£10k fine for poor pub hygiene and others told to improve. See how they rate.

Dorset Echo: PROBLEMS: The Old Ship Inn PROBLEMS: The Old Ship Inn

A WEYMOUTH pub boss has been ordered to pay more than £10,000 in fines and costs after breaching food hygiene regulations.

Daniel Haynes, the food business operator of The Old Ship Inn at Ridgeway, Upwey, pleaded guilty to eight charges of contravening/failing to comply with any of the specified community provisions contrary to food hygiene regulations at Weymouth Magistrates Court. The charges relate to an inspection in July last year.

Following the initial inspection, the kitchen voluntarily closed while staff cleaned but it was reopened 24 hours later after inspectors were satisfied with a second inspection.

More than £6,000 has since been spent on kitchen equipment and cleaning, the court heard.

Weymouth and Portland Borough Council brought the charges and prosecutor Helen Gardener said that on July 25, 2013 environmental health officer Janet Moore made an unannounced inspection.

Reading from Mrs Moore’s report, Mrs Gardener said: “My initial impression of the kitchen, it was grubby and disorganised.”

Magistrates were shown various photos highlighting the different offences Mrs Moore saw.

In mitigation Trevor Line, speaking for Mr Haynes, said although Mr Haynes had worked in the trade before, it was his first solo venture and he took over in January 2011.

Mr Line added that Mr Haynes had relied heavily on the staff in the kitchen to do their jobs properly and added that since the inspection there has been a change of staff.

Mr Line added that during 2013, Mr Haynes had also been undergoing personal problems.

He said Mr Haynes had fully accepted the breaches put to him, had explained his position and was remorseful.

Mr Line said more than £6,000 had been spent on new equipment for the kitchen and cleaning.

He added: “He has done other works since and put procedures in place to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

This includes a tick box checklist for staff to do every day.

Mr Line added no complaints were made to Mr Haynes regarding the food from customers and added that Mr Haynes was surprised no further inspection had taken place since.

Chairman of the bench Michael Kay said the eight offences shown a ‘very poor’ standard of food hygiene at a premises where Mr Haynes was the licence holder and named food hygiene supervisor.

Mr Kay said magistrates gave Mr Haynes credit for his guilty plea and for co-operating with the investigation, and gave him credit for correcting the food hygiene to the satisfaction of the food hygiene inspectors.

He said they could give a fine of £5,000 per offence, but Mr Kay added: “For each offence we impose a fine of £1,000 and make an order of costs for £2,167.50.”

Food hygiene regulations . . . the eight charges listed in full

The eight charges of contravening/failing to comply with any of the specified community provisions contrary to food hygiene regulations related to:

  • The food premises were not kept clean and maintained in good repair and condition.
  • An adequate number of wash basins were not available as designated for cleaning hands and not provided with materials for cleaning hands.
  • There was no suitable and sufficient means of natural or mechanical ventilation.
  • In rooms where food was prepared, treated or processed, the design and layout did not permit good food hygiene practices including protection against contamination between operations, in particular wall surfaces were not maintained in a sound condition.
  • Adequate facilities were not provided where necessary for the cleaning, disinfection and storage of working utensils and equipment.
  • All articles, fittings and equipment with which food comes into contact were not effectively cleaned and where necessary disinfected with cleaning and disinfection taking place at a frequency sufficient to avoid any risk of contamination and not kept in such good order, repair and condition so as to minimise any risk of contamination.
  • The defendant had not ensured that food handlers were supervised and instructed and/or trained in food hygiene matters commensurate with their work activity.
  • The defendant had not put in place, implemented or maintained a permanent procedure or procedures based on the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points principles.

How they fared - inspection results

These are given by the Food Standards Agency. On their website people can view what ratings a local food outlet has. The website address is: ratings.food.gov.uk The hygiene ratings can also be viewed on the FSA agency website via dorsetforyou.co.uk Ratings go from 5 (very good) to 0 (urgent improvement necessary).

These are the latest ratings available for the businesses named on the FSA website and are correct as of 3.40pm on June 12, 2014.

Weymouth and Portland area
Rating of 2/5 – Improvement necessary:
Condor Ferries Casquets Bistro at Weymouth Harbour Complex – Inspected: September 30, 2013
Dolce Vita in St Thomas Street, Weymouth – Inspected: January 21, 2013
Domino’s Pizza in King Street, Weymouth – Inspected: January 16, 2014
Tom and Erins Ice Cream Parlour on the Esplanade, Weymouth – Inspected: November 6, 2012 Eight Kings at Southwell, Portland – Inspected: May 16, 2013

Royal Standard Public House in Dorchester Road, Weymouth – Inspected: February 24, 2014

Rating 1/5 – Major improvement necessary
Peking Town on the Esplanade, Weymouth – Inspected: April 30, 2012
Sense Wine Bar and Bistro in St Mary Street, Weymouth – Inspected: December 19, 2013
The Star in Gloucester Street, Weymouth – Inspected: March 12, 2013

Rating 0/5 – Urgent improvement necessary
The Old Ship Inn at Ridgeway, Weymouth – Inspected: July 25, 2013

