Maybe It's Not So Bad....

After the initial scares / concerns etc, the hop situation for the next 12 months is starting to become clearer. Yes, some varieties are in very short supply, some are effectively non-existent. And sure, the cost of what is available has doubled or even tripled. But you know what? I think maybe we'll manage. We might go a bit greyer, and maybe the truck will get one less a wash each year, and perhaps we'll have to sell off our collection of Royal Mail rubber bands to help fund hop purchases. But yes, we'll probably manage.

Britannia of course will remain a casualty until the 2008 hop harvest is in, but that just means we will be offering a different beer instead. And who knows, that too may receive the odd gong & a bit of praise. Ironically, Britannia has yet another moment of glory coming it's way in 2008, but we have a plan, as cunning as a sack full spin doctors, that means there will be a special batch of Britannia on sale to mark the occasion (just within the life of the last of the Bramling Cross, with our storage facilities). But more on this in a few months.

"Ahh", I hear you cry (I think). "You said that malt was a problem as well". Well, it probably is. Maybe. Our nice malting chaps at Warminster are reservedly confident that we (as a customer of some years) will be OK. But they aren't sure. But then neither are any other maltsters. Again, prices have risen considerably, and will quite likely do so again before Spring, but I guess we'll probably manage. Of course with malt, there are all sorts of cheap alternative options, such as using sugars (we currently get all our sugar from the malt) to replace some of the malt. We could use extracts instead, or even bulk the malt out with unmalted grains such as maize or rice (yes, fans of a certain American 'beer', rice is used to cut costs, not improve the product....). But we won't, so don't worry about us cheapening the product and so reduce the quality in order to save money. We'll leave that to others, and believe me many will resort to cost cutting.

Even CAMRA have taken notice of the situation, and in the latest edition of their members newspaper 'What's Brewing', they discuss the subject, and even ask that brewers don't turn to cheaper, inferior ingredients. This request is made on the very sound basis that if we don't support the farmers growing the the hops / grain, they won't offer the same quality ingredients next year. This is very true - half the problem now is that acreages of malting barley & hops are falling because the big brewing groups (who take by far the greatest majority of the relevant crop harvest) are demanding lower & lower prices. The result is that many growers have turned to more profitable crops (such a oilseed for bio-fuels). So well done CAMRA, for supporting the farmers, and encouraging us to encourage them by accepting we have to pay for quality. No, really. Any decent micro brewer / businessman will agree that a fair price ensures continued supply. Trouble is, someone has to pay the higher price, and just as farmer shouldn't be expected to work hard for a poor return, neither should the brewer. So does the CAMRA article implore CAMRA members to happily pay more for their beer, and avoid cheap beer sources? Does it implore landlords to just accept they will have to pay more for the beer they stock?

Does it heck. Someone has to pay for the increases, because they won't go away. Unlike the small, decent breweries and the small, decent village pubs that look like having to swallow it or die. And I've not even touched on the massive increases in fuel & energy costs. So, no. Maybe we won't all probably manage....?

Here's to 2008. And to saying the same for 2009.

A Little Statistical Relief...

Just some basic figures on Beer Duty for you:

Beer Duty has increased 27% since the late nineties (although in return many smaller breweries have been given 50% relief on beer duty.

Beer consumption has fallen by 11% in the same period. It has been said that as a result, the net income to the treasury from beer duty has fallen when inflation is taken into account.

Duty on spirits, in the same period, has risen by all of 3%, whilst consumption has gone up by 20%.

Duty on wine has risen by 16%, consumption by 46%.

Of course figures can be made to prove anything you want, but the immediate reaction for many is why is beer picked on so much, when in reality higher duty rates haven't actually benefited the treasury, when higher rates on wine or spirits would have done? Anyone would have thought the treasury/country was being run by folks from a nation of distilleries.

Oh, one more statistic. Those brewers eligible for duty relief are not reporting a sales decline. They, and this includes us of course, all report a rise in sales. Officially this is an annual growth of 7.5%, but for many small breweries, who aren't included in the figures because we are too small (or something...) are seeing much higher growth rates - again, including us. And what might that say? Lower duty means we have more to invest in growing? I wonder.

