In Tier 2 Pubs Can Only Open If Serving Meals

[dave50]

There will be a lot of very long lunches with people eating very slow.

[iluvmargie]

I only ever go to a pub to eat!

[mushroom25]

the answer is.....
https://twitter.com/deserterblog/status/1331978132023349249/photo/1
:-)

[Jackdaw33]

As far as I am aware, although they can open only if they serve meals, there is no obligation on anyone to buy one.

[iluvmargie]

They wouldn't be allowed to serve you just a drink Jackdaw.

[ubasses]

There is Jackdaw. Drinks can only be served with a substantial meal and you have to leave when you have finished eating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55109932

[dave50]

Are you sure that's right Jackdaw? The only info I could find was that as soon as you finish your meal you have to leave.

[Jackdaw33]

I have heard differently. Who's to know? You may have already bought a meal and your plates cleared away. Just another example of these ludicrous rules. How does buying a meal lessen the risk of catching the virus?

[gulliver1]

So then . if you want only a drink you are a risk,if you have a drink and a meal you are not a risk. right then.

[Jackdaw33]

OK, then. You buy a meal and leave it in front of you uneaten while you drink to your heart's content.

[iluvmargie]

Just more stupid 'rules' to be obeyed without question!!!

[gulliver1]

J/D 14.18 , Good idea, one can drink far more on an empty stomach.

[ichkeria]

In fact it’s not as daft as it seems: drinking with a sit down meal is a different behaviour pattern to just social drinking and therefore deemed “safer”
They just don’t explain it very well

[diddlydo]

Scenario - 2 people from same household go into pub. Don't really want to eat substantial meal as have small appetites. Is it OK to share one substantial meal and carry on boozing while eating very slowly?

[drmorgans]

No, because they would both have to order a meal.

[diddlydo]

Where in the government rules does it say that?

[New Judge]

//They just don’t explain it very well..//

No they don't.

Most people who have a meal out in a pub or restaurant do not simply get up and leave as soon as they have finished their last mouthful. There's usually wine left to be consumed and a digestif may be ordered (which in my view is "part of the meal", as mentioned in the earlier legislation). In my case I wait in the pub until the next (infrequent) bus is due. If staff try to oust customers as soon as they have eaten their last mouthful there will be many arguments.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand the basis of the "drinks only with a substantial meal" edict. However, this latest announcement has been made by "a Downing Street source." In the earlier "Tier" legislation there was no mention of patrons having to leave as soon as they had finished eating. Quite honestly it is a ridiculous notion. To serve customers alcohol with a meal but then allow them to remain for some time afterwards ordering more booze would defeat the object of the legislation (which, IMHO, is pointless enough as it stands, but that's by the way). But to insist they leave as soon as they have finished eating is simply ridiculous. I imagine this "opinion" (for that's all it is) has been voiced by a spokesperson who has engaged mouth before brain. But how unusual is that in this entire fiasco?

[Zacs-Master]

‘ If staff try to oust customers as soon as they have eaten their last mouthful there will be many arguments.’

Well, the customer would be being disrespectful to the owners trying to keep their business afloat with legal obligations in place.

[Zacs-Master]

....in very trying times (I meant to add)

[iluvmargie]

I bet the owners think it's all a load of bull anyway. If customers are going to be hassled and expected to leave the premises as soon as they finish eating, it hardly seems worthwhile opening in the first place!

[Zacs-Master]

Customers go in, in full knowledge that they can only have the table until they finish eating. It just takes a little bit of compassion and understanding to enable the business to survive.