WEST DORSET AREA – correct as of 8.13pm on June 4
Rating 2/5 – improvement necessary
Trinity Club – Bar in Trinity Street Dorchester – Inspected: June 12, 2013
Tom Browns in High East Street Dorchester – Inspected: February 15, 2013
Simon Dunn Chocolatiers on East Street, Bridport – Inspected: May 16, 2013
Monkton Wyld School, Monkton Wyld Court on Elsdons Lane – Inspected: March 27, 2013
Lyric Theatre in Barrack Street, Bridport – Inspected: December 18, 2012
Forston Clinic in Herrison Road, Charlton – Inspected: May 8, 2014 Fortune Palace in Road House, Yeovil Road, Over Compton – Inspected: November 22, 2013
Cowpool Farm, Stoford – Inspected: February 21, 2011
Charmouth Bakery at The Arcade, Charmouth – Inspected: March 28, 2013 Bottle Inn, Marshwood – Inspected February 28, 2013

Rating 1/5- Major Improvement necessary
History Girls – Private address registered with West Dorset local authority – Inspected: March 21, 2013
Meerhay Manor in Newtown, Beaminster – Inspected October 8, 2013
Number 35 coffee house and kitchen in High West Street, Dorchester – Inspected: October 16, 2013
Piddletrenthide Post Office and Stores in Main Street, Piddletrenthide – Inspected: November 29, 2013
Riverside Takeaway in Dorchester Road, Maiden Newton- Inspected: April 22, 2014

Rating 0/5 – Urgent improvement necessary
No results found

Concern at court delay

Weymouth and Portland spokesman for community safety Mike Goodman hit out at the length of time the case had taken to go through court.

He said the environmental health team had the full support of himself as briefholder and the borough council.

But he added that he would be investigating why the investigation into the Old Ship Inn had taken so long to go through the courts.

He said: “I’m a bit concerned – firstly, when something’s wrong the public aren’t warned there’s a risk and secondly, if it’s then put right, I think it’s an awful shame if nearly a year later the business is damaged because it’s taken so long to process through the courts.”

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:08am Fri 13 Jun 14

Techie says...

I'm failing to understand why this is worthy of the printed edition's front page, when the inspection took place almost a year ago and the matters raised were, we are told, put right within twenty-four hours.

Admittedly you discover this upon reading the article, but how many people actually do that? Plenty will see the front page, with an enormous photo and nonsensical headline (IT'S HARD TO SWALLOW) and make their own judgment. The Echo's almost craven obsession with the hyperbolic does nobody any favours when the front page and the article inside are apparently disconnected.
I'm failing to understand why this is worthy of the printed edition's front page, when the inspection took place almost a year ago and the matters raised were, we are told, put right within twenty-four hours. Admittedly you discover this upon reading the article, but how many people actually do that? Plenty will see the front page, with an enormous photo and nonsensical headline (IT'S HARD TO SWALLOW) and make their own judgment. The Echo's almost craven obsession with the hyperbolic does nobody any favours when the front page and the article inside are apparently disconnected. Techie
  • Score: 56

10:10am Fri 13 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

It is a double whammy isn't it. Especially with a business, they get the story printed when it happens and quite rightly, and I remember reading it. But then all this a year later again, which I have to agree that is unfair. You do wrong you pay your punishment, and if everything is corrected, you should be left alone, you can't keep getting bad publicity for ever. That is very Mike Goodmans point and he is right.
It is a double whammy isn't it. Especially with a business, they get the story printed when it happens and quite rightly, and I remember reading it. But then all this a year later again, which I have to agree that is unfair. You do wrong you pay your punishment, and if everything is corrected, you should be left alone, you can't keep getting bad publicity for ever. That is very Mike Goodmans point and he is right. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 30

10:37am Fri 13 Jun 14

banknote says...

Totally agree with Techie's comments above.

It is really about time that the Echo put some news stories on the front page, rather than a large pic with a reference to a "story" inside. Come on Echo go back to being a newspaper and not a comic.
Totally agree with Techie's comments above. It is really about time that the Echo put some news stories on the front page, rather than a large pic with a reference to a "story" inside. Come on Echo go back to being a newspaper and not a comic. banknote
  • Score: 27

10:56am Fri 13 Jun 14

ZeroTolerance says...

If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.
If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it. ZeroTolerance
  • Score: 23

10:56am Fri 13 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

banknote wrote:
Totally agree with Techie's comments above.

It is really about time that the Echo put some news stories on the front page, rather than a large pic with a reference to a "story" inside. Come on Echo go back to being a newspaper and not a comic.
Interesting point. The trouble is that the Dorset Echo ought really to be a weekly or twice-a-week paper. Needing to find a local splash or scoop six days a week means that they feel the need to make quite a few mountains out of not a lot of molehills.
[quote][p][bold]banknote[/bold] wrote: Totally agree with Techie's comments above. It is really about time that the Echo put some news stories on the front page, rather than a large pic with a reference to a "story" inside. Come on Echo go back to being a newspaper and not a comic.[/p][/quote]Interesting point. The trouble is that the Dorset Echo ought really to be a weekly or twice-a-week paper. Needing to find a local splash or scoop six days a week means that they feel the need to make quite a few mountains out of not a lot of molehills. ronfogg
  • Score: 22

1:16pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Chocky 1 says...

