Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Allinall

stephenjmcd wrote: »

No they won't because they're still complying with the purchase of a €9 meal, doesn't say you have to eat it, just buy one

See.

https://www.facebook.com/Oscarscafebar/posts/3828264350538708

stephenjmcd

Allinall wrote: »

See.

https://www.facebook.com/Oscarscafebar/posts/3828264350538708

Again nothing stopping someone saying give my meal to charity.

All you have to do is order and pay, you don't have to eat it. That's the whole point here

PTH2009

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Again nothing stopping someone saying give my meal to charity.

All you have to do is order and pay, you don't have to eat it. That's the whole point here

Yeah such a good gesture but Dr Tony and the lads no doubt pissed off about it

Anyway you cant get a table in a pub/hotel today in Waterford and presumably Limerick too. Personal responsibility needs to be taken, it was bloody embarrassing been talked to you like children with all the 'warnings from government

hynesie08

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Again nothing stopping someone saying give my meal to charity.

All you have to do is order and pay, you don't have to eat it. That's the whole point here

But that's not what was happening here, the meal wasn't being provided, which is the actual rule......

you're right though, nothing wrong with asking for your wings to go and offering them to a homeless person outside.

Allinall

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Again nothing stopping someone saying give my meal to charity.

All you have to do is order and pay, you don't have to eat it. That's the whole point here

No. The point is they would have been closed down if they carried on with their scheme.

As acknowledged by the pub themselves.

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

Yeah such a good gesture but Dr Tony and the lads no doubt pissed off about it

Anyway you cant get a table in a pub/hotel today in Waterford and presumably Limerick too. Personal responsibility needs to be taken, it was bloody embarrassing been talked to you like children with all the 'warnings from government

Are you blaming the government on pubs being full on all ireland day?

I assume you'll be spouting "personal responsibility" only if Limerick win and take to the streets, but will brush it to one side if it's waterford......

PTH2009

hynesie08 wrote: »

Are you blaming the government on pubs being full on all ireland day?

I assume you'll be spouting "personal responsibility" only if Limerick win and take to the streets, but will brush it to one side if it's waterford......

Personal responsibility for both no matter the result

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

Personal responsibility for both no matter the result

If waterford win, you will be on here within 10 minutes going "good luck with social distancing tonight, up the deise"

They won't win though......

Zebra3

Notmything wrote: »

If the anti-alcohol lobby is so prevalent how come off licences are still open, supermarkets are selling beer at a loss and pubs and restaurants are able to sell alcohol?

One step at a time.

Notmything wrote: »

Whether you care to believe it or not it's about trying to reduce the spread of covid.

If they're trying to stop the spread of covid, why are people from six different households allowed to sit at one table with masks off for hours on end indoors?

Allinall

Zebra3 wrote: »

One step at a time.



If they're trying to stop the spread of covid, why are people from six different households allowed to sit at one table with masks off for hours on end indoors?

Proportionality.

But you know that.

Zebra3

Allinall wrote: »

Proportionality.

But you know that.

And they're not trying to stop the spread of covid in pubs.

But you know that.

AdrianBalboa

If people really gave a ****e about feeding the homeless how about individuals arrange to pay for a meal for a homeless person themselves.

I’ll tell you why, it’s because they don’t care about homeless people and they just want an excuse to pour gallons of stout down their gullet.

Zebra3

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

If people really gave a ****e about feeding the homeless how about individuals arrange to pay for a meal for a homeless person themselves.

I’ll tell you why, it’s because they don’t care about homeless people and they just want an excuse to pour gallons of stout down their gullet.

It must be great to be an expert on everyone else's thoughts. :rolleyes:

PommieBast

Notmything wrote: »

If the anti-alcohol lobby is so prevalent how come off licences are still open, supermarkets are selling beer at a loss and pubs and restaurants are able to sell alcohol?

To actually ban alcohol sales outright would be instant political suicide. The whole €9/1hr45min things are a fudge intended to keep most places closed.

mightyreds

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

If people really gave a ****e about feeding the homeless how about individuals arrange to pay for a meal for a homeless person themselves.

I’ll tell you why, it’s because they don’t care about homeless people and they just want an excuse to pour gallons of stout down their gullet.

