Jump to content

Roast on a Sunday

Strawbs

By Strawbs
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Keef

Keef

Posted
Posted

Yesterday Mrs Keef and I ended up in The Woodman on Kirkdale. It was done up sometime around last xmas, and we'd been meaning to give it a try.


Anyway, decided that we'd go for a roast, and were very impressed! Think the menu changes slightly every week, but yesterday there was a choice of lamb, chicken, beef, pork, or a veggie lentil roast.


I had lamb, and there was lots of it! Came with a Yorkshire pud, potatoes, cabbage, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower and very nice gravy! all this for ?9.95, which is pretty good compared to a lot of places (Palmerston I'm looking at you!).


Mrs Keef had the veggie option, and really enjoyed it!


Portions were good, was struggling by the last few fork fulls, and pudding wasn't an option (although they had a fine selection for those with healthier appetites).


Big thumbs up.

Pierre

Pierre

Posted
Posted

(Should this be in the Recommendations area?)


We went to the Nun's Head yesterday and the roast was once again excellent. Not too busy, great non-intrusive live jazz from double bass and acoustic guitar duo in the corner, good friendly atmosphere and only a minor gripe*.


At our table: several roast beef, all superb; a couple of roast pork, very good but no crackling; a couple of nut roasts, delicious with great veggie gravy. Yorkshire puddings all spot on, good veg and lovely parsnips. Possibly the most indulgent chocolate brownies ever for dessert!



: P



* a couple of parents who aren't grown-up enough to realise that it's not a creche and that leaving their wheeled children's toys in the turning-around-with-newly-bought-drinks space immediately in front of the bar is at best innattentive and inconsiderate, at worst arrogantly rude and dangerous.

pk

pk

Posted
Posted

Pierre Wrote:

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

>

>

> * a couple of parents who aren't grown-up enough

> to realise that it's not a creche and that leaving

> their wheeled children's toys in the

> turning-around-with-newly-bought-drinks space

> immediately in front of the bar is at best

> innattentive and inconsiderate, at worst

> arrogantly rude and dangerous.


what's the point of this bit?


did you take steps to deal with the danger at the time?

Keef

Keef

Posted
Posted

I love this forum, someone dares to say something about a parent / child in a pub, and straight away it's challenged!


He even said it was only a minor gripe, and why shouldn't he say it. There was no suggestion that the kids shouldn't be in the pub or anything like that, he just commented, quite rightly, that parents should watch what the kids are doing. Surely no one would disagree with that would they?


nut roasts, delicious with great veggie gravy


That was Mrs Keef's only minor issue with the Woodman, I had lovely home made gravy on my lamb, but her lentil roast thing had veggie bisto on it. Still very nice she said, but thought I'd mention it just in case I risk a major veggie uprising when someone goes there and doesn't get home made stock! ;-)

pk

pk

Posted
Posted

Keef Wrote:

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

> I love this forum, someone dares to say something

> about a parent / child in a pub, and straight away

> it's challenged!

>

> He even said it was only a minor gripe, and why

> shouldn't he say it. There was no suggestion that

> the kids shouldn't be in the pub or anything like

> that, he just commented, quite rightly, that

> parents should watch what the kids are doing.

> Surely no one would disagree with that would

> they?

>

>

no 'challenge' or suggestion that he shouldn't say it, just curious as why stating the obvious (as you say noone would say parents shouldn't keep an eye on their chidren) and rising a minor is worth the effort

Pierre

Pierre

Posted
Posted

what's the point of this bit?

To warn others about what can, to some people, be a real turn-off for a pub.


did you take steps to deal with the danger at the time?

Apart from the hasty few steps to avoid going AOT, I also nudged the toys out of the way with my foot. An irrelevant action, it turned out, because the darling delinquent decided to replace it just after I got back to my seat. Thus the warning to others.


Please don't let it detract from the recommendation of a great Sunday lunch. And, I think, only ?8.50 a head.



: P

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Penguin68
      Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

      By Penguin68 · Posted

      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. 
    • Jenijenjen
      Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

      By Jenijenjen · Posted

      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.
    • Penguin68
      Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

      By Penguin68 · Posted

      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. 
    • tropica
      roof repairs and guarantees

      By tropica · Posted

      I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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