Why no mention of the Bernie Crehan case?

Friday report and people were busy at the weekend?

Interesting. Still more interesting is one follow up which suggests that it's not the fault of the pubcos that the lessees go bust and that "they should work on their spreadsheets" when anyone who has actually looked at any of the offerings and knows the pub as well will realise that the average lessee taking the pubco supplied figures at face value will be dealing with Hans Christian Andersen material.

The farcical suggestion that a pubco takes more risk caused me to laugh so much my eyes watered. A lessee pays a lot for the privilege of maintaining the property for the pubco and is rewarded with a higher rent.

Glad to see this case result. It's about time someone give the pubcos a swift kick in the family jewels. Shame it wasn't a bigger harder kick.

Perhaps repeated applications are required to complete the treatment?

On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:54:37 +0100, Steven Pampling wrote (in message ):

Don't forget that this also applies to Youngs, Green King, Adnams......Pubcos that just happen to brew and behave in exactly the same way, who are so beloved of many on this newsgroup.

What I can't understand is why people on this newsgroup seem so uninterested in it, considering it is potentially one of the most important things to happen to the pub industry in years.

Yup. I know. A perfectly decent "freehouse" in this area ended up as a Greene King house a few years back. I preferred the pre-GK version.

Plus, at the risk of upsetting many Youngs fans, many of their tied houses have been putting out luke warm tea substitute for a fair while. Only in recent times have they discovered the concept of keeping the cellar cool.

Working on visits a few years back: a walk up the main street in Hampstead should have been punctuated by pleasant cool (but not *cold* ) refreshment. This was only possible by avoiding the Youngs houses.

Anyone care to say whether it's worth revisiting? (Yes, I know the Fullers place just off the drag is worth the diversion)

Busy?

On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:32:02 +0100, Steven Pampling wrote (in message ):

Possibly, but it seems to confirm my suspicion that many people who post on this newsgroup have no idea of the issues involved in the retailing of good beer despite a willingness to pass judgment/comment on it, if they did I'm sure this would be a long thread it's so significant. That and the fact that they didn't 'campaign' for it so they can't give themselves a pat on the back for it!

I would suspect its more that many contributors here knew all along that you never had any intention of discussing the Chrehan case and that your ultimate motive was to have a pop at anyone and everyone. Sorry Steve, but you are just too predictable.

If you want a puzzle to get your head around how about asking yourself why *you* bother posting here at all. I'm sure many here already know the answer, but do you.

John B

On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:30:32 +0100, JohnB wrote (in message ):

Funnily enough I thought someone would say that. As is your modus operandi, you don't discuss the issue, instead you indulge in your usual snideness.

Prove me wrong and discuss it then, I'm ready.

Funnily enough I also thought someone would say that, FYI it is a scab I have to pick, but would it suprise you to know that I like good beer?

i don't think I've ever been "snide" to you before. You will find this is probably the first time I have been critical of you so your comments, which just emphasises the point I was making.

As Steve Pampling says, some of us may be busy on other things. In my case, amongst many many others, it is dealing with a number of pub closures.

No. Goodness knows why you think that would be surprising. Wierd. I'm sure you like good beer.

I just don't think many people like discussing anything with you Steve. Full stop. That's not my problem. If you find it one, then I suggest it is up to you to rectify but beng unpleasant to people will not gain you much support.

John B

Never argue with a Pickthall - you know you'll never get anywhere.

John C

On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:16:55 +0100, JohnB wrote (in message ):

I do appologise, it is the other John who's affraid to put his full name that is the snide one, uninterested in discussion, as he proves later in this thread.

I disagree with many on this newsgroup so I'm being unpleasnt?

Steve Pickthall a écrit :

There are different ways to disagree, Steve, and yours, having observed them over the years here, typically tend to :

A. pass summary, and often insulting, judgement on the *person* you disagree with, instead of remaining at the level of ideas/arguments.

B. quickly get into a loop of rantings about one certain organisation being the source of all evil, globally, an assumption based on isolated sad cases of members of said organisation that happen to fit your preconception.

You may have a point now and then, notably about beer prices, but then you insist on losing all credibility by flying the same kite again and again, generally annoying people who might otherwise actually agree with you. This kind of minset is all right for a 14-year old, but I suspect you're a tad older than that...

Yours truly,

Laurent

Erm, actually it's one of those little quiet things where the political lobbying is deemed to do more good. If you could have a conversation with Mike Benner (I believe you're acquainted) he would probably fill you in on the detail. Mostly pressure on the OFT if my mind isn't totally enfeebled.

So yes, CAMRA has been campaigning against these sharp practices (and others) by pubcos. The legal victory is only part of the story, there is more to do yet.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:03:38 +0100, The Submarine Captain wrote (in message ):

Where and when?

Unfortunately they're widespread rather than isolated. Though I accept many of them are the CAMRA militant tendency.

If "flying the same kite again and again" means you lose credibility where does that leave CAMRA after thirty-odd years?