FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > pub food and lockdown
pub food and lockdown
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words? "
Why would he? He doesn't like the Conservatives, and his long standi ng business model is the same as many chain restaurants that will escape. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
yes, you can still eat out which was unheard of in April and May im kinda glad cos we had an amazing Indian over weekend... yum.. tho sadly not an Indian ( "or any sort of bull)
d |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words?
Why would he? He doesn't like the Conservatives, and his long standi ng business model is the same as many chain restaurants that will escape. "
Yeah they aren't quite right wing enough for Tim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
There was a radio programme about 7 pubs across Liverpool and Manchester changing their venues to restaurant as well.
Kinda' hard to find a pub that doesn't some serve food these days however. Though I realise it would be impossible for some. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
should be done on the size and security of the venue and its layout for distance. i used to go to an Irish pub in London that was size of an average living room lol i wouldn't be going there even if serving five star food
d |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?"
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility."
Cool - I thought you were arguing it the other way lol.  But just in case, co's I'm slightly unclear . . . are you saying that the Government should have responsibility for something that doesn't need help?
Confused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Deep fat fryers will be going through the roof on ebay as the substantial means served with chips 
Yes, what is classed as substantial, cheese on toast is substantial for me  "
Me too  only have chips around 3 or 4 times a year  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility."
But they still have an income through trade, it’s called adapting, for me it’s better than closing altogether which some of the venues will have to do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"Deep fat fryers will be going through the roof on ebay as the substantial means served with chips
Yes, what is classed as substantial, cheese on toast is substantial for me
Me too only have chips around 3 or 4 times a year "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
Cool - I thought you were arguing it the other way lol. But just in case, co's I'm slightly unclear . . . are you saying that the Government should have responsibility for something that doesn't need help?
Confused. "
What I'm trying (and probably failing to say clearly!) is that these new resteictions in Tier 2 and 3 have taken away a pubs main revenue streams. By still allowing a pub to serve food the government can then deny a business financial help on the basis that it is still able to function and lay the blame for lack of profit back at the businesses door.
It seems to me like cutting off somebody's legs and then denying them a wheelchair on the basis that they can still crawl. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"Have a potion of chips each and loads of beer lol "
Not a substantial meal! That was established using a Cornish Pasty! The pasty on its own isn't substantial enough but add a little bit of salad and its suddenly a meal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words? "
They are closed up here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have a potion of chips each and loads of beer lol
Not a substantial meal! That was established using a Cornish Pasty! The pasty on its own isn't substantial enough but add a little bit of salad and its suddenly a meal"
A substantial meal is to negate the crisps and pork scratchings with a pint excuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words?
They are closed up here."
Yes but you can still get a deep fried mars bar with your fish supper all is not lost ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lex46TV/TS
over a year ago
Near Wells |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
But they still have an income through trade, it’s called adapting, for me it’s better than closing altogether which some of the venues will have to do"
The problem with this is that as they are not able to open for as long as they usually do and will be serving a lot less customers as a lot of people won't go out during lock down. Plus the social distancing effects of less tables etc, their income will be a lot less.
This means they will have to reduce costs (staff) which will mean a lot more unemployment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
But they still have an income through trade, it’s called adapting, for me it’s better than closing altogether which some of the venues will have to do
The problem with this is that as they are not able to open for as long as they usually do and will be serving a lot less customers as a lot of people won't go out during lock down. Plus the social distancing effects of less tables etc, their income will be a lot less.
This means they will have to reduce costs (staff) which will mean a lot more unemployment. "
I understand that but surely it is better than being shut down completely as per the first lockdown.
Where I am the pubs have the individuals go in for their meals, and some even made this a requirement under Tier 1 when the no standing rule came in during set hours (16.00-19.30), but they have also connected themselves to delivery apps so make extra money by serving meals to those at home. That is what I meant by adapting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There was a radio programme about 7 pubs across Liverpool and Manchester changing their venues to restaurant as well.
