The Dish (36 page)

‘Of course I wasn’t serious!’

‘And speaking of jokes – is this supposed to be funny? “Your Poulet de
Bresse chicken was half-decent but for a hundred and thirty pounds, it should come stuffed with a PlayStation, not garlic.”’

‘It’s not supposed to be
funny
funny, it’s more sharp than funny.’

‘You couldn’t even fit a PlayStation in a chicken, Laura.’

‘Fine, next time I’ll stick a Nintendo DS in it –
you are charging one hundred and thirty pounds for a goddamn chicken, I will say what I like.
’

‘And you obviously have a major problem with men, because of your idiot ex-husband.’

‘
What?
’

‘Even when you talk about skyscrapers you say they’re stupid because
men
built them.’

‘Clearly I don’t hate men, I like Azeem, Fabrizio, Roger—’

‘Oh, Roger, yes! How could I forget wonderful Roger, Roger who can fight off blizzards and hurricanes! Roger gets the loyalty, and Adam? Adam gets “I’d rather
cut out my tongue than eat his food”.
’

‘You said yourself the menu is insane, you said it a hundred times.’

‘Yeah, maybe I did, but I
didn’t say it in print
.’

‘But I’ve told you already – that version we printed was the wrong one, it was a mistake. Have you even read the right version, the one I left with you on Sunday?’

‘I cannot imagine anything less relevant at this point.’

‘Nice. I came
in with a broken tooth and paid a fortune of my own money because I was being loyal to you.’

‘Jesus, if this is your idea of loyalty . . .’

‘I tried to do the right thing by you – I even gave your guys the benefit of the doubt about your vile rip-off coffee – and you won’t even read it?’

‘You’re not seriously asking for my sympathy are you?’ he says, shaking his head in disgust.

‘Look, can
you please take this cup and can we sit and talk about this like normal people?’

He takes the coffee from my hand, looks at it like it’s a bleeding dagger, then hands it straight back. ‘No, I’m not having this bloody coffee. In fact, of all the things you could bring into my home—’

‘What now?’

‘Single estate is it?’

‘Yeah, what? Why are you looking at me like that, Adam?’

‘Because I’ve only
just realised that I was the one who actually
told
you we were serving instant coffee, and you went and put it in your review!’

I stare at him to see if he’s joking but his eyes are full of fury and two deep creases have formed on his brow.

‘Are you serious? Adam, you know what I used to do for a living, why would you even think that came from you?’

‘Because we had that exact conversation at
Fabrizio’s. Or did you think I’d forget?’

‘What?!’

‘If Ivan and Erek found out I shared that with you they’d fire me.’

‘Adam: you
are
an idiot! You are
literally
a moron. I wrote that review before I even met you. Is that what you actually think? That I would take stuff you told me and put it in the piece? Adam, what sort of a lying bitch do you think I am?’

‘I think that’s obvious – one that’s
standing in front of me holding two cups of coffee.’

He looks in frustration past my shoulder, as if all he wants to do is march out of his own front door but can’t because he’ll lock himself out of his flat.

‘Adam – when you’ve calmed down and this has all blown over, I’d like to think we could talk about this like adults.’

‘Laura – there is no woman I’ve ever met who is more full of shit
than you. If you had ever cared for me you could not have done this.’

‘Stop talking, Adam – I know you’ll regret saying all of this.’

‘That’s the worst thing – I thought you
did
know me. I thought I knew you. I felt closer to you after one month than I’ve ever felt to anyone in my whole life, I thought I was in love with you, fucking hell – my mother’s almost in love with you. And now I feel
like the biggest idiot in the world.’

‘That’s because you
are
the biggest idiot in the world!’ I say, feeling rage shake through my body all over again. ‘How could you think I would use that coffee stuff against you? I am
appalled
you would think that of me.’

‘Great. Moral high ground – it’s all yours Laura, go for it. Hope the view’s magnificent, you can take the lift up there on your own next
time.’

‘Fuck you Adam Bayley. Fuck. You. What, so you asked to see me today just so you could insult me?’

He laughs. ‘No – I asked to see you today because, like you said, I
am
the biggest idiot in the world. Believe it or not, for some insane reason, I actually wanted to warn you.’