And what, while we are at it, is the apparent drink of choice of the high street hooligan? Spirit based mixers & premium global lagers. So that is one category with a very low duty increase, and another that pays top whack beer duty. Two things can be drawn from this. Firstly, if the Nannies want to hike up duty to discourage binge drinking, then pick on spirits. Secondly, before they do hike up spirit duty, look at second point - the most heavily taxed beers are the global ones, and they are the other drink of choice. So maybe tax isn't they answer? Maybe finding out why youngsters are getting drunk is the answer. But of course that would mean spending money, not collecting it. And that, dear reader, seems to be what it is all about.

One last dose of figures.

According to OECD data, the UK is a comfortable third in terms of alcohol consumption, behind France (2nd) and Ireland (1st, just). And of those three, who has the highest duty rates? Ireland (highest globally for beer, spirits/wine amongst the highest as well), followed closely by us (amongst the highest for all sectors). France is a long way down. See the data in full here. So again, I suggest that duty hikes are not the answer to the problem. And again I suggest maybe there is no interest in the problem, beyond as a means to screw more money out of us.

Now I am not saying that alcohol ABUSE doesn't make people ill, and therefore a drain on scarce NHS resources - it does (although endless sodding seminars and acres of management are also a drain on the NHS - I used to work for an NHS supplier, so I have some experience of this). But a cheeky drink as & when is not something to penalise folk for, especially when globally we are almost unique in the way we behave at night, and we are already one of the most expensive places for a drink globally. Perhaps we just need to ask why our 'young people' want to vomit outside Woolworths, yet those in, say, Belgium, don't?

You Couldn't Make It Up....

Just a quick thought for today - or any day, in fact:

What professions could you live without? I mean, for example, if there were no brewers, we'd have no beer. But the world will still turn, we'd all be able to breathe etc etc. Same for lawyers, salesmen, website designers, PR folk, marketing guys, Girls Aloud, Steve Maclaren etc etc.

But what about nurses, fireman, butchers, bakers, food growers (but not food manufacturers - we'd all live just fine without ready made omelette's/mashed potato/tortoise vindaloo etc). But look in the papers - it's just these folks who are always being stuffed / underpaid / walked over and heavily legislated in one way other. And who is doing this? Mostly the people who, at the end (or indeed start) of the day, have no real use in terms of helping us live & breathe without dying of some disease / lack of rescue / starvation.

If you read a fantasy novel set in such a world, it'd never be believed....

All of this might help explain why there must be some relieved faces in the Govt Treasury Department (or whatever they are called this week). Just 24 hours after what has to be the biggest cock up in government terms since someone thought 45 minutes sounded a good time span, England United lose at football. And so media attention switches to the far more important subject of several men kicking a ball around (for 45 minutes at a time - is there a connection?). Or indeed patently not kicking a ball. So now the Gubbinsment can get back to whatever it is they were doing, whilst the media talks balls.

Given the enthusiasm these days for burying bad news, there is another twist. Is there, as I write this, a collection of PR folk (collective noun: A Spin) crying into their fizzy wine about how if only they had waited (another) 24 hours before breaking the news. Or did England actually lose a day earlier, in which case did the TV broadcast get held off deliberately to help cover up the story once it had broken? Oh, apparently the game was broadcast live, and we know the TV folks never cover anything up, don't we children....

I have an answer, of course. Put the footballers in charge of the country, and the politicians in charge of playing football. Result: We'd always win at football, because whatever the score it'd be made to look like we have won, or got the defeat we needed to suceed in the future. And the ex-football players? Well they'd all be so busy ordering their next Porsche Carbon-Emitters and womanising over barrels of champagne that in truth, there would be no-one running the country. So the rest of us can then get on with our lives in peace, and the world might just become a better place (although we'd have to watch out for the council wanting to adopt 6 monthly rubbish collections)...

I'd better mention beer quickly, just in case the revenue take offence and decide that this blog isn't a business tool. Knowing my luck though this blog will have a limit on how many words I can wri

Grab Yer Beer, It's Christmas...

It's no good. I've got to mention Christmas before December. We are after all a commercial venture, and any opportunity to make money has to be grabbed with both hands, and quite possibly the right foot as well.

