JoeLeg

It?s true that many hospitality staff do indeed enjoy that benefit to a zero-hours contract, and I recognise that there are those who disagree with my vitriolic objection to them. Certainly something here doesn?t add up.

I have to say that so far the Ivy House seems to be the more credible of the two sides in this. The striking workers haven?t publically put forward anything to explain the details of their complaints, which I think they should; if nothing else they have the right to be heard, and they obviously feel strongly about their cause. If they?re reading this I would encourage them to do so. I personally abhor zero-hours contracts, and any establishment that seeks to avoid them has my support. I?d like to know why the workers and management are unable to come to an agreement on this.

If the members of staff had been employed for less than two years then there?s nothing anyone can do about them losing their jobs. If they?re on zero hours contracts then it is akin to summary dismissal, as all management has to do is pay them what they?re owed. This is another reason why zero hours contracts should be outlawed, but that?s another matter. If they were in fact fired with immediate effect for some kind of misdemeanours then it?s to be hoped the management had good cause, otherwise Ivy House is on dodgy legal ground. But there?s a number of other ways this could have actually played out. I would urge people to get both sides of the story before leaping to conclusions; I suspect there?s more to this than meets the eye. Ivy House has never seemed like that kind of employer. ETA - I really hope the Ivy House comes out and gives their side of the story. The rest of the staff went on unofficial strike in support of those dismissed, so there?s obviously some depth of feeling there. Very little union recognition exists in the hospitality industry, which is fortunately changing over time, but as Penguin points out small employers of any ilk are not required to recognise unions so most don?t.

What if you live further up Lordship Lane, towards the library?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LOL and the loonies have replied almost straight > away.... > > "This is a betrayal of the very highest order. It > is a betrayal not only of the millions of Labour > voters, but of our 2017 manifesto. > > It is a betrayal that voters will remember for a > very long time, and we will lose MPs as a result. > There is no doubt. It was a P45 to our MPs in the > Midlands and Wales. > > But let me be clear on another thing: Keir?s > speech today was a challenge to Jeremy?s > leadership. It was a carefully calculated pitch, > no doubt written with a team of advisers. He is > undermining Jeremy, John McDonnell and millions of > Labour voters -- and he knows it." > > > I think the cheers said it all though - Labour's > membership including Momentum are for a peoples > vote. Labour deserves to lose MP?s. They went into the referendum led by a man who firmly believes in Brexit but didn?t have the cojones to stand up for that - as soon as Corbyn got an actual sniff of power he compromised his principles in a heartbeat. If he didn?t believe he could faithfully campaign for a Remain vote he had no place being leader. There are many ways in which Corbyn?s ?leadership? has damaged Labour irreparably, but that - for me - was the moment when I knew he had no backbone. He?s a great constituency MP, and pretty good at speaking truth to power, but abysmal at holding any kind of power himself.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/property-on-th > e-estate/residential-freehold/applications-for-bui > lding-works > > It seems all perfectly clear- it's a great pity > that East Dulwich has been allowed to degenerate > into the eyesore it has due to ridiculous planning > approvals Have you actually had any dealings with the Estate on matters like this? They are NOT consistent in their behaviour.

It?s a real shame the old hardware store had to close. The people who ran it wanted to retire and their kids didn?t want to take it ovet so that was that, a genuinely useful local shop was replaced by something hardly anyone used and now something else of debatable use. But maybe it?s indicative of what drives the local economy these days. I wish it luck, in any event. I?d rather someone was making a go of an empty space at least.

epiphany Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The issue is unreasonable and > inconsistent planning rejection and approvals, not > the service charge. Yup, that sounds like Dulwich Estate. My wife once freelanced for an architects firm on a project where an inhabitant of the Estate wanted to convert a building into a very useful space for small businesses to work from for very reasonable rents. A great idea, it never got off the ground because the Estate were simply so hard to deal with in exactly the manner you describe; seemingly no rhyme or reason to their decisions, no consistency, no willingness to explain themselves.

I think you really need to ask the Dulwich Estate, to be fair, but they?re not the most...erm, progressive of organisations and while I wish you luck I?d be amazed if they allowed it. I suspect you?d need to get lawyers involved in some form or other, and then it becomes a question of whether you can afford it. The Estate has some very deep pockets.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A view on the mutilations from a reliable source. > > https://www.facebook.com/158681810859025/posts/190 > 7440542649801/ > OUR VIEW - THIS IS INCORRECT! > At Streatham Hill Vets we have had several of > these bodies brought into us. They have all > consisted of clean, surgical type amputations or > beheadings. They were NOT done by foxes or wild > animals. It is exceptionally rare for a fox to > attack a cat and they should not be used as > scapegoats for these horrific crimes. We're afraid > that our combined significant veterinary > experience is going to have to differ with the > pathologist on this case. > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/20/croyd Now that?s the kind of informed dissenting opinion that is useful. The whole thing seems very strange.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't you DARE tell me to zip it! > Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. > Comments like yours are unhelpful and have been > reported. I didn?t call you a liar, I said that you need to back up the unsubstantiated allegations you (and SNARL) are making. It sounds pretty serious to me if SNARL are correct, but I don?t think highly of people going online and saying this kind of stuff while thinking people should take their views as gospel truth. You?re putting forward your opinion as fact, and in light of the seriousness of the allegations made you need to provide evidence or zip it.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one is opting out. > Just asking. > In my opinion. Back it up with some kind of evidence or zip it. If you?re right then it?s pretty serious and warrants the police having their feet held to the fire. If you?re wrong you?re just scaremongering. Show some responsibility please, this isn?t a Brexit discussion, what?s being alleged by SNARL is pretty intense. I for one am open seeing to clear evidence - it wouldn?t be the first time the police have covered stuff up - but nothing shown so far is much above tinfoil territory.

