Ralf Rüller wanted to create a sacred ground for coffee connoisseurs in the heart of Berlin, somewhere devotees of the bean could sip their brews free from unwanted distraction.
This purist – not to say militant – approach to coffee-drinking extended to a long list of rules at his brew bar, The Barn Roastery, including a ban on milk, sugar, spoons, laptops, dogs, mobile phone ringtones, loud phone conversations and “media” (apart from newspapers). But the rule that has provoked the most heated reaction was Rüller’s decision to prohibit pushchairs and prams.
Given that I like cream in my coffee – if I could drink it without provoking a migraine, that is – I would probably not be welcome either. However, I’m sanguine about that. What I don’t do is get hot under the collar like some:
“Coffee Nazis, choke on this swill” and “totalitarian coffee regime” are just two of the many messages of protest Rüller received after he installed a stone bollard – complete with a picture of a pram with a red line through it – in the doorway of his coffeehouse in the northern Berlin district of Prenzlauer Berg. (The bollard is moved for wheelchairs.)
Marianne Burket-Eulitz, a family policy expert for the Green party, called Rüller’s attempts to keep the prams out “a socially incorrect affront to families”.
All of which just goes to show how little people grasp the property ownership thing. It’s his shop. If he would prefer not to have your business, well, that’s potentially his loss, isn’t it? What he is not doing is providing a social service for families. He is under no obligation to. What he is doing is selling connoisseur coffee – probably at inflated prices – for a particular clientele. A clientele that probably doesn’t want to be disturbed by the noise and paraphernalia that goes with sprogs.
The solution is clear – take your sprog and spend your money with a coffee shop that does welcome you. That way everyone is happy.
I’m sure there’s a flaw in that plan…
Fortunately it’s still not illegal for pubs in the UK to exclude under-18s – but that will no doubt be the next target of political correctness.
Fortunately it’s still not illegal for pubs in the UK to exclude under-18s – but that will no doubt be the next target of political correctness
Nonsense. The obsession with underage drinking that most on the right have is likely to accelerate the process of excluding under 18 year olds from pubs.
‘Socially incorrect’… ?!
Thoughtcrime.
The pleasure I would get from enjoying a cup of coffee in that splendid-sounding establishment is, I fear, no match for the pleasure that some others (most of whom would never actually want to go there, with or without offsprings) will get from screaming ‘YOU CAN’T DO THAT IT’S NOT FAIR’
You know, if he were slightly evil, he should bow to this rampant pushchair militancy by creating a child or ‘pushchair friendly’ area. Right next to the Smokers shelter. A little forethought over decor (Foil backed plasterboard / drywall, steel framing on partition walls) would have all the iPhone junkies wondering where the signal went. One of our local supermarkets used steel framing in its construction, and you can’t get a signal in there for love or Blackberry. I suppose if you want to sell a premium product, its the only way to go.
In Canada, people seem to be better at this child rearing thing, at least locally, as the little darlings don’t tend to make half the fuss you get in the UK. Although don’t get me started on the difficulty of trying to get coffee with cream in a British establishment.
GOOD! Now what we need is to ban the bastards with their Humvee like “buggies” from busses and trains!
What IS all this shite with “off road prams” any way? Bloody dip-shits, all of them.
All of which just goes to show how little people grasp the property ownership thing. It’s his shop. If he would prefer not to have your business, well, that’s potentially his loss, isn’t it? What he is not doing is providing a social service for families. He is under no obligation to
True but people are also entitled to express their displeasure at his actions and use whatever arguments they can deploy to discourage people from patronising his establishment. Freedom cuts both ways. Just because he is exercising his property rights doesn’t mean people must refrain from expressing their opposition to his actions.
Please point out precisely where I have stated that they cannot or must not express their view.
Take your time…
Stephen at 13:24
At the risk of sounding like one of these arsehole spammers over at Julias place (May they have a serious ocular accident involving an oxycetelyne cutter) interessting thought process.
They have managed to do that here basiclly, when they gave pubs the option of being smoking or non smoking.
If they wish to be smoking, then they must ban under 18s.
This in effect means, because, as I have said before, VERY few pubs ARE “non smoking”, that under 18s ARE banned from pubs.
Of course, the Government would not be so underhand as to achieve an objective by disguising it as something completely different, would they?
🙄 😐
(O.K. So. I try and use the “reply” button and all I get is “Not authorised to comment”. So this is “out of the row” if you see what I mean.)