Punch Pubs in Portobello - come to a new opening !

by **mr magnolia** » 23 Mar 2005, 19:56

And I think a healthy dose of cynicism is entirely appropriate. But hey, if the behemoth is listening even a little bit thats better than not at all.

Personally I thought the pier was/is the best pub in town so I have some fears for the future.

:alien:

by **Poppy** » 23 Mar 2005, 20:12

by **xxxx** » 23 Mar 2005, 20:21

by **mr magnolia** » 23 Mar 2005, 20:42

by **Poppy** » 23 Mar 2005, 20:46

by **Gedge** » 24 Mar 2005, 13:34

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2005, 15:25

by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Mar 2005, 16:02

Been absent for a wee while and just read all this thread.

Loved your posts Dadaist. It appears you ruffle feathers all round if you dare challenge a potental conflict of interest between an employee and their corporate paymaster. The links you provided illustrate the general thinking of the Punch group. I find this much more real than what may potentially happen to a local pub which after all, will be fitted out on the basis of what will make the best return on capital and most profit. If this is not the case then Sue would be getting a really hard time if I were her boss.

by **Brian McCrow** » 24 Mar 2005, 16:34

Are we having a go at corporates per se?

Shouldn't we be looking at the micro level of how we can get better pubs into Portobello?

If Punch want to communicate with us on this that's so much better than a faceless organisation making their own decisions in corporate HQ.

I take my hat off to Sue for joining this Forum.

I would like more people in her position in other organisation to do the same.

It's a Scottish trait to look on the dark side let's fight this and look on the bright side.

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2005, 16:35

It's hopefully only the beginning. Sue has decided to join our small online community, albeit as the representative of a very large organisation. To my mind this poses a myriad of questions. I've just scratched the surface and am waiting for a more detailed response from her to even the first set of information I posted.

If the new signatory to the website had been the owner of Duddingston Properties, wanting input on the topiary for the hedges they were going to put between the houses on the Harry Lauder Road and the new Tesco, the forum response would have been very different, and those who had spoken out would not have been told that they were being impolite / inappropriate / negative / discourteous / political / piss-taking / joke-making / issue-raisers.

Edit : added wangi's epithets to my commemorative "wall of abuse"

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2005, 16:38

by **wangi** » 24 Mar 2005, 17:19

Yeah, yeah, yeah... All very well... Pick any company and you can dig up dirt. But it's not polite or right to piss on folk when they're trying to be constructive. Sue came here in good faith and now this thread is an utter joke.

Doubt you'll see any replies to your "questions" Dada (as is she is the one that should be answering them!)... And I doubt you'll see any future posts from Sue.

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2005, 18:42

by **Porty** » 24 Mar 2005, 18:45

by **Gemini** » 24 Mar 2005, 21:33

by **mr magnolia** » 24 Mar 2005, 21:38

by Ed » 24 Mar 2005, 22:08

by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Mar 2005, 22:45

by **Brian McCrow** » 24 Mar 2005, 23:49

by **Poppy** » 25 Mar 2005, 10:43

The analogy with DHP doesn't quite work for me in that Sue Allen joined the forum only because a couple of POLers emailed her about an existing pub whose existence no-one on here has ever voiced objection to except for the way it was run. Perhaps she saw a PR opportunity for the other PP pubs in the area as well as the Whins, but that's her job as operations manager, I suppose.

DHP on the other hand in is wanting to build something that could/would have an impact on traffic/existing retailers and on the whole of Portobello. They must have been aware of the existence of POL for some time but have never been brave enough to join to put their point of view. And probably never will!! Or else they've been spying on us and are (rightly) afraid, very afraid, of Dada.

There's a huge difference between the issues at stake - ie. an existing wee pub that affects a smallish part of Portobello and that only anti-drink folk object to and a huge new superstore that would affect the whole of Portobello and is objected to by many (although not all).

That's the last I have to say on this subject except I don't want a Rick's Bar either!! Like Gedge, I'd just like a comfy bar nearer my home, but my life will go on quite happily without one.

:occasion5:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Mar 2005, 10:48

I'll drink to that. Come back Sue. Don't mind Dada - he's just warming up for G8.

Me, I'm in a quandry. Do I join the protestors or take the overtime? :wink:

by **Dadaist** » 25 Mar 2005, 11:32

by **Dadaist** » 25 Mar 2005, 11:38

by **Porty** » 28 Mar 2005, 16:25

I have long held the view that on its opening night some wag stole the P from the sign at Rick's.

Having said that, one area where the Figgate Whins may struggle to be the Portobello Ricks equivalent is; eye candy. Eye candy is not exactly abundant in Portobello, I would say there's myself and Pal of Porty that's about it. And you can catch us regularly at the Deli or in the Ormelie.

The only hope for the Whins in the eye candy stakes is if the new tenants is a triumvarate of say, Maggie Gyllenaal, Kiera Knightley and Annete Bening.

by **Sandra** » 28 Mar 2005, 16:53

by **Poppy** » 28 Mar 2005, 17:07

by **Sue Allen** » 29 Mar 2005, 09:54

by **stubetts** » 29 Mar 2005, 10:05

by **Sue Allen** » 29 Mar 2005, 10:37

by **Dadaist** » 29 Mar 2005, 13:40

by **Dadaist** » 29 Mar 2005, 13:42

by **Dadaist** » 29 Mar 2005, 13:49

Punch Pubs in Portobello - come to a new opening !

Re: Punch Pubs in Portobello - come to a new opening !

Who is online