thom

Doh, just posted this on the Le Gavroche thread before spotting this one all about Maze itself. Excuse the repost and the fact the Maze content is framed by reference to Le Gavroche, but the Maze Grill review itself, although short, stands up: Ok, I have a not-eating-at-Le-Gavroche story which is though still relevent to this thread, so bear with me: I finished a meeting at Westminster yesterday at about 3pm and getting the tube back across town to Euston I decided to jump ship at Green Park. I'd missed lunch and getting the train back to Manchester before 6:30pm costs an extra £125 (peak time pricing malarky) meaning it woud actually be cheaper (important in these credit-crunched times) to stay on in London with a newspaper and a fine lunch and while away a few hours. I nearly veered into The Wolesley again but I had a hankering for the cossetting of Le Gavroche. I had a feeling the kitchen about generally shut down around 3pm (though previous lunches have lasted till nearer 4pm) before reopening for dinner, but a quick phonecall to their front desk on an ear-splittingly noisy Piccadilly seemed to confirm there might be a chance - if I snuck in for a quick one/two courses and a glass of wine. There wasn't. Big misunderstanding and much apologies from Emanuelle's number two. The kitchen was shut. I thought it sounded too good to be true. I was hungry, so ended up in nearby Maze where I'd had a decent lunch once before. Maze itself had stopped serving but Maze Grill had it's all day menu running. Great. Lovely room, a place setting for one at a swish banquette, and a limited but very eatable menu. I ended up going for the Caesar salad - passable though the "butter poached" chicken was too dry as it was effectively pan fried in strips instead of being sliced as a cooked breast, superlative quail's eggs though, a firm white cup with a creamily liquid yolk; and followed up with a bitter chocolate brownie with bitter chocolate ice cream - too sickly, too sweet, and devoid of any bitterness. This all went down with a glass of Bourgogne Blanc and a decent coffee with four cookies (which I couldn't eat after the sickly dessert. Oh, and a bottle of Badoit. Total bill? £40. The crux of this story is quite how wonderful the Le Gavroche lunch deal is. There I would have got the main course and the dessert, and the water and wine, albeit a half bottle of superior stuff rather than a measly 175ml, and the coffee would have come with proper petit four. In addition I would have had a starter, and overall been offered a much more interesting menu which offered much superior cooking. Oh, and all the bread I could eat. And at least one or two plates of canapes/amuse bouche. And maybe an extra course or two, or maybe a brandy or glass of champagne if they were feeling generous. All this, for an extra £8... Needless to say I wished my meeting had finished on time at 2pm as was originally planned. I got my train back to Manchester feeling full, but also hollow inside. Cheers Thom -------------------- It's all true... I admit to being the MD of Moorfield Media, organisers of the Northern Restaurant and Bar exhibition, the Northern Hospitality Awards and other Northern based events too numerous to mention. See the website www.moorfieldmedia.co.uk and/or my profile for all the gory details.

