Villa Marina walkway

[quilp]

5 hours ago, Katman said:

... and there isn't much sating inside.

Portions not that big then..? 

[Kopek]

The walk though will be great for 'Grazing'?

[jackwhite]

4 hours ago, AOR said:

Of course it has.

Any business that can be granted a 3:30am boozing licence. (No need for euphemisms here, Jaks is a boozer. Big expensive screens and lots of chrome and bright lights, I agree, but a boozer - and all that goes with the epithet - nonetheless) can get just about whatever they want.

That's nonsense. 

You're back to the former prejudice again. 

[AOR]

1 hour ago, jackwhite said:

That's nonsense. 

You're back to the former prejudice again. 

I know of no pub goer who was crying out, or for that matter even whispering for a 3:30am license.

Alcoholics are alcoholics. Give them the facility and they will use it.

My point being, the business wanted the 3:30am license, not the customer. The business gets what the business want (£££s). 

[Passing Time]

4 hours ago, AOR said:

I know of no pub goer who was crying out, or for that matter even whispering for a 3:30am license.

Alcoholics are alcoholics. Give them the facility and they will use it.

My point being, the business wanted the 3:30am license, not the customer. The business gets what the business want (£££s). 

By going to a 3am licence, the trade spectacularly shot themselves in the foot. They must be regretting the choice now

[AOR]

I hope so.

I feel it is taking advantage of drinkers/alcoholics. (some would say all drinker are alcoholics, it's just to different extents).

No one was petitioning Tynwald and the blinkin' licence committee or whoever decides these things, for a 3:30am license. So I assume with the so-called, oh so  cosmopolitan "24 hour drinking" the pub owners get what the pub owners want.

[Kopek]

Have they applied for a Pub or restaurant license??? Not sure they're at that stage yet?

Of course, a restaurant license can be expanded upon next summer to a full license ( because  customers have asked for it!!! ).But for now, isn't it just a food outlet???

Edited June 23 by Kopek

[WTF]

9 hours ago, AOR said:

I hope so.

I feel it is taking advantage of drinkers/alcoholics. (some would say all drinker are alcoholics, it's just to different extents).

No one was petitioning Tynwald and the blinkin' licence committee or whoever decides these things, for a 3:30am license. So I assume with the so-called, oh so  cosmopolitan "24 hour drinking" the pub owners get what the pub owners want.

longer hours was the worst thing ever,  people only have X amount of income to spend on booze no matter how long a pub is open . the downside for pubs is that they now have to staff the place and power the place for longer at greater cost to extract the same amount of money from punters. 

[jackwhite]

I feel it is taking advantage of drinkers/alcoholics. (some would say all drinker are alcoholics, it's just to different extents).

 

Again, I don't necessarily disagree that 3.30 or later is required.

However you just look like Abe Simpson shouting at clouds with statements like the one above. What complete nonsense. Do you have some kind of factual information to confirm this or is it just a wild theory?

Also, again, you seem to think it's easy to get a license to operate at that time. Can you prove this either?

10 hours ago, Kopek said:

Have they applied for a Pub or restaurant license??? Not sure they're at that stage yet?

Of course, a restaurant license can be expanded upon next summer to a full license ( because  customers have asked for it!!! ).But for now, isn't it just a food outlet???

They will likely be in court a month or two before they intend to open. Normally how it works. The courts are very busy at the moment and can be up to 3 months before you get in. Very doubtful they will open as just food. 

Edited June 24 by jackwhite

[Passing Time]

8 minutes ago, jackwhite said:

I feel it is taking advantage of drinkers/alcoholics. (some would say all drinker are alcoholics, it's just to different extents).

 

Again, I don't necessarily disagree that 3.30 or later is required.

However you just look like Abe Simpson shouting at clouds with statements like the one above. What complete nonsense. Do you have some kind of factual information to confirm this or is it just a wild theory?

Also, again, you seem to think it's easy to get a license to operate at that time. Can you prove this either?

They will likely be in court a month or two before they intend to open. Normally how it works. The courts are very busy at the moment and can be up to 3 months before you get in. Very doubtful they will open as just food. 

I would suggest it is about time the trade took a long hard look at whether or not these late hours are really needed. They can't be profitable as a lot of the customers have been drinking prior to coming out and not buying that much when they are in your pub/club

[Kopek]

The criminal prosecutions numbers alone show that 1886  must find it viable?  😉

[Kopek]

I wouldn't support it being a Bar. As a Restaurant, people will be seated, as a Bar they could be standing in groups in the Public Right of Way. Not good and possibly, not allowed?

[jackwhite]

32 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

I would suggest it is about time the trade took a long hard look at whether or not these late hours are really needed. They can't be profitable as a lot of the customers have been drinking prior to coming out and not buying that much when they are in your pub/club

Again don't have an issue with it. 

Opened and run my fair share of places that were opened to this time in other jurisdictions. Would have no inclination whatsoever to go back to that. Been a long while since I've worked somewhere that operates that late and it will never happen again (I'm way too old for it for a start).

As I said a few weeks ago, I'm not convinced shortening opening hours is the answer despite thinking that it's not necessarily required. What the trade should definitely have a look at is the continuing practice of serving people who are clearly drunk. I've noticed a much higher proportion of places who are willing to turn a blind eye here having worked in other jurisdictions before. Taking this stance if they're drinking prior to coming out it should be easy enough to spot, albeit some will have a high tolerance before it becomes noticeable. 

[jackwhite]

1 minute ago, Kopek said:

I wouldn't support it being a Bar. As a Restaurant, people will be seated, as a Bar they could be standing in groups in the Public Right of Way. Not good and possibly, not allowed?

Pretty sure there's a bar area in the planning from memory away from the seated area so will be allowed. I think more Barbary Coast style than Jaks, simply because there is no physical floor separation. There may be seats there but you won't stop people standing when they're just having a drink, however much you'd like to. 

[AOR]

1 hour ago, jackwhite said:

However you just look like Abe Simpson shouting at clouds with statements like the one above. What complete nonsense. Do you have some kind of factual information to confirm this or is it just a wild theory?

How many people do you think I might know? I am a drinker and pub goer and have been for a few decades.

That said, I know of no one . . . no one . . .who was asking, wishing, wanting, but especially needing an even later license than the 1:30 that Jaks/1886 had.

I say again for you . . . no one.

It is taking advantage of the drinker/boozer/pub goer/reveller. Call it what you want. And it is taking advantage to cover up for falling pub sales.

It is despicable.

Is that any more Abe Simpson for you?