Will the Rovers ever Return? Your pub megathread, Part 2 - threadbans in OP

NIAC Fanboy

hynesie08 wrote: »

And where do you get the data to ensure it's safe to move to the next stage with only 2 weeks between them?

Just look at England.

Or look at all the places open outdoors already doing takeaway pints or people gathering in parks etc.

It's blindingly obvious that outdoors is happening already and cases are not rising. We don't need data.

questionmark?

DellyBelly wrote: »

I really am looking forward to going into a wet pub, sitting on a high stoll and have a pint while watching some live sport.. Its so close I can almost taste it..

Christ almighty can people stop saying 'Wet' Pub. Its just Pub!

thesandeman

questionmark? wrote: »

Christ almighty can people stop saying 'Wet' Pub. Its just Pub!

Except they're all dry at the moment.

hynesie08

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

Just look at England.

Or look at all the places open outdoors already doing takeaway pints or people gathering in parks etc.

It's blindingly obvious that outdoors is happening already and cases are not rising. We don't need data.

Look at England who are leaving 6 weeks between outdoor and indoor? Fantastic we're agreed then.

NIAC Fanboy

hynesie08 wrote: »

Look at England who are leaving 6 weeks between outdoor and indoor? Fantastic we're agreed then.

We've already had over a month of outdoor, it's been going on since Easter.

Look again at England, how are their cases going after 6 weeks of outdoor? Any red flags being raised?

Are they deferring indoor?

Answer is no.

You need to accept the era of the covideers is over.

The rest of us have moved on, its time for you to do the same.

funnydoggy

Ray Donovan wrote: »

You wont be sitting at the bar until September at the earliest. Being realistic probably 2022. Table service bollixololy for the foreseeable.

How is that being realistic?

hynesie08

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

We've already had over a month of outdoor, it's been going on since Easter.

Look again at England, how are their cases going after 6 weeks of outdoor? Any red flags being raised?

Are they deferring indoor?

Answer is no.

Grand, so we know 6 weeks is a safe gap.

You need to accept the era of the covideers is over.

The rest of us have moved on, its time for you to do the same.

"hey, our nearest neighbours opened outdoors when they reached a certain % of vaccinations, and left a 6 week gap between outdoor and indoor and that seems to have been safe and successful, maybe we should do the same"

"You want to stay locked down forever"

Boards logic 101

NIAC Fanboy

hynesie08 wrote: »

Grand, so we know 6 weeks is a safe gap.



"hey, our nearest neighbours opened outdoors when they reached a certain % of vaccinations, and left a 6 week gap between outdoor and indoor and that seems to have been safe and successful, maybe we should do the same"

"You want to stay locked down forever"

Boards logic 101

Outdoor and indoor is like comparing apples and oranges. Why are you trying to draw a correlation at all.

Outdoor is open a month already, why not make it official.

MOR316

Ray Donovan wrote: »

You wont be sitting at the bar until September at the earliest. Being realistic probably 2022. Table service bollixololy for the foreseeable.

I sat at the bar in a few places last year, watching football matches...

Coillte_Bhoy

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

Outdoor and indoor is like comparing apples and oranges. Why are you trying to draw a correlation at all.

Outdoor is open a month already, why not make it official.

It only a month in very very few places, i've travelled around my county a fair bit in recent weeks and honestly havent seen one pub serving takeaway pints, im sure there are some but ive not seen or heard of any.

ingo1984

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

It only a month in very very few places, i've travelled around my county a fair bit in recent weeks and honestly havent seen one pub serving takeaway pints, im sure there are some but ive not seen or heard of any.

Last Sunday my local that does takeaway pints had people who brought their own portable foldable chairs were sitting in the car park, with their coats on having pints. Car park is also shared with a pharmacy and centra, but also a kids playground beside it. Thought it was quite pathetic to be honest. Why bother? Not just drink in your own back garden?

Ray Donovan

funnydoggy wrote: »

How is that being realistic?

Because everything we have done has been with an "abundance of caution". Ultra conservative decision making. The pubs will be the same.

Do you think Tony wants people at bars waiting for pints?

Absolutely no way will the pubs be like 2019 this year. Well the regulations that will be brought in wont allow it. It'll be up to the land landlord to decide.

PTH2009

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Because everything we have done has been with an "abundance of caution". Ultra conservative decision making. The pubs will be the same.

Do you think Tony wants people at bars waiting for pints?

Absolutely no way will the pubs be like 2019 this year. Well the regulations that will be brought in wont allow it. It'll be up to the land landlord to decide.

