Dickie10 wrote: » yeah i think by sound of this new Tony that hes lost the will for the fight to kill off alchool and pubs. he knows whats coming.
ingo1984 wrote: » Last Sunday my local that does takeaway pints had people who brought their own portable foldable chairs were sitting in the car park, with their coats on having pints. Car park is also shared with a pharmacy and centra, but also a kids playground beside it. Thought it was quite pathetic to be honest. Why bother? Not just drink in your own back garden?
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » Each to their own, if it's not for you just keep walking, nothing pathetic about it. You can't get real pints in your back garden and obviously some people might just want something different to sitting at home another weekend. Maybe they just did it to show abut of support to their local publican.
ingo1984 wrote: » Drinking in a public car park, 20 yards from a packed playground. Classy. Also this fallacy about supporting local publicans. We've been doing that for the past year through our taxes covering business supports. Why do you think the vintners associations and their members went eerily silent when the supports were announced last year. Alot of pubs won't even open for outdoor service. Why open at reduced capacity and forego free money when they can wait until restrictions are fully eased and the business supports end.
Deleted User wrote: » Tony might have won a few battles over the past year, but he has the lost the war. The abstinence drive fell short, and I'm not the least bit sorry it failed. As well as any lofty social engineering notions of introducing continental-style drinking, "al fresco" my back passage. The traditional pub will rebound, it is deeply embedded in our culture and cannot be eradicated overnight. ...
Richard Hillman wrote: » The €9 meal thing was 100% around trying to change our culture. They wanted us to go to a pub, all have a meal and think "wow, this is great. We had a nice meal and we're home after 2 hours, not battered. Lets do this more often". There was no scientific logic to the €9 meal. In fact, because you had more contact with the waiting staff, it would have been worse. Holohan and co abused their position and power during a time of national crisis to try and slip in some long term changes. We were saying that here last summer and we were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. I think most sane people can admit now that have been abusing the crisis to go after our pub culture.
Marty Bird wrote: » I always thought €9 meal was a way of stopping people travelling from place to place if every time they went somewhere different they would have to buy food and it would discourage this.
UI_Paddy wrote: » ... The substantial meal requirement may have had the best of intentions, but the execution was so poor it was inevitably going to be laughed at the way it was.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I doubt the government ever intended to police it strictly. They just needed most people to take it somewhat seriously to have the desired effects of allowing people who needed food on the go to have it and allow some businesses to keep ticking over to an extent, when covid numbers allowed. I'd say it worked pretty well in hindsight. Some people will take the p1ss but you can't try to make all rules completely fool proof.
Tenzor07 wrote: » It was an almost complete shambles, the number of pubs that either didn't bother to enforce it, or let groups at a table buy a pile of chicken nuggets and drink all day, or get a pizza from Domino's next door and use that as the meal.... Thank god its gone..(Welcome back by the way!)
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » A few lads on here claimed that its been explained many times why pubs had to serve a €9 meal, I've asked several times for the reason but always ignored.
PTH2009 wrote: » Let the food rule never ever make a return in terms of wanting a few pints. It will still exist for the under 18s at gatherings in pubs/hotels etc
PommieBast wrote: » I will happily take the food rule if it means no time limit.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Here's one explanation (it was just a few posts ago): "It wasn't about a €9 meal . It was about the restaurants lobbying to stay open - because people gotta eat (people working away from home etc) and they were allowed to sell alcohol while they were selling food. Some pubs were able to act like restaurants for the sake of opening. A conspiracy theory grew up around it where they were trying to socially engineer the culture. But it was only ever about the fact that restaurants are pretty necessary and pubs aren't so some pubs acted like restaurants so they could open. The €9 meal was established as the threshold for a "substantial meal" and it wasn't controversial until covid and only "restaurants" selling a "substantial meal" could open. It wasn't social engineering, it was just a handy way to allow restaurants to open to serve food to people who need it (and hopefully make a few quid)". I think your question betrays a misunderstanding. Resultants were allowed to open because they're pretty essential. Pubs were allowed to open if they could act as a restaurant. A restaurant needs to serve a "substantial meal" and a substantial meal was defined as costing at least €9. I hope this clears it up
Coillte_Bhoy wrote: » There are none so blind etc etc., it has been explained ad naseum, there is little point going over it again, some people just refuse to listen
PTH2009 wrote: » Nah no food rule for me, it brings a bit of the spontaneity back. I'll drop In for a few after a shopping/work etc They need a big rethink about the time limit. It could effectively lead to pub crawls. If the room is there some places might got the 2m option
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » There was somebody on here a while back posting lies that pubs with restaurant licences were planning to open and serve no food just drink. And that the €9 rule was introduced for this reason.
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » The made up story about pubs with restaurant licences planning to open but not serve any food? No it was never explained by anybody. Ever.
