Jump to content

The Best Bar in East Dulwich 2007 award - discussion


Recommended Posts

Popped into the Bishop this afternoon - hmmmmm... what is all the fuss about? worn out seating, grubby and tatty decor, artwork that looked like it was from East Street market, that odd arangement of mirrors and the ugly looking East Germanic air con unit hoiked to the ceiling. And, the conversation between punters and girl behind bar was basically not-very-nice sexual banter. Place seemed pretty seedy for a Wednesday afternoon. Reminded me of, now what was that other place called..... The Forresters!

Keef Wrote:

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

> MrBen, just to clarify, Punch Taverns own the CPT,

> but they sell the lease to people who then

> effectively do what they want with it. It's

> current owner made the decision to paint it, and

> paid for the patio out front and the

> reupholstering for the seats and all that.

> Unfortunately, she's just left the place to rot,

> and wants rid, so someone else will buy it from

> her (there have been a couple of people looking at

> it) and then do as they see fit. Punch Taverns

> really have nothing to do with the pub other than

> to supply the beer. For the record, I know one

> interested party was exploring the possibility of

> extending out back to build a kitchen.



The CPT - If that back room isn't the "restaurant" and the front bit "the bar", with a genneric "gastro-menu" by this time next year, I'll eat my hat... and my trousers...

Nero Wrote:

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

> Is there a system in place so that each forumite can only post once?


There should be yes, why can you vote twice? It does seem though that if you go to the best bar vote via the Lounge then you can revoke your vote then vote for someone else. Now removed


Did everyone get an email last night about the voting?


[edited once]

People prefer bland. Put it this way: when we go into a video store while we have the option of an edgy, interesting indie/foreign movie, most people most of the time will watch the safe, predictable Hollowood (sic) product. Partly because stepping out of the normal routine is a risk and also becuase those films (like the Bishop pub, etc.) are ones that all your mates/family watch or that are already the most well-known.


Plus, I might be wrong, but the Bish has got the latest licence on LL. This could be a factor ...

char1ie Wrote:

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

> It is the perfect boozer.



As Rolo said, good luck to them, I don't hate anyone there or anything, but "perfect boozer"... Come on, it is not a boozer!


Besides, late lisenses are crap, it just means the busy place you're in gets busier as everyone tries for that last pint... What you need is a lock in :)-D

They used to have a policy of having to be in by a certain time to partake of the late licence.

I don't know whether getting rid of that is a good or bad thing. Depends on whether i'm on the inside or the outside I guess (though they usually snuck me in anyway B), it pays to get on well with the door staff)

My big problem with the EDT is the absolutely crap seats that always seem on the brink of collapsing under you. However, I do quite like it in there as a whole.


Mag has the same seating issues, why of why do so many pubs think that buying old church seats is a good idea? They are by definition uncomfortable, and the churches are getting rid for a reason!

char1ie Wrote:

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

>

>

> It is the perfect boozer.

>


Hmmm, not with you there, Charlie. It's alright, and I've never had a shit night in there, but neither have I had one that sticks in the memory. So many other places I have met all kinds of characters. Never, alas, in the Bish. S'alright for one or two, IMO, but lacks the coherence, ambience and nuances of other ED watering holes.

Keef Wrote:

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

> MrBen, just to clarify, Punch Taverns own the CPT,

> but they sell the lease to people who then

> effectively do what they want with it. It's

> current owner made the decision to paint it, and

> paid for the patio out front and the

> reupholstering for the seats and all that.

> Unfortunately, she's just left the place to rot,

> and wants rid, so someone else will buy it from

> her (there have been a couple of people looking at

> it) and then do as they see fit. Punch Taverns

> really have nothing to do with the pub other than

> to supply the beer. For the record, I know one

> interested party was exploring the possibility of

> extending out back to build a kitchen.



Keef it sounds like Punch own the freehold no? And my point was a commercial one. If they can get more money for their lease next time round (from a new proprietor with ideas) I guess they will. But more importantly, Keef, in your opinion CPT - front or back bit (football nothwithstanding)??

Well I used to spend more time in the back "lounge bar" or "Old Side" we tend to call it, but in recent times I am definitely in the front "New Side" more often. However, this time of year, I suspect we'll find ourselves back to the long table by the fire in the Old Side. More cosy!

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 ranging from £175 to £300" 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...