Dr Tony has changed, Wasn't he on about Electric Picnic happening this year

Still hard to trust him and NPHET as well as our wally's in the Government

PTH2009

PTH2009 wrote: »

Dr Tony has changed, Wasn't he on about Electric Picnic happening this year

Still hard to trust him and NPHET as well as our wally's in the Government

Tony might have won a few battles over the past year, but he has the lost the war. The abstinence drive fell short, and I'm not the least bit sorry it failed. As well as any lofty social engineering notions of introducing continental-style drinking, "al fresco" my back passage. The traditional pub will rebound, it is deeply embedded in our culture and cannot be eradicated overnight.

Encountered my local publican yesterday, he has ploughed his remaining few bob into jazzing up the interior...a simple canopy suffices for temporary beer garden squeeze. It's all systems go in a few weeks time, and by July it will be a case of "Tony who?". Demand very much there, car parks were hotspots for takeaway pints & chatter over the weekend. Punters are itching to embrace a bit of normality again.

Ray Donovan

Belgium, an EU country that we have on our MHQ list will open it's indoor bars at least a month before us. But hey follow the science..... https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/...avirus-global/

Dickie10

Deleted User wrote: »

Tony might have won a few battles over the past year, but he has the lost the war. The abstinence drive fell short, and I'm not the least bit sorry it failed. As well as any lofty social engineering notions of introducing continental-style drinking, "al fresco" my back passage. The traditional pub will rebound, it is deeply embedded in our culture and cannot be eradicated overnight.

Encountered my local publican yesterday, he has ploughed his remaining few bob into jazzing up the interior...a simple canopy suffices for temporary beer garden squeeze. It's all systems go in a few weeks time, and by July it will be a case of "Tony who?". Demand very much there, car parks were hotspots for takeaway pints & chatter over the weekend. Punters are itching to embrace a bit of normality again.

yeah i think by sound of this new Tony that hes lost the will for the fight to kill off alchool and pubs. he knows whats coming. thats why i think restrictions with outdoor drinking will be very much for show, they will have normality back as quick as they can , cant see anywhere outside of famous urban landmark pubs being inspected for pure 6 1 news tokenism. id say when they open on june 7th normalacy will come in within 2-3 weeks

saabsaab

Dickie10 wrote: »

yeah i think by sound of this new Tony that hes lost the will for the fight to kill off alchool and pubs. he knows whats coming. thats why i think restrictions with outdoor drinking will be very much for show, they will have normality back as quick as they can , cant see anywhere outside of famous urban landmark pubs being inspected for pure 6 1 news tokenism. id say when they open on june 7th normalacy will come in within 2-3 weeks

I don't think that's it. The vaccines roll out is going to make opening up safely possible for us.

NIAC Fanboy

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Belgium, an EU country that we have on our MHQ list will open it's indoor bars at least a month before us. But hey follow the science..... https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/...avirus-global/

There is no science in comparing outdoor to indoor and saying wait 3 weeks.

Last summer there was no outdoor just straight to indoor.

Retail is going from click and collect to indoor in just one week.

Twice we were told to spend €9 on food to be safe but now it seems we don't need food to be safe.

These are all standard plays from the covideers handbook and each mire pathethic than the next.

NIAC Fanboy

ingo1984 wrote: »

Last Sunday my local that does takeaway pints had people who brought their own portable foldable chairs were sitting in the car park, with their coats on having pints. Car park is also shared with a pharmacy and centra, but also a kids playground beside it. Thought it was quite pathetic to be honest. Why bother? Not just drink in your own back garden?

Each to their own, if it's not for you just keep walking, nothing pathetic about it. You can't get real pints in your back garden and obviously some people might just want something different to sitting at home another weekend.

Maybe they just did it to show abut of support to their local publican.

thesandeman

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Belgium, an EU country that we have on our MHQ list will open it's indoor bars at least a month before us. But hey follow the science..... https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/...avirus-global/

Wasn't there riots there the day outdoor opened?

PommieBast

Dickie10 wrote: »

yeah i think by sound of this new Tony that hes lost the will for the fight to kill off alchool and pubs. he knows whats coming.

From an anti-alcohol perspective keeping the pubs closed has been a disaster. Some people went dry but all signs are overall consumption going thru the roof.

M_Murphy57

ingo1984 wrote: »

Last Sunday my local that does takeaway pints had people who brought their own portable foldable chairs were sitting in the car park, with their coats on having pints. Car park is also shared with a pharmacy and centra, but also a kids playground beside it. Thought it was quite pathetic to be honest. Why bother? Not just drink in your own back garden?

