RDB

praise be damned - beatification more like. Anyone know the Vatican's email address, so we can forward this on? ← What hope does it give others? That one day a television crew will arrive with Jamie in toe with a vast amount of money to pay for their restaurant!!!! This maybe hope but of the false variety. IMHO of course

I give without making a fuss. I do not go showing my friends etc, copies of my bank statements containing my charitable direct debits. ← So why mention it now? I appreciate you're hardly making a fuss, but you're certainly bringing to peoples attention and using the fact you never mention it to make yourself seem different to the rest of the world, but you're hardly defying human nature, rather exemplifying it. ← An example purely for the purpose of the debate, and remember examples are often hypothetical of course . I maybe should have used the term 'others' instead of 'I'. Friday afternoons eh

I give without making a fuss. I do not go showing my friends etc, copies of my bank statements containing my charitable direct debits. Maybe I defy human nature This is the point many people through their work, giving time, giving money etc do it for the joy of helping others, pure and simple. They do not make TV programmes about it. I am not sure what you mean by this? If I was Jamie Oliver then I would not be cynical about myself? Or if I had his money I would not be cynical? If the former you a right. If the latter you are wrong. Yes you are probably right. Now this is where my confusion lies. What has he actually done? In regards to his current programme all he is doing is giving one person the chance to run a restaurant? A lot of banks do that? It's not really benefiting mankind as a whole. Maybe it is my naivity but what is the purpose of 15 to society, but to give 'disadvantaged' kids the chance to become chefs? I reiterate is it that hard to become a chef in the first place? He may not have done more than most in 'his financial position', as most do not make TV programmes about then giving their money to the 'disadvantaged' (except Jeffery Archer et al). You are right about pilloring though, I need to be careful or I could end up like poor Boris Johnson who had the audacity to criticise Jamie’s campaign as being ‘too much’ and ‘over the top’. Consequently there was a national backlash, newspapers were up in arms, mothers wept and Boris had to apologise . Even the Conservative party decided to rectify the matter by having a vote on whether ‘Jamie Oliver was a national hero’, with 77% in favour.

Yes you are probably right Gary, it is probably a little lazy of me to write about someone like Jamie Oliver, the man, lets face it is an easy target. Well so I thought. Following his ‘Jamie’s Kitchen’ programme I was expecting the nation, like me, to have seen through his pseudo altruism and haul him over the proverbial (barbeque) coals for cashing in on a so called ‘worthy’ cause. Obviously not. He has been hailed as a saint, the savior of the ASBO generation; a role model for all those under privileged kids and all round good egg (pun intended). Now he has saved all our children from becoming obese or dying before they are 18 from turkeytwizzleanitis, it has put him up there with the likes of Mandela, Mother Theresa and Geldof (well before he did Live8). Much as people are sick of seeing his contorted visage almost everywhere and hearing his passé mockney ’colloquailisums’, he is still seen as a very noble and generous hearted soul. So why is it that I am a little cynical of his motivations. Well I have a few points (sorry if they are too long ). I never bought the whole Jamie's Kitchen thing from the start. It smacked blatantly of giving the flooded arena of TV cookery programmes a new twist. What would be better than pleasing the middle classes than seeing some ‘fine food’ mixed with a healthy dose of social commentary and the amelioration of societies woes, all in one? Maybe I am wrong and Jamie may have been having sleepless nights worrying and perseverating over the plight of the ‘underprivileged kids’. He may have over breakfast, stated to his loyal wife Jules that the world outside was just not ‘pukka’ and maybe he should give the starving, hopeless and homeless kids of Britain a chance. If this is the case then why make a television programme about it? Surely you can carry out such charitable work without having the world know how philanthropic you are? There is something very crass about how much one does for charity. In one episode I remember him guilt tripping his apprentices by stating that if the project went tits up his house would be on the line. This seems very laughable now when recent figures estimate him to be worth £56 million, second only to Gordon Ramsey in chef earnings. I also wonder what production company was involved in this and other Jamie production What is also extremely patronising about this venture is this annoying concept of underprivileged kids. From what I remember a great deal of these kids were far from ’underprivileged’, some from quite well to do backgrounds, something they had in common with Jamie. I do not remember him visiting Toxteth, the Gorbals, or Moss Side to recruit his apprentices for the show - that would have been too real. What has he actually offered these kids? The chance to become a chef? Pre-Jamie was it that hard to become a chef? No in fact it’s pretty easy, you either go to catering college and then work your way through the ranks or you miss out catering college and work your way through the ranks. You do not need a TV chef, TV programme and a charitable foundation to know that or aid the process. Next humanitarian cause for our Jamie was the quest to change the school dinners our poor children are being poisoned with. Ok it is a worthy cause that I am in agreement with, but let’s remember this was going on well before Jamie was involved. At the same time his fame has raised the profile and gone some way to make changes to what kids eat at school. However behind this quest there lies certain contradictions in what Jamie actually stands for and promotes. On the one hand he is constantly haranguing the nation and literally force-feeding children to eat healthy food, yet on the other hand is the face of a well known supermarket. The same supermarket that stocks ready meals, turkey dinosaurs, foods clogged with hydrogenated fats, unhealthy sweets, crisps, food sourced by unethical means and flown thousands of miles, farmed fish, ill treatment of British farmers, I could go on and on. While Jamie and the rest of his extended family appear in friendly commercials extolling the wonders of Sainsbury’s he is criticising the rest of us who shop at this supermarket for buying processed junk for packed lunches.?. You can’t have it both ways Jamie, you can’t guilt trip the nations parents into not feeding their children, whilst at the same time advertising supermarkets as the place to feed our kids. Ok the counter argument may be that Jamie's own range is more healthy, ethical and tastier than the ‘normal’ products in this supermarket, but at the end of the day by putting your face to a business, you are an advert for everything it sells, chicken nuggets and all. To add to this he has even gone out of his way to blame working mothers as the cause for unhealthy meals and the nation’s health problems. Since when has a TV chef becomes a sociological analyst for health related demographic trends? It may be ok for Jules to stay at home, but then again she has no financial worries, does she? I am not denying that Jamie has done some good, as have the hundreds and thousands of charities and charity workers (myself included). To me it is just a little tainted and his new show I think has highlighted that. Also in respect to not needing to do it remember no matter if you have all the money and fame in the world, the desire to attain more is still a motivating force, as is the need to be seen to be doing something 'worthwhile'.

