Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

PTH2009

Mrsmum wrote: »

Last night my neighbour's teenage daughter had a party. 20 -30 young people in a tiny garden and when it rained indoors. Dancing, laughing, shouting, singing. Tonight two doors up a teenage boy seems to be having a party as well. Meanwhile in the little village I'm originally from the two pubs are shut. You wouldn't get five customers in either of them on a normal night, a few men hardly saying a word up at the bar. I really think if pubs like that aren't safe to open, house parties should be banned too.

Ring the guards

rubadub

marilynrr wrote: »

Why did they not say food establishments could open but they couldn't serve alcohol

if you are genuinely confused, then have a look at this. I doubt any restaurants had scenes like this before closing.

marilynrr wrote: »

I can't understand why they let the ones who can serve food also serve alcohol, but didn't let the other pubs open.

I would ask you the same as I asked the other poster (unsurprisingly I got not reply) -

Do you seriously not see the logic behind why they were going to allow restaurants open before pubs?

have you seriously never heard the phrase "eating is cheating"?

many people are feigning ignorance about the whole thing -it is mind-numbingly obvious to me.

Suckit

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I have searched and didn't find this mentioned
https://www.irishpost.com/news/limerick-pub-vows-to-open-on-monday-with-or-without-government-approval-189336
it's hard not to agree with him.
I can't see how the €9 bit of food will make any difference when the airports are still open. He has spent €10,000 on complying and said he would stay closed until Christmas if they followed their own rules.
I am kind of over protective about the whole coronavirus for many reasons, but on this occasion I agree with this guy who is advertising that he will be open on monday as a normal pub with covid arrangements met.

marilynrr

rubadub wrote: »

if you are genuinely confused, then have a look at this. I doubt any restaurants had scenes like this before closing.

I would ask you the same as I asked the other poster (unsurprisingly I got not reply) -

Do you seriously not see the logic behind why they were going to allow restaurants open before pubs?

have you seriously never heard the phrase "eating is cheating"?

many people are feigning ignorance about the whole thing -it is mind-numbingly obvious to me.

You read my post wrong!!

My question was why they didn't tell restaurants or establishments that serve food that they could open and serve food only.

Some pubs serve food...so Why did they not tell them you can open and serve food......but that they cannot sell alcohol until the government allow it to be sold!

Why did they allow alcohol to be sold alongside the food basically?

Mr_Muffin

Plenty of country pubs around my way open for the loyal regulars.

Suckit

marilynrr wrote: »

You read my post wrong!!

My question was why they didn't tell restaurants or establishments that serve food that they could open and serve food only.

Some pubs serve food...so Why did they not tell them you can open and serve food......but that they cannot sell alcohol until the government allow it to be sold!

Why did they allow alcohol to be sold alongside the food basically?

They were likely told that Restaurants could open (as they are seated and easily compliant with social distancing) - but nobody ever said no alcohol (nudge and a wink) - So the Government decided that they could extend that to certain pubs.
That, and they never thought of it.

votecounts

Mrsmum wrote: »

Last night my neighbour's teenage daughter had a party. 20 -30 young people in a tiny garden and when it rained, indoors. Dancing, laughing, shouting, singing. Tonight two doors up a teenage boy seems to be having a party as well. Meanwhile in the little village I'm originally from the two pubs are shut. You wouldn't get five customers in either of them on a normal night, a few men hardly saying a word up at the bar. I really think if pubs like that aren't safe to open, house parties should be banned too.

How do you ban house parties?
I f you call the gardai they will only ask them to turn the volume and leave as they need warrant to enter the premises. 5 mins later, party will be back even louder

Charles Babbage

Mrsmum wrote: »

Last night my neighbour's teenage daughter had a party. 20 -30 young people in a tiny garden and when it rained, indoors. Dancing, laughing, shouting, singing. Tonight two doors up a teenage boy seems to be having a party as well. Meanwhile in the little village I'm originally from the two pubs are shut. You wouldn't get five customers in either of them on a normal night, a few men hardly saying a word up at the bar. I really think if pubs like that aren't safe to open, house parties should be banned too.

Will you and your neighbours be telling the party organisers this or will you only post it on boards. ie?

rubadub

marilynrr wrote: »

You read my post wrong!!

I understood your post.

marilynrr wrote: »

Why did they allow alcohol to be sold alongside the food basically?

Because people drinking in restaurants is not typically a problem, they do not lead so scenes like in the picture, so I guess they saw no reason to limit drink in restaurants. They presumed people would behave like they normally do in restaurants.

Am I the only one who has heard the phrase "eating is cheating"?!

marilynrr wrote: »

Some pubs serve food...so Why did they not tell them you can open and serve food......but that they cannot sell alcohol until the government allow it to be sold!