So Christmas. Well, we know how everyone just loves to celebrate Christmas to excess. You know, you have enough food in the house to feed an African village for 6 months, despite the fact you'll be with friends or relatives for some of the time.

This year, we want you to be different. Don't stock up on excess food (although feel free to buy it and give some to charity). Buy less, but buy better from local producers. And that is where we come in. Don't fill the fridge with cheap cans of beer (although obviously you'll need some for Uncle Norm), buy less, drink less. But buy better, drink better. Why dribble your way through Christmas in a alcoholic stupor (Aunt Edna excepted of course) when it's far better to drink something more enjoyable but in reduced quantities?

With this public service in mind, we are obtaining a licence to sell direct to the public over two weekends in December:

On Friday 7th 2-8pm & Saturday 8th 11am - 4pm we will be open for sales of bottled beer (an ideal gift of course), and for the taking of orders for bright beer over Christmas. Samples will be available to help you decide.

On Sat 22nd December 11am - 4pm; Sun 23rd December 11am - 4pm & Mon 24th December 11am - 3pm we will be open once again, for the collection of bright beer, and of course for further sales of bottled beer.

It is planned that we will also be able to offer a small selection of bottled beers from other breweries.

For more information, a list of beers available, and most importantly prices, please visit our website via this otherwise pointless bit text you are know reading.

But before you naff off, remember this little motto: Quality Not Quantity. And as ever, please don't drink and drive.

Oh, and Happy Bleeding Christmas. Enjoy it while you can, it'll be banned soon for being offensive/too much fun/non-inclusive/distressing to frogs/carbon inefficient*

*Please highlight as applicable, and post to:

The Department For Public Misery & Molly-Coddling
The What? There's Something We Haven't Taxed, Banned Or Marked As Harmful Yet Team
Skyhigh Expenses Floor
Waste Of Tax Towers
Londonland

Oh Look, Another New Brewery...

According the mighty font all knowledge brewery wise, www.quaffale.org.uk, 58 new breweries have opened so far this year, while just 7 have closed - so that's an increase of 51. In 2006 82 opened, with 27 closing - an increase of 55. Go further back and it's the late 90's before the opening/closing figures balance. Now of course at first glance this all suggests a very healthy, buoyant & expanding marketplace, and to a point this is the case. Except that the market is not actually expanding - there are less pubs each year, and the good free houses are slowly snapped up by pub chains with tied supply agreements. Of course some pubs become free, and more and more tied pubs are being allowed to by from a vastly expanded range of breweries, often local. But the crucial thing is that the market is not expanding - it's changing, yes, but in terms of cask beer outlets, there is no actual growth. That said, the sales volume of cask beer is growing each year, but that is partly through the fact that for years most small breweries sales weren't included in these figures, whereas increasingly they now are. So yes there is room for some new players - but 50 each year?

Now of course the most important part of starting any business is the advanced planning. Do I have a market place? Can I get raw materials? Will I make money? And so on. And such information is processed by the financial backers and used in the decision of whether to stump up the cash. Trouble is, most new breweries don't start with any financial help - the money comes from savings, redundancy payouts etc. Indeed this is how we started as well. So there is no need to do a full business plan, and research the market, because no-one is actually asking you to. Some new breweries are pub based, so obviously they have their marketplace, others are very small and are never intended to be commercial concerns. But the rest, well they have to play in the real world.

And herein lies a problem. We can't get guarantees on raw material supplies from our hop merchants & maltsters. And those that have got some guarantee have had to buy up front. We know that some maltsters are not accepting new customers, because they don't have enough malt to go round. This is a result of a bad harvest of both malt & hops globally, compounding the growing problem of the ever decreasing acreages grown each year. So would start up a business under these conditions? One new brewer I have spoken to recently buys all his malt & hops from the bloke who sold him the brew plant in the first place, so knew nothing of any potential shortages. And it seems he is not alone.

