Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or is Cafe Nero really dirty?


I've stopped going in because it's always so filthy, paper strewn everywhere, drinks and food spilt on the floor and not cleand up. I've also noticed that a lot of the litter that gets neglected, is then blown out onto the street... if anyone else has noticed and been annoyed at this then let me know as I'm thinking of making a formal complaint.


Or am I just being a curmudgeon? It only really gets to me when the rubbish starts flying out the door onto Lordship Lane....

I've never been to the Caffe Nero on Lordship Lane but that's partly because I've always found Caffe Neros to be dirty! Clapham Junction station, Regent Street... they've always been grubby, especially the loos which are often really quite foul. methinks CN Head Office really needs to work on this...
They are so busy in there (as per the que) that they don't have enough barristas to clear the tables as they get used and abused. You should say something, I'm sure you won't be the first. To tell you the truth I have noticed an explosive of people into LL of a Saturday morning. Many more than there used to be. I don't think CN can cope with the demand.
Ooops, may have contributed to mess in Nero this morning when mini mumra proceeded to throw babycino (how ED is that?!) on floor. Did attempt to clear up but agree that are never enough people to clear tables. Think nero is more popular than they thought it would be ;-) or perhaps they are just being stingy on staff.

Email [email protected]. They take it very seriously when businesses let their rubbish float onto the public roads (because it adds to their clenaers' workload). They usually send someone around to have words.


I hate to sit in dirty coffee shops and it puts me right off. Also people should try to be tidier themsleves.

Macroban - I accept the cleaver jibe but I think my usage of the word dichotomy was fine.



Dichotomy: division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups


Option one- it is just spirit that is really dirty

Option two - it is both spirit and cafe nero that are really dirty


If option one is true then Cafe Nero cannot be really dirty as it is just Spirit that is really dirty so option two must be false.


If option two is true then it is not just spirit that is really dirty and therefore option one must be false.


As one of the options being true implies the other to be false then the two options are mutually exclusive.



Anyway- has anyone tried House on Camberwell Church St? It's a new coffee bar and gallery. It's really good and not really dirty.

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

    • Let them go bust.  Enact emergency legislation to ensure that the water still flows and the rest of the network operates. Why should we care what happens to the investors.  Have no idea could or would this work, and where next. And the workers will still be needed whoever runs the show.
    • I think you might mean 'repossession' rather than 'reprocessing'.  
    • I think this is a bit of a myth.  It's true that some of the current owners are pension funds (chiefly the Ontario Universities') but they're global outfits, big enough to know what they're about. As for ordinary UK pension funds, they mostly invest in publicly-tradeable stocks, which Thames no longer is (it's a private limited company, not a PLC), so even those that lazily track the markets by buying everything in the index won't be exposed as Thames isn't in any index. In other words, it's a lot less complicated than Thames, the Government or innumerable consultancies and PR outfits would like you to believe. In case, incidentally, the idea of a cooperative offends any delicate Thatcherite sensibilities, I'd argue that it fits the Thatcherite vision of a stakeholding democracy much better than selling tradeable shares to the public very cheaply. The public, despite their blessable cottons, are too easily tempted by the small but easy win (which is how they sold off their own building societies, preparing the ground for the credit crunch and then the crash) and, as became obvious after every privatisation before or since, their modest stakes inevitably end up in the hands of financial engineers whose only priority is to siphon off the assets and leave the husk to either go bankrupt or get "rescued" by the taxpayers (who thus get to pay twice for nothing). The root of that is the concept of "limited liability" which makes it all possible, but even the most nauseating free-market optimist would struggle to predict the demise of that.  
    • Repossession? Oh no, that's really sad 😢 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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