You're kidding me!! Glad I missed it so...Was it supposed to be funny, or was it just impossible to hear her over the sounds of the fiddles and leprechauns? God, I'm so Jamie-d out. ← I kid ye not! I have never seen anyone on TV speaking English having subtitles. Not that his grasp on the language or his accent is anything to go by etc etc

Sorry to lower the tone, but did anyone catch his TV show last night? Christ is there no end to this mans philanthropy, when he dies they should canonise him at least. Anyway the basis is, Jamie is going to give one of his 'downtrodden, disadvantaged and desolate' trainees the chance to run their own restaurant. So four trainees have to battle it out to see who wins etc etc. Of course the purpose of this venture is not to promote his ever expanding empire and do-gooder image, but to give some poor soul the chance to be happy, successful and a whole person. However a few questions/ points: 1. These 'disadvantaged ' individuals did not seem that bad to me. Ok one had stole a car twice, one had overdone it on the gak, one came from Thailand and the other was an Irish lad ( being Irish seemingly his criteria for disadvantagedness) Hardly the Asbo generation? 2. Prior to his 15 project was it really so hard to become a chef? He kept claiming last night how much he had changed these 'kids' lives by giving them a chance to become a chef! 3. Why did he feel the need to step up the swearing ala Gordon Ramsey? Come on Jamie not really the image you want to portray. Even Ruth Watson was swearing. 4. Who the fuck is Ruth Watson? 5. Why did he feel the need to show his vast fortune of? Driver, mansion, lavish birthday celebrations etc etc? Was it to show the poor people that if they take over this pub they could have all this? 6. Why did the Irish lad's Mum have subtitles when she was speaking English albeit with a bit of an accent? 7 Was it a coincidence that the name of pub was called The Cock? This had to be the most patronising piece of television I have ever seen, well since his last piece of pseudo altruistic nonsense....... Apologies one and all I felt I had to vent my spleen

For what it is I agree with Matthew's choice of the Three Fishes. I regularly go there, have found the food top notch, service extremely welcoming, easy to relax without worrying if the kids are annoying others and yes the beer is very good. Then what would I know, I thought Locatelli's was the worst dining experience I had in the whole of 2006

I have never had this problem anywhere else in the country, except London, and in there lies the problem. Tim your best bet is to move up North, it will certainly reduce your stress levels.

Good to see Palmiro get a Bib, best Italian by far in Greater Manchester, one more notch for Manchester's minimal representation in Michelin. For a major city like Manchester it is a shame (thats for another thread). Sorry to see Heathcotes go down, service and food IMHO up to Michelin standard on the three times I visited this year, my wife however disagrees. Oh well it will bounce back. Anthonys I found to be a let down when I visited this year, it was good but not that fantastic. Service rigid at times and food combinations that totally missed the mark. I am not surprised it did not get a star, I think it earned a reputation without having really developed what it has tried to achieve. Great beer list though. How long does Fraiche have to rise before it gets a star?

Er, that would be by eating there very regularly over the last 4 years. How else would I know? ← As have I, but the question I am asking is how you can conclude the birth of a child is correlated with a restaurant not being as good? I have heard of restaurants slipping due to bad management, poor quality ingredients, sloppy service, high prices etc. But having a baby?? Again you may 'not think it the same' but how do you conclude it is due to having a baby. I am genuinely intrigued.