This industry has traditionally been very friendly - OK there has always been the odd unfriendly character, but mostly we all get on very well as we share common problems & worries, and we all look out for each other. This stems from the days of yore when a yeast infection was a greater risk, and you needed to know that you neighbouring competitor would be happy to offer some of theirs - so naturally you made sure you were happy to help them. Yeast, while still very important, is either used from a packet, or obtained from a bigger brewery with a lab to keep it clean, and hold a reserve for emergencies. So whilst the need for good relations may have diminished, the philosophy still holds true. And new entrants have always held to that. Until now. It's not only us noticing that increasingly relations are straining within the industry, all quite probably through the fact that we are all competing for an effectively shrinking share of the market,

And then we have the matter of quality. You can't learn brewing in three days. You just can't. Using a proper yeast beer can take 7 days to ferment & finish, and indeed an old brewers saying goes 'Every Brew Should See A Sabbath', which backs up the 7 day cycle. So how can three days work for training? Theory is great, but practice is the key. Now of course you don't have to have any training - I certainly never did any brewing course. But at the very least you need to work for another small brewery. I learnt this the hard way, but my time helping someone else (unpaid I might add) for nearly 2 years was invaluable. Indeed without it I wouldn't be able to be here know on my high horse, as those who have followed us from our first days will testify. But not many new brewers go this route, as they have done home brew. Oh yes. This is like comparing changing tyres at Kwik-Fit with being able to work in the Maclaren F1 pit crew.

So how do you set up a new brewery? Well, you go to the back pages of any beer-related journal, find an add for a brew plant, and buy it. Put it in a building, and let the guys who sold you the plant tell you how to use it in less than three days. Hey presto, you are a brewery. Did I say packet yeast will ferment beer in two days? No? Well it often does. But then you can also by white wine for £1.99, if you want.

Alternatively, you shop around amongst the specialist plant manufacturers, realise that purpose-built brew plant isn't cheap, but used nonetheless by all those breweries that do well, win awards, and are well known. You then look for advice, and realise that the names behind the big, successful breweries, the well known beers, the big award winners, and the the breweries that have grown over the last 15-20 years, are not the names offering to help you. And if you can't answer why, then maybe you should open a kennels instead. But first there is a simple, but very important thing to do. Make sure you can get enough dogs.

Charge(s) Of The Commerce Brigade....

Why oh why do we have to pay charges to pay bills? If we want to pay Business Post online (for example), they charge us extra. Why? Is it cheaper then to pay someone (or a machine) to open envelopes, and process cheques. I don't think so. Some suit has figured it may be cheaper for most companies to pay online, even with the charge (£1 for a Debit Card...), than post cheques. So the charge can only be another way of screwing extra dosh out of us. Well not us matey. You can damn well pay someone to open our bloody envelopes.

BT though want to charge us extra for not being on Direct Debit - but have trouble understanding that maybe we want a bill first (a little battle we have had with them, which may now be over). So we pay them extra for the privilege for not allowing them carte-blance to take what they like, when they like, from our account. Perhaps not surprisingly the latest bill tells us that the line rental is increasing from November 1st. The bill was dated November 9th, so thanks for the advanced notification. If we pulled a price rise on our customers, but only told them a week after invoicing, they would, quite rightly, be a little peeved. Even BT.

Now we supply a product - we make it (which is rare enough these days), sell it, and distribute it. We then take payment for it, and stick it in the bank. We make a charge for the product - we are after all a business, and so here to make money. The charge we make for the product covers all the above. And that is how businesses have run since Ugg & Prescott first stepped out of their caves and did an honest days work (well, Ugg anyway). Now though we have this increasing trend, as highlighted above, of adding additional charges. Why? Do Business Post charge visitors to their head office for 'wear & tear' on the carpets. Don't smirk, it's only a matter of time - in the 1950's the thought of having to pay to pay an invoice would have met the same derision. Unless of course you a bean counter, in which case you'll be nodding sagely at my idea - consultancy fees apply, and of course a payment processing fee, as will Keyboard Wear Expenses & A Chair Fabric Abrasion Surcharge.


Of course when it comes to charging, the banks are the masters. You'd need the time travelling skills of Dr Who just to work out what may or may not be charged for - that quick phone call, the review meeting demanded by the otherwise elusive 'Business Manager'. And I suspect not even the Daleks have the power to force the banks to actual fully itemise their charges (although it might be worth trying to enter the bank with a sink plunger on my head, and see if it works).

