I've not seen it yet myself, but according to the BBC at
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4242520.stm>, the new Guide tells us
this:

"Beer lovers are tired of over-hyped national brands and avoid like the
plague the bland apologies for lager and the cold tasteless keg beers
produced by the national giants". 

Can't argue with that myself. I suppose the lawyers' advice is that this
is an observation rather than an exhortation this time round.

(For younger readers: those words, in a slightly different context, got
the Campaign into a lot of bother in its early days.)
-- 
Neil Worthington, Urmston, UK
=============================

In article ,
   N. J. Worthington  wrote:


> (For younger readers: those words, in a slightly different context, got
> the Campaign into a lot of bother in its early days.)


Actually the legal advice was that it might well get the campaign into a
lot of bother. As it was, the leak of the original text (and I know someone
who has an original copy) which was a bit inflammatory did the campaign a
lot of good because people knew what our opinions were and knew what the
legal bods opinions were. :-)

Let's be a bit more explicit. The advice listed against Watneys as a
"brewery" was that their pubs and products were so bad that it was best to
"avoid like the plague"

These days most of the big brewers have saved us the effort of repeating
the advice by ceasing brewing and the rest tend not to brew stuff
recognisable as beer.
Meanwhile thousands of small start up breweries are producing very nice
products and turning a good profit. Doesn't your heart just bleed for all
those pennies lost to the big brewers? No? Didn't think so.

-- 
Steve Pampling

"Steven Pampling"  wrote in message 
news:4daa5bf3desteve.pampling@dsl.pipex.com...

> In article ,
>   N. J. Worthington  wrote:
>
>> (For younger readers: those words, in a slightly different context, got
>> the Campaign into a lot of bother in its early days.)
>
> Actually the legal advice was that it might well get the campaign into a
> lot of bother. As it was, the leak of the original text (and I know 
> someone
> who has an original copy) which was a bit inflammatory did the campaign a
> lot of good because people knew what our opinions were and knew what the
> legal bods opinions were. :-)
>
> Let's be a bit more explicit. The advice listed against Watneys as a
> "brewery" was that their pubs and products were so bad that it was best to
> "avoid like the plague"
>
> These days most of the big brewers have saved us the effort of repeating
> the advice by ceasing brewing and the rest tend not to brew stuff
> recognisable as beer.
> Meanwhile thousands of small start up breweries are producing very nice
> products and turning a good profit. Doesn't your heart just bleed for all
> those pennies lost to the big brewers? No? Didn't think so.


We've had some extraordinarily characterful real ales from various 
microbreweries recently. All of them are _vastly_ superior to the likes of 
Tetley, John Smiths and the like. All you have to do is look around a bit. 
But then I am spoilt, living in North East Cheshire.

Brian

In article <UO0We.53$QU3.1@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, BrianW
 wrote:


> "Steven Pampling"  wrote in message
> news:4daa5bf3desteve.pampling@dsl.pipex.com...

[Snip]

> > Let's be a bit more explicit. The advice listed against Watneys as a
> > "brewery" was that their pubs and products were so bad that it was
> > best to "avoid like the plague"

> > These days most of the big brewers have saved us the effort of
> > repeating the advice by ceasing brewing and the rest tend not to brew
> > stuff recognisable as beer. Meanwhile thousands of small start up
> > breweries are producing very nice products and turning a good profit.
> > Doesn't your heart just bleed for all those pennies lost to the big
> > brewers? No? Didn't think so.

> We've had some extraordinarily characterful real ales from various
> microbreweries recently. All of them are _vastly_ superior to the likes
> of Tetley, John Smiths and the like. All you have to do is look around
> a bit. But then I am spoilt, living in North East Cheshire.


These days even Warwickshire has numbers where you are worried about
running out of fingers 20 years ago the county was a blank spot.
I suppose I ought to go back to my home county which the press release Neil
was referring to points out is very well endowed - but then "Gods Own
County" and all that so it's quite understandable.

-- 
Steve Pampling

Steven Pampling  wrote:
[...]

> These days even Warwickshire has numbers where you are worried about
> running out of fingers 20 years ago the county was a blank spot.