?Someone told me?... You?re not even trying now. I feel sorry for your pupils.

.

To be fair most *online* ?debate? about Brexit is pretty self-serving. It tends to exist in one echo chamber or another, consisting mostly of people reinforcing each other?s views about whatever stance they hold and arguing vociferously with interlopers who go against their flow. We?re just of guilty of that here, and I include myself in that.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'as families from different cultural backgrounds > battle it out for superiority on their street' > That's the sort of thing that was going on in the > streets of Upton Park - 40 YEARS AGO! > Spread your message...it sounds like a complete > p*ss take imvho During my time in the Army there was a saying that I think really applies to you... ?The service isn?t why it used to be...and it never was!? You really do yearn for halcyon days that didn?t exist. Sad.

See? As trolling goes, it?s funny how tragically dull that is.

Don?t feed the incompetent troll.

http://www.trinityrestaurant.co.uk/trinity-menu/ Not cheap, but ridiculously good.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a lot at stake here. > Very true. > Do they own the building ? Probably not > You?re probably right, unfortunately. > Will the Landlord be happy to re-rent to them. ? > Possibly huge rent increase ? One hopes not, but in this day and age who knows? > Will the Council rescind their license ? > Unlikely, given that thankfully no one was injured. > Will the insurance pay out ? > Will they be able to get insurance ? > Again possibly huge insurance Premium penalties. > Insurance companies are notorious, as Penguin says, for trying to get out of their obligations. If they can be persuaded to pay out (and I hope they are), then they will almost certainly jack the premiums a disgusting amount. > Will anyone be prosecuted. ? That?s down to the HSE I believe (could be wrong). Personally I think it unlikely but again, anything?s possible. > Will have to wait and see ?? > > DulwichFox. Indeed. I really hope it reopens.

There?s not much really going on Brexit-wise right now. The govt is realeasing this stuff, but I don?t think anyone really expects a ?no-deal?. Too much to lose on both sid There?s also not a lot of reasoned debate going on, because we don?t know any more than we did three months ago. Everything is supposition right now, as well as tremendous amounts of spin and counter-spin. Mostly people are - I think - keeping their powder dry until parliament returns, conference season kicks off and we find out just how badly the Tories do or do not want to get rid of Theresa May. The exception to this is Kate Hoey who needs to be deselected and and sent to her natural home of UKIP; an absolute disgrace of an ?MP? who is now ignoring her constituents needs in order to be the saviour of Brexit for the left, that is to say she?s simply feathering her own political nest. I?ve come to loath her.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with you today Uncle...impressive, even by your low standards.

FightingFit Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > > > Perhaps if you shared your pearls of wisdom with > Munir Hussan and not on here, he'd be most > grateful (Is that supposed to make me feel stupid or something? Or perhaps people should only talk online about things they understand when you approve it first? Let me know...) I?ll be real clear. When you run any business that sells food to the public there is a mass of regulations and laws that *must* be adhered to. Do you know why, my little passive-aggressive darling? SO WE DON?T KILL STAFF OR CUSTOMERS. Food hygiene, health and safety, HAACP, insurance and more besides. All of it absolutely necessary. Regular cleaning on extraction systems is part of this, and if you think I?m somehow going to feel stupid for pointing out that Tandoori Nights is an example of WHY, then you need to take your head for a wobble. I suspect Mr Hussan knows all this, and if he does indeed have the certificates to show he?s had it cleaned regularly then he can sit back safe in the knowledge that he was fulfilling his regulatory obligations and the insurance will pay out. If he didn?t, then he stands as a prime example of why we take this stuff seriously. Somebody could?ve been killed.

An oil fire itself may not be too ?dangerous? - I have no idea how much oil was involved, but a proper fire blanket or foam extinguisher (both legally mandatory in restaurant kitchens) will handle one fairly easily. I?ve had to unload an extinguisher into an oven which had become ablaze due to spilled oil, it?s not a big deal on its own. There?s actually not a lot of easily flammable stuff in a restaurant kitchen, the equipment is mostly metal for example. That?s intentional. But if you?re dumb enough to not have your extraction scrubbed out twice a year then if flames reach the extraction unit - from any source - then yes, you?re in trouble.

Twice-yearly deep cleans of extraction units are usually mandatory requirements for insurance purposes. Any restaurant that does not do that is asking for trouble. I would remind everyone of the River Cafe fire some years back; their extraction was kept clean but a pan flame went too high and was caught by the extraction vents. Air moves through them at high speed andcthis meant the fire was pulled into the whole system in about two seconds. The point is that if flame gets into the extraction it doesn?t really matter how clean it is or not, that?s pretty much game over for the kitchen. Of course, if it isn?t cleaned regularly then it presents a far greater danger in general, especially to other parts of the building, hence the insurance requirements for thorough, professional cleaning every six months. I have no idea of Tandoori Nights extraction was cleaned properly, as I can?t be sure what the fire brigade mean by ?large deposits of grease? - though it doesn?t sound good - but I fervently hope it was otherwise they?re in even more trouble. Leaving oil unattended...idiots.