Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

stezie · 04-09-2020 12:42PM

Under GDPR law any personally identifiable data is protected. This data need to be securely collected and secured, and not transmitted to another vendor without permission. Such examples of personally identifiable data is name, phone number, dietary details, meal times, etc.

I know I don’t want my dietary details out there, including sharing what I want to eat for breakfast lunch and dinner and enjoy to drink.

If eating something makes you immune from Covid, then I can certainly produce an supermarket receipt for the ingredients of a meal I prepared just before going to the pub. But only to an official body who is in compliance with GDPR laws.

boggerman1 · 04-09-2020 12:43PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Donnelly coming across very well on RTÉ news at the moment.

He speaks for the general public and not industry lobbyists like the vintners

Hello Stephen

MOH · 04-09-2020 12:45PM

seamus wrote: »

The legislation only requires that a record is kept of everything ordered by the party and the contact details of everyone in the party. Looking at it, the interpretation doesn't specifically require that everything is individually attached to a person, merely that a note is made of everything that is ordered.

I don't know what legislation you're reading. It clearly states that the business must:
"make a record of the substantial meal or meals ordered, pursuant to Regulation 11(2)(a)(iii)(I), by each member of a party of persons"
(The bit relevant to pubs starts on page 8.)

As a bonus, it now appears to be illegal to start drinking before you start your meal. The food exemption is for drink that's "consumed by that member during the meal or after the meal has ended".
So you can order drink when you go in, but take a sip before you get your food and you're guaranteed to catch Covid and the pub will be shut down.

On a non-pub note, I hadn't realised the "6 people from 3 households" thing doesn't include the people living in the house hosting the gathering. So it's 6 visitors. Maybe everyone knew that, I had thought it was 6 in total (page 4)

weldoninhio · 04-09-2020 12:53PM

CarProblem wrote: »

Really?

Have you a source for this?

Paddygreen wrote: »

His tin foil hat probably.

Wednesday, March 11th, 2020 12:33pm

Nursing Homes Ireland says it believes visitor restrictions to prevent the spread of COVID 19 are responsible.

It's after the Department of Health said the measures were not necessary at this moment in time.

Some nursing homes have limited the times and number of visitors residents can have, and have put bans on children coming to visit.

Chief Medical Officer Tony Holohan says there's no need for the restrictions.

The Department of Health’s Chief Medical Officer Dr Tony Holohan said blanket restrictions on visitors at nursing homes and some hospitals should be lifted as they were premature.

He said visitor restrictions at private nursing homes had a major impact on residents, for whom social interaction was a key part of wellbeing.

While restrictions might be necessary in a particular nursing home depending on circumstances, he said there was no case for across-the-board restrictions, saying: “We want to avoid introducing measures before they are really necessary.”

The National Public Health Emergency Team (NEPHT) announced in a statement that “socially restrictive actions” around hospitals and nursing homes were “not necessary at this moment in time”.

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 01:09PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Donnelly coming across very well on RTÉ news at the moment.

He speaks for the general public and not industry lobbyists like the vintners

Must have listened to a different interview. Another car crash of an interview.

When asked why he didn't engage with representatives he said that's a whole of government issue. Sorry that's your issue your the minister bringing forward the legislation its your job to engage.

Skirted around difficult questions.

Most certainly doesn't speak for me anyway.

bladespin · 04-09-2020 01:11PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Must have listened to a different interview. Another car crash of an interview.

Yeah, for a politician (even an Irish one) he's pretty useless on the screen, I think/hope his intentions are good but fails miserably to get that across, how much do these guys spend on PR etc each year? Both himself and Michael need to start looking for refunds.

GazzaL · 04-09-2020 02:09PM

They should document how long it takes each customer to drink their alcoholic drinks to make sure that they're not drinking too quickly.

showpony1 · 04-09-2020 02:15PM

from what i gather the ministers read on here that lads are inhaling 7 pints in 105 minutes and are now bringing in legislations

MrMusician18 · 04-09-2020 02:21PM

stezie wrote: »

Under GDPR law any personally identifiable data is protected. This data need to be securely collected and secured, and not transmitted to another vendor without permission. Such examples of personally identifiable data is name, phone number, dietary details, meal times, etc.

I know I don’t want my dietary details out there, including sharing what I want to eat for breakfast lunch and dinner and enjoy to drink.

If eating something makes you immune from Covid, then I can certainly produce an supermarket receipt for the ingredients of a meal I prepared just before going to the pub. But only to an official body who is in compliance with GDPR laws.

I suppose you never buy anything with a bank card, where everything you buy is recorded against your card number and name. Tesco club card, lidl plus? No?

Wait until you go and have a look at your Amazon account- your entire purchase history right there, you'll need a small stiff drink to hand I'd say - you've been warned!

bladespin · 04-09-2020 02:23PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I suppose you never buy anything with a bank card, where everything you buy is recorded against your card number and name. Tesco club card, lidl plus? No?

Wait until you go and have a look at your Amazon account- your entire purchase history right there, you'll need a small stiff drink to hand I'd say - you've been warned!

Tesco, Lidl, your bank etc are contractually obliged not to share that data, both parties enter an agreement, this could be done with the pubs but it would be a nightmare for them to implement at the beginning.

04-09-2020 02:24PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I suppose you never buy anything with a bank card, where everything you buy is recorded against your card number and name. Tesco club card, lidl plus? No?

