I think it's a staff/management issue - pretty much every chain restaurant and fast food joint gets 5. Either way, 1 star means 'serious improvements required' (or something; I can't be bothered to look) which isn't encouraging. And if a restaurant can't be bothered to improve its independently measured/externally researchable hygiene, what does that say about their attitude to the food quality?
There doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between cost and hygiene rating, but there are remarkably few choices of 4/5 stars in Birmingham, whereas other places I've been recently (Bristol/Devon) have plenty... Birmingham is just dirty.
I watched a trashy daytime documentary about it (I'm not proud) and some bloke was storing cooked chicken in a raw chicken box, open to the air, and he had four stars. The inspector didn't shut him down, just made a re-appointment to visit a few weeks laterand even then it was a downgrade from 4 to 3.
I reckon my kitchen would be a 2/3, but it's my filth and hence less worrying.
I think it's a staff/management issue - pretty much every chain restaurant and fast food joint gets 5. Either way, 1 star means 'serious improvements required' (or something; I can't be bothered to look) which isn't encouraging. And if a restaurant can't be bothered to improve its independently measured/externally researchable hygiene, what does that say about their attitude to the food quality?
There doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between cost and hygiene rating, but there are remarkably few choices of 4/5 stars in Birmingham, whereas other places I've been recently (Bristol/Devon) have plenty... Birmingham is just dirty.
I watched a trashy daytime documentary about it (I'm not proud) and some bloke was storing cooked chicken in a raw chicken box, open to the air, and he had four stars. The inspector didn't shut him down, just made a re-appointment to visit a few weeks laterand even then it was a downgrade from 4 to 3.
I reckon my kitchen would be a 2/3, but it's my filth and hence less worrying.