Because 14 months in they are probably sick of the sight of their own back garden and would do anything to socialise with people away from the same 4 walls

ingo1984

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

Each to their own, if it's not for you just keep walking, nothing pathetic about it. You can't get real pints in your back garden and obviously some people might just want something different to sitting at home another weekend.

Maybe they just did it to show abut of support to their local publican.

Drinking in a public car park, 20 yards from a packed playground. Classy. Also this fallacy about supporting local publicans. We've been doing that for the past year through our taxes covering business supports. Why do you think the vintners associations and their members went eerily silent when the supports were announced last year. Alot of pubs won't even open for outdoor service. Why open at reduced capacity and forego free money when they can wait until restrictions are fully eased and the business supports end.

M_Murphy57

ingo1984 wrote: »

Drinking in a public car park, 20 yards from a packed playground. Classy. Also this fallacy about supporting local publicans. We've been doing that for the past year through our taxes covering business supports. Why do you think the vintners associations and their members went eerily silent when the supports were announced last year. Alot of pubs won't even open for outdoor service. Why open at reduced capacity and forego free money when they can wait until restrictions are fully eased and the business supports end.

Because lots of business owners want to work not eeek out a living on state subsidies.

And what consequences will befall the precious darlings witnessing alcohol consumption from a playground in the distance? Do you think this is the first and only time they've seen adults drink alcohol ? Seeing a bunch of middle aged people on chairs drinking a pint of guiness (prrsumably) acting otherwise responsibly isnt going to scar them for life

NIAC Fanboy

ingo1984 wrote: »

Drinking in a public car park, 20 yards from a packed playground. Classy. Also this fallacy about supporting local publicans. We've been doing that for the past year through our taxes covering business supports. Why do you think the vintners associations and their members went eerily silent when the supports were announced last year. Alot of pubs won't even open for outdoor service. Why open at reduced capacity and forego free money when they can wait until restrictions are fully eased and the business supports end.

So why have so many pubs opened already if these benefits you are paying them are so great?

How is a pub on a busy street supposed to open for outdoor if it has nowhere for people to sit?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Tony might have won a few battles over the past year, but he has the lost the war. The abstinence drive fell short, and I'm not the least bit sorry it failed. As well as any lofty social engineering notions of introducing continental-style drinking, "al fresco" my back passage. The traditional pub will rebound, it is deeply embedded in our culture and cannot be eradicated overnight.
...

It's almost as if some posters have invented the idea that Dr. Tony was engaged in any lofty social engineering notions of introducing continental-style drinking and killing off the pub. It's strange but now it looks like he was only focusing on the virus and the "social engineering" angle was only ever a conspiracy theory invented by people who were frustrated that they couldn't go to the pub.

Richard Hillman

The €9 meal thing was 100% around trying to change our culture. They wanted us to go to a pub, all have a meal and think "wow, this is great. We had a nice meal and we're home after 2 hours, not battered. Lets do this more often".

There was no scientific logic to the €9 meal. In fact, because you had more contact with the waiting staff, it would have been worse.

Holohan and co abused their position and power during a time of national crisis to try and slip in some long term changes. We were saying that here last summer and we were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. I think most sane people can admit now that have been abusing the crisis to go after our pub culture.

El_Duderino 09

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The €9 meal thing was 100% around trying to change our culture. They wanted us to go to a pub, all have a meal and think "wow, this is great. We had a nice meal and we're home after 2 hours, not battered. Lets do this more often".

There was no scientific logic to the €9 meal. In fact, because you had more contact with the waiting staff, it would have been worse.

Holohan and co abused their position and power during a time of national crisis to try and slip in some long term changes. We were saying that here last summer and we were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. I think most sane people can admit now that have been abusing the crisis to go after our pub culture.

It wasn't about a €9 meal . It was about the restaurants lobbying to stay open - because people gotta eat (people working away from home etc) and they were allowed to sell alcohol while they were selling food. Some pubs were able to act like restaurants for the sake of opening. A conspiracy theory grew up around it where they were trying to socially engineer the culture. But it was only ever about the fact that restaurants are pretty necessary and pubs aren't so some pubs acted like restaurants so they could open.

The €9 meal was established as the threshold for a "substantial meal" and it wasn't controversial until covid and only "restaurants" selling a "substantial meal" could open. It wasn't social engineering, it was just a handy way to allow restaurants to open to serve food to people who need it (and hopefully make a few quid)

Marty Bird

I always thought €9 meal was a way of stopping people travelling from place to place if every time they went somewhere different they would have to buy food and it would discourage this.

