It's interesting that "legal reasons" prevent him (and I guess you) from saying it's Brewdog but not from implying very clearly that it's Brewdog, which I'd have thought any sensible court would decide amounts to the same thing. Is it for added drama value?
Dunno. He said he not naming for legal reasons so I'm not either but he's been busy dropping blatant hints.
It's incredibly irresponsible.
Thinking about it again, it suggests that they've run out of ideas. Every other quirk has been exhausted so now it's stupid towers of beer. One last whimsical troll before, one hopes, the entire enterprise goes bankrupt.
You're missing the point, They served these to already intoxicated punters.
Yeah, I know; not good, but then most pubs tend to see a rush of orders at time made by non-sober punters. There's just so many other points in the letter that seem to highlight worse practices than that, tbh.
It's irresponsible, given what is known about the effects of over indulgence. Domestic violence, crime, hospitalisation etc.
You have to wonder what draws them to urban and why they are not only tolerated, but often indulged.
That last sentence is exactly it. I can't tell editor what to do. In light of the open letter I can only suggest that the defenders are, at the very least, temporarily barred from this thread, perhaps.
It's an awful shame, because the topic is otherwise informative and interesting. Companies and practices like this need exposing. Especially when they are pretending to be something they aren't.
Quite.
Thread bans are a constructive way to avoid trouble makers and trolls from unnecessarily tangents. We all know what Brewdog are and cheerleading them is increasingly bad taste.
There's agreement, disagreement and then there's plain old trolling. Doesn't have to be long ban. Just a spell in the gulags to persuade them the error of their ways.
