When will we be able to go to the pub again?
Discussion
The Spruce Goose said:
Why does the state have to control everything?
Because ‘people’ have proven time and again that there is a dire lack of common sense theses days! If people are told what to do most will do it, either because they are clueless morons who cannot think for themselves or because they are ready to jump on the blame wagon if it goes wrong... (Side thought, Germany in the 30s and 40s, “we were just following orders!)I keep hearing people saying that “there is no threat from the virus”, “it’s just a mild case of the flu”!
Well, I have just returned from a trip to one of our factories in the south-west of Lombardy. I asked colleagues what they could tell about the virus they all report losing family or friends, the main thing they all reported was the speed that the contagion spread, a small community would report 1 or 2 cases in a day, 5 or 10 more the next, getting into dozens within a few days.
This is NOT the flu, maybe some people will only get mild symptoms, but many die!
So, how important is that trip to the pub?
bad company said:
Nicked from elsewhere but I’d say valid:-
All our current debates about lockdowns, social distancing and masks ultimately end up with one uncomfortable dilemma. Do we get on with our lives and put up with Covid-19? Or do we try to hide away from the risk of infection in the hope that one day it will go away?
Let us remind ourselves of how we got here. The Government was panicked into imposing a lockdown in March by Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College modelling report. The report is notorious for predicting a “reasonable worst-case scenario” of 510,000 deaths. But it made another important point which is often overlooked. A lockdown would only save a significant number of lives if it was kept in place indefinitely, until there was a vaccine, “which could be 18 months or more”. Otherwise, the virus would simply rebound, probably worse than ever, after it was lifted.
Professor Ferguson’s team had previously put the point like this. Aggressive isolation policies “merely push all transmission to the period after they are lifted, giving a delay but no substantial reduction in either peak incidence or overall attack rate”. The current spikes in countries that have lifted lockdowns, such as Spain, Germany, Japan and Hong Kong, bear this out. Some of them had longer and stricter lockdowns than we did.
It follows that, as far as the lockdown was concerned, there were only ever three coherent options. Option one was to have no lockdown. Option two was to have an indefinite lockdown, putting our whole national life into cold storage for the duration at unimaginable cost. Option three, which the Government chose, was to have a lockdown for long enough to allow the intensive care capacity of the NHS to catch up. In the event it caught up within a month.
The Government lifted the lockdown in June, six to eight weeks after it had lost any justification even by its own logic. But let us declare a truce on whether it was imposed too early or lifted too late. The question now is what happens next.
The Government’s position appears to be that the famous R-number can be kept below 1 without a lockdown but with social distancing. Some epidemiologists agree with this. Others do not. I do not propose to venture into those murky waters. But assuming that the Government is right, there are some awkward issues to be confronted.
One is that if the R-number can be kept below 1 with social distancing alone, then we could have done it in March instead of locking down. This is not hindsight. It is what Sweden did. It is fashionable to rubbish the Swedish approach. But their deaths per million of population are substantially lower than ours. Their hospitals were never overwhelmed. They never closed their schools. The predicted damage to their economy is about half of ours.
The most awkward question, however, is about the exit route. Assuming that social distancing can keep transmission of the disease low, it has to be kept in place indefinitely until there is a vaccine. What does this mean for our world?
Physical proximity to other people is not some sort of optional extra which can be ironed out of our culture. It is fundamental to our humanity. Conversation round a table, friendship, love and tears, children at play, most educational activity, depend on physical proximity. Our whole transport infrastructure, the buildings in which we work, play and eat out, depend on our being close together. With social distancing, physical cooperation becomes impossible. The social dimension of work all but disappears. The House of Commons, a great national forum in the crowded chamber, is reduced to a poor phone-in programme in a half-empty space. With social distancing there is no crowd around the bar, no singing at weddings, no orchestras or choirs, no theatre, no sport, no live audiences – in short, no collective activities, only the dismal solitude of the electronic screen. We have surrendered our liberty to the virus. Are we to surrender our humanity as well?
