Pubs

Status
Not open for further replies.
SurreyMackem said:
To a certain extent the type of meal is irrelevant as you can't socialise outside your household indoors, it's table service, there is a two hour limit and you have to drink up when you finish your food.
Click to expand...

Ah, so there is a time limit on how long one can spend in a pub too?
 


Secret Visage said:
The thread title is pubs, unless I'm mistaken.

Any chance the gym / Jaguar / name calling / fatty outing can be taken to PM by the people involved in it?

Back ON TOPIC, I've been talking to a wet only pub owner who reckons if the Christmas and New Year trade is taken from them, they will not reopen in 2021.
Click to expand...

In Sunderland.? What about this grant thing , is that enough to keep them above water ?
 
I’m f***ing pig sick of pubs who don’t do food actively looking for work around to the restrictions so they can sell things like scotch eggs and let people drink for 2 hours. All it’s going to do is keep everyone else in tier 2 for longer.
 
Secret Visage said:
Back ON TOPIC, I've been talking to a wet only pub owner who reckons if the Christmas and New Year trade is taken from them, they will not reopen in 2021.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there are plenty, on here and elsewhere, who don't give a monkey's about pubs and clubs closing - for them, those particular businesses and livelihoods are a price they are willing to pay.
 
tunstallhill said:
In Sunderland.? What about this grant thing , is that enough to keep them above water ?
Click to expand...

Some of these big old pubs that have been there for nearly a century cost a fortune to heat. They still need to be cleaned and looked after when closed. A couple of grand for staff on minimum wage won't touch the sides when they have heating and so many other costs to bare also.

The Tories won't be bothered though. Fewer city centre pubs and pubs in general mean fewer drunks on the street so fewer police needed
 
Last edited:
Horace Cope said:
Some of these big old pubs that have been there for nearly a decade cost a fortune to heat. They still need to be cleaned and looked after when closed. A couple of grand for staff on minimum wage won't touch the sides when they have heating and so many other costs to bare also.

The Tories won't be bothered though. Fewer city centre pubs and pubs in general mean fewer drunks on the street so fewer police needed
Click to expand...


Do you mean nearly a century?
 
Horace Cope said:
Some of these big old pubs that have been there for nearly a century cost a fortune to heat. They still need to be cleaned and looked after when closed. A couple of grand for staff on minimum wage won't touch the sides when they have heating and so many other costs to bare also.

The Tories won't be bothered though. Fewer city centre pubs and pubs in general mean fewer drunks on the street so fewer police needed
Click to expand...

And the other plus sides for the Tories is the continuation of the destruction of working class communities , and if anyone still does want a drink, there'll be a few chain pubs in each town, owned by Tory donors, to fill that gap.
DoctorMick said:
I’m f***ing pig sick of pubs who don’t do food actively looking for work around to the restrictions so they can sell things like scotch eggs and let people drink for 2 hours. All it’s going to do is keep everyone else in tier 2 for longer.
Click to expand...

Someone sitting at a table having a pint with a scotch egg instead of a lasagne will make not one iota of difference to the rate of infection. Classic Tory divide and rule tactics.

If a pub wants to work within the rules to make itself a viable business then they are welcome to. No different to the super-rich using legal loopholes to avoid paying billions in taxes that would actually make a difference to society
Secret Visage said:
It definitely helped short term, but finger in the dam longer term.
Click to expand...

How though, surely the government aid is enough to keep each closed pub afloat week by week ?
 
Last edited:
tunstallhill said:
Someone sitting at a table having a pint with a scotch egg instead of a lasagne will make not one iota of difference to the rate of infection. Classic Tory divide and rule tactics.

If a pub wants to work within the rules to make itself a viable business then they are welcome to. No different to the super-rich using legal loopholes to avoid paying billions in taxes that would actually make a difference to society
Click to expand...
You don’t see a difference in risk of transmission between someone having a lasagne with a pint and someone having a scotch egg and 5 pints? These are wet led pubs working out ways of selling as much beer as possible, it’s irresponsible...I can understand the temptation to do it all too well but it’ll make things worse for everyone imo.
 
tunstallhill said:
And the other plus sides for the Tories is the continuation of the destruction of working class communities , and if anyone still does want a drink, there'll be a few chain pubs in each town, owned by Tory donors, to fill that gap.


Someone sitting at a table having a pint with a scotch egg instead of a lasagne will make not one iota of difference to the rate of infection. Classic Tory divide and rule tactics.

