On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:34:58 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>"Sheldon" > wrote in message
...
>> So you like to eat out and think no one pees, spits, honks lungers in
>> your food...
>>
>>
>> Diner finds hairs in ribeye; Cook accused of putting them there
>>
>> AP
>> Posted: 2008-02-28 21:40:43
>>
>> WEST BEND, Wis. (AP) - A restaurant cook is out of a job and facing a
>> felony charge after being accused of hiding hairs in a ribeye because
>> a customer complained the first steak served to him was overcooked.
>>
>[snip...]
>
>It really surprises me, with all the latest developments in camera
>surveillance systems, that no one has even thought about monitoring the
>kitchen areas of restaurants with cameras and recording the results for a
>certain number of days. However, IMHO, they should do just that, and clearly
>post signs in the kitchen notifying the staff they are being monitored and
>recorded.
>
>The rationale being...
>
>If a cook tampers with a customer's food in any way, the cook would be held
>accountable upon proof that the recording shows they did indeed clearly and
>deliberately tamper with a customer's food.
>
>On the other hand, if nothing at all was done to a customer's food in the
>kitchen, and the customer then suspects the kitchen staff did something to
>the food and reports it, a quick review of the surveillance recording would
>show the staff was innocent of any wrongdoing.
>
>That still doesn't totally eliminate the opportunities for rogue kitchen
>staff to tamper with a customer's food, but it would make it much less
>desirable to do so with cameras monitoring and recording kitchen staff, and
>again, it would also give well-behaved kitchen staff additional protection
>against false claims that they tampered with a customer's food.
>
>Others may vary in their opinions, but it does make sense to me.
>

why not just film everybody all the time? it's sure they're up to no
good, the *******s.

your pal,
blake