Jump to content

Recommended Posts

mattindulwich18 Wrote:

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

> I am finally moving into my new flat next weekend

> and the Rye will be my local pub.

>

> Is it a good pub? and more importantly is it gay

> friendly?


Forgive me Matt, but what exactly is a gay friendly pub? Surely a pub is a pub, and your sexuality should have nothing to do with it.....

"Forgive me Matt, but what exactly is a gay friendly pub? Surely a pub is a pub, and your sexuality should have nothing to do with it....."


:-)


I debated this issue with someone on another thread matt started in the recommendations section about a month ago. In an ideal world it shouldn't have anything to do with it, but in reality it does. I think we concluded that the PRPG is gay friendly. Reviews also say that the food is good there too.

Frisco Wrote:

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

> You're showing your age there Bob; not to mention

> your dubious taste in films!


Ha Ha.. indeed. Though I don't recollect any cockring scenes in P.A.? Perhaps they are included as 'rare deleted scenes' in the DVD box set?

Breton Wrote:

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

> Lost the plot? I suppose a gay griendly pub is one

> in which you don't feel threatened or get beaten

> up outside on your way home. It shouldn't matter

> if one's sexuality is different from others, and a

> pub is a pub, but there you are.


would not apply to a hetro friendly pub as well, im not too fond of getting threatened in pubs or getting a hiding on the way home for that matter.

I would like to say that one's sexuality does not matter when you go into a bar or pub, I go to the Uplands with my boyfriend for dinner and its lovely, the service is good and the food wholesome and I dont feel left out, but I have never been into a pub by myself in Lordship Lane yet, so i look forward to having a new local pub in the PRPG.

Dear Mattindulwich18,


My girlfriend and I (I'm laydee!) are new regulars to the Rye pub and it has passed our happy homo test - have even spotted some other family there on more than one occassion.


I must say that it is not very diabetic friendly however. We went in there the day we moved house and my poor old Dad was having a hypo so I asked to get some food (after buying a large round of drinks). They responded with a militant "We are not serving food for another hour". I eventually got some prawn crackers and a stale piece of bread out of them after much pleading - talk about jobsworths!


To be fair, some of the newer staff I've seen are very lovely and helpful and being of a certain persuasion, we do particularly like the decor, garden and dog-friendly policy too.


Has anyone been to the Forest Hill Tavern lately? They are trying very hard - the chef gave us free puddings to try last time we were there and the quiz is quite good. It would be great to see more people there.

Overpriced toss hole with the rudest staff in London if you ask me but then I am biased having had one of the snooty stuck up bar staff interupt a table of my friends to ask one of them to settle a bar bill from a previous evening that she PRESUMED was hers. If embarrasing my friend in this way was not enough she then proceeded to hound her round the pub. I, quite happily, have not been back since and do not intend to.

I've had a few bad experiences in there too. Scott the funny and sweet manager/boss seems to have a tendency to let the pressure get to him whereupon he becomes a right stroppy old queen. After being scolded a couple of times I haven't been back.


It's a nice place though, as long as you deal with the bad attitude.



Charlie



ratty Wrote:

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

> Overpriced toss hole with the rudest staff in

> London if you ask me but then I am biased having

> had one of the snooty stuck up bar staff interupt

> a table of my friends to ask one of them to settle

> a bar bill from a previous evening that she

> PRESUMED was hers. If embarrasing my friend in

> this way was not enough she then proceeded to

> hound her round the pub. I, quite happily, have

> not been back since and do not intend to.

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

    • a) Because they published a leaflet in Urdu promising to give "Muslims a strong voice". This is reprehensible - just as a party that promised to give Protestants or Jews or Buddhists alone "a strong voice" would be acting in a sectarian manner. Parties - especially socialist ones like the English & Welsh Greens are now - should not be assymetrically promoting the interests of one religious group. b) Because they published a video in Urdu and Bangla criticising Kier Starmer for meeting Narendra Modi, when Modi has nothing to do with the issues discussed. Modi is a Hindu nationalist bigot - but in this context, the Greens are just shitstirring existing tensions between British Hindus and British Muslims for the purpose of trying to win Muslim votes - see the first point. FWIW I don't have any problem with parties communicating with the electorate in languages other than English (from Irish to Polish to Malayalam). What is very suspicious is when parties pump out sectarian messages only in one language... When Mamdani ran for Mayor of NYC (and won) he released plenty of campaign videos in multiple languages - but always with English subtitles too. There was never a suggestion he was sending different, sectarian messages to different groups.     https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-greens-made-advert-urdu-164616073.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/uk-green-party-accused-of-sectarianism-after-releasing-videos-in-urdu-and-bangla-featuring-pm-modi-and-gaza/articleshow/128826689.cms  
    • @Sue the Green's campaign video showing Keir Starmer shaking hands with Modi and David Lammy shaking hands with Netanyahu is one such example.  As I say, I don't know the organisation, but I would expect election observers to only report after polls have closed. To do otherwise could be perceived as interfering in the election. They might need to check patterns across multiple polling stations. Any public criticism by an independent observer mid-poll could discourage participation and could be interpreted as campaigning. Much safer / more robust to check observations and release after the event.  Sorry - those posts merged. Not intended.   
    • Could you be more specific as to how "the Greens have practiced this on a far more significant scale in Gorton and Denton"? How exactly did they "try to exploit ethic tensions"?
    • I think the accusation derives from the Greens mobilising the Muslim vote, hence engaging in sectarian politics. But happy to be corrected    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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