Tonight's episode of Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares was at a small vegetarian restaurant in Paris run by a Scottish woman.

After getting rid of the original chef and hiring a new one from Scotland, he said the aim was to make the food indulgent and 'sexy' to match the nature of Paris.

He said that vego food was typically dull and boring, so wanted to change people's impression. He went out on to the street and asked various people if they were vegetarian. Only one guy said he was - a few of the others explained how they loved meat.

His idea was to make the food so 'sexy' and appealing, vegos and meat eaters alike would get into it. A fine goal, though the food was definitely vegetarian rather than vegan - lots of cheese and butter.

Anyway, the food was a hit, the new chef was good, and the restaurant was able to pull in the crowds, reversing its miserable record beforehand.

But the owner was too casual and didn't want to work at it that hard. So after disappearing somewhere and leaving her chef alone, her father - who had invested in it - pulled the plug, as he was losing too much money and could see she wasn't going to make it float.

So even though Ramsey managed to revive it, and it had a glowing opportunity to succeed, it ended up falling flat on its butt. A sorry end for another vego restaurant.

I did see the first half of that last night.

The owner was pretty lazy right from the start wasn't she!

I didn't realise they ended up shutting down even with Ramsey's help. That sux..!

It went pretty well given Ramsays view on Vegetarians (although I got over him repeating how boring our food is, my food is rarely boring!) and the last little bit where he just HAD to squeeze in that big ole' meat sandwich ::rolls eyes::

Yeah, it did go pretty well considering, didnt' it WTC?

I havta say, even though the huge steak sandwich he had after was whacked, i found it funny.

If only there wasn't part of a cow in there.

'F* me, those bleeding heart vegetarians' i can hear him say...

So even though Ramsey managed to revive it, and it had a glowing opportunity to succeed, it ended up falling flat on its butt. A sorry end for another vego restaurant.

Sorry Veb you are aware this show is 100% fiction? having said  this I f'n love the show F'n oath , it's good for a laugh, I wonder would he ever  visit a vegan restaurant?
    

Much as I find Gordon charming, his show often shows the animals he has raised as pets being slaughtered in graphic detail...... and I just can't deal with that. He also doesn't hold veg*ns in high regard.

I do watch this show, and I did watch the veggie one. I have never seen his animals being slaughtered, that would put me off :-(

Anyway did a bit of a Google about this french restaurant one, interestingly Gordon got up a few veggies backs with the new menu he came up with  ... cheese, cheese and more cheese. Hope it was rennet free LOL.

I think the restaurant owner was 'over it' by the time he arrived. She was burnt out and had had enough by then. Interesting only 2% of french are vegetarians. Considering how much they love their animals and dogs and take them everywhere I guess I imagined them to be a bit more in tune with animals, which would maybe result in larger percentage being veg. Apparently not.

hey julien, where's the details on it being 100% fiction?

i've read some of the stuff is dramatized - maybe 20%? - but other stuff is on the money.

Did anyone watch it last night?

In an effort to show the chefs exactly where different types of meat come from, he took them all out to a farm.  

They put a cow into one of those holding devices (what they would use for branding, I would imagine, I can't remember what they are called).  Then Ramsey and the chefs proceeded to physically find where each type of meat/cut comes from.

Interesting to see that on television.  Positive viewing for those that are so disconnected from where their food actually comes from.  Quite unsettling for me however, considering the cow's perspective.  Very sad.

Was it called a "crush" bec-bec?

Thanks Dark Horse, I think thats exactly what it was.  

I was absolutely amazed that these chefs had no idea where any of the cuts came from except "oxtail".
Surely shows like this are good for the average meat eater who has no idea where his meat comes from, at least now some more would realise that steak comes from cute cows if they can't handle that then maybe they shouldn't eat it?
Personally I believe more people should be exposed to the process from paddock to table but if someone doesn't like it, don't eat it.

Hi Indigineous

Your comments relate to last night's show, not this thread, but  they're spot on.