The sooner The Echo goes to a weekly paper the better,there may be a real chance of having some actual news.This poor business is struggling to make a living in today's climate,and you may have just put another nail in their coffin.
The sooner The Echo goes to a weekly paper the better,there may be a real chance of having some actual news.This poor business is struggling to make a living in today's climate,and you may have just put another nail in their coffin. Chocky 1
  • Score: 10

2:31pm Fri 13 Jun 14

TenBobDylanThomasHardy says...

Two observations here;
1. if you don't like it don't buy the paper (or buy is Weekly if that's what you wnat)
2. This stuff is newsworthy, it tells us about the hygeine of the places we visit. The fact that the faults have been addressed is somewhat immaterial, none of the issues is costly or complicated (hence fixed in 24 hours), the proprietors should be ashamed that they let standards fall so low.
Can't understand why people constantly come onto this forum to criticise the paper or rate articles as 'non-stories', **** it, that's three observations...
Two observations here; 1. if you don't like it don't buy the paper (or buy is Weekly if that's what you wnat) 2. This stuff is newsworthy, it tells us about the hygeine of the places we visit. The fact that the faults have been addressed is somewhat immaterial, none of the issues is costly or complicated (hence fixed in 24 hours), the proprietors should be ashamed that they let standards fall so low. Can't understand why people constantly come onto this forum to criticise the paper or rate articles as 'non-stories', **** it, that's three observations... TenBobDylanThomasHardy
  • Score: -15

2:40pm Fri 13 Jun 14

westbaywonder says...

TenBobDylanThomasHar
dy
wrote:
Two observations here;
1. if you don't like it don't buy the paper (or buy is Weekly if that's what you wnat)
2. This stuff is newsworthy, it tells us about the hygeine of the places we visit. The fact that the faults have been addressed is somewhat immaterial, none of the issues is costly or complicated (hence fixed in 24 hours), the proprietors should be ashamed that they let standards fall so low.
Can't understand why people constantly come onto this forum to criticise the paper or rate articles as 'non-stories', **** it, that's three observations...
Agree, what a dump, should be called ,
"The Old **** Inn" LOL.
[quote][p][bold]TenBobDylanThomasHar dy[/bold] wrote: Two observations here; 1. if you don't like it don't buy the paper (or buy is Weekly if that's what you wnat) 2. This stuff is newsworthy, it tells us about the hygeine of the places we visit. The fact that the faults have been addressed is somewhat immaterial, none of the issues is costly or complicated (hence fixed in 24 hours), the proprietors should be ashamed that they let standards fall so low. Can't understand why people constantly come onto this forum to criticise the paper or rate articles as 'non-stories', **** it, that's three observations...[/p][/quote]Agree, what a dump, should be called , "The Old **** Inn" LOL. westbaywonder
  • Score: -4

2:49pm Fri 13 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

TenBobDylanThomasHar
dy
wrote:
Two observations here;
1. if you don't like it don't buy the paper (or buy is Weekly if that's what you wnat)
2. This stuff is newsworthy, it tells us about the hygeine of the places we visit. The fact that the faults have been addressed is somewhat immaterial, none of the issues is costly or complicated (hence fixed in 24 hours), the proprietors should be ashamed that they let standards fall so low.
Can't understand why people constantly come onto this forum to criticise the paper or rate articles as 'non-stories', **** it, that's three observations...
We don't buy, it we read it online. Thats fine if you think it's newsworthy then no problem. But it would seem by the thumbs up scores, a lot also agree that the story is OTT 2nd time around. The comments are here for everyone's point of view.So I thank you for reading and hope you have a great weekend. I might pop in the pub to show my support for them.
[quote][p][bold]TenBobDylanThomasHar dy[/bold] wrote: Two observations here; 1. if you don't like it don't buy the paper (or buy is Weekly if that's what you wnat) 2. This stuff is newsworthy, it tells us about the hygeine of the places we visit. The fact that the faults have been addressed is somewhat immaterial, none of the issues is costly or complicated (hence fixed in 24 hours), the proprietors should be ashamed that they let standards fall so low. Can't understand why people constantly come onto this forum to criticise the paper or rate articles as 'non-stories', **** it, that's three observations...[/p][/quote]We don't buy, it we read it online. Thats fine if you think it's newsworthy then no problem. But it would seem by the thumbs up scores, a lot also agree that the story is OTT 2nd time around. The comments are here for everyone's point of view.So I thank you for reading and hope you have a great weekend. I might pop in the pub to show my support for them. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 7

3:40pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Goldman says...

Typical Echo, a story a year behind. Next weeks Echo will tell us that England has won the World Cup with Hurst scoring a hat trick or maybe that the Titanic has sunk. For a local paper that costs more than nationals and they cant keep up to date.
Typical Echo, a story a year behind. Next weeks Echo will tell us that England has won the World Cup with Hurst scoring a hat trick or maybe that the Titanic has sunk. For a local paper that costs more than nationals and they cant keep up to date. Goldman
  • Score: 13

3:56pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Diesel Dog says...

