Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I too live on the road and like the pub and Jamie. I?m surprised so many people care about the name, at least it sounds like a pub name. The beer is good but some of the bottled beers are way too expensive. If only more people frequented the pub then Jamie could reduce his margins or how about this for an idea; reduce margins and increase custom?


Sorry to knock the food as well Jamie but there?s too much better local competition. You need a point of difference to attract larger numbers of people. Maybe the type of food? Maybe dramatically reduce prices? What genre is currently not provided for in the East Dulwich area (including Peckham and Camberwell for you ?Post Code Idiots?)? For a short while before The Duke in Nunhead was called Page Two they served great Pizza?s. Admittedly like all other aspects of the pub it all went tits up.


I fear for the future on Hoopers. I wish it well and will continue to support it by forcing ever more beer down my throat to support a local community service.

I'm pretty disappointed with wine lists in the area on the whole to be honest, that's if you want anything a bit different from the usual. The Gowlett/Nun's Head does an excellent Austrian white and I like the fact that all their wines are organic.


The best wine list (in my opinion) is Baburs (not SE22 I know), which runs to several pages, many of them are very reasonable and the choice is wide.


The Herne/Palmeston used to do a Chapel Down but sadly stopped doing through lack of interest.

  • 2 weeks later...

Hoopers is a strange one. We've just moved within spitting distance and I'd really love to love going there, they sell one of my favorite Belgians, it's local but somethings not right. On occasion the staff are friendly enough but the last time we went down the guy there was just downright rude and the Guiness was watery and weird. You'd think, considering we walk the dog past there most nights and it's mostly dead, that they'd be a bit more welcoming of new custom.


It's a big pub and unless it's full it feels like drinking in a morgue.


It could do with a Pool table or something. I've spent a lot of money over the years in the Wishing Well as it was the only place round here you could have a decent game of pool.


I'll give it a few more tries but I think my energy and money would be better spent in the Gowlett, convincing them to stock Liefmans.

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> Isn't the beer good in Hoopers though?

>

> It really is.


Er - not the Brains that is on at ?1.99 a pint, I know that 3.7 is not a strong beer but this is dreadful, not the O2 or OZ which was like a rather tasteless pale ale. Previously I've been impressed - this time - NOT.

EvilLaugh Wrote:

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

> It's a big pub and unless it's full it feels like

> drinking in a morgue.

>

>> xxxxx


Hey come down to Hoopers on Friday night 30th Jan, we've got the wonderful Wizz Jones and Simeon Jones, it'll be brilliant, definitely not morgue-like!! :)

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 ranging from £175 to £300" 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...