Kinda' hard to find a pub that doesn't some serve food these days however. Though I realise it would be impossible for some."
One landlord was on the radio the day before we went into T3 saying his boozer didn't serve food but he's got a 1 ring stove & a microwave so he's now doing food.
As he said no rules on having to charge for it or having to actually eat the stuff |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"On a side note I see Khan in London is trying to do away with the 22.00 closing to enable businesses to stay open later, but to be honest who wants to be eating a meal at 22.00 hours  "
I saw that too, he had the opportunity to do this weeks ago....
I think he's either doing this to undermine Boris or he has just woken up to how catastrophic and futile that policy is.
(London is Tier 2 so pubs don't have to serve alcohol only with meals). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words? "
Not here in n.ireland,pubs restaurants cafes all closed except for takeaway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On a side note I see Khan in London is trying to do away with the 22.00 closing to enable businesses to stay open later, but to be honest who wants to be eating a meal at 22.00 hours "
In tier 2, they can serve alcohol without food, so if they got rid of the 10pm closing, pubs/bars could continue serving alcohol and other drinks till later. That's what he's on about. Interesting that no-one has seemed terribly bothered about the fact we've had the 10pm closing, or previous total hospitality closures, yet the impact on our businesses seems unimportant to the general populace. London gets asked to close at 10pm and suddenly it's an issue? We're in tier 3 now from Fri am, the third time this year that pubs etc have had to close. We don't go to pubs, so it won't bother us at all, but we worry about local businesses that cannot survive and our son who cannot find PT work around uni. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
Cool - I thought you were arguing it the other way lol. But just in case, co's I'm slightly unclear . . . are you saying that the Government should have responsibility for something that doesn't need help?
Confused.
What I'm trying (and probably failing to say clearly!) is that these new resteictions in Tier 2 and 3 have taken away a pubs main revenue streams. By still allowing a pub to serve food the government can then deny a business financial help on the basis that it is still able to function and lay the blame for lack of profit back at the businesses door.
It seems to me like cutting off somebody's legs and then denying them a wheelchair on the basis that they can still crawl."
Gotcha' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
But what is happening is that some are already starting to run at a loss, which means hours are cut which means employees that are already earning next to no money are now earning even less and can no longer pay their bills. However there's no help from the government because in theory the business can stay open  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another problem with going to the pub if you are in tier three is you can only talk to members of your own household. You can't meet a friend. "
It’s the same in tier two no mixing with anyone but your household indoors, no matter the location |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another problem with going to the pub if you are in tier three is you can only talk to members of your own household. You can't meet a friend. "
You can't meet non-household or bubble members indoors in tier 2 either, that includes pubs and bars. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On a side note I see Khan in London is trying to do away with the 22.00 closing to enable businesses to stay open later, but to be honest who wants to be eating a meal at 22.00 hours
In tier 2, they can serve alcohol without food, so if they got rid of the 10pm closing, pubs/bars could continue serving alcohol and other drinks till later. That's what he's on about. Interesting that no-one has seemed terribly bothered about the fact we've had the 10pm closing, or previous total hospitality closures, yet the impact on our businesses seems unimportant to the general populace. London gets asked to close at 10pm and suddenly it's an issue? We're in tier 3 now from Fri am, the third time this year that pubs etc have had to close. We don't go to pubs, so it won't bother us at all, but we worry about local businesses that cannot survive and our son who cannot find PT work around uni."
It’s not suddenly an issue in London it’s just Khan peacocking at Boris and trying to be seen to be fighting back but in reality he will get no where |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it's very interesting they've chosen to keep food pubs and resteraunt open even in Tier 3..a long way from the total lockdown of first three months... wonder if Tim Wetherspoon had words?
