Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

PTH2009 wrote: »

you don't have to order food

Bah I was assuming Dublin! My bad! Sorry MattS1

SusieBlue wrote: »

Where I live has the second lowest rate of infection in the whole country. All invitees are either unemployed or working from home. 4 of said invitees live together in a house share, so only 3 households are involved.

I assessed the risk and came to the conclusion that it was safe enough to go ahead with. To me the benefit for all of us outweighs the risk.
As I said before, I will absolutely take sensible precautions but the downright hysterical & nasty reaction to what I posted is a clear sign of why those in favour of restrictions are losing support by the day.
In your personal opinion, based on what I posted above, do you feel I should be legally prosecuted for my ‘selfish and reckless’ actions?

Ha not at all! Apologies if I came across that way.

Think I'm just tired of everyone explaining why they are not 100% following the rules and it's ok because of x, y and z.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

And leixlip.

The lad from bradys in maynooth isn't crying now......

Shame about the pubs in Dublin I was kind of hoping to go out for a few drinks after dinner for my birthday but que sera.
Will have a nice a dinner and a few drinks with dinner and head home.

You have to feel sorry for the pub owners in Dublin, I think they should be given the chance to reopen and prove they can put measures in place. Obviously if they can't come down on the rule breakers like a tonne of breaks.

This will seriously encourage people to take trips outside or co Dublin I would think which will increase spread of corona

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The mob. Lol. Suzie posted about how she's been organising weekly parties at her gaf since June in breach of the regulations. She went on to justify her actions saying she "risk assessed" them. No idea how she did that since she doesn't have access to the information to properly conduct one - did it go beyond saying it feels safe because I want to have my party? Not just content with that reasoning she further added that she ignored the rules to essentially make herself feel better. The problem with covid is that it doesn't care about your feelings or your bs risk assessments so that's why we've been given a few simple rules to follow.

Perhaps it's a little unfair to single out one person but actions of many Suzie's will ensure that the covid restrictions are here to stay. If it just affected her well then I wouldn't care. It's the fact that she's unabashedly saying she's putting herself first is what's galling. Are all the Suzie's likely to accept the consequences of outbreaks linked to their parties? Is a night of wine and cheese worth putting someone (a friend or a family member of theirs) in hospital for? This isn't hyperbole, it's the actual risk associated with the disease.

Will this all happen at Christmas. Almost certainly. Will I be purple with rage? Nope, I'm not angry now, I have come to expect it -

I don't make any apologies for calling out this behaviour. Organising parties that do not comply with the regulations is both reckless and selfish especially if you do it regularly. There is plenty of scope for quality social interaction within the regulations. Moreso now.

I posted that I found it amusing that some people would liken my wine nights with a few pals to a Project X style massive session, when what I’m doing in no way resembles a ‘soirée’ or ‘house party’. It’s a small gathering of friends in my home.
You then decided I was breaking the rules by hosting these weekly ‘house parties/soirees/sessions’, even though you had no idea how many households were involved, how many close contacts are involved, or what other precautions were put in place.
You jumped to conclusions without all the information and went on the attack.
You are still making nasty assumptions about me even though you actually have no idea if I’m even breaking the current rules or not.

My point remains.
You won’t endear anyone to your draconian cause if you are saying someone should be arrested and prosecuted for inviting 6 friends over to their home.
It’s overdramatic hyperbole, no matter how you try to dress it up, and I hope the law in this country never ever goes in that direction.
You won’t endear anyone to your cause if you are likening said gathering to some wild drunken house party when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I won’t make any apologies for not taking a blind bit of notice of you and your scathing judgment, because I know I’m not being selfish and reckless.

I never once ‘unabashadly said I was putting myself before others’, that’s a complete fabrication on your part. I said I have sacrificed a lot and will continue to sacrifice a lot, as has everyone else and I’m ok with that.
And that I’m unwilling to forego spending time with my family and friends any longer while I’m making these sacrifices.
I will continue to see my 7 friends both at home and in public places and I will see my parents and siblings too.
I won’t let you, a stranger on the internet, guilt me into feeling bad for that when you know absolutely nothing about me and my life, or my family situation.
I see no shame in that and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position to take whatsoever.

