Jump to content

Nando?s coming to Rye Lane, Peckham


Louisa

Recommended Posts

I went into Costa and it was full of the overflow from Wetherspoons :) Still enjoyed sitting there watching the top of Rye Lane from the window - it's fun to watch.


Not to bad an addition - got to say the latest addition I've been to most other than pubs is Voodoo Rays (could it be the large bar that attracts me in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keano77 Wrote:

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

> Never eaten in Nando's myself and hope I never

> will.

>

> My teenage daughter and her friends however love

> it.

>

> Good brand moving to Peckham. I await

> gentifications objections.



Snob! 😉


I like Nando's - the food is at least (for the most part) not deep fried. Much worse places to take kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Nice homophobia tonight from the idiots running the door st the White Horse - twats


Complain to management (email or twitter). I'm sure they'll get it sorted out, and you should at least expect some free drinks and food too...


Back on topic, I like Nando's. Always looking for places we can eat dinner with a small kid, so will probably use it now and again. And I think it would be likely to attract a cross-section of the community (as does Costa) which can only be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I guess this means Nando's have given up on the

> Londis site on Lordship Lane.



To be quite fair to them, Nando?s would suit Peckham fair more than ED- younger population, busier, night life crowds, students etc etc. I think it will do very well indeed down there on Rye Lane. The LL Londis site is better suited to something like a Bill?s restaurant.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nando's is far more consistent than Bill's.


Bill's tries to do too much, and is not consistent. Nando's sticks to one core product - chicken plus accompaniments, and (usually) does it well.


Put another way, if you like what Nando's does you generally won't be disappointed, which is one of the pillars of success in the industry. People like it because they get what they go in for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

miga Wrote:

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

> It's "red tractor", so probably better than most

> chicken shops.


Quite possibly, but those who care about such things might like to note that Red Tractor was described by Compassion in World Farming as "the lowest standard of any quality assurance" and "guarantees food is British and legal, but little else. Allows tail-docking and teeth-grinding of pigs [without anaesthesia], zero-grazing of dairy cows, long journeys to slaughter, and cramming of chickens into sheds ? allowing them little room to express natural behaviour."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I believe there's still a long way to go - and I'm fortunate to be able to afford and have access to meat that I know for sure is ethically sound, I feel that Red Tractor is at least a step in the right direction.


If we can get people away from the heap and nasty stuff from Eastern Europe and Asia (where they make Red Tractor look like Soil Association), then hopefully from there we can progress to a better standard for what we produce.


Ultimately there is an imbalance between how much meat we consume and the physical amount of space we have in the UK. But stuff like Red Tractor is a good starting point. Of course it should be better, but so should a lot of things in our food chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree up to a point Joe - yes of course it's better to have meat produced in the UK under UK law than imports from countries which have little or no welfare regulation - but in my opinion marks like Red Tractor are misleading at best; I'm sure most people seeing the mark are under the impression that they're getting something with superior welfare and production standards to normal legally-produced meat, which, essentially, they're not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you're right about the issues surrounding Red Tractor, I don't wish to suggest that it is a standard which we should be happy with. But it is at least verifiable and understandable, which too much of our meat is not, and that I think is why I'm happy that it at least exists. I view it (perhaps overly simplistically) and a desirable starting point.


The sheer volume of chicken and pork consumed in the UK is stunning; Morrisons, a vertically integrated business with its own farms, abbatoirs and butcheries, still has to import 75% of the cooked/cured pork product it sell, mostly from the Netherlnds where standards are not as good as ours. The simplest answer would be for all of us to eat less meat, but generally speaking that isn't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • They have. They asked in the original consultation. I’ve talked about it above. Around 3000 people (57% of a self selecting sample), were against the scheme. But the point you seem to be struggling with is that it wasn’t a referendum. We don't routinely have referenda on matters public policy in the UK (Brexit aside). We elect people to make decisions and then we judge the quality of those decisions in the round, and either re-elect them, or kick them out. That’s representative democracy. It’s not a good idea imo, but happy to listen if you do want to make the case for the routine use of referenda in matters of public policy. Not so much if you just want to use it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about. Still ducking the question I’ve posed to you more than once now on claim of inadequate signage and intimidation of emergency services I note. I actually think the majority quietly support the local LTN. Certainly polling across London shows most Londoners support them generally. The local elections also suggest that most people either support it, or don’t feel strongly enough either way for it to stop them re-electing those who oversaw the implementation. Again, I don’t believe in routinely holding referenda on matters of public policy. There are many reasons for this but that's another thread. Hopefully any sensible person reflecting on it for a second will understand the reasons why it wouldn’t be desirable. As above, if you're just interested in using it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about, I'm not really interested. ....Still waiting for someone to defend One Dulwich’s claims as laid out above. 🥱
    • Sounds like you are running scared of the idea Earl, come now with so much debate over what is a consultation /referendum surly it's a simplel way of settling the argument 🤔 
    • Pot holes feel like they’re becoming more of an issue (based purely on my perception, don’t know what data there is). Even worse outside London imo. I suspect as Mal says, heavier vehicles are part of the problem (both SUVs, but also EVs which are generally heavier than ‘conventional’ cars), but regardless the council need to be more on it.  You can use the fixmystreet app to report them (and other street maintenance issues). 
    • Prior to the LTNs do you have many examples where the results of consultations were not acted upon? Seems to me the council is picking and choosing when they action the feedback from their constituents.......   Have you looked at the results from that, if not, tale some time to have a look, its quite enlightening..it seems the majority do not think the changes will have the desired effect....but you know it's not a refendum so the council has chosen to ignore the feedback of constituents. They must be assuming full responsibility for ignoring residents feedback- clearly they think they know what's best for us. If it all goes wrong let's see if they take responsibility!   Earl, here's a question for you (and i know you wont answer it but lets see)...why do you think the council has never asked a yes/no question to local residents about anything to do with the LTNs - wether they exist or whether we think the changes they have suggested (using our money) are needed/worthwhile? Or a consultation with a yes/no answer but we all know why. I still laugh that the council had to re-run the CPZ consultation with a yes/no answer and finally had to listen to their constituents...they took a hell of a spanking! They have been cheating the system for years and getting away with it. So does that not apply during consultations then? (P.S before you answer take a look at the definition of a consultation as provided by the Local Government Association).
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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