titch juicy

If you find yourself in a situation where you absolutely have no choice but to fight back- always start by kicking as hard as you can in the shins. The biggest, hardest person will go down with a hard kick to the shins.

Just out of interest- which fringe benefits do people feel they offer other than a bar/cafe, which I assume pays for itself? I used to use Brixton Ritzy reasonably regularly (was a member for three or four years) but stopped because an evening ticket that cost three times as much as a peckham plex ticket was impossible to justify. The technology (screen, sound etc) is no better...as far as I can tell. The seats really aren't discernibly more comfortable. I'm 6' 4" and have never noticed more or less legroom at either cinema. I've never once left PP uncomfortable from the seat. It's certainly no cleaner than Peckham Plex. In fact I think this and the claims about seating are largely imagined and absolutely not noticeable. Perhaps people think they should be better/cleaner than PP, so project that? The choice of films, at Brixton anyway, are possibly slightly more diverse and maybe they have the odd independent film more than PP, but certainly not at ED where there's much less choice. The decoration is nicer in the Picturehouse cinemas, but that's so far down the list of priorities for me sitting in the dark watching a film. Peckham Plex is a little (and only a little) shabby around the edges, but again, so what? Is it the little free film guides/brochures they produce? I'd love to know how a ticket price costing 3 times more can be justified for offering more or less the same service (that's an extraordinary discrepancy when you think about it- what other industries that offer essentially the same service get away with that?.......pharmaceuticals is the only one i can think of...Nurofen vs budget ibuprofen etc.........happy to be put right on that)?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find it quite interesting that plenty of people > feel qualified to make a whole bunch of judgments > about the Picturehouse (or more accurately > Cineworld), from the health of its P&L to the > overall quality of its employment terms, without > any obvious measurement scale, experience, or > comparison exercise, for example. It seems to me > that if you are going to have a view it's either a > simple personal, essentially impressionistic one - > does ?9 odd per hour feel like exploitation wages > for this job? - or it's a proper analytical one, > which takes a bit of work. Otherwise you just > have a shouting match (which may be what everyone > wants but is a bit tedious). > > Mick makes the point about capital investment - > worth carrying out a bit of a thought experiment. > If PH want to open another cinema, it will have to > be financed one way or another from profits. All > other things being equal, increased payroll costs > = lower profits = reduced likelihood of opening > another cinema. So if PH pay their existing staff > more it is at the expense of nominal future staff > who would have got jobs in the new cinema. those > nominal future staff may be happy with ?9 odd per > hour, but now they never get the chance. > > I accept that this is a simplified scenario but > it's a lot closer to how business actually > operates than most of the stuff o this thread. To me that just suggests that we'll pay people rubbish now, so we can open another cinema, make bigger profits and pay more people rubbish in the future.

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > James Barber Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon > would > > snap the lease up > > So I don't see a risk of this boycott in > > us losing such a valuable local resource. > > > > > > Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly > to > > be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor > > seems ok with that prospect. > > There is a huge amount of capital expenditure > in > > the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to > > Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such > a > > wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be > > employed. > > > > I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel > about > > their employment there the next time I'm in > there, > > although I understand that they may feel > > conflicted. > > As someone else suggested, tipping helps > > significantly. > > Of course only people who use the cinema can > tip, > > those who don't cant and those who boycott cant > > either. > > Crikey. I had missed this spectacularly ill > informed complacency from James Barber. > > I despair sometimes. We have this great local > facility paying way, way above minimum wage and > people are calling for a boycott. And let's just > flag the elephant in the room here. Cinema jobs > are easy. You spend half your time watching > movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting > bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it > gets. There are much tougher gigs on LL paying way > less. > > Vacuous virtue signalling at it's worst. There are probably easier gigs paying less too. Your point is like saying don't send your money to the RSPB because Barnados do more worthwhile work. Where do you draw the line? Do you only support the most needy charity or spend your whole time trying to find the company that pays the very least to the people that do the hardest work and only boycott them? What about the profit margins or the size of the company. Picturehouse are part of a multi-national behemoth.