I suggest you dig deep and try to find some compassion, understanding and empathy for people other than those who have been afflicted with coronavirus.

hynesie08 wrote: »

I could see places still insisting on food.

It's a wrong rule, makes you poop, keep way from some ones else's pooper in a pandemic.

Would be nice if places encouraged you to wee outside, I'd much prefer it considering the circumstances.

Well, this whole pandemic has really highlighted those that are truly selfish. The majority of people are making efforts and following the guidelines but there are a selfish few who;

Refuse to wear masks,
Refuse to adhere to social distancing,
Refuse to follow guidelines on gatherings,
Antagonise those who are making the effort and are just as pissed off about it as those selfish childish ****ers who aren't willing to pull their weight.

The irony here is, many of those not pulling their weight are the first to give out about dole scroungers etc. Get over yourselves, there's no great conspiracy and everyone else is doing what they can to get through this.


On another point, if Susieblue is having a few mates over for wine and cheese every so often then I don't see a problem with that. It's large gatherings that are stupid and I seen one on our street back in April/May which pissed the rest of the neighbours off and rightly so.

bigpink wrote: »

A street party what happened?

There was a party. On a street.

TomTomTim wrote: »

This is such hogwash. Just because people are critical about the rules, doesn't mean that they are disobeying them.

I didn't see in his post where he said everyone who is critical is disobeying.

There are many people who are refusing to adhere to the rules. Many of them are doing so under weird delusions, conspiracies and paranoia.

Others are just absolute arseh*les.

Either way, they are contributing to the spread of this virus and the need for the restrictions that they don't want to exist.

If they want life to go back to normal, then join together with the rest of us and fight the virus, instead of ranting on Facebook that "Me Hole Martin" is a lizard made of 5G masts who wants to take away your freedom to be a c*nt whenever you want and then actively go against the restrictions. It helps nobody. In fact, it's counter-productive.

weldoninhio wrote: »

How exactly do you fight the virus??

Trying to stop giving it opportunities to spread is all I guess.

Stop piling back to large house parties because your annoyed with the restrictions in the pub!

mountgomery burns wrote: »

What has selfish people congregating at massive parties in April and May got to do with opening of pubs?

It's the conflating of the two that's been the issue from day one. In government's view, pub owners and pub goers can't be trusted. And that's why it's taken this long and even still Dublin will remain at level 5 restrictions going forward when it comes to pubs.

Actually, at level 5 pubs could be open for takeaway or delivery, which I think is still better off than they are now.They must be at level 5.5. Or 5.8372. (Pubs that serve food can't though, they can only sell takeaway food at level 5. Which I assume is a mistake, but that's what yesterday's plan says.)

There was a fairly telling moment in Micheal Martin's interview on the news yesterday.

He was asked why, if NPHET were concerned about the figures last Thursday, why they didn't announce a decision more quickly, such as on Friday as they have done any time previously that NPHET raised any issue.

His response was a quite annoyed "Move more quickly how on the pubs?It was September 21st the pubs were due to open. We're making a decision now well in advance of that that they're not to open".

Now, I'm not a expert, but it seems quite obvious that if your business has been shuttered for the past 6 months and the government guarantees you on Sept. 8th that your business can open on Sept 21st, and that date absolutely will not change (except in case of a wider lockdown affecting other businesses), you have a fair bit of work to do to be ready to open on that date. Stuff like getting stock in, arranging staffing, etc. So you're probably going to be starting on that straight away.
If the government already has an indication a mere two days later that they're going to renege on that guarantee, it would help a lot to know that then, rather than them sitting on it for 5 days when you've already made a lot of the necessary arrangements.

It's also quite obvious from that response that this is a man who has never worked in any business in the real world, and doesn't have the faintest clue of the basics which any leaving cert student would probably be able to take a fair stab at. It certainly explains a lot though.