Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 09:55AM

Benimar wrote: »

What levels would you be thinking?

I'll be honest, I'm not keen on pubs reopening (I think there will be enough that don't follow the rules to make it a problem) but one thing I'd take comfort in is if there was a strong deterrent - assuming we actually enforce that deterrent, something we aren't great at in Ireland.

I'd be thinking 30 days and a four figure fine for first proper breach, doubling every time for things in publicans control - distance between tables, time spent in pub, cleaning regimes etc.

What levels would I be thinking?

I think the proposed penalties in the legislation currently going through cabinet are perfectly appropriate.

They give legislation to allow for closure orders and for district courts to apply longer closure orders for those who are wilfully taking the p1ss despite getting a warning.

Your not going to get a 30 day closure for a first offence

paw patrol · 04-09-2020 09:57AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Get real

Public health concerns take precedence over a pub whinging about it having to keep a paper record or - space age stuff here - a spreadsheet !! for 28 days.

firstly it's a massive invasion of privacy.
Secondly it's over the top excessive with actually no benefit to public health.
You can dress everything up as a health concern , doesnt mean it's right.

But you knew all this anyway , you just seem to enjoy making others lives as hard as possible (based on your previous posts). The virtue is strong with you.

MrStuffins · 04-09-2020 09:59AM

paw patrol wrote: »

firstly it's a massive invasion of privacy.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Beechwoodspark · 04-09-2020 10:00AM

paw patrol wrote: »

firstly it's a massive invasion of privacy.
Secondly it's over the top excessive with actually no benefit to public health.
You can dress everything up as a health concern , doesnt mean it's right.

But you knew all this anyway , you just seem to enjoy making others lives as hard as possible (based on your previous posts). The virtue is strong with you.

No, simply put I prioritize public health over idiots looking to get rat arsed and pubs willing to facilitate them.

Pubs either follow the regs closely or should not be open.

ellee · 04-09-2020 10:02AM

May I also remind you all that they are bringing in this nonsense while 1000 people a day are not turning up for their tests.

Would it not be a far better use of Garda time to be going around to those people and make all appropriate enquiries and interventions, and perhaps the HSE could also bill them for the time wasting while they are at it?

Instead of nitpicking over whether people ate or not 28 days ago in a pub?

Why are they coming down so hard on a perceived pub risk, but not actual blatant real risks?

The HorsesMouth · 04-09-2020 10:04AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You’re missing the point.

The point is that this new requirement will force pubs to make sure everyone who comes into their premises actually order food

It’s not whether Joe soap had a large curry chips with his quarter pounder (greedy effer)

Geddit now?

And now explain what is stopping any pub flouting the rules doing up a "spreadsheet" with what people have eaten?
If they are not following guidelines and are serving alcohol with no food you can be guaranteed they are willing to do up phantom receipts and fake spreadsheets.

It's absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't mind if there was a huge amount of outbreaks in pubs/restaurants.

is_that_so · 04-09-2020 10:05AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You’re missing the point.

The point is that this new requirement will force pubs to make sure everyone who comes into their premises actually order food

It’s not whether Joe soap had a large curry chips with his quarter pounder (greedy effer)

Geddit now?

The point here seems to be your issue with imaginary "massive" non-compliance. This came out of nowhere, just like the now mature reflections on fines for not wearing masks in shops. It is indicative of how the current government is going about things, i.e. not well at all.

Beechwoodspark · 04-09-2020 10:06AM

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

And now explain what is stopping any pub flouting the rules doing up a "spreadsheet" with what people have eaten?
If they are not following guidelines and are serving alcohol with no food you can be guaranteed they are willing to do up phantom receipts and fake spreadsheets.

It's absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't mind if there was a huge amount of outbreaks in pubs/restaurants.

I’ve already said the regs are open to abuse like ALL legislation

And I’ve said it’s up to the authorities to ensure compliance and if necessary the gardai to investigate.

odyssey06 · 04-09-2020 10:09AM

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

And now explain what is stopping any pub flouting the rules doing up a "spreadsheet" with what people have eaten?
If they are not following guidelines and are serving alcohol with no food you can be guaranteed they are willing to do up phantom receipts and fake spreadsheets.
It's absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't mind if there was a huge amount of outbreaks in pubs/restaurants.

