Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Beej Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sods law, after all the talk of the place this

> week I was planning to finally give it a try on

> Tuesday and again tonight, cest a vie.... good job

> I can never get enough of that weirdly trippy

> drippy hypnotic oil lamp thing in East Dulwich

> Tandoori.


That trippy drippy hypnotic oil lamp thing in Dulwich Tandoori Has been there for 20 years+ ??


It broke down but was repaired s couple of years back.


DulwichFox

bob Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was told by another restaurant that they owned 3

> others and they all closed on the same day.

> Bob S


Draw your own conclusions. I've been told that this was a police raid, not an immigration raid. But of course Foxy & Louisa are quite correct that we should await any criminal charges before drawing any conclusions. And further comment on here could potentially be defamatory (apart from the Sue v Foxy v Louisa joust, which is both ongoing and enjoyable). Enough said.

derwentgrove Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


(apart from

> the Sue v Foxy v Louisa joust, which is both

> ongoing and enjoyable).



It isn't ongoing.


I just wanted an answer, and I got it, so as far as I'm concerned that is the end of it.


I just don't understand why it wasn't forthcoming earlier, as it seemed a quite straightforward explanation.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> derwentgrove Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> (apart from

> > the Sue v Foxy v Louisa joust, which is both

> > ongoing and enjoyable).

>

>

> It isn't ongoing.

>

> I just wanted an answer, and I got it, so as far

> as I'm concerned that is the end of it.

>

> I just don't understand why it wasn't forthcoming

> earlier, as it seemed a quite straightforward

> explanation.


Sue nothing is straightforward on here, you should know that by now ;-)


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Sue nothing is straightforward on here, you should

> know that by now ;-)

>



Well I am straightforward, so I presume you are speaking for yourself?


ETA: And perhaps for Dulwich Fox if you are implying that his explanation wasn't in fact all that it seemed?


Oh well, I always was very gullible :(

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Sue nothing is straightforward on here, you

> should

> > know that by now ;-)

> >

>

>

> Well I am straightforward, so I presume you are

> speaking for yourself?



I am very straightforward too. It's often my downfall. You know as well as I do, Foxy sometimes goes off on a tangent, innocently and never offensively, and yet you goad him for answers when it isn't necessarily needed. That's my conclusion, but anyway let's drop it now.


Louisa.

ozzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A guy from there told me they were re-opening on

> march 16th selling indian food .


Thank god; we've needed a decent Indian on LL for ages. All we need now is a pizza place, cheese shop and some banners on lampposts and we're set.

> Ianr yes I was told the same.


Bob, I was quoting you and simply asking: which of A or B?


Anyway, for anyone inclined to fact-check the rumour of simultaneous closures ... The sole director/owner of Xoco Ltd of 44LL, incorporated March 2016, has the same name and birth month as the person who took over Chutney Jane Ltd of London SE, another restaurant business, in September 2015. So possibly the same person. I've seen no evidence of any other catering directorships in his name.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are 4.7 billion people living on Earth.

> Only 5 or 6 people have expressed any concern

> About this place closing.

>

> Foxy


What happened


There were 7 Billion yesterday


Was it Trump

Hmmmm....

Foxy. A couple of days ago you hauled someone up for casually mentioning '7 curry houses' on Lordship Lane, where you pointed out it was 5 - a discrepancy of 2. Yes two. One, two - two !

NOW you casually disregard 2 BILLION of the population with a stroke of the keyboard ?!

Your error was AT LEAST a billion times as bad, by magnitude. That's a propa error.

This simply can't go on.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...