It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in Studley,
which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three completely
unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be excellent or it
can be astonishingly foul.

When a visit to Wetherspoons feels like a treat, you know something's
not quite right. (I can strongly recommend the Thatchers Perry in the
current 'spoon promotion, but please leave me some!)

-- 
Though intelligence is powerless to modify character, it is a dab hand at
finding euphemisms for its weaknesses.
								- Quentin Crisp

Peter wrote:

> Steven Pampling  wrote:
> [...]
>> These days even Warwickshire has numbers where you are worried about
>> running out of fingers 20 years ago the county was a blank spot.
>
> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in Studley,
> which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three completely
> unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be excellent or it
> can be astonishingly foul.
>
> When a visit to Wetherspoons feels like a treat, you know something's
> not quite right. (I can strongly recommend the Thatchers Perry in the
> current 'spoon promotion, but please leave me some!)

but isn't that c.3 a pint?

In article <43296de4$0$32652$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Peter  wrote:

> Steven Pampling  wrote:
> [...]
> > These days even Warwickshire has numbers where you are worried about
> > running out of fingers 20 years ago the county was a blank spot.

> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in Studley,
> which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three completely
> unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be excellent or it
> can be astonishingly foul.


The first question is do you let the licensee know the beer is off?
A polite query about whether it is the end of the cask or similar usually
makes a good starting point.


> When a visit to Wetherspoons feels like a treat, you know something's
> not quite right. 


Indeed. Although in some cases the cellarman actually knows what he is
doing and the beer really is better than most other pubs for a good reason.
That isn't often the case though.

-- 
Steve Pampling

"Peter"  wrote in message

>
> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in Studley,
> which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three completely
> unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be excellent or it
> can be astonishingly foul.


I'm always a bit doubtful about pubs branches put in the GBG purely on their 
guest beers, and which have an unmemorable choice of regular beers. If the 
guest beer is off, or is much stronger than you want to drink, or whatever, 
then your visit may seem a waste of time.

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

Mike Jones wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>> Steven Pampling  wrote:
>> [...]
>>> These days even Warwickshire has numbers where you are worried about
>>> running out of fingers 20 years ago the county was a blank spot.
>>
>> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in
>> Studley, which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three
>> completely unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be
>> excellent or it can be astonishingly foul.
>>
>> When a visit to Wetherspoons feels like a treat, you know something's
>> not quite right. (I can strongly recommend the Thatchers Perry in the
>> current 'spoon promotion, but please leave me some!)
> but isn't that c.3 a pint?


In pubs in Bollington (Cheshire) selling the local Storm ales, the price can 
be as low as 1.50 a pint for decent strength ale, and the quality is 
consistently good. Move up north lad!

For those local, try the Vale, Adlington Road, or the Poachers, Ingersley 
Road (both Bollington). Or the Waters Green Tavern, Macclesfield.

Brian

Brian

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:37:17 +0000, Mike Jones wrote:


> Steve Pickthall wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:52:49 +0100, Mike Jones wrote (in message
>> <RBwWe.22147$Aa1.3607@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>):
>>
>>> Sounds good. I pay 1.79 a pint in my local spoon for beer, but the
>>> Perry was advertised at 2.99!
>>
>> Gosh!
> 
> I guess for you Londoners anything under 3 a pint is good value!


We Tokyoites are used to paying a fiver a pint! Sometimes US short
measure pints!

Wayne
-- 
Registered Linux user #375994
http://www.geocities.jp/rondonko/

Peter wrote:

> Steven Pampling  wrote:
> [...]
>> These days even Warwickshire has numbers where you are worried about
>> running out of fingers 20 years ago the county was a blank spot.
>
> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in Studley,
> which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three completely
> unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be excellent or it
> can be astonishingly foul.
>


As this is one of the pubs in our branch area, I'd be interested in knowing 
why you haven't let our branch know?
If you are a CAMRA why haven't you completed some NBSS cards or as you are 
on-line, not visited our website where you can submit scores directly to 
us - www.rbcamra.org.uk?
Checking the records for the Little Lark (which is the pub to which you are 
referring), the place has been surveyed 90 times by 21 different surveyors 
(who clearly feel differently to you)  times this year with the average 
score being 3.7. It scored a 2 once but nothing any lower.


