Upselling in Clapham and other musings

The rabbit doesn't do much autobiographical stuff but occasionally it seems inevitable. I have decided to move back to London, partly for personal and partly for professional reasons. Yesterday was spent partly looking for a flat (no luck so far) but also included an evening trip with the small rabbits and girlfriend of larger small rabbit (as it were) to the Golden Curry, Clapham High Street. Now as a family we have been going there for donkey's years but not any more. How so I hear you cry? I copy and paste from Wikipedia.

'Upselling (sometimes 'up-selling') is a sales technique whereby a saleperson induces the customer to purchase more expensive items, upgrades, or other add-ons in an attempt to make a more profitable sale'.

You may guess where we are going here. Now I accept that the objective of any restaurant is to sell as much as possible to the punters as quickly as possible and get them through the door again to make room for the next tranche of punters. I also accept that, though the punters may see the meal as the main event, the restaurant makes most of its money out of drinks (I mean alcoholic) sales. This is not surprising as Cobra costs £4.75 per 500cl bottle - that is $7.59 American persons.

But a bit of subtlety would be nice. the Golden Curry doesn't do subtle. I arrived first. The rabbit buttocks were barely gracing a seat when I was hit on

'Care to order a drink?' I said I'd wait for the rest. That didn't stop me being hit on again two or three times again before the others arrived.

GO AWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!

Which part of 'I'll wait for the others' they didn't understand remains a mystery.

Then the rabbit's descendants and girlfriend arrived. We moved table to get away from an annoyingly noisy group of drunks. Drinks were then ordered. Pappadoms were then ordered. The pickle tray arrived. All of which was fine. We hadn't all sat down together and talked for a good while. Conversation flows. We deal slowly with the pappadoms and pickles. Then the hassling starts.

Waiter 1: 'Care to order?

Not yet. We'll let you know.

Waiter 2: 'Care to order?

Same answer.

Waiter 1 again: well you guessed it...

Now this isn't because they need the table for the next group of customers. Apart from us and the annoying drunks and another table of two or three people the place is empty. And this is on a Saturday night! Smaller small rabbit is getting very irritated.

'I'LL ORDER WHEN I'VE FINISHED MY FIRST COURSE!' He tells waiter.

We eat. The food, while not outstanding is better than average - but we knew that. The food really isn't the point. The endless hassling is grating and counterproductive. I wonder if they have ever stopped to ask why an attractive looking restaurant on a heaving main road on a Saturday night is pretty much empty.

Oh and just as we are obviously getting ready to leave I empty my glass of Cobra

'One more?'

GO AWAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

Here endeth ye rant. A couple of short matters, both British and political so overseas readers are welcome to go and put the kettle on etc...

The rabbit has blogged on the odious Phil Woolas before (above delightfully but unconnected with the story below is Woolas getting kippered by Joanna Lumley). Suffice it to say that he has got his comeuppance from the Election Court. Here is the ruling of the court as per Mr Justice Teare:

'In an election address entitled The Examiner, the respondent (Mr Woolas) made a statement of fact, the meaning of which was that the petitioner attempted to woo, that is to seek, the electoral support of Muslims who advocated violence, in particular violence to the respondent.

In a further election address entitled Labour Rose, he made a statement of fact the meaning of which was that the petitioner had refused to condemn extremists who advocated violence against the respondent.

We have concluded that both of these statements, although made in the context of an election and said to arise from a political position adopted by the petitioner, were in relation to the petitioner's personal character or conduct.

In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.

It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.

Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.

We also found that (in) an earlier election address the respondent had made a statement in fact, namely, that the petitioner had reneged on his promise to live in the constituency. This too, although made in the context of an election and said to arise from a statement made by the petitioner as a candidate in that election, was in relation to his personal character or conduct.

It suggests that he is untrustworthy. The statement was false and the respondent had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true and did not believe it to be true.

It follows in our judgment that the respondent is guilty of an illegal practice, contrary to section 136 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 with regard to those statements."

The consequence of our finding that the respondent is guilty of an illegal practice with regard to the statements we have referred to is that, pursuant to section 159(1) of the Act, his election as Member of Parliament for the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth is void and we have so reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

We are satisfied that the statutory penalties for the illegal practices committed by the respondent are both necessary and proportionate, having regard to the seriousness of the statements made with regard to the petitioner's alleged attitude to the Muslim extremists who advocated violence'.

Now Labour has hung Woolas out to dry. Harriet 'Hattie' Harman pronounced gravely that Woolas was suspended from the Labour Party. 'It is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected' announced Hattie gravely.

Just two questions: firstly, what of the factual basis of the court's findings were unknown to the Labour Party before last Friday and in particular what of the factual basis of the court's findings were unknown to Milband (E) when he entirely unnecessarily (because he had not been elected to the shadow cabinet) appomnited Woolas a front bench spokesman?

I suspect the candid answer is 'nothing'.

Meanwhile little squirt and Foreign Secretary William Hague has been on a kissass exercise in Israel, promising to 'urgently resolve' the 'unacceptable situation' with regard to universal jurisdiction. This is because the Israelis are pissed off that their goons may get arrested for war crimes while on UK soil. This seems entirely acceptable. The above shrinks nicely to sidebar size. Help yourselves!