Just read in Whats Brewing that The Watermill at Ings has lost its 
accreditation.

Cant think why, one of the best pubs in Cumbria for choice - 16 plus a 
brewery of its own 'soon'.

Does anyone know of any problems there as I was going to visit in a month or 
so.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:27:35 +0100, f9@freeinternet.com wrote:


> Just read in Whats Brewing that The Watermill at Ings has lost its 
> accreditation.


And all Wetherspoons keep theirs.  Odd!


> 
> Cant think why, one of the best pubs in Cumbria for choice - 16 plus a 
> brewery of its own 'soon'.
> 
> Does anyone know of any problems there as I was going to visit in a month or 
> so.



It's been a few months since we were there but between us I think we must
have tried at least 12 of the beers, and there wasn't a duff one amongst
them.
-- 
Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster  http://www.loobynet.com
* remove any trace of rudeness before you reply *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using words well is a social virtue.  Use 'fortuitous' once more to
mean 'fortunate' and you move an English word another step towards
the dustbin.  If your mistake took hold, no one who valued clarity
would be able to use the word again.

   John Whale

Has the manager/owner changed, I understand they are awarded to managers and 
not too pubs?

Rgds,
Bruce.

"loobyloo"  wrote in message 
news:3baav4F6cc7qlU1@individual.net...

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:27:35 +0100, f9@freeinternet.com wrote:
>
>> Just read in Whats Brewing that The Watermill at Ings has lost its
>> accreditation.
>
> And all Wetherspoons keep theirs.  Odd!
>
>>
>> Cant think why, one of the best pubs in Cumbria for choice - 16 plus a
>> brewery of its own 'soon'.
>>
>> Does anyone know of any problems there as I was going to visit in a month 
>> or
>> so.
>
>
> It's been a few months since we were there but between us I think we must
> have tried at least 12 of the beers, and there wasn't a duff one amongst
> them.
> -- 
> Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster  http://www.loobynet.com
> * remove any trace of rudeness before you reply *
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using words well is a social virtue.  Use 'fortuitous' once more to
> mean 'fortunate' and you move an English word another step towards
> the dustbin.  If your mistake took hold, no one who valued clarity
> would be able to use the word again.
>
>   John Whale 

In article <42501852$0$17381$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Bruce Hartley
 wrote:

(of loss of CM accreditation)



> Has the manager/owner changed, I understand they are awarded to
> managers and not too pubs?


It shouldn't take a genius to figure out the slight flaw with that - you'd
be running re-accreditation for Wetherspoons about three times a day.

-- 
Steve Pampling

In message , Steven Pampling 
 wrote

>In article <42501852$0$17381$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Bruce Hartley
> wrote:
>
>(of loss of CM accreditation)
>


Probably more of a case of not paying to be included in the list.


>
>> Has the manager/owner changed, I understand they are awarded to
>> managers and not too pubs?
>
>It shouldn't take a genius to figure out the slight flaw with that - you'd
>be running re-accreditation for Wetherspoons about three times a day.
>


No problem. If it's the area manager who has the accreditation it can be 
displayed by all the pubs in his  area.
-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

No the licensee of the Watermill hasn't changed.
He was surprised to find that he was no longer accredited.
I think he decided he didn't want to pay any longer.
Beer quality was superb.

Brett

Hi
Brian here from the Watermill Inn
I decided not to continue with Cask Marque
Sorry saving up to pay the builders on pub extension and Brewery!
Im a bit disapointed Cask Marque decide to publish a list of pubs no
longer "accredited". Which has given quite a lot of people the wrong
idea or was that the idea!!!!!!!!!! It should read pubs no longer
wishing to pay the FEE.
Thanks all for mentioning this and to Brett for coming up here to
quality control test our beers as Camra members do unpaid for the love
of it.
P.s Cheers Mike

wrote in message 
news:1112780606.551546.31020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> Hi
> Brian here from the Watermill Inn
> I decided not to continue with Cask Marque
> Sorry saving up to pay the builders on pub extension and Brewery!
> Im a bit disapointed Cask Marque decide to publish a list of pubs no
> longer "accredited". Which has given quite a lot of people the wrong
> idea or was that the idea!!!!!!!!!! It should read pubs no longer
> wishing to pay the FEE.
> Thanks all for mentioning this and to Brett for coming up here to
> quality control test our beers as Camra members do unpaid for the love
> of it.
> P.s Cheers Mike