Masks, by comparison, are a minor issue. They are uncomfortable and depersonalising. They conflict with a basic instinct of Western society to interact visually, showing our faces. But if they encourage people to come out and live together again or to send their children to school, that can only be good. People will soon tire of them.
The brutal reality is the same, masks or no masks. We are going to have to live with Covid-19 whether we like it or not, unless and until there is an effective vaccine. And not just with Covid-19.
Shocking? Perhaps. But only because in Europe we have had a false sense of security for so long. In the last two decades there have been Mers and Sars. Before that there were Asian flu, Hong Kong flu, H1N1, and non-respiratory epidemic diseases like HIV, Ebola and Zika. All of them had higher case mortality than Covid-19. But, apart from HIV, they barely touched Europe.
This seems likely to change. International movement of people and other organisms is increasing. A major UK pandemic has been top of the National Risk Register since it was first published in 2008. It estimates that a new strain of flu could cause between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths in the UK and that emerging diseases, usually originating in animals, are a growing threat whose impact is unpredictable but may be very high.
Covid-19 is a serious disease, but historically it is at the bottom end of the scale. For any one under 50 the risk of death is tiny, less than for seasonal flu. In the great majority of cases the symptoms are mild or non-existent. Our ancestors lived with far worse epidemic diseases without rushing to put their heads in a bag. In other parts of the world they still do (world-wide, tuberculosis kills many more than Covid-19).
We all need to make our own personal risk assessments in the light of our age and state of health and the sort of activities in which we engage. For some people, social distancing will remain a sensible precaution. The rest of us should respect their choice but drop it and get on with our lives. We cannot keep running away.
All our current debates about lockdowns, social distancing and masks ultimately end up with one uncomfortable dilemma. Do we get on with our lives and put up with Covid-19? Or do we try to hide away from the risk of infection in the hope that one day it will go away?
Let us remind ourselves of how we got here. The Government was panicked into imposing a lockdown in March by Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College modelling report. The report is notorious for predicting a “reasonable worst-case scenario” of 510,000 deaths. But it made another important point which is often overlooked. A lockdown would only save a significant number of lives if it was kept in place indefinitely, until there was a vaccine, “which could be 18 months or more”. Otherwise, the virus would simply rebound, probably worse than ever, after it was lifted.
Professor Ferguson’s team had previously put the point like this. Aggressive isolation policies “merely push all transmission to the period after they are lifted, giving a delay but no substantial reduction in either peak incidence or overall attack rate”. The current spikes in countries that have lifted lockdowns, such as Spain, Germany, Japan and Hong Kong, bear this out. Some of them had longer and stricter lockdowns than we did.
It follows that, as far as the lockdown was concerned, there were only ever three coherent options. Option one was to have no lockdown. Option two was to have an indefinite lockdown, putting our whole national life into cold storage for the duration at unimaginable cost. Option three, which the Government chose, was to have a lockdown for long enough to allow the intensive care capacity of the NHS to catch up. In the event it caught up within a month.
The Government lifted the lockdown in June, six to eight weeks after it had lost any justification even by its own logic. But let us declare a truce on whether it was imposed too early or lifted too late. The question now is what happens next.
The Government’s position appears to be that the famous R-number can be kept below 1 without a lockdown but with social distancing. Some epidemiologists agree with this. Others do not. I do not propose to venture into those murky waters. But assuming that the Government is right, there are some awkward issues to be confronted.
One is that if the R-number can be kept below 1 with social distancing alone, then we could have done it in March instead of locking down. This is not hindsight. It is what Sweden did. It is fashionable to rubbish the Swedish approach. But their deaths per million of population are substantially lower than ours. Their hospitals were never overwhelmed. They never closed their schools. The predicted damage to their economy is about half of ours.
The most awkward question, however, is about the exit route. Assuming that social distancing can keep transmission of the disease low, it has to be kept in place indefinitely until there is a vaccine. What does this mean for our world?
