THIS week, our readers have been telling us exactly what they have been most looking forward to doing again after the second national lockdown finally ends on Wednesday.

Going to the hairdresser, going shopping and going out to restaurants are definitely among the most popular answers (see page 10 for our full piece).

However another one of the things that many, many people had been desperately looking forward to throughout lockdown was going back to the pub.

Now it seems that thousands of pubs will now be forced to stay shut for the foreseeable future, and all because they do not serve ‘substantial meals’.

The very notion may well strike many of you as preposterous: what on Earth is a ‘substantial meal’ anyway? Are Government inspectors going to come and weigh portions at pubs in random trials? Are they going to be checking that pubs are charging enough money for these meals?

The answer, as you already know, is of course ‘no’.

The responsibility to decide whether the meals being served are substantial enough will, it seems, largely be left to the pubs themselves.

Many landlords who have not previously served food may well be tempted to start doing so now.

Dave Richardson of the Oxford branch of CAMRA warns today that many pubs which do not serve food are more likely than ever now to face closure, because they have been banned from trading, while their neighbours who happen to have kitchens can now welcome back their punters in droves.

Critics of Boris Johnson have already said he is senselessly discriminating against some businesses; fans of the Prime Minister might say he has deliberately left the rules vague – as he so often has before – to try to allow some leeway so that pubs can throw together a few soups and sandwiches to be able to trade again – but that would be a charitable interpretation. In truth, our great pub industry has simply been shafted.