Jump to content

Recommended Posts

shame duly accepted - am rampant hypocrite - but have had the backs of my knees bashed and toes run over plenty enough times by pram-pushing mothers who didn't apologise to feel this is a little bit of karma.


actually, it also makes me laugh because someone's personal bugbear would seem to be getting in the way of good business sense - but at least she's true to herself, even potentially at a cost to her own pocket.

I don't understand how being true to herself here is a good thing. It's an idea that's put forward quite a lot when people get into confrontations (see any episode of Big Brother, for instance) and it seems to boil down to: "I'm being true to myself so you've just got to accept it." But isn't it better to recognise when we're wrong and to change our behaviour if necessary?


Sorry, going a bit off-topic there. Shall add that I've only ever been in there twice, and both times were quite soon after the place opened. I found the service friendly if a little slow. The tea was great but the food was so-so and very expensive for what it was.

Her shop. Her business. Good for her. Good for her business?


In trying to please herself but at the same time wanting to have her fancy cake and eat some of it - eg a prissy 'two pram rule' - LC neither pleases those who want a child-free atmosphere, nor those who want to feel at ease with their children.

If I want a Schoolma'amish 'under surveillance' experience, I'll dress as a schoolboy and browse the Parker pens in Ralon in a suspicious manner - for free.

The unfortunate thing is that these daytime vibes that many pram-pushers seem to have experienced also waft over into the evening, when said pram-pushers (with full wallets) want to go out for drinks without their pesky nippers.


They do for me anyway. I'm sure I'm not alone.

I agree with you *bob* - that's why it makes me laugh. it may not be good business sense, but if that's what she wants, it's her right to stipulate it. i think initially it came about because there were some very expensive antiques in there that were getting bashed on a regular basis, but that seems to be less the case now.


also, when i was last in, the two pram rule wasn't being enforced - i suspect (though I hasten to add that it's entirely my own supposition) that there's an element of play it by ear on that one. I've seen loads of prams in there sometimes, and equally a very wealthy looking group of people turned away "because there was no room for the pram" when they'd wound the owner up, in spite of there being lots of space

  • 4 weeks later...

I took my friend to Le Chandelier for a birthday afternoon tea.


After 5 minutes of being seated upstairs I had to go down to get menu, there was only 1 couple seated so hardly busy.. staff were chatting, no appology just handed me the menu without a word or eye contact.. then a further 15 minutes with the menu still no one came.. so down stairs again to request our order.. food was prompt but they never came back to ask if all was ok or anything else needed.. so down stairs we went again to order some coffee. 2 hours we were in there and had to go request everything ourselves. The waitresses looked moody and sour faced. I was embarrassed that I'd taken my friend there.. and would tell people to avoid the place. The women were being so moody they forgot to charge us for our double expressos.. a small pleasure for such a negative experience.. and obviously no tip!


The food was a visual display of cake and sandwiches which when placed on a 3 tire cake stand does delight but once eaten you realise it isn't all that. A glass of coke is from a small bottle like the ones they use for mixers in expensive bars.. really not impressed with any of it!


Spend a little more and go to Claridges or the Ritz... a fab experiece and a life time memory (if they're not your usual haunts)

Place looks lovely, but as with many things looks can be very deceiving......

Was in there during the week with Mr Mac and we dared to take the little'un with us (you get into trouble leaving them at home on their own with two cats.) We sat in an empty front room and were promptly ushered to the back room 'for health and saftey reasons'. What a crock of s@!t. The back room was full of unopened deliveries and we felt like we'd been shoved in a storeroom (perhaps we were?). The waiting staff were pretty unfriendly, that is until the owner left and miraculously the mood lightened.

Nice cup of tea, but cr*ppy environment - we will not be going back.

I went in for breakfast last saturday and sent eggs benedict back twice. The first time because the whites were uncooked the second time the chef had laced it with crunchy salt, the third one I asked for it to be delivered by the chef.

The gutless wretch had it delivered via the surly little waitress, to avoid what might have been a sharp tongueing.

The hot chocolate was nowhere near hot it was barely tepid.

Although I have praised it in the past as a classy joint, and will be sad to see it disappear as it does give another dimension to LL I will not be returning to this establishment.

I just loathe to have heavily salted food, by an arrogant, resentful chef.

I might have complained to the proprietor but she is a 'grumpy old woman' who has never starred in the show.

The same thing happened to me the missus and Tiny Jimbo on Sunday. We went in there to take shelter from the rain and buy some tea. We were immediately ushered to the back room by a strident bespectacled woman. She said "I can't have kids and stuff up here" then she gave an audible 'unbelievable' as she walked away.


Needless to say I won't be troubling them again with my cash.

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...