Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have also posted this on a general thread about food hygiene, but thought it would be of interest to the curry connoisseurs on the Forum.


Went to Mirash on Saturday night. When the booking was made a couple of weeks ago, I checked the Southwark Food Safety web-page and they had a rating of 4. Not perfect but fair enough.


So was surprised on arrival that they had a sticker in the window claiming a a rating of five.


Whilst there, sensing a couple of other aspects were a bit off, I checked again on my phone to see that they were inspected in early November and now have a rating of two!


I tried speaking with the manager about this discrepancy and also tried phoning them tonight to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I shall just say that neither converstaion was productive.


So if you're happy eating at an establishment that has a rating of two, but chooses to display a sticker claiming it's a five even though their previous rating was four, then please continue to give them your custom.


If, like me, that sends a shiver down your spine, I would give them a very wide berth.


I have reported to Southwark.

I have posted this already on another thread but I thought that the curry connoisseurs of East Dulwich should know:


Went to Mirash on Saturday night. When the booking was made a couple of weeks ago, I checked the Southwark Food Safety web-page and they had a rating of 4. Not perfect but fair enough.


So was surprised on arrival that they had a sticker in the window claiming a a rating of five.


Whilst there, sensing a couple of other aspects were a bit off, I checked again on my phone to see that they were inspected in early November and now have a rating of two!


I tried speaking with the manager about this discrepancy and also tried phoning them tonight to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I shall just say that neither conversation was productive.


So if you're happy eating at an establishment that has a rating of two, but chooses to display a sticker claiming it's a five even though their previous rating was four, then please continue to give them your custom.


If, like me, that sends a shiver down your spine, I would give them a very wide berth.


I have reported to Southwark.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

Mirash on Saturday night.


I checked again on my phone to see

> that they were inspected in early November and now

> have a rating of two!

>


> If, like me, that sends a shiver down your spine,

> I would give them a very wide berth.



On checking, most SE22 Indians are 2 or less, so why pick on Mirash


Mirash 2

Dulwich Taandoori 2

Meemsaab 2

Surma 1


only Jaaflong is better at 5


If you consider these ratings important, you dont have a lot of chaoice of where to source your Indian food. I have eaten in all the "2" establishments without problems and know of many others who are the same.

Fair question...


I had that experience at Mirash not at any of the others.


In this respect, I don't know about the other restaurants but Mirash is knowingly misleading its clientele into thinking its food hygiene is 'very good', whereas in fact it has been judged to be such that "improvements are necessary" - it's that deception that I was most troubled by.


I wouldn't knowingly eat anywhere that had a 2 or below, and that's quite a worry that these other restaurants are graded as such. I didn't know that so thanks for pointing it out.


Thankfully, there are other options. Jaflong, Rajah Rowing Team, Ganapati and Millenium Tandoori are all grade at 5. Village Tandoori is a 4.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> Sorry Michael, I thought this was a public

> forum...?



You're not really sorry are you.... :)


But you will be, when Michael P gets back at you. He really doesn't like sarcasm. He's a big bloke too. Ooooooh.

  • 2 months later...

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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