How much do you miss the pub?

MonkstownHoop

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

Over to you Rex Banner

They are serving food so whats your issue here?

The DIY smart arses too?

Huntergonzo

Publicians have been treated like shít here, I know a few of them who have invested a lot of time, effort and money into re-opening on 20th July, only to be told to wait till 10th August with just 5 days notice, it's a whole blow for them.

It's ridiculous and they'll probably fúck them again just days before the 10th August. Be as well just coming out and saying, 'the pubs are closed indefinitely'

ShooterSF

Dial Hard wrote: »

I genuinely can't figure out if people are being obtuse, facetious or just downright thick about the meal thing.

Nobody in government thinks, has inferred or in any way believes that 9 quids worth of food has some kind of mystical immunity effect on the virus. The rule and the time limit are to try and keep some semblance of manners on people who would otherwise sit there skulling pints indefinitely, getting pished and then inevitably forgetting/refusing to social distance/wait to use the bathroom/generally behave themselves.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it's a stone cold fact. Requiring people to pay for and consume a meal and limiting the time they can spend in the pub mitigates some of the stupidity we'd otherwise be guaranteed to see if it was just "operate as normal".

Not rocket science, folks.

I think it is just bad messaging from some people. When you drill down with them their real argument is either that bars and restaurants should both have been able to open together or that they think the whole process is moving too slowly but they start with the meal thing and it drags the argument completely away from the point they are trying to make.
A lot of disappointed friends who work in the industry and have been doing training on masks and social distancing and such this week and ordering in and restocking the bar only to find out they've at least another 3 weeks out of work...

maherhonda

Could they not just limit the capacity of pubs ffs. It would take a week for someone to visit every pub in a lot of counties and say this is the max people allowed in or the bar owner will recieve a 2500 euro fine or six months in prison just like the face mask rule on public transport now.

I understand night clubs been shut.

Huntergonzo

Dial Hard wrote: »

I genuinely can't figure out if people are being obtuse, facetious or just downright thick about the meal thing.

Nobody in government thinks, has inferred or in any way believes that 9 quids worth of food has some kind of mystical immunity effect on the virus. The rule and the time limit are to try and keep some semblance of manners on people who would otherwise sit there skulling pints indefinitely, getting pished and then inevitably forgetting/refusing to social distance/wait to use the bathroom/generally behave themselves.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it's a stone cold fact. Requiring people to pay for and consume a meal and limiting the time they can spend in the pub mitigates some of the stupidity we'd otherwise be guaranteed to see if it was just "operate as normal".

Not rocket science, folks.

Except for plenty of pubs are not obeying those rules and people are getting drunk faster because they're on a time limit, so they're drinking faster.

Also people are travelling from one pub to another now if they do have to leave after 105mins, which increases the risk of spreading the virus.

Better just to leave people to enjoy a few pints in peace.

never_mind

Dial Hard wrote: »

I genuinely can't figure out if people are being obtuse, facetious or just downright thick about the meal thing.

Nobody in government thinks, has inferred or in any way believes that 9 quids worth of food has some kind of mystical immunity effect on the virus. The rule and the time limit are to try and keep some semblance of manners on people who would otherwise sit there skulling pints indefinitely, getting pished and then inevitably forgetting/refusing to social distance/wait to use the bathroom/generally behave themselves.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it's a stone cold fact. Requiring people to pay for and consume a meal and limiting the time they can spend in the pub mitigates some of the stupidity we'd otherwise be guaranteed to see if it was just "operate as normal".

Not rocket science, folks.

I think people get that to an extent but I also think it’s infantilising adults. How about not serve people who are breaching their pub’s rules as per usual? Rather than ‘requiring’ people to PAY for a meal which does not mean eat a meal.

What irks me more are the two gastropubs serving starters do 8.70 and saying no when you ask them for a side of bread rather than the 2.50 chips they force on you.

The whole situation, to put it bluntly, is not down to pubs it’s down to house parties. Open things up more and spread people out... but I’ve said it before under 20s are always going to want to go to a house party over a pub.

iebamm2580

Micheal martin gets me more angry listening to him than varadkar even, didnt think it was possible.

UDAWINNER

just cancelled a hotel in killarney next weekend on the back of this. Summer will be over when the pubs reopen and the crap weather as well.

maherhonda

My friends are planning to do a pub crawl on Saturday.

Probably visit 5 or 6 pubs, get wings or toasted sandwiches in each or something and then move onto the next pub after the 100 minutes is up.

They'll probably be sculling pints because of the 100 minute rule for each one.

They don't give a ****e about having to spend 9 euro in each one for some food.

UDAWINNER

UDAWINNER wrote: »

just cancelled a hotel in killarney next weekend on the back of this. Summer will be over when the pubs reopen and the crap weather as well.

A few more people might be alive though.

never_mind

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Micheal martin gets me more angry listening to him than varadkar even, didnt think it was possible.

Oh come here, he is unpolished, patronising and meek. He barely makes eye contact and when he does he looks like he just wants to run away. No charisma. Leo is not perfect but at least I could imagine having a laugh with him in a two hour socially distanced gastropub.

Huntergonzo

maherhonda wrote: »

My friends are planning to do a pub crawl on Saturday.

Probably visit 5 or 6 pubs, get wings or toasted sandwiches in each or something and then move onto the next pub after the 100 minutes is up.

They'll probably be sculling pints because of the 100 minute rule for each one.

They don't give a ****e about having to spend 9 euro in each one for some food.

Ah ye but it's grand cause the pub are 'closed' and there's a time limit so that prevents the spread of covid.

