Didn't realise the €9 meal in bars was a fad

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

sy_flembeck wrote: »

What do you base that on?

There's a thing called ... A joke.

paw patrol

some of the hand wringing on this thread is pathetic, there are some amount of gobsh1tes who lack the ability to think for themselves and just follow what the man on the telly says.
422 cases with only 12 serious at the moment , bit of a recent jump but to be expected.

The original mantra of "flatten the curve" seems to be forgotten. Now people think if we hide away long enough the virus will just die.

While I think the restrictions are stupid and excessive if we are going to do them lets be consistent and try make some sense.

But we are letting foreigners (like the Iraqi fella who infected 14 people) into the country which will do much more damage than Joe and Padjo shooting the breeze in the boozer. And the foreign holiday crowd too will cause a spike in numbers by September.

But few discuss the logic of the restrictions, the useful idiots only talk about what more self imposed punishment we can inflict on ourselves for sod all benefit - and of course the obligatory curtain twitch (online these days) to moan that others are not like you. HOW DARE THEY

Acosta

Is the food meant to be made on site? There are pubs that are getting people to order from the local take away. I heard of one pub that has just put fake menus on the table incase a Guard comes in. I'm not whinging about it btw. But some places were always going to find loopholes or just ignore it.

rubadub

Acosta wrote: »

Is the food meant to be made on site? There are pubs that are getting people to order from the local take away.

I do not think it has to be made on site, there is no reason for there to be a restriction like that in place, it makes absolutely no difference to the intent of the rule.

A pub near me was getting in deliveries from a pizza place long before covid hit.

If people are eating a full meal, made in the pub or not, and drinking on that full stomach in the time limit then they are unlikely to be carried home like this lad in the UK. Again, this is why a restaurant can get planning permission in areas where a pub would never have a hope.

average_runner

Collected the brother from a pub on Friday night. He went in at 6 and didn't leave till 1130pm.
No food in the pub and the owner just got them to sign the register every hour so they could stay. Pub was packed at 1130 and no social distancing for sure.

Idbatterim

They wont shut them down again unless the infection rate climbs substantially ...

celt262

Idbatterim wrote: »

They wont shut them down again unless the infection rate climbs substantially ...

What would you call substantially ?

Idbatterim

celt262 wrote: »

What would you call substantially ?

A noticeable enough increase that it could be put down to pubs reopening. Going to be big implications if pubs shut down again. In terms of welfare to be paid out and many wont survive much longer without a return to some normality...

The vulnerable should just stay away from them. If there is TBA spike in cases in a few weeks, happy days...

I think foreign holidays should be curtailed as a balancing act between reestablishing some normality here and not having to lockdown again...

PoisonIvyBelle

blade1 wrote: »

Place I was in the other night were selling pizza's for €9.
Pubs would be crazy not to do it.
Some killing to be made.
And no real cleaning up afterwards.
Probably about 50 pizzas came out from bar while I was there.

Place I was in was the same (maybe same place), rocked up at the door without booking and the guy said he'd find us a table and just to order a pizza between us and that was that. Zero social distancing at seats/tables also. I had envisioned like every second table being closed off or something. Definitely a lot of rule bending going on.

seamus

Look, the purpose of the €9 here was to stop pubs opening as pubs. They wanted to be able to open restaurants. But knowing that there's a blurred line between what's a pub and what's a restaurant, the €9 guideline was there to illustrate that if you're going for peanuts and beer, then it's a pub. If you're going for fish and chips and a pint, it's a restaurant.

It's not really anything to do with having a meal to stop you getting lashed out of it, it's to do with the fact that pubs shouldn't be open yet.

The guidelines also do not require that there is social distancing at a given table, merely between tables. You can go for a meal with any randomer, and there is no social distancing. This doesn't mean that you're magically protected. The purpose of the guidelines are not to protect the individual, they are to protect the country.

If you go out for a meal/pint with someone, you are increasing your risk of contracting covid. But with the guidelines in place, it will be easier to trace the people you've been in contact with and make it less likely that you've spread it. It is not "safe" all of a sudden to go for a meal or a pint. Relatively safer than March/April, but not as safe as it was last year. If you go to a place that's following the rules, then you will find out quicker if you've been at risk of infection. If you go to a street party with no social distancing, you will have no idea whether you've been exposed. And therefore no idea what danger you're posing to others.