-- 

Brett

>>
>> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in
>> Studley, which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three
>> completely unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be
>> excellent or it can be astonishingly foul.
>>


I'd also recommend taking a look at the Throckmorton Arms down the road in 
Coughton which often features Cornish ales.



-- 

Brett

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:37:17 +0100, Mike Jones wrote
(in message <N9FWe.8095$hQ4.2717@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>):


> I guess for you Londoners anything under 3 a pint is good value!


I'm not a Londoner.

In message <432bc78f$0$17506$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, 
Brett...  writes

>with the average
>score being 3.7. It scored a 2 once but nothing any lower.


....that average would prevent it even being shortlisted in many 
branches. Sounds like a bit of a beer desert.

-- 
Paul Shirley: email unwelcome, reply by news

Paul Shirley wrote:

> In message <432bc78f$0$17506$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> Brett...  writes
>> with the average
>> score being 3.7. It scored a 2 once but nothing any lower.
>
> ...that average would prevent it even being shortlisted in many
> branches. Sounds like a bit of a beer desert.


Or that you give higher ratings than us?

The clue is in the word "Good". An average of 3.7 means that the pub has 
scored by an large a mixture of 3s and 4s. I've not found any pub that 
consistently scores 4 and/or above. Our branch have been using NBSS for some 
time now and we have noticed that we score more harshly than when first 
implemented it.

What is your cut off?

-- 

Brett

In article ,
   Paul Shirley <paul.shirley@totally.invalid> wrote:

> In message <432bc78f$0$17506$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, 
> Brett...  writes
> >with the average
> >score being 3.7. It scored a 2 once but nothing any lower.

> ...that average would prevent it even being shortlisted in many 
> branches. Sounds like a bit of a beer desert.


What scale are you thinking of Paul?
On the one Brett is using 3.7 isn't near the bottom.

-- 
Steve Pampling

Brett...  wrote:

> Peter wrote:
[...]
>> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in
>> Studley, which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three
>> completely unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be
>> excellent or it can be astonishingly foul.
> As this is one of the pubs in our branch area, I'd be interested in
> knowing why you haven't let our branch know?


Because until your post, I was barely aware of the existence of the
branch beyond the variable-quality Pint Taken telling us how great the
beer is everywhere else.


> If you are a CAMRA why haven't you completed some NBSS cards or as
> you are on-line, not visited our website where you can submit scores
> directly to us - www.rbcamra.org.uk?


I'm not a CAMRA member, as I was rather put off the idea by the Leeds
CAMRA when I was living there. I have seen no good reason to join your
branch either as your regular meetings seem to be in the arse end of
nowhere, leaving me nothing to show for my money but the occasional
copy of What's Brewing.

I'd be better off just spending the subscription on beer, really :)

-- 
Another tradition is to soak the pudding in brandy and then set fire to it.
One year we couldn't find any brandy so we used whisky. This produced a
flame which scorched the ceiling above the table.
					-- Edward Pierce in the Monastery

Brett...  wrote:
[...]

> I'd also recommend taking a look at the Throckmorton Arms down the
> road in Coughton which often features Cornish ales.


It's not a bad pub at all, but the five mile round trip down narrow
unlit paths is a bit much for an after-work pint.

-- 
"It is a violation of network regulations to initiate or propagate chain
letters via e-mail. Anyone violating network regulations could be denied
further access to the network. Please pass this important information to all
your friends."

PeterE wrote:

> I'm always a bit doubtful about pubs branches put in the GBG purely on their
> guest beers, and which have an unmemorable choice of regular beers.


I know what you mean.

In the town where I live, we are lucky enough to have four pubs in the
GBG. One of those keeps only one beer (a "light" bitter - or so says
our local member of the L&D committee) and no guests, and another has
two regular beers (the same light bitter plus a best) and no guests.

Both are backstreet locals and both are tied houses, which explains the
lack of variety, but they get in the GBG year after year because what
they sell is consistently of an excellent quality - if you want
variety, there are other pubs locally that will give you that, but you
can't guarantee that your pint will be drinkable in some of them.