I'm was a bin Man
Some of the poshest looking places look brilliant where the customers eat and sit.
You should see the bin area maggots, rotting food oozing out of the bins or just dumped on the floor grease everywhere. Its fairly obvious that some staff couldn't give a monkeys about hygene or are so thick they don't wash their hands having been for a dump or worse.
A food retailer should be inspected 6 weekly by a gov't inspector and should pay for being given 4-5 stars on a regular basis. They all work for a lot of cash transactions and many under declare their income by thousands to tens of thousands of pounds a year. Ex brother in law worked for HMRC.
I'm was a bin Man Some of the poshest looking places look brilliant where the customers eat and sit. You should see the bin area maggots, rotting food oozing out of the bins or just dumped on the floor grease everywhere. Its fairly obvious that some staff couldn't give a monkeys about hygene or are so thick they don't wash their hands having been for a dump or worse. A food retailer should be inspected 6 weekly by a gov't inspector and should pay for being given 4-5 stars on a regular basis. They all work for a lot of cash transactions and many under declare their income by thousands to tens of thousands of pounds a year. Ex brother in law worked for HMRC. Diesel Dog
  • Score: 7

6:15pm Fri 13 Jun 14

siriem says...

Diesel Dog wrote:
I'm was a bin Man
Some of the poshest looking places look brilliant where the customers eat and sit.
You should see the bin area maggots, rotting food oozing out of the bins or just dumped on the floor grease everywhere. Its fairly obvious that some staff couldn't give a monkeys about hygene or are so thick they don't wash their hands having been for a dump or worse.
A food retailer should be inspected 6 weekly by a gov't inspector and should pay for being given 4-5 stars on a regular basis. They all work for a lot of cash transactions and many under declare their income by thousands to tens of thousands of pounds a year. Ex brother in law worked for HMRC.
What a crock of sh*te.
[quote][p][bold]Diesel Dog[/bold] wrote: I'm was a bin Man Some of the poshest looking places look brilliant where the customers eat and sit. You should see the bin area maggots, rotting food oozing out of the bins or just dumped on the floor grease everywhere. Its fairly obvious that some staff couldn't give a monkeys about hygene or are so thick they don't wash their hands having been for a dump or worse. A food retailer should be inspected 6 weekly by a gov't inspector and should pay for being given 4-5 stars on a regular basis. They all work for a lot of cash transactions and many under declare their income by thousands to tens of thousands of pounds a year. Ex brother in law worked for HMRC.[/p][/quote]What a crock of sh*te. siriem
  • Score: -4

6:25pm Fri 13 Jun 14

siriem says...

siriem wrote:
Diesel Dog wrote:
I'm was a bin Man
Some of the poshest looking places look brilliant where the customers eat and sit.
You should see the bin area maggots, rotting food oozing out of the bins or just dumped on the floor grease everywhere. Its fairly obvious that some staff couldn't give a monkeys about hygene or are so thick they don't wash their hands having been for a dump or worse.
A food retailer should be inspected 6 weekly by a gov't inspector and should pay for being given 4-5 stars on a regular basis. They all work for a lot of cash transactions and many under declare their income by thousands to tens of thousands of pounds a year. Ex brother in law worked for HMRC.
What a crock of sh*te.
Just to clarify my previous comment - in what way exactly does your having emptied some bins for a restaurant make you qualified to state that it's "obvious" that staff don't wash their hands after using the the toilet? If there is rotting food or maggots in a catering bin area it seems more "obvious" to me that the bin men aren't doing their job properly. And frankly, if I was to eat in a restaurant that was "brilliant" where I sat and ate, I wouldn't give a monkeys what the rubbish area looked like - so what is your point?
And as for the ex brother in law story - heard it from a friend of a friend who used to know someone who used to work for HMRC - no evidence whatsoever to back that up. Under declaring by tens of thousands? Most restaurants don't make anywhere near that kind of money - certainly not a pub restaurant in this area. So again, what exactly is your point?
[quote][p][bold]siriem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diesel Dog[/bold] wrote: I'm was a bin Man Some of the poshest looking places look brilliant where the customers eat and sit. You should see the bin area maggots, rotting food oozing out of the bins or just dumped on the floor grease everywhere. Its fairly obvious that some staff couldn't give a monkeys about hygene or are so thick they don't wash their hands having been for a dump or worse. A food retailer should be inspected 6 weekly by a gov't inspector and should pay for being given 4-5 stars on a regular basis. They all work for a lot of cash transactions and many under declare their income by thousands to tens of thousands of pounds a year. Ex brother in law worked for HMRC.[/p][/quote]What a crock of sh*te.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify my previous comment - in what way exactly does your having emptied some bins for a restaurant make you qualified to state that it's "obvious" that staff don't wash their hands after using the the toilet? If there is rotting food or maggots in a catering bin area it seems more "obvious" to me that the bin men aren't doing their job properly. And frankly, if I was to eat in a restaurant that was "brilliant" where I sat and ate, I wouldn't give a monkeys what the rubbish area looked like - so what is your point? And as for the ex brother in law story - heard it from a friend of a friend who used to know someone who used to work for HMRC - no evidence whatsoever to back that up. Under declaring by tens of thousands? Most restaurants don't make anywhere near that kind of money - certainly not a pub restaurant in this area. So again, what exactly is your point? siriem
  • Score: 8

7:00pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Sally MacLennane says...