Why would he? He doesn't like the Conservatives, and his long standi ng business model is the same as many chain restaurants that will escape. "
Are you sure about that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On a side note I see Khan in London is trying to do away with the 22.00 closing to enable businesses to stay open later, but to be honest who wants to be eating a meal at 22.00 hours "
Kebab with side salad and chips would work for many. Nobody has stated how quickly a meal must be consumed. I read somewhere that a pub only allowed 1 drink per meal but am assuming that several could be had, throughout the slow consumption of a substantial meal, before moving on to dessert of kebab |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On a side note I see Khan in London is trying to do away with the 22.00 closing to enable businesses to stay open later, but to be honest who wants to be eating a meal at 22.00 hours
Kebab with side salad and chips would work for many. Nobody has stated how quickly a meal must be consumed. I read somewhere that a pub only allowed 1 drink per meal but am assuming that several could be had, throughout the slow consumption of a substantial meal, before moving on to dessert of kebab "
I can’t answer that as haven’t been to a pub. However friends that have in our local area said once food was done no more alcohol was served separately.
We don’t even have those rules officially, our local pubs bought that in as they will get more revenue with people eating and drinking than just drinking, before the one household rule came in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another problem with going to the pub if you are in tier three is you can only talk to members of your own household. You can't meet a friend.
You can't meet non-household or bubble members indoors in tier 2 either, that includes pubs and bars. "
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another problem with going to the pub if you are in tier three is you can only talk to members of your own household. You can't meet a friend.
You can't meet non-household or bubble members indoors in tier 2 either, that includes pubs and bars.
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice."
You can, but those tables should be 2m apart etc and at no point during the meal should the two tables get closer together than the socially distanced table. Technically, I could still accidentally book the same restaurant as my brother here in tier 3 and so long as we don't "socialise", technically we're fine. We just happen to be in the same restaurant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice."
Wow. That would be a very dear glass of wine wouldn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another problem with going to the pub if you are in tier three is you can only talk to members of your own household. You can't meet a friend.
You can't meet non-household or bubble members indoors in tier 2 either, that includes pubs and bars.
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice.
You can, but those tables should be 2m apart etc and at no point during the meal should the two tables get closer together than the socially distanced table. Technically, I could still accidentally book the same restaurant as my brother here in tier 3 and so long as we don't "socialise", technically we're fine. We just happen to be in the same restaurant."
Exactly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice.
Wow. That would be a very dear glass of wine wouldn't it? "
I think it depends on how much you want to be able to have a drink with friends.
2 of us happily paid for 2 Sunday lunches last week ( only 7ish quid each) so we could have a few drinks and a catch up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But isn't all of this just looking for ways around the rules - rather than supporting why they are there? "
I don't think so, no.
If the pubs are open, people will use them.
Booking two tables and staying at your own table isn't breaking any rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice.
Wow. That would be a very dear glass of wine wouldn't it?
I think it depends on how much you want to be able to have a drink with friends.
2 of us happily paid for 2 Sunday lunches last week ( only 7ish quid each) so we could have a few drinks and a catch up."
Yes that's worth it to me too, but being in tier 3 you're not to meet friends at all.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
Cool - I thought you were arguing it the other way lol. But just in case, co's I'm slightly unclear . . . are you saying that the Government should have responsibility for something that doesn't need help?
Confused.
What I'm trying (and probably failing to say clearly!) is that these new resteictions in Tier 2 and 3 have taken away a pubs main revenue streams. By still allowing a pub to serve food the government can then deny a business financial help on the basis that it is still able to function and lay the blame for lack of profit back at the businesses door.
It seems to me like cutting off somebody's legs and then denying them a wheelchair on the basis that they can still crawl."
It seems to me all this pub talk I see on the forums is far more about customers not getting what they're used to getting.
If we lived in a socialist society I could understand all the expectations that the government becomes responsible for everything, but we don't. It's a competitive, evolutionary, did eat dog commercialist society in which we want all the benefits of making as much as we can but if it goes tits up we complain because we're so used to getting what we want it's like our right to have.
Just a quick Google glance and average UK pub employed 4 staff ft/PT, 53,000 pubs in England (2017) with a steady decline since 2006.
