Last month our friend Jay Rayner wrote a review of a pub with very nice food but also, a “pro-dog” policy. You may have read it, plenty did, many fans logging on to add their thoughts to a piece that described the singular frustration of a stranger’s dog (I’ll quote) “indulging in rigorous arse-end frottage” against Jay while he was “trying to get into the asparagus”. Here on the desk, working on the magazine, we expected a certain amount of feedback – dog lovers are passionate and often very online, alert and sensitive to any perceived criticism of their family (dogs), faith (dogs) or right to love (dogs). But we were unprepared for the speed at which the argument below the line became about something else entirely.
Those arguing the case for dogs in restaurants said they would far prefer to dine next to a dog than dine next to a badly behaved child. The comments continued, detailing examples of children moaning, and parents changing their babies’ nappies right there at the table. Others responded with stories of dogs licking their arses and then a plate. Battle lines were drawn in ketchup and a small war played out beneath Jay’s descriptions of mutton and a chocolate torte, one that has recently become familiar to anyone with skin in the game and half an eye on the internet. It was between the child-havers and the child-free, and it never fails to shock me.
