logo
Take it from a former Parisian waitress: there are ways to avoid the unofficial ‘tourist tax' in cafes and bars

Take it from a former Parisian waitress: there are ways to avoid the unofficial ‘tourist tax' in cafes and bars

The Guardian5 days ago
When an investigation into the tricks of Parisian waiters found that foreign tourists were being ripped off, all I could think was, 'Quelle surprise!' Anyone who has stared in shock at a bill for a citron pressé and an espresso near the Boulevard St Germain – as I did on one of my recent visits – will no doubt join me in a feeling of vindication. Undercover journalists for Le Parisien, posing as cafe punters around the Champ de Mars, have discovered that foreign tourists are being charged as much as 50% more than French customers, using a variety of tricks including only offering bottled water or more expensive drinks, being told service isn't included when it is, and swapping the wine ordered for the cheapest on the menu.
As a former waitress in the French capital, I'm someone who has been on both sides of this conflict. Before I left home, at 18, to move there, my mother warned me of the 'tourist tax', having visited with my father in the mid-1980s and noted the suspicious fiver that seemed to appear on all their bills. As a result, I was slightly on guard whenever I was en terrasse, always making sure to ask for tap water and quibbling anything that didn't look right. Then I became a waitress myself.
Despite dodgy French and a lack of experience, for some reason a small crêperie on the Left Bank hired me (actually, I know why: I agreed to go on a date with one of its former chefs). Working there was a baptism of fire, as I discovered the minute a table of French people ordered a perroquet, a kir and a menthe a l'eau. What were these strange, exotic drinks, and how the hell did I make them? The French customers were exacting in their requirements. The tourists, meanwhile, especially the Americans, were charmed by the quaintness and novelty of the place, friendly but slightly unnerved by the brisk, perfunctory service, and easily impressed and influenced. (This difference is borne out by recent TripAdvisor reviews – appalling on the French website, glowing on the English.)
I never ripped off tourists. In fact, they used to greet me with relief because I not only spoke English but, being aware of the longstanding reputation for rudeness on the part of Parisian serving staff, would work hard to charm them – with one eye on the tip tray, naturally (French customers never tipped). What I did do, though, was a lot of upselling. 'Ordering two cups of Breton cider? Why not have the bottle?' – that sort of thing, which is par for the course in hospitality. I did, however, know waiting staff who had less honest tactics.
And then, 10 years ago, a group of us diners were subject to an outrageous scam at a Left Bank brasserie. Enticed into a place on the promise of a deal on a cheap charcuterie board, much merriment was had until the bill came, whereupon we discovered that the board had trebled in price and we were being charged for a far more expensive bottle of picpoul than the one we had ordered. My quibble with the bill quickly descended into an argument with the waiter, who flatly denied that we had ever been promised the deal, saying, in possibly the most French manner possible: 'In Paris, you would pay more for oeufs mayonnaise.' This has since become a catchphrase in our house whenever the cost of anything is brought up. (Our other family catchphrase, done in an 'Allo 'Allo! accent, is deployed when we are eating parsnips, in honour of the ex-boyfriend who came for Sunday lunch: 'In France, we feed zees to the pigs!')
Look, I love France and the French. I have French family and friends, and part of my heart will always be living in Paris, 18, chain-smoking at the bar with a book in my hand (the best thing about being a waitress in France is being allowed to read and not being told to smile). Ripping off tourists, however, is never on, even in this era of Instagram travel and overtourism. I'm not averse to a tourist tax, provided it's a legal one.
My advice for not getting ripped off in Paris is as follows: avoid places with touts outside; say bonjour when you walk in, and please and thank you when ordering. Learn the French for tap water. Be aware that bread should be free. Look around you to observe the size of the drinks the locals are having, and if necessary point to them when ordering. If you're offered a side or a different type of wine, ask how much it is. Read the bill when it arrives and don't be afraid to question it. Ask if service is included or not and check the amount on the card machine before you pay. And – the ouefs mayonnaise rule – if an offer looks too good to be true, then it probably is.
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

City trader husband who was left with just £325,000 of his heiress ex's £61.5MILLION fortune wins divorce appeal after 'gender bias' claim
City trader husband who was left with just £325,000 of his heiress ex's £61.5MILLION fortune wins divorce appeal after 'gender bias' claim

Daily Mail​

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

City trader husband who was left with just £325,000 of his heiress ex's £61.5MILLION fortune wins divorce appeal after 'gender bias' claim