Hulk Hands

murpho999 wrote: »

THe logic is that restaurants were allowed to open, and therefore in order for a pub to open as a restaurant a substantial meal must be bought , counsumed and off the premisies within a time limit and in that time alcohol can be served.

So they're not technically open as pubs.

I'm surprised at how many people do not make this distinction.

If this was the case, then they would have just let places with restaurant licenses reopen. Every pub with a small kitchen and no license, or food safety certificates, would not have been allowed to reopen.

Dial Hard wrote: »

I genuinely can't figure out if people are being obtuse, facetious or just downright thick about the meal thing.

Nobody in government thinks, has inferred or in any way believes that 9 quids worth of food has some kind of mystical immunity effect on the virus. The rule and the time limit are to try and keep some semblance of manners on people who would otherwise sit there skulling pints indefinitely, getting pished and then inevitably forgetting/refusing to social distance/wait to use the bathroom/generally behave themselves.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it's a stone cold fact. Requiring people to pay for and consume a meal and limiting the time they can spend in the pub mitigates some of the stupidity we'd otherwise be guaranteed to see if it was just "operate as normal".

Not rocket science, folks.

I'm not really sure you're getting it either though. All you mentioned above is completely achievable without the need for a small meal to be thrown in front of you. You can operate strict table service and a 105 minute time limit without having the food element.

If someone wants to skull pints, they're going to regardless of the food element being there. People's point is that the food element makes zero difference virus wise. All this does is punish small pubs with no kitchen, or the ability to offer table service for both food and alcohol due to layout or small staff numbers.

stephenjmcd

maherhonda wrote: »

My friends are planning to do a pub crawl on Saturday.

Probably visit 5 or 6 pubs, get wings or toasted sandwiches in each or something and then move onto the next pub after the 100 minutes is up.

They'll probably be sculling pints because of the 100 minute rule for each one.

They don't give a ****e about having to spend 9 euro in each one for some food.

Its that or house party for us next weekend too

maherhonda

The whole food thing is nothing really about alcohol or lining your stomach or anything like that. It's to get businesses back functioning.

More people will go for food if alcohol is served and pub restaurants generally have more staff than your standard pub.

maherhonda

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Its that or house party for us next weekend too

Be a house party after the five or six pubs I'm sure!!

Risteard81

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Micheal martin gets me more angry listening to him than varadkar even, didnt think it was possible.

They both belong in jail for life for Treason. And they can stick their stupid gas masks where the sun don't shine. There is a reason the US Constitution permits citizens to keep and bear arms to prevent tyrannical governments.

murpho999

iebamm2580 wrote: »

no logic to allowing restaurants and not pubs with regards to getting infected.

Because people generally spend less time in restuarants than they do in pubs and there's less alcohol involved.

Remember a lot of resturants don't serve alcohol.

Benimar

Risteard81 wrote: »

They both belong in jail for life for Treason. And they can stick their stupid gas masks where the sun don't shine. There is a reason the US Constitution permits citizens to keep and bear arms to prevent tyrannical governments.

Wow!

never_mind

never_mind wrote: »

Oh come here, he is unpolished, patronising and meek. He barely makes eye contact and when he does he looks like he just wants to run away. No charisma. Leo is not perfect but at least I could imagine having a laugh with him in a two hour socially distanced gastropub.

I’d say Vradkar doesn’t even know what a pub is. Imagine mingling with the lower classes.

BringBackMick

This government are the disgusting. I hope they are turfed out of office due to their complete incompetence.

Gods Gift

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Micheal martin gets me more angry listening to him than varadkar even, didnt think it was possible.

Yeah, no love actually or kylie quotes.
Mans an imbecile

Gods Gift

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I’d say Vradkar doesn’t even know what a pub is. Imagine mingling with the lower classes.

The George.

murpho999

RoryMac wrote: »

There's not much logic to it, the bit that makes sense is the table service and social distancing. The meal and 105 minutes isn't logical

The meal is logical as that's what you're going for, not just for pints.

The 105 minute limit applies to all restaurants not just pubs and the idea is to limit people's exposure. Remember it's to protect staff as well.

Effectively pubs never really opened and only those that did, did so as a restaurant not a pub.

It's tough on pubs, very tough but I think it makes sense.

Itssoeasy

Well the government are going to have to stump up big time for the pubs after this decision. I mean it's only fair given the government have made this call. I'd love to know why it's till the 10th of august. I could see them making it a week from next monday to just make sure all pubs had time to get things sorted.

Acosta

Can't understand why pubs wouldn't be allowed to reopen once all the safety infrastructure is in place, table service is in operation and there's someone at the door only leaving x amount in based on the size of the premises.

I feel sorry for my local who I know would be responsible and take it seriously.

murpho999

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I’d say Vradkar doesn’t even know what a pub is. Imagine mingling with the lower classes.

Seriously, what a load of sh1te and since when have pubs in Ireland been anything to with class?

Patrick2010

Deals in Rathfarnham is open tomorrow, I’d say it’ll be a lot more packed than any pub that now can’t open.

gmisk

Gods Gift wrote: »

The George.

Oh because he is gay....wow edgy and so insightful you must have been so proud of that one! Ffs

murpho999

Acosta wrote: »

Can't understand why pubs wouldn't be allowed to reopen once all the safety infrastructure is in place, table service is in operation and there's someone at the door only leaving x amount in based on the size of the premises.

I feel sorry for my local who I know would be responsible and take it seriously.

Well it sounds like zero craic to me. Pub half empty, tables distanced, can't sit at bar, can't just mingle with people.

It wouldn't be the same.