Jump to content

The Plough Pub

JADED

By JADED
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy

Posted
Posted

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I guess the wannabe gangsta crowd will be

> relegated to the castle. It's going to be packed

> pretty soon, its the only working class public

> house remaining.



What, other than the CPT, Magadala, Vale, and The Castle. Anyway, since I have been here, the Plough has attracted more of an under-class than working-class.

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted
Dont get me wrong DPF, the Plough was not a pub I would have gone into in recent years, it was bloody awful over the last 10 years. The Just So Pub Co ripped the old interior out and with it went the heart of the pub, and had the cheek to call it the Goose and Granite. I like the changes, and the fact the original name is being kept.. It's all fantastic.. I shall visit it, and I hope they keep a good choice of traditional ales and stouts as well as fancy continental lagers! I wouldnt say the Magdela was working class, and I was refering to the castle not the plough... I guess the CPT is a less pretentious crowd than most locals.
Fear 'n boozin

Fear 'n boozin

Posted
Posted

No idea where class comes into this, or how one can claim bar A to be working class, bar B to be middle, and C, well, priced out of reach of us mere mortals I guess.


The Castle have done up their backyard into a lovely beer garden (for us smokers really, but it a nice area for all).

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted
The pub companies and breweries define 'class'... If a place goes through a refurb with a lick of paint and a new food menu, it seems to change the clientel and usually, though not always, this involves a certain class of person leaving eg older male working class smokers who like a pint, replaced by younger wealthier foody types... This usually involves a class stereotype I am afraid.
Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy

Posted
Posted

Fear 'n boozin Wrote:

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

> No idea where class comes into this, or how one

> can claim bar A to be working class, bar B to be

> middle, and C, well, priced out of reach of us

> mere mortals I guess.

>

> The Castle have done up their backyard into a

> lovely beer garden (for us smokers really, but it

> a nice area for all).


You're right, it has nothing to do with class and everything to do with personal taste and what people are familiar with. I like proper pubs, I never really go to a pub to eat, thats what restaurants are for after all, however, they were all absolutely dire when I moved here so places like the Bishop etc were very welcome arrivals.

Fear 'n boozin

Fear 'n boozin

Posted
Posted
Possibly, but I think most of the bars/pubs round LL have a pretty mixed clinetal, before and after refurbs. Maybe the this varries according to the time of day (the bloke you've described might not drink in the Bishop on a Friday evening), but I don't think so many people become exluded. If anyone suffers from a refurb, I imagine it's the trouble makers.
Keef

Keef

Posted
Posted
Exactly! I have nothing against the Bishop at all as a place, but can't stand it at the weekends cos I don't like very busy places, I value my personal space! I've said before that I don't believe in class... FnB, Mockney and myself all met and became friends through the CPT, and none of us will go near The Vale! ;-)
Brendan

Brendan

Posted
Posted

I have only been to the Vale once or twice and then during the day so I don't know what it is like at night. I have also not been there for about 2 years so I don't think I could pass any kind of informed judgement on the place.


The bouncers turned my mates and I away one night though. Something about being too drunk?!?!? Obviously absolute rubbish!

bawdy-nan

bawdy-nan

Posted
Posted

er - the brewery has been Mitchell and Butler for the last 3 years or so - they took it over from the Just So Company but have now "re-branded" it as a "Castle" "brand". Essentially they're trying to create the impression of an independent pub run by a "landlord" - when its as corporate as they come. Not, saying thats always a very very bad thing just rankle at the fake branding of it.


The manager has been involved in a number of local operations - Spaghetti Westons, Belair House, Cafe Rouge and whatever the Barcelona place was called before it was Barcelona - so, er, make of that what you will.:-S


They have said openly that they intend to put prices up significantly (or rather, not have drinks offers) in order to put off the people who used to go before. It was horrible before.


They're intending to have bouncers for a short while til the old clientele realise they're not wanted.


It does look lovely from what I've seen and I'm delighted they've put up chains to stop parking on the front which used to be a nightmare - to get past on that side of the road you often had to stroll into the bus lane - not fun with two toddlers in tow.


Will certainly pop in and havea sniff around today I should imagine -

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted
Interesting to note, just had a read of 'Mitchell and Butlers' website... I was not aware that The Harvester chain, The Crown and Greyhound in the village, and Alleyns Head in West Dulwich are all owned by Mitchell and Butlers. I am now disappointed, because non of the above rock my boat. Castle brand or no castle brand.

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...