Thursday, March 13, 2008

Lynches


When out on walks, we often pass by Lynch's restaurant. Lynch has now retired and new people have taken over, but it seems unchanged. R picked this card up the other night as he passed by.

The restaurant was embroiled in controversy some years ago when a couple of diners with a crying baby were asked to leave. Pual Lynch henceforth banned babies from his establishment.

Should I offer an opinion? Course I should. Not that we would ever feel comfortable in such a posh place, but if we were paying the sort of money that people pay to dine there, then a crying baby next to me would be most unwelcome. But then I am the type to complain about kids cluttering up playground.

Some years later, the baby ban is being used as an advertising gimmick. It good Herr Lynch plenty of publicity at the time.

19 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:55 pm

    I am with you Andrew, I have worked in Restaurants and for he life of me I cannot see why people bring their babies out to dinner with them. It's not just the crying but the monstrosities of prams they bring the kiddies in too. Disrupts the flow for waiters and patrons trying to get around them. Sorry but they should be banned in all restaurants period!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon, my sister used to know her local cafes where there was space for a pusher without blocking up everything. Courtyards are good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It created quite a furor all those years ago. I agree, babies are not part of your posh restaurant experience, and should be left at home.

    It amazes me that sometimes they sneak into a live theatre, making it the 'cry-baby'experience everyone dreads.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally I reckon that babies should be banned, full stop!

    They're vile, they stink and they make a racket. They grow up into snot-nosed kids, who also stink and make a racket and invariably end up as adults, who stink and make a racket.

    The world could seriously do with a few less people in it. I don't know about banning cigarettes because they make other people sick. Babies have always made me sick, but the British government refuses to ban them.

    Babies are just God's way of saying 'Your life is so crap you need to live vicariously through a pink ball of screaming snot.'

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian is making me giggle again.

    I suppose I can understand that people with babies need to get out just as much as the rest of us, but I don't want to pay for dinner to hear a baby crying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh Bliss, don't let me start on behaviour at theatre and movies.

    Can you rephrase that Brian so that you opinion is a little clearer. Maybe you have some Ban the Bomb stickers left that you could alter to Ban the Baby.

    Your cold is making you into an intolerant old grump Daisy Jo. :-P

    ReplyDelete
  7. I concur, Andrew. Noisy children and irritated parents do lower the atmosphere of any dining experience by a considerable degree.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:51 pm

    Parents of babies should not be allowed to go out for a (well deserved) nice meal? C'mon, you've got to be joking...... People are so terribly intolerant and selfish these days. Young babies can't be away from their mothers because of their regular feeding needs, and not all parents have grandparents still alive to dump older babies on. Think outside your selfish little box people!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't do fine dining Reuben, but I imagine this is the case.

    Anon, yes people are intolerant and selfish, and when paying those sort of prices, so they should be.
    Expressing for the the baby sitters is something we are very familiar with.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous,

    Can't see anything selfish about wanting to eat a meal that isn't ruined by the stench of baby sick, myself. On the other hand, ruining everybody's else's evening by bombarding them with noise, puke and nappies full of manure, does seem a bit on the selfish side to me.

    Not that I've anything against babies myself. They make damned good rugby balls. (I'm going to get hate mail now, I can tell. Correction...more hate mail. I don't know why I say these things...I really don't.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:31 am

    Not all babies cry when out, and a mother can usually settle a baby quite quickly otherwise take them out for some air. I can't imagine a crying session would last for more than a minute or two before something is done about it.

    What about loud talking diners, excessive LOUD and unexplained fake laughers, women with non-stop whiny voices, cutlery/plate bashers, or overly affectionate diners who don't care that they are sitting within 2cm of the next table. If you let it, anything can annoy you.

    Shouldn't we expect when leaving our homes that we are going to be subject to other people who are living different lives to us?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous,

    To be honest, I've had a rethink. As a smoker, since the smoking ban in Britain, I can't have a decent restaurant meal any more. (It's not a proper meal without a cigarette to round it off.) The same goes for cafes and pub meals. All because of those whinging, self-righteous non-smoking gits with their 'I don't want to inhale your passive smoke' rubbish. Nowadays restaurants and cafes are the exclusive domains of such stuck-up, boring snobs. So, in my opinion, they deserve every ounce of burping, farting and nostril burning nappy stench that babies provide. Serves 'em right for ruining my meals out.

    Babies, I've decided, are the smokers fifth column.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Can I add loud mobile phone conversations to the list Anon.

    A smoker Brian? You can't admit to being so evil publicly.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As it's rumoured that I have offspring I can understand parents wanting to dine out BUT crying babies when dining out set my teeth on edge.
    If one can afford to dine in a place like Lynch's then one can afford a baby sitter.

    Stop hogging the ashtray Brian and let me point you to a nice pub with a covered courtyard that does a mean counter meal ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jayne,

    In Britain these days, covered courtyards are considered as being 'inside' and therefore a 'smoke free' zone. Even those new fangled, open-sided tram shelters that are about as much protection from the wind and rain as a tissue-paper condom have 'No Smoking' signs in 'em. No...its time that the self-righteous had their meals ruined by screaming babies. Us smokers have had our meals ruined by screaming babies already.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good point Jayne, babysitter.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brian,
    You don't have the right to impede on my ability to live my life to the end of its tether. You shorten my life and your own. for your expedient, sanctimonious pleasure. Since babies don't smoke, their crying is not a comparable analogy - especially since they represent life whereas cigarettes represent a slow, painful and smelly death. The morass of whining, selfish entrails who enjoy a good smoke need a kick up the backside for being such smelly bastards.
    To solve your problem, they should have special smoking restaurants where young people are not allowed and where the over-represented tar community can get their hour's fill of tobacco.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Reuben, while it is in my interest to have lively comment discussion, Brian is baiting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Andrew,

    Bugger! Sussed and banged to rights! I'm renowned for being a cheeky old Hector and a well known Master Baiter. Well, I've got to have something to do on rainy mornings...

    ReplyDelete

Whenever I wish I was young again, I am sobered by memories of algebra.