PTH2009 wrote: » The food in some places last year was criminal (tesco pizza, Nachos etc). In most places once your meal was done and the place wasn't booked it was back to normal til closing time with the exception of not been able to order at the bar (finding a waiter/ess was a little irritating). The early closes were a killer, 9.30pm last orders on a Saturday night come on Things are way more positive looking at the UK in regards no time limits, reasonable opening/closing times etc
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » I never said you did, somebody else was passing it off as the explanation for the €9 meal. No I don't understand your explanation saying restaurants are essential since they have been closed most of the time for over a year. It makes no sense to claim they are essential TBH. Plenty of takeaway options as we all know too well.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I didn't say anyone abused anything.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Do you understand the explanation I gave?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Covid numbers permitting. During lockdowns they weren't open, so the €9 didn't apply.
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » Restaurants were not allowed stay open. Closed from March until June 29th, closed in October / November and closed again after Christmas still closed today. Clearly not "pretty essential" then. Another "explanation" goes south.
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » It was also given by way of explanation that pubs with restaurant licences were planning to abuse the rule by just serving drink, hence the €9 meal requirement. Is this a valid explanation of it in your opinion?
NIAC Fanboy wrote: » It was posted here that pubs with restaurant licences were planning to open selling drink and no food so as to abuse the rules. It was a made up conspiracy story with no source.
Coillte_Bhoy wrote: » What do you mean 'made up story'??
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » H It was about the restaurants lobbying to stay open - because people gotta eat
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Resultants were allowed to open because they're pretty essential.
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.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » It was explained about 4 posts above where you said it was never explained. Not sure you were really paying great attention.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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!)