Many pubs will adapt, some may close shop not to reopen, these will be the small ones where overheads are always the big problem even in best of times. I'm not saying they don't matter, of course they do as much as any business does but would the furlough scheme really help or save them.
I think people need to be much more appreciative of what our government has offered and does offer in relation to many other places in the world. For most countries in the world the governments have not got a social welfare safety net that most can fall on, but then again most wouldn't care about them because it's not about us. Their alternative is start again or starve, their destiny is what they make of it, their choices. The problem with offering much and having much is we come to expect much. We then end up with people who complain about almost anything and who always feel grieved.
If there's one thing this covid issue it's hi-lighted this to me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But isn't all of this just looking for ways around the rules - rather than supporting why they are there? "
Yes and people constantly try this instead of seeing that the rules are there to be adhered to as if it's smart to find away not too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But isn't all of this just looking for ways around the rules - rather than supporting why they are there?
Yes and people constantly try this instead of seeing that the rules are there to be adhered to as if it's smart to find away not too."
Don't be part of the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
Cool - I thought you were arguing it the other way lol. But just in case, co's I'm slightly unclear . . . are you saying that the Government should have responsibility for something that doesn't need help?
Confused.
What I'm trying (and probably failing to say clearly!) is that these new resteictions in Tier 2 and 3 have taken away a pubs main revenue streams. By still allowing a pub to serve food the government can then deny a business financial help on the basis that it is still able to function and lay the blame for lack of profit back at the businesses door.
It seems to me like cutting off somebody's legs and then denying them a wheelchair on the basis that they can still crawl.
It seems to me all this pub talk I see on the forums is far more about customers not getting what they're used to getting.
If we lived in a socialist society I could understand all the expectations that the government becomes responsible for everything, but we don't. It's a competitive, evolutionary, did eat dog commercialist society in which we want all the benefits of making as much as we can but if it goes tits up we complain because we're so used to getting what we want it's like our right to have.
Just a quick Google glance and average UK pub employed 4 staff ft/PT, 53,000 pubs in England (2017) with a steady decline since 2006.
Many pubs will adapt, some may close shop not to reopen, these will be the small ones where overheads are always the big problem even in best of times. I'm not saying they don't matter, of course they do as much as any business does but would the furlough scheme really help or save them.
I think people need to be much more appreciative of what our government has offered and does offer in relation to many other places in the world. For most countries in the world the governments have not got a social welfare safety net that most can fall on, but then again most wouldn't care about them because it's not about us. Their alternative is start again or starve, their destiny is what they make of it, their choices. The problem with offering much and having much is we come to expect much. We then end up with people who complain about almost anything and who always feel grieved.
If there's one thing this covid issue it's hi-lighted this to me.
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's simply a way for the government to avoid paying out closure money or furlough to businesses.
But if they are not shut why would they pay anything?
That's exactly it, giving them a way to stay open absolves the government of responsibility.
Cool - I thought you were arguing it the other way lol. But just in case, co's I'm slightly unclear . . . are you saying that the Government should have responsibility for something that doesn't need help?
Confused.
What I'm trying (and probably failing to say clearly!) is that these new resteictions in Tier 2 and 3 have taken away a pubs main revenue streams. By still allowing a pub to serve food the government can then deny a business financial help on the basis that it is still able to function and lay the blame for lack of profit back at the businesses door.
It seems to me like cutting off somebody's legs and then denying them a wheelchair on the basis that they can still crawl.
It seems to me all this pub talk I see on the forums is far more about customers not getting what they're used to getting.
If we lived in a socialist society I could understand all the expectations that the government becomes responsible for everything, but we don't. It's a competitive, evolutionary, did eat dog commercialist society in which we want all the benefits of making as much as we can but if it goes tits up we complain because we're so used to getting what we want it's like our right to have.
Just a quick Google glance and average UK pub employed 4 staff ft/PT, 53,000 pubs in England (2017) with a steady decline since 2006.
