91�ȱ�

We must apologise for our absence from this “blog” for some two months. The reasons for this are numerous.

Firstly, we have been attempting various renovations and extensions on our little home here on Bute (e.g. a second bathroom, a conservatory and a fifth bedroom), and have had an absolutely disgraceful time with so called “tradesmen”. I now give every tradesman I contact an Agreement to sign before I engage them. This penalises them for not attending when agreed and for late completion of the work agreed (I have some experience in the contracting business, you see). And to date, true, to form, not one of them has yet even had the decency to reply.

Secondly, I am sorry to report that M was thrown from her horse some weeks ago (down south), This has somewhat diverted my attention, in that I have had to make my own meals and suchlike. However, my particular grievance is as follows. M – her leg in plaster – fell asleep on a bench in Guildford Square. On my arrival to pick her up in the 4 x 4, I noticed that all kinds of rude and obscene scribbles had been secretly made on her plaster. These were signed “The Shinty Team”, whoever they are. I have been informed that they may be some kind of Glasgow gang visiting for the day, but in any event they should be ashamed of themselves. We would welcome any light to be shed on this disgraceful act.

And now to more important matters. You may remember that one of our contributions to this blog was censored by the 91�ȱ�, and that we promised to address this disgraceful matter.

Here is the censored text, except for TWO WORDS which I have omitted, in the belief that these were the words which caused the censoring. I defy the 91�ȱ� to censor the following. If they do, they should send the text to the blog and explain their reasons.

I have been told by the 91�ȱ� that these blogs have certain rules. These seem to include that one is not allowed to express one’s opinion unless it fits with the 91�ȱ�’s view of what “type” of opinions are allowed. Can the 91�ȱ� state that they will also follow such a rule e.g. they will only express opions where allowed by – say – the government? I think (and hope) not.

However, here is the text (less the two words);
--------------------------------
“Now, I must admit that this a little "bee in our bonnet".

M and myself love to dine out on a regular basis (funds allowing), but dining on Bute seems to be very much a hit and miss affair. So, we intend to provide regular restaurant reviews, and we invite others to do the same in this column.

We will not, of course, divulge where and when we intend to inspect, but I would imagine that over the months we will cover

- Chandlers

- the two Chinese restaurants in town (we would rather someone else did this - a little downmarket for us!)

- the two Indian restaurants in town (ditto!)

- Bute's Italy, now that it has re-opened.

- Brechin's

- The Kingarth Hotel.

- The St Blanes Hotel

- The Victoria Hotel

- The Esplanade.

- The Waterfront

- That one behind the Discovery Centre.

Are there any others? Do you have any comments on such establishments?

To be frank, we are not sure about some of the above establishments, having passed by and looked in, but we will start with a blank scorecard and be totally impartial!

J and M”
-------------------------
Who can guess what – and where – the two words were? The reason for rejection, by the way, was “Adverising/Plugging”, which is a disgraceful and unfounded assertion.

Best wishes
J and M