Physical proximity to other people is not some sort of optional extra which can be ironed out of our culture. It is fundamental to our humanity. Conversation round a table, friendship, love and tears, children at play, most educational activity, depend on physical proximity. Our whole transport infrastructure, the buildings in which we work, play and eat out, depend on our being close together. With social distancing, physical cooperation becomes impossible. The social dimension of work all but disappears. The House of Commons, a great national forum in the crowded chamber, is reduced to a poor phone-in programme in a half-empty space. With social distancing there is no crowd around the bar, no singing at weddings, no orchestras or choirs, no theatre, no sport, no live audiences – in short, no collective activities, only the dismal solitude of the electronic screen. We have surrendered our liberty to the virus. Are we to surrender our humanity as well?
Masks, by comparison, are a minor issue. They are uncomfortable and depersonalising. They conflict with a basic instinct of Western society to interact visually, showing our faces. But if they encourage people to come out and live together again or to send their children to school, that can only be good. People will soon tire of them.
The brutal reality is the same, masks or no masks. We are going to have to live with Covid-19 whether we like it or not, unless and until there is an effective vaccine. And not just with Covid-19.
Shocking? Perhaps. But only because in Europe we have had a false sense of security for so long. In the last two decades there have been Mers and Sars. Before that there were Asian flu, Hong Kong flu, H1N1, and non-respiratory epidemic diseases like HIV, Ebola and Zika. All of them had higher case mortality than Covid-19. But, apart from HIV, they barely touched Europe.
This seems likely to change. International movement of people and other organisms is increasing. A major UK pandemic has been top of the National Risk Register since it was first published in 2008. It estimates that a new strain of flu could cause between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths in the UK and that emerging diseases, usually originating in animals, are a growing threat whose impact is unpredictable but may be very high.
Covid-19 is a serious disease, but historically it is at the bottom end of the scale. For any one under 50 the risk of death is tiny, less than for seasonal flu. In the great majority of cases the symptoms are mild or non-existent. Our ancestors lived with far worse epidemic diseases without rushing to put their heads in a bag. In other parts of the world they still do (world-wide, tuberculosis kills many more than Covid-19).
We all need to make our own personal risk assessments in the light of our age and state of health and the sort of activities in which we engage. For some people, social distancing will remain a sensible precaution. The rest of us should respect their choice but drop it and get on with our lives. We cannot keep running away.
to all of that. Especially the last paragraph. wst said:
I am curious to see how long pubs can afford to remain open when operating vastly under-capacity. They are heavily reliant on packing in the crowds, which they just can't do at the moment.
Not long, first they were forced to make the smokers unwelcome, and now this 
I cant see many pubs surviving much more of this. Once the remaining regular pub trade gets used to not going to the pub, it will be game over
I am in that boat, I used to go atleast once a week, not really fussed anymore.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I am in that boat, I used to go atleast once a week, not really fussed anymore.
I think this might prove to be the biggest issue in the long term. Many people simply do not seem that interested anymore. I love going out though so will continue to do so for as long as I am allowed. Me and some mates went out yesterday, had to book both places, the second place was rubbish though so we tried to do our own thing, but queueing anywhere decent, we ended up getting takeaway drinks and drinking (nice) beer out of milk bottle cartons in a field!I think the pubs are on borrowed time. As long as the summer holds out they can get a decent revenue in by adhering to the rules with pub gardens. Most of my local pubs (rurals) have closed their car parks to make the gardens bigger. On the few times I’ve been they’ve been fairly busy.
As soon as the weather turns in October time and people don’t want to be outside anymore, their revenue will plummet.
As soon as the weather turns in October time and people don’t want to be outside anymore, their revenue will plummet.
survivalist said:
bad company said:
Nicked from elsewhere but I’d say valid:-
All our current debates about lockdowns, social distancing and masks ultimately end up with one uncomfortable dilemma. Do we get on with our lives and put up with Covid-19? Or do we try to hide away from the risk of infection in the hope that one day it will go away?