It's the cover-up that gets you... they have fake receipts, there's a paper trail to cross check and hang them on, if you want to.

IAMAMORON · 04-09-2020 10:11AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ve already said the regs are open to abuse like ALL legislation

And I’ve said it’s up to the authorities to ensure compliance and if necessary the gardai to investigate.

The cops will never been getting asked to enforce any of this. They have things to be doing.

The entire leg will be a PR exercise ( it has already started) to keep the cranks from kicking up. No doubt it will get a few pages in the tabloids etc. It will be something to talk about over a few pints:p.

I reckon we call the new leg " The Zombie Act " .

Benimar · 04-09-2020 10:13AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

What levels would I be thinking?

I think the proposed penalties in the legislation currently going through cabinet are perfectly appropriate.

They give legislation to allow for closure orders and for district courts to apply longer closure orders for those who are wilfully taking the p1ss despite getting a warning.

Your not going to get a 30 day closure for a first offence

And thats my problem with it. If it ends up in Court you would imagine the Guards have done the whole 'ah, come on now lads' bit, so any breaches that get that far are willful.

A slap on the wrist won't deter any pub who wants to breach guidelines. If found in breach by a court it should be an automatic closure.

odyssey06 · 04-09-2020 10:15AM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The cops will never been getting asked to enforce any of this. They have things to be doing.
The entire leg will be a PR exercise ( it has already started) to keep the cranks from kicking up. No doubt it will get a few pages in the tabloids etc. It will be something to talk about over a few pints:p.
I reckon we call the new leg " The Zombie Act " .

I think it's half PR exercise, half a bluff in the direction of publicans thinking of bending the rules.

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 10:16AM

Benimar wrote: »

And thats my problem with it. If it ends up in Court you would imagine the Guards have done the whole 'ah, come on now lads' bit, so any breaches that get that far are willful.

A slap on the wrist won't deter any pub who wants to breach guidelines. If found in breach by a court it should be an automatic closure.

As I've said its in the legislation, an application can go into the court by a superintendent for a longer closure of up to 30 days if your non compliant after being given a chance by Gardai already.

Its there in it, you get your chance and if your still not adhering then the process is there to be closed.

What your arguing for is already provisioned for in legislation but not on your first offence.

Beechwoodspark · 04-09-2020 10:18AM

Personally I have heard plenty of reports of pubs bending the rules so ANYTHING to stop that I welcome.

MrStuffins · 04-09-2020 10:18AM

The HorsesMouth wrote: »

And now explain what is stopping any pub flouting the rules doing up a "spreadsheet" with what people have eaten?

I'm a big fan of this reasoning. Whenever the moaners find something new to moan about (Today the simple act of keeping records by ticking a box on a form, tomorrow.... who knows?) this pops up.

From the producers of "Sure house parties are happening everywhere....."

- "Some people will avoid tax, so why tax anyone?"

- "Some people will shoplift anyway, why stop people shoplifting?"

- "Some people will drive while drunk, why stop people drink driving?"

And so on............

Benimar · 04-09-2020 10:22AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

As I've said its in the legislation, an application can go into the court for a longer closure of up to 30 days if your non compliant after being given a chance by Gardai already.

Its there in it, you get your chance and if your still not adhering then the process is there to be closed.

What your arguing for is already provisioned for in legislation but not on your first offence.

And I think it should be first offence.

If a publican has been given a chance to fix an issue by the Guards/HSE or whoever, hasn't taken it and has left themselves get to court, there shouldn't be shown leniency.

If they work with the Guards, there should be no reason for any Pub to end up being taken to court. Any accidental (even if not so accidental!) breaches should be fixed following a word from the Guards.

bucketybuck · 04-09-2020 10:25AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No, simply put I prioritize public health over idiots looking to get rat arsed and pubs willing to facilitate them.

Pubs either follow the regs closely or should not be open.

You keep mentioning the importance of public health.

Petty and illogical additions to policies dilute the message trying to be conveyed and greatly increase the likelihood of the general public deciding that the entire message is flawed and so to be ignored.