Ok, I have a not-eating-at-Le-Gavroche story which is though still relevent to this thread, so bear with me: I finished a meeting at Westminster yesterday at about 3pm and getting the tube back across town to Euston I decided to jump ship at Green Park. I'd missed lunch and getting the train back to Manchester before 6:30pm costs an extra £125 (peak time pricing malarky) meaning it woud actually be cheaper (important in these credit-crunched times) to stay on in London with a newspaper and a fine lunch and while away a few hours. I nearly veered into The Wolesley again but I had a hankering for the cossetting of Le Gavroche. I had a feeling the kitchen about generally shut down around 3pm (though previous lunches have lasted till nearer 4pm) before reopening for dinner, but a quick phonecall to their front desk on an ear-splittingly noisy Piccadilly seemed to confirm there might be a chance - if I snuck in for a quick one/two courses and a glass of wine. There wasn't. Big misunderstanding and much apologies from Emanuelle's number two. The kitchen was shut. I thought it sounded too good to be true. I was hungry, so ended up in nearby Maze where I'd had a decent lunch once before. Maze itself had stopped serving but Maze Grill had it's all day menu running. Great. Lovely room, a place setting for one at a swish banquette, and a limited but very eatable menu. I ended up going for the Caesar salad - passable though the "butter poached" chicken was too dry as it was effectively pan fried in strips instead of being sliced as a cooked breast, superlative quail's eggs though, a firm white cup with a creamily liquid yolk; and followed up with a bitter chocolate brownie with bitter chocolate ice cream - too sickly, too sweet, and devoid of any bitterness. This all went down with a glass of Bourgogne Blanc and a decent coffee with four cookies (which I couldn't eat after the sickly dessert. Oh, and a bottle of Badoit. Total bill? £40. The crux of this story is quite how wonderful the Le Gavroche lunch deal is. There I would have got the main course and the dessert, and the water and wine, albeit a half bottle of superior stuff rather than a measly 175ml, and the coffee would have come with proper petit four. In addition I would have had a starter, and overall been offered a much more interesting menu which offered much superior cooking. Oh, and all the bread I could eat. And at least one or two plates of canapes/amuse bouche. And maybe an extra course or two, or maybe a brandy or glass of champagne if they were feeling generous. All this, for an extra £8... Needless to say I wished my meeting had finished on time at 2pm as was originally planned. I got my train back to Manchester feeling full, but also hollow inside. Cheers Thom

Doh... I totally missed replying to this, so doubtless I've missed the boat. Hey-ho, apologies, thoughts as follows for what they're worth: Yes, as stated, if you want fine-dining then Abode for lunch is the place to go. £12 for three tiny but tasty courses plus bread. A fine lunch in anyone's book. That said I'd be suprised in this current climate if most of the decent restaurants around town didn't have special offers on, if not early dinner/pre theatre deals too. On that basis take a look at the websites for Harvey Nichols, The Modern etc etc. In terms of lunches/dinners that are cheap regardless of special offers you are pretty much right in that you are limited to ethnic places or English pub grub. I appreciate Chinese places are not going to push your buttons (though how could I not flag up the extreme value and wonderful deliciousness that is Red Chilli) so I'd focus on the curry cafes around Piccadilly. You'll find these dotted all over but favourites are the Mahabra on Back Piccadilly off Newton Street and the Kebabish on Hilton Street. Be warned most are open lunchtime only though some are also open in the evening till around 7pm. For pub grub try The Angel or indeed the Marble (the latter has lost a chef but the food is still fine). On an English food tip I wouldn't exclude greasy spoons if you want something properly authentic. Again most are only open breakfast and lunch (though breakfast is what we English do best) but my personal favourite is Linda's Pantry on Ducie Street (the Abergeldie on Shude Hill gets an honourable menu). A lot of the cafe bars now do food and you'll find some decent food amongst the identikit chicken burgers and fajitas. Try Odd Bar on Thomas Street for food with a Spanish twist and some good local sourcing. In terms of lunchtimes The Northern Quarter is the place to be. You can eat interesting food (salads, hot dishes, soups, sandwiches etc) in Soup Kitchen, Craft Centre, Bread and Butter, Cup etc. Expect flaky N4 service though... Also try the Arndale Market. It's a mixed bag in there but Wings does passable sushi, Gastronomica (which I hear might be going?) does excellent pasta and sandwichs with top class Italian produce, and the Greek stall does good stuff too. Other cheap eats off the top of my head: Croma for pizzas, and indeed Piccolino across the road, also for pizzas. Decent bases, good toppings, and not a bad meal in you throw in a bowl of olives and a beer (or two). Barburitto in Piccadilly for Mexican in general and burittos in particular. It's essentially fast food but nice fast food and it tastes jolly good. Some of the old fashioned Manchester restaurants which have dropped off people's radar a bit but still deliver decent food might be worth a look. Try Cafe Istambul or Topkapi palace for Turkish, Dimitri's for Greek. Oh, also tapas at El Rincom tend to be good value and it's a nice buzzy place. Quality is a little up and down but the little casseroles with chickpeas and tripe and black pudding is great. Hope that helps as a starter for ten. Enjoy your trip to our fine city! Cheers Thom