How much is it to be 'accredited'?

all@watermillinn.co.uk wrote:

> Hi
> Brian here from the Watermill Inn
> I decided not to continue with Cask Marque
> Sorry saving up to pay the builders on pub extension and Brewery!
> Im a bit disapointed Cask Marque decide to publish a list of pubs no
> longer "accredited". Which has given quite a lot of people the wrong
> idea or was that the idea!!!!!!!!!! It should read pubs no longer
> wishing to pay the FEE.
> Thanks all for mentioning this and to Brett for coming up here to
> quality control test our beers as Camra members do unpaid for the love
> of it.
> P.s Cheers Mike


Quality testing?
That is a good one to tell my wife the next time I want to go to the pub :-)

cheers

Brett

-- 

Brett

In article ,
    wrote:


> Hi
> Brian here from the Watermill Inn
> I decided not to continue with Cask Marque
> Sorry saving up to pay the builders on pub extension and Brewery!
> Im a bit disapointed Cask Marque decide to publish a list of pubs no
> longer "accredited". Which has given quite a lot of people the wrong
> idea or was that the idea!!!!!!!!!! It should read pubs no longer
> wishing to pay the FEE.
> Thanks all for mentioning this and to Brett for coming up here to
> quality control test our beers as Camra members do unpaid for the love
> of it.


Interesting you should mention it: not only do the volunteers spend their
own money doing the "testing" but CAMRA also either give a reason for
delisting or let the pub exit quietly stage left.

Still, since CAMRA isn't actually extracting money or any kind of payment
for being listed in the Good Beer Guide (or local guides) I suspect the
licensee regards the award more highly.
"Gift" (actually a reward for hard work) vs paid for entry.

-- 
Steve Pampling

In message , Steven Pampling 
 wrote


>Still, since CAMRA isn't actually extracting money or any kind of payment
>for being listed in the Good Beer Guide



Publicans who were in the GBG and had a CM paid for the CM content of 
that  publication?
-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

"Brett..."  wrote in message 
news:425426a0$0$94515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

>
> Quality testing?
> That is a good one to tell my wife the next time I want to go to the pub 
> :-)
>
> cheers
>
> Brett
>


I recommend use of the phrase "quality audit" for maximum obfuscation.

Cheers

Blackfire band website : www.blackfire.co.uk

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

Alan wrote:

> In message , Steven Pampling
>  wrote
>
>> Still, since CAMRA isn't actually extracting money or any kind of
>> payment for being listed in the Good Beer Guide
>
>
> Publicans who were in the GBG and had a CM paid for the CM content of
> that  publication?


Eh?

-- 

Brett

In message <425449f6$0$94534$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, 
Brett...  wrote

>Alan wrote:
>> In message , Steven Pampling
>>  wrote
>>
>>> Still, since CAMRA isn't actually extracting money or any kind of
>>> payment for being listed in the Good Beer Guide
>>
>>
>> Publicans who were in the GBG and had a CM paid for the CM content of
>> that  publication?
>
>Eh?
>


Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on what 
appeared in print.

Cask Marque get their money from publicans/breweries so the GBG was, in 
part, paid for by publicans. Publicans who had their pubs listed in the 
GBG, and also had a CM accreditation,  therefore paid money towards 
their own entry.

While your statement may be correct in saying that _CAMRA_ didn't 
directly ask publicans for payment for an entry another organisation 
that the publicans support paid toward printing of the entries in the 
guide.

-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

In article <425426a0$0$94515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
   Brett...  wrote:

> Quality testing? That is a good one to tell my wife the next time I
> want to go to the pub :-)



we use that one all the time -to ourselves and our kids and anyone
else who is around!!

-- 
Chris de Cordova (West Cumbria & Western Lakes) www.cumbriacamra.org.uk
Whitehaven Beer Festival: Sept 30th & Oct 1st 2005 (www.whitehavenbeerfestival.co.uk)

Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.

