Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's not much the Palmerston can say, other than what Will's said - which is fair enough.


There's certainly nothing to be gained by him getting dragged into tittle-tattle by a load of people who've probably never even been in the Palmerston and are simply registering on here to support a virtual friend.

The Palmerston Wrote:

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

> The twitter comments have been noted. Sadly it's

> rather undermined the validity of the original

> post.

>

> I feel no need to comment further.


Why? I can say whatever I like on Twitter can't It's my Twitter account. My opinion is still valid, I don't see how this undermines it.

The Palmerston Wrote:

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

> The twitter comments have been noted. Sadly it's

> rather undermined the validity of the original

> post.

>

> I feel no need to comment further.


Yes quite - because we discussed your response on Twitter the Palmerston is magically transformed into a stunningly value for money temple of gastronomy, and anyone saying otherwise needs to check with you first.

I'm a London food blogger, I've met Helen and Chris and I've been to the Palmerston, but not recently. Every time I mean to go I make the mistake of looking at the menu at Franklin's too and every time recently I've been swayed by the latter. And not been disappointed.


And now I've completely forgotten what I was going to say...


It was probably something about there are reasonable points being made on both sides here but that an unfortunate choices of phrases here and there have caused an escalation. Hardly untypical of forum discussions.


Still, found a new local(ish) forum, which is always useful. And I may just make it to the Palmerston to see what all the fuss is about.

Will,


Obviously my earlier comment was meant in jest. It would be a sad day for food blogging, and restaurant criticism in general, if people started launching vindictive crusades against places to which they'd taken a dislike.


That said, you doseem to have recognised that your rather huffy response to FoodStories's review sounded both patronising and unconcerned.


I'll be heading to The Palmerston in the next few weeks, anonymously of course, and will be reviewing it for my readers. And I'll give you a fair hearing. But first impressions do count for something, and this has hardly been a brilliant introduction.


I look forward to a nice meal.


See you soon,


Oliver.

Crikey, I leave the thread alone for a day and come back and you're all still going at it hammer and tongs.


1. ED used to be full of ropey old pubs (well it certainly was in 1986 when I first moved here). It now has some nice pubs and some nice eateries. Things have certainly improved around here.

2. None is perfect. There is no such thing as perfection. But all offer some things that are of value to particular communities.

3. Appreciating good food is not something reserved for (I quote) "snobs". Working classes around the world have been doing so for many years (and often eat far better than many of the UK so-called middle classes). The idea that good food is a class thing is bonkers, and a particularly British obsession.

4. There's nothing wrong with 'critical review', whether professional or otherwise, and in particular critique of specifics. It is not (I quote) "poisonous". It shows interest, both in food/drink and the establishments concerned. We wouldn't be arguing if we weren't actively engaged. Consider all the discussion over there's been on here about Green & Blue - a great example of how to take customer opinions seriously and respond. That's part of the reason I'm a regular G&B customer. And part of the reason I "sell" G&B to to many people not on this forum.

5. The Palmerston does aim higher with its food than many food establishments in this area. Aiming high is good.

6. Establishments can go up and they can go down. Generally around here they've been going up, but not always.

7. Proprietors and managers need to be vigilant. Standards can slip, improvements can always be made, and there are a lot of choices out there for the punters, with new ones popping up all the time.

8. It's never easy starting and running a sustainable business (but nobody ever said it would be). I've been doing so since 1992. If you run a good business it's fair that you reap the rewards if it all works out. I'm not sure what nice cars have got to do with anything.


And I will continue to take pix of my food when the food particularly takes my fancy, and post them on the Web. Without the permission of the management.


P.S. I am completely unconnected with anyone else who has posted on this thread and am not engaged at all in any part of the food or retail industries. Nor do I have any friends so connected apart from the owner of one establishment in Crystal Palace (which I have never mentioned). I have no axe to grind and nothing to promote.

OMG, I wonder where all these other newly registered (cheesyfeet et al) posters on this forum live? Do they live in or have anything to do with ED or are they just jumping in on something they know little about just to back up their chum?

If it's the latter - and who knows they may all be the same person - I think they should bugger out of it.


It's only a frickin restaurant don't all get so up your arses about it, honestly foodies lighten up.



Edited for rogue apostrophe

Asset Wrote:

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

Do they live in or have anything to

> do with ED or are they just jumping in on

> something they know little about just to back up

> their chum?

> If it's the latter - and who know's they may all

> be the same person - I think they should bugger

> out of it.

>


Indeed, Asset. The twitter-mafia turning up en-masse does nothing for the OP's credibility as a reviewer.

Asset - Yes us foodies do tend to get a little over excited about the food, we can't help it!


Horsebox - I didn't ask anyone to turn up! I was just discussing the forum on Twitter, as I use it a lot during the day and some others felt motivated, off their own backs, to offer their opinions. We discuss lots of different restaurants on Twitter and a lot of restaurants have their own accounts also (e.g. St. John). I have no control over what other people do so I don't know how that can affect my credibillity. Anyway, still amused to have caused such a stir and amazed that this thread is still going :)

Ted Max Wrote:

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

> Who's a troll?

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5

> ,file=4719

>

> And here's the reply from Oliver Thring.

>

> "@chrispople We should all go to this

> stingy-portioned, overpriced, over-defensive dump

> and give it foul reviews.

> 37 minutes ago from Tweetie in reply to

> chrispople"



All hail Chief Inspector Ted. Good work there, copper.

Re Oliver Thring - Anyone can write anything they like on Twitter. Helen/Food Stories wouldn't be responsible for that. The comment was very stupid though although he has since said that he will be going to the Palmerston and giving it a fair review. He should apologise though.

phew, that'll teach me for not checking out the main section very often due to lack of entertainment.

Whew, an attack of the food bloggers almost makes all our gastros are belong to them until their spiteful ways were rumbled! And an almost serious Bob defends the honour of the forum...cooool.


Anyhoo, fair play to mr Palmerston, I thought a fair response.


For my part I used to have a few issues with the Palmerston, and having been encouraged to go there by a friend I gave it another go.

I found it a nice place, good service, great starter, my main was somewhat too rich and I found the whole thing shebang rather pricey.


Given the choice of treating myself I'd find it hard to go there instead of Franklins, or go into town and spend a couple more quid for something like Scott's, Bentley's, Roka or somesuch, but that's just me, I don't begrudge it any success and I do think it's contributed to the lane's reputation.

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

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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