Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

quintana76

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Haven't had a horrible experience myself, its not for everyone but its been nice to be able to go out socially.

Felt quite comfortable in the bars in my area anyway, staff wearing masks, contact details taken, temperature checks, tables well spaced.

I will say I much prefer the snugs, hope most places keep a few after restrictions are lifted whenever the day comes.

Different alright but not the worst.

if that's your idea of a good time I don't envy you. Be better off at home.

podgeandrodge

almostover wrote: »

If you need to go to the pubs for a few pints for your mental health you've bigger issues.....

That's a rather blanket statement to make. Lots of people depend on the pub for meeting people and their social life.

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Has anyone here actually been to these pubs serving food since they were allowed open? It’s a pretty horrible experience.

Enjoying my local. Good atmosphere and great to get out to it again.
While the food thing is a farce, and pubs maintaining the same distancing should be able to open, I'm getting quite partial to some spare ribs with my beer!

rubadub

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Honestly what difference does it make if I have a few pints with a meal or a few without.

its been explained loads of times, in various threads. I think people see it and stick their fingers in their ears "la la la", like a little kid.

Many are just feigning ignorance about it, somehow thinking that looking like an ignorant stupid fuck makes them look smart. These types of laws have
been in place for over 50 years, other places brought it in too for covid.

Really is cringeworthy seeing these cnuts embarrassing themselves.

stephenjmcd

quintana76 wrote: »

if that's your idea of a good time I don't envy you. Be better off at home.

Didn't say it was my idea of a good time ? Its different and we just have to get used to different for the time being.

I'd rather be social with the same group of people thanks than stay at home.

Its not for everyone but its nice to be able to go out to a pub at least.

stephenjmcd

rubadub wrote: »

its been explained loads of times, in various threads. I think people see it and stick their fingers in their ears "la la la", like a little kid.

Many are just feigning ignorance about it, somehow thinking that looking like an ignorant stupid fuck makes them look smart. These types of laws have
been in place for over 50 years, other places brought it in too for covid.

Really is cringeworthy seeing these cnuts embarrassing themselves.

Nice rant, care to address the point as to what difference a €9 bowl of wings or 2 sides of chips, makes to covid when people are still sitting at tables, table service only and no mixing ?? The exact same as it would be now minus the €9 requirement.

I'll buy them no problem if I have to but like I've seen a few times now people just buy them and leave them to the side.

If your just going to ramble on then don't bother.

HBC08

I think pubs should be allowed open with strict rules like there are for pub restaurants at the moment.I live in a fairly big town and there is nowhere flouting the rules,people are generally understanding.
I did see one steamed pr1ck trying to order from the bar and a very weary and under pressure barman telling him to cop on.The same gobsh1te was trying to hug someone a few minutes later,there will always be a few eejits though in all walks of life.
The fact that the government are flying kites and linking the pubs to the reopening of schools is a cop out,there are spineless.It also means there's no hope of pubs opening on the 10th,I'm speculating but I reckon it'll be end of September. There is no way they can just kick the can down the road as they did for the July 20th date.I expect they will say pubs cant open but there will also be some sort of financial help announced for pubs and maybe some indications of the guidelines when they are allowed open in the autumn.All this is guessing but that's what I think will happen tomorrow.

hynesie08

rubadub wrote: »

its been explained loads of times, in various threads. I think people see it and stick their fingers in their ears "la la la", like a little kid.

Many are just feigning ignorance about it, somehow thinking that looking like an ignorant stupid fuck makes them look smart. These types of laws have
been in place for over 50 years, other places brought it in too for covid.

Really is cringeworthy seeing these cnuts embarrassing themselves.

OR....... we understand and just think its a bit silly, or that social distancing and contact tracing are more important. I've bought food every time I'm out, it's no actual skin of my nose, but I'm not going to light someone on fire if they order a cheesy fries for €8 or don't buy food in a pub when there's only 3 people in.

Charles Babbage

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Didn't say it was my idea of a good time ? Its different and we just have to get used to different for the time being.