Mrs Woman (hello again and all that!), I think if you want a celebration then you are either wanting a big old party style meal (in which case any of Manchester's many bustling mid-market restaurants would do the job) or you are looking for something that feels more refined and "special" and which by price if nothing else may be a once in a while sort of place. On the latter basis I think you are limited in terms of expensive fine dining to: Abode Some find the service flaky, and the room lacks polish, but the food itself is excellent. Cleverly constructed dishes with beautiful flavours and balance. Harvey Nichols On it's day it was excellent (particular the starters and desserts) but not sure if it has held it's standard since Alison left. Lovely room, wonderful wine-list. The Lowry The Mark Hix-consulted menu - offering simplicity compared to the Eyck Zimmer days - initially got slated but latterly it has garnered some excellent feedback. The French Nosebleed prices and dusty formality (jackets for dinner for the men) I admit, but it does feel "special" and some of the food is actually pretty accomplished. Next step down there are some lovely, if less formal, restaurants such as Gaucho (which I rate) and The Modern (which I also rate, albeit I'm biased). I wouldn't bother with Yang Sing; shameless laurel-resting and nothing more. 33 to my 35? You're catching me upppp! Cheers Thom

yep, especially when dunked in the soy sauce thingy too. ← Ths sauce is actually a dipping vinegar, sexed up with a few odds and sods. It can be a bit much for those expecting the umani of a soy based sauce or some sweet chilli concoction, but for me it works as well as malt vinegar on chips. Sharp, tangy and utterly delicious. Dinner at Red Chilli last Wednesday. Hot poached lamb, French beans and minced pork, spring onion bread, rice and beers. I am nothing if not predictable. Worryingly this time I found the lamb broth lacking heat and depth - compared to the norm it was almost watery. I don't want to be over-dramatic but if this happens again I might kill myself and all those close to me. *twitch* Who say's I need to cut down at Red Chilli? Permit me a smidge of review balance here (see previous postings): Lunch at le Manoir at the weekend: Very, very good - better than the "Brand Blanc" theme park I was expecting - a delightful garden veg rissotto and a spectacular (sous vide?) piece of steak. Lunch at The Wolesley yesterday: Excellent service - the place just feels right - and a very passable steak frites. Although some find the menu limited I could of eaten most of it. I should go here more regularly. Anyway, enough of all that, I might go to Red Chill for a pre-football lunch this Sunday. *twitch* Cheers Thom

I actually think 4 hrs a week is he very essense of the student experience! And weirdly this brings us full circle to another recent thread as the owner of Marmalade, which shut last week, had the Lead Station in mind when he quoted that comparably-sized places on Beech Road were paying less than half the rent that he was paying Punch Taverns for his site. Small world and all that.

Far be it from me to propogate and reinforce the sterotypes of Chorlton being the natural home of all things right-on, bohemian and alternative but the flat let adverts in the newsagent on Beech Road do genuinely specify "lesbian cat-lovers".

I absolutely understand what you mean, but actually I'm not so sure it holds true. Didsbury has an edge in house prices (for what that's worth as a measure of "desirability") but aside from that I find Chorlton much the more interesting place. In terms of going out although West Didsbury (my old stomping ground) has some great little restaurants and bars Didsbury Village itself is limited in it's range and is now hopelessly tainted by over-development allowing Pitcher and Pianos, Slugs and lettuces and whatever which turns it into a heaving meat-market of lager-swilling idiots of a weekend. I would also certainly prefer to do my food shopping in Cholrton, where The Unicorn, the incomprable Barbakan, Belgian Belly, North Star deli, Out of the Blue fishmongers, Frosts Butchers etc etc severely spank what you have in West Didsbury (the Lapwing Lane Deli - sadly no more R&M) or Didsbury Village (the glorious Chese Hamlet and Axons but that's about it, unless you like M&S butties). Sadly such days of lolling about drinking orange mocha frappuccinos and reading the weekend papers in any chi-chi metropolitan suburb are far, far behind me. Now I nibble cheese toasties in the Curly Cornet cafe with my caterwauling kids. Joy. Cheers Thom

