Punch Pubs in Portobello - come to a new opening !

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Mar 2005, 17:06

Brian McCrow wrote:PoP ..That is such a loser's attitude.

First time I have ever had that levelled at me - still, I can always drown my sorrows in our lovely new wine bar!

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 29 Mar 2005, 17:25

I always thot it wer spelt "whine bar"?

But maybe that's just the ones I've been in...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Mar 2005, 21:16

Sue Allen wrote:letting drunk customers in...
Cheers!

I heard that my local cannabis dealer has been complaining about "stoners" hanging about outside his flat.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 30 Mar 2005, 12:14

Dadaist wrote:I heard that my local cannabis dealer

Gosh! I'd have thought you'd left those behind when you moved to a posh part of town

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Mar 2005, 15:31

Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I heard that my local cannabis dealer
Gosh! I'd have thought you'd left those behind when you moved to a posh part of town

Ah yes, I forgot that Tory council wards don't have drug dealers. I wouldn't say we were posh though as I haven't seen any Punch taverns opening near me. When I can buy a toasted panini and ensure that there aren't any riff-raff throwing darts whilst feeding stout to their whippets at the table next to me then I'll admit to the Durhams being posh.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 30 Mar 2005, 15:54

Dadaist

From your comments on this Forum I don't think they'll be rushing to open a Punch pub near you unless it would be only to bar you from day one.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Mar 2005, 16:04

Dadaist wrote:ensure that there aren't any riff-raff throwing darts whilst feeding stout to their whippets at the table next to me then I'll admit to the Durhams being posh.

You must know some riff-raff with outstanding motor skills.

So, who would you let in your Pub? If you had one.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Mar 2005, 18:52

Porty wrote: So, who would you let in your Pub? If you had one.

Under 21s, dossers, children, drunks, pool players, karaoke singers, old clientele whose pub got gentrified, smokers, TV watchers, fruit machine players, jukebox listeners, drunken teenagers; the wrong sort of people.

Pretty much everyone that POL Snob Squad have been sneering at.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 30 Mar 2005, 21:07

So that's the bar sorted then!

What about the lounge? You know, the other bit with the sticky carpet?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 30 Mar 2005, 22:10

Or the 'snug' where the old wifies in curlers sit........

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Mar 2005, 14:20

Well, I'm glad we've all had a good laugh over all this, as I've certainly racked up some choice comments from board members, including turning the thread into a joke - so maybe some humour was appropriate.

I'm still at a loss as to why most of you are fawning over someone who, to my eyes, is a glorified landlord / drug dealer, albeit in a suit and with a fancy job title. But hey, it's a public forum.

Brian McCrow thinks that this is a great new way for businesses to communicate with "us". (I much prefer to keep my business communications in a proper advertisement space and leave the chat non-commercial, but it's Bob's board. If Sue gets a "sticky" notice then it's open season - but who is next?)

Infomercials on cable television sometimes dress themselves as respectable programs "we now bring you this important message on the new improved DeBustulator(TM) - from IncTronics, founder and inventor Dan Bustman will demonstrate this innovative" etc etc etc which most of us have been conditioned now to recognise as so much twaddle, but obviously Brian has some catching up to do.

One of the questions I'd really like to see answered is how Punch react when one of their premises has to close for whatever reason (like a fire for example). I think a reasonable person would expect Punch to give the tenant a break during the renovations - rather than charging them full whack for what their projected earnings (which they lost) would have been during that period.

Sue's only defense thus far has been that her company, and it's owners, "just happen" to be her immediate employers. It's up to all of us to decide whether we buy that or not - but it's fascinating that this was the response as opposed to a defence or rebuttal.

Somewhere inbetween the caring, sharing, panini-selling face of Punch that Sue would like you to accept, and the landlord/drug dealer caricature I've enjoyed painting for you lies the real Punch. It would be nice if we could pan back and see the nature of the puppeteer in order to work out which one of us is closer to the truth.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 31 Mar 2005, 15:05

Dadaist wrote:but it's Bob's board.

There are three administrators.

Dadaist wrote: If Sue gets a "sticky" notice....

Where did that idea come from then? The only reason that this thread is at the top of the board is because you keep putting it there....

Post by **wangi** » 31 Mar 2005, 15:08

To be honest, I don't think most people share your views toward "evil corporations", or if they do they see voting with their feet/$$$ as a suitable means of protest.

What's wrong with taking things at face value and acknowledging that it is a good move for Punch to interact with the community? Why dig up masses of ills from the past and direct them toward someone who can do absolutely nothing about it? Why swerve off topic to suit your personal agenda (bung it in a new topic if you must)? Doesn't look very productive to me.