‘Warn me? About what?’

He shakes his head in exhaustion. ‘Believe me – it had nothing to do with me. But there’s
something in the post for you this morning, and you’re not going to like it.’

Coombs & Forthmere

164 Brook Street

London W1

Roger Harris

Editor in Chief – The Voice

108 Clerkenwell Green

London EC1

10 April

Dear Mr Harris,

We act on behalf of our client, VanRek Holdings Ltd, in respect of an article appearing on pages 77 and 78 of the April issue of
The Voice
, under the headline
FLASH IN THE PAN,
(by-line: Anon/The Dish.)

False allegations raised in points
16, 49-59 & 89 – suggesting sharp practice, dishonesty, trading of poor quality goods and a lack of moral integrity – give rise to serious harm to our client’s brand and reputation and are severely distressing. We require you to take the following steps urgently:

a. Immediately withdraw the online version from your website and prevent further distribution of the offensive content.

b. Publish
in the May issue a full retraction and apology, in wording to be approved by VanRek, in a space size equivalent to the offending article.

c. Pay our client damages for injury to their reputation and for the hurt and humiliation caused, and indemnify our client in respect of all costs.

If point a) of the above is not addressed within 24 hours of receipt of this letter, we will apply, forthwith,
for an Interim Injunction in the High Court.

Yours sincerely,

William Coombs

‘So . . . a Beginners Guide to defamation . . .’ says Heather, placing a humongous volume of
Halsbury’s Laws
down on Roger’s desk. ‘A person or a business is entitled, in English law, to their good name. Laura – you and Kiki took the word
head
out of the phrase
head chef
, didn’t you?’

I cast my mind back a month.
‘That makes a difference?’

‘It means you’re not associating the cooking with one identifiable individual. You’re attacking a company – a company is not considered to have feelings, so VanRek can’t claim for aggravated damages, merely reputational injury.’

‘Reputational injury?’

‘You’ve exposed them to contempt, ridicule – made the average person think less of them by saying something false.’

‘But everything I wrote in the review was true,’ I say, feeling Sandra’s eyes fix on me.

‘Yes – but unlike in a criminal case, the burden of proof is reversed. The onus is on you – the defendant – to prove you’re not lying.’

‘Surely we just chuck Section Twelve of the Human Rights Act at them?’ says Roger. ‘Freedom of speech, freedom of expression?’

‘The ECHR doesn’t grant you licence to make
things up.’

‘But I’m not making things up,’ I say.

‘Which brings me to our defence. Your review is a mix of facts and opinions: fact – the toilets resemble naked women. Opinion – this makes them vulgar. We have two defences: Justification for facts: the facts are substantially true. And Honest Comment for opinions – would a fair-minded person agree with you?’

‘It’s not going to actually go
to court, is it?’ I say.

Roger shakes his head. ‘They’re doing this for column inches, guaranteed they’ll leak it to the press – their business is built on publicity. They’re far too savvy to waste money on a trial. Besides, we still have a free press in this country – otherwise we’d be in court every month.’

Heather holds her hand up. ‘Actually, there is a worrying precedent: a restaurant in
Sydney took the
Morning Herald
to court for a scathing review, back in 2003.’

‘Ancient history,’ says Roger.

‘They spent eleven years in court . . .’ says Heather, as Sandra presses her fingers to her temples. ‘Two jury trials, two appeals, then on to the High Court . . .’

‘Bloody waste of time,’ says Roger, his hand on the table flexing in and out of a fist.

‘The judge found in favour of
the restaurant . . . to the tune of six hundred thousand dollars.’

‘Are you saying this could end up costing us money too?’ says Sandra.

‘What does she mean
too
?’ I say to Roger, under my breath.

‘Escalating turkey wars . . .’

‘There’s no way we’re risking litigation on two fronts in one month,’ says Sandra. ‘It’s utterly clear what needs to happen here. Take the piece down immediately, print
a full retraction in May’s issue, admit you got your facts wrong and your judgement was flawed.’

‘Sandra – my readers trust me. If I say I’m unreliable, how could they ever trust me again?’