Definitely more people should be exposed to 'paddock to table' shows. That of course would have to include slaughterhouses.

Veb I realised it was last nights show but just followed on from Bec Bec's remark.
Yeah I don't have any problem with slaughter houses but in anything like this it should be a balanced presentation and probably not for kids as in some cases it could traumatize them.
I am as dead set against kids being told lies or being given a biased about an omni diet as I am about a vegetarian or vegan diet, it is a choice and a parents right either way.
Most of my grandkids would have absolutely no problem but I think one would as she is very soft and impressionable (may be a veggie in the making)?
None of our kids ever had any doubt where there meat came from and in many cases helped in the catching or preparation of it.
None were compelled to watch the killing but usually did, probably the most enthusiastic is now very thoughtful about it but has absolutely no problems proccessing his own meat.

Apologies Indigenous, for some reason i missed the earlier posts about the previous night's show. Clearly your post was relevant to the change in the thread.

Regarding parental rights: what makes it a parents right? Power? What balance are you talking about?

How can it be ok for kids to eat the flesh of dead creatures, yet not see a video about it? Maybe the video would be traumatizing, but doesn't that suggest there's something wrong with the underlying practice?

As Harvey Diamond once said, 'Place a small child in a crib with a rabbit and an apple. If the child eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car.'

Also, whose parents? Probably animal parents wouldn't be too keen on their children being munched - just as i gather you wouldn't be if your children were about to get crumbed and fried.

Veb
What makes it a parents right? we could argue around that for days but IMHO the parent is the guardian and along with responsibilities they  have rights to see their offspring, genetics created by them bought up in a responsible way. I would rather the kids see the real life process but for a young developing mind to be shown only one side of any practice is just brainwashing.
By all means show the animal rights side but also show the balance, perhaps provide a big Mac? (I really haven't had one). and even Sam whats isface.
As for the apple and the rabbit serve them up ready for the child to eat and see which one the small child without teeth eats.
As for the munching of kids etc, unfortunately for other animals, humans are at the top of the food chain (mostly).
It is obviously your belief and a lot of other people that all life should be accorded equal rights to humans but it isn't mine or the majority of people on the planet.
However I do believe in animal welfare for domesticated animals and that all animals natural place in the system should be respected as part of the natural checks and balances and evolution of the planet.

Ok Indigenous, this brings up the question of why.

But before i go there, the idea of balance. If you show the animal rights side and also give a Big Mac, then why not do the same in other areas? For example: 'The aim in society is for people to get on with each other, but there are people who don't. How about we go to a festival to see how well people can get on, then watch a documentary to see what benefits they get from murder?'

If you don't believe murder of human beings is right, do you  present a 'balanced' picture of that, suggesting 'Here's something people do you might like to try'?

Now the question of why. You've said you don't believe other animals (such as cows) have a similar right to exist than we do. So my question is, why don't you believe that?

As you'd know, just because the majority of people on the planet believe something doesn't mean it's right.

Veb
OK you said show both sides of murder why not?
The positive side is briefly, you get rid of someone you don't like and cut the population and the negative is for a start against the law and if everyone did exactly as they want or forced every body else to do their will under threat of murder or just violence, only the strong would survive.
Hence we have laws to keep society civilised for the majority not the minority.
Very few species including humans kill their own except for specific things like territory, protection etc etc but the further you get from the family group the more it happens under natural law and always has, it kept the population down for billions of years when there were no natural predators.
Some countries still don't have much regard for human life but I am happy to live in this country under these laws so yes I do oppose murder.
I never said animals never had a right to exist but don't think they should have equal rights as humans in a human society, as a conservationist I believe in protection of the species not the individual ie if an individual is sick or slow, he dies.
The majority belief may not make it right but it makes it so and protects the weak.

Hi Indigenous

What i was saying about balance is why not show the 'balance' in murder (human) to kids, saying 'This is something you might like to try someday'?