Let us remind ourselves of how we got here. The Government was panicked into imposing a lockdown in March by Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College modelling report. The report is notorious for predicting a “reasonable worst-case scenario” of 510,000 deaths. But it made another important point which is often overlooked. A lockdown would only save a significant number of lives if it was kept in place indefinitely, until there was a vaccine, “which could be 18 months or more”. Otherwise, the virus would simply rebound, probably worse than ever, after it was lifted.
Professor Ferguson’s team had previously put the point like this. Aggressive isolation policies “merely push all transmission to the period after they are lifted, giving a delay but no substantial reduction in either peak incidence or overall attack rate”. The current spikes in countries that have lifted lockdowns, such as Spain, Germany, Japan and Hong Kong, bear this out. Some of them had longer and stricter lockdowns than we did.
It follows that, as far as the lockdown was concerned, there were only ever three coherent options. Option one was to have no lockdown. Option two was to have an indefinite lockdown, putting our whole national life into cold storage for the duration at unimaginable cost. Option three, which the Government chose, was to have a lockdown for long enough to allow the intensive care capacity of the NHS to catch up. In the event it caught up within a month.
The Government lifted the lockdown in June, six to eight weeks after it had lost any justification even by its own logic. But let us declare a truce on whether it was imposed too early or lifted too late. The question now is what happens next.
The Government’s position appears to be that the famous R-number can be kept below 1 without a lockdown but with social distancing. Some epidemiologists agree with this. Others do not. I do not propose to venture into those murky waters. But assuming that the Government is right, there are some awkward issues to be confronted.
One is that if the R-number can be kept below 1 with social distancing alone, then we could have done it in March instead of locking down. This is not hindsight. It is what Sweden did. It is fashionable to rubbish the Swedish approach. But their deaths per million of population are substantially lower than ours. Their hospitals were never overwhelmed. They never closed their schools. The predicted damage to their economy is about half of ours.
The most awkward question, however, is about the exit route. Assuming that social distancing can keep transmission of the disease low, it has to be kept in place indefinitely until there is a vaccine. What does this mean for our world?
Physical proximity to other people is not some sort of optional extra which can be ironed out of our culture. It is fundamental to our humanity. Conversation round a table, friendship, love and tears, children at play, most educational activity, depend on physical proximity. Our whole transport infrastructure, the buildings in which we work, play and eat out, depend on our being close together. With social distancing, physical cooperation becomes impossible. The social dimension of work all but disappears. The House of Commons, a great national forum in the crowded chamber, is reduced to a poor phone-in programme in a half-empty space. With social distancing there is no crowd around the bar, no singing at weddings, no orchestras or choirs, no theatre, no sport, no live audiences – in short, no collective activities, only the dismal solitude of the electronic screen. We have surrendered our liberty to the virus. Are we to surrender our humanity as well?
Masks, by comparison, are a minor issue. They are uncomfortable and depersonalising. They conflict with a basic instinct of Western society to interact visually, showing our faces. But if they encourage people to come out and live together again or to send their children to school, that can only be good. People will soon tire of them.
The brutal reality is the same, masks or no masks. We are going to have to live with Covid-19 whether we like it or not, unless and until there is an effective vaccine. And not just with Covid-19.
Shocking? Perhaps. But only because in Europe we have had a false sense of security for so long. In the last two decades there have been Mers and Sars. Before that there were Asian flu, Hong Kong flu, H1N1, and non-respiratory epidemic diseases like HIV, Ebola and Zika. All of them had higher case mortality than Covid-19. But, apart from HIV, they barely touched Europe.
This seems likely to change. International movement of people and other organisms is increasing. A major UK pandemic has been top of the National Risk Register since it was first published in 2008. It estimates that a new strain of flu could cause between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths in the UK and that emerging diseases, usually originating in animals, are a growing threat whose impact is unpredictable but may be very high.
