PTH2009 wrote: » Yeah such a good gesture but Dr Tony and the lads no doubt pissed off about it Anyway you cant get a table in a pub/hotel today in Waterford and presumably Limerick too. Personal responsibility needs to be taken, it was bloody embarrassing been talked to you like children with all the 'warnings from government
hynesie08 wrote: » Are you blaming the government on pubs being full on all ireland day? I assume you'll be spouting "personal responsibility" only if Limerick win and take to the streets, but will brush it to one side if it's waterford......
PTH2009 wrote: » Personal responsibility for both no matter the result
Notmything wrote: » If the anti-alcohol lobby is so prevalent how come off licences are still open, supermarkets are selling beer at a loss and pubs and restaurants are able to sell alcohol?
Notmything wrote: » Whether you care to believe it or not it's about trying to reduce the spread of covid.
Zebra3 wrote: » One step at a time. If they're trying to stop the spread of covid, why are people from six different households allowed to sit at one table with masks off for hours on end indoors?
Allinall wrote: » Proportionality. But you know that.
AdrianBalboa wrote: » If people really gave a ****e about feeding the homeless how about individuals arrange to pay for a meal for a homeless person themselves. I’ll tell you why, it’s because they don’t care about homeless people and they just want an excuse to pour gallons of stout down their gullet.
Zebra3 wrote: » And they're not trying to stop the spread of covid in pubs. But you know that.
PommieBast wrote: » To actually ban alcohol sales outright would be instant political suicide. The whole €9/1hr45min things are a fudge intended to keep most places closed.
Notmything wrote: » Won't disagree with you, I can remember the furore when the idea of continental cafe bars was floated. My take is the €9 meal instruction is to reduce the time spent in a pub, and also to reduce the likelihood of people going on pub crawls. Don't think there are many who will fancy eating 3-4 meals in a short space of time.
hynesie08 wrote: » If waterford win, you will be on here within 10 minutes going "good luck with social distancing tonight, up the deise" They won't win though......
Ray Donovan wrote: » Exactly. The €9 is a ploy to stop people going out to pubs. A type of levy. People dont want to pay it, so dont go out, less socializing, leas Covid spread, less close contacts etc etc. And it’s working.
Deleted User wrote: » And yet there is a chink in the armour: common sense. Arrived at a so-called gastro pub after 8pm, most of the tables had been cleared of food. No difficulty ordering a pint without the unnecessary munch. Everyone contented, drinking away to their heart's content. Spoke to the manager, he said bar a few anal retentives most folks were grateful for the opportunity. Safely socially distanced and all, those few that didn't oblige were turfed. None of this staying at home garbage. Tell that to supermarkets, retail and hair salons.
hynesie08 wrote: » Jesus lad, you keep wandering into these lax gastro pubs despite your hatred of them and the ponces that inhabit them, and not only do they welcome you with open arms, they flout the rules openly for you...... You missed a trick not doing the euromillions Friday, with your luck you'd have 200mil in your pocket...... Or you're just talking bollocks.....
stephenjmcd wrote: » No they won't because they're still complying with the purchase of a €9 meal, doesn't say you have to eat it, just buy one
rubadub wrote: » this is the law, it is not just simply a case of buying one, and it seemingly does not have to be 9euro (I think eddie rockets enforcement years ago allowed it for a burger slightly under 9 euro)http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/560/made/en/print You do not sound like a bull****ter, like so many others here. I still find it odd that people do not realise the purpose of these laws which have been in place for 50+ years. Some do think it is solely some sort of fine or deterrent or "levy" as you say. It is indeed a deterrent for many, but that is not the original purpose of the long standing law. I am amazed at the ignorance about alcohol & food, my mother who only has a few glasses of wine per year knows fine well that food has a huge effect on reducing drunkeness. I always thought this was common knowledge. You have some oddballs feigning ignorance about it (not you, you do sound genuinely ignorant about it), spouting on like they are seasoned pub goers yet unaware of the "eating is cheating" mentality. It's cringeworthy shite, they are lying through their teeth claiming they literally see no sense in the "meal rules", yet then go on to claim others are lying about other stuff... I really do not know what the deal is with these freaks, do they really think they think they look smart by claiming to be mentally challenged ignorant fools? if so it's backfiring badly. I have said numerous times that restaurants are often granted licences in residential areas where pubs would not have a hope of opening. This is due to the fact that it would be unexpected to have people using them as they typically do pubs. The meal laws are in place for decades but are largely unknown since people were not treating restaurants like pubs so there was no need to enforce them. If 10 years ago someone did get permission to open a "fake sushi restaurant" which was for all intents & purposes a "stag party, nightclub pub" in a quiet residential area then they would enforce the meal rules to put a halt to it or strongly deter it. This is why I was also asking people about nightclub style pubs, the type of pub where if you saw a video you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between it and a nightclub. If you think traditional "auld lad pubs" should be open what rules would you put in place if you think "nightclubs" or "nightclub style pubs" should be closed. That berlin bar place had some dickhead barman standing on a bar counter pouring drinks down peoples mouths, like some cheesy 80s film, but could be trying to make out like it's a restaurant, let alone a pub. It is similar to people saying "junk food" should be taxed, there is difficulty in legally defining it. Most seem to be against the idea of nightclubs opening so I would be interested in hearing how they would differentiate between nightclub style pubs and "half empty auld lad pubs". The seating rule is one thing, as it rules out "dancefloors" which would be a hard thing to define in law.