" Hibiscus hasn't been the same since they had the baby. Won't get a 3rd star. " I would be very interested to know what you base this theory on and how you come to such a bizarre conclusion? UP: L'enclume 2* Anthony's 1* Sat Bains 2* Midsummer House 3* Mint (Dublin) 1* DOWN: Fat Duck 2* Locatelli's 0* Gordon Ramsey2* L'ecrivain 0* Yes, yes, I like an outside bet

When in County Armagh I would try the Manor Park Restaurant in Armagh city, I have heard some great reports about it. If you are near Portadown, then try the Yellow Door deli which is a real gem. Make sure you pick up some Soda and Poatato Farls and Wheaten Bread, true specialities of the area.

I'm sorry, but I find this to be one of the most patronising posts I have read in the history of EG. If you recall some of the worst meal"s" of your life in a LC, why on earth did you return?? Little Chef has been and will hopefully continue to be a valuable service to travellers and families for years to come. I don't eat in them, but know people that do, and you've basically just insulted them. What about people that just want a cup of tea? Or a Pee? ← May I just take this opportunity to apologise to all eGullet members, their families and friends for the derogatory comments I made about Brussel Sprouts over the festive period. I now realise that my critiscism of this brassica has 'basically insulted' other people to which I am truly sorry

Andy, Remind us where he is cooking :-) No...ignore that I did a Google. Looks interesting.....now how can I fit that in to my trip to Newcastle....! anyone been...couldn't find any substantive reviews on Egullet ← Absolutely fantastic restaurant, which to my surprise has not been reviewed to much. I went over the summer and had the tasting menu. I have a copy somewhere so may do a review. Great beer list too. It is very hard to find and in a strange location.

This year I set myself the goal of eating at 12 Michelin restaurants (and Anthony's) in a year, of which I achieved no problems at all. Anyway here are my top five in no particular order: 1. Juniper- Still the 'funniest' restaurant around. 2. The Fat Duck- Great one off experience, and I still maintain the Snail Porridge tasted like a vesta curry. 3. Restaurant Sat Bains- Total surprise of the year, cutting edge cooking and a great beer list. 4. L'enclume- Just sublime. 5. Restaurant Le Bristol (Paris)- Best service I have ever experienced in a restaurant. Next year I am aiming for 24 in a year.

Last week, Ramsey made one of the two sisters cry. The lady was an antiques dealer, which I suppose could easily be confused with gangster. No signs of tears though from the man with more money than he could reaonably spend if he lived to be 1000 years old. I'm not sure what could make him cry? His tax bill? Being made to actually write his own books? Being made to eat those chocolates he sells through Tesco! ← ..........or MPW?

Excellent Che that has cheered me up no end

Le'0 - A french minimalist restaurant

I am aiming to get down to Juniper pretty soon, so I will report on the amount of courses Paul is throwing out. I will also get a mood check before hand to ascertain any correalation between emotion and course quantity

I do indeed take on board the comments, but of course in the spirit of gastronomic empiricism I will try it none the less. The proof of the ............

A question for those more technical than I I have recently found a farm near me that is selling goose liver. Now the lady informs me that the geese have lived a very 'ethical' life and not been force fed at all. What I was wondering is because the geese have not been force fed etc is this product going to taste as good as normal goose foie gras and can it be treated in the same way, with the same delicious results?

Interesting review of the Fat Duck Tim. I liked the bit about the fun and humour that is experienced whilst going through the tasting menu. I also like a good laugh with my food. My problem with it though is it tends to be a 'one off' humorous experience, with the joke not being as funny the second or third time after, as you know the punchlines. Did you hear the one about the snail porridge? Even before you actually go to the FD there is a fair chance you get to know the jokes and punchlines. The majority of reviews written about it although varying in style and focus point all contain the same themes, simply because it is and has been the same menu (material) for so long. I know before I went I had actually read so much about it I knew what to expect and having seen the slide show on Chez Pim, I knew what the dishes would look like. Although taste wise it was an amazing experience (which is the most important), conceptually it did not thrill or tickle me as much. Jay Rayner did a review of Juniper many years ago, and originally captured the idea of a gastronomic restaurant/experience being funny. Having had the 20/30 course gourmet menu a few times he is definitely spot on. The difference between the two is each time you go to Juniper the courses are different, there is no menu to state what the courses will be and you are relying upon the chefs creativity, spontaneity and sense of humour. This to me adds to the humour factor as jokes work better when you have not heard them before and you do not know what to expect. Maybe thats the difference between a scientific style and an artistic/eccentric style. I also found Locatelli's to be funny to the point of absurdity, but thats another story.

Matthew that is one of the most astute observations and posts on this subject. With regards to his chocolates I do not think he is actually to knowledgeable or keen on them himself or aware that they have contained a fair share of hydrogenated oils. Chocolates

I think he is actually a fully trained medical doctor with interest in nutrition. When he had his article in the normal magazine he seemed to base his 'facts' on recent scientific research, from extensive and reputable journals. I like his bit in OFM.

Well done Northern Harvest for winning 'Best Local Food Retailer' in the Radio 4 food awards. Thanks to these guys I have not food shopped in a supermarket for over 2 years. Well deserved.