Many pubs will adapt, some may close shop not to reopen, these will be the small ones where overheads are always the big problem even in best of times. I'm not saying they don't matter, of course they do as much as any business does but would the furlough scheme really help or save them.
I think people need to be much more appreciative of what our government has offered and does offer in relation to many other places in the world. For most countries in the world the governments have not got a social welfare safety net that most can fall on, but then again most wouldn't care about them because it's not about us. Their alternative is start again or starve, their destiny is what they make of it, their choices. The problem with offering much and having much is we come to expect much. We then end up with people who complain about almost anything and who always feel grieved.
If there's one thing this covid issue it's hi-lighted this to me.
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?"
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
"
I suspect he was going to say "our taxes do".
The government's job is to create a stable society for its citizens. All of us. Yes we should demand a safety net. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice.
Wow. That would be a very dear glass of wine wouldn't it?
I think it depends on how much you want to be able to have a drink with friends.
2 of us happily paid for 2 Sunday lunches last week ( only 7ish quid each) so we could have a few drinks and a catch up.
Yes that's worth it to me too, but being in tier 3 you're not to meet friends at all.... "
Fortunately I'm not in tier 3, my council is Cheshire West and Chester.
Only rule I have ever broken since March was walking my dogs for longer than an hour when exercise was restricted , and then it was solitary on private property. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You can book two tables for one though, and as another poster pointed out, you can order food but you don't have to eat it. That allows us 2 hours to drink in our pub of choice.
Wow. That would be a very dear glass of wine wouldn't it?
I think it depends on how much you want to be able to have a drink with friends.
2 of us happily paid for 2 Sunday lunches last week ( only 7ish quid each) so we could have a few drinks and a catch up.
Yes that's worth it to me too, but being in tier 3 you're not to meet friends at all....
Fortunately I'm not in tier 3, my council is Cheshire West and Chester.
Only rule I have ever broken since March was walking my dogs for longer than an hour when exercise was restricted , and then it was solitary on private property."
Ah Okies, just cos saw Wirral which is. Make the most of it while you can and have one for me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
I suspect he was going to say "our taxes do".
The government's job is to create a stable society for its citizens. All of us. Yes we should demand a safety net."
I was also going to say business rates (taxes). The more people in work equates to more revenue for the government (and hence more for social security.) The more businesses trading equates to the same. More people out of work and fewer businesses trading equates to more burden on the social security, hence less to go around.
Also, if businesses are forced to close or unable to trade then people have fewer places to spend their money which means less revenue for the government (and less for the social security kitty). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
I suspect he was going to say "our taxes do".
The government's job is to create a stable society for its citizens. All of us. Yes we should demand a safety net."
I agree with much of this, we have a safety we have multiple support systems in place as a result, however are we not expecting even more from what we give to government to do this?
We seem to want to pay less taxes, most try to avoid paying in ever more creative ways, many don't pay their taxes due but still expect the NHS to give them all they need, better council services, better road services, better unemployment benefits etc etc. Which brings me back to my response to his question.
The balance between compliance and personal liberties is a balance which I feel is very much out of skew. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
I suspect he was going to say "our taxes do".
The government's job is to create a stable society for its citizens. All of us. Yes we should demand a safety net.
I was also going to say business rates (taxes). The more people in work equates to more revenue for the government (and hence more for social security.) The more businesses trading equates to the same. More people out of work and fewer businesses trading equates to more burden on the social security, hence less to go around.
Also, if businesses are forced to close or unable to trade then people have fewer places to spend their money which means less revenue for the government (and less for the social security kitty)."
I wouldn't disagree with your logic there, however were not in some sort of crisis which can be sorted by applying economics. It's a situation which isn't as easy to control with unknown variables and even scientists and virologists who are the most qualified disagree, simply because it's a very new problem in that it's so widespread. Working together to sort it seems to be overshadowed by animosity, anger and many divisive distractions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
I suspect he was going to say "our taxes do".