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > El Presidente Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all > > ED > > > businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? > > The > > > skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could > > > completely wipe out all the good little > > businesses > > > in ED and feel really great about ourselves > > > because we're such ethical consumers! > > > > You always need to start somewhere and once a > > prominent local business starts paying LLW, > others > > will feel pressured to follow. > > > > And Picturehouse is a long long way from being > a > > small independent local business. > > Well why not start with the businesses James B > say's aren't paying their staff? Or failing that, > the ones that only pay the minimum wage? Why > choose one that is paying over ?2 an hour above > the minimum wage for a low skilled job. I'm not boycotting picturehouse as I don't use it in the first place- but not for those reasons. However; I see no reason for people not to boycott it for that reason. Yes, if someone wants to list the businesses James is talking about, perhaps people could boycott those too. I guess another reason for doing it is because a high profile protest against one of their other cinemas led to some action.

I don't know, but Swadesh is.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jules-and-Boo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's very clear that they could 'gentrify' but > > that's actually an ethical decision > > I thought the building was due for demolition in a > couple of years? I don't think there's any scope > for PP to go all fancy, even if they wanted to. Is that right?!

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all ED > businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? The > skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could > completely wipe out all the good little businesses > in ED and feel really great about ourselves > because we're such ethical consumers! You always need to start somewhere and once a prominent local business starts paying LLW, others will feel pressured to follow. And Picturehouse is a long long way from being a small independent local business.

Book of Mormon?

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm definitely going to keep going there now I > know there's no danger of hearing Louisa moaning > in the background! > > I've been to Peckham - good if you like mobile > phones ringing, people talking, teenagers > swearing, uncomfortable seats and sticky carpets. > A few quid cheaper though and close to McDonalds > if that's what floats your boat. I'm happy with > Oddono's. Each to their own. I use Peckham Plex all the time (at least twice a month) and have never experienced any of those things. How strange. And, a few quid cheaper? ?4.99 vs ?13

I used to make what I thought was an impossible to beat Ragu. it wasn't over the top, but had onion, garlic, carrot, mince, red wine, tinned tomatoes, herbs, splash of Worcester sauce, tomato puree, bay leaves, stock, salt and pepper and some mushrooms if I had them lying around. That was until I tried Carluccio's traditional Ragu recipe, which is much simpler; doesn't bother with garlic, Worcester sauce (naturally), herbs, tinned tomatoes, bay leaves or mushrooms. And it is by far the best I've tasted. Better than I had in Bologna itself. Here it is http://antonio-carluccio.co.uk/recipes/tagliatelle-al-ragu-bolognese/

Thanks for that. I'll have to give that place a visit. On a similar tip, everyone should try the Indian YMCA. Canteen like set up, everyone welcome and it's a wonderful people watching spot. Simple, cheap delicious. http://www.indianymca.org/our-restaurant/

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think everyone has a right to their > expectations. > Expecting food to be cooked somewhere near right > is reasonable IMO. > In the U.K. what makes me laugh (and this is not > specific to this restaurant or ED) is how paying > customers are prepared to forfeit their > hard-earned wages to prop-up a restaurant that > cannot make the grade. > So many unhappy customers smile politely, pay a > tip, pay the bill and walk out without saying a > word to the waiter/manager. > When the waiter comes over (as they do, with the > implicit expectation that you'll say 'fine, > thanks') and asks how things are, tell them you're > underwhelmed and will not be paying full price for > a meal that's not full quality. > If that'll cause a free cabaret in the restaurant > so what, the restaurant need to know - there's a > transaction here. > You're under no obligation to treat businesses > with kid gloves ! > Basically restauranters must get a decent > percentage of their income from pissed-off > customers who're happy to just keep on paying (and > returning) on the off-chance that one day they'll > be lucky and a meal will eventually be OK. > This is a lose-lose proposition, the restaurant > doesn't get the feedback they need so don't > improve where and when they should, the customer > has unsatisfying experiences and pays for the > privilege. > How many of the unhappy posters above have told > the restaurant with the detail posted here and why > do you think it's OK to pay a restaurant full > price repeatedly when they fall short ? - genuine > question, I really don't understand the logic of > this approach. This is all true and I would add that a restaurant owner will absolutely want to know if something's not right. It gives them a chance to put it right and send you away a happy customer, rather than an unhappy customer that's likely to write a bad review on the EDF or Trip Advisor or wherever. There's an old adage that you're taught in catering; that an unhappy customer will tell way more people about their bad experience than a happy customer will about their good one. So it's essential to their business that a customer is sent away happy.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Newspapers only print what their readership will > pay to read. They aren't running the country, they > are running a business where the more people view > what they write the more money they make. If they > write stuff people don't want to read they quickly > go bust. That's not strictly accurate. Newspapers have a very loyal readership. People will read the express or mail their whole lives and their kids will carry on the tradition. Then, what's written influences those readers as they won't stop buying the paper unless what their used to suddenly changes wildly.

natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Charity shops will Not take them because they are > recorded CDs > > * They need to be shop bought * Not downloaded on > cd Apologies if I'm wrong, but aren't these original CDs?

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu, you need to learn to put a positive spin > on things, I'm starting to hear a dreary Brummie > accent when I read your posts these days. Here's a > starter, let's say there were to be an end to the > world, most of us would be straight down to M&S to > stock up, so the more M&S's the better!... I dunno about the rest of you, but at the first signs of Armageddon i'd be off to my local trusted purveyor of contraband goods to stock up and then find myself a good elevated viewpoint.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wonder what will become of the place now... > Another Curry House.. ?? > > More Speculation.. > > I liked it when it was The Coriander Restaurant.. > > > DulwichFox The Coriander was good. That was always my LL Indian of choice until it closed. Surma is just as good though.

How about a tiny raised border where the cycle lane meets the pedestrian bit, to raise awareness of the cycle lane? I imagine it's a cheapish interim solution?

Why won't charity shops accept them? I've bought CDs from charity shops before. Music Magpie will take them off you. You might only get 15p per cd, but they'll collect them.

Very glad you're ok. Irrespective of the pre-existing condition, I imagine it must've been quite frightening.

Saying that, it was still hilarious on Sunday.

I'd be amazed if any rugby players know all the rules and when/how to apply them. That's one of the reasons rugby refs are so bloody good.

I leave a suit at work and always get changed when I arrive. This morning I took my jeans off, folded them neatly on the loo seat ready to take my suit trousers from the hanger (with the intention of hanging my jeans in their place) and proceeded to just my jeans back on instead. I didn't even notice until I was putting my work shoes on.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > And you miss the point completely. > > > > Someone on here called someone a name based on > > something they said/did. The original post is > > about racial abuse. > > > > If you don't genuinely understand the > difference > > between name calling in response to an action > by > > that person and racial abuse based on nothing > but > > skin colour, it would be very worrying. > > I think I get the point titch juicy although the > OP seems a bit unclear as to what offense has > actually been committed > > Posted by Jim1234 February 24, 11:46PM > > OK seems I neglected to mention that the couple > were assumedly muslim - the lady was wearing a > headscarf. Clearly it was racism, islamophobia, > discrimination, whatever you want to call it. > > If words like racism are misused they become > devalued. You have made an assumption about skin > colour. Have I missed where the OP mentioned the > skin colour of the couple? The lady had a > headscarf, her ethnicity wasn't mentioned. Islam > is a religion, not a race. To call a muslim a > terrorist would probably be more of a hate crime > based on religion than racism. > > A careful use words is advisable Religious hatred or racism. The point obviously and very clearly still stands.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "he might question whether the person who > shouted > > out 'terrorists' actually hated the couple he > > directed it to. He might have thought he was > being > > funny, might have been trying to impress > friends" > > > > I have to admit, my chief concern was the > > recipients of the 'jest' from the perpetrator. > > They're clearly identifiable as Muslims, so > how, > > when they're called a terrorist in a public > place, > > could they ever take offence and think it was > > anything other than "just a laugh" ? > > You miss the irony of your post KK > > You took offence at GG's post because you thought > he was belittling the reported incident but them > called him a name. Two wrongs don't make a right And you miss the point completely. Someone on here called someone a name based on something they said/did. The original post is about racial abuse. If you don't genuinely understand the difference between name calling in response to an action by that person and racial abuse based on nothing but skin colour, it would be very worrying.