I know which I prefer.

d.

Peter wrote:

> I'd be better off just spending the subscription on beer, really :)


For many people, membership doesn't go any further than paying the
subscription fee and maybe attending the occasional beer festival.

But it would be wrong to say that these people get nothing out of CAMRA
- after all, CAMRA is funded by its members and couldn't exist
otherwise. And if CAMRA didn't exist, would there even be any real beer
to spend your money on? Probably not.

d.

Peter wrote:

> I'd be better off just spending the subscription on beer, really :)


....and another thing: if you're not a member of CAMRA, you can't
influence which pubs are included in the GBG - or, more pertinently in
this case, which pubs are left out.

d.

Mike Jones  wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>> [...] (I can strongly recommend the Thatchers Perry in the current
>> 'spoon promotion, but please leave me some!)
> but isn't that c.3 a pint?


It's 2.99 for a 75cl bottle. Pro rata, it's 2.26 per pint.

-- 
When you have a thermic lance, everything looks like hours of fun.
			- Christian Wagner  in the Monastery

Steve Pickthall wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:52:49 +0100, Mike Jones wrote
> (in message <RBwWe.22147$Aa1.3607@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>):
>
>> Sounds good. I pay 1.79 a pint in my local spoon for beer, but the
>> Perry was advertised at 2.99!
>
> Gosh!


I guess for you Londoners anything under 3 a pint is good value!

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:52:49 +0100, Mike Jones wrote
(in message <RBwWe.22147$Aa1.3607@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>):


> Sounds good. I pay 1.79 a pint in my local spoon for beer, but the Perry
> was advertised at 2.99!


Gosh!

Peter wrote:

> Brett...  wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
> [...]
>>> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in
>>> Studley, which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three
>>> completely unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be
>>> excellent or it can be astonishingly foul.
>> As this is one of the pubs in our branch area, I'd be interested in
>> knowing why you haven't let our branch know?
>
> Because until your post, I was barely aware of the existence of the
> branch beyond the variable-quality Pint Taken telling us how great the
> beer is everywhere else.
>


We'll we are always open to suggestions to how we can improve our profile 
(http://www.redditchwaf.org.uk perhaps?) and your ideas for improving the 
local newsletter would be welcome as well.


>> If you are a CAMRA why haven't you completed some NBSS cards or as
>> you are on-line, not visited our website where you can submit scores
>> directly to us - www.rbcamra.org.uk?
>
> I'm not a CAMRA member, as I was rather put off the idea by the Leeds
> CAMRA when I was living there. I have seen no good reason to join your
> branch either as your regular meetings seem to be in the arse end of
> nowhere, leaving me nothing to show for my money but the occasional
> copy of What's Brewing.
>
> I'd be better off just spending the subscription on beer, really :)


I think that is your best option as well.


-- 

Brett

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:38:14 +0100, davek wrote
(in message ):

snip


> And if CAMRA didn't exist, would there even be any real beer
> to spend your money on? Probably not.


Is there any evidence to support that claim?

In article ,
   Steve Pickthall  wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:38:14 +0100, davek wrote
> (in message ):

> snip

> > And if CAMRA didn't exist, would there even be any real beer
> > to spend your money on? Probably not.

> Is there any evidence to support that claim?


No idea, but since it was a non-CAMRA person that came out with the claim
there is a tendency to treat it as an unbiased view.

Of course it should be pointed out that the word probably appears in
both the comment above and the original of a some years ago. It's also
more likely to be true than the "probably" advertising from a certain
"brewing" company.

-- 
Steve Pampling

davek  wrote:
[...]

> And if CAMRA didn't exist, would there even be any real beer
> to spend your money on? Probably not.


Of course there would be. Simple supply and demand, unless you are
suggesting that without CAMRA's efforts, nobody would want Real Ale.
It'd probably be a smaller market, but there would still be a market
while there are people who can't stand the thought of a pint of
Fosters.

Let's take another fancy of mine: the noble banger. How are we faring
without the CAMRB?