Do you think they wont pour gallons of stout down their gullet now the donation to charity is taken away.

I'm not sure of your point at all really they can still go get a bowl of wings and drink as much as they want, the idea was a good one and helped out some charities with little effort on the person having a drink.

Allinall

Zebra3 wrote: »

And they're not trying to stop the spread of covid in pubs.

But you know that.

So what are they trying to do?

Notmything

PommieBast wrote: »

To actually ban alcohol sales outright would be instant political suicide. The whole €9/1hr45min things are a fudge intended to keep most places closed.

Won't disagree with you, I can remember the furore when the idea of continental cafe bars was floated.

My take is the €9 meal instruction is to reduce the time spent in a pub, and also to reduce the likelihood of people going on pub crawls. Don't think there are many who will fancy eating 3-4 meals in a short space of time.

Ray Donovan

Notmything wrote: »

Won't disagree with you, I can remember the furore when the idea of continental cafe bars was floated.

My take is the €9 meal instruction is to reduce the time spent in a pub, and also to reduce the likelihood of people going on pub crawls. Don't think there are many who will fancy eating 3-4 meals in a short space of time.

Exactly. The €9 is a ploy to stop people going out to pubs. A type of levy. People dont want to pay it, so dont go out, less socializing, leas Covid spread, less close contacts etc etc. And it’s working.

PTH2009

hynesie08 wrote: »

If waterford win, you will be on here within 10 minutes going "good luck with social distancing tonight, up the deise"

They won't win though......

Got your wish but still out drowning the sorrows and enjoying it. Pub is been run very well with the standard food options of microwave pizza and nachos with bolagnese/cheese thrown over it

Ray Donovan

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Exactly. The €9 is a ploy to stop people going out to pubs. A type of levy. People dont want to pay it, so dont go out, less socializing, leas Covid spread, less close contacts etc etc. And it’s working.

And yet there is a chink in the armour: common sense. Arrived at a so-called gastro pub after 8pm, most of the tables had been cleared of food. No difficulty ordering a pint without the unnecessary munch. Everyone contented, drinking away to their heart's content. Spoke to the manager, he said bar a few anal retentives most folks were grateful for the opportunity. Safely socially distanced and all, those few that didn't oblige were turfed. None of this staying at home garbage. Tell that to supermarkets, retail and hair salons.

hynesie08

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet there is a chink in the armour: common sense. Arrived at a so-called gastro pub after 8pm, most of the tables had been cleared of food. No difficulty ordering a pint without the unnecessary munch. Everyone contented, drinking away to their heart's content. Spoke to the manager, he said bar a few anal retentives most folks were grateful for the opportunity. Safely socially distanced and all, those few that didn't oblige were turfed. None of this staying at home garbage. Tell that to supermarkets, retail and hair salons.

Jesus lad, you keep wandering into these lax gastro pubs despite your hatred of them and the ponces that inhabit them, and not only do they welcome you with open arms, they flout the rules openly for you......

You missed a trick not doing the euromillions Friday, with your luck you'd have 200mil in your pocket......

Or you're just talking bollocks.....

pjohnson

hynesie08 wrote: »

Jesus lad, you keep wandering into these lax gastro pubs despite your hatred of them and the ponces that inhabit them, and not only do they welcome you with open arms, they flout the rules openly for you......

You missed a trick not doing the euromillions Friday, with your luck you'd have 200mil in your pocket......

Or you're just talking bollocks.....

Sure from the start they were complaining about pubs being closed/forced out of business, WHILE claiming a "secret knock" let them in to carry on as usual :pac:

rubadub

stephenjmcd wrote: »

No they won't because they're still complying with the purchase of a €9 meal, doesn't say you have to eat it, just buy one

this is the law, it is not just simply a case of buying one, and it seemingly does not have to be 9euro (I think eddie rockets enforcement years ago allowed it for a burger slightly under 9 euro)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/560/made/en/print

Ray Donovan wrote: »

Exactly. The €9 is a ploy to stop people going out to pubs. A type of levy. People dont want to pay it, so dont go out, less socializing, leas Covid spread, less close contacts etc etc. And it’s working.

You do not sound like a bull****ter, like so many others here. I still find it odd that people do not realise the purpose of these laws which have been in place for 50+ years. Some do think it is solely some sort of fine or deterrent or "levy" as you say. It is indeed a deterrent for many, but that is not the original purpose of the long standing law.

I am amazed at the ignorance about alcohol & food, my mother who only has a few glasses of wine per year knows fine well that food has a huge effect on reducing drunkeness. I always thought this was common knowledge. You have some oddballs feigning ignorance about it (not you, you do sound genuinely ignorant about it), spouting on like they are seasoned pub goers yet unaware of the "eating is cheating" mentality. It's cringeworthy shite, they are lying through their teeth claiming they literally see no sense in the "meal rules", yet then go on to claim others are lying about other stuff... I really do not know what the deal is with these freaks, do they really think they think they look smart by claiming to be mentally challenged ignorant fools? if so it's backfiring badly.

I have said numerous times that restaurants are often granted licences in residential areas where pubs would not have a hope of opening. This is due to the fact that it would be unexpected to have people using them as they typically do pubs. The meal laws are in place for decades but are largely unknown since people were not treating restaurants like pubs so there was no need to enforce them. If 10 years ago someone did get permission to open a "fake sushi restaurant" which was for all intents & purposes a "stag party, nightclub pub" in a quiet residential area then they would enforce the meal rules to put a halt to it or strongly deter it.

This is why I was also asking people about nightclub style pubs, the type of pub where if you saw a video you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between it and a nightclub. If you think traditional "auld lad pubs" should be open what rules would you put in place if you think "nightclubs" or "nightclub style pubs" should be closed. That berlin bar place had some dickhead barman standing on a bar counter pouring drinks down peoples mouths, like some cheesy 80s film, but could be trying to make out like it's a restaurant, let alone a pub.

It is similar to people saying "junk food" should be taxed, there is difficulty in legally defining it (flora light might end up being a "junk food" due to a high fat content, just as low sugar tropicana is subject to sugar tax while regular tropicana is not). Most seem to be against the idea of nightclubs opening so I would be interested in hearing how they would differentiate between nightclub style pubs and "half empty auld lad pubs". The seating rule is one thing, as it rules out "dancefloors" which would be a hard thing to define in law.

the kelt

rubadub wrote: »

this is the law, it is not just simply a case of buying one, and it seemingly does not have to be 9euro (I think eddie rockets enforcement years ago allowed it for a burger slightly under 9 euro)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/560/made/en/print


You do not sound like a bull****ter, like so many others here. I still find it odd that people do not realise the purpose of these laws which have been in place for 50+ years. Some do think it is solely some sort of fine or deterrent or "levy" as you say. It is indeed a deterrent for many, but that is not the original purpose of the long standing law.

I am amazed at the ignorance about alcohol & food, my mother who only has a few glasses of wine per year knows fine well that food has a huge effect on reducing drunkeness. I always thought this was common knowledge. You have some oddballs feigning ignorance about it (not you, you do sound genuinely ignorant about it), spouting on like they are seasoned pub goers yet unaware of the "eating is cheating" mentality. It's cringeworthy shite, they are lying through their teeth claiming they literally see no sense in the "meal rules", yet then go on to claim others are lying about other stuff... I really do not know what the deal is with these freaks, do they really think they think they look smart by claiming to be mentally challenged ignorant fools? if so it's backfiring badly.

I have said numerous times that restaurants are often granted licences in residential areas where pubs would not have a hope of opening. This is due to the fact that it would be unexpected to have people using them as they typically do pubs. The meal laws are in place for decades but are largely unknown since people were not treating restaurants like pubs so there was no need to enforce them. If 10 years ago someone did get permission to open a "fake sushi restaurant" which was for all intents & purposes a "stag party, nightclub pub" in a quiet residential area then they would enforce the meal rules to put a halt to it or strongly deter it.

This is why I was also asking people about nightclub style pubs, the type of pub where if you saw a video you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between it and a nightclub. If you think traditional "auld lad pubs" should be open what rules would you put in place if you think "nightclubs" or "nightclub style pubs" should be closed. That berlin bar place had some dickhead barman standing on a bar counter pouring drinks down peoples mouths, like some cheesy 80s film, but could be trying to make out like it's a restaurant, let alone a pub.

It is similar to people saying "junk food" should be taxed, there is difficulty in legally defining it. Most seem to be against the idea of nightclubs opening so I would be interested in hearing how they would differentiate between nightclub style pubs and "half empty auld lad pubs". The seating rule is one thing, as it rules out "dancefloors" which would be a hard thing to define in law.

Your're right, consuming food does make a difference in regards to reducing drunkeness.

Where theres no sense in this current €9 meal restriction is that if it was all about the act of having something to eat making a difference as Michaeal Martin claimed then where that food comes from is irrelevant? Right?

But of course its not, thats where this rule makes no sense for many.

Irish Steve

the kelt wrote: »

Your're right, consuming food does make a difference in regards to reducing drunkeness.

Where theres no sense in this current €9 meal restriction is that if it was all about the act of having something to eat making a difference as Michaeal Martin claimed then where that food comes from is irrelevant? Right?

But of course its not, thats where this rule makes no sense for many.

The issue of where the food comes from is simply dealt with, the meal is supposed to be a "substantial meal", which is not a basket of chicken wings shared between a group of people at a table, or a slice of Pizza, and other methods that were being used to get round proper compliance with the rules. Then there were the places reheating frozen Pizzas in a microwave, same issue.

A take away van in the back yard is also not ideal, in as much as the pub concerned doesn't have the other facilities that are normally associated with food preparation and service, and also doesn't have the trained staff that are required. Then there's the issue of things like insurance liability in the event of a problem.

Yes, it's a coarse seive that's been used to try and limit socialising in an environment that is a high level suspect for the spread of Covid, and it's not ideal, but in theory, it has helped to reduce the numbers, and that should be a good thing.

weldoninhio

rubadub wrote: »

this is the law, it is not just simply a case of buying one, and it seemingly does not have to be 9euro (I think eddie rockets enforcement years ago allowed it for a burger slightly under 9 euro)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/560/made/en/print


You do not sound like a bull****ter, like so many others here. I still find it odd that people do not realise the purpose of these laws which have been in place for 50+ years. Some do think it is solely some sort of fine or deterrent or "levy" as you say. It is indeed a deterrent for many, but that is not the original purpose of the long standing law.

I am amazed at the ignorance about alcohol & food, my mother who only has a few glasses of wine per year knows fine well that food has a huge effect on reducing drunkeness. I always thought this was common knowledge. You have some oddballs feigning ignorance about it (not you, you do sound genuinely ignorant about it), spouting on like they are seasoned pub goers yet unaware of the "eating is cheating" mentality. It's cringeworthy shite, they are lying through their teeth claiming they literally see no sense in the "meal rules", yet then go on to claim others are lying about other stuff... I really do not know what the deal is with these freaks, do they really think they think they look smart by claiming to be mentally challenged ignorant fools? if so it's backfiring badly.

I have said numerous times that restaurants are often granted licences in residential areas where pubs would not have a hope of opening. This is due to the fact that it would be unexpected to have people using them as they typically do pubs. The meal laws are in place for decades but are largely unknown since people were not treating restaurants like pubs so there was no need to enforce them. If 10 years ago someone did get permission to open a "fake sushi restaurant" which was for all intents & purposes a "stag party, nightclub pub" in a quiet residential area then they would enforce the meal rules to put a halt to it or strongly deter it.

This is why I was also asking people about nightclub style pubs, the type of pub where if you saw a video you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between it and a nightclub. If you think traditional "auld lad pubs" should be open what rules would you put in place if you think "nightclubs" or "nightclub style pubs" should be closed. That berlin bar place had some dickhead barman standing on a bar counter pouring drinks down peoples mouths, like some cheesy 80s film, but could be trying to make out like it's a restaurant, let alone a pub.

It is similar to people saying "junk food" should be taxed, there is difficulty in legally defining it (flora light might end up being a "junk food" due to a high fat content, just as low sugar tropicana is subject to sugar tax while regular tropicana is not). Most seem to be against the idea of nightclubs opening so I would be interested in hearing how they would differentiate between nightclub style pubs and "half empty auld lad pubs". The seating rule is one thing, as it rules out "dancefloors" which would be a hard thing to define in law.

Put down the top hat and cane, and stop the ridiculous song and dance act.