Way to go Echo. The guy spent 6k getting the kitchens shipshape ages ago, and you just destroyed his business..
Way to go Echo. The guy spent 6k getting the kitchens shipshape ages ago, and you just destroyed his business.. Sally MacLennane
  • Score: 29

7:34pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Under35andout says...

well the guhka are doing fine and they sold you lot seagull so shut up and eat the dirty food we dont care lol
well the guhka are doing fine and they sold you lot seagull so shut up and eat the dirty food we dont care lol Under35andout
  • Score: -1

10:20pm Fri 13 Jun 14

peskykat says...

I won't enter any place unless it has a 4. 5 rating , if no rating on the window then I won't even go into the place. Will not purchase any takeaway food from vendors selling on high street , events , etc as I don't know what hygiene is like likewise I won't buy cakes that are not from a bakers, shops as I don't know what the kitchen, the person who baked them hygiene is like , I have watched too many programmes on tv like food inspectors to take a chance .
I won't enter any place unless it has a 4. 5 rating , if no rating on the window then I won't even go into the place. Will not purchase any takeaway food from vendors selling on high street , events , etc as I don't know what hygiene is like likewise I won't buy cakes that are not from a bakers, shops as I don't know what the kitchen, the person who baked them hygiene is like , I have watched too many programmes on tv like food inspectors to take a chance . peskykat
  • Score: -12

10:39pm Fri 13 Jun 14

every user name was taken says...

peskykat wrote:
I won't enter any place unless it has a 4. 5 rating , if no rating on the window then I won't even go into the place. Will not purchase any takeaway food from vendors selling on high street , events , etc as I don't know what hygiene is like likewise I won't buy cakes that are not from a bakers, shops as I don't know what the kitchen, the person who baked them hygiene is like , I have watched too many programmes on tv like food inspectors to take a chance .
It must be very lonely in your sanitary cave?
[quote][p][bold]peskykat[/bold] wrote: I won't enter any place unless it has a 4. 5 rating , if no rating on the window then I won't even go into the place. Will not purchase any takeaway food from vendors selling on high street , events , etc as I don't know what hygiene is like likewise I won't buy cakes that are not from a bakers, shops as I don't know what the kitchen, the person who baked them hygiene is like , I have watched too many programmes on tv like food inspectors to take a chance .[/p][/quote]It must be very lonely in your sanitary cave? every user name was taken
  • Score: 4

10:47pm Fri 13 Jun 14

ceekay says...

I have to say that I'm appalled by this article. All of these offences are technical offences but I have eaten here on a couple of occasions over the last year and the food has been excellent.

If you had a great meal here would you plaster the review over the front page, if not then why try to destroy a business by sensationalising an old story that is not now news.

Sh*t like this drive businesses under, I hope the Echo is happy with whatever outcome may arise.
I have to say that I'm appalled by this article. All of these offences are technical offences but I have eaten here on a couple of occasions over the last year and the food has been excellent. If you had a great meal here would you plaster the review over the front page, if not then why try to destroy a business by sensationalising an old story that is not now news. Sh*t like this drive businesses under, I hope the Echo is happy with whatever outcome may arise. ceekay
  • Score: 13

10:49pm Fri 13 Jun 14

ceekay says...

And what a shame Councillor Goodman didn't also say what a great establishment it is considering he is a regular customer.
And what a shame Councillor Goodman didn't also say what a great establishment it is considering he is a regular customer. ceekay
  • Score: 5

11:18pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Onein4sr says...

I have to say that it is very unhelpful for businesses and consumers when statutory processes are so bureaucratic that they take over a year to conclude. This pub is lovely and I have eaten here with friends and family a couple of times lately. Food and service always good. It looks like they have taken the learning from the whole experience and strived to be better. Communities should be working together to support local business not trying to run them down.
I have to say that it is very unhelpful for businesses and consumers when statutory processes are so bureaucratic that they take over a year to conclude. This pub is lovely and I have eaten here with friends and family a couple of times lately. Food and service always good. It looks like they have taken the learning from the whole experience and strived to be better. Communities should be working together to support local business not trying to run them down. Onein4sr
  • Score: 11

7:04am Sat 14 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

Defiant to the end the Echo decide to keep this as their online top story.
Defiant to the end the Echo decide to keep this as their online top story. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 4

10:30am Sat 14 Jun 14

JamesYoung says...

ZeroTolerance wrote:
If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.
The defence to a defamation/libel claim is one of "truth". In this case, the Echo told the truth, so any legal claim would fail.
[quote][p][bold]ZeroTolerance[/bold] wrote: If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.[/p][/quote]The defence to a defamation/libel claim is one of "truth". In this case, the Echo told the truth, so any legal claim would fail. JamesYoung
  • Score: 7

10:35am Sat 14 Jun 14

Wrinklyrod says...

When eating out, home or abroad, before you order check out the toilet facilities. If they are pristine then the kitchen area probably will be too.
When eating out, home or abroad, before you order check out the toilet facilities. If they are pristine then the kitchen area probably will be too. Wrinklyrod
  • Score: 3

11:08am Sat 14 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

Wrinklyrod wrote:
When eating out, home or abroad, before you order check out the toilet facilities. If they are pristine then the kitchen area probably will be too.
Unless in Thailand or you would stave to death...............
.
[quote][p][bold]Wrinklyrod[/bold] wrote: When eating out, home or abroad, before you order check out the toilet facilities. If they are pristine then the kitchen area probably will be too.[/p][/quote]Unless in Thailand or you would stave to death............... . MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

12:29pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Goldman says...