Wait until you go and have a look at your Amazon account- your entire purchase history right there, you'll need a small stiff drink to hand I'd say - you've been warned!

The point is you have to agree to that data being stored. You aren't forced to sign up for store cards. If you don't then the details of your purchases most certainly are not recorded, or if they are it's completely illegal.

Amazon, yes sure, the data of your purchases is recorded for you to use, in case of returns, warranties, disputes etc. A good legal basis. It isn't recorded for arbitrary inspection by law enforcement. And with Amazon, I suspect there is a way to delete these records or have them deleted. There should be under GDPR unless they have legal reasons to hold on to them.

seamus · 04-09-2020 02:26PM

MOH wrote: »

I don't know what legislation you're reading. It clearly states that the business must:
"make a record of the substantial meal or meals ordered, pursuant to Regulation 11(2)(a)(iii)(I), by each member of a party of persons"
(The bit relevant to pubs starts on page 8.)

Yes. It must record of the meals ordered by all members of the party. That is, it is not sufficient to record the fact that a meal was bought by at least one person.

There is no requirement to put a name beside what was ordered.

Recording a list of six meals for a table of six, without putting a name beside each, satisfies the requirements of the above legislation. You have made a record of the meals ordered by each member of the party. The legislation does not specify that the record must include the name of the person who ordered the meal, the record only needs to include the meal.

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 02:27PM

Clear as mud as usual. Leo has spoken
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1301884437697789954?s=19

stephenjmcd · 04-09-2020 02:28PM

seamus wrote: »

Yes. It must record of the meals ordered by all members of the party.

As per my post above, according to Leo you don't

dundalkfc10 · 04-09-2020 02:31PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Clear as mud as usual. Leo has spoken
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1301884437697789954?s=19

Haha he really does want to **** with Meeholes head

bladespin · 04-09-2020 02:32PM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Haha he really does want to **** with Meeholes head

I'd bet he's loving every second, looks it too, lots of photo ops and out and abouts lately.

Kivaro · 04-09-2020 02:33PM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Haha he really does want to **** with Meeholes head

Leo is actually playing a blinder with this.

seamus · 04-09-2020 02:36PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

As per my post above, according to Leo you don't

That's what I just said.

You have to record all the meals ordered, but you don't have to make a note of what each individual had to eat.

PommieBast · 04-09-2020 02:36PM

showpony1 wrote: »

from what i gather the ministers read on here that lads are inhaling 7 pints in 105 minutes and are now bringing in legislations

Guilty as charged

MrStuffins · 04-09-2020 02:37PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Clear as mud as usual. Leo has spoken
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1301884437697789954?s=19

But wait, if there's no requirement then what are the participants in this thread going to complain about?

How will people stuff GDPR into their posts now?

Geuze · 04-09-2020 02:38PM

PommieBast wrote: »

Guilty as charged

Why were the pints of Fosters charged at different prices?

MrStuffins · 04-09-2020 02:39PM

PommieBast wrote: »

Guilty as charged

No way you could drink 7 pints in that time! You must be spoofing :cool:

Dempo1 · 04-09-2020 02:40PM

Kivaro wrote: »

Leo is actually playing a blinder with this.

The most Cunning and Devious of them all, he played a blinder all right, walked away when all the really difficult decisions to be made, really did a bertie on MM, I Don't however like his cynical underming of a government he helped create or his outrageous undermining of NPHET. Let's not forget who closed the Pubs in the first place and now he wants to be the publicans best friend, sickening stuff to watch.

is_that_so · 04-09-2020 02:41PM

Why do we need Leo or someone with decent communications skills to come out to clarify government measures every time?

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0904/1163134-coronavirus-ireland/

MrStuffins · 04-09-2020 02:41PM

Dempo1 wrote: »

The most Cunning and Devious of them all, he played a blinder all right, walked away when all the really difficult decisions to be made......

The general election might have had something to do with that!

is_that_so · 04-09-2020 02:44PM

Dempo1 wrote: »

The most Cunning and Devious of them all, he played a blinder all right, walked away when all the really difficult decisions to be made, really did a bertie on MM, I Don't however like his cynical underming of a government he helped create or his outrageous undermining of NPHET. Let's not forget who closed the Pubs in the first place and now he wants to be the publicans best friend, sickening stuff to watch.

Pretty sure MM wanted to go first and Leo will take the second shift. That way Martin is absolutely guaranteed to be Taoiseach. By the looks of the continuing mess we may not even get to Part Deux.

Poorside · 04-09-2020 02:45PM

PommieBast wrote: »

Guilty as charged

Did you use them to clear a drain?

Dempo1 · 04-09-2020 02:46PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

The general election might have had something to do with that!

Perhaps more to do with FG terrified to go back to the electorate more like, FG & FF knew all to well how that would have ended. He also coukd have nominated to do Taoiseach role first, but of course, far to clever for that, helped ably by MM who was clearly to stupid or power hungry to see what was coming, what was it again, 2 weeks b4 first crisis, I've lost count at this stage.

PommieBast · 04-09-2020 02:49PM

Geuze wrote: »

Why were the pints of Fosters charged at different prices?

Not sure - didn't notice it

MrMusician18 · 04-09-2020 02:52PM

Ah GDPR, it's like the old health and safety catch all excuse. And its always an excuse for not doing something instead of being proactive.

Used in the hope that because it sounds official and you don't understand it so you'll shut up and go away.

Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Comments