A financial trader who complained of ' gender prejudice' when being handed only £325,000 of his ex-wife's £60m-plus family fortune has won his divorce appeal after she hid how much she was worth. Wealthy heiress Jenny Helliwell engaged in 'fraudulent' behaviour by not declaring almost £48m of her £66m personal fortune whilst making a prenuptial agreement, appeal judges ruled. Simon Entwistle's 'painful' divorce from Ms Helliwell culminated with an award in his favour of just £400,000, instead of the £2.5 million he had originally claimed. That sum was reduced to £325,000 after a deduction for Ms Helliwell's costs after a divorce judge said the three-year marriage did not entitle him to maintain a lavish lifestyle once the relationship ended. Given that his own costs were £450,000, the award left Mr Entwistle £125,000 out of pocket - a scenario that his barrister argued would not have materialised were their roles reversed. Following a lavish £500,000 wedding in Paris in August 2019, Mr Entwistle 'enjoyed the trappings of being married into a family of exceptional wealth,' living in a £4.5 million villa in Dubai gifted to Ms Helliwell by her father, affluent businessman Neil Helliwell. But their relationship hit the rocks and they split just three years after their wedding, with Ms Helliwell - the daughter of wealthy Dubai-based British businessman Neil Helliwell - getting lawyers to order her then husband out of the family home with 48 hours' notice in August 2022. The pair, both 42, then went to court over money with Mr Entwistle, originally from Bolton, asking for £2.5m from his interior designer ex-wife's personal fortune, estimated at over £60m. But he was left with just a tiny 0.5 per cent share of the pot after the judge upheld a pre-nuptial agreement the pair had signed promising they would each keep their own assets in the event of a split. Appealing that ruling, Mr Entwistle said he was a victim of 'gender prejudice' and that the prenup had been invalidated by Ms Helliwell having failed to disclose assets worth almost £48m - amounting to 73 per cent of her wealth - on documents when he signed it. Now Lady Justice King has ruled that the nondisclosure by the heiress amounted to 'fraudulent' behaviour which had invalidated the pre-nup. She allowed Mr Entwistle's appeal and sent the case back to the divorce courts, ordering it to be recalculated as if the pre-nuptial agreement did not exist. 'Wilful or fraudulent breach of that agreement such that the disclosure made bears no resemblance to the true wealth of a capable of being material non-disclosure, as it deprives the other party of the information that they have agreed is necessary in order for them to decide whether to agree to a pre-nuptial agreement,' she said. 'Since the husband in the instant case was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed that he should have, in my judgment, the agreement cannot stand.' After the original hearing, High Court judge Mr Justice Francis found that the husband's personal assets were worth around £850,000, including a flat in Salford where he had lived with his first wife before moving to Dubai. Ms Helliwell, by contrast, was worth around £66m, with her wealthy dad having gifted her valuable assets and put some of his business interests in her name. Helliwell had offered him first £500,000, then £800,000, to avoid a court battle, but he had refused, holding out for £2.5m. 'The parties went through this painful litigation and the husband is actually worse off now than he would have been if he never brought a claim in the first place, which is tragic for everybody,' the judge commented. But he declined to hand the husband any more money, calling his budget of needs 'aspirational,' including an 'astonishing' claim for £36,000 a year for flights and £26,000 a year 'on a meal plan just for himself'. 'He said to me, "I can't even cook an omelette." Well, my answer to that is, "Learn." It is not difficult,' said the judge. 'You do not have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well.' He added: 'Being married to a rich person for three years does not suddenly catapult you into a right to live like that after the relationship has ended.' Challenging the judge's ruling at the Court of Appeal, Deborah Bangay KC, for Mr Entwistle, said: 'The judge was warned against gender prejudice, but failed to heed that warning. 'Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have, so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship.' She also argued that the pre-nuptial agreement, which had been key to the husband's low award, was invalidated by Ms Helliwell's failure to disclose her full wealth, stating that she was worth about £18m rather than her full £66m fortune. Lady Justice King, giving her ruling, made no finding on the gender prejudice argument but said that in the pre-nup, the wife disclosed £18,206,735 of assets, including multi-million pound property portfolios in Dubai and France. 'The wife, however, failed to include £47,878,800 of assets owned by her,' she added. This included almost £40m worth of business assets, £8m worth of beachfront land in Dubai and a £1,649,000 house in Wimbledon, lived in by her mother. 'The husband and wife entered into the agreement on the day they married, July 12, 2019,' she said. 'Upon divorce, each party would retain their own separate property and split any jointly owned property as to 50 per cent each. 'At the heart of the dispute is whether the wife's undoubted failure to disclose the majority of her substantial wealth should have the consequence that the agreement should not be upheld by the court. 'In the present case, the non-disclosure of the majority of her assets by the wife was undoubtedly deliberate.'