I'd say there's going to be a big dose of cop on this week and the pubs paying lip service to the food requirement will be told to shut down or risk losing their licence.

weldoninhio

seamus wrote: »

Look, the purpose of the €9 here was to stop pubs opening as pubs. They wanted to be able to open restaurants. But knowing that there's a blurred line between what's a pub and what's a restaurant, the €9 guideline was there to illustrate that if you're going for peanuts and beer, then it's a pub. If you're going for fish and chips and a pint, it's a restaurant.

It's not really anything to do with having a meal to stop you getting lashed out of it, it's to do with the fact that pubs shouldn't be open yet.

The guidelines also do not require that there is social distancing at a given table, merely between tables. You can go for a meal with any randomer, and there is no social distancing. This doesn't mean that you're magically protected. The purpose of the guidelines are not to protect the individual, they are to protect the country.

If you go out for a meal/pint with someone, you are increasing your risk of contracting covid. But with the guidelines in place, it will be easier to trace the people you've been in contact with and make it less likely that you've spread it. It is not "safe" all of a sudden to go for a meal or a pint. Relatively safer than March/April, but not as safe as it was last year. If you go to a place that's following the rules, then you will find out quicker if you've been at risk of infection. If you go to a street party with no social distancing, you will have no idea whether you've been exposed. And therefore no idea what danger you're posing to others.

I'd say there's going to be a big dose of cop on this week and the pubs paying lip service to the food requirement will be told to shut down or risk losing their licence.

Would have been easier to post the "Won't somebody please think of the children" meme.

gmisk

I am in a little bar/restaurant at coast in cork.
They aren't ridiculous about the 9 euro thing and rightly so. Lots of spacing.
Two starters and had two pints of San Miguel.
Lovely stuff altogether!
Great to get out of house and not have to cook!
Hand sanitizer everywhere, staff wearing masks, people booking tables and giving mobile numbers.

Staying in a nice hotel nearby, one way system at check in. Little sterilised packs of cutlery with salt and pepper, hand sanitizer everywhere at lifts, reception etc.
It's a pain not being able to go out for a drink after dinner without ordering more food though.

Benimar

seamus wrote: »

Look, the purpose of the €9 here was to stop pubs opening as pubs. They wanted to be able to open restaurants. But knowing that there's a blurred line between what's a pub and what's a restaurant, the €9 guideline was there to illustrate that if you're going for peanuts and beer, then it's a pub. If you're going for fish and chips and a pint, it's a restaurant.

It's not really anything to do with having a meal to stop you getting lashed out of it, it's to do with the fact that pubs shouldn't be open yet.

The guidelines also do not require that there is social distancing at a given table, merely between tables. You can go for a meal with any randomer, and there is no social distancing. This doesn't mean that you're magically protected. The purpose of the guidelines are not to protect the individual, they are to protect the country.

If you go out for a meal/pint with someone, you are increasing your risk of contracting covid. But with the guidelines in place, it will be easier to trace the people you've been in contact with and make it less likely that you've spread it. It is not "safe" all of a sudden to go for a meal or a pint. Relatively safer than March/April, but not as safe as it was last year. If you go to a place that's following the rules, then you will find out quicker if you've been at risk of infection. If you go to a street party with no social distancing, you will have no idea whether you've been exposed. And therefore no idea what danger you're posing to others.

I'd say there's going to be a big dose of cop on this week and the pubs paying lip service to the food requirement will be told to shut down or risk losing their licence.

You are spot on and all of your points will be ignored by the 'I never knew a €9 meal could cure Covid..hur, hur, hur' brigade.

The post directly below yours being a case in point.

(Some) people are more interested in having a feed of drink than following some pretty basic guidelines.

Either the pubs flouting the current guidelines will be shut this week, or the opening of all pubs on July 20th will be delayed.

ShooterSF

Idbatterim wrote: »

A noticeable enough increase that it could be put down to pubs reopening. Going to be big implications if pubs shut down again. In terms of welfare to be paid out and many wont survive much longer without a return to some normality...

The vulnerable should just stay away from them. If there is TBA spike in cases in a few weeks, happy days...

