Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There. I've said it.


I can tell my Ardbeg from a Laphroig so I don't think I'm completely senseless.


But apart from Tandoori Nights and Bombay Bicycle Club can anyone (other than Michael P) really tell the difference between Surma/Dulwich Tandoori/Pistachio Club/Mirash/Jafflong offerings? Am I alone in thinking they all taste much the same?

Well sort of, I think that Jaflong is a bit different.


Mirash is the epitome of traditional curry house and my favourite of old; however they are pretty much the same; it just depends what your own personal tastes are; as the best part of 2 years worth of curry club meetings have evidenced.

Yep- to be clear I've not tried 90% of all dishes on all curry houses - as most have about 50 odd choices variants on the menu but I've tried most places at least once and like for like there's nothing to choose beteween them....you may as well roll a dice. Why go to any particular one?


Keef - you are getting to the crux of it. A USP. Tandoori nights differs in that it seems less fatty, fresher and tastes better. It also seems to do better by conciously NOT having a delivery service?

You only have to look at Babur's menu (the restaurant though, not the takeaway/home delivery) to see how the LL establishments are practically clones of each other... I have this fancy that at dead of night a huge tanker, like a petrol tanker, inches slowly along LL, stopping at intervals to connect a thick black rubber hose to each curry house and pump a fresh week's supply of "Basic Indian Sauce" into their basements....

I've completed a training course in Anglo-Indian-style curry and tandoor cooking at a leading Indian restaurant in London.


Of course the dishes all taste the same - they are made to the same (secret) recipes passed down from Bangladeshi chefs to their apprentices throughout the country.


Ever wondered how any dish from over 100 menu choices can be prepared within five to seven minutes? It's because they are all made from a handful of basic, pre-cooked ingredients that are assembled in an iron skillet and fried at high temperature until the oil separates from the sauce.


A typical curry house uses only six spices: coriander, cumin, paprika, turmeric, cayenne (chilli) pepper and black pepper and three or four aromatics: malabathrum (Indian bay leaf), cinnamon, cardamom and star anise. The rest is mainly onions, bell peppers, garlic, ginger, desiccated coconut, almond powder and tomato paste. Korma and massala dishes are thickened with single cream (UHT LongLife).


Balti dishes are the same as regular dishes with a tablespoonful of Patak?s Balti Curry paste.


As for "fresh ingredients" ? virtually every Anglo-Indian restaurant in London gets its supplies from a handful of Bangladeshi-owned cash-and-carry warehouses in Bermondsey and East London. All meat, fish and seafood is frozen.


Incidentally, the staff would rather die than eat the food they serve to customers - the chefs prepare genuine Bangladeshi curries for the staff's end-of-day meal!

What an education we get here! Thanks for that!

A mate used to live in Southall and taught me the trick that you should only go to the little restaurants you see the locals going to. Same can be said for Chinese and so on.

I don't have a sophisticated experienced enough palate to know the best Indian food, but this thread has taught me alot!

Must try Ganapati since everyone creams over it...

... and , at least in the early days, many of the Chefs came from the same area of Bangladesh and so shared the same basic recipes.


Still, the food tastes good. I cant help thinking that an expectation that they can serve the quantities that they do and hand prepare all from fresh ingredients is a tad naive.

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

    • This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers. Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think. Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo          
    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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