I think (without scanning back) my original ire was raised by some newspaper referring to Juniper being in the East Midlands? I certainly believe that mistake was made by ill-researched and disinterested journalists cocooned within the M25 than because of any deep-seated belief that crossing the Mersey instantly transports you to the Midlands. On a more topical but equally irritating note The Sunday Times had a "Isn't Britian Lovely" supplement last week and it included a page on Manchester which as per usual was a witlessly roped together and disjointed ramble around the city's cultural cliches with a fact/fallacy ratio of nigh on 50/50. My favourite part was the round-up of the Northern Quarter's thriving alternative food and drink scene (fair enough) which highlighted quirky independent restaurants such as Ning (Yep - Oldham Street based Malaysian independent with a neighbourhood feel and gloriously camp/lo-fi decor) and Grado (What?! A slick yet patchy Piccadilly tapas place which is part of Heathcote's expanding restaurant conglomerate and is typical full of pin-stripe suits). It's not up their with poverty, global warming, child cruelty I know, but it just really bloody irritates me. Sketch might be a stone's throw across Regent Street from Soho but as any fule know it ain't your typical Soho joint. It's just lazy. Cheers Thom

Oh for me Alti is nailed on North West all day long. The historical idea of South of the Mersey being the Midlands is exactly that, a historical quirk which has no relevence to the Modern World. Cheshire is in the North West, culturally, commercially, socially and certainly in terms of the endless governement quango's (NWDA, Food North West etc etc). The bigger question is whether or not Altrincham is now in the county of Greater Manchester or Cheshire. Historically Cheshire it is now part of Greater Manchester, whether people (who attach more cachet to a Cheshire address) choose to acknowledge that or not. I love people in Altrincham or indeed Stockport who still insist on putting "Cheshire" on their postal address. Bless 'em. You can find endless circular arguments on what Manchester is/isn't (with constant provocative baiting from Brummies, Scousers and Tykes) on The Manchester forum of www.skyscrapercity.com which is the architecture/urban planning/built environment version of eGullet. The time I don't waste posting and lurking on here I generally spend posting and lurking on there... Cheers Thom

I was chatting to Mr Quilter over a Hunter's kebab only a week or two ago. Marmalade did do good business to be fair, and he says as much in that article. What it doesn't do is enough business to make sense of paying the exacting rent and beer prices of pubcos like Punch. Literally two or three times what comprable businesses on the same street would pay. I think we all know venues in this position and the general feeling in the industry is that the pubcos were constructed on sand; they paid too much for their assets and they charge too much for their services and the slightest dip leaves them vulnerable as their entire business model is fundamentally unsustainable. To give you an idea using a pub in Glossop. The pub was a small, kind of rum, pint and peanut place. It closed. A couple I know bought it maybe eight years ago for peanuts - maybe £40k or whatever and ran it as a successful community/food pub, and then four years later Punch offered them £440k for it. The couple I know snapped their hands off and buggered off double-quick into the sunset. The pub closed and then reopened under Punch as a pint and peanut pub, badly run by incompetent tenants. It took about £1,500-£2,000 a week, sometimes less than £1k. It is now , two years later, on it's third set of tenants, and they are still struggling. Another mate of mine has now offered punch £200k to buy the place outright. They are fairly far down the line of accepting his offer (in a laborious, slack, "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" sort of way). Good business by Punch? I think not. Sooner or later one of the pubcos will go spectacularly bump (there's been a couple of close calls already) and the estates will be broken up or sold off cheap. Thousands of pubs will be on the market to entrepreneurs and passionate people. It is only at this point that new independent pubs will flourish and evolve again and the pub industry will return to a sustainable and sensible model. Above and beyond his "meeja" work I know John has an interesting idea for an all singing all dancing fish and chip shop lined up. Hopefully a more robust model than Tom Aitkins. I wish him luck with it. Cheers Thom

A valid response to a small point. The more significant confusion I see on here (commented on up thread) and elsewhere is whether awards, such as these, are truly judging best "food" or best "restaurant". My intended focus probably doesn't come through too well in my post but that'll teach me to try and jam too many peripheral points in as the mood takes me. I shall stick to the core issues and do a proper final edit pre-posting in future! But hey-ho, it couldn't be helped. It's a Friday, I've eaten too many honey-buns and I've gone a bit pre-show giddy. Cheers Thom