I think they should have done this if they wanted zero scenes of drunkeness. I think it has been successful though, they knew fine well rules would be bent backwards or completely broken but I did not see any scenes like they had in the UK. The "lucky mad lads" went out thinking they were the dogs bollocks for getting away with drinking for 4-5hours and not having to buy a meal in their "dodgy pub". If there was no restriction they would have been on an all-dayer and falling all over each other even more.

Richard Hillman

Benimar wrote: »

Or, to put it another way, the premises adhered to the conditions on which it was allowed open.

Imagine if they all did that, and showed they could be trusted to adhere to the guidelines if allowed open as wet pubs again!

It's nothing against the people running the pub. We were courteous, along with themselves. It is the nonsensical and devious rules that I am upset with.

rubadub

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It is the nonsensical and devious rules that I am upset with.

rubadub wrote: »

Do you seriously not see the logic behind why they were going to allow restaurants open before pubs?

have you seriously never heard the phrase "eating is cheating"?

.

rubadub wrote: »

Many restaurants are allowed open in places where there is not a hope of a pub getting permission. For those who think it is ridiculous or illogical I wonder what law they would put in place if they were in charge? i.e. a law to distinguish between restaurants and pubs.

marilynrr

rubadub wrote: »

I understood your post.

If you understood then why did you feel the need to twist what I said?

rubadub wrote: »

Because people drinking in restaurants is not typically a problem, they do not lead so scenes like in the picture, so I guess they saw no reason to limit drink in restaurants. They presumed people would behave like they normally do in restaurants.

I assume that people drinking in restaurants still engage in the same behaviour they always engaged in...but they didn't just open restaurants, they also allowed pubs that serves food to serve alcohol.

Surely they should have considered pub drinking behaviour also. Of course people who go for a meal in a pub might not engage in normal drinking behaviour but considering pubs have been closed for so long and the only way to drink in a pub is to order food they should have expected that people would try to use the loophole as a way to drink in the pub all day (with the obligatory meal)!

This was of course going to cause issues with the other pubs and accusations of unfairness.

The government should have said at the start that nowhere could serve alcohol, because if they allowed restaurants to serve alcohol, they would have to allow pubs that served food to sell alcohol. They should have said the decision was made because it would be difficult for people to follow social distancing and hygiene practices correctly while under the influence of alcohol.

If they had done that we could have been saved from weeks of ridiculous questions about how toasted sandwiches can save us from this virus!

rubadub

marilynrr wrote: »

If you understood then why did you feel the need to twist what I said?!

I don't think I twisted anything, what in particular was your issue?

marilynrr wrote: »

II assume that people drinking in restaurants still engage in the same behaviour they always engaged in.

I didn't anyway, I know I said they (the gov) presumed people would act the same but I should have said not too different. It was obvious to me if only restaurants were allowed to open that people would go to them to socialise as an alternative to the pub and so drinking would increase in them. I would be shocked if there was no increase in drinking seen in them if pubs had not been allowed to open.

marilynrr wrote: »

but they didn't just open restaurants, they also allowed pubs that serves food to serve alcohol.

Yes, the pubs were meant to be like restaurants. I was saying before if pubs doubled up as newsagents or small food shops, like many rural pubs do, then I would have had no problem with them opening up from the start and not serving drink. And I doubt you would have had whingers complaining that it is utterly ridiculous that they cannot have a rake of pints while buying their paper.

marilynrr wrote: »

Surely they should have considered pub drinking behaviour also.

I think they did, as I said the "mad lads" were effectively tamed.

They presume laws will be broken, why do you think it takes so long for a traffic light to turn green after the other side has turned red? they know fine well rules are broken. If they genuinely wanted the bulk of people to stick to 105mins they would have said 60mins, just like speed limits.

marilynrr wrote: »

The government should have said at the start that nowhere could serve alcohol, because if they allowed restaurants to serve alcohol, they would have to allow pubs that served food to sell alcohol

I agree, if they REALLY wanted to stop it they should have done that, the fact they did not to me means they were willing to tolerate medium levels of drunkeness.

If they did take an added step/phase (people would have moaned) then the restaurants might have been allowed to open even earlier, with no drink.

I think it was a good test, and showed many broke the rules or bent them backwards and so could not be trusted, gave a good excuse to extend the reopening.

In the US I see bars are also taking the piss out of food requirements, no shock to me in the slightest.
https://twitter.com/CBS6SteveM/status/1283915132083548161

Benimar

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's nothing against the people running the pub. We were courteous, along with themselves. It is the nonsensical and devious rules that I am upset with.

They are neither non sensical nor devious.

Pubs are not open, restaurants are. Doesn’t matter what it said over the door of the establishment you went to last night, it was operating as a restaurant.

Restaurants serve food, and will allow you to buy drink with your food. They, rightly, will not just serve you drink.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

PTH2009 wrote: »

Ring the guards

There’s nothing wrong with it, according to the guidelines, until tomorrow.

