THE story of two customers barred from an all-you-can-eat establishment raises a few social and economic questions and issues.
The owner of the Gobi Mongolian restaurant in Brighton was dismayed at the sight of two large rugby club chaps munching their way through five mountainous helpings of seafood and meat at the stir-fry counter and asked them to desist, leave, and never return.
The first lesson is caveat venditor, or let seller beware. If you offer an array of unlimited meats and seafood for only £12 a head, be sure two big blokes will turn up and eat all your profits. Like the case of my chum who single-handedly brought about the closure of the Danish Food Centre restaurant in Glasgow. I won't mention his name because he is a professional man and the pupils in his maths class in a school in Cardonald might ask questions. Our man would visit the Danish place and eat the gammon steaks as quickly as the chef could put them out on the buffet. The chef pointed out (to no avail) that customers were expected to eat salads as well.
All-you-can-eat joints are a bad thing because t hey encourage gluttony. (But not sloth since you have to fetch your own food.)
There is waste since much of the food ends up in the bin. The Government may have to step in with penalties for people who leave too much on their plates. There may have to be technology to make sure customers do not exceed the daily calorie intake.
I use all-you-can-eat places but only rarely, and usually in Barcelona where the food is fresh and cooked by ace Chinese chefs in front of your very eyes. And it costs only about £10.
I try not have more than six portions of prawns and lobster. It is not an edifying dining experience as you watch people trying to eat their own weight in food while so much of the world goes hungry.
The owners of the Gobi in Brighton said it was not just the serial consumption of huge amounts that led to the ban. There were accusations of bad manners. Causing a bit of a scrum at the food counter. Indulging in that unpardonable sin of going the wrong way down the buffet queue.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article