sunbeam
-
Posts
365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by sunbeam
-
-
I dont like my sea bass ovecooked either but I do insist on a well-seared skin. Otherwise the texture and taste just aren't there for me
S
-
Sunbeam
Did you contact your doctor?
Did you supply a stool sample?
Did you contact your local EHO?
"I feel someone should be given a hard time" What did YOU have for lunch or dinner previously?
Easy there officer, shouldn't you read me my rights first? And what about that call to my lawyer?
Seriously though, my "who do I sue" was more rhetorical than anything else. I was interested in the answer. No I did not contact my doctor, I was too ill for that and Saturday and Sunday are not good days to get an appointment with the NHS anyway. I did not declare myself an emergency as I feel the NHS has enough on its plate already and I knew I was not in danger of dying, even though it felt like it.
I have no idea who or where my local EHO is. Local to whom? Me or the restaurant?
As both my wife and I had different meals in the previous 48 hours, my Poirot-like powers of deduction decided to rule out any other source of the infection. When I say someone should be given a hard time I mean no more than a talking to. I am not litigious by nature.
S
-
and they were promoting him so lets hope he does ok and word gets round hes there
Promoting him to what? Liuetenant General?
Ahaha I'm here all week ladies and gentlemen, don't forget to try the prawn special
S
-
Hey don't you go dissing Chris da Berk.
S
-
Yes please do believe me when I say that the 'who do I sue' bit in my subject header was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek.
It was all very nasty, although a quick google on the subject reveals it could have been worse.
I was just interested in what people thought. I don't think it would be worth pursuing it as the restaurant have responded professionally and promptly and I don't think they could have prevented it. I hope they chase their suppliers up though as I am still inclined to blame the naughty shellfish.
I've only ever been poisoned once before, when I was 15 and living in France, a mussel at lunch did the damage and I (apparently) went face first into my dinner soup about six hours later and woke up in bed about 12 hrs after that.
So at 47 I guess I can't complain and I feel much better now. I live in South London so I have more chance of being gunned down than getting another dose this side of senility!
I hope
S
-
And not by anyone here either!
What is the score when a mich starred restau in London knocks me and the wife out for 48 hrs with what I suspect were infected scallops (the only dish we both had)? We felt ill almost immediately on getting home and our saturday after the friday meal was rather horrible and I'll spare you the details. But a day and a half later we have just managed to get a small amount of food into us and to stay awake for more than 30 minutes.
Scallops, like all shellfish, accumulate toxins by the way they feed and cooking heat does not destroy those toxins. The kitchen cannot be held responsible as no H&S rules would have been broken. The supplier (Scottish) is surely to blame? Possibly harvesting scallops outside of permitted areas to make money? The scallop industry is worth 17million a year apparently.
I feel someone should be given a hard time. Or is shellfish poisoning (unlike say, cross contamination) just unlucky in the eyes of the law?
I hope it won't put me off scallops permanently, but right now I never want to eat one again. And if I ever do, it won't ever be with the same unalloyed enjoyment
S
-
Gosh, what a little ray of sunshine you are sunbeam - you brighten all our lives.
No need for the lumpen sarcasm Andy old man, it is the lowest form of wit after all.
I just think there are better things to on a saturday than read that particular paper and its tree-wasting supplements, of which this 50 online sounds like another classic example.
You don't write for it by any chance? I can't see any other reason you would want to defend it.
I'm actually a very cheerful chap and not nearly as pompous as some posters here. It's just that you can't see me smiling as I type!
There you go, is that better?
S
-
Sounds riveting. Is the Indy the most boring paper around, albeit wrapped in designer clothes? Answers on postcard to the editor please
S
-
Seems to have galvanised the Metro critic to try his/her chances. Today's review of Suzie Wong is a textbook example of a critic from a free paper gleefully putting the boot in and bringing out all the strained similes, tinny sound bites and leaden jokes available to do so.
I never read to the end because I could see I wasn't going to learn anything more than 'this place sucks', and I got that message within the first few over-cooked paras. Not that I mind a witty non-review, but this wasn't one.
