Elizabeth Cairncross

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Elizabeth Cairncross

Post by Pe.A »

AMP wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:07 pm
eucsgmrc wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:02 am
AMP wrote:
Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:31 am
The school hadn't been modernised since the victorian era and the food was mostly inedible.
Not true.

The school was brand new, very modern and equipped to a high standard when it came into use in 1902. It was by no means a typical Victorian institution.

That said, the 1902 kitchens were still in use in 1954, and the food they turned out was far from appetising. Nobody could call it ample either, but it was well above starvation level and nobody was malnourished.

In 1955 (I think) the kitchens were comprehensively refitted, and the food began to improve. By the time I left in 1962, it was tolerably good, for institutional food. There were several items on the menu that we positively looked forward to (but the army food we got at CCF camps was better).

From what I'm reading here, it seems that food was one of several things that got worse in the 70s. I had no idea. How would I? But I now feel uncomfortable (to say the least) that I assumed everything about CH would be as good as, or better than, what I experienced.
I was mainly thinking about the accomodation, but thank you for correcting me. And of course, there was the Arts Centre, the Octagon and the Modern Languages lab, to name but some.

I should have said the food was mostly dreadful, not inedible, otherwise I wouldn't be here to criticise it 40 years later. And touch wood, I still have a few miles left on the clock.

Some meals like beef stew were inedible.

Fry Ups were dreadful.
Overcooked sausages, fried bread which had obviously been deep fat fried. Bacon, mostly rind. Soggy white bread was disgusting.

Waffles/Hash Browns and beans was good. But not difficult.

Occasional pastry pie was bordering on the excellent.

But my overall rating has to be dreadful.


.
Would you say you're a fussy eater...?

As my grandfather used to say, 'when you're hungry everything tastes good'

AMP
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:15 pm
Real Name: Amp
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Elizabeth Cairncross

Post by AMP »

Pe.A wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:19 pm
AMP wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:07 pm
eucsgmrc wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:02 am


Not true.

The school was brand new, very modern and equipped to a high standard when it came into use in 1902. It was by no means a typical Victorian institution.

That said, the 1902 kitchens were still in use in 1954, and the food they turned out was far from appetising. Nobody could call it ample either, but it was well above starvation level and nobody was malnourished.

In 1955 (I think) the kitchens were comprehensively refitted, and the food began to improve. By the time I left in 1962, it was tolerably good, for institutional food. There were several items on the menu that we positively looked forward to (but the army food we got at CCF camps was better).

From what I'm reading here, it seems that food was one of several things that got worse in the 70s. I had no idea. How would I? But I now feel uncomfortable (to say the least) that I assumed everything about CH would be as good as, or better than, what I experienced.
I was mainly thinking about the accomodation, but thank you for correcting me. And of course, there was the Arts Centre, the Octagon and the Modern Languages lab, to name but some.

I should have said the food was mostly dreadful, not inedible, otherwise I wouldn't be here to criticise it 40 years later. And touch wood, I still have a few miles left on the clock.

Some meals like beef stew were inedible.

Fry Ups were dreadful.
Overcooked sausages, fried bread which had obviously been deep fat fried. Bacon, mostly rind. Soggy white bread was disgusting.

Waffles/Hash Browns and beans was good. But not difficult.

Occasional pastry pie was bordering on the excellent.

But my overall rating has to be dreadful.


.
Would you say you're a fussy eater...?
Not after CH, no!
These users thanked the author AMP for the post:
Pe.A (Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:47 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Elizabeth Cairncross

Post by Pe.A »

AMP wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:59 pm
Pe.A wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:19 pm
AMP wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2020 1:07 pm

I was mainly thinking about the accomodation, but thank you for correcting me. And of course, there was the Arts Centre, the Octagon and the Modern Languages lab, to name but some.

I should have said the food was mostly dreadful, not inedible, otherwise I wouldn't be here to criticise it 40 years later. And touch wood, I still have a few miles left on the clock.

Some meals like beef stew were inedible.

Fry Ups were dreadful.
Overcooked sausages, fried bread which had obviously been deep fat fried. Bacon, mostly rind. Soggy white bread was disgusting.

Waffles/Hash Browns and beans was good. But not difficult.

Occasional pastry pie was bordering on the excellent.

But my overall rating has to be dreadful.


.
Would you say you're a fussy eater...?
Not after CH, no!
Ok.

I still have a major weak spot for things like Hash Browns and Angel Delight...

Post Reply