The best restaurants serving Greek food in East of England

Very disappointed normally good food good service waiting 2 hours and turned up cold

The arrangement between a private entity and the council, where taxpayers fund £80 a night for accommodations ostensibly meant to support homeless individuals, is deeply troubling. This setup not only squanders public funds but also subjects vulnerable people to dehumanizing treatment reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. For starters, the price tag—£80 per night—is exorbitant for what is typically basic, often substandard, accommodation. Such inflated costs, funded by taxpayers, are a blatant example of profiteering at the expense of the public purse. The lack of transparency regarding how these funds are allocated raises significant questions about oversight and accountability. Who benefits from this arrangement, and why are such high rates deemed acceptable when more cost-effective and humane alternatives likely exist? The treatment of the homeless residents compounds the issue. Reports of pervasive surveillance, with security staff listening in on conversations through an extensive camera network, are chilling. Such measures, far from providing safety, create an oppressive environment where individuals are stripped of dignity and privacy. The implication that homeless people must be monitored so intrusively perpetuates harmful stereotypes, reducing them to objects of suspicion rather than human beings deserving of support and respect. This Orwellian approach undermines the purpose of such accommodations: to provide a safe, supportive space for individuals at their most vulnerable. Instead, the invasive surveillance fosters mistrust and humiliation, leaving residents feeling more marginalized than ever. The council must urgently review this arrangement. A thorough investigation into the costs and conditions is needed, alongside meaningful consultation with the individuals directly impacted. Public funds should be directed toward solutions that prioritize dignity, privacy, and genuine rehabilitation—not profit-driven schemes that treat homelessness as an opportunity for exploitation.

Order: lamb shish kebab. The lamb came in a very small pitta, with the salad separate. As soon as I took the first bite, I was a bit alarmed by the smell of the meat. It smelt a bit old, but I was hungry and carried on eating. But, the meat was un-eatable, as it was so chewy and very gristly. I ate the rest but I basically paid £9 for a pitta which was half soggy from the oil fat of the meat and the chilli sauce, two slices of tomato, a bunch of lettuce and a few strands of onion. I will not be going back ever again.

Ordered online yesterday for delivery today 1745-1815 and get a message at 1715 saying they cannot fulfil order. Very disappointing, been using them for ages, will think again now

Ok, because we were hungry… but will not but from them again. Food was not hot and meat not great. For the £30 it cost, would have been better to go out for dinner or order elsewhere. Delivery person was lovely though. Thank you.