Our local is trying to find out but the council doesn't know....or the amount of time you can stay after eating it. Clear as mud .
Here's Preston council's take on it. https://www.preston.gov.uk/article/...bs-Clubs-Bars-and-Restaurants-selling-alcohol
That's got to be the funniest article I've ever read. You can't have a sandwich and crisps but you can have burger and chips. What if my partner wants steak and chips and I want a panini, cos I'm not that hungry. They can serve her but not me. We're living through fc*king madness.
You want a sandwich? Fc*k off you Covid riddled cn*t. Lasagna you say? Then welcome my virus free friend.
It's always entertaining when some person/corporate body attempts to further define a phrase which is unsupported by any formal legal definition. Will they attempt to justify enforcement action on the back of this? I expect Preston solicitors will be rubbing their hands in anticipation!
All these “substantial” meals must have magical properties. If you have one of them with your pints, they must automatically protect you against catching COVID-19 or passing it on. Because you can’t sit in exactly the same place for exactly the same length of time with just your pints - that’s not allowed as they say you’re in danger of catching COVID or passing it on.
Am I reading that right that I, as a single man living alone, can't order a Chinese to be delivered to my house at 5 past 10?
Covid facts: 1) It's only transmitted after 10pm. 2) It lives on food items such as pies, burgers and curries, but not on packets of crisps or peanuts. Surely the virologists can do something with this information?
So one local council can't decide what a "substantial meal" is, but another one can. It looks like they're making it up as they go along...... oh, hang on a minute. A 7 year old could do a better job than this shower
The problem is it probably already is. Under old licensing law, there was such a thing as a supper hour extension and kids 14 plus consuming alcohol with "a substantial sit down meal". This has already been litigated in the higher courts and any enforcement in lower courts may follow these precedents Personally, I can see no reason for making the difference in sitting in a pub with a drink or sitting in a pub with steak and chips. The problem in general with all these prescriptive and baffling rules is two fold. Firstly, they seem to have replaced common sense both in government and in the populace. Secondly, they have eclipsed the central message.: Covid is potentially dangerous to you and those around you and everything you do is a risk. Whether that risk is worthwhile or correctly managed (not eliminated) will depend on the individual, balanced with the proposed activity. In the summer as lockdown eased I remember my friends saying "Its ok to go to the pub now, two households at a table. etc" No, it actually isn't. The rules were there purely for society as a whole. Just because the government says you can go to the pub and have a substantial meal doesn't mean you won't catch covid by doing so. You are at greater risk than if you'd stayed at home. That becomes a matter for the individual. I can only think what the government are trying to stop is crowds of people in town and city centre bars getting drunk and doing what drunk people do (we've all been there!)
I'm half Barnsley council estate rough arsed b*sta*rd and half middle class effeminate liberal fop. So everybody hates me.