Two pints of huel and a packet of crisps

1 Like

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

“We serve 1,000 pints a week, but food was never our thing and without a kitchen…"


1 Like

That’s awesome. Hopefully the idea helps save a few pubs.

1 Like

Wonder how much of this Huel is going to be flushed down the most convenient toilet.

And really, I’d hardly call bypassing public health regulations “awesome”.

Probably more of a publicity stunt…and lots of free publicity for Huel - winner winner liquid dinner.

1 Like

I wouldn’t say it’s bypassing them. People are allowed to go to pubs with people they are in your household or support bubble with. It’s 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. I’m not here to debate the current rules though, they’re all quite confusing.

I’m 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 pub’s basement probably won’t kill you, and having been to England and tasted some of the pub food before I’d 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 they’ll be forced to keep their doors shut for longer as the infection rate refuses to drop. There’s 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 don’t know about you, but I don’t 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 “spreading out” one - having two pubs open instead of one won’t make the pubs half as crowded, you’ll 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 I’m wrong, you don’t 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 didn’t have enough space inside for customers to social distance, so therefore under the current rules wasn’t allowed to open, whereas all other shops were allowed to open. They then miss out on all that business because of something they couldn’t forsee.

But then they find a company selling marquee’s that offers them additional space, so that they can open up and continue their business.

I wouldn’t see that as dodging the rules. Perhaps you would though.

I don’t think the implementation is good precisely because of the loophole abuse that’s going on. Correct me if I’m wrong - I haven’t looked into the reasoning behind the ban that thoroughly - but my understanding of the ban is that the government doesn’t 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 they’re 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 should’ve been made more explicit in the regulations, but then perhaps they would be more difficult to enforce.

No, that’s 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 didn’t specify which problems, so people would cut their fingers and go out without a mask. It’s 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 can’t tell me that going from “you can go to the pub and sit there drinking with your mates all night” to “you 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 food” 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 isn’t particularly effective unless you are also wearing a mask. Which in a pub you aren’t whilst you are eating and drinking. So two half full pubs aren’t 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 don’t sit neatly with one group.

Hopefully it doesn’t cost any more lives. It’s shameful the lack of support for small businesses in hospitality from the government. But I don’t think it’s Huel’s responsibility to be saving pubs. I do however think it’s 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 “substantial meals” and the unfairness of denying opening to wet led pubs: avoid unnecessary mixing, reduce social contact. Yes, coronavirus sucks. Lockdown sucks. But that doesn’t 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.

It’s pretty disingenuous to facilitate opening of pubs that wouldn’t otherwise open and then go “Its not our fault if people go to the pub, that’s their decision” when you deliberately cold called pubs with a “let us help you open up” 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. It’s all very well to say it’s an individual choice to go to the pub, but if you hadn’t been pursuing sales and publicity, they wouldn’t have that choice as their local would still be shut.

I also think it’s incredibly irresponsible for your social media team to be posting statements like
“The government has deemed it safe for people to meet socially with friends and family indoors if they are in your household or support bubble.” on Facebook. This is patently untrue. The government has not deemed it safe, they have suggested it’s a lower risk provided you don’t mix outside your household or support bubble, only stay long enough to eat a meal and then leave. There’s a big difference between lower risk and safe.

Pretty disappointed in Huel as a company at this point to be honest. I’d 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 won’t be pretty but we’ve already seen the government cave in eventually to public demand for more support for businesses and those affected financially. Unfortunately you can’t say the same for someone who dies from COVID because they were infected by someone at their workplace who went to the pub that wouldn’t be open except for your actions. There’s no coming back for them.


When I saw the article I thought “I bet Huel are gonna be embarrassed to be associated with this”. I don’t follow them on any social media, so I was unaware they were responsible for it. I’m as disappointed as you are.

I’ve now had a look at Huel’s Twitter and Instagram accounts, and on Twitter they’re crowdsourcing details of other tier 2 pubs that don’t have kitchens, so they can approach them.

You don’t genuinely believe that the number of people going to the pub isn’t proportional to the number of pubs open, do you? Especially as the landlord of the Who’d ‘a’ Thought It talks about his regular “old boys” who come down most days for a pint and a chat.


I’d 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 isn’t 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 “operating as a restaurant” (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 wasn’t 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 wasn’t people who wanted to eat, and this caused issues as they had to keep explaining that buying one cheeseboard didn’t 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 clients’ behaviour, and another came close to doing wo

Thanks all for articulating your views on this so clearly. It’s 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 we’ve taken on for future.

LOL @Tim_Huel . Good politician speak buddy. Saying lots without saying anything at all. You obviously still don’t care. I can tell you for sure I’m not a “Hueligan” anymore and never will be again. Shame on you.

Except you haven’t taken it on really. Or else you’d 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 haven’t.

1 Like

Huel is actively aiding pubs in circumventing UK lockdown rules to limit the spread of coronavirus. Check out their latest Instagram post and comments. I’ll let you be the judge for yourself.

I know that personally, I’m 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 isn’t about circumventing restrictions.

The real story is about Huel finally being accepted as a ‘substantial meal’. Of course Huel is going to jump at this opportunity.