Stand by your Restaurant Spy...

An angry letter arrived for me this week from a restaurant owner annoyed at the negative review he felt his establishment had received.

Not too much detail here, as in fairness to the complainant he may choose to take the matter further, and so identification of the venue would not be appropriate.

He was outraged that the Birmingham Mail's 'Restaurant Spy' Paul Fulford had the audacity to dislike his food, and he vehemently disagreed with his comments over the quality of cooking and ingredients.

So far, fair enough. Owners of venues don't have to agree with our weekly reviews (every Thursday). And, if they so wish, we will reflect their contrary opinions or feedback on our letters pages.

But this restaurateur went further. Apparently, he knows 'experts' who had told him the reviewer should have complained there and then about the food, not left it until a published review. Those same experts had told him he had a potential legal case against the Birmingham Mail for 'not adhering to a code of practice on complaints'.

He gave the Mail seven days from the date of his letter to put things right or he would have to consider his options. (A small smile flickered here because the complainant had dated his letter July 26, and so my reply dated today was sent three days before his initial letter...!)

On a serious note, however, my feeling is that his approach and semi-threat was very ill-advised.

The Birmingham Mail - like most newspapers - do not send anyone to review restaurants. In Fluffy Fulford's case, he has been our resident 'Spy' for nearly ten years. He is one of the most experienced people I know on food matters. He's even appeared in BBC cooking series, and regularly judges food competitions with household names.

Another important point is that local and regional newspapers rarely give bad reviews just to get a headline. 'We live in the village we serve,' as I often say, and we can't and won't publish anything that might cause damage to individuals or businesses just for the hell of it.

A bad meal is the only reason we slate restaurants. We don't tease over accents like national newspapers, or tell personal stories within our reviews, or come across like posh snobs looking down our noses at decors or dress-codes.

For us, it's all about the food and whether it's good or bad. It can include the service but overwhelmingly, if the food is good, we give big ticks, if it's average, we sit on the fence a little and, if it's below average or (rarely) awful, we simply say so.

No clever language or posed comments, just the honest opinion of an individual experience. 'Fair comment', as far as the law of libel is concerned.

'And so, Mr Restaurateur,' (in summary, I wrote), 'I stand by my Spy and do not intent to retract or apologise or clarify anything about his review.

'By all means write an opposing letter for publication and, assuming it's within the realms of reason, we will publish it.

'Alternatively, or even on top of that, do contact Mr Fulford and explain that his experience, in your opinion, was a rare one and I'm sure he'll revisit in the future to try you out again.

'But that's all. If you want to make any more of it, that is up to you and, to guide you, feel free to consult the Press Complaints Commission, and here is their contact details.'

End of story. I'll let you know how (if) he responds.