ALE Spring 2002 No. 305

Letters 3 - What's in a name?

Our last letter to the Editor for now, this time following up Misrepresention in ALE 304
Dear Sir,
I feel that the majority of the ale-drinking public don't have an interest where the ale they are drinking comes from. The place of brewing is of great loss to the community of its origin, but I do think that it is better to move a brand and its brewery name if it is under new ownership than lose the brand. If Greene King want to use the brewery name in my opinion that is not a problem. You can't get any more authentic than an ale naming its brewery no matter where it is brewed. After all Greene King own that brewery name even if they are all brewed on the same site.

I personally think that the GBBF organisers brought the so-called publicity stunt on themselves. For CAMRA to say that the ex Morland and Ruddles brands were not banned, just simply not ordered is in my opinion not true. Not ordering in this circumstance is the same as banning it. The National Executive or GBBF organisers should be honest enough to own up to banning it if they genuinely feel the brands are no longer authentic. Sometimes it would seem that CAMRA, especially some of the people in our own area, have got it in for Greene King. Let's not forget that Greene King continued to brew real ales when other breweries changed to nitrokeg brands. Without this not many pubs would be in a position to stock real ale. I think that CAMRA has got far more important things to spend its resources on than boycotting part of a brewery's ale over a matter that not very many real ale drinkers are concerned or care about. I'm not saying that breweries should be able to do just as they please without discussion but I do think that sometimes we forget who actually owns the ales.

A Larwood


ALE Spring 2002 No. 305 : Next section
Cambridge & District CAMRA