Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Louisa Wrote:

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

> *Bob* come over mine and I'll knock you up

> scrambled eggs on toast and I won't charge ?7, in

> fact I won't charge a penny! Because three free

> range eggs mixed with butter/milk and served on

> two slices of fancy toasted bread (even the

> poshest bread in the world) doesn't take seven

> smackers out of my bank account to make! Quite

> simple.


Any idea how much those ?12 curries cost to make, Louisa?

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Louisa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > *Bob* come over mine and I'll knock you up

> > scrambled eggs on toast and I won't charge ?7,

> in

> > fact I won't charge a penny! Because three free

> > range eggs mixed with butter/milk and served on

> > two slices of fancy toasted bread (even the

> > poshest bread in the world) doesn't take seven

> > smackers out of my bank account to make! Quite

> > simple.

>

> Any idea how much those ?12 curries cost to make,

> Louisa?


Those curries are entirely different. For a start they are evening meals served in a restaurant environment. This includes high quality table service. The number of ingredients and variation of base meat/fish within each batch are quite costly. Eggs on toast in an informal breakfast/lunch cafe cannot possibly be comparable. End of discussion.


Louisa.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Louisa... I think we've already established that

> cooking is cheaper than eating out. Next.


Jeremy, don't blame me. I didn't want to talk about food (again). *Bob* seems obsessed with people spending a fortune on breakfast items and comparing eggs to champagne and cavier ingredients.


Louisa.

The cost charged includes paying staff and hiring premises. You can't possibly analyse it based on the ingredients. The ingredients are the least expensive part of most restaurant costs.


Louisa Wrote:

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

> *Bob* are seriously comparing cooked eggs with

> chicken breast/lamb/king prawns? Honestly, I know

> you're having me on now.

>

> Louisa.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> I can't understand why anyone would pay ?12 for a

> bog-standard 'curry' on Lordship Lane - when you

> can cook something much more interesting and nicer

> at home for a quarter of the price, but people do.

> Beats me. Seriously!


That is partly true... If you are cooking a curry for a family of 4... its cheaper... cooking for one is not always as economical.


Well being diabetic it is essential to eat regular meals every 4-5 hours..

...So having to prepare breakfast... lunch ... an afternoon snack ... and an evening meal every day gets tedious.


So I afford myself the luxuary of eating out once or twice a week.. not every night like I used to.. Hope thats ok with you..


And lots of people pay ?12.00 for a bog standard curry...(Well more like ?15 - ?18) without drinks.. ?25 - ?28+ with drinks..


Foxy

It's fine with me if you want to go out for a curry once or twice a week, but wouldn't pay for scrambled eggs.


Is it fine with you if others want to go out for scrambled eggs once or twice a week, but wouldn't pay for curry?



Do you see how neither action is somehow more valid than the other; only that different people have different ideas of what is worth paying for and what isn't?

Sue Wrote:


Why do you bother ever going out?!


You could just sit at home all day, cook every meal for yourself, and drink a pint or two in the evening

much cheaper than going out for it.


If you used paper plates and cups, you wouldn't even have to wash up :))


Apart from my daily walks and shopping I do sit at home all day.. I do Cook every meal myself..

...and I do have a beer or two in the evening.. though I don't regularly drink at home alone..


...Please don't begrudge me the luxuary of having the odd pint or two a couple of nights a week..

...I simply can no longer afford to eat and drink out every night like I once did...


...Paper plates... ??? I like porcelain.. did you not see the thread on eating off of wooden boards.. :)


... I have no problem with washing up.. it gets me up off my A*** for a while.. :)


Foxy

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Besides, three nice eggs probably costs about the

> same as one cheap frozen chicken breast (I know

> it's not the point, but stil...)



That isn't the point of course, but yes if you want to like for like compare a cheap frozen chicken breast from any named brand supermarket with three free range eggs from harrods then sure.


Louisa.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> ...Please don't begrudge me the luxuary of having

> the odd pint or two a couple of nights a week..


Nobody begrudges you that... not at all. But it seems that some people DO begrudge others spending ?7 (really not a lot of money) on breakfast. It all seems a bit strange.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> The cost charged includes paying staff and hiring

> premises. You can't possibly analyse it based on

> the ingredients. The ingredients are the least

> expensive part of most restaurant costs.

>



LM I am well aware of overheads. I was using the food as an example of how poor *Bob* initial point was, but if we want to compare other overheads then sure. A restaurant charging 12 quid for a curry is hiring a number of kitchen and waiting staff to cook specialised food, both for eat in and eat out customers. Their overheads will be considerably higher than a cafe serving up basic breakfast items with (I am assuming) considerably fewer staff.


Louisa.

What's your point? No one has suggested that curry is overpriced. The point is comparing how much it costs to make something at home to how much a restaurant charges to prepare it for you is daft.



Louisa Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The cost charged includes paying staff and

> hiring

> > premises. You can't possibly analyse it based

> on

> > the ingredients. The ingredients are the least

> > expensive part of most restaurant costs.

> >

>

>

> LM I am well aware of overheads. I was using the

> food as an example of how poor *Bob* initial point

> was, but if we want to compare other overheads

> then sure. A restaurant charging 12 quid for a

> curry is hiring a number of kitchen and waiting

> staff to cook specialised food, both for eat in

> and eat out customers. Their overheads will be

> considerably higher than a cafe serving up basic

> breakfast items with (I am assuming) considerably

> fewer staff.

>

> Louisa.

What Louisa said...


Just plain common sense and reasoning...


I just happen to know that a local Curry house is being asked ?65K per annum. and not the biggest restaurant.

and strangely enougth they too have to pay Rates, Electricity, Gas, Specialized Staff, Insurance...


So when people talk about Value for money.. It does come down to what you get for your money..


Yes.. surrounding do play a part... but having said that..

...I have in the past had some pretty decent breakfasts in some of the Greasiest of Spoons you will ever find.


Foxy.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> But if you don't want to eat one thing whereas you

> do want to eat another thing and it's your money

> then none of what you are saying actually makes

> the blindest bit of difference


*Bob* you are straying from the point here entirely. Who in their right mind would spend ?7 on eggs on toast when you can make it at home, or go to a greasy spoon charging ?2 for the same thing? Your comparison of curry (in a restaurant) with eggs on toast (in a cafe) is bizarre to say the least. You simply cannot compare overheads and other costs. So your initial point is invalid.


Louisa.

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

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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