Of course you're entitled to your view, as is everyone else... But go steady on most of us who don't share your passion!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Mar 2005, 17:07

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: So, who would you let in your Pub? If you had one.
Under 21s, dossers, children, drunks, pool players, karaoke singers, old clientele whose pub got gentrified, smokers, TV watchers, fruit machine players, jukebox listeners, drunken teenagers; the wrong sort of people.

Pretty much everyone that POL Snob Squad have been sneering at.

So WTF is wrong with Mortgage Brokers?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 31 Mar 2005, 17:10

Porty wrote:So WTF is wrong with Mortgage Brokers?

I'll drink to that.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 31 Mar 2005, 17:12

Porty asked plaintively:

So WTF is wrong with Mortgage Brokers?

I think you might find that such trashy types are included in 'the wrong sort of people' category!!

XXX

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Mar 2005, 18:57

Marya wrote: Where did that idea come from then? The only reason that this thread is at the top of the board is because you keep putting it there....

When the thread first appeared, it was a sticky. After a wee bit it was set free. I think you're being a bit insulting towards all the people who have posted on this topic by accusing me of bumping it up, but I'll just add it on to the list of weak insults I've had the pleasure of batting since stepping up to this particular wicket, old chap.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Mar 2005, 18:59

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: So, who would you let in your Pub? If you had one.
Under 21s, dossers, children, drunks, pool players, karaoke singers, old clientele whose pub got gentrified, smokers, TV watchers, fruit machine players, jukebox listeners, drunken teenagers; the wrong sort of people.

Pretty much everyone that POL Snob Squad have been sneering at.
So WTF is wrong with Mortgage Brokers?

My apologies. There's a couple of pewters behind the bar with your and PoPs names on them. Cheers!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Mar 2005, 19:13

wangi wrote:To be honest, I don't think most people share your views toward "evil corporations", or if they do they see voting with their feet/$$$ as a suitable means of protest.

Never said they did old bean. But thanks for your honesty. Your use of quote marks is misplaced because I never said "evil corporations". I'm glad that you feel able not only to predict who will or won't post on this thread but also what the views of "most people" are. It does not follow, though, that I should share views with anyone other than myself. And if I ever protest, I certainly hope it will be in an unsuitable manner, as opposed to your oxymoronic concept of polite disobedience, whatever that is.

wangi wrote: What's wrong with taking things at face value and acknowledging that it is a good move for Punch to interact with the community?

What's wrong with taking my criticisms at face value and acknowledging that it is a good move for me to interact with Punch - surely Punch's interaction is two-way? Sue decided to ask us some questions, so why shouldn't she answer some as well?

wangi wrote: Why dig up masses of ills from the past and direct them toward someone who can do absolutely nothing about it?

Wow. You're making Punch sound worse than I did !!!

wangi wrote: Why swerve off topic to suit your personal agenda (bung it in a new topic if you must)? Doesn't look very productive to me.

Remind me - what's my personal agenda again? I wasn't looking to produce anything except debate.

wangi wrote: Of course you're entitled to your view, as is everyone else... But go steady on most of us who don't share your passion!

"Stop being so negative."

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Mar 2005, 19:48

For the record, this thread was originally posted on the Portobello Matters forum. It was moved to the general forum, which seemed more appropriate. It briefly enjoyed 'sticky' status, partly because it involved a general invitation to a forthcoming event, and was then 'unstickied'.

I'm not sure how valuable it was to Sue as a marketing exercise but I for one welcome any opportunity to influence what happens in Portobello.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 31 Mar 2005, 19:49

Dadaist wrote:
Marya wrote: Where did that idea come from then? The only reason that this thread is at the top of the board is because you keep putting it there....
When the thread first appeared, it was a sticky. After a wee bit it was set free. .

Drat! You're right

Mea culpa...

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 31 Mar 2005, 19:51

Dadaist wrote:
but it's Bob's board

Actually, It belongs to the People of Portobello, funded by PCC by way of our taxes.

No one has any more rights than the next

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Mar 2005, 20:02

Not quite true. It is in fact currently 'funded' by the people who bought Portobello Online T-shirts. The cost of running the website is no more than the annual hosting costs and the biannual renewal of the domain name (about Ã‚Â£60 a year in total) plus a very considerable amount of my time and effort and that of the small number of volunteers that make it happen. If I have incurred any other incidental expenses then that's my contribution to the community.

