Well, despite the fact that I look like shit, and despite expectations of the old joke about the camera adding five pounds (“so how many cameras did you have on you then?”), with half a bottle of cough mixture down me I managed to get through my TV appearance on Market Kitchen without coughing phlegm onto the other guests. And despite several people beforehand telling me Rodney Marsh was a bit of a git, I found him perfectly charming, great fun to spend an afternoon with. Brilliant to hear his stories about George Best, and he didn’t even burst out laughing when I told him I was a Barnsley fan.
Author: PeteBrown
National newspaper in anti-beer bias shocker
Today The Independent carries a hatchet job on ‘extreme beer’, claiming that the likes of Brew Dog and Thornbridge are targeting young binge drinkers. It uses my recent Beer 2.0 piece for The Publican as background research, and creates a master class in hypocrisy that would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that it might damage brewers I care about who spoke to me in good faith, and find themselves featured here as a result. Here’s an extract (sorry, but if you read this blog regularly you know I’m unforgivably wordy) of my response to the editor and the journalist concerned. If this issue makes you angry, please write to the paper and complain:
- It is entirely inaccurate to suggest that these beers are targeting the 18-25 age group. They may ‘remind’ the guy from Alcohol Concern of alcopops, but Alcohol Concern is a pressure group funded by anti-alcohol campaigners which is regularly quoted in articles like yours as if it is an official health body. It’s not. Some of these beers are marketed in a stylish and modern way – that is not the same thing as targeting younger drinkers. Each of these brewers has a strong corporate feel to their range, so how can you imply that the 8% beer has been designed and packaged to appeal to younger drinkers any more than the 4% beer has? To suggest that stylish packaging can only be appreciated by the under-25s is patronising to the people these beers are really aimed at – affluent, stylish drinkers in their late twenties and older – in other words, your readership. Secondly, As Martin Dickie points out, these beers are expensive. One of Brew Dog’s beers may be sold in Tesco, but as a rule they are sold by specialist beer shops, beer bars and online retailers, and cost upwards of £4 a bottle. Anyone simply seeking high ABV is going to buy something else first. My Publican feature even points out that one of the brewers you’ve mentioned – Otley – actively refuses supermarkets who wish to stock their beers and sell beer at steep discounts. Thirdly, anyone who works in the drinks industry would tell you that the trend among young binge drinkers is for drinks that combine a high alcohol content with an unchallenging flavour. The whole point of these beers is that they are full-flavoured, designed for savouring and almost impossible to glug quickly.
- The alcohol levels in these beers are not ‘mind-blowing’ – this is entirely inaccurate, misleading and potentially damaging. Some of these alcohol levels may be cause for concern if the beers were sold in pints, with the expectation that several would be consumed in one sitting. But these beers are hardly ever, if at all, sold on draught. As your feature points out, they are sold in 33cl bottles. They are designed for sipping and savouring. Wine is sold in 75cl bottles, which are commonly shared between two people. If a 33cl bottle of beer at more than 10% is more than daily recommended alcohol intake (and almost all the beers you mention are not this strong) what’s half a bottle of wine (37.5cl) at 12-14%?
- Building on these points, Saturday’s Independent demonstrates breathtaking hypocrisy which does a disservice to its readership. The magazine carries its usual page of wine hagiography (funny how you hardly ever feature beer in this way, even though a cursory look at TGI readership data would show you that your readership are enthusiastic consumers of quality beer). This week Anthony Rose talks us through Italian whites. In total 18 different wines are given enthusiastic endorsement. There’s not even a single mention of the alcohol content of any of these wines. And yet I can promise you that every single one of them has a higher ABV than any of the “mindblowing” beers in your extreme beer article, three of which are illustrated with alarmist starbursts drawing attention to their alcohol levels – levels that are so low that if wine was to be produced to that strength, EU law would prevent it from being called wine because it would be too weak.
