Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have heard that the Mexican restaurant wants to expand on both the ground and first floors - which seems strange as it is never busy enough to need that kind of expansion. It would appear that the restaurant has been sold/will be sold to a restaurant chain based in Sydenham(?).


I may got my wires crossed - does anyone have any more information?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2958-mexican-restaurant-lordship-lane/
Share on other sites

It's a good space, in a good location


The quality of the food has been debated on here several times (quick summary from my perspective - overly salty and not especially good food but I usually have a great night when I'm there)


It is clearly a bit knackered looking and in need of something - "a chain from Sydenham"? - would that be the people behind the Dolphin and Dartmouth arms in Forest Hill?

oh Jesus no! don't touch that place. When we moved in it was the first place we tip-toed into not knowing what to expect. We got hammered (and still do with every visit) on their Mcocktails! They are always heaving on a Saturday night. The upstairs is a great space but needs some tlc.

I love the place for all it's cheeseyness! Would hate to see it go, especially if replaced by a Dartmouth/Dolphin type place (that's nothing against them, but they are not needed on LL!).


Interestingly (perhaps :-S), there is a very similar tex mex place opposite the Dolphin in Sydenham!

RosieH Wrote:

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

> Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Incongruous orange person please.

>

> Alan, are you going to hunt down my every comment

> now for daring to suggest there's misogyny on the

> forum? the "orange person" is clearly an hombre



Not necessarily - Frida Kahlo was Mexican and she had a moustache!

tsk


Until you have experiened The mex at the Dogstar in brix, then you will never reach the apex of Mexi good.


LL Mex is OK - hardly original or healthy, but OK quality stodge and jugs of cocktails make it all worthwhile


The Daily Substandards Fay maschler would refuse to enter its doors ( or even go south the the River ) , but then again, she is a po faced old shitehawk, so thats not a bad thing

Shitehawk?


This man is a lexicographer.


It's probably a reflection of my lack of imagination, but despite seven years in ED, I could never cross the lintel beneath that leering orange effigy. It's neither man nor woman, but an embodiment, nay an anthropomorph of pure evil.

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

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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