I am hopeful that hosting and promotional costs will in future be covered by the income from the Local Business Directory.

Post by **wangi** » 31 Mar 2005, 20:54

Dadaist wrote:"Stop being so negative."

As they say Mr. D... "Whatever". I'm not going to go point-by-point on this. I only gave your wee tirade a response...

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 31 Mar 2005, 21:40

As this is a forum everyone is entitled to their own views but dada goes on a bit....... yawn

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Mar 2005, 21:53

wangi wrote:
Dadaist wrote:"Stop being so negative."
As they say Mr. D... "Whatever". I'm not going to go point-by-point on this. I only gave your wee tirade a response...

Sure, well you're in charge of whether you do or don't respond. I answered your points - you're ducking out of answering the question I posed to you when I responded to your response.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Mar 2005, 21:53

Sandra wrote:As this is a forum everyone is entitled to their own views but dada goes on a bit....... yawn

I would go as far as admitting that the preamble to the debate is over.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 31 Mar 2005, 21:55

right ok

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 01 Apr 2005, 20:24

For me the question is - Do we welcome new people who are prepared to discuss their plans for Portobello and hopefully take our input on board OR do we act in an ill-mannered way and slag them off.

Large corporations generally try to act in a reasonable and responsible manner towards their customers and shareholders otherwise they wouldn't remain in business. Many use a control mechanism called a Balanced Score Card where concern for and activities with local communities count for at least 25% of the score. These are reviewed by management and stakeholders regularly.

This attitude that large corporations are only here to rip off the innocent public seems a very outdated stance.

Individuals within corporations tend to have the same standards as the rest of us so why are we slagging off Sue? She took a very positive approch to Portobello by joining this forum.

It may be old fashioned but I think an apology is due to Sue for a number of the remarks made on this Forum.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 01 Apr 2005, 20:44

Brian McCrow wrote: Many use a control mechanism called a Balanced Score Card

Have them at my work too

To me, just seems like the latest in-thing when it comes to 'personnel development'

Apart from that painful reminder of my work on a Friday night - agree with your post - we can't hold what Punch Taverns may, or may not, have done in the past against them. The whole point is that Sue has come onto this forum and asked us our opinions. To me, that's a refreshing attitude from someone in her position, now whether our opinions are taken into account is a different matter, but I'll withhold judgement on that....

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Apr 2005, 21:20

Brian McCrow wrote: Large corporations generally try to act in a reasonable and responsible manner towards their customers and shareholders otherwise they wouldn't remain in business.

You could write a whole library of books detailing how this statement is wrong. Oh wait, they already have.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Apr 2005, 21:22

bearcub wrote:we can't hold what Punch Taverns may, or may not, have done in the past against them

Whoah. As far as I knew, time ran forwards. So we were supposed to judge them on - what - the future? Are you Dr Who?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Apr 2005, 21:30

Brian McCrow wrote:For me the question is - Do we welcome new people who are prepared to discuss their plans for Portobello and hopefully take our input on board
.

That's it though isn't it Brian. *their* plans, which we are oh so privileged to be party to. And in the forlorn hope that your feedback (read - marketing information) is taken on board, you're prepared to kiss corporate tushie.

So in one arena (the supermarket) we castigate faceless and unaccountable companies because they aren't doing what "we" want. But when their ends suit yours, suddenly it's ill mannered to criticize.

And whilst we argue for a more democratic way of deciding planning applications, we're supposed to settle for crumbs from the table when a business deems that they are in "receive" mode ?

The difference in attitude to Duddingston properties and Punch taverns is as instructive as it is hypocritical.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 01 Apr 2005, 21:33

Dadaist wrote:
bearcub wrote:we can't hold what Punch Taverns may, or may not, have done in the past against them
Whoah. As far as I knew, time ran forwards. So we were supposed to judge them on - what - the future? Are you Dr Who?

No, I'm someone who believes that everyone deserves to be judged on what they do in the present, not what they may have done in the past. People, and corporations, do change and we should take what we receive at face-value instead of dredging up what may have happened in the past.

Anyway, you are taking Sue as being 'Punch Taverns the corporation', she is not, she only works for them. If Sue is doing something like this - asking a local forum for opinions - then, as far as I'm concerned, she's taking a position that many corporations should take.

BTW, I work for Scottish Widows, does that mean I should be judged on something they may have done to someone in the past if I'm trying to make the most of my position at the moment??

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Apr 2005, 21:41

Brian McCrow wrote: It may be old fashioned but I think an apology is due to Sue for a number of the remarks made on this Forum.

You're right - it's old fashioned.