the kelt wrote: » Your're right, consuming food does make a difference in regards to reducing drunkeness. Where theres no sense in this current €9 meal restriction is that if it was all about the act of having something to eat making a difference as Michaeal Martin claimed then where that food comes from is irrelevant? Right? But of course its not, thats where this rule makes no sense for many.
rubadub wrote: » this is the law, it is not just simply a case of buying one, and it seemingly does not have to be 9euro (I think eddie rockets enforcement years ago allowed it for a burger slightly under 9 euro)http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/560/made/en/print You do not sound like a bull****ter, like so many others here. I still find it odd that people do not realise the purpose of these laws which have been in place for 50+ years. Some do think it is solely some sort of fine or deterrent or "levy" as you say. It is indeed a deterrent for many, but that is not the original purpose of the long standing law. I am amazed at the ignorance about alcohol & food, my mother who only has a few glasses of wine per year knows fine well that food has a huge effect on reducing drunkeness. I always thought this was common knowledge. You have some oddballs feigning ignorance about it (not you, you do sound genuinely ignorant about it), spouting on like they are seasoned pub goers yet unaware of the "eating is cheating" mentality. It's cringeworthy shite, they are lying through their teeth claiming they literally see no sense in the "meal rules", yet then go on to claim others are lying about other stuff... I really do not know what the deal is with these freaks, do they really think they think they look smart by claiming to be mentally challenged ignorant fools? if so it's backfiring badly. I have said numerous times that restaurants are often granted licences in residential areas where pubs would not have a hope of opening. This is due to the fact that it would be unexpected to have people using them as they typically do pubs. The meal laws are in place for decades but are largely unknown since people were not treating restaurants like pubs so there was no need to enforce them. If 10 years ago someone did get permission to open a "fake sushi restaurant" which was for all intents & purposes a "stag party, nightclub pub" in a quiet residential area then they would enforce the meal rules to put a halt to it or strongly deter it. This is why I was also asking people about nightclub style pubs, the type of pub where if you saw a video you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between it and a nightclub. If you think traditional "auld lad pubs" should be open what rules would you put in place if you think "nightclubs" or "nightclub style pubs" should be closed. That berlin bar place had some dickhead barman standing on a bar counter pouring drinks down peoples mouths, like some cheesy 80s film, but could be trying to make out like it's a restaurant, let alone a pub. It is similar to people saying "junk food" should be taxed, there is difficulty in legally defining it (flora light might end up being a "junk food" due to a high fat content, just as low sugar tropicana is subject to sugar tax while regular tropicana is not). Most seem to be against the idea of nightclubs opening so I would be interested in hearing how they would differentiate between nightclub style pubs and "half empty auld lad pubs". The seating rule is one thing, as it rules out "dancefloors" which would be a hard thing to define in law.
the kelt wrote: » Where theres no sense in this current €9 meal restriction is that if it was all about the act of having something to eat making a difference as Michaeal Martin claimed then where that food comes from is irrelevant? Right?
rubadub wrote: » I brought up that point when people were thinking pubs bringing in genuine substantial meals was some sort of loophole being exploited. It was not, it was doing its purpose, reducing drunkeness, what the law is obviously in place for and what so many still act ignorant about, sad fuckers, taking people for idiots. (I am a heavy drinker and hate eating while drinking as it reduces the effect, not that it that should matter but I expect some conspiracy type arsehole will brand me an anti-drink cutrain twitcher or some such shite -this thread is teeming with these sad pathetic lying cunts) I thought it was totally unfair to exclude pubs who were genuinely in keeping with the spirit of the rules, i.e. food to stop drunkness and the lowered inhibitions that go along with it. My first thought was that there were possibly many pubs without full kitchens who were taking the piss, and so they wanted to shut them down and unfortunately the rest who were legit suffered too. Sort of similar to what I am saying about mostly empty quiet "auld lad pubs" having to be closed, as the qualify under the same legal definition as the ones they are really worried about. Of course I do not expect them to come out and blatantly say this, just as they do not blatantly say food reduces drunkness.
opinionated3 wrote: » We managed to get a booking at a local hotel last Saturday evening. First time having a beer in nearly two months. Place was booked solid so instead of getting a table in the bar area, we were seated in an adjacent room. Unfortunately i can't say I enjoyed the night. Food was ok, nothing special. Guinness was soft to say the least, not a patch on my local pub. They were pretty strict on the timekeeping as well. Table nearest us had the manager come to them and basically tell them to settle the bill and vacate the premises. It's all very weird and regimented to me. Whilst we were glad to get out of the house and socialise ( if that's what we'll call it 😒) I'm not sure I'll be doing it again. Definitely not the same establishment, might try some other place. Btw the irony of holohan praising our youth last week is ridiculous. They couldn't care less. Went to our nearest shopping centre at the weekend and see scores of teenagers walking around maskless and zero social distancing. We are clearly not all in this together.
Gervais08 wrote: » Six of them outside the chipper yesterday, no masks nothing. Holohan hasn’t the first clue, I wouldn’t send him to pick up after the dog let alone manage a global healthcare crisis. If he got more than a 2.2 in his medical degree, I’m Britney Spears.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