This is the same kind of parallel as showing ar films and providing a Big Mac - offering the child a path to choose in the future (vegetarian or not, peaceful citizen or murderer).

You obviously don't believe in murder, for the reasons you give. AR people don't believe in killiing animals by the billion for similar reasons eg it's the imposition of the minority on the majority, its wasteful of water, land, creates large amounts of methane and waste, not to mention being cruel.

I realise you didn't say animals don't have a right to exist, but i said a *similar* right to exist as us, but as you say, you believe in conservation rather than rights. If you really, truly believed that as a general philosophy, wouldn't you be happy to see weak and sick humans left to die off or be killed? For the conservation of the human race without the expense and use of resources the weak and sick create?

Also, how is breeding billions of chickens, pigs, cows etc conservation? It seems at odds - artificially inflating the numbers of these animals - and the consequent problems with that - to satisfy human desire for meat.

In any case, you didn't really say why you believe why we should eat chickens, cows, pigs etc. You stated you believe in conservation, but why? Why in this day of advanced technology should we kill these animals to eat?

Quote - "In any case, you didn't really say why you believe why we should eat chickens, cows, pigs etc. You stated you believe in conservation, but why? Why in this day of advanced technology should we kill these animals to eat?"

veb, one reason is that the people of this world are needing more and more food by the day. There have been recent food shortage related protests and probably more to come. I think we need to find more meat sources to cover the increasing world food shortages.
For example, Australia has a very usefull meat animal going to waste - the Kangaroo.
Kangaroos were the national Ozy food dish for nearly 50,000 years - now millions of roos are left to rot in the padock, or used as dog food. What a waste.

If "the people of this world are needing more and more food by the day", why then do we waste so much of it by feeding it to animals, when it could be fed directly to people?

I don't think eating kangaroos is going to solve any food shortage problems. Eating less meat might do just that.

Quote - "why then do we waste so much of it by feeding it to animals"

No aurgument there gmellor, I would piont out tho, that much of the 'weight' in Oz cattle is actually gained from grass - not human food sources.

100% of a kangaroos weight comes from grass. Kangaroos are an excelent protien recovery animal, by that I mean roos can produce human food from barren land.

You and I have different ideas on what constitutes "human food".

flying binghi

if you wanted to help ease the world food crisis you wouldn't eat meat. you're obviously not aware that one of the chief causes of the shortage is an expanding desire for meat, since it's a heavy user of resources such as land, water and grain.

don't believe me? this article in the independent sets it out:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-ne....html

the writer, jeremey laurance, says meat eaters might find it too hard to kick the habit, but is unequivocal that 'To maximise food production it is best to be vegan'.

Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur on the right to food, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity", yet the article says meat uses 7 times as much grain.

it further suggests that a vegan Britain would be able to meet its food needs using half the land it does now.

as for roos being a food source, first consider what you're saying. the roo is a national symbol, on Australia's coat of arms, our formal mark of australia.

so how do you want to reward our roos? by shooting them recklessly, stomping and bashing joeys.

are you proud of this as an australian? (presuming you are.)

also, given only 10% of kangaroo can be turned into 'useful cuts', doesn't that seems pretty inefficient?

apparently roo meat is very tough if cooked too long, so it's common to serve it 'rare'. what about the parasites that kangaroos carry? the conditions animals are slaughtered under out in the bush rather than an abbatoir?

a last quote: 'every person can make a massive difference to global conservation... simply do not buy or eat kangaroo products!' who said that? steve irwin.

If the food shortage is so dire, people will be forced to stop eating meat whether they want to or not.  Many cattle are fed grain and that is not necessarily in feedlot conditions either.  Well, what say we leave the kangaroos to feed on barren land unmolested, and we stop feeding grain to other animals and feed it to people?  Lentils are an excellent protein source too and they have harmed no-one.  There is not the waste to dispose of in growing lentils either.  The waste from pigs especially, is another matter.