Hello to everybody. This is my first ever posting on here which has been prompted by the interesting debate unfolding with this whole Michelin UK (farce??) situation. My take on Michelin is that it seems to be the very best pr a restaurant can receive BUT does in no way represent the very best of what is out there. Having lived and worked for over twenty years in Germany, France and Italy, which has involved copious amounts of eating out along the way, there does seem to be a distinct level of divide in how the Michelin guide operates and ultimately award their stars. Here in the UK, almost everything in question has this awful 'x-factor' syndrome about it, which I think includes the UK Michelin Guide. I suggest they act in an almost gimmicky way, in light of the mistake of realeasing the stars a week early. A pure pr heist, which begs the question, if a guide of any description has to resort to such tactics in gaining attention, are they really that important to all intents and purposes? Living back in the UK for the last three years, I have found you cannot watch a tv programme or read a food related article, without the mention of Michelin this and that. Seemingly if an establishment or chef does not have the Michelin connection then it is deemed not quite so worthy of public interest. A total nonsense that many have bought into. Does the UK guide pay the media to push its so called merits one wonders? The greatest change I have encountered since being back home is the growing fashion of the guide to be starring public houses. Where has all that come from and what does it all represent? I remember when a pub was just that and not as it is now, restaurants merely serving beer. In the main, I have found these pubs or restaurants or whatever they are classed as, generally underwhelming, overpriced and way over hyped.