Ohhh... After the first two years it's quite nice to feel neutral and removed as regards the annual 50 Best debate (which as noted is pleasingly muted this year). But much as I promised not to get sucked in I must just put my two-pennoth in here. I think the debate above is one of terminology - best meal/restaurant/food. I agree that the first two are inextricably linked - they involve the food, service, ambience, the whole package. I would argue though that best "meal" is a more personal experience than best "restaurant" as my best meal would also be linked to my mood at the time, the company, whether I was tired as the kids had kept me up the night before etc etc. Put simply if I had an argument with my girlfriend during dinner it wouldn't be my best meal, though I may still rate it my best restaurant (based on the evidence of said dinner or especially based on multiple dining there). Food is slightly simpler. We all know what good food means (though even there some people will argue their way along the sliding scale of simple/authentic to refined/sophisticated). As clearly stated ad infinitum these awards, whatever their strengths and weaknesses, are about restaurants NOT just food. If there were, hypothetically, only two restaurants in the world and these were rated on an equally hypothetically infallible scoring system with the Restaurant A scoring a 9, a 10 and and a 10 (out of ten) for food service and atmosphere and Restaurant B scoring a respective 10, 1 and 1 then which is the best "restaurant" in the world? Not the one with the "best" food. A contrived and extreme example but just trying to make the point clear (such as it is and such as I see it). Oh, and the whole "how do you compare such different offerings" thing? This question is the bane of awards organisers lives, but strangely enough you often hear it from judges at the start of the process but seldom at the end. You will never truly be comparing like with like in any awards - if you look in enough detail. I know people who will complain about judging a pub award ("How do you compare a big-chef dining pub with a community local?") but then think how hard it is judging a Best Hospitality Business award that cuts across pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels? Or a Best small business award that includes all of the above plus shops, gyms, printers, undertakers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers? How about International awards that compared all those and more everywhere from downtown Kyoto to Stoke? Again I'm picking extreme and hypothetical situations but I believe the underlying point is true. People who know enough about a given business or a given industry will always argue that a group of entries to be judged is difficult to compare and could be further sub-split (and split, and split, and split). In theory the more defined categories the better but ultimately this is self-limiting due to the number of entries per category, the amount of effort needed in terms of administrating the awards and the judging process, and the number of available category sponsors to foot the bill! I would also say that I have been involved in judging on a lot of different hospitality awards, and what I always find is that in spite of strong personalities and differences of opinions amongst the judges you nearly always come out feeling confident and happy that "you picked the right winner". When you start or from the outside it often seems like a set of entries is wildly contrasting and differing and it's impossible to get your head around them, but ultimately when you drill down and focus on the criteria and the specifics of each then one (or maybe a couple) tend to stand out as excelling within their field, head and shoulders above the rest. It is pretty easy to judge differing types of entries. After all people generally manage to pick a best film at the Oscars every year (documentary weepie, animation, action?), a car of the year (luxury supercar, middle-ranking saloon, tiny little run-around) as well as selecting single over-all winners in wildly disparate fields such as art, poetry, literature which are at least as subjective as restaurants. No awards or system of judging in a non-empirical field is going to be "perfect", and as such the results will always create debate and argument. I can accept awards methodology or structure not being perfect, as long as said awards offer a sensible and logical structure to the judging and are always striving to improve and evolve. Whether 50 Best are doing so? That's a question back to the floor, and let's face it, that's all part of the fun. Cheers Thom

Excuse me meandering slightly off topic but I was reading Private Eye on the train today and it offered up a nice example of the games tabloids play to help answer Basildog's question (at least in comparison to my initial meandering, fact-less and fluffy answer). From Private Eye No. 1234: "A month has passed since Ashley Cole obtained an injunction to stop the Sun publishing a picture of him sitting with a blonde in a nightclub (as footballers tend to do) while his wife was away climbing a mountain for charity. Although the Sun made a front-page hoo-ha about the order at the time there's still no sign of an appeal. Nor will there be. For, the Eye can reveal, the photo of Cole and the blonde was far too innocent and boring to be worth printing. The Sun decided to wind up Cole with hints of what might be in the picture, in the hope that he would panic and scamper to the high court. This would be a far better story, implying the photo really must be sensational. But would even the clod-hopping Cole be stupid enough to fall for the ruse? Of course. And, on the night he won his injunction, there was champagne all round at Wapping." Tricky little buggers aren't they? Cheers Thom

