[thermo]

Tricky Dicky, on 17 March 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Whilst it's a reasonable point, I would guess the general environment would point to the attitude to cleanliness and a chef who maintains a clean kitchen is more likely to have good habits in other areas, than one with greasy walls. I would like to know what tests or checks ar edone to work out these scores and ratings - and if they are representative, maybe the estalishment ought to be forced to put their score on the door & menus.

i got to go in various establishments when i was in the police, and some of those that have the nicest front of house had absolutley disgusting kitchens, so never judge a book by its cover

[ahmurray]

Decided to try Shati tonight instead, just waited 90 mins for my delivery, no apology when it arrived. Nice food but luke warm. Annoyed.com

[JC]

ahmurray, on 17 March 2012 - 20:53 PM, said:

Decided to try Shati tonight instead, just waited 90 mins for my delivery, no apology when it arrived. Nice food but luke warm. Annoyed.com

Rating of 3 - Generally Satisfactory. But not tonight.

[johnjohn]

Exactly,dont judge a book by its cover,as long as the worktops are clean,no flys buzzing around,the food storage is protected from vermin and the staff wash their hands,whats the problem?....if you were on a merchant ship just a few years back your food could be prepared in spotless but cockroach infested galleys,the bread would possibly contain lots of little black specs ( dead weevils )and their live siblings might be seen swimming to the side of your bowl of cornflakes....We would have a regular routine of spraying out the galley with a powerful insecticide called 'Shelltox' but the effect was minimal,turn on the lights and the floor would be black with them before they scuttled off to their homes.....food poisoning?...never! I guess the food inspectors would have given us a minus rating and closed the galley down!
On occasions when one eat ashore in Summer in Naples or Sicily would you have a problem with the 'Soopa da Peche' but that was possibly due to the fly borne bacteria that the locals must be immune too

[Angieb]

I think it is worth mentioning that the ratings are not just for cleanliness, the majority of the points are gained by having proper paperwork in place. I, therefore, don't really judge a place on its score on the door - I judge it by looking at the floor.

[PaulOckenden]

True to a degree Angie, but looking at the floor won't tell you whether food is being refrigerated properly, or cooked to the correct temperature. These are things that the inspectors also check.

P.

[green angel]

There was a program on telly last week regarding food hygiene safety

One point hit home regarding not keeping the food cold is the bacteria breeds if its not kept cold, and if bacteria eats to breed it also defecates in your food, and heating the food might kill the bacteria but the bacterias shit is still there when you eat the food and that can make you ill.

Do hope this post doesn't spoil your breakfast.

[miseryguts]

great website - see a popular cafe in town scored 5 so thought I'd pay my first visit there yesterday - imagine my surprise when through the window I spotted the assistant gather some crumbs from one of the cakes with her finger, then lick it, before going back for some more
I still went in but opted for a different cake

I'm sure the inspectors don't get to see those little 'episodes' or poor hygiene

[johnjohn]

Just think of all those nasty little germs that accumulate in 'free sample' or 'taster' bowls in supermarkets,how many unwashed germ laden hands dive in for the little cheese samples in Tesco's?

[PaulOckenden]

Salad bars without sneeze guards!

P.

[oldbean]

All of the above examples and yet we are all still here talking about it live and well!

Okay johnjohn, maybe you don't go for the supermarkets free samples and the same for Paul with salad bars. But you don't hear (or at least rarely ) of people dropping like flies because of them!

Okay so none of want serious food poisoning or the like and you do have to be very carefull with certain types of food, but in relation to the above examples, isn't it a good thing not to be 100 percent hygenic?

If we were then we would never have resistence against any germ and then we would drop like flies!

P.S.

I of course also don't like the thought of someone sticking there finger in a piece of cake I'm going to eat or sneazing over anything.

[Ferryman]

johnjohn, on 17 March 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

I treat these hygiene ratings with a pinch of salt....does it really matter if the kitchen walls are splattered with grease and the cooking pots are a bit grubby...what does matter is if the staff wash their hands thoroughly after going to the loo and no inspector can guarantee that!

I watched an inspector on that BBC programme the other day and it really isnt based on things like food on walls. Its all down to personal hygiene, work surface cleanliness, food storage temperature / conditions and cross contamination risks. They were going to close a place down as they didnt have hot running water.

Another place thought it was ok to store raw chicken on top of cooked chicken in the fridge etc.

One place got a score of 2 even after they found insects legs in with the cutlery in the kitchen.

To get a score of zero must involve serious breaches of everything (e.g rat infestations etc).

[Ferryman]

johnjohn, on 18 March 2012 - 21:03 PM, said:

Just think of all those nasty little germs that accumulate in 'free sample' or 'taster' bowls in supermarkets,how many unwashed germ laden hands dive in for the little cheese samples in Tesco's?

Peanuts on a bar must be the worst considering 75% of men dont wash their hands after going to the loo (apparently).

Gross!

[richard]

JC, on 16 March 2012 - 17:04 PM, said:

IMG00286-20120316-1658.jpg

I just walked past

Suzanne was right.

So which is right, the website or the sticker!

The sticker! Answer below from the FSA.

Hello Richard

Firstly, many apologies for being late with a reply, this is our busiest time of year for inspections.

The food hygiene rating that Ropetackle Fish and Chips has on their door is correct. They had an inspection on 23rd February and were scored with a 1 (this is currently on the website). They then had a revisit on 8th March and were scored with a 5 as all of the required works were done. A new certificate would have been sent.

The site is refreshed every 10 days. However the reason for the 5 not appearing on the site is that the inspecting officer has not entered the correct code into the computer database, so that the new score did not get uploaded. I will see that this is rectified.

Thank you very much for drawing this to our attention.

Regards

Paula M*****

[PaulOckenden]

Zero to Hero in 12 days. I'm not sure whether that makes me impressed with the establishment, or unimpressed with the inspection regime.

probably a bit of both.

P.

[Suzanne]

I think its good news if they really do keep the web site up to date. I also think it is good that the restaurant has taken the criticism seriously and has improved their score so much.

[Spinalman]

The website was upto date but wrong. That is unimpressive. How many other establishments are marked up with the wrong star rating?

[JC]

Bit like an MOT really. Your car can pass one day and then the next be a death trap.

[richard]

Can't help it but the inappropriately named Shati comes to mind. I means it just conjures up in ones imagination.......best not go there!

Mind you we must be careful on here before casting nasturtiums and upsetting the sensitive of our readers.

[thermo]

richard, on 23 March 2012 - 17:13 PM, said:

Can't help it but the inappropriately named Shati comes to mind. I means it just conjures up in ones imagination.......best not go there!

Mind you we must be careful on here before casting nasturtiums and upsetting the sensitive of our readers.

best currys in shoreham and you can see it being cooked, double bonus in my opinion