large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Pollycat

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I think we have moved away fro the premise of the thread. which was splitting the bill.

Have we really?

You've clearly not read the whole thread because on this roller-coaster ride we've discussed the merits of dishwashers, eating out of saucepans and how to make the best porridge. :rotfl:

moneyistooshorttomention

elsien wrote: »

There's also the people with "intolerances" ie nothing much wrong with them who seem to make a much bigger deal of it than those with genuine allergies/illnesses. I have sympathy for those for whom it is a real issue but I strongly suspect they are outnumbered by the daddy ones.
Parent used to enjoy cooking for a group of friends but is no longer doing it due to the number of people who can't/won't eat certain things. When did it become ok to dictate a menu beforehand because you don't eat fish, or whatever?

The thing is that many things have changed over the last few decades.

To give some examples:
- sometimes fish are "farmed" and it's not a "pretty picture" to read the details of what happens then
- there is genetically-modified food on the scene
- it has become the norm for many foods not to be grown organically over the last few decades
- people's bodies are being put under much greater stress in many ways over recent decades (eg pollution, antibiotics, etc, etc) and this has had an effect on some peoples bodies)

Personally - I don't agree with the "shoot the messenger" school of thought for those people that have realised "Fings are Different" to say pre 2nd World War time and are trying to protect themselves from all the "bad stuff" that has come on the scene since round about that time and affects the food we eat:eek:

So - yep...it IS a pain to have to cater for all sorts of stuff.... but that's how it is and one might as well get on and do so imo. Put it this way - the other option is to start fighting about the way our food has been tampered with over the course of my lifetime.

duchy

splishsplash wrote: »

Usually when we go out as a group from work for dinner, we do a deal beforehand with the restaurant for the table d'hote menu + wine.

That means everyone pays the same price whether they're having starters, desserts, wine or not.

Would you be of the opinion that you were subsidising those who chose three courses in this situation?

If I was driving so not drinking (and I doubt I'd be the only one in that situation for a work meal) then I'd not expect to pay for your booze. I struggle with the British mindset that alcohol is an essential to enjoy a social event though. I'm not tee-total but I don't feel the need to have to have alcohol every social event either.....sometimes I just don't fancy it.

In that scenario rather than make the drivers/those on medication/non drinkers pay for your wine I'd negotiate two prices one with wine and one without or alternatively a price for just the meal and everyone pays for their own drinks separately.

Frankly I have to put up with my workmates for 40 hours every week -if I have to spend extra time with them I don't see why I should pay for their booze too

If it's a set menu type place then I know the price and if I decline the pud that's my choice as I've agreed the price of the meal -but I'm not paying for you to get p1ssed at my expense.

Work meals are always a bit of a compromise simply because they are usually a gaggle of different types of people rather than real friends -so I'd compromise to a point or if I didn't want to compromise I'd simply not bother going.

seven-day-weekend

mumps wrote: »

It is sad isn't it, I have been having meals out for 50 years or more and I can't say it has ever been an issue. My son doesn't like sweet foods so never has a pud and I can assure you it has never stopped me enjoying one but he does like a starter. How weird if we could never share a meal again.



But why would any one disapprove if you are out for a meal and enjoying the company? I think the only hint of being annoyed is if people assume others should subsidise them. In my younger days when we went out more it was a standing joke that we, as a couple, were subsidising friends as we didn't drink. Admittedly as we were generally in a police crowd, and yes Life on Mars was quite accurate about the police culture back then, it was true but it was them laughing about it and bringing it up. Mind you we weren't an over sensitive bunch so all gave as good as we got.

On this very thread, people who want to eat more than one course and/or have a few alcoholic drinks have been called greedy. It was then explained away by saying that it was only when they expected others to subsidise their choice that they 'became' greedy, but that doesn't make sense, greedy is about how much you eat, not how you pay for it. So at least one person on here finds people eating more than them greedy.

onlyroz

splishsplash wrote: »

Usually when we go out as a group from work for dinner, we do a deal beforehand with the restaurant for the table d'hote menu + wine.

That means everyone pays the same price whether they're having starters, desserts, wine or not.

Would you be of the opinion that you were subsidising those who chose three courses in this situation?

I think I raised the suggestion of a set menu back on page one, and I was shot down by people who said that they didn't want to be told what to eat.

I think the set menu has its place and can be useful if a large group of people who don't know each other so well are eating together (e.g. the office Christmas party).

If you are told the price and food/drink options in advance then you can make a judgement over whether you want to go or not. However, it's less fun if a large bill is sprung on you at the end of a meal when you were only expecting to have to pay for your own food or drink.

Peter333

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Why would he be buying port from Italy?

PMSL!!! They do actually sell port there. :rotfl:

onlyroz

Peter333 wrote: »

PMSL!!! They do actually sell port there. :rotfl:

They don't make it there though.

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

I think I raised the suggestion of a set menu back on page one, and I was shot down by people who said that they didn't want to be told what to eat.

I think the set menu has its place and can be useful if a large group of people who don't know each other so well are eating together (e.g. the office Christmas party).

If you are told the price and food/drink options in advance then you can make a judgement over whether you want to go or not. However, it's less fun if a large bill is sprung on you at the end of a meal when you were only expecting to have to pay for your own food or drink.

You also said it yourself in relation to the "tasting menu" being stipulated for all the table.;)

onlyroz

Andypandyboy wrote: »

You also said it yourself in relation to the "tasting menu" being stipulated for all the table.;)

There is a difference in being told in advance that there will be a set menu, and being told upon arrival at a restaurant that you can only choose from a restricted set of options when you know that there are more choices available.

It's like the people who say that the whole table must have a starter and a main because that's what they want.

There's nothing wrong with being invited to an event which you know from the start will involve a set menu (e.g. the office Christmas party) - but why try and impose draconian rules on diners when there is no need for it?

Peter333

onlyroz wrote: »

They don't make it there though.

I never said they did!

Good grief.

Some people just make something out of nothing.

I was just telling Georgie about a neighbour who had a fancy bottle of port from overseas, that he claimed was exotic and expensive, and it tasted like pee! I also said I THOUGHT he got it from Italy or somewhere exotic!

Are people so bored today that they have to pick apart EVERYTHING people say?!