I think foreign holidays should be curtailed as a balancing act between reestablishing some normality here and not having to lockdown again...

And how do you protect staff from a dangerous contagious virus? No one should be put in an unsafe environment. The guidelines are as much to protect those dealing with you as you yourself.

jimmycrackcorm

Idbatterim wrote: »

The vulnerable should just stay away from them. If there is TBA spike in cases in a few weeks, happy days...

Who exactly are the "vulnerable"? Seems to be anyone over 50. Also it implies that anyone younger living with parents in that age group are also affecting the vulnerable.

Patrick2010

Constant discussion of the pubs today focusing on one street in Dublin, Dame Lane, where there was footage of people drinking on the street. Given that most seemed to be drinking cans, presumably bought in shops?, is this a reason to close all pubs?

Homelander

seamus wrote: »

Look, the purpose of the €9 here was to stop pubs opening as pubs. They wanted to be able to open restaurants. But knowing that there's a blurred line between what's a pub and what's a restaurant, the €9 guideline was there to illustrate that if you're going for peanuts and beer, then it's a pub. If you're going for fish and chips and a pint, it's a restaurant.

It's not really anything to do with having a meal to stop you getting lashed out of it, it's to do with the fact that pubs shouldn't be open yet.

I'm actually amazed people attempted to argue it was anything other than this insanely obvious, logical fact.

Like seriously, the people who suggested it was to stop people getting drunk on an empty stomach, you'd swear pubs had just opened up after another mass-famine event.

rubadub

seamus wrote: »

Look, the purpose of the €9 here was to stop pubs opening as pubs. They wanted to be able to open restaurants. But knowing that there's a blurred line between what's a pub and what's a restaurant, the €9 guideline was there to illustrate that if you're going for peanuts and beer, then it's a pub. If you're going for fish and chips and a pint, it's a restaurant.

It's not really anything to do with having a meal to stop you getting lashed out of it, it's to do with the fact that pubs shouldn't be open yet.

The meal rules, which are already in several laws, are exactly there to stop the likelihood of people getting drunk!

You would swear they picked names of types of businesses from hats and said "hard luck pubs you close and restaurants get to open". The reason the pubs were set to open later was because they know fine well people tend to get rip roaring drunk in pubs a lot more than restaurants, inhibitions go down etc. And yes of course we have all seen people drinking a lot in restaurants. Again this is why restaurants are premitted to open in areas where pubs would not.

This is from 1988
https://www.oireachtas.ie/ga/debates/debate/seanad/1988-05-26/4/

This is very important, from a health point of view. The more people are encouraged to eat and drink together, the less is the likelihood of people becoming drunk. One of the great problems with drink in the past was that people would start drinking on an empty stomach. There was no food available. Even a few sandwiches would make all the difference. Anything which does that is very welcome.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/alcohol_and_the_law.html

Children aged between 15 and 17 years may remain on the premises after 9pm where they are attending a private function at which a substantial meal is served. All licensed premises must display a sign to this effect in a prominent place at all times and failure to do so can result in a fine.

stephenjmcd

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Constant discussion of the pubs today focusing on one street in Dublin, Dame Lane, where there was footage of people drinking on the street. Given that most seemed to be drinking cans, presumably bought in shops?, is this a reason to close all pubs?

This is the point I was making the other night. What looks to have happened talking to people who work around there is that people arrived up to the bars without bookings and they were already full. This in turn led to some deciding to get cans and stand on the street in their groups for a few hours.

Not sure the pubs can take the blame for this one to be honest.

The gardai themselves today described it as a public order issue

madalig12

Letterkenny. One bar put out chinese takeaway menus as if that should count. Another had no social distance between tables(all full) and queued 3 deep at the bar. This is all going to lead to bother.

PTH2009

The whole country getting warned cause of pubs in Dublin

sy_flembeck

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

There's a thing called ... A joke.

Is there? Where?

alentejo

In my local in Dublin tonight for 1st time in months. Very surprised that no one (expect our group) was buying food.


I am very annoyed because I suspect that they will close pubs indefinitely which is not good too!

Stark

alentejo wrote: »

I am very annoyed because I suspect that they will close pubs indefinitely which is not good too!

