Babes up in arms
It may be the season of goodwill - but not if you're a particularly small panto goer.
A colleague - who went on a family outing to the panto at the Kings Theatre in Glasgow - was surprised to hear the theatre intended to charge £11 for his eight-week-old baby.
In an explanation which echoed the one given by many temporary venues at the 2006 Fringe, the theatre box office claimed it needed to ensure everyone in the audience had both a seat and a ticket, no matter how small they were, "for health and safety reasons".
A few well aimed protests at that event resulted in a fairer policy where babes in arms were given tickets but not charged for them.
When I raised the matter with the Kings Theatre press office, I was assured it was a minor slip up and that our man would have his baby's ticket refunded.
"Good thing too," he says, "as neither I nor the baby spent much time in either of our seats.
"I spent most of the show, pacing up and down with the baby in my arms."
Several weeks later and our man has heard nothing.
Squealing bundles
We've also heard of several more families who've been charged even more for their infants.
Could this be another downside of the new box office system which means callers are now referred to a London call centre which deals with booking of all theatres in the Ambassador group?
Or are they trying to ensure parents leave the noisiest members of the family at home? Surely not.
It's panto, for heaven's sake, and before long these small squealing bundles will be the audiences for eyewateringly priced stage shows like CBeebies and The Tiger Who Came to Tea and then they can sell them a seat.
As my colleague points out, his party spent the best part of £170 on panto tickets, and that was before the interval sweets and drinks.
It's surely not too much to ask for a free ticket for the tinies, particularly if they don't take up a seat in the first place.
Anyway, goodwill to all panto going babies, and indeed all readers of this blog.
Have a fabulously festive season - and see you all in 2009.
Not London’s South Bank, but the south bank of the River Clyde in Glasgow - every bit as lively in cultural terms as its namesake. I’m Pauline McLean, Ö÷²¥´óÐã Scotland’s arts correspondent, and I’ll be blogging here about arts events and issues happening across the country.
Comment number 1.
At 23rd Dec 2008, enneffess wrote:I think the person who is reponsible for the decision should be named and shamed. Utterly disgraceful doesn't even come close.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 23rd Dec 2008, Green Soap wrote:Why not pay for a babysitter, and do the rest of the audience a favour by not letting your darling child cry throughout the performance?
OK, its only panto, but I'm fed up going to the cinema or theatre to hear children crying through the performance.
Bit of thought for others shouldn't go a miss.
Bah, Humbug!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 23rd Dec 2008, charikitten wrote:I agree entirely with Tengsted. I wouldnt have dreamt of taking my children to a cinema or theatre when they were babies, whats the point?? I thinks its totally inconsiderate and selfish to subject others to the disruption of the performance with wailing and crying babies, leave them at home with a babysitter for heavens sake!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 23rd Dec 2008, AnnieMack wrote:As a mum of 4 I don't get the logic in taking tinies to the theatre but I do get the logic in the admission charge. I do however think £11 to be excessive.
No doubt the charge is to ensure the baby is insured in the event of a incident/accident at the venue.
I would prefer babies to be left at home so that the other children (and adults) could enjoy the show. It is rather ironic that the chap who was quoted admitted to spending the time pacing up and down in the foyer with the baby!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 24th Dec 2008, albanach wrote:It's all well and good to say get a babysitter. What if you and your family traveled down from the Highlands and are spending the night in Glasgow - you have no idea who would be reputable enough to leave your child with. What if they're tourists from another country?
AnnieMack thinks it ironic that he admitted to prancing in the foyer with the baby. Personally I think that exemplifies responsible parenting. When the baby was upset he left the theater. No one was upset.
Congratulations to the Kings for playing Grinch this Christmas.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 24th Dec 2008, Rogerborg wrote:Everyone involved in this story is quite literally worse than Hitler.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 24th Dec 2008, millportghirl wrote:I agree with all comments made. Think it is a disgrace to have to pay for any child under 12 months who you know will not be taking up a seat at the theatre, however, I also think it is unfair to the other people at the theatre to listen to children bawling their eyes out - they also have paid to see the show. What I think is unfair is subjecting young babies to the loud music, bangs, cries, cheers that happen though pantos - thier poor wee ears must be killing them at the end of it!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 24th Dec 2008, DKAlbion wrote:albanach - when planning a trip out of town, surely leaving the baby at home with your regular babysitter, or someone reputable should be included in the plans? To leave this vital element to when you're actually in a strange town is scarcely logical!
I agree that it's ludicrous to take a baby to a panto and the sheer height of anti-social behaviour. Sadly all too common among parents these days, who seem to expect to be able to drag their offspring with them everywhere they go and the rest of us to put up with it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)