There is not much that I can say about the budget that hasn't been said much better by Simon Heffer. The only flaw I can see is that he ends on an optimistic note, with a rare overly favourable comment about the prospect of a Cameron government. Since Osbourne has disavowed any intention to repeal the punitive and counterproductive new 50p tax band, there is less to look forward to under the Tories than Call Me Dave's admittedly stellar rejoinder to the budget suggests.
I intend to focus on a much more serious matter, from the same edition of the Telegraph in which can be found Heffer's commentary. I am reffering to the scandalously misleading article by some charachter called Harry Wallop (no joke) which appeared yesterday maligning the world's premier sandwich shop, Subway. These delicious, high quality, and pleasantly addictive sanwiches appear to have been the subject of a deliberate hatchet job.
The article purports to offer a comparison of the fat and salt content of sandwiches from several leading sandwich retailers, from purveyors of poncy excrement Prat a Manger to highly respectable sandwich crafters Subway. The chart shows the Subway sandwich as having the most fat and salt of all those tested. But something isn't right. All the other sandwiches tested were chicken, yet they've chosen to compare the Subway meatball marinara. No wonder it tests a little high when compared to chicken sandwiches. The Telegraph ought to be ashamed of itself for printing something this Independent-worthy.
The truly great thing about Subway is that you have complete control over what gets put in your sandwich. Store-bought sandwiches all come pre-packaged, usually with butter, mayonnaise, or cheese; sometimes all three. Most baguette shops are not much better, as the meat comes pre-soaked in immense quantities of mayonnaise. With Subway, you can do what I do, which is to get chicken or turkey, without cheese or mayonnaise. Or, you can do what the guy next to me in line yesterday did--ask for half the bottle of mayonnaise to be squeezed out over your already cheese-smothered bacon sandwich. It's up to you.
Perhaps the worst part of the article was the statement from Prat's unbelievably obnoxious spokesman speaking up after his company's fraudulent health claims had been exposed. In line with the outrageous pretentiousness of all Prat advertising, he actually claimed: "Prat customers are savvy and well-educated; they understand that good quality ingredients are nutritionally far superior to anything chemically-engineered." No, you insufferable twerp, Prat customers are easily-taken-in dolts who have fallen for your bullshit.
Down with Prat. Subway uber alles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have read your blogs with great interest but this is the first one that has moved me to comment. The problem with your comparison is that if you are eating a sandwich, the quality of the bread is paramount. Pret sandwiches are on good crusty baguettes which makes the whole sandwich pretty good. And the "dolphin free" tuna makes you feel virtuous at the same time.In Subway (by the way, being concerned with cleanliness, I would never actually eat anything that was sold in a subway) the bread is like molded Wonder bread which ruins the whole sandwich experience. The stores also have an oddly consistent unpleasant odor whether you are in a store in Seattle or London or anywhere in between. I just can't go with you on this one.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, i can see how someone concerned with cleanliness would eat at prat, with their premade and occasionally mouldy food. At subway, they make it right in front of you, on any one of a number of different breads from honey oat to herb and cheese. And the enticing smell is not piped in, unlike the one at prat. At subway, they're selling you a good, solid, fully customised sandwich. At prat, they're selling you pathetic, french-worhshipping 'sophistication' with overpriced, average food tacked on.
ReplyDeleteI eat at Pret because I like their food, not because I am taken in by their terrible advertising. Please don't generalise.
ReplyDelete