The story in today’s Crawley Observer about food hygiene standards of local business was endlessly fascinating.  There is nothing new about premises being inspected of course, but now the results are easier to find and easier to understand and compare.

I guess you could argue that they have been dumbed down, but that’s a term often used by people who understood something while it was complicated and slightly resent the idea that such understanding will now be more widespread.  The two key differences are reducing the findings of reports to a star-rating system based on performance against three criteria,  and putting everything on the Internet with all sorts of search facilities.

Crawley council should be congratulated, although maybe not as much as it seems. The information is not on the council’s website but on that of a body called ‘Scores on the doors’, but that is no bad thing: why do it all yourself if there is a service you can sign up to?   It is a bit of a PR coup for the council because, although they join 68 other councils in being part of the scheme, they are the first in the county to take part.

It looks good for them too.  The less technically savvy browser might not be aware that they are leaving the council’s website and going to another, and you might count the Crawley Observer amongst their number: on their website the story links to the result with the label “Crawley Borough Council’s Website” which points straight to the Scores on the Doors website.

A very canny move by the council though, providing a better service without much effort: just pay someone else to do all the work.  And thanks to the local paper they don’t even need to publicise it.  This feature is getting widely-known by almost viral methods beyond the readership of the local papers.  Our internal wiki at work has a page on places to eat out and this morning that page sprouted a link to this information. (No I didn’t do it. Someone beat me to it.) ((It doesn’t make up for the play centres fiasco or trying to bully council tenants into voting for transfer, but credit where credit is due))

Its about time too.  Four or  five years ago I saw some demos of something called the Planning Portal and tried to persuade the council to sign up to it at the time as it would have provided a whole lot more information to residents without too much effort from the council.   That was a bit of a trailblazer I think, but I’m sure there are now dozens of other services that can be signed up to.

And while we are at it, they could, as all councils could, install webcams and not only broadcast all council proceedings but make them available as an archive.  Some already do that (Camden is one if I recall correctly) but not enough.  By all means don’t focus on the internet exclusively and put those without a connection at a disadvantage, but its now mature enough that a lot more could be on there.

Anyway, the real interest is in the details, and looking through the list for your favourite eating spots only to find they are ranked with no stars or only one.  There is much amusement at work that our staff canteen has three stars, which is two more than the nearby Gatwick Manor, and despite them thinking that chocolate bread & butter pudding is a valid concept.  Good to see that our favourite Chinese take away ((Gourmet Inn in Three Bridges)) gets 4 stars.

What the Observer have not picked up on is the number of missing establishments and other anomalies.  Take Gatwick Manor, for example.  That place has a pub, restaurant, function rooms, and hotel, all with their own facilities.  Why is that all lumped together in one listing?  I can conceive of a place like that where one part of it is run totally differently to another and trying to average them out across the whole sprawling complex is going to be meaningless.  St. Catherines hospice, which is much smaller, has two food facilities treated individually.

But what about all the missing places?  The Cafe Santa Maria in Broadfield, for example, is not listed at all.  There are categories for “low risk – no routine inspections” and “not inspected yet”.  I would expect everywhere to be listed under one of them if there is no inspection report.   Crawley Labour Supporters club is listed (2 stars) even though it does no food, but the Crawley Conservative club is not listed anywhere.

The Tesco Express in Dobbins Place is listed (as low risk, no regular inspection needed)  but not any of the other Tesco Expresses or the superstore.  The Starbucks in the superstore is listed as not inspected yet, but no mention of the restaurant.

At the leisure park MacDonalds, Pizza Hut, TGI Friday and even the cinema is listed but not Nando’s or that American place next to it (Frankie & Bennies?) or the bowling alley which does food and drinks too.  Not even as ‘not yet inspected’.  If every school, community centre, mobile burger van, coffee concession in a shop, and establishment within Gatwick Airport is included along with pubs, bars restaurants and hotels doesn’t it seem like there should be more in the list than the 418 listed?