even further. 🤣🤣 It's like someone I once knew who took bread and butter to the pub in her handbag because she disagreed with their charge for bread and butter side to the fish and chips. 🙈

The thing is, I don’t think the carvery were unreasonable. According to the OP, they have an inexpensive option for young children, plus they appear to have turned a blind eye to the OP feeding her child from her own plate. I’m fairly sure it’s somewhere in the conditions that one payment / plate is for one person.

If they had made a massive public fuss about the OP stealing extra food for her child (which technically she was, particularly as there is a specific paid option for feeding a baby), maybe then I would think they were unreasonable but they didn’t.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree this is going into CF territory. How do you think the carvery makes money? You would certainly have taken more food with the intention of sharing it with your baby. Do you think that they owe you free food because you have a baby?

if you put food on the plate then it not an empty plate and it needs washed if child makes a mess it needs cleaned up

Very good response - I think some people don't understand that they need to pay for things they use/consume the dire state of the hospitality sector.

@CandidHedgehog I love this. I moan at excessive pricing more than most, but the response to this woman really slaps down people who want something for nothing.

I still think the restaurant were a bit mean spirited here, as I've said. But I can definitely see where they are coming from.

https://mashable.com/archive/tripadvisor-review-response#g7Tnd5_UngqW

A breakdown (years ago so prices will have substantially increased) of where the costs are in a cafe / restaurant.

Also, in a carvery, plates are generally used to tell the staff who has paid. A person with a plate gets a full serving of meat. The OP says she only intended to take a little extra food (veggies only) for her child but a lot of people would say that then get meat as well.

It is why the carvery apparently has a ‘baby bowl’ option for a few pounds - it covers either the actual cost or at least makes a contribution to the cost to the restaurant of feeding babies.

Who's being nasty?

People are pointing out op wanted more food for her child, and it should not be free unless the establishment does free children meals.

Again in the simplest of examples, if op normally eats 3 potatoes and wants one for the child, then will she take 3 (and go hungryish) and give child 1, or will she take 4 (1 more than she would have taken for her normal meal) and eat 3 and give 4th to the child. Its not rocket science.

Thank you.
Where I am it’s a roast if you sit and order and the food is brought to you. For a carvery you queue and bring the food to the table yourself, but a staff member fills the plate.

So the greedy git who piles their plate up gets charged more than the one who has bird portions?
Doesn't work like that.

If you've got kids you'll know that food from mums plate is far more tasty than your own bowl and a 10m old eats like 10 teaspoons full in total on a very good day for most babies.

I think maybe over 2 they might wanna charge but under 2 no way.
At just3 our DC is still very picky and we generally order an extra portion of our food to share rather than get his own BC he just wastes it. Kids meals are fine from about 5 but I understand that very unpredictable in alot of cases.

Cue 'my kids eat what they're given' brigade btw. Mine doesn't (smiles).

Why is it ok to go up, out extra on her plate for baby and transfer to baby plate? It's not different to taking baby's plate up for extra. Surely you can see this impacts how much food is put out on the carvery?

So they didn't charge for an adult meal just a baby plate? A carvery is all YOU can eat. Surely you can see that without the baby YOU would have eaten less? It's not a how much can you eat challenge. If they'd charged an adult coat I'd understand your annoyance but a baby plate price of a couple of pounds is more than reasonable