Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

MelbourneMan wrote: »

That you perceive the presence of a narrative shows a strange bias.

That you choose not to perceive an obvious narrative shows a bias

There is no narrative. There is no hidden agenda against public houses. There is no grinch taking pleasure in denying the plain people of Ireland their beverage of choice.

There certainly isn't a hidden agenda. There's a very obvious one.

The solution is very simple indeed - maybe it is this very simplicity that has people concoct greater and greater fantasy explanations as the truth doesnt lead them to the answer they want to arrive at. The rationale is that people meet in pubs. Reducing people meeting is the key to virus containment. Responsible governments will implement actions with the lowest negative effect, while reducing person to person contact. Closing pubs fits the bill admirably. So they are closed.

People meet each other in all sorts of locales. Pubs, restaurants, cafes, coffee shops. People spend hours at a time sitting in hairdressers. Children and teenagers spend hours every day in large groups in schools - and frequent in smaller, varied groups afterwards.
Yet only one of these has been closed since March. On the basis of "best international evidence". Yet only in Ireland - I'm unaware of any other country anywhere which has refused to allow business whose primary sale is alcohol to re-open since the pandemic began.

So while it might seem quite simple to you, I remain somewhat puzzled that a small nation like ourselves is the only one to come to this simple solution which has managed to save us all from the horrors of opening pubs. Maybe we're just lucky to have the most insightful and wisest advisors anywhere in the world. Then again, maybe not.

It really is as simple as that, and am glad to have helped to clear it up for any here still following the nonsense 'what proportion of cases were traceable to public house settings ?' question.

I'm glad to have cleared that up for any here still following your "let's ignore actual facts and reality" line of argument.

MOH wrote: »

That you choose not to perceive an obvious narrative shows a bias

This sentence is gas! No proof in any way of a "narrative" (this must be Word of the Week) but anyone who disagrees is biased. Brilliant!

show me the money.1 wrote: »

My Local had all their sky channels turned off when Level 5 came in, when he rang sky to know why he was told that the government told them to turn off all pub subscriptions. (he wanted to watch a race on racing TV one day he was in cleaning up)

This is interesting. I hadn't heard this. Any links to something more concrete? Not that I don't believe you of course, it makes perfect sense for those subs to be switched off. After all, it costs a hefty dollar to keep those subs going.

Just wondering was there something official on this?

keepalive213 wrote: »

I think some pubs are paying considerably less, maybe 600 per month

Plus 300 for bt/eir and I believe 160 for the racing channels, and that's the absolute lowest band.

So 3 grand "saved" from March-June, if you're in the lowest revenue band, probably covered some pubs putting in perspex screens they never got to use......

For the doubters.

Date: 7th October
Following the Governments announcement that level three restrictions will be imposed nationwide from Wednesday 7th October, Sky have taken the decision to suspend Sky services and billing for all their impacted hospitality customers in the Republic of Ireland. They will continue to suspend their Sky account until 28th October or until the date the government confirms the restrictions can be lifted.

If you wish to continue showing live sport in line with the new government guidelines and don’t want your account suspended please call 0818 719 888

SteM wrote: »

But you said originally it was a government decision.

Who imposed level 3???

show me the money.1 wrote: »

Who imposed level 3???

But they didn't tell Sky to turn off all pub subscriptions which is what you said. Sky made the decision.

Scoondal wrote: »

I got Eurosport for €20 for 12 months in my own home. Pubs charging €6 for a lager are finished. I go to pubs to meet people, not to watch British sport.

Fair play to you.

Scoondal wrote: »

I got Eurosport for €20 for 12 months in my own home. Pubs charging €6 for a lager are finished. I go to pubs to meet people, not to watch British sport.

Eurosport is trash.

GazzaL wrote: »

I wouldn't be much of a drinker, but with all the talk about takeaway pints this week, we've decided to go out for a few this weekend. I'd say they will be delicious! And we'll be supporting a local business. Win win.

A great time was had by all.

Semi-encouraging news in today's Sunday Times. Consideration of L3 rules for 2 weeks then movement to L2 rules in the 2 weeks before Christmas. Talk of 10pm closing time will annoy some though.

SteM wrote: »

Semi-encouraging news in today's Sunday Times. Consideration of L3 rules for 2 weeks then movement to L2 rules in the 2 weeks before Christmas. Talk of 10pm closing time will annoy some though.

Can understand it from a restaurants point of view. You'd hope for the 11 or 11.30 closing rules as was in place previously. Means they can get an extra sitting in, which is why the original 10.30 closing was extended to 11.30 during the summer

I hope if they do open again before Christmas they won't give us the runaround with the 9 euro meal bollocks.