I'd rather be social with the same group of people thanks than stay at home.

Its not for everyone but its nice to be able to go out to a pub at least.

The question is, how do you allow people have a couple of quiet pints but not facilitate those who want a session, where they drink for 6 hours and get scuttered?
Let those advocating opening indicate what rules they propose.

hynesie08

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The question is, how do you allow people have a couple of quiet pints but not facilitate those who want a session, where they drink for 6 hours and get scuttered?
Let those advocating opening indicate what rules they propose.

Zero tolerance, believe it or not some people can get scuttered without causing hassle, but if they start, **** them out, if you continue to serve them to the point where you can't control the situation, then you're running a ****ty pub.

Neowise

Idbatterim wrote: »

One thing that strikes me in many places is how often we have to touch surfaces. Like in mcd the other day , automated fromt dors now, but the loo main door , tap and soap dispenser all have to be touched....

I've experience lots of places with non touch sanitizer dispensers, and automatic doors, and contactless payments.


The loo door, i sort of get your point, but, if you use disposable hand towel for drying hands, don't dispose of it until you have exited the loos.


As for tab and soap dispensers? I do not see any issue with this! touch the dispenser and wash your hands. Why would you have any issue with tap and soap dispensers?

Charles Babbage

hynesie08 wrote: »

Zero tolerance, believe it or not some people can get scuttered without causing hassle, but if they start, **** them out, if you continue to serve them to the point where you can't control the situation, then you're running a ****ty pub.

But if you send them out scuttered they'll still cause hassle to people on the street, to the taximan, or even end up in A&E.



Now with table service you may be able to stop serving people. But the evidence suggests that many pubs will continue to take people's money if they continue providing it.

Santy2015

Santy2015 wrote: »

What a f**king plank
https://twitter.com/ross_shane1/status/1290363596858327041?s=21

Miserable prat would render every pub outside the Pale a bomb site if he had his way. Needless to say his is a less than creditable voice after he got the grand shove in the last election, he can take his plummy Oxbridge accent and polish Michael Portillo's diction.

hynesie08

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But if you send them out scuttered they'll still cause hassle to people on the street, to the taximan, or even end up in A&E.



Now with table service you may be able to stop serving people. But the evidence suggests that many pubs will continue to take people's money if they continue providing it.

Have to close off licenses as well so, they could get locked at home and fall going to the shop, start a row with the staff if they're refused more......

I have been screaming non stop for guidelines and enforcement, if the government introduces actual restrictions, and the gardai have the powers to enforce them, you'll see Publicans fall into line quick enough......

rubadub

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Nice rant, care to address the point as to what difference a €9 bowl of wings or 2 sides of chips, makes to covid when people are still sitting at tables, table service only and no mixing ?? The exact same as it would be now minus the €9 requirement

do you know what the phrase "eating is cheating" mean? if you do you can figure out the answer yourself. This feigned ignorance crap is so annoying, nobody believes you are as utterly ignorant as you are making out.

this might be shocking news to you and some others.
https://www.alcohol.org/effects/inhibitions/

hynesie08 wrote: »

OR....... we understand and just think its a bit silly.

I think the current laws, in place for 50+ years are quite sensible. I have asked several times for peoples alternative suggestions for laws to differentiate the 2 types of establishments, no answers yet of course. If they are so silly surely you can come up with better.

madmax72

Just after seeing on the citizens advice website that you don't have to order food if you are drinking non alcoholic drinks.Does not make sense at all.Let all pubs be opened but be strictly regulated and have penalty closures for those that don't abide by the rules.If a publican has a threat of being closed down for a week for an infringement they will tow the line

c68zapdsm5i1ru

mountgomery burns wrote: »

Well no doubt it won't be the fault of the pubs that aren't allowed open, and yet you'll still be here blaming them. It goes both ways I guess

Why would I be blaming pubs that haven't been allowed reopen
. We're talking here about the pubs that have reopened and how some of them are flouting the rules, to the delight of some of their customers.