If a pub wants to work within the rules to make itself a viable business then they are welcome to. No different to the super-rich using legal loopholes to avoid paying billions in taxes that would actually make a difference to society


How though, surely the government aid is enough to keep each closed pub afloat week by week ?
Click to expand...
All depends on their outgoings, which though is a bit of stating the obvious, is relevant. Bank holidays and the Christmas / New Year period are where the money is made and where the owners / directors make their own money.
 
DoctorMick said:
You don’t see a difference in risk of transmission between someone having a lasagne with a pint and someone having a scotch egg and 5 pints? These are wet led pubs working out ways of selling as much beer as possible, it’s irresponsible...I can understand the temptation to do it all too well but it’ll make things worse for everyone imo.
Click to expand...

Ok, the 'risk of transmission' increases by a miniscule amount . When looked at in context with how the rest of the country is running at the moment , particularly schools and supermarkets and most work places, the effects of someone sat at the same table with the same person, for either 2 hours and 2 pints or 5 hours and 5 pints is proportionally miniscule

Like I said, divide and conquer.
Secret Visage said:
All depends on their outgoings, which though is a bit of stating the obvious, is relevant. Bank holidays and the Christmas / New Year period are where the money is made and where the owners / directors make their own money.
Click to expand...

Isn't the grant intended to see them over though ? Obviously there won't be much profit making going on, but why would you go out of business if you are having your overheads covered? Aren't they just in a state of limbo as such ?
 
Last edited:
tunstallhill said:
Ok, the 'risk of transmission' increases by a miniscule amount . When looked at in context with how the rest of the country is running at the moment , particularly schools and supermarkets and most work places, the effects of someone sat at the same table with the same person, for either 2 hours and 2 pints or 5 hours and 5 pints is proportionally miniscule

Like I said, divide and conquer.
Click to expand...
More pubs being open also leads to more people going out and more social contact. I get that schools, supermarkets and workplaces are the primary places where the disease spreads and something needs to be done about that but the rules for pubs are in place and it’s obvious what the intention of the rules are so places shouldn’t be taking the piss.
 
DoctorMick said:
More pubs being open also leads to more people going out and more social contact. I get that schools, supermarkets and workplaces are the primary places where the disease spreads and something needs to be done about that but the rules for pubs are in place and it’s obvious what the intention of the rules are so places shouldn’t be taking the piss.
Click to expand...

So what is the right amount of pubs to be open then ? Not too many that disease will spread, but just enough to get off the government's support fund, not enough to actaully allow people to use them, but just enough to give the Tory boys something to blame if the numbers rise again?

People are, in general, being sensible in pubs. Our local was safe as houses - track and trace, table service , masks when moving around, all the protocols, but it can't open. And now we are having serious discussions on national TV as to whether a scotch egg permits a citizen to drink beer in a pub or not. It's f***ing mental all this shit man , haway

Its a lazy and immaculate generalision to state that most people who would go to the pub if open will act irresponsibly. It's simply not true
 
tunstallhill said:
Ok, the 'risk of transmission' increases by a miniscule amount . When looked at in context with how the rest of the country is running at the moment , particularly schools and supermarkets and most work places, the effects of someone sat at the same table with the same person, for either 2 hours and 2 pints or 5 hours and 5 pints is proportionally miniscule

Like I said, divide and conquer.


Isn't the grant intended to see them over though ? Obviously there won't be much profit making going on, but why would you go out of business if you are having your overheads covered? Aren't they just in a state of limbo as such ?
Click to expand...
The overheads aren't fully covered in some of the cases I'm aware of and that shortfall has to made up from somewhere.

Staff costs, bar Ers NIC and Ers Pension and holiday accrual are covered, but the owners who draw as dividends aren't on furlough.

It's not uniform completely across the trade.
 
I’m surprised pubs in tier 2 are even bothering opening. The small number of Couples and families going out for a meal and a beer will barely let them break even.
 
The King of Um said:
Sigh. Here we go again. Percentage of over 65s:

Finland 21.8%
Sweden 20%
Denmark 19%
UK 18.4%
Norway 17.2%

Do explain to us again how the proportion of Sweden's elderly is more similar to the UK than to other Nordic countries...😀

Mind, you have form for this...
Click to expand...


Errm....your definition of elderly is incorrect. The average casualty age pretty much anywhere, is 80 to 85. So that is the age, 80 plus, that are the vulnerable elderly, not 65 year old that in many cases can still do a day's graft FFS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top