Covid-19 is a serious disease, but historically it is at the bottom end of the scale. For any one under 50 the risk of death is tiny, less than for seasonal flu. In the great majority of cases the symptoms are mild or non-existent. Our ancestors lived with far worse epidemic diseases without rushing to put their heads in a bag. In other parts of the world they still do (world-wide, tuberculosis kills many more than Covid-19).
We all need to make our own personal risk assessments in the light of our age and state of health and the sort of activities in which we engage. For some people, social distancing will remain a sensible precaution. The rest of us should respect their choice but drop it and get on with our lives. We cannot keep running away.
All our current debates about lockdowns, social distancing and masks ultimately end up with one uncomfortable dilemma. Do we get on with our lives and put up with Covid-19? Or do we try to hide away from the risk of infection in the hope that one day it will go away?
Let us remind ourselves of how we got here. The Government was panicked into imposing a lockdown in March by Professor Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College modelling report. The report is notorious for predicting a “reasonable worst-case scenario” of 510,000 deaths. But it made another important point which is often overlooked. A lockdown would only save a significant number of lives if it was kept in place indefinitely, until there was a vaccine, “which could be 18 months or more”. Otherwise, the virus would simply rebound, probably worse than ever, after it was lifted.
Professor Ferguson’s team had previously put the point like this. Aggressive isolation policies “merely push all transmission to the period after they are lifted, giving a delay but no substantial reduction in either peak incidence or overall attack rate”. The current spikes in countries that have lifted lockdowns, such as Spain, Germany, Japan and Hong Kong, bear this out. Some of them had longer and stricter lockdowns than we did.
It follows that, as far as the lockdown was concerned, there were only ever three coherent options. Option one was to have no lockdown. Option two was to have an indefinite lockdown, putting our whole national life into cold storage for the duration at unimaginable cost. Option three, which the Government chose, was to have a lockdown for long enough to allow the intensive care capacity of the NHS to catch up. In the event it caught up within a month.
The Government lifted the lockdown in June, six to eight weeks after it had lost any justification even by its own logic. But let us declare a truce on whether it was imposed too early or lifted too late. The question now is what happens next.
The Government’s position appears to be that the famous R-number can be kept below 1 without a lockdown but with social distancing. Some epidemiologists agree with this. Others do not. I do not propose to venture into those murky waters. But assuming that the Government is right, there are some awkward issues to be confronted.
One is that if the R-number can be kept below 1 with social distancing alone, then we could have done it in March instead of locking down. This is not hindsight. It is what Sweden did. It is fashionable to rubbish the Swedish approach. But their deaths per million of population are substantially lower than ours. Their hospitals were never overwhelmed. They never closed their schools. The predicted damage to their economy is about half of ours.
The most awkward question, however, is about the exit route. Assuming that social distancing can keep transmission of the disease low, it has to be kept in place indefinitely until there is a vaccine. What does this mean for our world?
Physical proximity to other people is not some sort of optional extra which can be ironed out of our culture. It is fundamental to our humanity. Conversation round a table, friendship, love and tears, children at play, most educational activity, depend on physical proximity. Our whole transport infrastructure, the buildings in which we work, play and eat out, depend on our being close together. With social distancing, physical cooperation becomes impossible. The social dimension of work all but disappears. The House of Commons, a great national forum in the crowded chamber, is reduced to a poor phone-in programme in a half-empty space. With social distancing there is no crowd around the bar, no singing at weddings, no orchestras or choirs, no theatre, no sport, no live audiences – in short, no collective activities, only the dismal solitude of the electronic screen. We have surrendered our liberty to the virus. Are we to surrender our humanity as well?
Masks, by comparison, are a minor issue. They are uncomfortable and depersonalising. They conflict with a basic instinct of Western society to interact visually, showing our faces. But if they encourage people to come out and live together again or to send their children to school, that can only be good. People will soon tire of them.
The brutal reality is the same, masks or no masks. We are going to have to live with Covid-19 whether we like it or not, unless and until there is an effective vaccine. And not just with Covid-19.
