The news that Wetherspoons will be restricting parents with children with them to two alcoholic drinks each has been a hot talking point.

It comes after the Robert Pocock pub in Gravesend, Kent, put up a poster saying that the rule was to avoid "unruly behaviour" if children were left unsupervised.

Since 1902, it has become a crime to be drunk in charge of a child under the age of seven in a public place, which can be punished by a fine or up to a month in prison.

But is this rule too harsh? Parents often rely on pubs as a place to take their children to enjoy a meal and relax over a few drinks. Shouldn't they be allowed that privilege?

As a parent myself, I know how challenging it can be taking a child out to a public place. But my partner and I remain responsible parents at all times and we would never leave ourselves in a position where we have both had too much to drink and can't look after our son.

It seems harsh to me that parents can't be trusted to be responsible for their children. I appreciate that Wetherspoons staff may have concerns about the behaviour of young children on their premises.

But surely, if they do have those concerns, they can address it with the parents directly?

Should we really be restricted to how much we can drink when essentially, a trip to the pub is often a chance to wind down and enjoy time together with friends and family?

Last year, a Wetherspoons pub in Cambridge was criticised for refusing to serve a youngster an alcohol-free beer.

If Wetherspoons are that concerned about the behaviour of children in their pubs, would it not be more sensible to ensure that their pubs have more entertainment for children to avoid them running riot?

I'm sure that this new rule won't stop me going to a Wetherspoons pub in the future but I think the pub chain should consider the impact this may have on their profits should they continue to impose this restriction.