Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is great news - for those with nostalgic memories of "drinker's pubs" - who in reality only go to pubs once a fortnight for a pint and a half.


Those who harbour a strange deep-seated resentment of a local business that operated successfully for 15 years will also be delighted.


(Suspect there may be some overlap within the above.)

The Palmerston was a fantastic restaurant. So many excellent meals there over the years.


If you prefer pubs to restaurants/gastropubs then fine, maybe you'll be happy with the new offering. The place has good bones. But don't expect affordable beers, and the food will almost certainly be inferior value to it's predecessor.

So no one gives a toss about people investing, grafting and building a reputation in a non trendy area??the lack

Of loyalty here is mind boggling.


This is my ?beef?


Large chain behaving badly?


Sometimes they need to know it is not ok


The poor new manager is not responsible but he needs to-be in a position to feed back to the money boys

That the grockels have an opinion.

Absolutely right Tiddles.

"Sometimes they need to know it is not ok."

Guy running it may be a fine fellow, but what went on for him to get the boozer was wrong.

Don't expect a boycott to drive him and his chain under, but it'll be fun trying.

So a few things that have disapointed me with all of this but now the new proprietors are now advertising for staff and making claims that they are simply ?expanding? the staff and wish to welcome us to our ?familiar but spruced up local?.


It is infuriating that the new owners take locals to be fools. My custom was unlikely to go there, but now it definitely won?t given they are trying to profit from a reputation built by another business. If they had honestly said it was a new business and they wanted to welcome locals I?d have had more respect for them.


PS the website they have up on their posters hasn?t yet been registered should someone else want to get the website first.

tiddles Wrote:

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

> Its all ok! The posters in the window say The

> palmerston is only closed for a refurb and is

> reopening

> At the end of june! No mention of the spotty pig

> at all - hirrah!!


This is presumably irony? Surely.

  • 2 weeks later...

It is now Open. Have not been in yet.


I'm worried about what I might me asked to pay for a pint.


Does seem there is a lot of people dining in the evening so still 'Looks' like a restaurant.


Think I will await feedback from EDF users.


DulwichFox

derwentgrove Wrote:

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

> Been in twice since the soft opening on Friday

> night and am encouraged by the extent of the

> continuity.


Wow, so they are totally trading off the business and reputation of the Palmerston with that menu. That makes me even less inclined to go in, but appreciate you posting.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

> ?24 is steak money. If I pay that for a roast,

> it'd better be one of the best roast beef and

> yorkshire puds I've ever had.



Its by a long stretch the most expensive pub roast i have ever heard, and i thought Youngs were bad with their ?17.00 offerings. In fact, it costs even more than Hawksmoor, a much celebrated steak restaurant renowned for top quality roasts too.


On the basis of these prices, i will likely never step foot in the place, and will advise others to do likewise. Anywhere that is clearly ripping off their customers deserves to be boycotted.

I agree, the prices are total lunacy. The food may prove to be utterly divine which it unquestioningly would have to be but, for my money, you get a sublime roast at The Rosendale in W Dulwich for 15 quid. So I guess that's where I'll be going.

Humdinger Wrote:

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

> fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ?24 is steak money. If I pay that for a roast,

> > it'd better be one of the best roast beef and

> > yorkshire puds I've ever had.

>

>

> Its by a long stretch the most expensive pub roast

> i have ever heard, and i thought Youngs were bad

> with their ?17.00 offerings. In fact, it costs

> even more than Hawksmoor, a much celebrated steak

> restaurant renowned for top quality roasts too.

>

> On the basis of these prices, i will likely never

> step foot in the place, and will advise others to

> do likewise. Anywhere that is clearly ripping off

> their customers deserves to be boycotted.



?24 for a roast dinner when going rate at most pubs is around ?15...they're having a laugh!!!

that means a Sunday lunch for 4 with a bottle of wine will be well over ?100-do they know they're not in Chelsea???

Even west end places are cheaper than this.

sounds like a total rip off!!!

We won't be bothering to go.

Great shame as we loved the Palmerston for a Sunday get-together with friends now and again.

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...