Just hope that's the worst that happens. Will be pretty pissed off if they have to to undo some of the phase 3 relaxations as well.

Melanchthon

Benimar wrote: »

You are spot on and all of your points will be ignored by the 'I never knew a €9 meal could cure Covid..hur, hur, hur' brigade.

The post directly below yours being a case in point.

(Some) people are more interested in having a feed of drink than following some pretty basic guidelines.

Either the pubs flouting the current guidelines will be shut this week, or the opening of all pubs on July 20th will be delayed.

These posts are about making the guidelines which are aren't that logical in terms of the virus sound good, they aren't though it's simply 70's style thinking.
What good does enforcing the meal rules do? What good does enforcing the time limit do?
What should be enforced is the taking contact details and social distancing.

Benimar

Melanchthon wrote: »

These posts are about making the guidelines which are aren't that logical in terms of the virus sound good, they aren't though it's simply 70's style thinking.
What good does enforcing the meal rules do? What good does enforcing the time limit do?
What should be enforced is the taking contact details and social distancing.

1. Establishments serving food are allowed open. Pubs aren’t. If you are serving alcohol and not food you are a pub. Therefore you should not be open.
2. If you share an enclosed space with someone for more than 2 hours you can be considered a close contact. If Snotzer McGee at Table 7 tests positive and you have been in the same restaurant as him for over 2 hours, you may have to self isolate pending a test result. That’s some pain in the hole just because you wanted an extra drink.

SweetCaliber

Was in Killarney for the last few days for a staycation and have to admit all pubs/restaurants we went to were strict on the 105 minute rule, the 9 euro minimum for food and it had to be per person.

We were given the bill a short time before the 105 minutes were up and told to drink up.

gmisk

PTH2009 wrote: »

The whole country getting warned cause of pubs in Dublin

It clearly isn't just in Dublin...read the post just before your original post.

Melanchthon

Benimar wrote: »

1. Establishments serving food are allowed open. Pubs aren’t. If you are serving alcohol and not food you are a pub. Therefore you should not be open.
2. If you share an enclosed space with someone for more than 2 hours you can be considered a close contact. If Snotzer McGee at Table 7 tests positive and you have been in the same restaurant as him for over 2 hours, you may have to self isolate pending a test result. That’s some pain in the hole just because you wanted an extra drink.

1-That's not answering the question of why these are the rules it's just saying these are the rules? We could bring back the Holy hour and that would be the law, wouldn't make sense though.

2- I'd argue the time limit thing could actually be a negative, time limit is that long that risk isn't going to scale up that much if your sitting there longer, it's not like the time limit is five minutes. The negative is the time limit encourages a higher turnover of customers while being long enough to be high risk anyway.

whisky_galore

Unenforceable well-meaning bollocks. Can't say I'm surprised about the Dublin pubs footage, all the rules go out the window when people have pints on board.

If the guards don't have powers to penalise or shut places or clear people off without "my rights" sassmouth it's next to useless.

Benimar

Melanchthon wrote: »

1-That's not answering the question of why these are the rules it's just saying these are the rules? We could bring back the Holy hour and that would be the law, wouldn't make sense though.

2- I'd argue the time limit thing could actually be a negative, time limit is that long that risk isn't going to scale up that much if your sitting there longer, it's not like the time limit is five minutes. The negative is the time limit encourages a higher turnover of customers while being long enough to be high risk anyway.

1. I think it’s fair to say that everyone knows why pubs might be considered more high risk than restaurants. That’s hardly a controversial statement. It’s also not unreasonable to allow restaurants open before pubs. For pubs wishing to operate as restaurants they must follow the licensing laws for restaurants (although they don’t actually need the licence itself currently). Within those laws is the reference to the substantial meal and the €9. It has not been pulled out of thin air.
2. What if you don’t get infected by Snotzer? At 105 minutes you aren’t considered a close contact and can go about your business. At 120 minutes you are Considered a close contact and have to self isolate. I believe you have to have 2 negative tests over 7 days before you are clear (open to correction on that). It’s a big price to pay for not adhering to the time limit.

YFlyer

Was trying to watch the second half of the Spurs match in Kilmurry Lodge yesterday. The woman said I need to buy a meal prior to my first pint. Didn't wash with her when I said there is eating and drinking in pints of stout.

rubadub

Homelander wrote: »

I'm actually amazed people attempted to argue it was anything other than this insanely obvious, logical fact.