The government's job is to create a stable society for its citizens. All of us. Yes we should demand a safety net.
I was also going to say business rates (taxes). The more people in work equates to more revenue for the government (and hence more for social security.) The more businesses trading equates to the same. More people out of work and fewer businesses trading equates to more burden on the social security, hence less to go around.
Also, if businesses are forced to close or unable to trade then people have fewer places to spend their money which means less revenue for the government (and less for the social security kitty).
I wouldn't disagree with your logic there, however were not in some sort of crisis which can be sorted by applying economics. It's a situation which isn't as easy to control with unknown variables and even scientists and virologists who are the most qualified disagree, simply because it's a very new problem in that it's so widespread. Working together to sort it seems to be overshadowed by animosity, anger and many divisive distractions."
Compromise and best or least worst solutions need to be found.
At the beginning I was all  listen to the government yes even them. ... Anger has long since become an appropriate response because of the callousness, incompetence and corruption which has ended and destroyed so many lives.
Unity is only worthwhile when there's something to unify behind. Defiance is required here. (not fuck you I'm going to party, but "we need a better way to protect people") |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whilst we are very fortunate to live in such a prosperous and liberal first world country, you do know what provides the government with the ability to provide a social security safety net don't you?
Yep. Selfishness and GREED.
It's also what's caused most of the worlds poverty and climate issues.
And your point is? Justification?
I suspect he was going to say "our taxes do".
The government's job is to create a stable society for its citizens. All of us. Yes we should demand a safety net.
I was also going to say business rates (taxes). The more people in work equates to more revenue for the government (and hence more for social security.) The more businesses trading equates to the same. More people out of work and fewer businesses trading equates to more burden on the social security, hence less to go around.
Also, if businesses are forced to close or unable to trade then people have fewer places to spend their money which means less revenue for the government (and less for the social security kitty).
I wouldn't disagree with your logic there, however were not in some sort of crisis which can be sorted by applying economics. It's a situation which isn't as easy to control with unknown variables and even scientists and virologists who are the most qualified disagree, simply because it's a very new problem in that it's so widespread. Working together to sort it seems to be overshadowed by animosity, anger and many divisive distractions.
Compromise and best or least worst solutions need to be found.
At the beginning I was all listen to the government yes even them. ... Anger has long since become an appropriate response because of the callousness, incompetence and corruption which has ended and destroyed so many lives.
Unity is only worthwhile when there's something to unify behind. Defiance is required here. (not fuck you I'm going to party, but "we need a better way to protect people")"
Agreed, bit what ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Compromise and best or least worst solutions need to be found.
At the beginning I was all listen to the government yes even them. ... Anger has long since become an appropriate response because of the callousness, incompetence and corruption which has ended and destroyed so many lives.
Unity is only worthwhile when there's something to unify behind. Defiance is required here. (not fuck you I'm going to party, but "we need a better way to protect people")
Agreed, bit what ?"
I wish I knew. I'm focusing my energy on the few square miles that have become my world. Encouraging others to keep their heads down, supporting the vulnerable, educating where I get an opportunity.
But it feels like using a thimble to try to save a sinking ship. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It’s to avoid excess drinking.
People get d*unk. They then have sex with randoms or forget social distancing and thus spread virus.
Going out for a meal- tables are booked about 3 hours at a time, only with your own household. You leave after dinner shorter time out. Social distanced all staff wearing masks- no one at the bar. It makes total sense and should have been brought in from the start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It’s to avoid excess drinking.
People get d*unk. They then have sex with randoms or forget social distancing and thus spread virus.
Going out for a meal- tables are booked about 3 hours at a time, only with your own household. You leave after dinner shorter time out. Social distanced all staff wearing masks- no one at the bar. It makes total sense and should have been brought in from the start "
It's depressing how many people can't understand this. 
I mean not just on here. Many of my friends and colleagues are either incredibly stupid or deliberately 'misunderstanding' the rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