I doubt if Ken Hom will sue over it but I might. I was left uninformed and unentertained
S
-
-
-
http://www.bestofbothworlds.blogspot.com/s...thern%20Ireland
Some accounts from the court proceedings.
Seems she may have made some statements as factual, rather than opinion.
I
In which case she was very careless, or cocky, or both. Libel law in this country is weighted to the plaintiff. But I don't suppose the 25K will come out of her salary anyway.
S
-
A little more info will be available in the 50 Best Foodie Websites in the 17 February edition of the Independent's The Information supplement.
50? I'm surprised that are that many, although I suppose the definition is flexible and may include shops on line. Shame I only buy the Indy on Sunday (there's only so many doom-laden front pages I can take in a week, no matter how artily laid out)
And won't someone please think of the trees! Saturday and Sunday papers are just out of control supplement-wise.
S
-
Obviously a bad review that then sends covers plummeting is something that must hurt a business very badly. That said most reviews probably have little or no longterm effect as a large percentage of the year's diners won't have read them at the time nor remember them a few weeks later even if they did.
What is an interesting grey area is when a reviewer uses a review to show off, on the basis that it's easier to knock than praise, certainly it's easier to be wittier when knocking than praising.
If you could argue the review was simply a self-indulgent piece of copy aimed at getting the reviewer noticed and contained exaggerations, lies and what we call in advertising weasel copy (Rayner gives a good example earlier in this thread) then it might be worth suing.
Especially if you thought the jury might give you £25K!
I expect that payout will be reduced on appeal and all will blow over
S
-
I loved this comment on LE:
"An useful tip if you opt for any Polish soup - taste it first and then
decide if you want more salt or seasoning in it. My soup didn't need any
of this and was very tasty".
Is that a waft of snobbery drifiting across from table three? I think that poster was merely rather clumsily making the fair point about not shovelling seasoning on until you have tasted first. Elementary perhaps, but ...
No, I just found it funny.
Laughing at others' social ineptitude is snobbish. I found it funny, so I must be a snob too.
it was only a waft I detected, not a smell!
s
-
Ive been around a lot of online gaming forums. Until you've experienced moderation there you aint seen nothing!
Power corrupts and absolute power.....
S
-
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As Plato once said
S
"This custard is not custard"
Not much of a review for someone with his reputation
Who will guard the posters? Errr, that'll be the moderators then.....
A circular discussion that can go nowhere....so a bit like philosophy then.
I
Wikipedia says The question was first asked by Plato in the Republic, his great work on government and morality.... so take it up with them! Maybe the Greek language version wasn't such a big seller in the WH Smiths of the day.
Oh and ha ha. I just read this "In the Simpsons episode Homer the Vigilante, Lisa says to Homer, "Dad, don't you see you're abusing your power like all vigilantes? I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?" to which he responds, "I dunno. Coast Guard?"
Yeh it is a circular discussion, basically we can all make our own minds up who we read and rate in the same way we do when it comes to the press critics. I know which ones I think haven't got a clue and are just passing through on the way from being the paper's film critic to being the controverisal columnist.
Moderators moderate profanity etc. That's not the same as making critical judgements, that's what editors do.
S
-
One thing is for sure, the two front men (presenters is too good a word to use for these amateurs) have learned nothing since the first series. They still have no idea what it is they are supposed to be judging, on the one hand they bang on about "simplicity", "letting the ingredients speak for themselves", "properly cooked" and then one guy does a simple, properly cooked piece of (I think) haddock and they complain that he wasn't adventurous enough. Then an interesting veal with pesto dish is written off as being too complicated. No wonder the contestants look dazed. Of course they would do better next time because they might have some insight into what the two clowns want.
I think John Torode owns Smiths of Smithfield. So he is not entirely an amateur. Let's not forget we are all mostly amateurs ourselves in that we do not work in the restaurant biz and our opinions are merely that, opinions
Let us not forget either that this is TV. If the first series had not been successful a second one would not have been commissioned. Somebody out there likes it!