So the bank charges us to deposit our money, then charges us to take it out again. Now of course this is, at the end of the day, a service, and of course it costs money, and I won't pretend that we have a huge bank balance that earns the bank huge sums in investment returns. This is because we don't have a huge cash surplus, and if we did, I'd like to think we would have a better use for it than propping the fat cat shareholders who run our financial institutions. I'm no communist, but I think a fair days hard graft is not too much to expect, and nowhere can I see the words 'hard' & 'graft' connected with wearing a suit, having meetings or taking caviar with your Cornflakes. I do know an almost communist though - but he has a holiday home, so probably doesn't count.

Now to be fair to banks, we have recently switched to Barclays (Royston branch), where there is a Business Manager (who knows everyone it seems), with an assistant, who has a working mobile and an open door policy. And he has (so far) been very happy to help us in any way. True, he likes our beer - but then an understanding of your customers is important. Our previous manager (who has yet to notice we have hardly touched our account with him in three months) once commented, on seeing the brewery "I like Stella. Is that what you do?". Well, bully for Stella, whoever she may be....

Squadron Cleared For Take-Off!

Back in August we entered the bottled version of 92 Squadron into the 2008 Tesco Beer Awards. Not sure why, but we did. Previous entries into award schemes fell flat because (we have since heard) we took the decision to to filter the beer, rather than providing each bottle with a debatable sediment. You'd think we were manufacturing a pastuerised chemical substance from the reaction such a move draws from certain quarters, but we know what is best. And that is a well brewed beer, using only natural raw materials. We then filter out any protein, and bottle it (via our bottlers). There is still some yeast in the beer (albeit a very tiny amount), and the beer still ages as it should. What it doesn't have is a sediment formed of processed yeast (which may or may not be from a traditional brewers yeast...) that does little beyond add some fizz if you are lucky, bugger up the flavour, and quite likely end up in your pint. Which is nice.

Anyway, we entered, just for fun. And would you know it, we've won. So now 92 Squadron is the winner of the 2008 Tesco Drinks Award - Regonal Beer (East). Which means that we have a listing with Tesco across 120-ish stores around East Anglia. And that is no small thing. This all starts in March 2008, and so we are now deep into expansion plans, including our own bottling line, and as investigations progress, it becomes more and more obvious that we will not be placing all our Eggs into one basket - the Tesco business, whilst important, will not be our major source of business. So, if it all comes together, we may well have lift-all round - and not just with the high-flying 92 Squadron.

And no, we won't be putting bits in the bottom. Real ale is about the the whole brewing process, not just bits in a bottle. Anyone can put bits in - it's the natural, traditional, quality & honesty of the brewing and the beer that matters.

I may even shave the beard off as well....

Hops Away...!

It would be nice to say I've been on holiday since the last posting. It would also be a lie, sadly. What's needed is more hours in the day, but I guess we'd only have to pay tax on them, so maybe we don't need any more.

Anyway, back to the real world. Today, we're going to talk about hops.

Hops are rather important to us - they might not add the alcohol or the colour to the beer, but they do have an important role in the flavour of each beer we produce. As you may of noticed, we had a pretty dismal summer, and one of the many crops affected was the UK hop harvest. Hops are a declining crop globally, mostly as a result of the big breweries ever-present drive to keep their costs down making hops an uneconomic proposition for farmers across the world. So harvests reduce each year. Throw in a bad UK harvest due to the weather, and things get a bit sticky. Add storms in the USA, damaging their hop yards, and even harder storms in Eastern Europe, and we have the makings of a problem.

And so, as I write this I am awaiting the prices for this seasons hops. At the moment it's looking like most varieties will double in price (if not more), and some varieties won't be available at all, others varying from plentiful to reduced in volume.

At the present time, only one of our beers is badly affected. Trouble is, it's Britannia - one of our top sellers. Now whilst we could change the hops, it willl either completely change the distinctive spicy blackberry character of the beer, or if we choose to get as close as possible, we'll be using imported hops - not a good thing in a beer called Britannia (the name's origins are in our long-lost industrial power). So we are trawling our archives for a suitable alternative, for inclusion in the range in January.

Other beers may well be OK, we hope....

