GBG 2004 First Correction

I could offer lots of corrections. I think we have discussed this here before. Given the age of the Internet CAMRA is somewhat in the dark ages with dissemination of news. Although we do at least have postcodes for each pub now.

Here are a few important corrections:

Page 263: Grantham - Chequers. Pub closed.

Page 526: Langdale End - Moorcock Inn. Opens 1200 and does not open at all Friday lunch. This is correct for summer and not just winter. These times are not new and I cannot understand how they are incorrect in GBG.

Page 273: This really corrects NI booklet/website. Birmingham - Bellefield is closed and looking sorry for itself. Smethwick - Waterloo Hotel only sells fizzy stuff and some of the classic rooms are locked and difficult (impossible?) to inspect. Bloxwich - Romping Cat is for sale, but is still open.

-- David Replace diesel with steam to reply.

Are they getting confused with the Leyden Brewery? I was at the Lord Raglan (home of the Leyden Brewery) last week and sampled 2 of their excellent beers. Worth a visit.

Gavin

A couple of years ago, I remember the GBG editor telling a group of us (poss at an AGM) that he had recently arranged a mailout to every single BLO, asking them to respond by filling in a form relating to "their" brewery, within two weeks.

Four weeks later only 40% of BLOs had returned their forms.

(BLO = Brewery Liaison Officer, for the uninitiated).

I concluded at the time that if the majority of BLOs won't respond to a request for information from the editor of CAMRA's flagship publication, then there must be something seriously wrong.

Robin

Well in this case,they don't have a BLO (yet), so it makes me wonder where the info came from. Even the brewer is puzzled!

When I was a BLO the thing that annoyed me was that the same forms were also sent directly to the brewery, at the same time. This led to confusion when I went to the brewery to get the form filled in ("oh, we've already done that") and I think it undermines the role of the BLO. So, I didn't send my form back of course - there would have been no point!

Stephen Early

I still receive a form, yet the brewery I reported on closed about four years ago.

John B

The Editor has to get the information from somewhere and I suspect that he has concluded over the years that the brewery is a more reliable source than the BLO.

It is after all in the brewery's commercial interest to have an accurate up-to-date listing in the GBG, and for that reason they are more likely to return the form than the CAMRA volunteer BLO.

Robin

I would hope that is not the case. A brewery will provide information from its own commercial standpoint, whereas one would hope that the BLO would be a more independent and unbiased source. However I take the point that a brewery is more likely to return information than a volunteer with other commitments.

That may well be true, but the return will not be an independent response.

John B

True.

You can do things at the AGM by tabling motions and having them passed. I cheat - nagging the editor in the bar seems to work quite well don't you think?

Now everyone can find the pub by using a common internet reference like

(Including me, so it was a bit selfish wasn't it?)

I remember the statement.

I also remember commenting later in the day that I'd been a little puzzled since I'd not seen any such form. It transpired that there had been a bit of a problem and the a number of non-BLO's had received the form whereas a number of BLO's had not received anything. Those that had received the form had in many cases received it about 3-4 weeks after it was *supposed* to go out.

E-mail works much better. The editor can send out the request direct and get back the replies direct. Missing returns are very obvious very soon.

Is that how the Cask Marque symbol has been introduced? Someone nagging the editor?

John B

No idea. More likely to be an agreement that the production cost has to be kept down and taking sponsorship money is one such way. Allowing the sponsor to have a dinky symbol (which most people don't seem to be understanding) grouped with the entry for pubs that match the criteria of the sponsor is one such idea.

Not saying that *is* the situation, it just seems the most likely answer. I observe, a present a theory, it seems to fit facts in a way that doesn't require a conspiracy.

Given that breweries exist that won't tell Customs&Excise the truth and a number practice serial bankruptcy, double checking brewery forms might have its uses ;)