In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
 wrote:

> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on
> what appeared in print.


not in our branch, it didn't

-- 
Chris de Cordova (West Cumbria & Western Lakes) www.cumbriacamra.org.uk
Whitehaven Beer Festival: Sept 30th & Oct 1st 2005 (www.whitehavenbeerfestival.co.uk)

Is reading in the bathroom considered multitasking?

Oh for the love of cheeses!

CM sponsored GBG - agreed.

CM had an influence on what appeared in print? - erm, well, sort of -
AFAIK CM simply supplied the details of those pubs **already chosen to
be in GBG by the local CAMRA branch** which had also paid up to their
scheme and passed regular technical examinations of their beer and
cellar. Then CAMRA printed a little symbol next to the pub denoting its
CM accreditation. What's the problem?

There is, I hope you'll agree, no guarantee of GBG acceptance due to
having paid up to CM - several CM-accredited, non-GBG-listed 'Spoons &
others would disprove that I would have thought?
MikeMcG

In article <425442ec$0$303$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, Richard Brooks
 wrote:


> "Brett..."  wrote in message
> news:425426a0$0$94515$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> >
> > Quality testing? That is a good one to tell my wife the next time I
> > want to go to the pub 
> > :-)

> I recommend use of the phrase "quality audit" for maximum obfuscation.



Gentlemen please, in this day and age of course you take the other half...


....







....






....





Who else is going to drive home? :-)

-- 
Steve Pampling

In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>,
   Alan  wrote:


> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on what 
> appeared in print.


That statement is totally untrue in respect of the pubs listed in the
guide. They had control of the CM "advert" and accompanying text.

The suggestion that CM could persuade the various CAMRA branches to
submit CM pubs rather than any other is frankly laughable. I can think of
certain members of the campaign who would be more inclined to leave out
pubs they would otherwise include if they were under any such pressure.


> Cask Marque get their money from publicans/breweries so the GBG was, in 
> part, paid for by publicans. Publicans who had their pubs listed in the 
> GBG, and also had a CM accreditation,  therefore paid money towards 
> their own entry.

> While your statement may be correct in saying that _CAMRA_ didn't 
> directly ask publicans for payment for an entry another organisation 
> that the publicans support paid toward printing of the entries in the 
> guide.


Publicans get their money from people who buy drinks in the pub, some of
those are probably criminals does that make the publican an accessory to
the crime? Should the police seize their assets as being the proceeds of
crime?

The latter is as ridiculous as your logic since taken one more step toward
its logical conclusion ALL of the money for the publication comes from the
drinkers. (Clearly you can follow it back even further to the drinkers
employer and on back from there...)

-- 
Steve Pampling

In article ,
   Chris de Cordova  wrote:

> In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
>  wrote:
> > Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on
> > what appeared in print.

> not in our branch, it didn't


I'm still smiling at the thought of someone influencing a certain member of
Furness branch.[1]
When I said earlier that the idea was laughable, I meant *laugh* till your
ribs ache.

[1] Unless of course he was supposed to be influenced to fold the print
copy and insert it in a CM representative.

-- 
Steve Pampling

In message , Chris de Cordova 
 wrote

>In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
> wrote:
>> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on
>> what appeared in print.
>
>not in our branch, it didn't
>


As each pub in the GBG must have had hundreds of votes from the members 
can you really say that none of the voters were influenced by the CM in 
any way?
-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

In message , Steven Pampling 
 wrote

>In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>,
>   Alan  wrote:
>
>> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on what
>> appeared in print.
>
>That statement is totally untrue in respect of the pubs listed in the
>guide. They had control of the CM "advert" and accompanying text


Do you mean the advert against the pub's entry?


>The suggestion that CM could persuade the various CAMRA branches to
>submit CM pubs rather than any other is frankly laughable.


Surely if a pub had a CM advert against its entry the branches must have 
been responsible - or is CAMRA no longer run by its members?


> I can think of
>certain members of the campaign who would be more inclined to leave out
>pubs they would otherwise include if they were under any such pressure.


I could also name a few.


>The latter is as ridiculous as your logic since taken one more step toward
>its logical conclusion ALL of the money for the publication comes from the
>drinkers. (Clearly you can follow it back even further to the drinkers
>employer and on back from there...)
>


If the money came from anonymous drinkers there wouldn't have been a 
problem.