The other problem is of course the cost. The sort of increases we are seeing will be impossible for us contain without passing them on. Add the large rise in malt prices (again, related to harvest conditions), and the frankly ridiculous increases in fuel costs, and all the other side costs that we have, and it gets a bit much. If we were to pass it all on, we'd lose sales. Now of course all breweries are in the same boat, so from a point of view of competitiveness maybe it's not a big problem. But will you, the drinker, want to pay another 30p overnight for your beer? So we'll end up having to 'swallow' some of the cost, like most breweries.

...Well, until March anyway. Then we have the risk of the Nanny State Health Lobby, bored now that they have waved their sticks at the smoker, having their alcohol duty demands met. And I'm darned if we'll pay anymore to this Wasteful Gubbinsment out of our own pockets....

Naive Knee Jerking Nonsense....

Is a the most apt phrase I can think to describe the recent outpourings of Cheshire's Police Constable, Peter Fahy. Why? Well let us look at his comments (taken from here):

(These comments were made to Channel 4 News, as part of a piece on the charging of three teenagers for the murder of a 47 year old).

Mr Fahy called for the legal drinking age to be raised from 18 to 21.

"Alcohol is too cheap and too readily available and is too strong. Young people cannot handle it," he added.

Firstly, if someone under age is going drink alcohol, does it matter then what that minimum age is - they are still going to drink. This is about education and respect for the law, just raising the age will increase under age drinking, apart from in those responsible 19 year old's who will follow the law. As with most laws, they are only followed by the responsible. So no, raising the age would not stop the problem, indeed it would only increase it.

Is Alcohol too cheap? Well maybe in the big supermarkets (and one or two smaller ones), plus in certain high street chain pubs (you can I am sure work out who). So yes raise the tax on alcohol, double it's price. But hang on, that would hit the pockets of the responsible drinkers, so they would cut back. Responsible pubs would shut, small breweries/wineries/distilleries etc would lose their outlets and then they would shut. What production that is left would be in the hands of big producers - you know, the ones that can cut their production costs and produce cheap alcohol. Meanwhile, the only drinkers unaffected would be those with a lot of disposable income. Which, funnily enough, includes the idiots Mr Fahy is trying to control. So once again, only the well behaved are affected.

Is alcohol too strong? And can young people handle it? Well I can't speak for wine or spirits, but it is historical fact that beer and cider have reduced in strength over the years, partly through cost saving by producers (less alcohol means more output in very simple terms), but mostly through taxation of beer & cider being based on alcoholic strength (less alcohol = less tax to pay). So historically you would that alcohol related 'crime' would be reducing as well. Over the last 50 years the evidence would suggest otherwise. Indeed over the same 50 years alcohol consumption has fallen dramatically, which would suggest that maybe there are factors alongside alcohol in these crimes. As for young people handling alcohol, well yes they can, if they are used to it. Wine is commonly drunk by young children in France (in small, watered down amounts), and elsewhere in the world. In the UK alcohol is demonised by the media and the authorities, which seems to only increase the enthusiasm of the young to try it asap. When they do, unlike the kids of France, it is behind closed doors, without adult supervision. Could this be a factor here? More importantly, the quantity of alcohol consumed by the irresponsible young would floor anyone. So it's not a question of not handling it, is a question of not drinking so much in the first place - and stopping demonising alcohol may well go some way to reducing it's apparent charm.


Everyday, large numbers of people enjoy alcohol in all its forms without feeling the need to put in windows, murder folk, fight in the street or rob old ladies. Much as they don't have those urges when sober. Why? Because they know it's wrong to do those things, morally first and legally second. These are the folk that suffer from these knee jerk remarks and the resulting actions. The people who know how to behave in the first place. And I bet many of these responsible people also had a drink long before they turned 18.

