It was the appearance of this in the local press that reminded me of a report from elsewhere that left me wondering why.
The story referenced above is devastating in the approach taken to hygiene in the kitchen but these give you reason to wonder.
I was reminded of a report from France. The restaurant, I shall not mention its name for reasons of good etiquette and not to be thought to rejoice over the ill-fortune of others, had been established since the days of the third republic and was renowned for the quality and voluptious nature of its fare. Only the best and the good would eat there, the rest would visit perhaps for a small drink, but rarely two, being quite wary of the generous sums afforded by its ménu.
As with all such establishments they were inevitably subject to an inspection by the local authorities.
After the first inspection the Inspectateuse imposed an order of Désistament. The restaurant quite naturally refused to comply with this order as it had not changed its behaviour since inception and the previous inspections had not had any reason to complain. We know however that standards do change and over time more is expected of businesses. One could say that the law becomes stricter, but it is perhaps society’s expectations that change.
Finding that the order of Désistement had been ignored the Inspectateuse indicated that the matter would be brought before the Officeur de Jurisprudence. The restaurateur appealed to the Conciliateur, who merely opined that had the matter been brought before him before an order to appear before the Officeur had been made he would of course have heard the matter, but in the circumstances his hands were tied unless any further order were made by the Officeur to bring the matter before him.
The Inspectateuse was unimpressed by the efforts of the Restauratuer to avoid justice and his apparantly careless attitude to both the order and now the appearance in the Court de Jurisprudence and prepared her case carefully. She would not as the English would say over egg the pudding but merely refer to some relatively straight forward breaches of standards.
The appearance before the Haut Magistrat did not go well. The Restaurateur had expected the petition of the parquet to be thrown out and had not prepared to take part in the débat contradictoire. This to was his great loss, and it would have been a better outcome for him if he had simply not appeared at all. The fine would be €20k. It was a significant sum, but not unaffordable. The Restaurateur consoled himself that the publicity surrounding the case would neither be detrimental to his honour nor to his business.
He indicated that he would wish the matter to be heard by the Court de Cassation, but in the meantime it would of course be necessary to pay the fine.
The court unusually had not ordered the destruction of the offending items of his victualry, and so he delivered one up to the hands of a famous auction house, who regularly held proceedings in Paris and New York for the disposition of such items. Indeed the matter quite exceeded everyone’s expecations. There was significant excitement that an unopened bottle of Napoleon III brandy was going on sale. There was no question of the authenticity of the wine as it had been in the hands of the restuarant since it had been purchased from a small shop in the Rue de Valois. It and several others had been in the safe keeping of the proprietors ever since.
The price in the auction rose quickly beyond the reserve but slowed as the hoped for target approached. Then at €22,500 the bidding tailed off until there were only two who tipped each other €10 at a time. The auctioneer was unhappy with this state of affairs and without denying that he would continue for as long as they wished to do so, asked if one of them would not mind bidding up €500 to put the other out of his misery. Three bids later there was silence. €24,090 became the hammer price. The fine was paid and the small surplus used to thank the Inspectateuse and the Haut Magistrat for their work.
It was over dinner that evening that the Restauratuer learned that the Haut Magistrat had himself been the proud owner of a bottle of Napolean III brandy. It had served him well for twenty years being an excellent mouthwash he said after dinner, the liquor had long since been spent, since when he had sought to acquire a Napoleon III brandy for the kitchen of the Court, but no-one was willing to sell any even if any were available. Had he been to the auction the Restauratuer enquired? It would not have been proper for the Haut Magistrat to reply, but he was able to confirm the that kitchen at the Court did now have in its inventory such a thing.
Then a second report came to light. In the East End a new restaurant had been established by two individuals in partnership to celebrate the British diet in the years 1939 to 1945. The ingredients for the meals were sourced from small farms in Lincolnshire, the Fens and north Wales. The farms agreed to ensure that only war time methods would be used for this produce, so far as was consistent with modern standards of hygiene. And the owners sent out notes as far and wide as possible to obtain recipes and other items that might be of use or for display. To their surprise they found that many had kept old tins and packets, as well as ration cards, which were falling now into the hands of the house clearance experts. This they thought could be good for his business, so they contracted to take up tinned and bottled victuals.
Then came the inspection. They had not actually used any of these items in their kitchens though should guests wish to have any they were not unwilling to sell tins of ham, spam, corned beef etc or jars of pickled onions etc to them.
No other problems arose on the inspection, but that apparently that broke all of the rules. There was out of date food on his shelves and it had to go. Unless they wished to be taken to court something must be done about it. There was also the threat that they would be closed down if they did not act.
This was unwelcome news for the proprietors, but they said they would give serious consideration to the matter and how to deal with it. The following day one of the owners rang the officers and informed them that as the partnership had been dissolved he would close the restaurant with immediate effect for two days. It would be reopened, under new ownership, on the Friday of that week, should they wish to reinspect.
On the Friday the inspectors came. All was well. The offending items had been removed. But the restaurant was slightly smaller than on their first visit. Ah yes, the owner explained. We had to partition some of the restaurant off in order to accommodate a small boutique vendor of objets d’art. The gentlemen had approached them, being a specialist in the second great war, with the idea of a curiosity shop next door to the restaurant. He thought it would be a most appropriate situation in which to be located, but had had difficulty in obtaining the premises either side, would they help?
It was then that the inspectors saw an new item on the wall, which was not out of place in most eating establishments in public places, but unusual in a place like this: Guests are reminded that only food purchased in the premises may be consumed in this restaurant. We will however make an exception for those who can prove that their victuals were processed before 1950, and in common with unlicensed restaurants we shall make a caulkage(sic!) charge for those who wish to avail themselves of this exception.
Hastening outside the inspectors did indeed find a new boutique, which sold all manner of war time memorabilia, but whose stock for the most part consisted of tins, bottles and jars. All of them were labelled: Objets d’art – not for human consumption. And behind the counter, the restauratuer’s former partner, who welcomed them and asked them to browse and perhaps purchase if they were willing.
