If you take your kids to the cafe, you shouldn't bring a packed lunch for them?

[AndiMac]

I'm at the garden centre and there's a soft play area attached to the cafe bit. A mum with two kids about 4 is here with her friend. They have ordered lunch, but the kids are having food the mum brought from home. Not just a couple of breadsticks, but sandwiches, sides and a drink. The cafe has food for kids, so that isn't an excuse.

I can understand that going out for lunch is expensive, but am I being unreasonable to think if you can't afford to buy lunch for your kids as well as yourself, maybe you should come after lunch and just have a coffee?

And Starbucks don't sell meals etc do they? (I haven't been in one for ages, we have a Costa in the bookshop so they tend to get my business, so apologies if they do) so why does it matter if someone lets their child eat a sandwich in there while they drink their overpriced coffee?

Yep...this is just the type of behaviour that I have noticed of some parents at Starbucks... being inconsiderate to others....occupying seats for way longer than they actually need and thereby denying others of sitting down to eat their purchases... Go on...get your laptops out and your picnic bags...I doubt if I will be the only one tut-tutting, lol!

Eat your Eyes - why is the adult then worthy of consuming an overpriced item - just assuming that your child isn't worthy of an overpriced item because they probably will not finish it is not really fair on the kid, is it?

And where is anyone saying it's ok to take up a table in a cafe without purchasing food? It quite clearly isn't ok to do that and that is not what the thread is about.
but actually, a number of people on this thread have said that it is OK to do that, or outlined scenarios which are not far off that. See eppa, above, for example.

Sigh.

There are three 'lines of defense' happening on this thread.
One - children may have allergies or other issues (intolerance, tube feeding).
Two - it is too expensive/inconvenient/my kid doesn't like the food.
Three - it is no one else's buisiness but the cafe owner.

One - yep, absolutely. Perfectly valid and almost every poster on this thread has agreed with it in principle. That is one subsection of the scenarios being discussed here.

Two - ridiculous, rude, entitled. I think this is what people are objecting to. [It is fine to say that is not (or not necessarily, since we don't know) the case in the OP, but this conversation has moved on and broadened out since the OP.]

Three - it is other people's business when it affects their ability to get a seat or enjoy a meal that they are prepared to pay for. It also is other people's right to complain if it happens, and ask the cafe owners to change their approach.

I haven't seen anyone saying it is ok to go into a cafe sit down and unpack a picnic without buying anything.

Why would someone sat with food and drink of their own, but some prepacked food for their dc, prevent another customer from using the seat?

You say, of course everyone accepts that sn/allergies etc is the exception - but in a lot of cases you wouldn't know, just by looking.

Why can't people just sit and enjoy their own time in the cafe, rather than acting like the cafe police.

Sooooo what age does one stop doing this,just so all the cafe owners reading this know when they should stop allowing freeloaders?

As others have said you wouldn't do it in a pub.

Eating out is not an entitlement.My 3 rarely go to cafes,they survive!

I haven't seen any either hazey.

The debate seems to have moved on to be that if your child has allergies then they shouldn't eat out at all ever. You should feed them elsewhere so as not to inconvenience anyone else or get their judgey pants in a twist. Eating out isn't an entitlement no, but it is nice to eat out socially and if the place we are at can't provide food that DS can eat then why shouldn't he eat food I have brought.

I haven't seen anyone saying it is ok to go into a cafe sit down and unpack a picnic without buying anything.

A number of posters have said that they do not see a problem with bringing food if they buy a coffee or a token item. A number of posters have offered a litany of excuses for bringing their own food that have nothing to do with food allergies or other medical needs.

You say, of course everyone accepts that sn/allergies etc is the exception - but in a lot of cases you wouldn't know, just by looking.

You are right - we don't know if there are medical issues. That is why it would BU for me to go up to someone at a table and tell them off. What is your point? I (and others) have already said over and over again that if there is a legitimate need , we agree that it is a reasonable thing to do. It is as I posted that I didn't think people in prime physical condition should park in disabled spaces, and got a bunch of replies saying "but you can't tell if a person is disabled" - yes, yes, yes WE AGREE! The problem is that other people do it who don't need to and why on earth are you defending that???

and then there are the people who think it is ok if they have some other justification...analogous to saying "well, the shopping centre doesn't have enough non-disabled spaces close to the door...and I get really tired after a day at work...and my kid doesn't like to walk very far...and anyway, what business is it of anybody else's? And hey - as long as there are still other spots available somewhere in the parking lot, I'm not actually hurting anyone, so what's the problem?" In short - jerks.