SteM

Would it be more damaging for the industry if we were to open pubs on 20th August but then have to close them after a month if there was a spike, or if we were to delay reopening them for until September?

I'd guess the former.

SteM

PTH2009 wrote: »

Mix of the 2 , the uncertainty of it all, you don't knw what place's will throw you out at 105 mins thus you drink faster and that.

I don't mind paying for food but miss the just going in for a quite one after a walk etc

I've no doubt that anyone that wants a pint knows by now whether their local or their favourite haunt is following the 105 minute rule or not by now.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

It's the likes of the people on here who are gleefully telling us about pubs they go to that are flouting the rules, who are helping to ensure a situation where small rural pubs will have to remain closed. A lot of those pubs are social lifelines to some people, providing companionship and a sense of community for isolated people.

You might be prepared to take the risk of your trendy hot-spot pub in the city centre closing down, because you've other social outlets. But that's not the case for everyone.

So whether you agree with the food and 90 minutes rule or not, can you not just stick to it for the moment?

mountgomery burns

Dalton Scarce Bum wrote: »

It's the likes of the people on here who are gleefully telling us about pubs they go to that are flouting the rules, who are helping to ensure a situation where small rural pubs will have to remain closed. A lot of those pubs are social lifelines to some people, providing companionship and a sense of community for isolated people.

You might be prepared to take the risk of your trendy hot-spot pub in the city centre closing down, because you've other social outlets. But that's not the case for everyone.

So whether you agree with the food and 90 minutes rule or not, can you not just stick to it for the moment?

I'm not a fan of the food guidelines, time limits I could live with but unfortunately I think it is counter productive once the food requirement goes. But of the few times I've been to a pub lately I've had food everytime.

But do you really think if there was 100% compliance, they would have opened other pubs any sooner? People would still be doing exactly what they're doing now, talking about it being too risky and better to keep it the way it is.

AdamD

hynesie08 wrote: »

No you didn't, or he's talking bollox


So why can't you do all that, just without a frozen pizza?

Awaiting a reasonable response to this

rubadub wrote: »

its been explained loads of times, in various threads. I think people see it and stick their fingers in their ears "la la la", like a little kid.

Many are just feigning ignorance about it, somehow thinking that looking like an ignorant stupid fuck makes them look smart. These types of laws have
been in place for over 50 years, other places brought it in too for covid.

Really is cringeworthy seeing these cnuts embarrassing themselves.

Is this supposed to be your explanation? Cause you explained absolutely nothing.

Its a simple question, if you keep all other measures in place, distancing, time limits, table service. But remove the token piece of food off the table, why is it more dangerous?

All we're doing is discriminating against pubs who can't keep up the meal fassade. Its utterly illogical, either my 105 minutes of pints with a burger is too dangerous and they should all be closed or I should be able to have 105 minutes with or without food.

And that's before we get on to the fact that the current rules actually push people towards a fewer amount of open pubs, which would seem more dangerous, wouldn't it?

joeguevara

AdamD wrote: »

Awaiting a reasonable response to this

Is this supposed to be your explanation? Cause you explained absolutely nothing.

Its a simple question, if you keep all other measures in place, distancing, time limits, table service. But remove the token piece of food off the table, why is it more dangerous?

All we're doing is discriminating against pubs who can't keep up the meal fassade. Its utterly illogical, either my 105 minutes of pints with a burger is too dangerous and they should all be closed or I should be able to have 105 minutes with or without food.

And that's before we get on to the fact that the current rules actually push people towards a fewer amount of open pubs, which would seem more dangerous, wouldn't it?

The reason is this. If you have food in front of you and have to eat that, you cant have as many alcoholic drinks as if you didn't in the timeframe, as it takes time to eat a substantial meal. Because of that, you won't get as inebriated and start to do things that you wouldn't do (i.e. go talk to people, instigate more contact,) also, much less likely to pick up your plate of a roast dinner or a lasagne and bring it over to the fella you haven't seen in 20 years but you would probably would if you only had a pint glass.