I was at this pub last night and have to say how busy it was. Food was good and tasty with the staff helpful and friendly. As stated in the Echo these problems were last year and sorted inside 24 hours. Going back tonight as they showing the England game.
I was at this pub last night and have to say how busy it was. Food was good and tasty with the staff helpful and friendly. As stated in the Echo these problems were last year and sorted inside 24 hours. Going back tonight as they showing the England game. Goldman
  • Score: 7

12:51pm Sat 14 Jun 14

siriem says...

peskykat wrote:
I won't enter any place unless it has a 4. 5 rating , if no rating on the window then I won't even go into the place. Will not purchase any takeaway food from vendors selling on high street , events , etc as I don't know what hygiene is like likewise I won't buy cakes that are not from a bakers, shops as I don't know what the kitchen, the person who baked them hygiene is like , I have watched too many programmes on tv like food inspectors to take a chance .
Then you're as much of an idiot as DieselDog.
[quote][p][bold]peskykat[/bold] wrote: I won't enter any place unless it has a 4. 5 rating , if no rating on the window then I won't even go into the place. Will not purchase any takeaway food from vendors selling on high street , events , etc as I don't know what hygiene is like likewise I won't buy cakes that are not from a bakers, shops as I don't know what the kitchen, the person who baked them hygiene is like , I have watched too many programmes on tv like food inspectors to take a chance .[/p][/quote]Then you're as much of an idiot as DieselDog. siriem
  • Score: -1

4:53pm Sat 14 Jun 14

MoralMinority says...

JamesYoung wrote:
ZeroTolerance wrote:
If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.
The defence to a defamation/libel claim is one of "truth". In this case, the Echo told the truth, so any legal claim would fail.
The owner can prove the work has been done in accordance to the previous recommendations. If it can be proven that this article has had a 'significant' impact on his professional reputation then there is a case for libel despite it being true in 2011.
Defamation laws are there to protect a persons/businesses "CURRENT" reputation and standing.
You have to take into account changing standards. Things which might have been defamatory at one time may later become acceptable, and vice versa.
In this case if the owner has carried out improvements and the establishments reputation and standing in the community has changed from that which it was when the investigation commenced then he has a case.
Unfortunately it seems that the fines have just been awarded having taken years to go through the courts. Some would argue that the Echo was just reporting. I would argue that it was worded in a unnecessarily detrimental way and at the very least expect a retraction.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeroTolerance[/bold] wrote: If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.[/p][/quote]The defence to a defamation/libel claim is one of "truth". In this case, the Echo told the truth, so any legal claim would fail.[/p][/quote]The owner can prove the work has been done in accordance to the previous recommendations. If it can be proven that this article has had a 'significant' impact on his professional reputation then there is a case for libel despite it being true in 2011. Defamation laws are there to protect a persons/businesses "CURRENT" reputation and standing. You have to take into account changing standards. Things which might have been defamatory at one time may later become acceptable, and vice versa. In this case if the owner has carried out improvements and the establishments reputation and standing in the community has changed from that which it was when the investigation commenced then he has a case. Unfortunately it seems that the fines have just been awarded having taken years to go through the courts. Some would argue that the Echo was just reporting. I would argue that it was worded in a unnecessarily detrimental way and at the very least expect a retraction. MoralMinority
  • Score: 1

6:38pm Sat 14 Jun 14

TenBobDylanThomasHardy says...

's funny, lots of criticism that this is a 'non-story' and compalints that the Echo have it as their top story, yet it's the third most Commented article. Clearly, some people are interested, what a bunch of hypocrites we are.
's funny, lots of criticism that this is a 'non-story' and compalints that the Echo have it as their top story, yet it's the third most Commented article. Clearly, some people are interested, what a bunch of hypocrites we are. TenBobDylanThomasHardy
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Sat 14 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

TenBobDylanThomasHar
dy
wrote:
's funny, lots of criticism that this is a 'non-story' and compalints that the Echo have it as their top story, yet it's the third most Commented article. Clearly, some people are interested, what a bunch of hypocrites we are.
If we were hypocrites we would be saying one thing and doing another. We are not doing that. The fact that a lot of people have replied does not make them Hypocritical.
[quote][p][bold]TenBobDylanThomasHar dy[/bold] wrote: 's funny, lots of criticism that this is a 'non-story' and compalints that the Echo have it as their top story, yet it's the third most Commented article. Clearly, some people are interested, what a bunch of hypocrites we are.[/p][/quote]If we were hypocrites we would be saying one thing and doing another. We are not doing that. The fact that a lot of people have replied does not make them Hypocritical. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

10:48pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Steve Vitali says...

