Jump to content

Recommended Posts

and the irritating people tend not to go to the monthly drinks, so you're fine there.


I've always liked the Palmerston, the service and its food, in fact it's my favourite of the "nicer places to eat round here" but I haven't been for a few months, so I guess I'll have to try it again soon and see what the fuss is about.

It's the closest 'proper' place to eat from my house.


I'd love it to be really, really good, instead of just 'decent.. a bit pricey'.


That's all. It's not a slag-off. It's feedback.. encouragement.

Encouragement helps you to avoid going to bed owning a 'Palmerston' and waking-up owning a 'Chardon', wondering at what point it all went wrong.

I have drunk Pepsi at Chicken Cottage, rum and coke at any number of seedy dives, cider in beer gardens, port in various gastropubs, the tasting flight at several michelin starred joints and even on occasion (well once) a 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild in a very swanky pants restaurant. And I bloody well like The Palmerston. And I don't even work there.



Now PLEASE will someone bring me my chateaubriand.

An interesting read FoodStories.


With any business in our industry there will be good and bad reviews, it's par for the course and we welcome all feedback good or bad. I'm glad to say that fortunately for us the professional critics tend to have a different opinion to you. They also tend to ask if they can publish pictures of our food before they make their reviews available to the public.




I've only skimmed this thread and I certainly don't want to put people off making honest comments, good or bad, regarding The Palmerston.


I'd like to address a couple of points brought up though.


Our prices are clearly advertised both on the front and side of the pub and at the tables where our menus are placed. This obviously doesn't mean that everyone will agree that what they get is value for money, but we can't be any more transparent with what your meal will cost.


Our service charge is optional (this is stated), and set at 10% rather than the standard 12% you'll find many places.


I've posted this on here before, but, our beer prices are governed not so much by tax increases but more the fact that as with most of the drinks industry we are tied to a pubco for our supply. Please check http://www.fairpint.org/ for the latest information on the fight to get beer prices down.


I can assure all that we strive to maintain the high standards that The Palmerston has become known for. Our customers are the most important part of our business and making them happy time and time again is our goal.


Occasionally people have a bad experience with us. If they come to us directly we can resolve the problem. Mostly our customers are happy.


Feel free to contact me, Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm.


Will


[email protected]

Thanks for your feedback Palmerston. I would however be careful about the line you are drawing between bloggers and 'professional critics' as some bloggers are now moving on to become professionals, e.g for The Times and The Guardian. I am not sure what you mean by this anyway. Are you saying that my opinion is somehow less important to you? I am a paying customer. That makes my opinion important.


As for the photos - it seems you are not at all familiar with the London food blogging community! There are hundreds of blogs out there which do the same and are well respected. There are also many restaurants in London which recognise and actually take advantage of this fact rather than being defensive like yourselves.


I know that the prices are advertised outside but I can't see the portion sizes before I eat can I? That is what I had a problem with. Nice one on the service charge but I didn't even mention it.

Two points, Will:


1. If she's paid for the food, why the bloody hell should she have to ask your permission to take pictures of it? She's not selling the damn things in an art gallery.

2. The issue isn't that she didn't know how much her dinner was going to cost, it was that the portions were too small.


It seems like this cozy relationship with the traditional media has worked very well for you in the past. What can I say -welcome to the 21st century.

Will - I'm a fan of the Palmerston and I'm glad you posted to put your point across!


However, what's the problem with people posting photos? Is there actually a legal issue here? I ask because my girlfriend often takes photos of grub in restaurants, now and again puts them online. And the camera never lies... so what's the issue?

Wow - what a patronising response.


So, because FoodStories isn't a 'professional' you don't care? Unless I've misunderstood, that is what it sounds like. Nice to know you're really catering to the locals there.


You might like to bear in mind that food blogs get many, many hits a day. Also, many bloggers become professionals.


I'm afraid CheeseandBiscuits has hit the nail on the head - get with the times.


(By the way, no one was contesting lack of signage for the menus; its the meagre portion sizes that are the issue).