That is simple common sense, and so silly policies such as this 28 day rule just increase the danger to public health, due to the fact of it negatively affecting public co-operation.

That is a real danger to public health, why are you not worried about that?

Richard Hillman · 04-09-2020 10:25AM

They wouldn't be discussing something like the receipt thing unless they had long term plans for it.

What we are going to see is a 2 hour limit staying permanently to tackle our drinking culture.

Governments traditionally have an atrocious record of removing laws that were introduced as emergency measures.

You were a lot freer 10 years ago as you are now. You are a lot freer now that you will be in 10 years time.

Government are meddling far to much in our lives. They ain't going to give up their emergency laws without a fight.

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 10:26AM

Benimar wrote: »

And I think it should be first offence.

If a publican has been given a chance to fix an issue by the Guards/HSE or whoever, hasn't taken it and has left themselves get to court, there shouldn't be shown leniency.

If they work with the Guards, there should be no reason for any Pub to end up being taken to court. Any accidental (even if not so accidental!) breaches should be fixed following a word from the Guards.

Your not making sense here.

So you want first breaches fixed by a word from the Gardai but a 30 day closure also??

The legislation is clear, you get given a chance to fix any issues noticed, thats your first offence, if they aren't fixed a superintendent can close the premises and apply to the court for a 30 day closure. That makes perfect sense. A warning followed by action

IAMAMORON · 04-09-2020 10:28AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally I have heard plenty of reports of pubs bending the rules so ANYTHING to stop that I welcome.

If you could give at least 1 example I might even nod my head.

It is fairly obvious from the tone of your posts what you are really concerned about here.

The schools will be back 3-4 weeks when they open the boozers again in a fortnight. If you cannot see the woods from the trees here I suggest taking a deep breath and two steps back and having a look around you.... what you are witnessing is the government facilitating the reopening of pubs. It will be tactfully managed. But they need to be seen to be doing the right things about it. Within a week of any reopening all the tabs will have a front page of some alco spouting how they caught the virus twice in two different locals.... But they are going to be reopening.

Doctors have asked for weekly reports on figures now, this thing is on the wind down.

Man Vs ManUre · 04-09-2020 10:29AM

I have grown a huge bushy moustache during this pandemic so I want to go into my local for a creamy pint of Guinness. When will it be open??

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 10:29AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm a big fan of this reasoning. Whenever the moaners find something new to moan about (Today the simple act of keeping records by ticking a box on a form, tomorrow.... who knows?) this pops up.

From the producers of "Sure house parties are happening everywhere....."

- "Some people will avoid tax, so why tax anyone?"

- "Some people will shoplift anyway, why stop people shoplifting?"

- "Some people will drive while drunk, why stop people drink driving?"

And so on............

how on earth does any of your rambling reply address the post your replying to ?

OP: "And now explain what is stopping any pub flouting the rules doing up a "spreadsheet" with what people have eaten?"

You: A rambling about tax, shop lifting and drink driving which are non comparable.

A master at avoiding the point and taking off in a separate tangent, a common theme. Its extremely condescending

hynesie08 · 04-09-2020 10:31AM

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

I have grown a huge bushy moustache during this pandemic so I want to go into my local for a creamy pint of Guinness. When will it be open??

Noone knows....... Plenty of resteraunts open selling guinness with your meal though....

04-09-2020 10:31AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Get real

Public health concerns take precedence over a pub whinging about it having to keep a paper record or - space age stuff here - a spreadsheet !! for 28 days.

Ah **** this, how much more unrelated crap is going to be forced through under the guise of 'public health concerns'. This does absolutely nothing to help public health and that's why people are giving out.

Benimar · 04-09-2020 10:32AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Your not making sense here.

So you want first breaches fixed by a word from the Gardai but a 30 day closure also??

The legislation is clear, you get given a chance to fix any issues noticed, thats your first offence, if they aren't fixed a superintendent can close the premises and apply to the court for a 30 day closure. That makes perfect sense. A warning followed by action

This is where we differ, and maybe I'm not clear on the actual legislation, so apologies.