By: Steve Vitali

SUPPORT OUR LOCAL PUB

I live opposite and eat regularly at the Old Ship Inn. I have never had one reason to complain to the staff or owner on any food issues. I have never suffered ill health as a result of eating there and i might have 2 or 3 meals there a week when I am too busy to cook for myself. This was a struggling pub changing Tenant Landlords regularly until Mr Haynes took over 3 years ago. It is now plays a central focus in our local community and offers good quality and varied menu at reasonable prices. Whilst I understand the importance that the local environmental officers play in maintaining standards an approach of education, guidance and assistance rather than enforcement would seem more appropriate. The damage that this news article and fine have inflicted on this business are in my opinion disproportional to the offences committed. Non of us can comment on the exact detail but if an environmental inspection was carried out in most peoples homes I am sure that some concerns could be raised. Unless Mr Haynes was dismissive or uncooperative with the environmental officers requests and guidance I am of the opinion that this prosecution has been a rather heavy handed approach and call on our local and wider community to support local business. This pub is still one of the friendliest and most pleasant village pubs around Dorset with excellent food on offer and I would encourage everyone to come to visit and find this out for themselves.
By: Steve Vitali SUPPORT OUR LOCAL PUB I live opposite and eat regularly at the Old Ship Inn. I have never had one reason to complain to the staff or owner on any food issues. I have never suffered ill health as a result of eating there and i might have 2 or 3 meals there a week when I am too busy to cook for myself. This was a struggling pub changing Tenant Landlords regularly until Mr Haynes took over 3 years ago. It is now plays a central focus in our local community and offers good quality and varied menu at reasonable prices. Whilst I understand the importance that the local environmental officers play in maintaining standards an approach of education, guidance and assistance rather than enforcement would seem more appropriate. The damage that this news article and fine have inflicted on this business are in my opinion disproportional to the offences committed. Non of us can comment on the exact detail but if an environmental inspection was carried out in most peoples homes I am sure that some concerns could be raised. Unless Mr Haynes was dismissive or uncooperative with the environmental officers requests and guidance I am of the opinion that this prosecution has been a rather heavy handed approach and call on our local and wider community to support local business. This pub is still one of the friendliest and most pleasant village pubs around Dorset with excellent food on offer and I would encourage everyone to come to visit and find this out for themselves. Steve Vitali
  • Score: 16

10:29am Sun 15 Jun 14

JamesYoung says...

MoralMinority wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
ZeroTolerance wrote:
If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.
The defence to a defamation/libel claim is one of "truth". In this case, the Echo told the truth, so any legal claim would fail.
The owner can prove the work has been done in accordance to the previous recommendations. If it can be proven that this article has had a 'significant' impact on his professional reputation then there is a case for libel despite it being true in 2011.
Defamation laws are there to protect a persons/businesses "CURRENT" reputation and standing.
You have to take into account changing standards. Things which might have been defamatory at one time may later become acceptable, and vice versa.
In this case if the owner has carried out improvements and the establishments reputation and standing in the community has changed from that which it was when the investigation commenced then he has a case.
Unfortunately it seems that the fines have just been awarded having taken years to go through the courts. Some would argue that the Echo was just reporting. I would argue that it was worded in a unnecessarily detrimental way and at the very least expect a retraction.
No, you are missing the point.
The Echo article is reporting on a current story. The story makes it very plain that the offences took place over a year ago and were rectified shortly thereafter.
There is no defamation here.
[quote][p][bold]MoralMinority[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeroTolerance[/bold] wrote: If the owner has any sense he'll grab a lawyer with some media experience in "Defamation" and that 10k fine will be paid off courtesy of Weymouth Echo in no time. Mr Editor, if you are having a quiet week news-wise, why not ditch the front page story and put in a dot-dot game, or perhaps a 'crazy-maze' puzzle - it'll bring more joy to people than the standard content. To be fair though, I shouldn't mention the Editor, it's not his fault, as with most people who get a copy of the Echo, he clearly doesn't read it.[/p][/quote]The defence to a defamation/libel claim is one of "truth". In this case, the Echo told the truth, so any legal claim would fail.[/p][/quote]The owner can prove the work has been done in accordance to the previous recommendations. If it can be proven that this article has had a 'significant' impact on his professional reputation then there is a case for libel despite it being true in 2011. Defamation laws are there to protect a persons/businesses "CURRENT" reputation and standing. You have to take into account changing standards. Things which might have been defamatory at one time may later become acceptable, and vice versa. In this case if the owner has carried out improvements and the establishments reputation and standing in the community has changed from that which it was when the investigation commenced then he has a case. Unfortunately it seems that the fines have just been awarded having taken years to go through the courts. Some would argue that the Echo was just reporting. I would argue that it was worded in a unnecessarily detrimental way and at the very least expect a retraction.[/p][/quote]No, you are missing the point. The Echo article is reporting on a current story. The story makes it very plain that the offences took place over a year ago and were rectified shortly thereafter. There is no defamation here. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

10:30am Sun 15 Jun 14

JamesYoung says...