The money came from the representative of some of the pubs included in 
the guide and the branches submitting the entries must have allowed CM 
to influence the content against the pub's entries - or was it the 
publishing fairy.
-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

In article ,
   Alan  wrote:

> >That statement is totally untrue in respect of the pubs listed in the
> >guide. They had control of the CM "advert" and accompanying text

> Do you mean the advert against the pub's entry?


Look you clearly never read any of the guides that were covered by the
sponsoship or you're trolling. Either way I shall this once more just for
the slightly slow learners.

Cask Marque had no input into the selection of the pub entries in any Good
Beer Guide EVER.
The fact that an entry included a symbol to denote CM accreditation is on a
par with the inclusion of a real fire symbol in guides that have a real
fire as opposed to a gas "coal effect" or just central heating


> >The suggestion that CM could persuade the various CAMRA branches to
> >submit CM pubs rather than any other is frankly laughable.

> Surely if a pub had a CM advert against its entry the branches must have 
> been responsible - or is CAMRA no longer run by its members?


It did not and the mere fact that you are suggesting it did is further
proof y that you have no knowledge of the content. The CM information in
the guide was in an editorial section.

They say three times is a charm:
Begone Troll.
Begone Troll.
Begone Troll.

-- 
Steve Pampling

In article ,
   Alan  wrote:

> In message , Chris de Cordova 
>  wrote
> >In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
> > wrote:
> >> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on
> >> what appeared in print.
> >
> >not in our branch, it didn't
> >

> As each pub in the GBG must have had hundreds of votes from the members 
> can you really say that none of the voters were influenced by the CM in 
> any way?


Every person getting a job has an interview - can you really say that you
didn't influence one of the panel outside the interview?

What's that, you didn't have access to the panel before the interview?
Guess what - CM have never had access to the membership unless specific
members identified themselves to CM people who had identified themselves to
the member. Last I knew neither set of people went around with tattoos on
their foreheads to identify them.

Go away troll.

-- 
Steve Pampling

Following on from Richard Brooks's message. . .

>I recommend use of the phrase "quality audit" for maximum obfuscation.


But it doesn't have the ring of "snap inspection".

-- 
PETER FOX Not the same since the borehole business dried up
peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex  <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:40:17 +0100, Alan wrote:


> In message , Chris de Cordova 
>  wrote
>>In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
>> wrote:
>>> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on
>>> what appeared in print.
>>
>>not in our branch, it didn't
>>
> 
> As each pub in the GBG must have had hundreds of votes from the members 
> can you really say that none of the voters were influenced by the CM in 
> any way?



It has no influence at all.  We're all grown-ups who are past the stage
where some glossy adverts would influence our choice of pubs.
-- 
Cliff Laine, The Old Lard Factory, Lancaster  http://www.loobynet.com
* remove any trace of rudeness before you reply *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using words well is a social virtue.  Use 'fortuitous' once more to
mean 'fortunate' and you move an English word another step towards
the dustbin.  If your mistake took hold, no one who valued clarity
would be able to use the word again.

   John Whale

In article , Steven Pampling
 wrote:

> In article , Chris de Cordova
>     wrote:
> > In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
> >  wrote:
> > > Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on
> > > what appeared in print.

> > not in our branch, it didn't

> I'm still smiling at the thought of someone influencing a certain
> member of Furness branch.[1] 
:o))

> When I said earlier that the idea was
> laughable, I meant *laugh* till your ribs ache.

> [1] Unless of course he was supposed to be influenced to fold the
> print copy and insert it in a CM representative.



:o))))))))))))))

-- 
Chris de Cordova (West Cumbria & Western Lakes) www.cumbriacamra.org.uk
Whitehaven Beer Festival: Sept 30th & Oct 1st 2005 (www.whitehavenbeerfestival.co.uk)

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

In article ,
   Steven Pampling  wrote:

> They say three times is a charm:
> Begone Troll.
> Begone Troll.
> Begone Troll.


haha - does that explain the latest post 'for my attention'?????

-- 
Chris de Cordova (West Cumbria & Western Lakes) www.cumbriacamra.org.uk
Whitehaven Beer Festival: Sept 30th & Oct 1st 2005 (www.whitehavenbeerfestival.co.uk)

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.