- But it gets better. In the main paper, 24 pages after the “extreme beer” feature, there’s an article entitled ‘War of the rosés’, about a scheme to make French rosé wine more popular. Here is a direct quote from that piece: “If we are forced to put the word ‘traditional’ on our bottles, people will think, especially young people, that it is a fuddy-duddy wine, an old-fashioned kind of drink. That will ruin everything we have achieved.” That’s from a winemaker. And here’s the journalist himself: “Young people, especially, have taken to rosé as a fun drink, which is refreshing, uncomplicated and relatively cheap. (Anjou rosé sells in the UK at between £5 and £8 a bottle. Other French rosés sell for as little as £3 a bottle.)” Despite the clear admission that rosé winemakers are targeting younger people, despite the fact that rosé wine is being sold cheap and marketed in a contemporary fashion in order to lure these drinkers, there is no worried quote from Alcohol Concern. No sensationalist headline. No mention of the ABV of rosé wines. The attractive illustration of three glasses of rose – unlike your illustration of extreme beers – carries no bold starbursts. The inference is clear: when winemakers admit that they are selling cheap wine (12-14% ABV) and actively targeting young people with 750ml bottles for as little as £3, that’s OK. But when a brewer creates a beer (6-12% ABV) and sells it in a 33cl bottle that retails from £4 upwards, and tells you it is emphatically NOT targeting young drinkers, you run the piece with a ‘health fears’ headline and a subhead that claims the beers are, in fact, targeting younger drinkers – despite the fact that this is a lower ABV drink, being sold at a higher price.
Sod’s Law and that G-word again
Got me best clothes on today because I’ve been invited to film an episode of Market Kitchen on UKTV.
Pubs and class
I’ve tried to write about what’s really wrong with pubs many times, and think I’ve made some valid points. But Boak and Bailey just hit the nail on the head quite squarely and with minimum verbiage via the simple expedient of asking Boak (or Bailey’s) working class mum and dad why they didn’t go to the pub any more.
British Beer 2.0
In my end of year review I argued that there had been a fundamental shift in the attitudes of brewers – that the likes of Brew Dog and Thornbridge were now spearheading a much wider movement of more experimental and innovative brewing.
The true cost of the smoking ban (to someone who doesn’t run a pub and wasn’t that bothered either way)
Had a slight mourning the other day – I had to go out and buy a box of matches.
Minimum Drink Pricing – would it have been a good idea?
So Gordon’s come out against a minimum price per unit because he doesn’t want to penalise the majority of moderate drinkers.
Those other Hops & Glory legals in full
I posted the other day about how evil lawyers are making publishers like mine very jumpy indeed by reading books for anything they might conceivably make a libel suit out of, then hounding people who have been written about to try and make them sue.
- I’m not allowed to refer to Mariah Carey as a “deranged diva”
- I’m not allowed to describe a “cave full of evil, bad-tempered little goblin cooks” and follow this with the phrase “shit, imagine that – a whole tribe of Antony Worral-Thompsons”
- And I’m strongly advised not to include the following passage, which was intended to illustrate my own incompetence in organising my sea journey to India, as well as highlighting the pretentiousness of the North London, self-loathing middle class of which I’m part. My editor didn’t think it was good enough to go in the book anyway – it didn’t make him laugh, and didn’t move the story forward, and given that we were quite far over the agreed length, no-one wanted it in except me. But it was legal worries that finally killed it. The conversation is presented word for word as it happened:
What the hell was I going to do?
Why are all the pubs closing? ask people who never go to the pub
MILLIONS of people across Britain who never go to the pub were last night asking why all the pubs were closing down.
As it was revealed that 2000 pubs have closed in the last year, non-pub goers said their community would not be the same without the local pub they never went to.
Margaret Gerving, from Peterborough, said: “I was delighted when the smoking ban came in because it meant I could finally go to the pub without being killed.
“But then I didn’t, mainly because I’m not the sort of person who likes going to pubs. I prefer to stay in with a carton of pomegranate juice and a bag of pine nuts and make long lists of all the things I want banned.
“Now it turns out that nobody else is going either because quite a lot of the people who used to go to the pub also liked to smoke. But none of this explains why all the pubs are closing down.”
Julian Cook, from Devon, said: “Our local pub looks really lovely from the outside. It’s got flower baskets and a nice old fashioned sign. Unfortunately it’s used by local people with accents who dress differently from me and who are, I suspect, incredibly racist.”
Former pub owner Charlie Reeves, from Hereford, said: “We were told that the smoking ban would mean lots of young mums and dads bringing their children in. But that didn’t really help because there’s only so much Guinness you can pour down a three year-old before it falls asleep.
“Then there’s the added factor that a pub with children in it isn’t really a pub, it’s a fucking hell hole.”



















