I know that rib eye is an expensive cut of meat but this doesn’t look all that subsidised in the Parliament canteen to me:
Bargain: rib-eye steak is £70.80 at the Members’ Dining Room
Sigh.
I know that rib eye is an expensive cut of meat but this doesn’t look all that subsidised in the Parliament canteen to me:
Bargain: rib-eye steak is £70.80 at the Members’ Dining Room
Sigh.
Maybe it’s Wagu rib-eye..?
I have seen a steak offered in a Hong Kong restaurant for (quick calculation on the fingers) something like £120.
I did not stick around to see if it was rib-eye or Wagyu or massaged by Thai lady boys every day of its life.
Not the only ballsup in today’s paper. There’s a photo of Nemrut Dagi in the story about IS trashing Nimrod in Iraq. Nemrut Dagi is in Turkey. On top of a mountain.
Standards at the Tele have plummeted. Frequently now headlines are word salad.
It’s not just their headlines, is it? There’s a piece this morning: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/worldfolkandjazz/11452477/Why-trucker-country-turns-me-off.html
Country is sexist & a turn off & needs to change. Yet the article starts by informing us it’s the third most popular music genre. Third not good enough? It should abandon its cowboy hats & go for the top spot?
I mean. C&W. Complete absence of twerking or women performing in bondage gear. Never a mention of “beetches”. The genre who’s women are appreciated primarily for their singing & are as likely to be on stage in a plaid shirt & jeans.
The bint who wrote the piece may have deep problems but why’s the Telegraph giving her column inches to work them out in public?
I think the £70.80 is what MPs are claiming for eating it…
Tim, it’s a bargain for those people who only deals numbers in the billions and not the kind that we mortals have to handle on the daily basis.
BNIS I don’t much care for country music but that piece is barmy. There’s no future for a newspaper which trolls its own readers.
Now I have my glasses back ,after the Castro/Kipling debacle, I would like to point out that the text says it costs £7.80
Damn those Telegraph subs editing a story after its published and fixing errors.
Even £7.80 is a lot more than the cost of the steak. A couple of weeks ago I purchased twelve Scotch sirloin steaks for £20 [so I fed the family and put the rest in the freezer]. The HoC canteen should be able to get a better price than I by buying in bulk and I doubt that the trimmings cost £1, let alone £6. So the cost of cooking and serving is roughly double (taking DBC Reed’s more sensible price – hey, he’s right for once) the cost of the food. And the Telegraph journalists think it is horribly subsidised?
It still says £70.80 in the caption to the image at the top of the article.
Never run a restaurant, have you john77? They don’t sell their grub at cost, you know, or even 200% of cost. Ingredients make up about 20% of the cost of a meal, about the same as the typical fixed costs. Labour is 30% usually. Rents, licenses, the electricity and gas bills, cleaning supplies, maintenance etc. account for another 20% or so. You might spend 5% on advertising and so on. Finally you have about 5% profit. £7.80 for a decent steak in London is astonishingly cheap (assuming it is a decent steak).