Shocking? Perhaps. But only because in Europe we have had a false sense of security for so long. In the last two decades there have been Mers and Sars. Before that there were Asian flu, Hong Kong flu, H1N1, and non-respiratory epidemic diseases like HIV, Ebola and Zika. All of them had higher case mortality than Covid-19. But, apart from HIV, they barely touched Europe.
This seems likely to change. International movement of people and other organisms is increasing. A major UK pandemic has been top of the National Risk Register since it was first published in 2008. It estimates that a new strain of flu could cause between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths in the UK and that emerging diseases, usually originating in animals, are a growing threat whose impact is unpredictable but may be very high.
Covid-19 is a serious disease, but historically it is at the bottom end of the scale. For any one under 50 the risk of death is tiny, less than for seasonal flu. In the great majority of cases the symptoms are mild or non-existent. Our ancestors lived with far worse epidemic diseases without rushing to put their heads in a bag. In other parts of the world they still do (world-wide, tuberculosis kills many more than Covid-19).
We all need to make our own personal risk assessments in the light of our age and state of health and the sort of activities in which we engage. For some people, social distancing will remain a sensible precaution. The rest of us should respect their choice but drop it and get on with our lives. We cannot keep running away.
to all of that. Especially the last paragraph. bad company said:
Lots of mainly sensible points.
However 6 degrees of separation plays an important part. On Monday I'm working in 4 residences,2 of which are HMOs
I will then come home,share my house with my wife who works as a carer, many of her clients are at high risk.
Should I encounter anyone who is a covid carrier, then through the chain somebody could end up infected and potentially die.
So, yes the point about the majority of the population being largely unaffected is valid, but remember the transmission risk is still very much there, and as we open up people really need to stay on top of hygiene. You may be fine, but if you are infected or carrying the infection it could end up anywhere
Govt policy and their messaging is a mess, which does not help, people don't know what they can and cant do, the BBC website is saying the pubs have to close for the schools to open, yet they fail to explain why. Are the year 4 after school drinking club spreading the virus down the dog and duck? Its a mess, so you can see why many are concerned as the authorities are really not inspiring confidence.
bristolracer said:
However 6 degrees of separation plays an important part.
On Monday I'm working in 4 residences,2 of which are HMOs
I will then come home,share my house with my wife who works as a carer, many of her clients are at high risk.
Should I encounter anyone who is a covid carrier, then through the chain somebody could end up infected and potentially die.
So, yes the point about the majority of the population being largely unaffected is valid, but remember the transmission risk is still very much there, and as we open up people really need to stay on top of hygiene. You may be fine, but if you are infected or carrying the infection it could end up anywhere
Govt policy and their messaging is a mess, which does not help, people don't know what they can and cant do, the BBC website is saying the pubs have to close for the schools to open, yet they fail to explain why. Are the year 4 after school drinking club spreading the virus down the dog and duck? Its a mess, so you can see why many are concerned as the authorities are really not inspiring confidence.
That’s probably more to do with the shockingly poor BBC journalism than lack of clarity from the government. I believe the story came from someone in the shadow cabinet suggesting something and now the BBC are broadcasting it as news. That leads to all the confused messages.On Monday I'm working in 4 residences,2 of which are HMOs
I will then come home,share my house with my wife who works as a carer, many of her clients are at high risk.
Should I encounter anyone who is a covid carrier, then through the chain somebody could end up infected and potentially die.
So, yes the point about the majority of the population being largely unaffected is valid, but remember the transmission risk is still very much there, and as we open up people really need to stay on top of hygiene. You may be fine, but if you are infected or carrying the infection it could end up anywhere
Govt policy and their messaging is a mess, which does not help, people don't know what they can and cant do, the BBC website is saying the pubs have to close for the schools to open, yet they fail to explain why. Are the year 4 after school drinking club spreading the virus down the dog and duck? Its a mess, so you can see why many are concerned as the authorities are really not inspiring confidence.
Shuvi McTupya said:
wst said:
I am curious to see how long pubs can afford to remain open when operating vastly under-capacity. They are heavily reliant on packing in the crowds, which they just can't do at the moment.
