Eating out in ED

[Miss P]

Thank you Philosophie - some genuine treasures in your list!

I have to say that we went to The Dog twice over Christmas & I was really impressed with the food. The staff were very friendly and considering we were with two dogs and various children, they were patient and helpful.

I'm a fan of Si Mangia and the Palmerston; Great Exhibition is a bit hit and miss, Sema (Lux) Thai are consistently good & it's hard to beat the sunday roast at my gaff!

Definitely have a soft spot for the halloumi sticks at The Victoria......

[jrpfinch]

Huguenot I agree with your final paragraph and can understand why the admins might not want the bother of batting away annoying emails. I don't agree with your other statements.

The reasonable person test is irrelevant. If the statement is one that an honest person might make and cannot be measured as an objective fact, then it is fair comment.

You cannot measure someone's perception of taste as an objective fact. So you can equate the taste of fries to anything an honest person might have tasted. Polar bear vomit is a bit of a stretch! But human vomit almost certainly OK.

[Penguin68]

This is the same argument that is used when somebody bitches about you on TV - you sue the individual not Sony for making the TV.

No - you may choose to sue both the person making the statement and the publisher of that statement (in this case the EDF) - the EDF stands far closer to the issuer of a libel than either the internet carrier (although attempts have been made to include internet carriers in certain types of action) or - very much more remotely, the maker of the equipment over which the libel in particularly is being viewed. [Although it should be remembered that, if memory serves, people have tried to sue both Private Eye and to join its printers and distributers in the past in an action for libel.] The EDF doesn't even exist as a 'mere' portal giving access to multiple publications. The very fact that the EDF requires registration to publish, and has adminstrators monitoring what is published, places it as analogous to a publisher - it may argue against a joint action against it and the author of the libel, but one is certainly possible.

[Huguenot]

jrpfinch, that's simply not right. UK law does not operate in that way. This isn't a debate between you and me, it's simply the law. Feel free to look it up. It is different to US law, which is why US companies sue for libel in British courts.

There is no such test as an 'honest person' only that of a reasonable person. Your polar bear vomit would not be considered reasonable criticism as it would be considered to be so extreme as to be motivated by malice.

However, you'd be unlikely to see court as such an inappropriate metaphor would likely be considered satirical.

Penguin68, your interpretation is valid but in practice it is the individual that is sued, not the site. The EDF's moderation team does make it marginally more likely to be sued successfully, but the reality is that it doesn't happen.

[the-e-dealer]

Bat ...

[Nigello]

There are some places not mentioned on this thread, either much or at all. Perhaps it is because few people go to them or because those that do and who come on here don't consider them good enough to be included.

However, I like:

Homemade (Barry Road, near the Rye end) for good breakfasts (egg butties, bacon butties, porridge) and good teas and coffees with decent service and good prices;

Luca's (Lordship Lane, near the police station) for good takeaway items (which are more expensive to eat inside) and a great value breakfast of scrambled eggs on sourdough for ?2.50 (M-F before 1100);

[Sue]

Luca's has had a terrible press on this forum, with scarce a good word to be said for it. There are several threads. Do a search!

Homemade can be good, but I've not been back since having a "stew" with only two tiny pieces of meat in it.

[Gimme]

Saw plat de jour at a certain French place on LL the other day was Steak Hache de Cheval.... (True BTW)

Obviously competing with Tesco...!

Anyone try it?

[Jeremy]

Where was that? I've never seen horse in a restaurant over here before.

I'd have no problem eating it, but horse meat is pretty lean, so not really suitable for burgers (or "steak hache"!). But mix it with beef, and you're in business.

[ennevive]

I recently took my friend for a coffee and a cake in East Dulwich.....I made the mistake of going to Luca's......?13.70 later I had bought 2xlatte 2xslice of cake......total rip off!!

[StraferJack]

Prices on display before you make your selection = possibly overpriced

No prices on display and shock when you receive the bill = rip-off

But it was the former surely?

[Sue]

ennevive Wrote:

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

> I recently took my friend for a coffee and a cake

> in East Dulwich.....I made the mistake of going to

> Luca's......?13.70 later I had bought 2xlatte

> 2xslice of cake......total rip off!!

xxxxxx

Well, going by the posts of many other people on here over the years, you were lucky to have been served at all :))

[Jeremy]

?13.70 sounds steep. But these days you gotta expect to pay at least a tenner for two posh coffees and some cake.

[KidKruger]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned Silk Road on this thread yet - but went there last night for first time in ages.

?22.50 for 2x diners including a beer each, rice, home style cabbage, twice-fried pork, dumplings.

Place was packed. Great meal.

Also walked around looking for Wuli Wuli, which many people seem to recommend on EDF, found it (was empty) so will try that next month.

[Chillaxed]

Agree 100%.

Even if the prices aren't displayed, you'd ask wouldn't you?

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Prices on display before you make your selection =

> possibly overpriced

> No prices on display and shock when you receive

> the bill = rip-off

>

> But it was the former surely?