Was in a pub Friday night for dinner,myself,partner and another couple.Arrived at 8 and didnt leave until before 11. The place was well set up. Plenty of distance between tables. No rush to get us out. Could have stayed till closing time. Went to another pub in Bray yesterday afternoon for lunch but they were sticking to the 105 minutes.Place was really busy with bookings and people walking in off the street

VinLieger

Was some publican from newcastle west on newstalk the other day saying he was opening Tomorrow morning despite the new phase 4 date.

The problem is we all know nothings gonna happen to people like this, the gardai wont close the pub and nobody is gonna object to a license renewal when it comes up.

Just look at all the breaking of the rules happening in dublin every friday and saturday and the gardai are doing nothing, the VFI and LVI undoubtedly have the gardai in their pockets.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

VinLieger wrote: »

Just look at all the breaking of the rules happening in dublin every friday and saturday and the gardai are doing nothing, the VFI and LVI undoubtedly have the gardai in their pockets.

Have you reported this to GSOC with the evidence you undoubtedly have?

freak scence

marilynrr wrote: »

Why did they not say food establishments could open but they couldn't serve alcohol

I can't understand why they let the ones who can serve food also serve alcohol, but didn't let the other pubs open.

I personally can see why pubs will need to stay shut given the timeline. Children going back to school is going to have to be a priority.

As for policing house parties and so on. I don't agree with that. We all did our bit during the initial lockdown, rules dictating people living their personal lives cannot go on forever, they might be able to control businesses opening and so on but as far as many people are concerned, the government have no right to dictate how many people they have in their own homes. The government have lost all credibility and respect now due to letting tourists in.

I also disagree with the people saying gyms etc. shouldn't have been allowed to open if pubs aren't allowed. We should not be banning things that encourage physical wellness.

how's a sweaty gym safe ?

Mrsmum

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Will you and your neighbours be telling the party organisers this or will you only post it on boards. ie?

Such gatherings are allowed. Therefore I have no business saying anything to the party organisers, calling the guards or anything. Nor do I want to. My point was that it seems like double standards to me. A publican running a typical rural pub must keep his pub closed because cases are rising miles away from him but the reason those cases are rising is allowed & given permission to continue. Something off about that imo.

is_that_so

freak scence wrote: »

how's a sweaty gym safe ?

Very limited numbers, based on floorspace for up to 90min max, windows wide open and lots of cleaning.

VinLieger

Travis Acidic Plasterboard wrote: »

Have you reported this to GSOC with the evidence you undoubtedly have?

Why do you believe the gardai are not shutting the numerous pubs that are continuously openly flouting the rules?

Coillte_Bhoy

VinLieger wrote: »

Why do you believe the gardai are not shutting the numerous pubs that are continuously openly flouting the rules?

Beausea maybe you know, they dont have the power to shut them?

marilynrr

freak scence wrote: »

how's a sweaty gym safe ?

I never said that they were all safe, but I still think physical wellness should be encouraged.

At my own fitness classes due to the nature of it we were always socially distanced anyway. It's also extremely easy to sterilise the equipment we used after thoroughly.

It's also the same people at each class per week so we're only mixing with the same small group....and again we are at a distance.

Regular gyms might be different if they allow people to go whenever without time slots and they are switching machines that are harder to intensively clean between each use....but for some fitness classes whether they are in gyms or other places they are as safe as we can get right now.

Richard Hillman

Even if they banned alcohol, which the puritants over at NPHET are dieing to do in general. What difference does it make to sit down at a table, have a meal and a water over 2 hours, than sitting down at the exact same table and having 3-4 pints.

I don't mind the 2 hour limit. I don't mind the notion of staying at your table and not moving around either. What I do mind is NPHET completely abusing their power for ideological purposes. It is nothing to do with Covid
Absolutely nothing.

PTH2009

Only 10 cases today

A u turn on pubs is needed but won't happen

marilynrr

PTH2009 wrote: »

Only 10 cases today

A u turn on pubs is needed but won't happen

Could that be due to delays in reporting because it's the weekend?

never_mind

marilynrr wrote: »

Could that be due to delays in reporting because it's the weekend?

17 cases last Sunday and 18 week before.

Allinall

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Even if they banned alcohol, which the puritants over at NPHET are dieing to do in general. What difference does it make to sit down at a table, have a meal and a water over 2 hours, than sitting down at the exact same table and having 3-4 pints.

I don't mind the 2 hour limit. I don't mind the notion of staying at your table and not moving around either. What I do mind is NPHET completely abusing their power for ideological purposes. It is nothing to do with Covid
Absolutely nothing.

You do realise NPHET don’t have any power?

Their advise has been rejected on a number of occasions.

is_that_so

PTH2009 wrote: »

Only 10 cases today

A u turn on pubs is needed but won't happen

Nope but now they need to deliver on the schools plan!