LETTERs

Darling and Brown are out of touch

With reference to the recent Budget, I want to voice my concerns about the 9.1% increase in beer duty.

I firmly believe that Government policy is tarring respectable companies like the one I work for, and the wider pub industry, with the problems that are caused by the factors surrounding binge drinking, not least supermarkets selling booze cheaper than they buy it for.

The effect of this duty increase will inevitably mean more boarded-up pubs in Nottingham and more uncontrolled drinking at home. "Pre-loading" is becoming a new buzz word amongst the young, whereby bulk alcohol bought at knock-down prices is consumed at home before a night out where the pub trade and the police have to deal with the consequences.

We are already fully aware of what image this portrays in our city's streets. We aim to run our own business with high moral standards and making responsible pub drinkers pay even more is not the solution.

We will be taking our own steps to further highlight these issues to our customers and the pub trade in general, and to work with our peer groups to seek a supporting governance for our industry and its duty liabilities.

We believe that our customers and other responsible pub-goers represent the views and behaviour of the majority of the UK voting population - in fact supporting the UK pub seems to be the view of many of the MPs across all parties that I have heard speak over the last few years. The Brown/Darling combo are demonstrating that they are out of touch with this and unable to show any sign of joined up thinking. A 9.1% duty increase on our national drink gives the impression that they believe we are undertaxed.

We are passionate about what we do, but we just don't know where the Government would like to see the pub industry in five years' time.

Colin Wilde

Castle Rock Brewery

Nottingham

What pubwatches are all about

Tim Martin is far from the point. ("Martin: 'industry must back pubwatches

to cut bingeing'", MA, 20 March.)

Pubwatches, as I see it,

are to help licensees band together to solve issues relevant to the operation of pubs and clubs within a community, as part of the effort to promote the objectives of the Licensing Act. But by his extension of this to cover all aspects of the drinking culture - namely the cheap selling of alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets, who are also supposed to be members of some pubwatch groups - he feels that we should enter the education market to control problems not of our making.

Pubwatches are not and should not be used as PR machines, and if we were to educate every Joe out there, we could not afford to pay the tariff for this.

But then again, my pubco is not responsible for creating a drinks war in communities like Mr Martin's. So perhaps we should allow him to participate in educating people that it is not good for them to drink so much as quickly as possible, as we have seen in his outlets.

Heaven knows, some pubcos go in the opposite direction to ensure that we cannot sell beverages at the same prices as freehouses and managed chains.

Perhaps a little self consciousness by Mr Martin is responsible for this latest comment.

William McLeod

via morningadvertiser.co.uk

Snifter needs a cookery lesson

In response to "Snifter finds PC burger a bloody nuisance" (MA, 13 March)

I find it astounding that someone writing for a pub trade publication has such a "low handle" on basic food hygiene. I will clarify the difference between a solid cut of steak and a minced product. A solid steak has all harmful bacteria on the outside; these are cooked off by contact with the hot grill.

A minced-meat product has had all the harmful bacteria transferred throughout the product mechanically. If heat is not conducted through to the centre, the meat is not rendered fit to eat.

Serving food not fit to eat is a breach of food hygiene law and the chef and the manager could be prosecuted. In my opinion, the chef at the Royal Oak Hotel acted correctly.

Shane Aldridge

Stoke Ash, Nr Diss, Suffolk