El_Duderino 09

Marty Bird wrote: »

I always thought €9 meal was a way of stopping people travelling from place to place if every time they went somewhere different they would have to buy food and it would discourage this.

It might have had that effect too. Bit it was always a very simple distinction between a pub and a restaurant.

There's a whole mythology around it. It was simply a distinction between a pub and a restaurant and what a substantial meal consists of and how much it would cost at a minimum. These definitions existed before covid and some people thought there was a conspiracy going on leading to all the dopey rhetorical questions like "where's the science that buying a €9 meal makes you immune to catching the virus?". It was always just about distinguishing between a pub and a restaurant. The conspiracy theories were always silly.

SAMTALK

Marty Bird wrote: »

I always thought €9 meal was a way of stopping people travelling from place to place if every time they went somewhere different they would have to buy food and it would discourage this.

But this is not as dramatic as saying it was Tony Holohans way of closing the pub business in ireland .

UI_Paddy

Marty Bird wrote: »

I always thought €9 meal was a way of stopping people travelling from place to place if every time they went somewhere different they would have to buy food and it would discourage this.

There was an element of that for sure. You could also argue when people eat they are likely to drink less and hence less likely to engage in a lot of the drunken behaviours that throw social distancing out the window.

The substantial meal requirement may have had the best of intentions, but the execution was so poor it was inevitably going to be laughed at the way it was.

El_Duderino 09

UI_Paddy wrote: »

...
The substantial meal requirement may have had the best of intentions, but the execution was so poor it was inevitably going to be laughed at the way it was.

I doubt the government ever intended to police it strictly. They just needed most people to take it somewhat seriously to have the desired effects of allowing people who needed food on the go to have it and allow some businesses to keep ticking over to an extent, when covid numbers allowed. I'd say it worked pretty well in hindsight. Some people will take the p1ss but you can't try to make all rules completely fool proof.

NIAC Fanboy

Marty Bird wrote: »

I always thought €9 meal was a way of stopping people travelling from place to place if every time they went somewhere different they would have to buy food and it would discourage this.

A few lads on here claimed that its been explained many times why pubs had to serve a €9 meal, I've asked several times for the reason but always ignored.

Ashbourne hoop

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The €9 meal thing was 100% around trying to change our culture. They wanted us to go to a pub, all have a meal and think "wow, this is great. We had a nice meal and we're home after 2 hours, not battered. Lets do this more often".

There was no scientific logic to the €9 meal. In fact, because you had more contact with the waiting staff, it would have been worse.

Holohan and co abused their position and power during a time of national crisis to try and slip in some long term changes. We were saying that here last summer and we were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. I think most sane people can admit now that have been abusing the crisis to go after our pub culture.

Absolute nonsense. El Duderino relayed it perfectly, so I won't add to that post.

Tenzor07

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I doubt the government ever intended to police it strictly. They just needed most people to take it somewhat seriously to have the desired effects of allowing people who needed food on the go to have it and allow some businesses to keep ticking over to an extent, when covid numbers allowed. I'd say it worked pretty well in hindsight. Some people will take the p1ss but you can't try to make all rules completely fool proof.

It was an almost complete shambles, the number of pubs that either didn't bother to enforce it, or let groups at a table buy a pile of chicken nuggets and drink all day, or get a pizza from Domino's next door and use that as the meal.... Thank god its gone..

(Welcome back by the way!)

NIAC Fanboy

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It was an almost complete shambles, the number of pubs that either didn't bother to enforce it, or let groups at a table buy a pile of chicken nuggets and drink all day, or get a pizza from Domino's next door and use that as the meal.... Thank god its gone..

(Welcome back by the way!)

The biggest disgrace was the government wasted money on a sham EY analysis to claim this €9 thing was working.

Not a peep about it since.

Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly told RTÉ's This Week the evidence is "unambiguous" relating to wet pubs and that they can lead to "superspreader events".

El_Duderino 09

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It was an almost complete shambles, the number of pubs that either didn't bother to enforce it, or let groups at a table buy a pile of chicken nuggets and drink all day, or get a pizza from Domino's next door and use that as the meal.... Thank god its gone..

(Welcome back by the way!)

There was never going to be any kind of resource to police it throughly. And nobody would have supported taking gardai away from other duties to police it. It was only ever going to be a relatively short term measure so there was scope to take the p1ss. The government can't win 'em all but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything.

As with most things, most people do their best most of the time and that's all you can realistically hope for.

PTH2009

Let the food rule never ever make a return in terms of wanting a few pints. It will still exist for the under 18s at gatherings in pubs/hotels etc

The guidelines for the reopening are only been done up now.

