Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear forumites, happy 2012 first of all.


Secondly, my query: is it reasonable for guests, without being asked to volunteer to hosts their eating preferences? Excepting medical requirements, I don't see why adults cannot simply leave what they don't like. I don't run an a la carte menu for people to choose from.


What are your views?

Kind of depends on what the preferences are - we've been caught out having made fish pie for friends without realising one of them didn't eat fish. We'd had fish previously at their house but as part of a barbecue and we didn't notice one not eating it! Agree can seem rude, and wouldn't do it myself, but I think i'm pretty unfussy as food goes and assume my friends are too, which isn't always the case.

Hmmm, becca.

Nappylady, interesting point. I always ask if there is anything they cannot eat. I don't think it emcumbent on the host to cater for Sukie preferring chicken and Freddie liking a particular wine, no. I don't expect to hear back anything other than their medical requirements.


I was brought up to eat everything I was given at other people's houses, to thank them enthusiastically at the time and to write to them the next day. Some people think it acceptable to send an email nowadays, so depressing.

Anyone agree or are my views those of an endangered species?

I agree in part - although by asking them whether there are foods they don't eat (whether it be for medical or purely fussy reasons) surely you then save yourself the need to run an a la carte menu?


Personally I would always ask guests in advance and plan the meal round them, and I guess I'd expect the same to be done if I was invited to someone's house for a meal (although I eat anything!).

When I invite friends over for a meal I want to cook a meal that we can all enjoy together. I would hate to put a plate of food in front of a friend and for them to feel obliged to eat it or have to leave it, so like Pickle, I always ask in advance what my guests don't eat (for whatever reason) and plan a menu to suit them and us.

If inviting people for dinner is a means of getting to know them better - the fact they are the sort of people who would expect you to cater for their preferences is part of the curve I guess. I wouldnt do it, but neither would I choose to cook food that I already knew someone disliked....

One of my friends is so difficult to feed (Veggie, who doesnt like vegetables, and is Wheat intolerant) that I always ask him to bring his own food!

Some people don't eat certain foods for religious reasons so I have no problem with being told in advance what not to cook. Although one year we had to find a kosher turkey for Christmas Day, which was not an easy task. Even William Rose were baffled.


New mother, I think it is ok to send an email but sending/receiving a card is so much nicer and more thoughful. We hosted a party for 20 close friends last month, buying all the food and booze. We got texts from two people in thanks. Obviously we didn't host the party to get thank you cards but I was shocked frankly.

It is difficult to get right and depends to a certain degree on how well you know your guests. I agree that you should ask people if there are things they do not eat but then I do think it's then incumbent on guests just to focus on things to which they are really allergic, or have real difficulty with, rather than just having a mild dislike. For instance I don't like eating meat that has been mangled unless I know its provenance, but I wouldn't refuse a lasagne, sausages etc.


I tend to let people know at least what the main course will be, so if they don't like it they have an opportunity to say s0.


I'd send a text or email the following day, but not write a letter. If it's a really special do, I might send flowers before or after (not turn up with some - the last thing you need to do when getting dinner ready is running round trying to find a vase!)


Sign of the times I reckon...

Like others I'd always ask in advance given how many people there are these days that are for e.g. vegetarian. I would be a bit taken aback by any response that wasn't a simple 'I'm allergic to x' or 'I don't eat meat or fish' or similar, but I would also be mortified to cook someone something they hated if I could have easily avoided it by asking.


Not sure I agree re: emails. Cards are lovely, and pretty to display - although my mother even insists that these are unacceptable and a proper letter only will do. But to me an email is simply a modern letter, what's wrong with that? I think what matters is a thoughtful response, not the medium. A quick 'tx 4 gr8 dinner' text doesn't exactly convey gratitude.

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmm, becca.

> Nappylady, interesting point. I always ask if

> there is anything they cannot eat. I don't think

> it emcumbent on the host to cater for Sukie

> preferring chicken and Freddie liking a particular

> wine, no. I don't expect to hear back anything

> other than their medical requirements.