Steve Vitali wrote:
By: Steve Vitali

SUPPORT OUR LOCAL PUB

I live opposite and eat regularly at the Old Ship Inn. I have never had one reason to complain to the staff or owner on any food issues. I have never suffered ill health as a result of eating there and i might have 2 or 3 meals there a week when I am too busy to cook for myself. This was a struggling pub changing Tenant Landlords regularly until Mr Haynes took over 3 years ago. It is now plays a central focus in our local community and offers good quality and varied menu at reasonable prices. Whilst I understand the importance that the local environmental officers play in maintaining standards an approach of education, guidance and assistance rather than enforcement would seem more appropriate. The damage that this news article and fine have inflicted on this business are in my opinion disproportional to the offences committed. Non of us can comment on the exact detail but if an environmental inspection was carried out in most peoples homes I am sure that some concerns could be raised. Unless Mr Haynes was dismissive or uncooperative with the environmental officers requests and guidance I am of the opinion that this prosecution has been a rather heavy handed approach and call on our local and wider community to support local business. This pub is still one of the friendliest and most pleasant village pubs around Dorset with excellent food on offer and I would encourage everyone to come to visit and find this out for themselves.
I agree completely. We _almost_ went there last night but it was booked up. There is no health risk now.
[quote][p][bold]Steve Vitali[/bold] wrote: By: Steve Vitali SUPPORT OUR LOCAL PUB I live opposite and eat regularly at the Old Ship Inn. I have never had one reason to complain to the staff or owner on any food issues. I have never suffered ill health as a result of eating there and i might have 2 or 3 meals there a week when I am too busy to cook for myself. This was a struggling pub changing Tenant Landlords regularly until Mr Haynes took over 3 years ago. It is now plays a central focus in our local community and offers good quality and varied menu at reasonable prices. Whilst I understand the importance that the local environmental officers play in maintaining standards an approach of education, guidance and assistance rather than enforcement would seem more appropriate. The damage that this news article and fine have inflicted on this business are in my opinion disproportional to the offences committed. Non of us can comment on the exact detail but if an environmental inspection was carried out in most peoples homes I am sure that some concerns could be raised. Unless Mr Haynes was dismissive or uncooperative with the environmental officers requests and guidance I am of the opinion that this prosecution has been a rather heavy handed approach and call on our local and wider community to support local business. This pub is still one of the friendliest and most pleasant village pubs around Dorset with excellent food on offer and I would encourage everyone to come to visit and find this out for themselves.[/p][/quote]I agree completely. We _almost_ went there last night but it was booked up. There is no health risk now. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Sun 15 Jun 14

wurzelbasher says...

Perhaps we are all too hygienic for our own good!!
Perhaps we are all too hygienic for our own good!! wurzelbasher
  • Score: -1

4:45pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Dorset Guy1 says...

Getting back to the basic story when scores on the doors was originally started the intension was that it would be compulsory to display your award meaning if you had one or none your customers would get the message and avoid such places. The owner would up their game get re-examined and thrive However it is still not compulsory in England due mostly pressure from the trade Some chains have a policy not to display no matter how goo the majority of their sites are.
It is also getting harder to easily check an area on line for the goodies and baddies.
We need more regulation in this area not less Red Tape Challenge or no
Getting back to the basic story when scores on the doors was originally started the intension was that it would be compulsory to display your award meaning if you had one or none your customers would get the message and avoid such places. The owner would up their game get re-examined and thrive However it is still not compulsory in England due mostly pressure from the trade Some chains have a policy not to display no matter how goo the majority of their sites are. It is also getting harder to easily check an area on line for the goodies and baddies. We need more regulation in this area not less Red Tape Challenge or no Dorset Guy1
  • Score: -1

1:54am Wed 18 Jun 14

not too distant says...

A lot of sympathy on here for a business owner who happily charged the public for food produced in an environment that he wouldn't be prepared to eat or feed his loved ones from... As someone who has historically worked in quite a few kitchens I have seen the difference between employers with a sense of decency, and those without.
A lot of sympathy on here for a business owner who happily charged the public for food produced in an environment that he wouldn't be prepared to eat or feed his loved ones from... As someone who has historically worked in quite a few kitchens I have seen the difference between employers with a sense of decency, and those without. not too distant
  • Score: -1

2:00pm Wed 18 Jun 14

westbaywonder says...

Must sell a lot of toilet roll in the local shop or is it buy two drinks and get a free toilet roll for later. LOL.
Must sell a lot of toilet roll in the local shop or is it buy two drinks and get a free toilet roll for later. LOL. westbaywonder
  • Score: -2

3:29pm Thu 19 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

Dorset Guy1 wrote:
Getting back to the basic story when scores on the doors was originally started the intension was that it would be compulsory to display your award meaning if you had one or none your customers would get the message and avoid such places. The owner would up their game get re-examined and thrive However it is still not compulsory in England due mostly pressure from the trade Some chains have a policy not to display no matter how goo the majority of their sites are.
It is also getting harder to easily check an area on line for the goodies and baddies.
We need more regulation in this area not less Red Tape Challenge or no
If any food establishment declines to display their score on their door is there any reason to think that there's any other reason than it has something it does not want its potential customers to know?
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Guy1[/bold] wrote: Getting back to the basic story when scores on the doors was originally started the intension was that it would be compulsory to display your award meaning if you had one or none your customers would get the message and avoid such places. The owner would up their game get re-examined and thrive However it is still not compulsory in England due mostly pressure from the trade Some chains have a policy not to display no matter how goo the majority of their sites are. It is also getting harder to easily check an area on line for the goodies and baddies. We need more regulation in this area not less Red Tape Challenge or no[/p][/quote]If any food establishment declines to display their score on their door is there any reason to think that there's any other reason than it has something it does not want its potential customers to know? JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree