Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Dickie10

can people see the government leaving things locked up coming to christmas and into january, some tax revenue lost in pubs, how would they control house parties? it would be mad looking at christmas without pubs open.

Justin Credible Darts

Dickie10 wrote: »

can people see the government leaving things locked up coming to christmas and into january, some tax revenue lost in pubs, how would they control house parties? it would be mad looking at christmas without pubs open.

Sick of this myth that because pubs are closed everyone is attending these house parties.


And how exactly would pubs where groups congregate be safe from covid ?

freak scence

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Sick of this myth that because pubs are closed everyone is attending these house parties.


And how exactly would pubs where groups congregate be safe from covid ?

quotas, table service, same as they are doing now

bush

Dickie10 wrote: »

can people see the government leaving things locked up coming to christmas and into january, some tax revenue lost in pubs, how would they control house parties? it would be mad looking at christmas without pubs open.

Id be surprised to see them open for Christmas. The government will **** themselves at the thought of them being open for Christmas

freak scence

bush wrote: »

Id be surprised to see them open for Christmas. The government will **** themselves at the thought of them being open for Christmas

why is that ?

Poorside

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Sick of this myth that because pubs are closed everyone is attending these house parties.

It's not a myth, just because you're not at any doesn't mean it's not happening.

bush

freak scence wrote: »

why is that ?

You never see what people are like in pubs at Christmas?

MOH

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

it does not invalidate the initial point I made you ignored.


Why would you want to group socialize during a pandemic.


if its drink you want drink at home.


Pubs are NOT a priority.

I'd like to socialise because I've spent most of the past 6 months on my own in a one bedroom apartment, apart from food shopping and infrequent exercise.

Seeing other human faces in a convivial atmosphere would be nice.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word socialise.

freak scence

bush wrote: »

You never see what people are like in pubs at Christmas?

well with current guidelines that would be different

freak scence

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Sick of this myth that because pubs are closed everyone is attending these house parties.


And how exactly would pubs where groups congregate be safe from covid ?

myth me hole going to and supermarket at 9m at weekend full of people buying booze and heading off everywhere.

a regulated pub would be a load safer then a small crammed gaff with no restrictions, they why government did u-turn on closing an hour early

IAMAMORON

I think there are a lot more histrionics from the anti booze brigade more than anything else.

Many people using the virus as an excuse to chastise and coerce others. A lot of "outrage" over nothing if you ask me. The cinema's are open ffs, I don't hear any conniptions over that, eating popcorn or not.

I was boozing outdoors in the wide open last week and got a dirty look off a random nobody, nothing to be doing.

It has all a sudden become a social faux paux for trying to live your life. People need to get a grip.

robbiezero

Most of the pubs who want to open are surely open now??
Would have thought the ones that aren't are just happy to take the payments and avoid the hassle and hold off.

Almost all the ones around me are open, some doing food, some offering a "take away" menu.
It looks like any half arsed attempt at throwing out a bit of food will suffice (which is fine with me).

rubadub

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The cinema's are open ffs, I don't hear any conniptions over that, eating popcorn or not.

The substantial meal law requirement for restaurants has been in place in some form for over 50 years, why do you think it is there? and not in cinemas?

Also why do you think the following law is in place?

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.

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

SusieBlue

rubadub wrote: »

The substantial meal law requirement for restaurants has been in place in some form for over 50 years, why do you think it is there? and not in cinemas?

Also why do you think the following law is in place?

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

You keep posting this but there was never any enforced requirement to spend a specific amount of money on food in order to be able to order alcohol.
It’s completely irrelevant.

rubadub

SusieBlue wrote: »

You keep posting this but there was never any enforced requirement to spend a specific amount of money on food in order to be able to order alcohol.
It’s completely irrelevant.

yes there was, it was increased to €9 in 2003

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/si/442/made/en/print

I keep posting and get no answers.

SusieBlue

rubadub wrote: »

yes there was, it was increased to €9 in 2003

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/si/442/made/en/print

I keep posting and get no answers.

It was never ever enforced so again, irrelevant.
There is a reason there was so much outrage when the rule was brought out and that was because people had never heard the likes of having a minimum spend before. Because it was never enforced.
Hence people are questioning it because it’s a brand new part of socialising, and not something they’re used to having to deal with.

rubadub

SusieBlue wrote: »

It was never ever enforced so again, irrelevant.
There is a reason there was so much outrage when the rule was brought out and that was because people had never heard the likes of having a minimum spend before. Because it was never enforced.
Hence people are questioning it because it’s a brand new part of socialising, and not something they’re used to having to deal with.

I accept your apology for your ignorance, you were indeed wrong, good to see you take it so gracefully... It was enforced before, I posted about that before. It was rare to be enforced as there was no need, perhaps you know why? I sure do.

Seems you and the rest are going to continue to refuse to answer my questions, thinking you look smart by feigning ignorance and making yourselves out to be clueless morons. Now THAT is some logic I do not get, you're fooling nobody, it's utterly cringeworthy & embarrassing.

SusieBlue

rubadub wrote: »

I accept your apology for your ignorance, you were indeed wrong, good to see you take it so gracefully... It was enforced before, I posted about that before. It was rare to be enforced as there was no need, perhaps you know why? I sure do.

Seems you and the rest are going to continue to refuse to answer my questions, thinking you look smart by feigning ignorance and making yourselves out to be clueless morons. Now THAT is some logic I do not get, you're fooling nobody, it's utterly cringeworthy & embarrassing.

I didn’t apologise for anything, if you would care to reread my post I said it was never an enforced requirement, which it wasn’t.
Unless you can provide proof that many restaurants were actively refusing to serve customers alcohol who didn’t spend a certain amount on food prior to covid-19?