[DulwichFox]

ennevive Wrote:

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

> I recently took my friend for a coffee and a cake

> in East Dulwich.....I made the mistake of going to

> Luca's......?13.70 later I had bought 2xlatte

> 2xslice of cake......total rip off!!

People in ED want to pay this... It's the 'My Dad is Bigger than Your Dad' Syndrome.

Open up a Tea Shop.. White-wash the walls.. Get a few old broken tables and chairs (must not match)

Get some young girls to run it. (You can get away with paying them peanuts)

Charge 10% more than Lucas.. (you can increase this later) and they will be queing the legnth of Lordship Lane.

Fox.

[DaveR]

H, you are right about this:

"This isn't a debate between you and me, it's simply the law."

But wrong about this:

"There is no such test as an 'honest person' only that of a reasonable person. Your polar bear vomit would not be considered reasonable criticism as it would be considered to be so extreme as to be motivated by malice."

I defer to the Court of Appeal:

"The final requirement for the defence of fair comment is that the comment must be one which an honest person might make or an opinion that might genuinely be held. The opinion need not be reasonable in the sense of being temperate. The criticism does not have to be moderately expressed. It can be couched in pungent or even offensive language? see Keays v. Guardian Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1565 QB at [21]. The comment may be exaggerated, even grossly exaggerated and prejudiced. As Lord Esher MR said in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QB 275 at 280/1: -

"Mere exaggeration, or even gross exaggeration, would not make the comment unfair. However wrong the opinion expressed may be in point of truth, or however prejudiced the writer, it may still be within the prescribed limit. The question which the jury must consider is this - would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be, however exaggerated or obstinate his views, have said that which this criticism has said of the work which is criticised?"

I wouldn't start offering legal advice if I were you.

[DaveR]

BTW, on the other point, liability of the forum essentially depends on whether it is a publisher or a distributor - a newspaper or a newspaper shop. If the latter, you have a defence if you can show that you didn't know the libellous comment was there, and your lack of knowledge was not due to negligence. I think the EDF would have a reasonable chance of establishing that they are a distributor, and can point to a record of taking down potentially libellous posts, which would help with establishing the defence. However, I can perfectly understand why they might want to minimise the risk by asking people not to post about businesses that are quick to threaten litigation.

[Penguin68]

On the other hand, the very fact that previous posts have been taken down would suggest that the EDF was in a postion to be aware of posts, publishers censor, distributors do not. [And anyway, as I said, I believe that Private Eye's printers and distributors were associated in an action against it for libel. That is why W H Smith for a long time would not risk carrying Private Eye in its newstands].

[Huguenot]

That sounds like a judgement in a particular case DaveR - it doesn't seem to cite the law but the opinion of the court.

Happy to check your references - what was it?

I notice from this article that the Court of Appeal said that fair comment SHOULD be changed to honest comment, but not that it actually is? That is a step to amending the law, but not a change in the law itself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/dec/01/supreme-court-fair-comment-libel-defence-change

If the law has changed since 2010 then my observations were indeed incorrect.

[Alec John Moore]

Blackbird Bakery on Grove Vale is really good for coffee and croissants/cake and it's not expensive. Nice people, friendly service and quite a cosy ambience.

[KidKruger]

Yeah blackbird is a reasonable cafe, nice tarts.

[tallulah71]

@ KK - hahahaha

[DaveR]

"That sounds like a judgement in a particular case DaveR - it doesn't seem to cite the law but the opinion of the court."

It's the Court of Appeal, referring to a previous court judgment. In a common law jurisdiction, that is 'the law'. Here's another one:

"A comment which falls within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant does not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence. However proof of such motivation may be evidence, sometimes compelling evidence, from which lack of genuine belief in the view expressed may be inferred."

Both were cited by the Court of Appeal in a recent appeal against a libel finding against the Irish News in respect of a restaurant review. You can find the judgment here:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/nie/cases/NICA/2008/14.html&query=goodfellas+and+libel&method=boolean

The law has been constantly changing - that's what happens in a common law system - but your assertion that "There is no such test as an 'honest person' only that of a reasonable person" has always been wrong, as far as I know.

It's very sweet of you to offer to check my references, but I would observe that I posted what (to anyone familiar with it) was obviously an excerpt from an appellate court judgment, and your reference was to the Guardian.

[Huguenot]

Sure thing DaveR, a useful summary of recent judgements, interpretations that would no doubt be referenced in future cases - albeit not on the statute book.

I suspect that you're simply missing the point, which was to clarify jprfinch's assertion that you could say what you want and it wouldn't be libel unless the plaintiff could prove you were lying (which he asserted was impossible).

I'm sure you agree with me that this is not the case?

Since I assume you do, I'm confused as to what your motivation might be to try and pick a rather pointless and arcane fight? Is there some other issue you'd like to explore? Is this discussion perhaps a medium to pursue some other niggle?