‘Well, quite: why should they? You said – when you asked to change copy
the day before we went to print
– that the original copy was wrong.’

‘Not wrong exactly . . .’

‘Excuse me?’ she says, turning to Roger,
then back to me. ‘Are the facts wrong or aren’t they?’

‘They’re not wrong but—’

‘So were you lying to me then or are you lying now?’

‘Lay off her, Sandra, she’s not in court yet!’ says Heather.

‘I don’t think we should take it down,’ says Roger.

‘Six hundred thousand dollars? Eleven years in court?’ says Sandra.

‘If they’re going to exploit this for publicity, so should we. Have you seen
the latest toilet?’ he says to me. ‘Total Eclipse of the Fart.’

‘That might be the problem,’ says Heather. ‘The longer it’s up, the more traffic it gets, and the more they can argue the extent of reputational damage. It could mean an increased payout if we lose – that’s why the damages were so high in Sydney – the paper kept the piece online. If we take it down today at least we look like we’re
cooperating.’

‘And then what?’

‘We respond with a letter of defence.’

Sandra shakes her head. ‘Why are we defending a piece we know contains factual errors?’

‘Why did this piece even run in the first place, Sandra?’ I say. ‘You told me you’d changed it on the system!’

‘Oh,’ she says, eyes wide, looking at Roger. ‘This again? This is my fault?’

‘Ladies, please,’ says Roger. ‘Let’s take it
offline.’

‘The article or the catfight?’ says Heather.

‘The piece. Draft a letter of response today.’

‘But what if they reject it?’ I say. ‘How can I
prove
something looked or tasted horrible when my word is my only proof? I don’t have photos.’

‘Whatever happens, you do not want a protracted to-ing and fro-ing. We absolutely cannot justify resource on
this
,’ says Sandra.

‘Sandra’s right,’
says Heather, looking at me with concern. ‘Their pockets are substantially deeper than ours – if they wanted to make life difficult for us, they could. We can defend the facts, but it’s the subjective stuff we’ll struggle to verify. If they can make a case the review harmed their business financially—’

‘But the place is packed with high rollers every night,’ I say.

‘Now it is, yes, but if they
drag this out long enough and trade declines they can claim your review is partly responsible. So I agree – the key is a swift resolution.’

‘Roger,’ I say, turning to him directly. ‘Please, let’s not fight this. I’ll apologise and we’ll publish a correction. I don’t want to cause any more harm.’

Sandra smiles her first sincere smile at me in four years.

‘Nonsense!’ says Roger. ‘We’ve seen it
all before, they’re doing it for headlines, don’t let them cow you so easily.’

Heather shakes her head. ‘I’d tread softly in the first instance, it’s not worth riling them with a belligerent response.’

‘I disagree,’ says Roger. ‘I say we bite back.’

Roge
r Harris

Editor in Chief –The Voice

108 Clerkenwell Green

London EC1

Coombs & Forthmere

134 Brook Street

London W1

11 April

Dear Mr Coombs,

Further to your letter of 10 April, we reject your client’s interpretation that the outlined article is defamatory – and we further advise you of the following in our defence.

Justification

Points 49 – 55.

Allegation of taking ideas from
other chefs: (cf. Redzepi, Matsuhisa, Tosi, Keller, Blumenthal), attached documentation referencing origins of these dishes.

56 – 59

Allegation of frozen ingredients used when claimed as fresh/seasonal. Attached documentation from the National Farmers Union detailing UK seasonal harvest charts for produce detailed in Appendix I.

89

Allegation of passing off instant coffee as single estate
fresh coffee. Our correspondent is a Licensed Q Grader, accredited by the Coffee Quality Institute and has professional expertise in coffee analysis.

Honest Comment

80
– Pea and tetragonia soup – tepid

81
– Sourdough pretzel croutons – stale

83
– Boudin blanc hot dog – congealed and cold

86
– Cod ice cream – liquid

Our correspondent and their guest pointed out the organoleptic quality issues
to staff throughout the meal.

Vulgar Abuse

18
– Comparison of house white wine to battery acid. It is our contention a reader would understand our correspondent has not previously imbibed battery acid directly and is merely using hyperbolic language to demonstrate a poor quality product.