The eating law is old, Covid restrictions are not. You waffle on about “eating is cheating” and how food affects drunkenness. But that isn’t what the current restriction are about, unless food made in a pubs pizza oven causes less drunkenness than food made in the cafe next door.

And you’ve been told before about “ how they would differentiate between nightclub style pubs and "half empty auld lad pubs".” You don’t differentiate as they are both pubs, you have the same uniform rules. Max of 6 per table, table service, masks on when entering and leaving. Same as we have currently. 2m between tables or 1hr 45max.

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Jesus lad, you keep wandering into these lax gastro pubs despite your hatred of them and the ponces that inhabit them, and not only do they welcome you with open arms, they flout the rules openly for you......

You missed a trick not doing the euromillions Friday, with your luck you'd have 200mil in your pocket......

Or you're just talking bollocks.....

It must be burning you up something awful that I can have a gander in the door of a public house and assess the scene: there were no uptight clods and food present, which immediately made it attractive. And the "open arms" palaver, a quiet nod is enough. Believe it or not, this is a scenario replicated all over Ireland. People keeping their beaks shut (good luck deciphering the location I refer to) and enjoying their taste. Anyone have an appetite or Garda starts sniffing around, a toastie can be produced from the kitchen. Simple stuff really. Equating that to a Euromillions win, right :rolleyes: I'll be returning to this spot later in the week which undoubtedly will make me a billionaire. Rage all you want, ultimately it's an exercise an futility.

rubadub

the kelt wrote: »

Where theres no sense in this current €9 meal restriction is that if it was all about the act of having something to eat making a difference as Michaeal Martin claimed then where that food comes from is irrelevant? Right?

I brought up that point when people were thinking pubs bringing in genuine substantial meals was some sort of loophole being exploited. It was not, it was doing its purpose, reducing drunkeness, what the law is obviously in place for and what so many still act ignorant about, sad fuckers, taking people for idiots. (I am a heavy drinker and hate eating while drinking as it reduces the effect, not that it that should matter but I expect some conspiracy type arsehole will brand me an anti-drink cutrain twitcher or some such shite -this thread is teeming with these sad pathetic lying cunts)

I thought it was totally unfair to exclude pubs who were genuinely in keeping with the spirit of the rules, i.e. food to stop drunkness and the lowered inhibitions that go along with it. My first thought was that there were possibly many pubs without full kitchens who were taking the piss, and so they wanted to shut them down and unfortunately the rest who were legit suffered too. Sort of similar to what I am saying about mostly empty quiet "auld lad pubs" having to be closed, as the qualify under the same legal definition as the ones they are really worried about. Of course I do not expect them to come out and blatantly say this, just as they do not blatantly say food reduces drunkness.

Necro

rubadub wrote: »

I brought up that point when people were thinking pubs bringing in genuine substantial meals was some sort of loophole being exploited. It was not, it was doing its purpose, reducing drunkeness, what the law is obviously in place for and what so many still act ignorant about, sad fuckers, taking people for idiots. (I am a heavy drinker and hate eating while drinking as it reduces the effect, not that it that should matter but I expect some conspiracy type arsehole will brand me an anti-drink cutrain twitcher or some such shite -this thread is teeming with these sad pathetic lying cunts)

I thought it was totally unfair to exclude pubs who were genuinely in keeping with the spirit of the rules, i.e. food to stop drunkness and the lowered inhibitions that go along with it. My first thought was that there were possibly many pubs without full kitchens who were taking the piss, and so they wanted to shut them down and unfortunately the rest who were legit suffered too. Sort of similar to what I am saying about mostly empty quiet "auld lad pubs" having to be closed, as the qualify under the same legal definition as the ones they are really worried about. Of course I do not expect them to come out and blatantly say this, just as they do not blatantly say food reduces drunkness.

Mod:

Just like it's not ok to have a go at people who support the restrictions, it's also not ok to attack those who do not in this manner and other posts of yours.

Do not post in this thread again

Richard Hillman

Holohan and Co will never agree to reopen the pubs properly. They will always have a reason to keep us away from enjoying 6 pints.

They will insist on the 2 hour limits for as long as they possibly can. They'll be back next winter telling us to restrict pubs for winter flu