lets hope he lodged all the legally required registrations with his council to begin trading as a food seller and that he avoids a visit from the Planning Enforcement Teams - ensuring he has adequate facilities to prepare and serve food
âWe serve 1,000 pints a week, but food was never our thing and without a kitchenâŚ"
ahâŚ
Thatâs awesome. Hopefully the idea helps save a few pubs.
Wonder how much of this Huel is going to be flushed down the most convenient toilet.
And really, Iâd hardly call bypassing public health regulations âawesomeâ.
Probably more of a publicity stuntâŚand lots of free publicity for Huel - winner winner liquid dinner.
I wouldnât say itâs bypassing them. People are allowed to go to pubs with people they are in your household or support bubble with. Itâs simply allowing more places to have the opportunity to remain open, those pubs who have been caught out. The decision to leave the house is down to every individual of course.
This is just one or 2 pubs, maybe more in time, but maybe at scale this would help because people who have decided that they are going to the pub would have more options, therefore spreading out the people more. Two half full pubs is better than one packed one. Perhaps. Iâm not here to debate the current rules though, theyâre all quite confusing.
Iâm not sure if he meant that @Tim_Huel or the regulations relating to preparing and selling food on their premises - which is what landlords without existing kitchens might fall foul of I guess.
Thanks, will let them clarify.
Both really, but mostly the COVID-related ones. Improperly prepared Huel from the pubâs basement probably wonât kill you, and having been to England and tasted some of the pub food before Iâd probably take it over the usual offering anyway.
But trying to dodge the COVID regulations will just make the epidemiological situation worse, and hurt those pub owners who do comply with them, since theyâll be forced to keep their doors shut for longer as the infection rate refuses to drop. Thereâs a lot of stupid regulations surrounding COVID - over here, they banned going to the woods for a bit - but not letting people gather in enclosed spaces, without masks, in close proximity to each other and getting drunk enough to not care about precautions is not one of them.
And I donât know about you, but I donât know many people who go to the pub to enjoy a hearty pint with their wife, kids and elderly grandma, so the argument that people would go to pubs with those in their social bubble kind of falls flat and sounds dishonest.
Same with the âspreading outâ one - having two pubs open instead of one wonât make the pubs half as crowded, youâll just have two crowded pubs as people are encouraged to get out of the house, go for a beer and ignore the precautions since everybody does that anyway. A dead law is worse than no law.
I hear you, but correct me if Iâm wrong, you donât think the government should have allowed pubs to reopen?
Whether we agree with you or not on that point, they are open, subject to certain rules. Someone sitting in a pub drinking, verses someone sitting in a pub drinking and eating is no less or more likely to contract COVID-19.
The way I am thinking about it is this - imagine a shop that didnât have enough space inside for customers to social distance, so therefore under the current rules wasnât allowed to open, whereas all other shops were allowed to open. They then miss out on all that business because of something they couldnât forsee.
But then they find a company selling marqueeâs that offers them additional space, so that they can open up and continue their business.
I wouldnât see that as dodging the rules. Perhaps you would though.
I donât think the implementation is good precisely because of the loophole abuse thatâs going on. Correct me if Iâm wrong - I havenât looked into the reasoning behind the ban that thoroughly - but my understanding of the ban is that the government doesnât want people to hang out in pubs for hours drinking close to each other, but still wants people to be able to get a warm meal if for some reason theyâre not able to prepare it at home, or are far away from their home (say, on a business trip) and have had enough of the four quid meal deals.
On the surface, no. But someone who goes to the pub, orders minced baked beans or whatever, eats them and gets out is less likely to contract COVID-19 than someone who goes there with a group of people and spends the night there drinking. Perhaps that shouldâve been made more explicit in the regulations, but then perhaps they would be more difficult to enforce.
No, thatâs hardly equivalent. A marquee actually solves the problem the rules are intended to solve - people need space to socially distance, a marquee provides that space, so the shop can open because it provides the required level of safety to the customers.
This is more as if the rules said you can abstain from wearing a mask in case of medical problems, but didnât specify which problems, so people would cut their fingers and go out without a mask. Itâs technically legal, but defeats the purpose of the rules and makes things worse.
You can argue whether the rules are needed or not, whether they help the situation or not, but you canât tell me that going from âyou can go to the pub and sit there drinking with your mates all nightâ to âyou can go to the pub and sit there drinking with your mates all night, so long as you pay for the pub to throw away some foodâ is the system working as intended.
Perhaps indeed. There seems to be growing evidence of aerosol transmission in poorly ventilated enclosed spaces as clouds of virus can stay airborne for a period of time which means social distancing isnât particularly effective unless you are also wearing a mask. Which in a pub you arenât whilst you are eating and drinking. So two half full pubs arenât necessarily better than one packed one. In fact they are likely to be worse. You also still have issues of shared use areas like toilets. In that case household only groups are irrelevant as clouds of virus donât sit neatly with one group.
