Jump to content

Recommended Posts

have to agree el paso is the business stick to a simple starter and fajitas and you cant go wrong,copious amounts of cocktails and ice cold lager compliment it very well. as previously mentioned it does have a fair sized function room up top with a bar as well,been to a few work does there and theres always been a good time had by all.

I used to eat at El Passo - one of my ex-girlfriends was Mexican and she also thought it was great too.


What stopped me from going back was the night they slapped a compulsory 10% service charge on the bill and got very difficult when we refused to pay it. (There were only three of us, so it wasn't like we were a party of 12). It totally spoilt going there - shame really as the fajitas are lovely.

I was put off going in for a long time after moving here, but actually it's pretty good! The decor is obviously naff but don't let that put you off. Food is good and reasonably priced. Though we tend to arrive lateish and they are always quite keen to get rid of you and get home, so not good for a late one!


Also a fan of the Turkish place towards Goose Green on LL - my better half lovingly refers to it as 'the steak place'. Bless.


Anyone know when the LL Thai refurb will be finished?


Jen

What a surprising number of Cleethorpians (?) there are in the area. Is this coincidence or were economic incentives offered to move people down in the 80's.


As regards El Passo - it's cheap and cheerful and the outside certainly makes a change to the sleek exteriors which are so common these days on LL.

After last week's 'experience' at the Harvester we're working our way up the food chain - last Friday was El Passo's turn. I went there expecting moderate tequila, cold beer, and serviceable food and that's exactly what I got. Good stuff and good value.


After reading the comments on here I was expecting it to be a but dead but Friday night it was fairly busy. Is it this thread proving all publicity is good publicity?

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

    • The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to. Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..." Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation. To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere... 
    • People should abide by the rules obviously and should have lights and reflectors (which make them perfectly visible, especially in a well lit urban area). Anything they choose to do over and above that is up to them. There is advisory guidance (as posted above). But it's just that, advisory. People should use their own judgement and I strongly oppose the idea that if one doesn't agree with their choice, then they 'get what the deserve' (which is effectively what Penguin is suggesting). The highway code also suggest that pedestrians should: Which one might consider sensible advice, but very few people abide by it, and I certainly don't criticise them where they don't (I for one have never worn a luminous sash when walking 🤣).
    • But there's a case for advisory guidance at least, surely? It's a safety issue, and surely just common sense? What do other countries do? And are there any statistics for accidents involving cyclists which compare those in daylight and those in dusk or at night, with and without street lighting?
    • People travelling by bicycle should have lights and reflectors of course. Assuming they do, then the are perfectly visible for anyone paying adequate attention. I don't like this idea of 'invisible' cyclists - it sounds like an absolute cop out. As pointed out above, even when you do wear every fluorescent bit of clothing going and have all the lights and reflectors possible, drivers will still claim they didn't see you. We need to push back on that excuse. If you're driving a powerful motor vehicle through a built up area, then there is a heavy responsibility on you to take care and look out for pedestrians and cyclists. It feels like the burden of responsibility is slightly skewed here. There are lot's of black cars. They pose a far greater risk to others than pedestrians or cyclists. I don't hear people calling for them to be painted brighter colours. We should not be policing what people wear, whether walking, cycling or driving.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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