Where is the substance?

On Friday I went to the pub - for the first time since Lockdown II 'ended' - for a few pints and, of course, a substantial meal as is now required by law.

These are profitable times for Britain's Scotch Egg industry. Pasty bakers too, I shouldn't wonder. But possibly not such great days for our wet-led pubs and their customers who have suffered more than most from the fucklery that is COVID-management legislation.

The industry is doing its utmost to cope with a frankly ridiculous situation - we've seen ultra-basic pasta-based meals sold for just 1p with no obligation to consume it. 'Meal replacement' protein drinks on sale, and of course, several seasonal ales named 'substantial meal'. Then there is the ingenious trick of telling everyone when they arrive that 'unfortunately the kitchen is very slow today and it might be a long time before your food arrives.' What a wheeze...

What's the (meal) deal?

Of course there is no logic whatsoever behind the current rules, which is why you won't hear any politician or scientist specifically defending them - instead they'll deflect and say something generic about how we all have to do our bit and follow the rules to safeguard the NHS and save lives. Clearly, sitting in a pub having drinks and a meal will not make you any less likely to contract the virus than if you were just having beer.

A substantial meal, yesterday

But, crucially, the associated rigmarole will put off some people from going to the pub. And it will put off some pubs from opening. That's how this sort of thing works. Just as how the 70 speed limit isn't actually there to ensure that everybody drives at 69.5 miles per hour on a motorway - this ass carries a burden of nuance.

Laws don't have to 'make sense' in order to be 'effective' and they can be 'effective' without being fair, as this particular rule clearly is.

So, yes, it will probably reduce the infection rate not because it's a well-designed piece of legislation that specifically targets risky activities but because it will have the effect of slightly reducing human interactions overall. And they'll be able to point to a lower 'R' number and reduction in infection rates as a success, despite the rubbishcunt nonsensicality of it all.

Banning all Capricorns and Geminis from pubs would yield a similar result. As would temporarily raising the legal drinking age from 18 to 32, or requiring all customers to wear Gingham pantaloons. Fuck, if Pomeranian breeders were the only folks allowed to shop in Tescos, COVID-19 would be begging for mercy.

The specifics of the legislation barely matters - some pubs will look to exploit those creative and novel ways around the rules, but some won't bother, and that's precisely the point. I mean pubs have had to put up with so much this year. Being told to stay open but having all their customers told not to visit. Then being told to close. Then being allowed to reopen again. Then forced to close again despite spending time and money making their premises COVID-safe. And now not knowing from one week to the next what tier they'll be in and what they'll be allowed to do even if they can open. How the fuck are they supposed to get on with the little things like, ooh, I don't know, ordering beer in, with any degree of confidence that they'll be able to sell it?!? It's a perishable product FFS.

I expect this latest legal lark to be dropped before too long - it's largely unenforceable, the loopholes are numerous and amusing and it's likely to result in unacceptable levels of food waste.

And it is all spectacularly unfair on those that are singled out for a raw deal, which happens to be those who like pubs and beer and those who just want to run them, rather than non-Pomeranian breeding supermarket customers.