What I'm saying is that if it goes to court, then the granting of the closure order should be automatic. Maybe it is, and apologies if so, but I don't want to see something get to court and the Publican just to be told to fix the issue, and be allowed continue trading uninterrupted.

The first part about the Guards warning them is fair enough and I agree thats the way to go (assuming Guards aren't warning places 10 times before taking it further)

IAMAMORON · 04-09-2020 10:33AM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

They wouldn't be discussing something like the receipt thing unless they had long term plans for it.

What we are going to see is a 2 hour limit staying permanently to tackle our drinking culture.

Governments traditionally have an atrocious record of removing laws that were introduced as emergency measures.

You were a lot freer 10 years ago as you are now. You are a lot freer now that you will be in 10 years time.

Government are meddling far to much in our lives. They ain't going to give up their emergency laws without a fight.

You are very close to the truth here, as sinister as it sounds. I think however that it will be all dumped on the publicans to enforce. This might suit some of them too.

I drink for hours at a time, but I cannot see a publican who was fond of me showing me the door after 2 hours, unless he was looking for a good excuse to.

odyssey06 · 04-09-2020 10:37AM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

They wouldn't be discussing something like the receipt thing unless they had long term plans for it.
What we are going to see is a 2 hour limit staying permanently to tackle our drinking culture.
Governments traditionally have an atrocious record of removing laws that were introduced as emergency measures.
You were a lot freer 10 years ago as you are now. You are a lot freer now that you will be in 10 years time.
Government are meddling far to much in our lives. They ain't going to give up their emergency laws without a fight.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument.
The haphazard nature of how this has been rolled out and communicated indicates to me something come up with at short notice in an emergency.
How the receipts are being monitored similarly doesn't suggest any joined up long term thinking.

Does this legislation have a sunset clause?

MOH · 04-09-2020 10:40AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You’re missing the point.

The point is that this new requirement will force pubs to make sure everyone who comes into their premises actually order food

It’s not whether Joe soap had a large curry chips with his quarter pounder (greedy effer)

Geddit now?

So .... wait ... because I'm struggling to follow your brilliant logic here .... all these pubs who are open under the guise of restaurants but secretly are flouting the rules and serving customers kegs of beer at a time while not actually making them buy food (and probably have secret back rooms where people have Covid parties (and possibly murder puppies at them)) .... they'll now all be foiled by this fiendishly clever new regulation.

Because the ones breaking the rules would clearly stop at doing something so heinous as putting a tick beside a customer's name regardless of whether they'd had food.

And if you think requiring businesses to keep records of individual customers' orders for 28 days doesn't introduce a ridiculous amount of overhead, you've definitely never run a business, and it's hard to see how you've even worked in one.

Bear in mind the government asking for this level of detail can't even manage to check that people are obeying quarantine.

It's (literally) a box ticking exercise. It's also a genius move since it keeps the whole pubs saga rolling on and distracts people from the utterly crap job they're doing in general regarding covid.

Beechwoodspark · 04-09-2020 10:43AM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

If you could give at least 1 example I might even nod my head.

It is fairly obvious from the tone of your posts what you are really concerned about here.

The schools will be back 3-4 weeks when they open the boozers again in a fortnight. If you cannot see the woods from the trees here I suggest taking a deep breath and two steps back and having a look around you.... what you are witnessing is the government facilitating the reopening of pubs. It will be tactfully managed. But they need to be seen to be doing the right things about it. Within a week of any reopening all the tabs will have a front page of some alco spouting how they caught the virus twice in two different locals.... But they are going to be reopening.

Doctors have asked for weekly reports on figures now, this thing is on the wind down.

An example is a local bar in my area which is

Serving drinks to “regulars” without requiring food to be purchased

Not enforcing the 105 min rule

Not enforcing social distancing

I can vouch for that one personally but I’ve heard many similar stories of pubs in Leinster at same craic

Paddygreen · 04-09-2020 10:44AM

The rules are the rules . We elected our leaders to make the big decisions, that’s democracy guys, if you don’t like it feel free to move, plenty of neo-fascist theme parks out there like Russia and Poland. Our leaders have access to some of the best experts that money can buy. A plethora of experts are being consulted as we speak, we just have to place our trust in them and hold firm going forward.

Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Comments