>

> I was brought up to eat everything I was given at

> other people's houses, to thank them

> enthusiastically at the time and to write to them

> the next day. Some people think it acceptable to

> send an email nowadays, so depressing.

> Anyone agree or are my views those of an

> endangered species?



No, no...it needs to be a facebook post on their wall.


;)

Jokes aside, if it was a small group of people, then I'd definitely ask what shouldn't be on the menu. For a very large group, probably not, and I'd make veggie and non-veggie split evenly. I'd hope that if someone had a medical reason they couldn't eat something they'd let me know by themselves, as they probably have to inform people on a rgular basis. So why not inform me too?
reading this thread makes me wonder why people even ask others over for a meal? For me, the main thing would be to host people in a generous spirit, serving foods that I know they will like (and catering for preferences where required), and that everyone has had a good time and enjoyed themselves is enough thanks - I don't need something after in writing!

Looking at it from the point of the dinner guest, if you have an allergy, you absolutely must tell your host. But, if there's something you don't eat b/c you just don't like it, AND you don't mention this, then you're just going to have to take your lumps on the night! That might mean eating fishpie through gritted teeth, or it might just be leaving aside the peppers on your salad.


Thank you emails/cards are nice, but I'd never expect them. Personally, I'd only send a thank you card if it was a very special occasion. If it was an informal dinner (i.e., close friends over for an informal Sunday roast), then I'd probably just drop them a little text.


I don't mind flowers on the night, but I might point you towards the cupboard where the vase is if I'm busy stirring pans. ;-)

Are we talking about 'dinner parties' or having friends round for a meal? I would make a distinction between the two.


Dinner parties have always smacked of compulsion to me - people have them because they have to, for example to return an invitation. The cutlery and crockery must match, and a proper thank you letter afterwards is de rigueur. As you've probably guessed, I don't do dinner parties - because my parents did.


Having friends round to dinner is very different - the main aim is to ensure that everyone has a good time, including the choice of food that they can actually eat and enjoy. I do do these, again because my parents did. I'd definitely check with guests that they are happy to eat what I plan to put in front of them, and although thanks are nice, would think it very churlish to expect these as a given.

Woops - v tired after work....


I was just saying that I go to a lot of trouble and that I don't think it polite for a guest to ask more. It is presuming too much and making the guest more important. If the host chooses to do so, fine but that is the host's prerogative.


Civilservant, we are talking about formal dinner parties which may or may not be catered by outside providers as opposed to more relaxed kitchen suppers.


I don't think it unreasonable for a previous poster to be unpleasantly surprised on receipt of two texts afterdinner. It is straightforward lazy and ill- mannered of the guest.


Ok - another one. Someone told me of this - I admit I haven't actually experienced it:


Host: can I get you a glass of wine - red or white?

Guest: a glass of champagne would be nice.


Unbelievable cheek.

Fuschia, that is exactly the point. I ask about children's preferences. I expect adults to be well.... Adults.


Gwod, obviously I wldnt give them something I knew they didn't like.


Uptime, religious reasons are fine. It is personal preferences that i will not stand and the selfishness of the guest thinking he or she is so important - one of 12 or whatever - that he or she should be catered for specially or even dictate a menu for other more reasonable people!

ok, then - I've nothing more to contribute to this thread. I'd rather have my skin peeled off slowly in one-inch square strips than attend a private dinner party (as opposed to a 'kitchen supper')


but, new mother, I'm curious - if an outside provider is catering, why are you seeking forum approval for your disapproval of 'selfish' guests? You could just provide a different menu option for each guest. After all, you're not cooking!

I think an email or text to say thanks is fine. Cards actually annoy me a bit, makes me feel the person is being a bit too 'fancy', but I recognise its how some people are brought up. It's the sentiment that counts as Moos says, not the medium,


Re: preferences, I always say ' Is there anything you DON'T eat?', and I expect people to really only say if it's food that makes them gag (or they are vege or allergic etc), I wouldn't expect people to start trying to dictate the menu and can honestly say there have been very few times in the last 20 years I have felt people were being impolite.


re: kids - would pose same question as above, but probably be even less inclined to cater for preferences as think that's part of growing up that you learn to shut up and eat what you're given at other people's houses. It makes my blood boil when kids come to our house, and their parent asks if I have 'anything else' (like toast???) for them when I have already prepared tea.


Edited to say, as mentioned above I have found people are polite when it comes to their own eating preferences, but are strangely forthcoming about what their little ones don't like. But not always - a friend and her family were round for Sunday lunch the other day and we dished up ice cream for all the kids, when I remembered her little boy didn't like ice cream (is this even possible??). None of them mentioned it, and the little boy (4) in question just politely declined and asked if he could leave the table. Once I remembered, I was more than happy to find him some other yummy thing to eat. A good example in my opinion of how to handle this sort of thing.....


But I do have a question I'd like others views on (sort of linked to your OP new mother, but not really) - if we are having families round, I often have a kids' table and an adults' table. The other day, one of the parents just put her kid (aged 6) at the adults table as he 'didn't want to sit with the children' (his cousins, roughly the same age!!!) and everyone had to budge up. Am I being a misery? I was not impressed......

If I invite people round to my home to eat I normally know them well enough to know their food preferences unless it's the new partner of a friend and then I will ask the friend. I believe the idea of asking someone to share food with you should be an enjoyable and relaxed occassion and would hope people to enjoy the food I spent time making so knowing preferences would be helpful.

I'm not a particularily fussy eater but can not eat something I don't like, the few things I can't eat are mint and pulses so would prefer to tell someone I don't eat them rather than leave a full plate of food and would like the same to be reciprocated.

As for expecting formal thank you letters get real this is 2012

I would expect the child to sit where I had planned! Or at least their pa to cooperate


re children coming for food, ESP without their parents,I usually try to plan food that they definitely like...though I wouldn't expect others to do the same for mine... If I m told they are having something I think they may not like,I tend to leave it and just tell my kids to be polite! I agree it's good for them to get used to being offered stuff that's not their favourite.

hmmm. the kids table vs adult table, I think I'd probably sit everyone at the same table if possible simply because I always grew up with everyone eating at the same table. Usually we kids just ate pretty quickly and left the table to go play and then the adult would sit there chatting away and eating/drinking. I would hate to haev to clear up 2 tables as well. I think it's nice for everyone to have a meal together, makes for some fond memories.

RE: texting. You have to take it in context. The nice thing about a text is that it's immediate, and you can still send a card/call/email later. I would never use "text speak" in a text message to say thank you though, that IS lazy. And just a text alone really isn't enough for formal occasions, surely? But equally, a nicely written text is better than nothing, no?


I was invited to a very special, but not formal, family dinner at the house of some Hindu friends from Mauritius. All the food was traditional Hindu/Maritian, and I certainly wouldn't have refused any of it! (And luckily I didn't have to b/c it was all fab!!) There were about 14 people of various ages squeezed around one largeish table. My friend's mother had cooked for us all, while my friend and his father poured drinks. The Maritian way is to be very polite, but also manage to make guests feel relaxed and welcome. It's very lovely.


When I left late in the evening, I had to travel clear across London on public transport to arrive home. I sent my friend a text to say Thanks and also to say that I arrived home safely. The next day I put a card in the post to his mother to thank her personally. Was that the wrong thing to do? I would be mortified at the thought that my text had offended them! :-$ Of course the Maritian way is to be very gracious about these things, so I doubt if they would take any offence or tell me if they did!!


Surely it falls to the host(or hostess) and guest both to be gracious, but the ultimate responsibility to keep the occasion running smoothly falls to the one hosting. The best host/hostess will be able to deal will churlish guests with wit and charm, even though she may be fuming inside.


If you don't like someone's dinner party behaviour, don't invite them back (or have some tricks up your sleeve if you must invite them back). I generally find that ignoring/not responding to bad behaviour works well with horses, dogs, and badly behaved guests. To the guest who asked for champagne, serve white wine (or tap water!) in a champagge flute with a wink. ;-)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...