Like seriously, the people who suggested it was to stop people getting drunk on an empty stomach, you'd swear pubs had just opened up after another mass-famine event.

Melanchthon wrote: »

What good does enforcing the meal rules do

Why do you guys think there has been the meal rule for restaurants for so long? There is nothing new about it.

And this law?
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/alcohol_and_the_law.html

Children (anyone under the age of 18) are only allowed in licensed premises if they are with a parent or guardian, but this provision carries certain restrictions. For example, if accompanied by a parent/guardian, the child may remain on the premises between the hours of 10:30am - 9pm (until 10pm from May to September) unless the licence holder feels this is injurious to the child's health, safety and welfare. Children aged between 15 and 17 years may remain on the premises after 9pm where they are attending a private function at which a substantial meal is served. All licensed premises must display a sign to this effect in a prominent place at all times and failure to do so can result in a fine.

fortwilliam

Or if a couple go to a pub, is it enough that one of them orders food?

imme

Yes meals all round

Go and enjoy yourself

corner of hells

fortwilliam wrote: »

Or if a couple go to a pub, is it enough that one of them orders food?

Yeah ,one should be fine.
Maybe bring a sandwich in your pocket just in case.

king_of_mayo

Yes, corona will only stay at bay if everyone at the table orders E9 (no less) of food.

facehugger99

fortwilliam wrote: »

Or if a couple go to a pub, is it enough that one of them orders food?

You don't need to order food if you're having soft drinks because food and soft drinks prevent you contracting Corona.

pauldry

Yup a E9 meal is Irelands vaccine

Dublinflyer

Genuine question, but why have they taken this approach? Once the pub has social distance in place and there is table service what difference does it make that you have booked ahead and have a bit of food in front of you? I have heard of a lot of publicans complaining about no shows and that if the group had cancelled they could have filled the table. It just makes no sense to me so I must be missing something!

You'll all be like foreign students. One of them buys a pint while all the others look at them drinking it.

Pauliedragon

Dublinflyer wrote: »

Genuine question, but why have they taken this approach? Once the pub has social distance in place and there is table service what difference does it make that you have booked ahead and have a bit of food in front of you? I have heard of a lot of publicans complaining about no shows and that if the group had cancelled they could have filled the table. It just makes no sense to me so I must be missing something!

I'm guessing here but I'm sure a few people on here did the riveting RSA course over in OZ. The theory is people drink slower when they eat therefore they are more likely to stay sober therefore less likely to start hugging/kissing etc and keep the 2 metres.

cian68

Dublinflyer wrote: »

Genuine question, but why have they taken this approach? Once the pub has social distance in place and there is table service what difference does it make that you have booked ahead and have a bit of food in front of you? I have heard of a lot of publicans complaining about no shows and that if the group had cancelled they could have filled the table. It just makes no sense to me so I must be missing something!

It's because pubs haven't opened yet so are using restaurants opening as a way to open a few weeks early.

Beasty

Threads merged

rubadub

Dublinflyer wrote: »

Genuine question, but why have they taken this approach?

If you answer this honestly you might realise.

-Why do you guys think there has been the meal rule for restaurants for so long? There is nothing new about it.

And this law?
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/alcohol_and_the_law.html

Children (anyone under the age of 18) are only allowed in licensed premises if they are with a parent or guardian, but this provision carries certain restrictions. For example, if accompanied by a parent/guardian, the child may remain on the premises between the hours of 10:30am - 9pm (until 10pm from May to September) unless the licence holder feels this is injurious to the child's health, safety and welfare. Children aged between 15 and 17 years may remain on the premises after 9pm where they are attending a private function at which a substantial meal is served. All licensed premises must display a sign to this effect in a prominent place at all times and failure to do so can result in a fine.

Benimar

facehugger99 wrote: »

You don't need to order food if you're having soft drinks because food and soft drinks prevent you contracting Corona.

Hilarious, I haven’t heard that joke before :rolleyes:

At least I assume it’s a ‘joke’ because at this stage everyone must be aware of the basic fact that any pub currently open has to operate as a restaurant.