From what I can tell, the UK's banger market is mainly satisfied
through large manufacturers of inferior product adulterated with
bread, water, grease, etc, etc. Premium brands are marginally better
but most of the cost seems to go into the marketing and packaging. I
avoid this mass-market product that has no flavour. Astonishingly,
this bland filth is still popular.

My sausages actually come from a local butcher in the village. They
are packed full of meat. There's always a couple of regulars on, plus
a few guest sausages that go on rotation. I'm usually in there once a
week to sample whatever's new. Sure, you might get a bad banger that's
got a bit of gristle in it, but that's half the fun.

And the best bit? The good sausages from the butcher cost about the
same, or are cheaper, than supermarket sausages.

What would the existence of CAMRB achieve? A reduction in tax rates
for producers of small sausages. Annual sausage festivals in every
major town (which sounds like an awfully good idea.) A selection of
guest sausages on offer alongside the popular bread-and-sawdust
varieties at your local Wetherfork's. A few more people will be
introduced to Real Bangers and appreciate the more interesting
flavour. All very worthwhile achievements of course, but hardly life
or death for the sausage industry.

Heck, if all else fails and sausages are no longer available
commercially, I can always make my own sausages at home and invite
friends round for a sausage party.

-- 
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key
/:.*posting.google.com.*/HX-Trace:+j

Peter  wrote:
[...]

> It does depend on which bit of Warwickshire you're in. I'm in
> Studley, which has exactly one pub in the 2005 Guide. It has three
> completely unmemorable regular beers, and one guest which can be
> excellent or it can be astonishingly foul.


For what it's worth, the Little Lark has added a fifth pump to the
bar, so it now has *two* guest ales on. This is somewhat encouraging
as it means that there's a much reduced chance of not liking anything
on offer, so I hope that it keeps the two guest pumps.

Studley-goers might want to note the existence of the Swan Inn that's
usually got four Real Ales on as well, plus the rather nice Stowford
Press cider. Now if they could do something about the volume of the
music...

-- 
If you are young and you drink a great deal it will spoil your health, slow
your mind, make you fat - in other words, turn you into an adult.
							- P.J. O'Rourke

In article <43332a63$0$32652$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Peter  wrote:

> davek  wrote:
> [...]
> > And if CAMRA didn't exist, would there even be any real beer
> > to spend your money on? Probably not.

> Of course there would be. Simple supply and demand, unless you are
> suggesting that without CAMRA's efforts, nobody would want Real Ale.
> It'd probably be a smaller market, but there would still be a market
> while there are people who can't stand the thought of a pint of
> Fosters.


As various people have (and will) say this could be debated. However people
like the Bateman family take the view that at least one brewery they are
fond of wouldn't exist.
The label is "family brewer" but at times both sides are hard put to
determine whether the family is CAMRA or Bateman.
Like all families there are arguments.

-- 
Steve Pampling

Steve Pickthall wrote:

> Is there any evidence to support that claim?


OK, it's unlikely that real beer would have died out completely without
CAMRA, but there would certainly be a lot less of it and you would have
to travel far and wide to find a pub that served it.

d.

davek a crit :


>Steve Pickthall wrote:
>  
>
>>Is there any evidence to support that claim?
>>    
>>
>
>OK, it's unlikely that real beer would have died out completely without
>CAMRA, but there would certainly be a lot less of it and you would have
>to travel far and wide to find a pub that served it.
>

Yup, the UK would be pretty much like continental Europe (bar Belgium) : 
decent beer is on the market, but you have to be in the know...


-- 
Warning : you may encounter French language beyond this point.

Leon 2 : Chaque cas est un cas particulier et appelle un traitement particulier... 
(F'murrr)

Laurent Mousson, Berne, Switzerland

"Peter"  wrote in message 
news:43332a63$0$32652$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

> davek  wrote:
<snip>
> Heck, if all else fails and sausages are no longer available
> commercially, I can always make my own sausages at home and invite
> friends round for a sausage party.
>


I think I would be somewhat wary of any man who invited me back to his house 
for a so called "sausage party".

;-)

Cheers

Blackfire band website : www.blackfire.co.uk

Bristol & District Campaign for Real Ale : www.camrabristol.org.uk