Eat out to help out question.
Discussion
Dagnir said:
Is it legal for restaurants to run cut down menus and not serve the more expensive and in demand food, during this scheme?
I'm sure it probably is but just curious...
Of course it is legal. I'm sure it probably is but just curious...
Margins are reduced as it is given the impact to spacing, increased costs for sanitising, etc
Lots of big brands have been practicing "shrinkflation" in recent years even pre-pandemic.
Dagnir said:
Is it legal for restaurants to run cut down menus and not serve the more expensive and in demand food, during this scheme?
I'm sure it probably is but just curious...
Of course it's legal, they can have what ever menu they want!I'm sure it probably is but just curious...
However why do you think restaurants want to run cut down menus and not serve the more expensive and in demand food? They want to sell the most expensive menu possible. It's not the restaurant that cops the bill for the 50% reduction, it's us (the government). The more they sell the more they make, they don't care who pays for it!
If restaurants are going to play the system they will put the price up, not down!!
The question is indeed utterly bizarre. I cannot even begin to conceive how anyone could think that a restaurant offering fewer items than it used to offer could be illegal. Does the OP perhaps think that the UK is a sort of North Korea, with State regulation of every single thing in life?
Yeah it did come across a bit strange, on reflection.
I must have rushed it in the end, as I should have been far, far more specific.
I was actually curious about the morality of it (pondering whether it's in the spirit of the scheme) and then also the legality of lying about stock, in order to save it for non-scheme days.
I must have rushed it in the end, as I should have been far, far more specific.
I was actually curious about the morality of it (pondering whether it's in the spirit of the scheme) and then also the legality of lying about stock, in order to save it for non-scheme days.
Why would they not want to sell more expensive and in demand food, on days when the government is chipping in ?
There is no part of the scheme that makes them carry any of the cost, so if there was a dubious practice going on then it would probably claiming to be out of stock of the cheaper items trying to push people to spend more, not the other way round.
There is no part of the scheme that makes them carry any of the cost, so if there was a dubious practice going on then it would probably claiming to be out of stock of the cheaper items trying to push people to spend more, not the other way round.
Wacky Racer said:
What's to stop a dodgy Restaurant saying they have sold 200 meals a day when they have only sold 75 and claiming 50% of 125 meals off the Government?
Presumably, they have to submit till receipts etc?
Just wondered......
Presumably, they have to submit till receipts etc?
Just wondered......
They are meant to be recommending card payments over cash, so anyone with a lot more supposedly cash transactions than anywhere else is going to stick out.
They are meant to be collecting names and phone numbers incase they are needed for track and trace. So HMRC could start digging into these records, although probably more of a deterrent rather than something that will really happen.
There's the potential for massive fraud within this scheme especially for any non chain that doesn't input into an EPOS straight away when dealing with a customer, anyone being dishonest could easily create ghost tables.
Dagnir said:
Yeah it did come across a bit strange, on reflection.
I must have rushed it in the end, as I should have been far, far more specific.
I was actually curious about the morality of it (pondering whether it's in the spirit of the scheme) and then also the legality of lying about stock, in order to save it for non-scheme days.
The scheme itself is immoral considering it's obesity which is the main issue with Covid deaths under the age of 80 plus flys in the face of social distancing, it's just a populist move which overall doesn't help many businesses as they are only busy three days out of the seven plus people also tend to drink less early in the week which is where restaurants make their margin. I must have rushed it in the end, as I should have been far, far more specific.
I was actually curious about the morality of it (pondering whether it's in the spirit of the scheme) and then also the legality of lying about stock, in order to save it for non-scheme days.
untakenname said:
The scheme itself is immoral considering it's obesity which is the main issue with Covid deaths under the age of 80 plus flys in the face of social distancing, it's just a populist move which overall doesn't help many businesses as they are only busy three days out of the seven plus people also tend to drink less early in the week which is where restaurants make their margin.
Some people are obese so it is immoral to promote eating out, especially when people aren't buying enough alcohol, but also because it doesn't go far enough because restaurants aren't getting enough business the rest of the week, but shouldn't be happening at all because these restaurants should be closed to stop the virus.Why don't you pick a side and stick with it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff