large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Georgiegirl256

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

1. Well some people would do one of those 1-2 minute chocolate puddings in a mug in a microwave.

splishsplash wrote: »

Noooo - cake in a cup is gorgeous. Try it - served with a nice vanilla ice cream and some raspberries.
.

Saw a Chocolate Cake in a Mug mug when on the Lakeland website, same range as the Porridge mug!

Still unsure what to make of it tbh!

Pollycat

MoneyMission2015 wrote: »

Yep I agree. We went out for a meal with my OH's family and his SIL's family a while back. Usually when we go out with just the immediate family, we work out who had what and each pay for what we ordered, so I thought this would be the case on this occasion too. I didn't eat a lot, only had a main and a soft drink as I was driving, my OH also only had a main and 1 beer as he had been dieting. My OH's SIL and her mum and sister were ordering cocktails and bottles of wine. The bill came and instead of doing what we usually do, OH's sister in law piped up that we would be splitting the bill and each couple were due to pay £100! I objected because I knew that what my OH, my daughters and I had eaten came to £45 altogether, I told them this but everybody else stayed quiet and just put their £100 in. I wasn't happy about this at all but what p*ssed me off even more was a few days later when we were at my OH's parents house and they started moaning that they had paid £100 for the meal when they'd only had a bowl of pasta and a soft drink, then proceeded to say how they weren't happy subsidising other people's alcohol consumption. Of course I piped up and said that they should have said something on the night when I objected if they weren't happy about it. As they didn't, they have set the way for it to happen again now, although I've made it clear to my OH that if we go out with them again I will be ordering our food on a separate tab :rotfl:

Why didn't you stick to your guns and insist that your share would be the £45 your meals & drinks came to plus tip?

Even if everybody else stayed silent, you could have insisted that you didn't want to be part of the bill share.

We went out with the family, Mum, Dad, 3 daughters and partners.
The partner of one of my sister was incredibly mean with money.
He was the type to get to the bar last, and when it was his turn, he'd nurse the dregs of his drink and suggest we went home.

When the bill came, we were happy to split the bill, we'd pretty much had similar (although me and OH hadn't had puddings) and all shared the wine.
He however announced that he would pay for what they'd had.
He totted up what they'd had - but omitted to include the aperitifs, the Irish coffees and some other stuff.
I called him out on it and he actually had the good grace to look shame-faced.

Well, who'd have thought it!
His and my sister's share suddenly became more than the 4 way split.
He then decided that he would be happy to split the bill 4 ways but I told him he would pay for his and my sister's consumption and we'd split the remainder 3 ways.
He wasn't happy. :rotfl:

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Think of the stress that would've put the anorexic one under to eat the whole thing, plus, chocolate puddings aren't the sort of thing you can just knock up in a few minutes.

When I give up alcohol for Lent I don't go to pubs and bars - it seems stupid to put yourself in such a difficult situation when you don't have to.

So now you're saying that people with eating disorders shouldn't eat out either?


The impression I'm getting from several posters on this thread is that anybody with any special requirements are viewed to be awkward party-poopers who would be better off staying at home lest they ruin the fun for everybody else. I don't understand why anybody has to justify at all why they want to eat less than others - whether they're short of money, have a medical condition, or an eating disorder, or just aren't that hungry, why should they be subject to a grilling over their different eating habits, and why should they be made to feel like they are "ruining" the experience for others if they order a different amount of food?

moneyistooshorttomention

MoneyMission2015 wrote: »

Yep I agree. We went out for a meal with my OH's family and his SIL's family a while back. Usually when we go out with just the immediate family, we work out who had what and each pay for what we ordered, so I thought this would be the case on this occasion too. I didn't eat a lot, only had a main and a soft drink as I was driving, my OH also only had a main and 1 beer as he had been dieting. My OH's SIL and her mum and sister were ordering cocktails and bottles of wine. The bill came and instead of doing what we usually do, OH's sister in law piped up that we would be splitting the bill and each couple were due to pay £100! I objected because I knew that what my OH, my daughters and I had eaten came to £45 altogether, I told them this but everybody else stayed quiet and just put their £100 in. I wasn't happy about this at all but what p*ssed me off even more was a few days later when we were at my OH's parents house and they started moaning that they had paid £100 for the meal when they'd only had a bowl of pasta and a soft drink, then proceeded to say how they weren't happy subsidising other people's alcohol consumption. Of course I piped up and said that they should have said something on the night when I objected if they weren't happy about it. As they didn't, they have set the way for it to happen again now, although I've made it clear to my OH that if we go out with them again I will be ordering our food on a separate tab :rotfl:

For OH's SIL to just state like that how everyone else will be paying is a very arrogant thing to do imo. It's bad enough when someone says "Shall we split the bill?" and people feel pressurised into doing so. But to just say "We will be splitting the bill" is acting like no-one else has any sort of say in things at all and she will be making decisions on behalf of everyone else there. My reaction would definitely be to feel "Blimmin' cheek" if someone acted like that. I'd probably have made a semi-jokey comment at that point about "I thought we lived in a democracy.....".