Not long, first they were forced to make the smokers unwelcome, and now this I cant see many pubs surviving much more of this. Once the remaining regular pub trade gets used to not going to the pub, it will be game over
I am in that boat, I used to go atleast once a week, not really fussed anymore.
It's quite staggering the entitlement of smokers who used to make it out to be the non smokers that were the issue and they should just f
k off if they didn't want to inhale all that smoke and stink like an ashtray. Some pubs are doing well out of this. The places with outdoor facilities are very popular. People with restricted indoor space aren't as popular rather than the restrictions.
Uggers said:
Driver101 said:
Some pubs are doing well out of this. The places with outdoor facilities are very popular. People with restricted indoor space aren't as popular rather than the restrictions.
Hopefully they do well in the next 6-8 weeks as after that they are all in for a rough rideWhen they've got the choice people are flocking to the pubs with outdoor facilities.
wiliferus said:
I think the pubs are on borrowed time. As long as the summer holds out they can get a decent revenue in by adhering to the rules with pub gardens. Most of my local pubs (rurals) have closed their car parks to make the gardens bigger. On the few times I’ve been they’ve been fairly busy.
As soon as the weather turns in October time and people don’t want to be outside anymore, their revenue will plummet.
It's a bit like car dealers at the moment (generally speaking) the ones that survive will be part of a massive group, so a bit more insulated from your independent one. In other words I think only Wetherspoons will survive (shudder) as they can maintain bargaining for low prices and the template works everywhere.As soon as the weather turns in October time and people don’t want to be outside anymore, their revenue will plummet.
That's not to say they wont suffer either.
Pubs are more than needing a beer.
They can and are wonderful places to socialise.
Plenty offer really good food and lovely grounds and building.
Drinks too are nice - be they soft coffees teas or booze.
Places to meet family and friends and sometimes to meet a new sexual partner or hook up
Places to also settle disputes
The father and son beer and catch up
The workplace meeting.
The place where memorable nights happen.
The place to go before and after the theatre
The place to hold parties (be it adult or kids making use of the great space).
Now Imagine a U.K. world with no pubs period.
Home drinking is all well and good very cheap too
They can and are wonderful places to socialise.
Plenty offer really good food and lovely grounds and building.
Drinks too are nice - be they soft coffees teas or booze.
Places to meet family and friends and sometimes to meet a new sexual partner or hook up
Places to also settle disputes
The father and son beer and catch up
The workplace meeting.
The place where memorable nights happen.
The place to go before and after the theatre
The place to hold parties (be it adult or kids making use of the great space).
Now Imagine a U.K. world with no pubs period.
Home drinking is all well and good very cheap too
Welshbeef said:
Pubs are more than needing a beer.
They can and are wonderful places to socialise.
Plenty offer really good food and lovely grounds and building.
Drinks too are nice - be they soft coffees teas or booze.
Places to meet family and friends and sometimes to meet a new sexual partner or hook up
Places to also settle disputes
The father and son beer and catch up
The workplace meeting.
The place where memorable nights happen.
The place to go before and after the theatre
The place to hold parties (be it adult or kids making use of the great space).
Now Imagine a U.K. world with no pubs period.
Home drinking is all well and good very cheap too
For me, the prospect sounds grim. No doubt though that just makes us alcoholics in some peoples eyes, luckily, I don’t really care what ‘they’ think. The UK will very much be a worse place without them.They can and are wonderful places to socialise.
Plenty offer really good food and lovely grounds and building.
Drinks too are nice - be they soft coffees teas or booze.
Places to meet family and friends and sometimes to meet a new sexual partner or hook up
Places to also settle disputes
The father and son beer and catch up
The workplace meeting.
The place where memorable nights happen.
The place to go before and after the theatre
The place to hold parties (be it adult or kids making use of the great space).
Now Imagine a U.K. world with no pubs period.
Home drinking is all well and good very cheap too
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff