CAMRA full pint petition

[Stonch]

It's worth taking a moment to sign up to CAMRA's full pint petition online: http://www.takeittothetop.co.uk/

You can read my thoughts on "full pints, not flat pints" here: http://stonch.blogspot.com/2007/04/full-pint-not-flat-pint.html

Cheers

[Jeff]

Personally, I would want less government involvement on my pint of beer. Choose to drink beer at pubs that pour their beer properly.

[Stonch]

I don't really see what you're getting at, I'm afraid.

Legislation that says a pub can't serve 90% of a pint and then charge for a full pint doesn't really constitute "government involvement".

t's just elementary trading standards legislation - a lizardman dressed as a government agent isn't going to pop out from behind the bar and cart you away for brainwashing or something.

[Jeff]

Oh sure it starts as making sure you get a full pint. Next thing you know they make sure the bottle label is to their approval... wait a minute that sounds familiar.

There is no such legislation in the US. Beer is sold by the draw in most bars. Whether that draw is 10, 12 or 16 US oz, it should be up to the consumer to decide if he will drink in that establishment.

This is one area that I have never understood CAMRA's involvement.

[Stonch]

Again, all I can say is that I don't really see what you're getting at.

[MeridianFC]

Weights & Measures enforcement if pretty common in most areas, I don't see what the big deal is. Granted in the US we don't have a history of this type of thing, though it is monitored all the way up until the point of dispense.

I don't think you go from have a regulation that says a pint is a pint to them housing troops in one's abode. The CAMARA take is firmly in the consumer's interest.

There is a large cultural difference here to keep in mind, serving sizes are set in the UK, so campaigns like this make more sense. In the US the serving size is whatever the tavern in question provides, though most folks here are familiar with the 12oz "Pint" glass. I think a truth in advertising thing is more appropriate for here (i.e. full disclosure about the amount of liquid in the glass whatever that may be).

[Stonch]

Originally posted by Jeff
There is no such legislation in the US.

I don't really see that as being a determining factor as to whether or not we should have such legislation here in the UK. Our legal system is not based on yours. In fact, it's the other way around, although that's irrelevant too.

Anyway, as Meridian pointed out, here in the UK pubs sell beer in imperial pints. It's standard. If a pub says it gives you a pint and it gives you less, you've been ripped off. It's that simple. CAMRA is asking the goverment to ensure people don't get ripped off.

[chazwicke]

I understand this from the Brit perspective. And I've got to say most places will fill your glass all the way. If not, I usually just look at the glass and wait a second and they take it back and fill it all the way with no fuss.

In the USA you takes what you gets. There are various size pint glasses and some mugs are made to look larger by having hollow bottoms. Pesonally I'd love to see uniform sizes here such as in most of Europe.

[Stonch]

To me, this just seems to be another way in which the situation in the USA favours bar owners over the customer.

In the US, bar owners don't have to pay staff proper wages, because the customer picks up the slack in the form of tips.

Now I hear the bar owner doesn't have to serve a full measure to the customer, who nonetheless has to pay full price.

You need your own CAMRA! ;)

[chazwicke]

I'm a Life Member of CAMRA.

[BrewDog]

No, when the proprietor gyps the customer, the customer takes his business elsewhere and the proprietor goes out of business.

[Jeff]

I would have trouble supporting an organization such as CAMRA with such a narrow view of beer.

Again, I say go where you know you get the best service, the best pour, the best selection. Life is to short to worry about one ounce either way.

[MeridianFC]

CAMRA's view of beer is wider than most people realize. While the Campaign's focus is the preservation of the indigenous (and most glorious) native brew of Great Britain, they certainly don't scoff at what other cultures have to offer as is proven by their Good Beer Guides to Belgium & the Netherlands, Germany, and their frequent good words about the offering from these shores. Most CAMRA festivals I've been to have featured some stripe of foreign beer bar on at least one occasion that featured, gasp, kegged beer (Rogue IIRC).

Their work on behalf of the consumer (and in some cases publican and brewer) is tireless. I understand some of the complaints levelled against them from time to time, but I think they are an outstanding organization.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by Jeff
I would have trouble supporting an organization such as CAMRA with such a narrow view of beer.

That's like saying you don't support UNICEF because they have a narrow view of human beings. UNICEF seeks to help children. It doesn't mean they hate adults. CAMRA's an organisation that was set up to preserve and promote real ale. Consequently, that's what it focuses on.

CAMRA does not say that all beer that isn't cask is necessarily a bad thing. If you need evidence of that, look at the breadth of its publications and its campaigns.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
CAMRA's view of beer is wider than most people realize. While the Campaign's focus is the preservation of the indigenous (and most glorious) native brew of Great Britain, they certainly don't scoff at what other cultures have to offer as is proven by their Good Beer Guides to Belgium & the Netherlands, Germany, and their frequent good words about the offering from these shores. Most CAMRA festivals I've been to have featured some stripe of foreign beer bar on at least one occasion that featured, gasp, kegged beer (Rogue IIRC).

Their work on behalf of the consumer (and in some cases publican and brewer) is tireless. I understand some of the complaints levelled against them from time to time, but I think they are an outstanding organization.

Absolutely. And it's what members want - the international beer bars at festivals draw lots of attention and praise. And Meridian's right - they serve keg beers. Budvar Dark has appeared at several big CAMRA festivals, for example.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by BrewDog
No, when the proprietor gyps the customer, the customer takes his business elsewhere and the proprietor goes out of business.

The wonders of market forces, eh?

Pity that it doesn't work like that in real life.

[DecoJuicer]

Originally posted by Stonch
That's like saying you don't support UNICEF because they have a narrow view of human beings. UNICEF seeks to help children.

I don't think that comparison is relavant. One is an organization that attempts to help underprivildged children world-wide, and the other is an organization that promotes what it considers "proper" beer. You can't compare the two.

That being said, I can see both sides to the arguement. CAMRA would like to make pubs, pub owners, and bartenders accountable for their actions. They would like to see the government enforce weights and measures standards.

Here in the states, our founding fathers did not want a lot of interference from the government on a national level, so they limited the power of the federal government in our constitution(my guess is that most of them would be ready to take up arms against the government again if any of them were alive today though). Many people here in the states automatically cringe at the thought of even more government intervention.

If I think that a bar is giving me a short pour, or their beer is not up to my standards, I just move on down the road. Sometimes I will give them a little leeway if they make up for it in some other area(quality, excellent entertainment, good food, etc), but mostly I will just take my business elsewhere.

In the US, bar owners don't have to pay staff proper wages, because the customer picks up the slack in the form of tips.

I have worked in a few bars over the years, and I can tell you that because of gratuities, in every place that I worked the servers made WELL over the minimum wage set by the government. The term tips originally meant TO INSURE PROMPT SERVICE, and that should still be the standard that we use today. If a server is slow or forgetful, they don't make as much money as others. It is a reward based system that actually works.

Servers know that they will make more money if they are friendly, give the proper attention, and keep the customer happy. Ths keeps them motivated to provide better service.

Personally, I don't like seeing more government regulations, when the customers could be regulating the businesses by themselves. I have no problems with CAMRA trying to promote the beer that they love, but I don't think that government regulations are the answer.

[BrewDog]

Originally posted by Stonch
The wonders of market forces, eh?

Pity that it doesn't work like that in real life.

Actually, I find that it works over here very well in most cases. There are always exceptions.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
Here in the states, our founding fathers did not want a lot of interference from the government on a national level, so they limited the power of the federal government in our constitution(my guess is that most of them would be ready to take up arms against the government again if any of them were alive today though). Many people here in the states automatically cringe at the thought of even more government intervention.

...

Personally, I don't like seeing more government regulations, when the customers could be regulating the businesses by themselves. I have no problems with CAMRA trying to promote the beer that they love, but I don't think that government regulations are the answer.

I don't see your point as being relevant to this issue.

We're talking about elementary trading standards legislation in the UK. No-one is trying to prise your gun from your cold dead hands.

The question as to whether government regulation is, according to your political views, a good or bad thing in general does not arise here.

What we are talking about here is whether or not a publican - int the UK - should be allowed to provide less than advertised under a sale.

Yes, you can choose not to go back to that pub, but that doesn't help people when they're ripped off the first time, nor does it help unsuspecting customers who haven't been to the establishment before. Do you think someone who walks into a shop, pays for six apples, but only gets five should have no form of redress against the shopkeeper?

All this libertarian political stuff is completely obscuring the issue, which is perfectly simple and surely uncontroversial.

[guildofevil]

UNICEF? Gah! The UN! Black helicopters! Evil brainwashing lizard-men!

Seriously, I have to agree with Stonch when it comes to measures though. If I order a pint of beer I expect to get a pint of beer, not 90% of a pint of beer. Mind you, If I was given a short measure I would speak up there and then.

“Would you top that up for me please?” What's he going to say? No?

You could be damn sure that if I tried to give the barman 90% of the price of a pint he'd have something to say.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by guildofevil
UNICEF? Gah! The UN! Black helicopters! Evil brainwashing lizard-men!

Seriously, I have to agree with Stonch when it comes to measures though. If I order a pint of beer I expect to get a pint of beer, not 90% of a pint of beer. Mind you, If I was given a short measure I would speak up there and then.

“Would you top that up for me please?” What's he going to say? No?

You could be damn sure that if I tried to give the barman 90% of the price of a pint he'd have something to say.

That's what I always do too, and normally bar staff don't bat an eyelid. Usually they intend to do it anyway without being told.

Having said that, I do think a landlord who tells his staff to consistently serve short measures (the saving in beer adds up over time, remember) should be tackled by trading standards and taken to court. That's how it's supposed to work at the moment, the issue is whether the pint measure should be all liquid exclusive of head or liquid+head. CAMRA say the former and I think they're right.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by BrewDog
Actually, I find that it works over here very well in most cases. There are always exceptions.

I don't want to be drawn on the politics... but this has already gone off topic anyway.

Regulation is essential in a modern capitalistic society. It's a primitive form of capitalism that relies entirely on law of the jungle dressed up as "market forces". I'm not suggesting that's the American model currently - it clearly isn't, thankfully - but some people seem to want it to be.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Stonch
If a pub says it gives you a pint and it gives you less, you've been ripped off. It's that simple.

So, why would you accept the beer? I've returned beer for many reasons, including a less-than-full pour -- and done it without any sort of government regulation or advocate group.

That is not to say I don't respect CAMRA for their efforts on keeping good beer available, but c'mon -- why do you need someone to fight your battle of being scammed at the tap?

As Jeff says, if they don't pour properly, leave the establishment and be sure to tell everyone you know that the place is less than honorable.

S.

[noby]

While I agree with the jist of the petition, my fear would be that the publicans will just tack 10% onto the price of the pint.

To be honest it's not an issue I worry too much about. An excessive head is easily rectified, often without asking.

[jesskidden]

Originally posted by Stonch
I don't want to be drawn on the politics... but this has already gone off topic anyway.

Regulation is essential in a modern capitalistic society. It's a primitive form of capitalism that relies entirely on law of the jungle dressed up as "market forces". I'm not suggesting that's the American model currently - it clearly isn't, thankfully - but some people seem to want it to be.

A lot of my fellow Americans often *claim* to want the "gov'ment off their backs"...that is, until something goes wrong (pets poisoned by our #1 trade partner, the Chinese or e-coli spinach killing people, etc) and the cry goes out "Why didn't somebody do something about this!" (And, *somebody* is not "market forces").

Even the big corporations which claim they want less regulation are quick to file complaints with regulatory agencies when they think they've been wronged (just take a look at A-B, Miller and Boston Beer Co's corporate histories from the last few decades).

[Stonch]

Originally posted by steveh
c'mon -- why do you need someone to fight your battle of being scammed at the tap?

Many (if not most) consumers don't realise they're being cheated, or don't have the confidence to speak up and complain. Currently, we have a bizarre situation where landlords can say with a straight face that a short pint is in fact a full measure, by counting the head as part of the beer. That's clearly wrong, and needs to be cleared up. CAMRA, as a consumer organisation, is just doing it's job in pursuing the point.

If your idea is that the authorities shouldn't enforce the law (trading standards legislation in this case), because individuals should do it themselves, that's an idea I reject completely. We don't live in an anarchist/extremist libertarian society, and that applies to the US and the UK.

Just to clarify - CAMRA isn't asking for anything radical here. They are asking for pre-existing legislation to be clarified, and for the courts to enforce the common sense position when asked to (which isn't very often).

This isn't about adding new red tape, nor is it about a new form of government intervention. It's just about clarifying the current positon so that landlords who consistently cheat unsuspecting customers will, as a last resort, be prosecuted for it under existing legislation and according to normal principles of law.

[Wit Memo Jeff]

No one has said anything about the main point underlying Stonch’s 'full pint, not a flat pint’ slogan: Beer should be served with a head. Since no one's mentioned that, I assume everyone agrees.

Using marked, oversized glasses, as is done in European countries I’ve visited, permits service of a full liquid measure with a decent head.

But in the absence of oversized glasses, I’d rather have a glass of beer with a decent Roman collar than a glass with no head and pure liquid all the way up to the rim, even if it means I’m getting less beer. Beer should always be served with a head. It releases aroma and carbonation and is a beautiful thing to contemplate.

On my last visit to England, on a tour of the Jennings Brewery in Cockersmouth, the woman pulling pints in the tasting room, in response to my request for some foam on the top, explained that people in the North prefer pints served with some head, while those in the South prefer a glass of pure liquid with no head. (Or maybe I’ve got that backwards).

Personally, I’ve never understood why some US bartenders think draft beer should be poured gently down the side of the glass until it’s level with the rim, with no head whatsoever, nor why some drinkers prefer it that way. Any extra beer provided by such a serving is liable to slosh out as the glass is handled.

And leaving aside philosophical discussions of marketplace regulation, CAMRA’s role in saving British real ales from extinction far overshadows any disagreements I might have with specific aspects of their current campaigns.

Tha't my two pence.

[chazwicke]

My experience with hand pulled pints is that it will have a head as it is being poured. Sometimes the beer is set aside for the head to die a bit and will be topped off but more often, the glass is filled and the head will spill over. I guess that is why the bar towell was so big in the UK but rarely seen here in the States.

[DecoJuicer]

Originally posted by Stonch
Many (if not most) consumers don't realise they're being cheated, or don't have the confidence to speak up and complain. Currently, we have a bizarre situation where landlords can say with a straight face that a short pint is in fact a full measure, by counting the head as part of the beer. That's clearly wrong, and needs to be cleared up. CAMRA, as a consumer organisation, is just doing it's job in pursuing the point.

If a person doesn't speak up, then it is their own damn fault. If you're not satisfied with the pour of a beer, then tell them to repour. If they don't, then don't accept the beer and walk out without paying for it. Unless the law is different there, you don't have to pay for a product if you haven't accepted it. If a grocery tries to charge me for six apples but only gives me five, I'm not going to give them my money. I'll walk down the street. I'm not going to go crying to the government and say that the business is unfair to consumers.

As far as unsuspecting customers go, once again, don't pay. If you don't accept the pint, and don't pay, then all it has cost you is a moment of your time.

If CAMRA is a consumer organization, then they should be working with consumers, not trying to change legislation. And yes, they are trying to change legislation if they are trying to "clarify" the language.

If they are concerned for consumers, and more to the point, their members, then why don't they publish a pub guide periodically that says, "The Winchester Pub doesn't pour a proper pint. We don't recommend them and they get no stars from us."

What about the millions of beer drinkers that actually WANT a bit of head on their beer? It seems that CAMRA is working completely against them.

Now for my second point. In my post, I was trying to explain to you why so many people from the states were stating opinions opposed to the legislation.

As far as my opinion goes, this is a forum where people are expected to exchange opinions and ideals. You posted a link to a petition that wants to change legislation and I gave my opinion. If you don't like it, then to bad. My opinions aren't based on your happiness or approval.

Obviously the issue is controversial, or there wouldn't be so much opposition to it.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
Obviously the issue is controversial, or there wouldn't be so much opposition to it.

There isn't a lot of opposition to it. Where do you get that idea from?

[DecoJuicer]

Of the 11 people who have posted in this thread, 3 of them have come out against it. That is almost 30% opposition. That is significant.

A lot of my fellow Americans often *claim* to want the "gov'ment off their backs"...that is, until something goes wrong (pets poisoned by our #1 trade partner, the Chinese or e-coli spinach killing people, etc) and the cry goes out "Why didn't somebody do something about this!" (And, *somebody* is not "market forces").

Well, that is one sentence that you won't hear me utter. I strongly believe in less government interference and more personal RESPONSIBILITY.

I think noby is right. The only thing that this petition will acomplish will be a raise in beer prices...and it will be almost across the board.

Pub owners who are pouring short, will raise their price to cover the expense, and honest pub owners will raise their price because they see that the pub on the corner did it and is making more money.

It's not really going to effect me here in the U.S., so go ahead and circulate the petition all you want. Just don't expect me to sit quiet about it my opinions when you post it on a public forum.

[corkybstewart]

I'm pretty much on the side of Deco on this one. Maybe British drinkers have been taught to "keep a stiff upper lip" and take what's given to them without question. Few Americans that I know would accept an obviously short pour. As a practical matter will there be specially commissioned "Pour Patrol Police" to monitor the progress of this regulation?
None of us on this side of the pond and the issue are advocating letting publicans get away with short pours. I think we just feel there's a better way to handle it than government regulation. At least that's how I followed this thread.

[BrewDog]

Originally posted by corkybstewart
None of us on this side of the pond and the issue are advocating letting publicans get away with short pours. I think we just feel there's a better way to handle it than government regulation. At least that's how I followed this thread.

Precisely.

Kennesaw, GA, baby.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
Of the 11 people who have posted in this thread, 3 of them have come out against it. That is almost 30% opposition. That is significant.


Not one of them has been from the UK. That's even more significant. This is only relevant to the UK, and that's why I posted it in the UK section of the forum.

One person misunderstood the issue and a few other people with similar political opinions took the ball and ran.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by corkybstewart
I'm pretty much on the side of Deco on this one. Maybe British drinkers have been taught to "keep a stiff upper lip" and take what's given to them without question. Few Americans that I know would accept an obviously short pour. As a practical matter will there be specially commissioned "Pour Patrol Police" to monitor the progress of this regulation?
.

This highlights to me how much people are misunderstanding the issue here.

We aren't talking about a layer of red tape, or government intervention. We are simply talking about resolving an unsettled issue in respect of existing consumer protection law.

In the UK beer is sold in standardised measures - pints and half pints. It has been for many, many years. It's how we do things here. If a landlord purports to give someone a pint but in fact doesn't - when they've asked for a pint and paid for a pint - he can in theory be prosecuted. That is the law as it stands, and no one would seriously suggest it shouldn't be.

However, at the moment there is an ambiguity in the linterpretation of the law which allows landlords to claim the "pint" need not be 100% liquid. CAMRA want that to be resolved, as do local authorities. The government needs to sort it out one way or another.

CAMRA thinks the resolution should be that the pint needs to be 100% liquid, with the head on top of that. I agree. If you don't, fine. You don't live in this country anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

This is not a particularly controversial or politically charged issue. The fact that people have interpreted it as such in this thread is down to misunderstanding of the issue.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Stonch
One person misunderstood the issue and a few other people with similar political opinions took the ball and ran.

I admit that I did not notice that this thread was in the Beer in the UK and Eire Forum.

I do not misunderstand the issue I simply wanted to bring some critical thinking to the original legislation, instead of trying "fix" problems with government regulation in the first place.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Stonch
However, at the moment there is an ambiguity in the interpretation of the law which allows landlords to claim the "pint" need not be 100% liquid.

Here's a question; how much volume are we talking here? Are their 2 sides of this debate arguing and trying to pass legislation on less than an ounce (I apologize if many of the publiicans are trying to pass off 1/2 an inch of foam in a pint, but I never saw that in England)?

How much actual cost or loss of profit are you really fighting over? My biggest complaint here in the U.S. is that at most taverns I will pay the same price or more for a U.S. pint (16 oz) as I can pay for a six-pack of beer (72 oz) at the grocery or liquor store. Argue all you wish about overhead, service, and atmosphere - I still feel I'm being ripped off, so I don't frequent the suspect establishments.

That's my point from above, not that the authorities shouldn't enforce the law, but that the consumer needs to stick up for himself (much as Corky says).

But I think the point is correct that we're seeing signs of 2 different cultures here. Americans would sooner point out the injustice immediately and take action than step back, study, organize, petition, wait. Though we often do that to a fault too.

Good, bad, or indifferent - it's just different mindsets I guess.

S.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by steveh
That's my point from above, not that the authorities shouldn't enforce the law, but that the consumer needs to stick up for himself (much as Corky says).

But I think the point is correct that we're seeing signs of 2 different cultures here. Americans would sooner point out the injustice immediately and take action than step back, study, organize, petition, wait. Though we often do that to a fault too.

Good, bad, or indifferent - it's just different mindsets I guess.

S.

I don't really think that's true Steve.

Let me be clear - I think it's a given that consumers should stick up for themselves, complain, and if necessary vote with their feet. Yes, that's far more effective than going away and reporting a landlord for breaches of the law. It's what people do anyway.

However, in extreme cases, local authorities do seek to prosecute persistent offenders, and then find the courts won't convict because of this ambiguity in the law. The landlord just claims he served a full pint even though he didn't. This doesn't happen in other countries, where lined glasses are used. It's just wrong and ministers need to resolve this, as local authorities have been asking them to do for years.

I still fail to see what's controversial about that. It's important, in principle and in practice.

[steveh]

Originally posted by guildofevil
UNICEF? Gah! The UN! Black helicopters! Evil brainwashing lizard-men!

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela launched a Zeppelin on Thursday to patrol Caracas, seeking to fight crime in one of Latin America's most dangerous cities but also raising fears that President Hugo Chavez could be turning into Big Brother.

Can the pubs be far behind?! :D

S.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Stonch
By the way, suggesting British people are pansies who haven't got the guts to complain when ripped off is way off the mark.

You're reading between lines that aren't there. Remember I said good, bad, or indifferent -- not that one way was better than another.

S.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by steveh
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela launched a Zeppelin on Thursday to patrol Caracas, seeking to fight crime in one of Latin America's most dangerous cities but also raising fears that President Hugo Chavez could be turning into Big Brother.

Can the pubs be far behind?! :D

S.

[Stonch has been arrested and taken to Gitmo for un-American activities]

[HogieWan]

Originally posted by Stonch

CAMRA thinks the resolution should be that the pint needs to be 100% liquid, with the head on top of that. I agree. If you don't, fine. You don't live in this country anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

beer head tends to be about 25% liquid and 75% gas, so as long as the pint mark hits <25% of the height of the head above the liquid, you are getting a full measure.

BTW - I agree with both sides as you are arguing two different points

[MeridianFC]

I have to admit to being shocked by the amount of passion this issue has created in our wee discussion board. Seems to me a simple and straightforward British consumer rights & weights and measures issues. Since it's in the consumer's interest, were I a British citizen I'd be all for it. It's not like it's adding a new department of the government it's clarifying an already existing law.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by HogieWan
beer head tends to be about 25% liquid and 75% gas, so as long as the pint mark hits <25% of the height of the head above the liquid, you are getting a full measure.

BTW - I agree with both sides as you are arguing two different points

Amen to that

[fretlessman71]

Did the Va Tech thing get everybody on edge, or what? Every board I visit these days is full of people spouting off in one direction or another, and the tone isn't good... maybe we all need another beer :(

[chazwicke]

I'm for it too although I don't feel passionately about it. Even if I drank one imperial pint a day and each was shorted by one ounce would I be all that concerned about how many ounces I was cheated out of over the course of that year or what it cost me. It seems petty to me. It would not be something I would spend much time worrying about. However, I love the fact that in the UK and Europe in general that you are supposed to get what you pay for and the fact that information such as ABV must be posted. This does seem to benefit the consumer. I hate that in the USA when you order a "beer" or "pint" you don't necessarily know what you're going to get. It could be anything from a 10 oz mug to an imperial pint. If you are ordering from a restaurant table instead of a seat at the bar you don't know what the beer will be served in. So having standardized sizes with proper fills seems reasonable to me. I support CAMRA and am a proud member. I applaud their successes so far but I don’t always agree with their narrowness when it comes to some issues. But I see no harm in their campaign to insure proper fills. So I’ll stand with them albeit not passionately on that issue. I’m very much with them on their opposition to the new 1p tax hike on beer (liquor and alco pops are excluded) that comes at the same time the smoking ban goes into effect in pubs. I hope that pub attendance does not suffer because of it. (I’m now very much in favor of the smoking ban though. A change in position for me. After visiting non-smoking pubs in Scotland and comparing them with the smoking pubs in England I’ll say the non-smoking pubs are far nicer to drink in. I’m a non-smoker.)

[Stonch]

Chaz, I know exactly what you mean when you say CAMRA can be narrow. However, I think that's unavoidable. To be heard, a consumer group, standing up for the "little guy" (be it free house publican, small brewer or consumer), need to present a clear, constant message to be heard at all.

In reality, if you speak to CAMRA members and officials, their personal views are far more nuanced.

I'm a CAMRA member, but I sometimes drink keg beer out of choice (provided it's foreign and unpasteurised! ;) )

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
.. maybe we all need another beer

This is always the answer to whatever issue is before us.

[fretlessman71]

Perfect. Meet you back here in 5 minutes! :D

[steveh]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Every board I visit these days is full of people spouting off in one direction or another, and the tone isn't good...

You too are reading between invisible lines, my friend. Nothing but discussion goin' on here -- there's more fervor over at the "Top 25 Beer Countries" thread. ;)

S.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by steveh
You too are reading between invisible lines, my friend. Nothing but discussion goin' on here -- there's more fervor over at the "Top 25 Beer Countries" thread. ;)

S.

Steve, you need to ban this Stonch guy!

[MeridianFC]

Personally I think Steve should brand this guy Stonch. We could have Stonch pint glasses, Stonch t-shirts, Stonch beer openers, Stonch anti missle systems, Stonch currency, etc. etc.

[steveh]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
...Stonch currency, etc. etc.

Heh. The only banning we tend to do around here (or need to do) is Spammers. Until Stonch starts selling us bootleg computer and stereo equipment in the All Grain Homebrewing forum, he stays.

S.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by steveh
Until Stonch starts selling us bootleg computer and stereo equipment in the All Grain Homebrewing forum, he stays.
Crud...

[fretlessman71]

;)

[Stonch]

Anyone want to buy a keg of partially fermented bitter brewed from a budget kit in a dustbin? There's one in my spare room...:o

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by Stonch
Anyone want to buy a keg of partially fermented bitter brewed from a budget kit in a dustbin? There's one in my spare room...:o

What are you doing with a keg of Courage in your spare room?

[Stonch]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
What are you doing with a keg of Courage in your spare room?

Excellent!

Here's the keg - http://stonch.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-ale-in-bin-update-2.html

[fretlessman71]

I refuse to support this trashy blog about beer that's bin fermented in a wastebasket... bucket all, anyway... :D

[stronk]

Steve, you need to ban this Stonch guy!
Yeah! Let's all hate stuff. And... stuff.

Not that I want to reopen a wound here, but here's my view on the previous discussion. I support CAMRA on this one. There's no way of telling, most of the time, whether you're getting a pint or not. The glasses just say 'pint' on the side, without any indication of whether that's to halfway up the glass or to the rim. Thus most people don't notice they are being shorted and many wouldn't care if they knew.

However, if we let everyone get away with something like this, everyone would be making a margin. Butchers were stopped from putting too much fat in their meat to make it heavier. Biscuits are sold by the weight of the food, not food plus packaging. However, butchers have scales that you can see and the weight of packaged food is checked periodically by the government agencies, whereas there's no easy assurance that your beer is as much as you've paid for. With a simple line on the glass, there's no problem, so the people who care can't complain any more and those who don't aren't being fleeced, even if they didn't mind in the first place.

[ratman03]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
Here in the states, our founding fathers did not want a lot of interference from the government on a national level, so they limited the power of the federal government in our constitution(my guess is that most of them would be ready to take up arms against the government again if any of them were alive today though).


I never thought I'd say this Deco, but I agree with you 100% on ^ this ^ point ;)

As for CAMRA: I cut them slack. This is an organization who tirelessly advocates for the preservation of a cultural asset, and I am grateful for that. They have to come up with PR campaigns like this to get press and make people aware of the good work they are doing.

[ratman03]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
Did the Va Tech thing get everybody on edge, or what? Every board I visit these days is full of people spouting off in one direction or another, and the tone isn't good... maybe we all need another beer :(

It's called sharing opinions. That's what internet forums are for. People can respectfully disagree. Where in this thread did anybody "spout off"? Just curious, because I have noticed that you make these comments a lot.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by ratman03
It's called sharing opinions. That's what internet forums are for. People can respectfully disagree. Where in this thread did anybody "spout off"? Just curious, because I have noticed that you make these comments a lot.
I guess I'm just oversensitive these days... all of the online communities I spend time on have had blowups lately (this being the mildest of the lot by far). This thread only got a little heated; the "25 beer countries" thread, a little bit more. My other boards went through some harsh changes that ended up having some long time members get canned, banned, or leave entirely. My sensitivity is largely due to this upheaval, also enhanced by the VA Tech mess and a lot of other stupid things happening around me these days... so don't mind me; I'll leave all of you to your spirited discussions, and when the heat gets too much for me, I'll just step out of the kitchen and have a beer. Please carry on. :)

[Stonch]

Originally posted by ratman03
I never thought I'd say this Deco, but I agree with you 100% on ^ this ^ point ;)

As for CAMRA: I cut them slack. This is an organization who tirelessly advocates for the preservation of a cultural asset, and I am grateful for that. They have to come up with PR campaigns like this to get press and make people aware of the good work they are doing.

You might well agree with his views on small government, the US constitution etc, but none of that has anything to do with the subject of this thread. This thread is about a British consumer organisation petitioning the government to hurry up and clarify an ambiguous point of trading standards law that has caused consumers, publicans, trading standards officials and the courts trouble for years.

[DecoJuicer]

Originally posted by Stonch
You might well agree with his views on small government, the US constitution etc, but none of that has anything to do with the subject of this thread. This thread is about a British consumer organisation petitioning the government to hurry up and clarify an ambiguous point of trading standards law that has caused consumers, publicans, trading standards officials and the courts trouble for years.

My original post was intended to let you know why the Americans on this board were in opposition to this thread. I thought that was clear when I said, "I can understand both sides of the issue."

Then I simply gave my opinion on the topic. Since this is an internet forum where the sole purpose is discussion of beer related issues, I felt, and still feel, that I was not out of line. In seems that you didn't want any opposing view points though. Did you simply expect everyone to say, "Hey great idea, where do I sign?"

I don't understand how you can't see how this is relevant to the topic though. My comments were about keeping a large centralized government out of my pint of beer.

You keep saying that CAMRA wants the government to "clarify" the law. In this case, clarifying the law basically means changing the law.

This issue has some consequences that may not have been thought out right from the start. This legislation is almost certain to cause a rise in beer prices. If not because of publicans having to pour more beer, then because some pubs may have to lay out money for new glasses that are oversized so they can pour a pint with a proper head.

Is the small amount of beer really going to offset the rise in the cost of a pint? My guess would be no.

Again, when you post a topic on a multinational internet forum, you have to expect some opposing viewpoints.

[Stonch]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
I don't understand how you can't see how this is relevant to the topic though. My comments were about keeping a large centralized government out of my pint of beer.

You keep saying that CAMRA wants the government to "clarify" the law. In this case, clarifying the law basically means changing the law.

I am confused by your insistence that basic trading standards legislation which can be applied in court somehow represents increased government interference. It doesn't.

It's entirely for the benefit of customers, and requires no more policing than the current legislation. Under the current legislation, landlords can argue that a pint which is 90/95% liquid is a full pint. CAMRA propose that they should only be able to do so if it's 100% liquid. Simply a clarified threshold, not a new layer of regulation.

Read here for more information : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/581/58104.htm

That's really all I have to say. I think you have a political message to convey, which is fine, but this isn't really a topic to which it is anything more than superficially relevant.

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by DecoJuicer
My original post was intended to let you know why the Americans on this board were in opposition to this thread.

Some, not all.

[stronk]

The cost of beer is rising anyway, but this should actually LOWER the cost to a pub of a pint of beer. At the moment, the stupidly-designed glasses they are using mean that people often expect beer up to the rim. To get that, loads of it has to go down the drain as overspill. More room, less overspill, less waste and less cost.

Only the pubs currently underfilling their glasses (the minority, as far as I have seen) will end up paying more. But then your market forces come into play. If the pub raises its prices to maintain its cut, people will go to the pubs who were doing it right all along, because they won't have to raise prices.

[ratman03]

Originally posted by Stonch
You might well agree with his views on small government, the US constitution etc, but none of that has anything to do with the subject of this thread. This thread is about a British consumer organisation petitioning the government to hurry up and clarify an ambiguous point of trading standards law that has caused consumers, publicans, trading standards officials and the courts trouble for years.

I do agree with his views on small gov't, and I also agree that it is unrelated to the subject of the thread, as you say.

What I was getting at is this: Everyone wants a full pint, but goverment's intention to *fix* things can be a touchy subject here in the States, as there are a number of people who feel that the Federal Government has too many hands in too many pots as it is.

That said, I still think that the petition is more of a symbolic move by CAMRA to show that they are actively advocating for the consumer, which, as I stated, I think is great.

[ratman03]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
I guess I'm just oversensitive these days... all of the online communities I spend time on have had blowups lately (this being the mildest of the lot by far). This thread only got a little heated; the "25 beer countries" thread, a little bit more. My other boards went through some harsh changes that ended up having some long time members get canned, banned, or leave entirely. My sensitivity is largely due to this upheaval, also enhanced by the VA Tech mess and a lot of other stupid things happening around me these days... so don't mind me; I'll leave all of you to your spirited discussions, and when the heat gets too much for me, I'll just step out of the kitchen and have a beer. Please carry on.

Understandable. I think blowups come with the online territory sometimes, so it's good to have a thick skin. Things get taken out of context, people get pissed, etc... It wouldn't be as fun if we all agreed all of the time ;)

[stronk]

people get pissedHa! I bet you meant the US slang, not the UK slang, but I still find it funny every time a long-time member has more than a few beers and posts something completely incoherent.

[DecoJuicer]

Originally posted by Stonch
I am confused by your insistence that basic trading standards legislation which can be applied in court somehow represents increased government interference. It doesn't.


And I'm confused by that fact that you can't see how petitioning the government for intervention is indeed political.

I think you have a political message to convey, which is fine, but this isn't really a topic to which it is anything more than superficially relevant.

You're trying to get get people to sign a petition to get you government to "clarify" a law, and I'm the one with a political statement to make? Let me explain it again. I tried to explain to you why some of the American members of this board didn't agree with the petition. You were the one that started firing shots at me.

But then your market forces come into play. If the pub raises its prices to maintain its cut, people will go to the pubs who were doing it right all along, because they won't have to raise prices.

So market forces only work when you want them to? Sorry, but when you try to make the argument that market forces only work in one instance, then you are a hypocrit. In fact you already said, The wonders of market forces, eh? Pity that it doesn't work that way in real life.

So which is it? Do market forces work, or don't they.

And what makes you think that the "honest" pub owners won't just raise their prices to match what their competitors are doing? Why shouldn't they? It's a little more money in their pocket. After all, people don't get into business to lose money, and if they can see a way to make a little bit more on each pint, then they will take it. Sure, there might be a few hold outs but my guess is that they will be few and far between.

In the end, you will never convince me that this petition is a good idea. Not even remotely, and I'm glad that it isn't MY beer scene that this is effecting.

[ratman03]

Originally posted by stronk
Ha! I bet you meant the US slang, not the UK slang, but I still find it funny every time a long-time member has more than a few beers and posts something completely incoherent.

Nice catch -- I was speaking in American slang. But yeah, we cannot underestimate the influence that our favorite beverage has on these threads!

[stronk]

Sorry Deco, but you have been mixing your quotes. Stronk and Stonch are two different names.

AFA market forces go, they are not something that is either on or off or even mathematically predictable. It depends on the exact thing they are being applied to. TBH, that part was incidental to my first point.

And there are very good reasons for the 'honest' pubs not to raise their prices (if my hypothetical situation actually happens, which, let's face it, has a good chance of not actually being the case). A pub with lower prices will get more customers, if all other variables are held constant. In fact, because the honest pubs never felt the need to squeeze more money out of their beer, this suggests the other variables are in fact in their favour.

One of the most successful pub chains in the UK is the Wetherspoons group. Their secret is that they charge far less for drinks than anyone else, but I don't see them making less money.

[chazwicke]

I actually like most of the Wetherspoons I've been in. They ARE cheaper and they usually have a pretty decent range of guest brews on cask. Often beers I've not found in London.

[MeridianFC]

I find the Wetherspoons I've given my custom to are good for the beer but no much else. My experience is limited (one in Glasgow, two in London) but they did have a really good selection of micros on cask including some seasonals (Cairngorm's Santa's Sledgehammer being one) that were in great condition and at a very good price. That said there's not much atmosphere in the joint. If I'm catching the train at Buchanan Street it's fine to nip in for one but I can't see going out of my way unless it was for a specific beer on offer.

[noby]

That's pretty much my take on them too, with my limited experience: 'go for the beer, don't stay for the atmosphere.'

[Sladek]

Just to add a few thoughts-- perhaps most Americans want a full glass with zero head because there is no standard? There's a perception that even a half-inch of head is giving you "less" beer. Even in brewpubs I get a headless beer. I've started saying in advance, "I'm not afraid of head".

After living in Prague, where they like and expect a nice frothy head, there is over an inch above the .5L marking on beer glasses. I think that's a great idea; then you know you're getting .5L (of course, you have to assume that glass really holds .5L up to that mark).

[steveh]

Originally posted by Sladek
(of course, you have to assume that glass really holds .5L up to that mark).

I thought that was strictly regulated?

On the other side of that are the US bartenders who don't know what that mark means and I get an extra ounce, or so, of Hacker-Pschorr in my .5l Weizen glass!

S.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
I find the Wetherspoons I've given my custom to are good for the beer but no much else. My experience is limited (one in Glasgow, two in London) but they did have a really good selection of micros on cask including some seasonals (Cairngorm's Santa's Sledgehammer being one) that were in great condition and at a very good price. That said there's not much atmosphere in the joint. If I'm catching the train at Buchanan Street it's fine to nip in for one but I can't see going out of my way unless it was for a specific beer on offer.

I've been in five or six of them and two have had decent atmosphere. Although I doubt that they were originally pubs but have a more "re-created" feel which was OK. Both are in London and are large and have a great range of brews at good prices. They are Lord Moon on the Mall and Liberty Bounds. Both sometimes cater to touristy crowds but again the selection makes them worthy of a stop. The one in Victoria Station has little ambiance but again there is usually a decent guest beer or two. I've also been to one recently in Hammersmith that was very modern inside (which I did not like) but had a Belgian cask that was fairly good.
So I think that the assessment of the atmosphere in Wetherspoons is that they are OK in that department. Some better than others. I've been to Lord Moon and Liberty Bounds on numerous occasions. And will certainly get back to them. Victoria Station too probably since I stay in that area sometimes.

[stronk]

Yeah, the message you'll normally get from UK members is that Wetherspoons are a standard fall-back. If you want beer without culture or atmosphere, they are fine. If there's nowhere nearby with any decent cask beer, you can always count on a Wetherspoons.

[Sladek]

Originally posted by steveh
I thought that was strictly regulated? Hi Steve! it probably is, but I was just saying that I really have no idea, so how do I really know it's exactly .5L? (...been studying semantics and pragmatics)

[steveh]

Seriously, for just about the same reasoning Stronk is arguing, I believe eastern Euroupe set standards of measurement years ago. You see a distinct line on .3, .5, 1, and even 2 liter glasses -- with enough room above for a good head.

S.

[DecoJuicer]

Originally posted by stronk
Sorry Deco, but you have been mixing your quotes. Stronk and Stonch are two different names.

My apologies to both of you. I got confused. It happens sometimes.

And there are very good reasons for the 'honest' pubs not to raise their prices (if my hypothetical situation actually happens, which, let's face it, has a good chance of not actually being the case). A pub with lower prices will get more customers, if all other variables are held constant. In fact, because the honest pubs never felt the need to squeeze more money out of their beer, this suggests the other variables are in fact in their favour.

It may be a good reason for them to not raise their price, but never underestimate good, old fashioned greed.

[Richard English]

Wow! I missed all this as I have been away in the USA and Canada.

Let me clarify some of the points:

CAMRA's "Full Pint" campaign has been ongoing for years and is simply that a pint of beer should be a pint of beer - and not 90% of a pint of beer. This is not new legislation or Government interference - it is the simple application of existing Law. If a garage charges for a gallon of petrol, then a gallon is what you will get. If you only get 90% of a gallon then the garage owner is guilty of a criminal offence for which he can be fined or imprisoned. And the same applies to any other product in the UK that is sold by measure. Only draught beer seems to be exempt (bottled beer is not,since the amount in the bottle must be shown in metric units, along with its strength and its "best before" date).

The comment about "going to another bar" is maybe fine if you live in London, but many US and Canadian cities have little choice of decent drinking establishments - especially those serving cask-conditioned beer. In the Canadian town where I stayed there was just one pub and it sold only tap beer (although the Tin Whistle wasn't bad). If you asked for a "pint" you would receive a US pint if you asked for a straight glass and an Imperial pint if you asked for a mug - because that was the size of the glasses in the pub. And every pint would have a head on it that varied from a quarter of an inch to an inch. It would be illegal in England to use other than an Imperial pint glass, regardless of its shape.

I enjoyed my trip and sampled some wonderful beers - but I was pleased to get back to England where I knew that I would know what the price of a beer would be (which price will include all taxes and service - you don't tip bar staff), what its strength would be, and how much I would get, even before I chose to order.

It's not state control, it's consumer protection and those who have been to England will understand why we prefer it the way it is.