S
-
Gastrochick's point "The problem with London Eating is the reliability of the reviews, there should be some kind of site where you have to register to review and your reviews are graded by the community such that you build up a reputation or similar' is wrong I think.
The site is totally democratic and anyone can post without having to 'prove' themselves first which I find rather a disturbing notion. Who would be on this panel of self-elected gastro gods doing the approving? Ok, ok you lot, put your hands down
In any case many of the punter reviews are thoughtful and well-written, just as some are mad stupid rants. It's up to the reader to sort the wheat from the chaff (or chavs).I think her point is perfectly valid. The democracy isn't affected, you simply let registered users recommend a post as having worth, and that poster builds up a reputation built on the opinion of the users. It's how the rest of society works, isn't it? Meritocracy (well, ideally anyway
)If you want to see it action have a look at the discussion boards on The Motley Fool financial site.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/Index.aspx
I don't think Karl Marx will be turning in his grave over it...
I
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As Plato once said
S
-
I would imagine the safeguards bateman mentions work equally well in either case.
Gosh it seems there is a whole sordid underbelly (Mmmm, belly!) to the restau biz
S
-
what qualifies as a fake review - i mean i can understand trying to stop restaurant owners weighting the reviews in their favour but surely the only fake "punter" reviews would be those with gripes against a particular restauarant and would verge on the libellous and would not be able tobe printed anyway?
I would say one could write a review slating a restaurant without being libellous. After all some press critics do that every weekend. It must damage the restaurant involved but there is no recourse in law.
S
-
I think we all know to take the reviews with a pinch of salt, some of them are very funny. Of the Ivy "The waiter even remembered who had ordered what"
And yet I went to Galvin Windows and the waiter there asked which of us was having what when he brought out the starters. Very poor I thought. You can't always guarantee the basics, even at that level (about 20 floors I think)
S
-
I loved this comment on LE:
"An useful tip if you opt for any Polish soup - taste it first and then
decide if you want more salt or seasoning in it. My soup didn't need any
of this and was very tasty".
Is that a waft of snobbery drifiting across from table three? I think that poster was merely rather clumsily making the fair point about not shovelling seasoning on until you have tasted first. Elementary perhaps, but ...
There are some very funny punter reviews on LE if you have a bit of time to kill by browsing around. Some of them intentionally so. Some are even good enough to put the frighteners on the pros, imho.
Re Michael Moore. He is on TV a fair bit, but possibly only Daytime TV.
It is actually a good restaurant, I've been there a few times. He's a genial man, too.
S
-
Any restaurant can be added to london-eating and by anyone, there is a link on their front page to do so. Presumably no one from tom's kitchen has. But you could do it yourself.
LE seems careful to only print reviews that are 'fair comment' and not libellous. "I hated the food, it tasted disgusting" is okay, but "I got food poisoning' is not. But is odd that l'atelier had disappeared.
Gastrochick's point "The problem with London Eating is the reliability of the reviews, there should be some kind of site where you have to register to review and your reviews are graded by the community such that you build up a reputation or similar' is wrong I think.
The site is totally democratic and anyone can post without having to 'prove' themselves first which I find rather a disturbing notion. Who would be on this panel of self-elected gastro gods doing the approving? Ok, ok you lot, put your hands down
In any case many of the punter reviews are thoughtful and well-written, just as some are mad stupid rants. It's up to the reader to sort the wheat from the chaff (or chavs).One can always see a trend with the LE reviews. No matter how much I liked a restaurant if I hadn't been back for 3 months, and saw 99% bad punter reviews since on the site, I would regard that as a warning of possible problems, not of every other diner's lack of good taste!
S
Poisoned! Who do we sue?
in United Kingdom & Ireland: Dining
Posted
why is it unlikely? I admit poisoned was putting it a bit strong, for comic effect, but what else does one call it?
The wife and I did not share an evening meal the night before. The meal we shared is the one I suspected
S