The debate seems to have moved on to be that if your child has allergies then they shouldn't eat out at all ever.
oh, bull.
absolutely NO ONE is saying this, and you are completely missing the point.

And you seem to be missing any understanding of sarcasm.

I work in a coffee shop so I see some of this, would not bother me providing the rest of the group were purchasing food. Most customers ask first and do make sure they clean up the non purchased food. If someone was bringing in a paked lunch and only having drinks then yes I would have a discreet word.

There are acouple of families who bring in food for their children for specific reasons so I am not going to assume that other people do not have similar issues. Although there was the family who thought it was ok to sneak in their grandson a happy meal and left me the rubbish to clean up that did grate.

trixy, are you saying that your post was sarcastic? In what way? Please, do explain to me how your post employed sarcasm to make a point other than that which I inferred.

Did you mean it ironically? Or did you say the opposite of what you actually meant and believed? Did you think your post was using wit to express your criticism in an indirect fashion?

No. I think I understood you correctly the first time.

I don't really understand why you see it as a child being not worthy in the eyes of the parents.

They probably bought lots of overpriced items for the children in the gift shop bit that garden centres always seem to have these days instead.

But why waste money and food when you know your child won't like or won't finish it?

Why not look at it this way, as the mother thinking her child was worthy enough to be given something they enjoy and will finish, that doesn't cost a fortune just to be thrown away and saves you enough money to treat them to something else in the shop instead?

And I still don't see why, if the cafe owners or staff didn't object, that the OP (who was not affected in any way) and various strangers on the internet (who were not there) really care so much about two small children eating a packed lunch, especially as the parents bought far more than a token coffee.

I have an extremely fussy child and would be able to find something on most menus,you can buy something you both like and sides too so absolutely no need for a child to not like the food or waste it.

The fact is people admit to just not wanting to shell out for food for their dc which is utterly wrong and imvho rather damaging to kids.Fancy bringing kids up to expect to hate all restaurant food,that life involves mummy carting round your own precious lunch bag everywhere and to stick two fingers up at the owners of eating establishments.

And for the last time we're not talking about children with extreme allergies.

Ooh well googled.

In simple terms the statement was sarcastic as I was stating the opposite of what I actually believed in order to indicate my annoyance.

If you have a fussy DC you can give them the choice-have something or go hungry. They will probably eat something. They would if they were with me because they would know that I wasn't bothered! They get away with it because the mother is bothered. Missing one meal won't hurt.

I think that people are feeling quite justified in taking advantage of cafe owners... Imagine if you were going out to a posh restaurant with three other friends and two of you ate off the menu and the other two of you opened up a picnic bag/packed dinner and started tucking in... what do you think the outcome of this would be - UNLESS - there were dietary/allergy/disability issues here....

so Mummle, whats the allowed time of occupancy in Starbucks then?

I thought Starbucks et al offered free wifi to encourage people to bring in their laptop and sit there for hours......

trixy, why are you trying to suggest that I am thick? I am a perfectly intelligent and educated woman, in no need of google to deal with secondary school concepts. I would be happy to engage in a battle of semantics with you if you like, but I do suggest that you may wish to bone up on your own knowledge first.

Your statement was not, in fact, sarcasm. The debate seems to have moved on to be that if your child has allergies then they shouldn't eat out at all ever. This is not sarcasm. You are pointing out what you believe (also incorrectly, as it happens) your opponents' position to be. You disagree with that position. You have expressed that directly. There is no element of wit, distortion of meaning, understatement, and/or reversal of meaning in your statement. And no sarcasm.

Moment of pedantry over.

You seemed to have missed the bit where people have repeatedly said 'I checked with the cafe' etc etc and they said it was fine.

In all the years I had to do it I never had a refusal from anyone. No one looked remotely put out.

The debate seems to have moved on to be that if your child has allergies then they shouldn't eat out at all ever.

Do you really think I believe that the debate had moved on to whether children with allergies should eat out? This statement that you said was bull?

Well I didn't, hence distortion of meaning and therefore sarcasm.

Hard to get across in type I guess, but the tone in my head was sarcastic

I can't believe this thread is still raging on from Wednesday.