It's a variant, I guess, on someone saying "I think I speak for all of us when I say........".

silvercar

MoneyMission2015 wrote: »

Yep I agree. We went out for a meal with my OH's family and his SIL's family a while back. Usually when we go out with just the immediate family, we work out who had what and each pay for what we ordered, so I thought this would be the case on this occasion too. I didn't eat a lot, only had a main and a soft drink as I was driving, my OH also only had a main and 1 beer as he had been dieting. My OH's SIL and her mum and sister were ordering cocktails and bottles of wine. The bill came and instead of doing what we usually do, OH's sister in law piped up that we would be splitting the bill and each couple were due to pay £100! I objected because I knew that what my OH, my daughters and I had eaten came to £45 altogether, I told them this but everybody else stayed quiet and just put their £100 in. I wasn't happy about this at all but what p*ssed me off even more was a few days later when we were at my OH's parents house and they started moaning that they had paid £100 for the meal when they'd only had a bowl of pasta and a soft drink, then proceeded to say how they weren't happy subsidising other people's alcohol consumption. Of course I piped up and said that they should have said something on the night when I objected if they weren't happy about it. As they didn't, they have set the way for it to happen again now, although I've made it clear to my OH that if we go out with them again I will be ordering our food on a separate tab :rotfl:

I would have thought that eating with close family everyone is comfortable enough with each other to openly discuss bill splitting or not.

When we go out with close family the eldest generation pay the whole bill. It's a family tradition. There is a running family joke that it will save on inheritance tax.

If we are going out with family that are not immediate and we feel that money is tight for them at the moment, we generally establish who will be paying at the outset to avoid anyone feeling awkward or deciding not to come. That is because we encourage family get togethers and really do enjoy meeting up with cousins etc.

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

So now you're saying that people with eating disorders shouldn't eat out either?


The impression I'm getting from several posters on this thread is that anybody with any special requirements are viewed to be awkward party-poopers who would be better off staying at home lest they ruin the fun for everybody else. I don't understand why anybody has to justify at all why they want to eat less than others - whether they're short of money, have a medical condition, or an eating disorder, or just aren't that hungry, why should they be subject to a grilling over their different eating habits, and why should they be made to feel like they are "ruining" the experience for others if they order a different amount of food?

I would imagine that eating out is an ordeal for anyone with an eating disorder, I know it was for my friend. She would have preferred not to go. However, for reasons that needn't be gone into here, she felt she should make an effort.

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I would imagine that eating out is an ordeal for anyone with an eating disorder, I know it was for my friend. She would have preferred not to go. However, for reasons that needn't be gone into here, she felt she should make an effort.

Well I would like to think that your friend would be able to eat out without being grilled by her fellow diners over what she ate, or being made to feel like she was spoiling the meal for others if she chose to eat not very much.

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

Well I would like to think that your friend would be able to eat out without being grilled by her fellow diners over what she ate, or being made to feel like she was spoiling the meal for others if she chose to eat not very much.

No-one mentioned what she ate, nor did any of us feel she had spoiled anything. It was good to see her out eating anything!

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

So now you're saying that people with eating disorders shouldn't eat out either?


The impression I'm getting from several posters on this thread is that anybody with any special requirements are viewed to be awkward party-poopers who would be better off staying at home lest they ruin the fun for everybody else. I don't understand why anybody has to justify at all why they want to eat less than others - whether they're short of money, have a medical condition, or an eating disorder, or just aren't that hungry, why should they be subject to a grilling over their different eating habits, and why should they be made to feel like they are "ruining" the experience for others if they order a different amount of food?

I took the comment by MissB to mean that if the chef had gone to the trouble of making a dessert specially for the person and due to the ED she could only manage two spoonfuls then she would have felt under pressure.

Also, if you have an eating disorder a restaurant is not the most comfortable place to be and it may be better not to put yourself in that position. As SDW explained the person would rather not have attended but for specific reasons felt she ought to.

So that would seem to back up the assertion that out of choice she wouldn't have put herself in that position.

onlyroz

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I took the comment by MissB to mean that if the chef had gone to the trouble of making a dessert specially for the person and due to the ED she could only manage two spoonfuls then she would have felt under pressure.

Also, if you have an eating disorder a restaurant is not the most comfortable place to be and it may be better not to put yourself in that position. As SDW explained the person would rather not have attended but for specific reasons felt she ought to.

So that would seem to back up the assertion that out of choice she wouldn't have put herself in that position.

Why a person chooses to eat out, and how much they choose to eat should be entirely irrelevant to their fellow diners.


I am glad that SDW's friend wasn't made to feel uncomfortable - but from some people's responses on here it seems likely that SDW's friend would have been made to feel thoroughly miserable if eating out with many people who have posted on this thread.


It saddens me to think that somebody would be made to feel unwelcome because they chose to eat different amounts from the rest of the group. It also makes me quite angry that there are people on this thread who think that those who want to eat less would be better off just staying at home.