El_Duderino 09

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

A few lads on here claimed that its been explained many times why pubs had to serve a €9 meal, I've asked several times for the reason but always ignored.

Here's one explanation (it was just a few posts ago):

"It wasn't about a €9 meal . It was about the restaurants lobbying to stay open - because people gotta eat (people working away from home etc) and they were allowed to sell alcohol while they were selling food. Some pubs were able to act like restaurants for the sake of opening. A conspiracy theory grew up around it where they were trying to socially engineer the culture. But it was only ever about the fact that restaurants are pretty necessary and pubs aren't so some pubs acted like restaurants so they could open.

The €9 meal was established as the threshold for a "substantial meal" and it wasn't controversial until covid and only "restaurants" selling a "substantial meal" could open. It wasn't social engineering, it was just a handy way to allow restaurants to open to serve food to people who need it (and hopefully make a few quid)".

I think your question betrays a misunderstanding. Resultants were allowed to open because they're pretty essential. Pubs were allowed to open if they could act as a restaurant. A restaurant needs to serve a "substantial meal" and a substantial meal was defined as costing at least €9. I hope this clears it up

Coillte_Bhoy

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

A few lads on here claimed that its been explained many times why pubs had to serve a €9 meal, I've asked several times for the reason but always ignored.

There are none so blind etc etc., it has been explained ad naseum, there is little point going over it again, some people just refuse to listen

PommieBast

PTH2009 wrote: »

Let the food rule never ever make a return in terms of wanting a few pints. It will still exist for the under 18s at gatherings in pubs/hotels etc

I will happily take the food rule if it means no time limit.

saabsaab

PommieBast wrote: »

I will happily take the food rule if it means no time limit.

I'd go the other way but I don't think the food rule is returning.

NIAC Fanboy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Here's one explanation (it was just a few posts ago):

"It wasn't about a €9 meal . It was about the restaurants lobbying to stay open - because people gotta eat (people working away from home etc) and they were allowed to sell alcohol while they were selling food. Some pubs were able to act like restaurants for the sake of opening. A conspiracy theory grew up around it where they were trying to socially engineer the culture. But it was only ever about the fact that restaurants are pretty necessary and pubs aren't so some pubs acted like restaurants so they could open.

The €9 meal was established as the threshold for a "substantial meal" and it wasn't controversial until covid and only "restaurants" selling a "substantial meal" could open. It wasn't social engineering, it was just a handy way to allow restaurants to open to serve food to people who need it (and hopefully make a few quid)".

I think your question betrays a misunderstanding. Resultants were allowed to open because they're pretty essential. Pubs were allowed to open if they could act as a restaurant. A restaurant needs to serve a "substantial meal" and a substantial meal was defined as costing at least €9. I hope this clears it up

There was somebody on here a while back posting lies that pubs with restaurant licences were planning to open and serve no food just drink. And that the €9 rule was introduced for this reason.

PTH2009

PommieBast wrote: »

I will happily take the food rule if it means no time limit.

Nah no food rule for me, it brings a bit of the spontaneity back. I'll drop In for a few after a shopping/work etc

They need a big rethink about the time limit. It could effectively lead to pub crawls. If the room is there some places might got the 2m option

NIAC Fanboy

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

There are none so blind etc etc., it has been explained ad naseum, there is little point going over it again, some people just refuse to listen

The made up story about pubs with restaurant licences planning to open but not serve any food?

No it was never explained by anybody. Ever.

saabsaab

PTH2009 wrote: »

Nah no food rule for me, it brings a bit of the spontaneity back. I'll drop In for a few after a shopping/work etc

They need a big rethink about the time limit. It could effectively lead to pub crawls. If the room is there some places might got the 2m option

If you had 2M indoors and ventilation like when the smoking was indoors maybe no timelimit?


I saw a USA report that unregulated Bars were the second highest source of Covid spread so we must be careful yet.

robbiezero

I didn't do any of that food or time rule nonsense last year and won't be doing it this year when the pubs do return.

El_Duderino 09

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

There was somebody on here a while back posting lies that pubs with restaurant licences were planning to open and serve no food just drink. And that the €9 rule was introduced for this reason.

Ok. There were lads posting conspiracy theories about social engineering and trying to turn us all continental too. Theres no accounting for people.

Glad you've got the explanation now.

El_Duderino 09

NIAC Fanboy wrote: »

The made up story about pubs with restaurant licences planning to open but not serve any food?

No it was never explained by anybody. Ever.

It was explained about 4 posts above where you said it was never explained. Not sure you were really paying great attention.