Black Lion Harvester - Pub / Resturant.

[Paxton Dazo]

Did anybody just see it on the BB1 programme 'Rogue Resturants' its a follow on from 'Rogue Trader'.

It was on there , 1 of 4 resturants over the country, they showed the floor being thick with shit, all the food being dropped on the floor and the chef saying "still cook it, its not me whos gotta eat it".

I've ate in there so many times too.

 

[Del Boy]

It's an absolute shithole, my whole family got food poisioning a couple of months ago there, I think they won the WORST RESTAURANT EVER thread aswell...

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?t=127748

 

[black night]

yes just seen it will not be taking my family there again.: bigwave:

 

[dougdeep]

It's always been a dump.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Womder whatever possessed them to go on the show

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Mitchell & Butler's (owners of the Harvester chain) response was a classic - "isolated incidents". Which is a great comfort to the very many people whose lasting memory of the Black Lion is the food poisoning they contracted.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Brighton Hove City Council - scores on doors

Scores on the Doors
Premises Black Lion Hotel
London Road Patcham Brighton BN1 8YQ
[Map It]
Type Hotel/guest house(NHOT for non-food pts)
Contact Telephone
Date of Last Inspection 31-Jan-2008
Overall score Three Stars

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

[Click on a heading for an explanation of what it means.]
Compliance (Hygiene / Safety) 10
Compliance (Structural) 10
Confidence in Management 5
Category C
Potential Hazard (Handling) 30
Potential Hazard (Method) 0
Consumers At Risk 5
E.Coli Risk 0
Inspection Rating 60


A Guide to Food Hygiene Inspections
All food businesses in the country are subject to routine food safety inspections. The frequency of inspection is calculated based on a number of factors.
Each food premises has been awarded star ratings according to the following scale:

Rating Description
Excellent: 5 Stars Very high standards of compliance with food safety legislation. Demonstrating best practice in managing and achieving this.
Very Good: 4 Stars High standard of compliance with food safety legislation. Robust food safety management.
Good: 3 Stars Good level of legal compliance. Only minor safety issues not addressed.
Broadly Compliant: 2 Stars Broadly compliant with food safety legislation. An understanding of food safety and standards being maintained or being improved.
Poor: 1 Star Some non-compliance with food safety legislation. More effort required.
Very Poor: No Stars A general failure to comply with legal requirements. Little or no appreciation of food safety.

The ratings are based on the following factors:

Potential Hazard - Type of Food and Method of Handling
The score is based on the activities that take place at the business as follows:

Description Score Explanation
Production (High) 40 Manufacturers, wholesalers or packers of high-risk foods
Preparation (High) 30 Preparing, cooking or handling high-risk foods
Handling (High Risk) 10 Manufacturers, wholesalers or packers of low-risk foods
Handling (Low Risk) 5 Retailers of low risk foods

Potential Hazard - Method of Processing Food
If specific processes high risk processes are taking place an additional score is given as below:

Description Score Explanation
High Risk Activities 20 High risk processes (Vacuum packing, manufacturing ready- meals or cooked meat products)
Low Risk Activities 0 Any premises not included in the categories above

Number of Consumers at Risk
A score is given based on the number of consumers a premises serves, with an additional score if the premises serves food to vulnerable groups (hospitals, nursing homes and nurseries). Scores are as follows:

Description Score Explanation
Substantial 15 Goods sold nationally/ internationally.
Intermediate 10 Customers from outside the local area. (supermarkets, wholesalers)
Few 5 Local customers (retailers, cafes, restaurants)
Very few 0 less than 20 customers a day

An additional score of 22 is added for establishments such as hospitals, nursing homes, day-care centres and nurseries, where production and/or service of high-risk foods takes place, and where more than 20 persons in a vulnerable group are at risk. 'Vulnerable groups' are those that include people who are under 5 or over 65 years of age, people who are sick, and people who are immunocompromised (i.e. whose immune system has been impaired by disease or treatment).

Compliance Hygiene/Safety
A score is given based on the food hygiene and safety procedures at the premises as follows:

Description Score Explanation
Excellent 0 Standards at the premises are excellent
Very good 5 Standards at the premises are generally high
Good 10 Some minor problems with food hygiene
Improvements needed 15-25 Improvements need to be made to the food hygiene

Compliance Structural
A score is given based on the structure and cleanliness of the premises as follows:

Description Score Explanation
Excellent 0 Condition of the premises is very good
Very good 5 Condition of the premises is generally good
Good 10 Some minor problems with the condition of the premises
Improvements needed 15-25 Improvements need to be made to the condition of the premises

Confidence in Management
A score is given based on the likelihood of satisfactory compliance being maintained:

Description Score Explanation
Excellent 0 The management has a good knowledge and record of compliance
Very good 5 The management has a reasonable knowledge and record of compliance
Good 10 The management has a satisfactory knowledge and record of compliance
Improvements needed 20-30 The management should improve their knowledge and record of compliance

E Coli 0157 Risk
If there is a significant risk that food will be contaminated with organisms that are dangerous to humans an additional score is given as follows:

Description Score Explanation
Significant 20 The likelihood that food will be contaminated with organisms that are dangerous to humans is greater than not
Not Significant 0 All other cases not included above

Inspection Rating
This is the sum of the scores given to each criteria (as specified in the Code of Practice) based on the assessment of the business operation on the date of inspection. The inspection rating categorises the food business for the purpose of our risk-based inspection programme.

Category
This determines the minimum inspection frequency:

Category Inspection rating score Frequency of inspection
A 92 or higher At least every 6 months
B 72-91 At least every 12 months
C 42-71 At least every 18 months
D 31-41 At least every 2 years
E 0-30 Alternative enforcement strategy

 

[Del Boy]

Mitchell & Butler's (owners of the Harvester chain) response was a classic - "isolated incidents". Which is a great comfort to the very many people whose lasting memory of the Black Lion is the food poisoning they contracted.

The offered us a free meal, what a bunch of

 

[desprateseagull]

prob done with smoke and mirrors.. or hidden cams..

unless the 'management' are really that dumb, thinking 'rogue' menat vogue.. haha.:braders:

 

[hitony]

I have actually eaten there..................sorry i survived

 

[Rowdey]

Arf, i done my work experience there back in...oooo err 1987.. and sure enough, a chef dropped a big joint of meat on the floor, and the dog which ran around the kitchen (belonging to the another chef) happily licked before it got a wipe down and carved up for service...bleaurrchh..

Sounds like nothing changed in all those years....!!

 

[SNOOBS]

I used to eat there quite a lot about 8 years ago. Thought the food was nice too!!

 

[John Byrnes Mullet]

I ate there about year and a half ago and had a t-bone steak, I was
violently sick for 2 days. This confirms what I thought about this Harvester and it is very expensive for pre-cooked food.

 

[Mendoza]

I had no idea, but had been in there TONIGHT until close, luckily I think the Strongbow saved me, the program must have just finished when we walked in

 

[Adam Virgo's Shirt]

D
I've ate in there so many times tooQUOTE]

Did you go by train? Must have missed that thread!