I think you are the one that owes an apology here, it’s quite possible to disagree with someone without referring to them as ignorant (twice), cringeworthy, and clueless morons. Personal abuse is not cool, if you can’t make your point without name calling you don’t have much of a point to begin with.

According to that same law you are quoting, publicans can be prosecuted and fined up to a couple of grand for allowing drunkenness inside or outside their premises, which is also clearly not upheld.
It’s the same for the minimum spend, it was never enforced in order to access alcohol in restaurants prior to covid-19. That’s the point that was being made, despite you trying to insist otherwise.

rubadub

SusieBlue wrote: »

I didn’t apologise for anything.

Of course you didn't I was ripping the piss out of you for not having the decency to admit you were wrong.


This charade is pathetic, nobody is falling for this "duuurrr I'm a stupid cunt" image you like to portray for some reason.

I already posted about it being enforced, I reckon you have no interest and will just stick you head in the sand again, fucking pathetic. If you can't be arsed answering some simple questions I will not bother finding it again. You already know the answers and know how you will show yourself up if you answer honestly.

SusieBlue wrote: »

think you are the one that owes an apology here, it’s quite possible to disagree with someone without referring to them as ignorant (twice), cringeworthy, and clueless morons. Personal abuse is not cool, if you can’t make your point without name calling you don’t have much of a point to begin with.
.

I said you are pretending to be a clueless moron. I do not believe for a second you are genuinely that stupid.

SusieBlue

rubadub wrote: »

Of course you didn't I was ripping the piss out of you for not having the decency to admit you were wrong.


This charade is pathetic, nobody is falling for this "duuurrr I'm a stupid cunt" image you like to portray for some reason.

I already posted about it being enforced, I reckon you have no interest and will just stick you head in the sand again, fucking pathetic. If you can't be arsed answering some simple questions I will not bother finding it again. You already know the answers and know how you will show yourself up if you answer honestly.

I said you are pretending to be a clueless moron. I do not believe for a second you are genuinely that stupid.

I suggest you get yourself some fresh air after that display of hysteria, you are the one showing yourself up with your abusive posts.
If it was enforced and par for the course before coronavirus there wouldn’t be the huge amount of public resistance as there currently is to the rule.
The majority of the public is baffled by it because it isn’t something they’ve ever come across before, same as they would be if the government suddenly decided to enforce the law against being drunk in or outside a pub.
If you cannot accept that then I cannot help you.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The cinema's are open ffs, I don't hear any conniptions over that, eating popcorn or not.

Yes, cinemas are open. Where people socially distance for the duration of a movie (90 to 120 mins) and then move on.

Pretty much the way the pubs are at the moment.

Saying pubs should be open like they were before because the cinemas are is a pretty dumb comparison.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think there are a lot more histrionics from the anti booze brigade more than anything else.

Many people using the virus as an excuse to chastise and coerce others. A lot of "outrage" over nothing if you ask me. The cinema's are open ffs, I don't hear any conniptions over that, eating popcorn or not.

I was boozing outdoors in the wide open last week and got a dirty look off a random nobody, nothing to be doing.

It has all a sudden become a social faux paux for trying to live your life. People need to get a grip.

The new normal means we are all prisoners and those people who give you "those looks" are the guards. It's time to wake up. This isn't about controlling a virus, it's about controlling humanity.

MrStuffins

Hunky Monster wrote: »

The new normal means we are all prisoners and those people who give you "those looks" are the guards. It's time to wake up. This isn't about controlling a virus, it's about controlling humanity.

Thanks for that Alex Jones

And now over to Jim Corr with the weather...........

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

MrStuffins wrote: »

Thanks for that Alex Jones

And now over to Jim Corr with the weather...........

By the time YOU figure that out it'll be too late.

MrStuffins

Hunky Monster wrote: »

By the time YOU figure that out it'll be too late.

Thanks for letting me know, David Icke!

Now if you don't mind, there's a 5G mast at the end of my street giving everyone cooties. I need to go burn it down. Cheerio!

The White Wolf

freak scence wrote: »

myth me hole going to and supermarket at 9m at weekend full of people buying booze and heading off everywhere.

a regulated pub would be a load safer then a small crammed gaff with no restrictions, they why government did u-turn on closing an hour early

Not that I believe that gaff parties are rampant bit those people buying drink in the supermarket could well just be heading back to their own houses.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

MrStuffins wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know, David Icke!

Now if you don't mind, there's a 5G mast at the end of my street giving everyone cooties. I need to go burn it down. Cheerio!

Ah the usual defacto 5g/tinfoil hat jibe wheeled out again. Have a look what Australia is doing with only 500 "deaths" from this or what New Zealand are doing. Police states, it'll go that way here too.

Justin Credible Darts

Poorside wrote: »

It's not a myth, just because you're not at any doesn't mean it's not happening.

there is ZERO evidence to suggest people are attending house parties more than before covid...ZERO


In fact some people who might have attended them are more reluctant....maybe socializing in the middle of a global pandemic is the smart thing to do.






Neither I, my wife, or any of our friends that would go to bars are going now, and have no intention of having a house party to get together and drink.


As for all these supposed house parties going on, i hope they catch covid, no sympathy for them, just because they are idiots, dont mean the people should go to the pub.

Ten of Swords

rubadub - 2 week forum ban for ignoring threadban and for several abusive posts

John O.Groats

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Ah the usual defacto 5g/tinfoil hat jibe wheeled out again. Have a look what Australia is doing with only 500 "deaths" from this or what New Zealand are doing. Police states, it'll go that way here too.

I see that you are still riding your imaginary "police state" hobbyhorse. Be careful you don`t have too big a fall off it.