So Mr Fahy, here are some ideas from the real world:

1. Stop this knee-jerk stuff, it helps no-one but the Daily Mail doom merchants.
2. Arrest people, build bigger cells, and put your efforts into arranging a court system that doesn't let everyone off all the time - punishment should scare people, not pamper them.
3. Ask yourself why a minority of young people feel the need to get drunk all the time. If you just stop them getting drunk, they'll fill that hole with worse substances. Sort out the illness, not the symptoms.
4. Sure, focus your anti-alcohol feelings on those who put out cheap drink - but remember that not all outlets sell cheap drink. So raising tax won't work.
5. Have a look at work these hooligans are drinking. It might surprise you. And you might even realise that in fact, most producers and suppliers of drink don't actually benefit from the hooligan bingers, indeed their antics probably scare away potential trade.
6. No, alcohol is not exactly a healthy option, even in moderation, but for the majority it is nor more a source of harm than fast food - it is treated sensibly. So don't penalise the sensible majority.
7. Don't start to attack the industry. We are not breaking the law - if folk behave irresponsibly it is NOT our fault, anymore that Ford is responsible for killer drivers, or that rope makers are responsible for folk who hang themselves. Or maybe we all should be - indeed why not extend this thought and make the police responsible for all the crimes they don't stop. We all have a social responsibility, but lines have to be drawn. And individuals have to responsible for what they do, not pass it on to others.


I accept that the media may twist your words, and maybe your comments have been shown out of context - but you should be aware of that before your speak. So less knee jerk, and more targeted, well thought action. We all want these incidents stopped, as much we all want to be able to continue our own morally responsible lives without paying for the antics of the minority. Please, drop the soundbites - they help only to promote the speaker, and demonise young people (the majority of whom are decent folk). Also, they needlessly increase fear -unless of course you are suggesting that the streets are now an out of control lawless area...?

Back With A, Err, Ermm, Well, Errr, Something Mildy Interesting. Probably....

Ooh, would you look at that. It's been a month since the last blog, or whatever it's called. And I'm still not sure what to post.

I could say the previously discussed Hobby we have sighted may have been a juvenile Peregrine, according to some observers. I could mention a couple of new beers we have put out - 'Western Harrier', 'Blink Bonny' & the originally titled 'Dark' (hang on, that's three isn't it - sorry). I could even talk at length about various insects observed by the pond. But to be honest, I won't.

What I will say is that we now have the casks to sustain a more regular and intensive brewing schedule, which is keeping us busy, and as a result, and not before time, we are now three. We have been joined by our first employee, Basil. Basil has brewing experience, and is also a fully qualified herbalist - which I suspect may be another unique point in our favour. So I really must get about updating, nay including, a section on the website about the faces behind the beer. It may even make interesting reading...

Since the last post, a few more areas of the country have been flooded, although thankfully for us not round here (it remains to be seen what effects there will be on the hop & barley harvest, but fingers crossed all will be OK). But summer seems to be with us at the moment, and beer sales are for us still on an upwards trend. It seems to be the same for many of the other breweries we have contact with, despite some very downbeat feelings from publicans. The truth I guess is that many smokers are still spending less time drinking, which is affecting pub figures. Statistically though, smokers are more likely (so we are told) to be lager drinkers, so cask sales haven't been hit too hard - indeed it seems that what new trade there is in pubs is mostly folks who have a taste for 'bitters', and are keener to try something new. Again, this is good news for the small producers, and bad news for the big, over-hyped mass produced 'brands'. Which might explain why, as ever, small brewers are always 'bucking the trend' of national sales figures (small brewers sales aren't included in industry statistics...).

The downside of increasing sales is of course that in the short term the cash flow gets screwed up a bit, but hey-ho, this is part of business life. Of course it does hurt to see the cheques to the revenue increasing massively, but that is just relative - it's all based on money coming in, so in many ways it is a good sign.

The current bit of good news is that we have had a meeting with the local licencing officer, and any fears re high costs of getting a full alcohol/entertainment licence are seemingly unfounded. So a couple of hours of form filling (umpteen copies of which are to be sent to the world, his dog, and the dog's two mates), and 28 days of notices & adverts later, we might at last be able to sell to the public from the brewery door. All of which we were allowed to do under the old licencing rules...

One of the main concerns of the licence application revolves around protecting society from the harms of alcohol, and how we plan to do this. Well, it's simple really. For a start we won't be selling anything at a ridiculously low below cost price, and therefore encouraging folk to get cheaply drunk before going out. What's that, someone suggesting large supermarket chains are behaving irresponsibly, with impunity? Surely not. Whatever next...