Flipping obvious news headlines

[mark111757 Profile]

Gil

In A past life I worked at a Burger king here in the States, as an over night person or a closer/opener, a person that would tear down cooking equipment and clean it and reassemble.

The shakes they sold at bk in my time there, 79 - 81, could not be described as milk shakes. They were made out of a shake mix that came in what looked like an American milk carton and refrigerated. The mix was put into a shake machine and injected with vanilla, chocolate or strawberry syrup.

The order takers got admonished when ever the used the wording milk shake when calling out an order....

[Badger's Mate Profile]

Mrs B has just made a red velvet cake. The ingredient quantities made an impression on me. 950g sugar, 300g butter, 500g flour, 175g cream cheese, 340ml buttermilk, plus 3 eggs and the other ingredients. Just shy of 9000 kcals. The recipe serves 8-10 apparently, in other words 1000 calories a slice

[Gillthepainter Profile Website]

Good God, Badgers.
That's the stuff of legends. 950g sugar. Is it really really sweet then?

Hi Mark.
I worked in a pub as a student. And would be admonished for calling their brewery brand cola, coke.
Because it wasn't.
I used to find it odd, that you could send someone home absolutely hammered unable to talk.
But you were deemed a risk to the client if you handed over a bottle of soda, but called it coke.

[Badger's Mate Profile]

From memory it was 450g caster sugar in the cake and 500g icing sugar in the 'frosting' but it might be the other way around. It is sweet, of course, but not as sweet as you might imagine. This is the point I suppose, you wouldn't imagine 39 teaspoons of sugar in a shake or a quarter of a pound of sugar in a slice of cake.


I presume Red Velvet cake is an American thing. Basically it's a not-very-special chocolate cake dyed very bright red. The amount of dye used is pretty alarming, never mind the other stuff.

I used to find it odd, that you could send someone home absolutely hammered unable to talk.
But you were deemed a risk to the client if you handed over a bottle of soda, but called it coke.

I suppose the pub could be accused of 'passing off' their cola, whereas the drunkard would have been held to be responsible for the state they were in.

[Stokey Sue Profile]

I used to find it odd, that you could send someone home absolutely hammered unable to talk.
But you were deemed a risk to the client if you handed over a bottle of soda, but called it coke.

You can’t in fact legally send them home hammered if they got drunk from drinks you served

There are five defined categories of people you can’t serve alcohol in a pub - can remember all but they include a policeman in uniform and someone already drunk

BUT I’ve never heard of anyone being prosecuted, though I have known publicans being spoken to by local police and it is taken into account when the licence is renewed

[Gillthepainter Profile Website]

In the back of my mind, there is not a law yet, that publicans can be prosecuted for the state of some of its drinking customers.
But it is being passed where they lose their licence.
It may even be if a crime is committed by the drunk, the publican is jointly responsible.

I read it a while ago, so the facts of the proposal in my head are vague.

[Stokey Sue Profile]

They may be changing the law Gill but iirc the five categories date back to the wartime licensing rules, certainly were in force when I first worked in pubs in the seventies

[Gillthepainter Profile Website]

I know my pub didn't enforce it. Mind you, I still remember when I worked (early 80s) a pint of beer was 40p, and a pint of lager was 50p.

Edinburgh seems to enforce it - keeping people off the premises who are drunk.
I went there for a 50th. And we all got into a pub, except one member who "wears his drink badly".
He looked absolutely smashed even though he was no different to us.

They refused to let him in. Let alone getting served.