« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
I've been mulling whether or not to post following yesterday's horrific attacks on London as there are others out there who can say it all far better than I can. After I read Matthew Parris' piece in The Times, I decided I'd let him do the talking for me.
I accept this has got nothing at all to do with food, but come on, who cares? London's hosting the 2012 Olympics. This city, my city, is going to be hosting the biggest sporting spectacular ever (until the next one of course). This is very exciting, so please indulge this non-food related post.
Actually, there is a food element isn't there? All those comments that Jacques "I haven't got long left" Chirac said about our food. Well there you go, I've brought this post back on topic.
Credit for the photo goes to the BBC.
I thought I'd better explain my star rating when it comes to restaurants. It's a simple range of one to five stars, one being piss poor, five being stonkingly good.
I do my best not to go to the sorts places where I reckon will end up with a one-star, so for the sake of my stomach I hope there won't be too many on here. I'd expect most will be in the three-to-four star region. Anyway, here's a quick guide to my thinking. NB: As management, I reserve the right to change these rankings arbitrarily and more importantly appoint or deduct points as my whimsy takes me (power corrupts, absolute power etc etc.)
* - Ugh
** - In the words of Mr Creosote "Better...get a bucket I'm going to throw up"
*** - Not bad at all but nothing too special, middle of the road
**** - Better than average. For a local restaurant it'd be considered the dogs doodoos, for somewhere posh, it's probably missing that little something
***** - Oh so good. Not to be missed and full of superlatives
Who said that Amazon only sold 