FoodStories Wrote:

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

> Thanks for your feedback Palmerston. I would

> however be careful about the line you are drawing

> between bloggers and 'professional critics' as

> some bloggers are now moving on to become

> professionals, e.g for The Times and The Guardian.

> I am not sure what you mean by this anyway.


I believe you described yourself as an aspiring critic? Apologies if I'm wrong. I took that to mean amateur.



> Are

> you saying that my opinion is somehow less

> important to you? I am a paying customer. That

> makes my opinion important.


I stated that our customers are the most important thing to us. I havn't implied that your opinions are not. I said that your review was an interesting read and that we accept feedback, both positive and negative. It's important for us to improve.


> As for the photos - it seems you are not at all

> familiar with the London food blogging community!

> There are hundreds of blogs out there which do the

> same and are well respected. There are also many

> restaurants in London which recognise and actually

> take advantage of this fact rather than being

> defensive like yourselves.


It is polite to ask to publish pictures and also give us a chance to read the review. It is not an obligation.


> I know that the prices are advertised outside but

> I can't see the portion sizes before I eat can I?

> That is what I had a problem with


I have addressed that in my original post.


> Nice one on the

> service charge but I didn't even mention it.


I also said that I would like to address some points raised in the thread. Somone mentioned about the price before service charge.

CheeseAndBiscuits Wrote:

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

> Two points, Will:

>

> 1. If she's paid for the food, why the bloody hell

> should she have to ask your permission to take

> pictures of it? She's not selling the damn things

> in an art gallery.


I didn't say that she should. Most reviewers do, it also gives us an opportunity to read the review ourselves. Good or bad.


> 2. The issue isn't that she didn't know how much

> her dinner was going to cost, it was that the

> portions were too small.


Again, I addressed that in my first post. I was trying to respond to other posters in the thread, not so much towards foodstories in particular.


> It seems like this cozy relationship with the

> traditional media has worked very well for you in

> the past. What can I say -welcome to the 21st

> century.


We have an internet connection. The future is in our hands! ;)

Palmerston - Nope. I never described myself as an aspiring critic. Apology accepted.


You implied that my opinion was less important by saying 'I'm glad to say that fortunately for us the professional critics tend to have a different opinion to you.'


Bob - If they are bloggers then what is wrong with that exactly? Are you a troll? I ask because you only ever post comments designed to irritate people and yet never actually make an arguments of your own.

I think you should declare your interest.


I note three posters on this thread: schmoofaloof, cheeseandbiscuits, and (earlier) theboydonefood, all of you linked to Foodstories via blogdom.


I think if you're going to take someone's side over a restaurant review, you should at least say you're all pals.

schmoofaloof Wrote:

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

> Wow - what a patronising response.


I think you've misjudged the tone of the post and certainly the main focus of it. Which was not the review by foodstories, but more the other posts within the thread.


> So, because FoodStories isn't a 'professional' you

> don't care? Unless I've misunderstood, that is

> what it sounds like. Nice to know you're really

> catering to the locals there.

> You might like to bear in mind that food blogs get

> many, many hits a day. Also, many bloggers become

> professionals.

>

> I'm afraid CheeseandBiscuits has hit the nail on

> the head - get with the times.


It wasn't my intention to offend the blogging community.


> (By the way, no one was contesting lack of signage

> for the menus; its the meagre portion sizes that

> are the issue).


I have addressed this in my first post, and once more that comment was not aimed at foodstories.

FoodStories Wrote:

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

> Palmerston - Nope. I never described myself as an

> aspiring critic. Apology accepted.


I stand corrected.


> You implied that my opinion was less important by

> saying 'I'm glad to say that fortunately for us

> the professional critics tend to have a different

> opinion to you.'


It would be unfortunate for us if critics from Time Out, Hardens, Restaurant Magazine, Zagat etc did agree with you. Your opinion is as valid as any other and I have stated that all feedback, good or bad is welcomed so that we may improve.


I feel that you've taken offense to comments within my original post that were not aimed at you. I did say that I would like to address some of the points raised in the thread. Not in the review.


I think it's fair that I am able to come onto these boards and address issues raised in the same way that anyone else can and offer people the option of approaching me directly if they have not had a good experience so that I can ensure that improvements are made.

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...