Alan wrote:

> As each pub in the GBG must have had hundreds of votes from the
members
> can you really say that none of the voters were influenced by the CM
in
> any way?


In my branch at least, the nominations for GBG are decided by whoever
attends the monthly branch meetings, usually comprising the committee
plus a few other regulars, ie about 20 people, who represent the
"active" portion of the branch membership (about 10% of total).

I am certain beyond all reasonable doubt that Cask Marque has never had
the slightest influence on any of those 20 or so people. And Cask
Marque has certainly never featured in any of our discussions over what
pubs to nominate for the GBG.
 
d.

Alan wrote:

> or is CAMRA no longer run by its members?


AIUI, the fact that Camra members didn't like it is a large part of the
reason why the GBG no longer takes Cask Marque sponsorship.


> The money came from the representative of some of the pubs included
in
> the guide and the branches submitting the entries must have allowed
CM
> to influence the content against the pub's entries - or was it the
> publishing fairy.


The GBG editorial team (call them "the publishing fairy" if you prefer)
has final say over content. They would have had a list of all CM
accredited pubs (supplied by Cask Marque, not by members) and stuck the
appropriate symbol next to the pub's entry at production stage.

The GBG nomination form carries no mention of Cask Marque.

d.

Alan wrote:

> In message <425449f6$0$94534$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> Brett...  wrote
>> Alan wrote:
>>> In message , Steven Pampling
>>>  wrote
>>>
>>>> Still, since CAMRA isn't actually extracting money or any kind of
>>>> payment for being listed in the Good Beer Guide
>>>
>>>
>>> Publicans who were in the GBG and had a CM paid for the CM content
>>> of that  publication?
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>
> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on what
> appeared in print.
>
> Cask Marque get their money from publicans/breweries so the GBG was,
> in part, paid for by publicans. Publicans who had their pubs listed
> in the GBG, and also had a CM accreditation,  therefore paid money
> towards their own entry.
>
> While your statement may be correct in saying that _CAMRA_ didn't
> directly ask publicans for payment for an entry another organisation
> that the publicans support paid toward printing of the entries in the
> guide.


I'm sorry Alan but none of the makes any sense whatsoever.

-- 

Brett

In article <9jsPk0H0MFVCFwO$@amacleod.clara.co.uk>,
   Alan  wrote:

> Cask Marque sponsored the GBG and in return had an influence on what 
> appeared in print.


Careful, Alan, or you may be taken to court for libel...

-- 
Christine Ramsbottom

In news:EX9B5IT36EUCFwSX@amacleod.clara.co.uk,
Alan  said:


> Probably more of a case of not paying to be included in the list.


When you put it that way CM sounds almost like the ideal cover for a
protection racket :-)

Strikes me that an organisation requiring a 'membership' fee can hardly be
subjective and unbiased in its recommendations. Or am I just stating the
obvious?

Furthermore, what is to stop *anyone* starting up their own 'accreditation'
scheme on a similar basis?


Regards,
--
KEVIN MASLIN
Waterway Photography
Great Bridge, West Midlands, England.
mail@kevinmaslin.co.uk
http://www.panelbloke.com
*Make me singular to reply*

In message <d340m7$fmp$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Kevin Maslin 
 wrote

>In news:EX9B5IT36EUCFwSX@amacleod.clara.co.uk,
>Alan  said:
>
>> Probably more of a case of not paying to be included in the list.
>
>When you put it that way CM sounds almost like the ideal cover for a
>protection racket :-)
>
>Strikes me that an organisation requiring a 'membership' fee can hardly be
>subjective and unbiased in its recommendations. Or am I just stating the
>obvious?
>
>Furthermore, what is to stop *anyone* starting up their own 'accreditation'
>scheme on a similar basis?
>


How many people take much notice of guides or accreditation schemes.

Judging by the quality of beer (not necessarily real ale)

-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

CM does have its advantages though .....one day two branch members
visited a pub at the same time as the CM inspector. He had just asked
for one pint each of all six real ales , checked them and then the
landlord said  "It's a good job you two turned up or it would have
gone to waste!"
Seriously though , those of our publicans who have CM accreditation
are immensely proud of it and strive to keep up the quality . But
these are mostly free houses or pubs with regular staff. We don't have
any 'Spoons or suchlike.