Fact Check: French court ruled on defamation case appeals, not Brigitte Macron's gender
Fact Check: French court ruled on defamation case appeals, not Brigitte Macron's gender

Reuters

time10 hours ago

  • Reuters

Fact Check: French court ruled on defamation case appeals, not Brigitte Macron's gender

A court in France ruled in early July on a defamation case involving Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, not on her gender, contrary to online claims. Social media posts, reacting to the Paris Court of Appeal decision, said it was confirmation that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man. 'Brigitte Macron is not a woman,' said one July 13 Facebook post, opens new tab. 'What once sounded like a conspiracy theory now stands confirmed in a court ruling.' However, a copy of the July 10 ruling seen by Reuters shows the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted two women of defaming Brigitte Macron. The court did not rule on the truth of the claims about her gender. Delphine Jegousse and Nathalie Rey had claimed, in a video published in December 2021, that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man, originally called Jean-Michel Trogneux. That is also the name of her real brother, who was a co-plaintiff in the case. A criminal complaint was filed, and in September 2024 the Paris Judicial Court found both women guilty of defamation., opens new tab They were fined and ordered to pay 8,000 euros ($9,150) to Brigitte Macron and 5,000 euros to her brother. The Paris Court of Appeal in July 2025 said the allegations about gender and transition were made 'in good faith' and therefore did not constitute defamation given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, court documents show. The court overturned the women's convictions and acquitted them of all charges. All credible media, opens new tab reports, opens new tab say the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted the women of defamation and did not rule on Brigitte Macron's gender. An attorney representing Brigitte Macron and her brother did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jean-Michel Trogneux is appealing the latest ruling to a higher French court, his attorney told AFP, opens new tab on July 13. On July 23, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. against right-wing influencer Candace Owens, centred on her assertions that Brigitte Macron is a man. In her podcast that day, Owens said, "This lawsuit is littered with factual inaccuracies" and part of an "obvious and desperate public relations strategy" to smear her character. Reuters has previously addressed baseless claims about Brigitte Macron's gender. In August 2024, a fact-check showed that an altered picture of a young Russian male model had been shared online with the false suggestion that it was Brigitte Macron as a young man. False. The Paris Court of Appeal ruled on a defamation case involving Brigitte Macron, not on her gender. This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work. ($1 = 0.8744 euros)

Six Palestinians to stand trial in a deadly 1982 attack on a Jewish deli in Paris
Six Palestinians to stand trial in a deadly 1982 attack on a Jewish deli in Paris

The Independent

time11 hours ago

  • The Independent

Six Palestinians to stand trial in a deadly 1982 attack on a Jewish deli in Paris

A terrorism court in France has ordered six suspected Palestinian militants to go on trial for an attack 43 years ago at a Jewish restaurant and deli in Paris that killed six people, a lawyer said Thursday. Attackers t hrew grenades and then sprayed machine-gun fire into the Jo Goldenberg restaurant on Aug. 9, 1982 in the deadliest antisemitic attack in France since World War II, which also injured 22 people. Two of those killed were Americans. Though four of the suspects remain abroad and likely would be tried in absentia, investigating judges have issued an order for a trial, which could begin early next year, said David Père, who represents victims. The Paris-based court does not publish its orders publicly, and generally does not respond to journalists. The suspects are believed to have been members of the Palestinian militant Abu Nidal group at the time of the attack. The alleged ringleader, Mohamed Souhair al-Abassi, also known as Amjad Atta, is in Jordan where authorities have refused to extradite him. Three other suspects are believed to be in either the Palestinian territories or in Jordan: Mahmoud Khader Abed Adra, also called Hicham Harb; Nabil Hassan Mahmoud Othmane, also known as Ibrahim Hamza, and Nizar Tawfiq Moussa Hamada, also known as Hani. One of the defendants, Walid Abdulrahman Abu Zayed, had emigrated with his family to Norway and was extradited to France in 2020. The sixth defendant, Hazza Taha, was detained more recently in Paris. Père, who represents dozens of relatives of the victims and one direct survivor, said the trial is 'historic' for them. 'For them, this is not about the past but the present. It's a trial they intend to follow day by day," Père told The Associated Press. The one survivor represented by Père wasn't injured in the attack but remains traumatized by it. 'He wants to see the suspects and try to understand,' Père said. Jo Goldenberg, the owner of the Jewish restaurant and deli, recalled the horror of the lunchtime attack during an interview in 2002. 'They fired on everyone who was eating lunch - everyone,' Goldenberg said at the time. The place, which has since closed, was a centerpiece tourist attraction in the Marais neighborhood. French authorities announced in 2015 — nearly 33 years after the attack — that international arrest warrants had been issued for the suspects. The Abu Nidal faction, named after its leader, is considered responsible for nearly two dozen attacks that left at least 275 people dead, including assaults on El Al Israel Airlines ticket counters at the Rome and Vienna airports in 1985 in which 18 people were killed. The notorious Abu Nidal himself was found dead in his Baghdad apartment in August 2002. Iraqi authorities said Abu Nidal, whose real name is Sabri al-Banna, died by suicide.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store