So to answer your question, if food was taken out of the equation and all other things being equal, then there would be no issue. But food takes all of the increased risks that I outlined above or at least decreases them to a level that is found acceptable.

rob316

Well Michael of Donovan, Chair of the VFI in Cork was on the radio there. He said there was a rule change on July 5th that any pub could allow people past the 105 min limit provided they bought food earlier and kept to the 2m distance between tables.

Its the first I heard of it but if thats what he is informing his members of, there isn't any rule been broken.

AdamD

joeguevara wrote: »

The reason is this. If you have food in front of you and have to eat that, you cant have as many alcoholic drinks as if you didn't in the timeframe, as it takes time to eat a substantial meal. Because of that, you won't get as inebriated and start to do things that you wouldn't do (i.e. go talk to people, instigate more contact,) also, much less likely to pick up your plate of a roast dinner or a lasagne and bring it over to the fella you haven't seen in 20 years but you would probably would if you only had a pint glass.

So to answer your question, if food was taken out of the equation and all other things being equal, then there would be no issue. But food takes all of the increased risks that I outlined above or at least decreases them to a level that is found acceptable.

Except you don't have to eat any food if you don't want to (and people aren't). You can drink as fast or slow if you want and the rest is pure conjecture - I'm yet to see anyone move between tables no matter how many pints they've had with the current rules.

joeguevara

rob316 wrote: »

Well Michael of Donovan, Chair of the VFI in Cork was on the radio there. He said there was a rule change on July 5th that any pub could allow people past the 105 min limit provided they bought food earlier and kept to the 2m distance between tables.

Its the first I heard of it but if thats what he is informing his members of, there isn't any rule been broken.

I think I posted a few weeks back that was in Buck Mulligans in Dun Laoghaire to have a chat with the manager and was shocked when he told me that because all of their tables are 2m or more apart that they don't need to adhere to the time limit. The problem most pubs have with this is that they don't have the space to ensure the 2m and it does limit more the amount of people that can be accommodated and spend money.

Macy0161

mountgomery burns wrote: »

But do you really think if there was 100% compliance, they would have opened other pubs any sooner? People would still be doing exactly what they're doing now, talking about it being too risky and better to keep it the way it is.

Maybe, maybe not. But the many food pubs (including rural food pubs) flouting the rules are giving the Government the excuse. Other publicans throwing their colleagues under the bus imo. They've created the narrative that publicans can't be trusted, and given nepht/ Government/ commentators the excuse.

joeguevara

AdamD wrote: »

Except you don't have to eat any food if you don't want to (and people aren't). You can drink as fast or slow if you want and the rest is pure conjecture - I'm yet to see anyone move between tables no matter how many pints they've had with the current rules.

You asked for the reason and it was provided to you. You are the one providing conjecture - just because you haven't seen it, does it mean that it didn't happen? Did you see the moon landing because if you didn't am I now to take it it didn't happen? Again, exceptions don't prove the rule - food is required to be eaten where alcoholic beverages are sold - if people don't then they are breaking the rules, but that is not a reason for tearing up the rules.

paw patrol

almostover wrote: »

If you need to go to the pubs for a few pints for your mental health you've bigger issues.....

nonsense.

people do many things to unwind and relax. if it's a few pints so be it.
Only a gob****e would judge or not understand that.

rob316

joeguevara wrote: »

I think I posted a few weeks back that was in Buck Mulligans in Dun Laoghaire to have a chat with the manager and was shocked when he told me that because all of their tables are 2m or more apart that they don't need to adhere to the time limit. The problem most pubs have with this is that they don't have the space to ensure the 2m and it does limit more the amount of people that can be accommodated and spend money.

It just proves its been made up as they go along. Open all the pubs the whole thing is farcical at this stage.

rubadub

madmax72 wrote: »

Just after seeing on the citizens advice website that you don't have to order food if you are drinking non alcoholic drinks.Does not make sense at all.

Makes perfect sense to me, same rule in place for restaurants for donkeys years.

https://www.alcohol.org/effects/inhibitions/