Depends on a myriad of different things really. If a newspaper truly believes a rival is about to pinch their exclusive then as long as they have a half-decent story they'll run it and be damned. Otherwise though, if they have signed up sources, witnesses etc and have acquired evidence that no one else has access to they might feel secure enough to sit on it until they think, through timing or additional work, it will have the maximum impact. Often their are just lining up their ducks and getting everything just so and filling in gaps and belts and bracing things, though just as often there can be deep and involved negotiations behind the scenes between the paper, the subject of the story and their representatives. This can involve defensive legal stuff by the individual concerned - rushed injunctions etc preventing details or naming of names (you often see this in a paper when they run something anyway saying "A top footballer's lawyers have prevented us running a story alleging he has a penchant of peacocks!" etc). The papers often try and flag this up as a "how dare the powers that be inhibit us, your friendly paper, from telling you people the truth!". Considering the often tawdry nature of such stories it's hard to have too much sympathy. It can also involve the newspaper bartering and haggling with the person involved, whereby if they officially buy into the "exclusive" they get a chance to modify what is revealed or affect whether the tone of the resulting piece is sympathetic or not. The classic is the kiss and tell where the person in question could be portrayed as a damp squib in the sack or a bedroom stallion, depending on whether they play along. A story could change from "Hypocritical married politician caught doing the dirty!" to "Married Politician - How moment of weakness destroyed my loveless marriage" depending on him playing ball. Funnily enough if said politician signs up with paper A meaning the exclusive takes the less damaging line you'll find rival paper B will try and do a spoiler along the lines of the first story. Another situation is where the subject of the paper's expose will offfer another story on the promise that they bury the original story. It has to be something juicy enough to buy the paper's silence but less damahing to the subject than the original option. It's amazing how often acceptable exposes can be found. It can be a dangerous game though, as the paper has you by the nuts and might expect stories and favours in the future. Also with a change of editor and policy you never know when they might decide to dust down some red hot scandal from their vaults. Conversely this can all happen the other way where friendly journalists or editors make sure scandal or negative stories about friends or favourites get watered down or buried completely. Both are just as wrong and misleading to the public, who are normally completely unaware of all these machinations. And the third reason for stories getting "sat on" is where the press as a whole decides it is wrong or not in the national interest to publish a story (I'm scratching around for examples as to what might be considered off-limits in this day and age - stuff with the military and national security is one area I suppose) and whilst this seems to happen less nowadays (as there are so many media outlets and such competition) it still is a consideration. I stress this isn't the case with all journalists, all papers and all stories but all of these scenarios certainly happen, particularly amongst the tabloids, on a regular basis. It's a sad but true fact that the press no more bring us the truest news, as it happens, with no spin or agenda, than it is that politics is just a load of people with no thoughts for themselves and an unrelenting hunger to make the world a better and fairer place for other people. Street of Shame in Private Eye often uncovers these stories on a regular basis, and reading something like Piers Morgan's biog (if you can bare to) also sheds light on the scale of this practice. My dad was a Chief Sub on most of the nationals at one point or another through the seventies and eighties and the stories he used to come back with which were widely acknowledged as true by all and sundry in the industry but never actually got printed was staggering. Phew... Long rambly post, but the sun is shining outside so I think it'll just leave it that way instead of wasting half an hour editing it down and tidying it up. My dad would be disgusted... Cheers Thom

Ah Shaun, a common sense point of view from a common sense chef. Now that's exactly why you have so many fans here on eGullet. I was actually reading your quote in the Sun* only a couple of hours ago and did note it seemed like it'd been "journo-ed", it didn't quite have your normal turn of phrase. Anyway, back to the central story, I must say nothing I've read or heard here or elsewhere has swayed my opinion that this is a story for the story's sake - Ramsay has centralised elements of his own cooking for his "roll-outable" gastropub concept. He's not "buying stuff in". Big deal? No. Funnily enough he is selling meals for a tenner or so that cost a couple of quid in raw food costs. Woop-de-do, welcome to the industry standard of gross profit. The average restaurant that works to this model is struggling to stay alive, not fleecing it's customers. IThe story plays well to Joe Public though as they regularly buy food products so they can get their head around a perceived rip-off (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...). Maybe if anyone regularly bought raw yarn or blocks of metal they would be crying out about why their Paul Smith suit costs £700 when it only has £50 of wool in or their £40k Beamer has only £2k of steel... Yeah, I made those figures up but you get the point... The only real issue here is that Ramsay's behavious seems superficially/slightly contradictory to what he preaches on his programmes though as discussed centralised cooking ahead is sensible best practice (either off-site or on) and can still use fresh, seasonal ingredients and can be limited to pastry, stocks, stews etc - It;s not like he's cooking fish courses ahead of time! Frankly this is simply is a cheap shot at a name guaranteed to sell papers. That's the price Ramsay has played for building a career beyond cooking out of playing the media/marketing game. maybe his millions will soften the blow (though based on his last accounts...). As someone here noted if the majority of people care about the perceived hypocrisy than he'll pay for it in plummeting sales, and if they don't then who cares? Let the people decide and vote with their feet (or their out-raged pallets). I think the most interesting angle is that various people with a very good knowledge of the way journalism works have all said (both on here and off) that they believe this is a typical newspapers tactic of using a drip-drip-drip of non-stories to tee him up for a major expose, or they are spoiling something a competitor paper is cooking up. We shall see in the next few weeks I'm sure. From the rumours I've heard "off the record" about Ramsay then pre-made stocks and pastry may be the least of his concerns. Cheers Thom *Yes, I read the Sun and the Guardian on a Saturday, and the Times and NotW on a Sunday - it's all about enjoying the high culture AND the low culture, variety is the spice of life. I like the heady contrast between reading Heat and Private Eye too.

Hmmm... Interesting. To anyone in the trade/in the know I think what Ramsay's doing is understandable and not particularly shocking or suprising (subject to my latter point below), but Ramsay's problem is one of perception. He's played the media game to perfection and fair do's to him for that - it's built him an empire - but it's your classic double-edged sword. People have bought into the Ramsay ideal of passionate chefs slaving over every dish from scratch and if Joe Public (foolishly) believes they'd get the full Ramsay experience from a diffusion gastropub then when they find out that's not the truth then rightly or wrongly they'll feel let down. The other issue here is to do with demonising the centralised kitchen concept. Firstly it's a very different thing to prepare your own food to your own specification and standards in your own kitchen, centralised or not, than it is to buy pre-packed Brakes Bros style ready-meals from a third-party supplier. Secondly a centralised kitchen is in many ways no better or worse than a non-centralised kitchen in that the food produced can be great or shite, depending on the skills and ambitions of the chefs running it and the quality of the produce used. Just because certain elements of the pub's menus are prepared off-site it doesn't necessarily follow that they are made by crap chefs with no seasonal or local ingredients. As long as Ramsay is clever in choosing which dishes or products lend themselves to being pre-made on a centralised basis then the punter shouldn't notice any decrease in quality from the final dishes. Really this is just an extension of the vital chef's skill of judging what can be made in bulk at the start of every day (or indeed by a night team) and what needs to be done on the fly during service. Do any egulleteers really think that the demi-glace or risotto in their favourite fine-dining restaurant was made from scratch starting from the moment their order hit the kitchen? No. Was it mass-made or half-cooked ahead of time? Yup. Would you notice whether that initial prep/cooking was done in a centralised off-site kitchen or in the on-site kitchen? Nope. I do think this is the tabloids whipping a storm out of nothing, but equally it's hard to have sympathy for Gordon being a target for the media when he is happy to milk them to the nth degree whenever his business requires it. Cheers Thom