Hopefully it doesnât cost any more lives. Itâs shameful the lack of support for small businesses in hospitality from the government. But I donât think itâs Huelâs responsibility to be saving pubs. I do however think itâs irresponsible to be pushing an idea which increases your sales and very much is against the spirit of why we have rules in place (however badly designed and implemented those rules are).
The underlying principles seem to have been forgotten in all the debates about âsubstantial mealsâ and the unfairness of denying opening to wet led pubs: avoid unnecessary mixing, reduce social contact. Yes, coronavirus sucks. Lockdown sucks. But that doesnât change the fact that if there are more opportunities for transmission then more people will die. More pressure will be put on the already overstretched NHS.
Itâs pretty disingenuous to facilitate opening of pubs that wouldnât otherwise open and then go âIts not our fault if people go to the pub, thatâs their decisionâ when you deliberately cold called pubs with a âlet us help you open upâ pitch. This is a sales opportunity which according to the article came from Huel and which your PR is pushing as some kind of altruistic attempt to support small businesses. Itâs all very well to say itâs an individual choice to go to the pub, but if you hadnât been pursuing sales and publicity, they wouldnât have that choice as their local would still be shut.
I also think itâs incredibly irresponsible for your social media team to be posting statements like
âThe government has deemed it safe for people to meet socially with friends and family indoors if they are in your household or support bubble.â on Facebook. This is patently untrue. The government has not deemed it safe, they have suggested itâs a lower risk provided you donât mix outside your household or support bubble, only stay long enough to eat a meal and then leave. Thereâs a big difference between lower risk and safe.
Pretty disappointed in Huel as a company at this point to be honest. Iâd hoped you were one of the companies that would see the bigger picture and not exploit the situation for short term profits. Especially as the end is in sight now that we have vaccines available. Businesses will recover, it wonât be pretty but weâve already seen the government cave in eventually to public demand for more support for businesses and those affected financially. Unfortunately you canât say the same for someone who dies from COVID because they were infected by someone at their workplace who went to the pub that wouldnât be open except for your actions. Thereâs no coming back for them.
When I saw the article I thought âI bet Huel are gonna be embarrassed to be associated with thisâ. I donât follow them on any social media, so I was unaware they were responsible for it. Iâm as disappointed as you are.
Iâve now had a look at Huelâs Twitter and Instagram accounts, and on Twitter theyâre crowdsourcing details of other tier 2 pubs that donât have kitchens, so they can approach them.
You donât genuinely believe that the number of people going to the pub isnât proportional to the number of pubs open, do you? Especially as the landlord of the Whoâd âaâ Thought It talks about his regular âold boysâ who come down most days for a pint and a chat.
Iâd also be asking yourselves the question of whether you are really helping these wet led pubs. Their business model relies on high turnover of drink sales which isnât possible when the most common interpretation of the rules is two drinks per meal.
Case in point, locally there is a French Wine Bar that serves mainly drinks, but also offers a cheese and charcuterie board. That is the only food they do. They got agreement from the local council to reopen, even though they were stretching the definition of âoperating as a restaurantâ (which incidentally is what the rules actually say). Less than a week later they have taken the decision to close and go back to only doing wine deliveries. Reopening just wasnât viable when you have fewer tables and most of your walk in trade/regulars has gone. They posted to explain the decision on their Facebook page and one of the things they mentioned was that their customer profile wasnât people who wanted to eat, and this caused issues as they had to keep explaining that buying one cheeseboard didnât mean you could sit and drink all evening.
There are lots of aerosols (sic) in the local pubs here. Last weekend one had to close for the foreseeable future due to their clientsâ behaviour, and another came close to doing wo
Thanks all for articulating your views on this so clearly. Itâs one of the best things about being a Hueligan (whether you work for Huel or are a customer) that we hold each other accountable and challenge each other. You all here, and others on our social pages have certainly made us see this from a number of different perspectives which weâve taken on for future.
LOL @Tim_Huel . Good politician speak buddy. Saying lots without saying anything at all. You obviously still donât care. I can tell you for sure Iâm not a âHueliganâ anymore and never will be again. Shame on you.
Except you havenât taken it on really. Or else youâd be deleting the false comment on your Facebook post claiming the government has deemed it safe to go to the pub with other members of your household. Which they havenât.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CIh_-MohgvX/
Huel is actively aiding pubs in circumventing UK lockdown rules to limit the spread of coronavirus. Check out their latest Instagram post and comments. Iâll let you be the judge for yourself.
I know that personally, Iâm no longer a customer as a result. I love the product and this made me sad to see. But there are other options. Goodbye Huel.
The real story isnât about circumventing restrictions.
The real story is about Huel finally being accepted as a âsubstantial mealâ. Of course Huel is going to jump at this opportunity.