Dont Eat All You Can Eat

[Bazile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-sussex-19817457

You do see people who stack their plate to ceiling height and leave most of it on the plate before returning for another stash .

However should the owner be complaining - afterall it's an all you can eat restaurant , isn't it

//But former rugby player Mr Dalmon said: "As we were eating the last bowl, the owner came up and said never to come back again, we're disgusting, and we're eating him out of business, so we're nothing but filthy pigs.//

//Obviously we've paid the £12 for the buffet and it says you can have as much as you like, but apparently five bowls was over the top as far as he was concerned." //



'' eating him out of business '' what - five bowls ? lol

[emmie]

someone else posted this i think the other day, seems they are two gluttons.

[Baldric]

Would you want the guy eating in your place?
His 'table manners' (as advertised on TV) were gross.
As for the restaurant, don't advertise 'All you can eat' if you're not prepared for someone to do just that!

[mccfluff]

this was posted yesterday. whilst i sympathise with the restaurant, they advertise all you can eat, so some people are going to do just that

[snags]

Imo the restaurant is being tight. The customers who don't eat £12 worth of food in one sitting must be greater than the gluttons. I doubt two people eating as much as they can will eat £24 worth of Indian food (in terms of actual cost to the restaurant).

[Bazile]

//His 'table manners' (as advertised on TV) were gross. //

What do you mean 'as advertised on tv '?

[tonyav]

Well a five bowl limit isn't exactly all you can eat is it. Could this be a trades description issue I wonder.

[emmie]

lots of opinions

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1175968.html

[ummmm]

I couldn't eat £12 worth of food in one sitting. A takeaway curry would feed me for two proper dinners.

[Baldric]

Baz, they showed him eating on the news, not for the squeemish!

[Bazile]

baldric - oh i see .

[sometimesit]

tonyav has said it.
But I get annoyed by claims (anywhere) that are false. Like Sainbury's price match for an example where it only works if you spend £20 pounds, and they stock the same size pack. So in real terms it has so many strings it isn't 'plain English'. If you have a limit then it should say so. If 'the Manager' dislikes you it will be one amount, if he likes you it will be more.
Favorite one is the FREE but there are so many conditions that you do pay in a round about way. But it is funny really :)

[sometimesit]

Oh I forgot. :)
Some people would eat the fixtures and fittings too!!
Sounds like some sort of Jeremy Beadle prank.

[Old_Geezer]

No wish to offend anyone here but I simply do not see how any fair minded individual can side with a restaurant owner that advertises an offer then refuses to honour it. I don't think they have "a leg to stand on". Sure he is within his rights to withdraw an offer and refuse service to someone but not to be rude and apply this mid meal.

No one is obliged to buy drinks at a restaurant so to try to hold that against the customers, is ludicrous. And the reason folk leave tips is because society make them feel they are doing wrong if they don't; whereas the fact is that folk gain employment with an agreed wage and it is unreasonable and inequitable to select a few and occupations and suggest folk are "obliged" to pay extra to those employees only, especially when a price for the goods/service has already been agreed with the seller.

The restaurateur must know that when you take a risk with a deal like this, but if you set the offer at the right level then whilst there may be some where you come out down on the deal, but that is compensated by the many where you come out up. Overall your enhanced reputation is worth the occasional loss. If he does not understand this then he is an incompetent businessman: and pointing out he is not a charity, using that as an excuse to renege on his deal, is appalling. To snap at customers is inexcusable and clearly the place needs to be boycotted as being dishonourable and disrespectful of those who take up the deal offered.

And the claim that there was insufficient food for other customers cuts no ice; one guess who is responsible for supplying sufficient food. I note there is no claim that the barred customers threatened the other customers away from the food; so how can the claim that the other people could not get there be genuine ?

If he uses his prerogative to refuse to do business with someone, then it is incumbent upon him to do so politely, and to understand that the public will find out what he has done and why.

May he reap the reward of what he has sown.

[shoota]

Perzackly OG, well said.

[tamaris]

Cant see a video of them eating

[Baldric]

I looked for one, couldn't find it,
X-rated??

[ladybirder]

I couldn't eat £12 worth of food in one sitting

Depends where you're eating ummmm. I've had a meal that cost a lot lot more than £12 and still been hungry and I'm not a big eater.

[tamaris]

Must be Baldric asI have searched mountain and river all to no avail lol

[ummmm]

I meant in the 'all you can' eat type of places.

[Ellipsis]

Whilst I don't agree with the way the restaurant owner handled it, I think he's perfectly within his rights to ban people who worsen the experience of other customers at his restaurant. I wouldn't want to eat at a restaurant with these two porkers at the next table, would you?