Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I went for lunch today, not having been since shortly after it opened for eat-in, and it was outstanding.  First time around the food was obviously great, but the menu too confusing and the staff not clear enough explaining it or making recommendations.  Everything seems a lot slicker now and I think it deserves it's great reputation.

Edited by the_hermit
Grammar
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/354234-kartuli/
Share on other sites

I fully agree. I hope you had some khinkali (Georgian dumplings), they're fantastic! They used to have only meat ones but now they also have mushroom ones and they're great. I always try to fit in a honey cake at dessert. Overall I appreciate that their food and menu seems to only improve with time.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/354234-kartuli/#findComment-1688070
Share on other sites

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

    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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