Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> Japanese sushi and sashimi recipes are the easiest

> popular cuisine to prepare at home, IMHO.

> Especially worthwhile today, when one can spend

> upwards of ?100 a head at a 'cult' bar/restaurant

> for the same pleasure. It takes a little practice

> but it's very forgiving - just take it apart and

> try again.

>

> All the necessary ingredients are available from

> various local speciality stores (e.g. there's one

> in Peckham and another in Camberwell) and there

> are literally hundreds of online guides, FAQs and

> how-to websites.

>

> A couple of examples:

> www.sushifaq.com

> SushiAtHome.pdf



THIS.


The only thing I'd add to it is PROTIP: Get fresh fish. And I'm not talking 3 day old fish that's been sat on a fishmarket, I'm talking so fresh that you can still taste the saltwater. Zushi isn't as complicated as you'd think, the SUPER SECRET METHOD is to ensure that you don't overcook the rice, that can be the dealbreaker between a dish that is OM NOM NOM to a dish that is MEH. Get some nice rice wine vinegar and you're pretty much set to go.

Zushi is better than Sashimi IMO, because you can cook whatever fish you're using without offending the Japanese Gods. If you're dead set on eating raw and you're all about Sashimi, I'd say go Hotate-gai, it's like eating fishy steak.

I thought Boho bar was crap when I went for a couple of drinks recently. No door policy, random punters, pointless screen, not good. Shame because if it was more discerning as to who it let in, and a few details were adjusted I'm sure it could be a fine little place.


Charlie

Popped in for 20 minutes or so early last Friday evening and had what was supposed to be a Mai Tai. Dreadful. Absolutely nothing like one and it came in the smallest glass imaginable. It's supposed to have three different rums in for feck's sake. Half empty and a dull ambience. Must try much much harder.

char1ie Wrote:

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

> Shame because

> if it was more discerning as to who it let in, and

> a few details were adjusted I'm sure it could be a

> fine little place.

>

> Charlie


xxxxxxx


So who had it let in (apart from you of course) and why do you think they didn't deserve to be there?


Who do you think should be let in, and why?


:-S

Sue Wrote:

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

> So who had it let in (apart from you of course)

> and why do you think they didn't deserve to be

> there?

>

> Who do you think should be let in, and why?


This is exactly what I was wondering. I have absolutely zero interest in drinking in a bar with a "discerning door policy". In fact if you're so picky about who you drink with, why bother leaving the house at all?

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> "more discerning as to who it let in"?

>

> ::o


They let me in with my depressed divoercee friend (bad choice), they let in a group of 6 pissed up large argumentative geezers (bad choice), they let in some very bored looking old men (bad choice) and the 12 or so trendy good looking young girls and boys that wandered in wandered straight out again because of the low quality punters that were in there.


Charlie

char1ie Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "more discerning as to who it let in"?

> >

> > ::o

>

> They let me in with my depressed divoercee friend

> (bad choice), they let in a group of 6 pissed up

> large argumentative geezers (bad choice), they let

> in some very bored looking old men (bad choice)

> and the 12 or so trendy good looking young girls

> and boys that wandered in wandered straight out

> again because of the low quality punters that were

> in there.

>

> Charlie




So basically they let everybody in.

char1ie Wrote:

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

the 12 or so trendy good looking young girls

> and boys that wandered in wandered straight out

> again because of the low quality punters that were

> in there.

>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


So you think they should only let in "high quality punters", which by your definition appear to be:


Trendy

Good looking

Young


??????


Have I understood you correctly?


Do you think they should have some kind of "good looks detector" on the door, and maybe ask everybody for proof of age in case they're over - what? 25???


Oh, and vet their clothes in case they've strayed off trend?


FFS :-S

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

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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