large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Pollycat

BarryBlue wrote: »

What a truly gruesome prospect!:eek:

But it's amazing how many people do it when they're out with friends/partners.

We watched a couple last Sunday.
They sat at a table opposite each other, got their phones out and never spoke to each other until their food arrived.
The woman even kept scrolling through her phone while she was eating. :eek:
When they'd finished eating, the phones came out again.

I doubt they spoke more than a dozen words to each other the whole time they were there.

Ames

BarryBlue wrote: »

What a truly gruesome prospect!:eek:

Pollycat wrote: »

But it's amazing how many people do it when they're out with friends/partners.

We watched a couple last Sunday.
They sat at a table opposite each other, got their phones out and never spoke to each other until their food arrived.
The woman even kept scrolling through her phone while she was eating. :eek:
When they'd finished eating, the phones came out again.

I doubt they spoke more than a dozen words to each other the whole time they were there.

I once sat at a table with two people who were having a conversation with each other - via Facebook.

Andypandyboy

Person_one wrote: »

Ah come on, the way it was worded, it may as well have had "or would you prefer to be really awkward and annoying and never get another invite from us?" on the end. :rotfl:

Yes, I do think that if a new person from the group only wishes to pay for what they had, they should do just that, the others can split the remainder equally if they choose, I suppose, but no group of nice, welcoming people would think it ok to bully, cajole or compel someone new into paying more than their fair share against their will, would they?

So how would you explain it?

As I said if they said no they would be free to pay for their own share.

There would be no bullying, cajoling or compelling going on, just a simple explanation of what is normally done by the people they are joinng.

These are all manufactured scenarios though, because it has never in the numerous times we have dined out arisen. New people have occasionally come along and although it hasn't ever been that I have had the need to tell them I have never seen anyone demur or look put out, but perhaps they also move in other circles where this is the norm.

I did discuss this at dinner last night with my friends and they confirmed that they also split the bill with all their other sets of friends but not always with colleagues, although the concensus was that the set menu was the way to go there to avoid and I quote "the calculator mentality";)

NewShadow

Andypandyboy wrote: »

So how would you explain it?

"We normally split the bill, and it works out at around £x each with 3 courses and drinks. Does that work for you or would you rather run a separate tab?"

ETA: I dont think I've actually given my 'normal' yet - with my mates we generally take it in turns to pick somewhere and pay.

It's a way to introduce each other to new great places and share new styles of food.

It also means whoever is 'hosting' can roughly predict the budget.

Andypandyboy

NewShadow wrote: »

"We normally split the bill, and it works out at around £x each with 3 courses and drinks. Does that work for you or would you rather run a separate tab?"

ETA: I dont think I've actually given my 'normal' yet - with my mates we generally take it in turns to pick somewhere and pay.

It's a way to introduce each other to new great places and share new styles of food.

It also means whoever is 'hosting' can roughly predict the budget.

I am not sure how that is materially different to my wording ""we normally just split the bill, is that ok with you" Of course, if they weren't happy then the alternative would obviously be a separate tab. Nor could I really estimate the costs upfront because people choose on the night and we go to different restaurants. So, it costs what it costs.

Now you will get people coming along and saying what if one friend regularly chose cheap eats and the others regularly chose more expensively, then the rest of you are subbing them!:rotfl:I imagine you have friends who are fair though....

You can't win, some people will never accept that their way is not the only way or the way others choose to do it.

Peter333

Ames wrote: »

I think this thread is nearly obsolete anyway.

In future everyone will go to whatever restaurant/pub/cafe they can afford, all at the same time, and chat online using phones and tablets.

No arguing about what each person has, how long they take to eat each course, odd eating habits...

Dunno about obsolete, but the thread sure is boring now. The last 10 pages have just been people repeating themselves over and over.

NewShadow

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I am not sure how that is materially different to my wording ""we normally just split the bill, is that ok with you"

Now you will get people coming along and saying what if one friend regularly chose cheap eats and the others regularly chose more expensively, then the rest of you are subbing them!:rotfl:I imagine you have friends who are fair though....

You can't win, some people will never accept that their way is not the only or the way others choose to do it.

I think for me it's giving context (an expected rough amount) and offering an alternative rather than just 'agree with the status quo or don't'.

It's why there was such a hu-ha about the scotts referendum question and the upcoming EU one.

People have a tendency to 'maintain' if an equal option isn't presented as a choice - the same as people pick between choices rather than a third unspoken option.

For us, places to eat are marked on quality rather than cost - if someone kept picking the burger van, that would be taking advantage - and no-one else sees the final bill.

It's actually tougher to find somewhere cheap and new/interesting that's decent quality than to just book a champers afternoon tea at the hilton. Personally I prefer the smaller/cheaper places with more character.

onlyroz

There are some situations where the *only* reasonable thing to do is to pay for what you've eaten. There are times when I've been out for a meal with a number of families. We are two adults and two children. Another family is two adults and one child. Another is two adults, a child and a baby. Another is a couple with no children and another is a single man. So it would be totally unreasonable to split the bill by the number of people present when babies eat hardly anything at all, the children often eat off a set menu at a considerably lower price than everything else, and couples often share dishes and drinks.

cbrown372

What is the scotts referendum?

NewShadow

cbrown372 wrote: »

What is the scotts referendum?

Not sure it's hugely relevant, but as it wouldn't be the first off topic post, and assuming you aren't being facetious

Scottish ind!pendance referendum question assessment - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/electoral-commission-publishes-its-assessment-of-scottish-independence-referendum-question-and-its-advice-on-campaign-spending-limits?

The Commission was asked to test the following question by the Scottish Government:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Yes/No”

The Commission’s established question assessment process involved talking to people across Scotland, asking for advice from accessibility and plain language experts, and writing to people and organisations, including the main political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament and campaigners to seek their views.

We found that the language in the proposed question is clear, simple and easy to understand. However, we also concluded that the words ‘Do you agree’ potentially encouraged people to vote ‘yes’ and should be replaced by more neutral wording.

The Electoral Commission recommends the question should be altered to:

“Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes / No”

EU referendum question assessment - http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-question-assessment

The European Union Referendum Act when first introduced as a Bill into the UK Parliament set out the proposed referendum question:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?"

The Political Parties, Referendums and Elections Act 2000 (PPERA) required the Commission to consider the wording of this referendum question and to publish a statement of our views as to its intelligibility.

We recommended that the referendum question be amended to:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

(knowing this stuff - again... occupational hazard)