A four star review in the Metro on Wednesday for the new Oxford Road site. Fair do's to the reviewer, he went for some of the more extreme dishes including the lung slices and the meat-pot with the pig's skin etc. For me it was back to the Portland Street original for a quick lunch with a mate yesterday. Hot poached lamb, rice for two, spring onion bread and a departure from my norm as the French beans with pork took the place of the Beijing dumplings. All absolutely spot on apart from mildly amateurish service. Bill including waters and beers was £28. Yum. My recent meals have included Abode, Le Gavroche, Sketch, Grill on the Alley, Harvey Nichols, Ithaca, Anthony's, The London Carriage Works, Blackhouse Grill, Oddfellows, The Modern, Tom's Chophouse and more besides but for some reason I only ever get around to writing up Red Chilli. Note to self - Must try harder to post a greater depth and breadth of comments to present a more balanced and truer reflection of my myriad dining experiences and to dispel the notion that I am clinically addicted to Red Chilli.

Absolutely fantastic! That's really useful, thanks so much for all the feedback. I'll get following those links and Googling the recommendations. Cheers Thom

Nothing? Nada? Nowt? Darn it, I guess I fall between a chink in the collective knowledge of the French eGullet board. I know it was a pretty precise and narrow brief in a low profile neck of the words but I just hoped I might chance upon a clued up local. No matter and thanks anyway, I will trust to my instincts and judgement and we'll make our eating decisions on the hoof! Cheers Thom

I've been a semi-regular visitor over the last year for their superlative lunch deal (much-discussed elsewhere) and although this seems to change daily I assume the a la carte has it's "set in stone" dishes (or at least those that remain permanent throughout a season)? Not that it will help you much but everything we ate on the last lunch menu was excellent. That said the stand-out was a mushroom souffle with an artfully concealed quail's egg. Just the most intense, creamy, billowy thing and though simple it lives long in the memory. Cheers Thom

What, you mean like in Gary's glass? The chaps doing the cocktails were Fluid Bartenders and they attracted quite a few compliments at the show for their drinks and service. We've worked with them on a number of occassions and I would heartily recommend them. When I first heard the words "inflatable VIP bar" my mind boggled and I pictured a booze-fulled bouncy castle (or maybe like Sammy the Snake off Phoenix Nights) but to be fair it worked brilliantly and was possibly my favourite part of the show. Cheers Thom

Absolutely! Not that Michelin hand out a physical bauble anyway but if they did I'm sure it would be swept aside so your NHA trophy could rightfully assume pride of place. Congrats to you and the team - it was very well-deserved - and I hope you enjoyed the night. Now if we can find a chink in your busy reservations book I will have to finally sort that lunch. I'm sure we'll be looking at a mid-week anyway but you mentioned you now had no Saturday nights spots available till September? Impressive! Credit crunch? Pah, what credit crunch...? Cheers Thom

Many thanks Bapi, I think the whole hospitality industry has suffered so much this year it was so positive to cap it with a successful (creatively AND commercially!) show and to see so many people turn out. The atmosphere was buzzy, the feedback was great and there was a real sense of people rolling up their sleeves and getting on with their businesses credit-crunch or not! It was a pleasure to blag you and about 87 of your mates in the VIP bar. I know you wanted to be there because of your fine appreciation of premium spirits and mixology skilles rather than any wish to avoid the lumpen prolateriat whilst letching over the particularly attractive waitresses. Ok, show and awards - done (said with a Ramsay-style exclamation mark). Next thing on the agenda - a lunch! Cheers Thom

To be fair we were absolutely ravenous so we just asked for everything to come out as soon as it was ready and aside from the veggie stuff it was the spring onion bread which headed the queue (this unconventional ordering system seemed to befuddle our waitress but she got the hang of it eventually). Yes, the dan dan noodles did look like spag bol, in fact that was commented on around the table. But "too much chilli"? Come on Gary, I thought we'd weened you on to the hard stuff. Carry on like this and you'll be back ordering chicken and cashew in no time... Thanks for the tip on the beans and pork though. Absolutely spot on, I think it's become a new standard dish for me.