BrewDog: yet another hip company using 'rebel' language to sell its stuff

[brogdale]

I won't name names, but I've actually heard that some urban posters get drunk, not just in their own homes but in public bars. And when they get drunk they don't go home or report themselves to the authorities, they buy another drink and sometimes even another one after that. It's highly irresponsible, and certainly helps keep a certain kind of disgusting operation in business: the pub that serves drunk people.

Shabby post; the business selling the harmful product has a duty of care to the consumer and licensing conditions to meet. No need to equate their reported racist, sexist, ableist, bullying, unsafe corporate behaviour with the lifestyles of individual posters on here.

 

[Spymaster]

Shabby post; the business selling the harmful product has a duty of care to the consumer and licensing conditions to meet. No need to equate their reported racist, sexist, ableist, bullying, unsafe corporate behaviour with the lifestyles of individual posters on here.

He has a good point though. I very much doubt there's a single poster here who hasn't bought a drink when they've been pissed. There's actually a law in the UK against selling booze to drunk people. It must be one of the most frequently ignored licensing laws in existence, by just about every pub in the country!

As you suggested yourself, this is a very silly rabbit hole for the brigade to be charging into.

 

[brogdale]

He has a good point though. I very much doubt there's a single poster here who hasn't bought a drink when they've been pissed. There's actually a law in the UK against selling booze to drunk people. It must be one of the most frequently ignored licensing laws in existence, by just about every pub in the country!

As you suggested yourself, this is a very silly rabbit hole for the brigade to be charging into.

It really isn't 'a good point' at all; it's just a shabby attempt to blame the consumer for the externalities of the business model and swerves the substantive claims of racist, sexist, ableist, bullying, and unsafe work practices.

 

[Spymaster]

It really isn't 'a good point' at all; it's just a shabby attempt to blame the consumer for the externalities of the business model ...

Not a chance!

It's drawing an obvious parallel with a specific action being complained of here, namely the continued serving of alcohol to intoxicated people, to something that the complainants undoubtedly do frequently themselves, and the hypocrisy therein.

 

[brogdale]

Not a chance!

It's drawing an obvious parallel with a specific action being complained of here, namely the continued serving of alcohol to intoxicated people, to something that the complainants undoubtedly do frequently themselves, and the hypocrisy therein.

There's no 'parallel' between the reported corporate breaching of licensing conditions and the shabby assumptions being made about the consumer behaviour of your fellow posters.

Telling that the BD fanboy brigade don't want to talk about the claims of racist, sexist, ableist, bullying and unsafe practices.

 

[Spymaster]

There's no 'parallel' between the reported corporate breaching of licensing conditions the assumptions being made about the consumer behaviour of your fellow posters.

There's one so clear, it couldn't be more obvious if you put fairy lights and neon signs on it!

 

[PR1Berske]

The problem with one of the Fanboys - who I have on ignore incidentally - is their admission that they don't like Brewdog, they just use this thread for kicks and laughs. That's trolling.

 

[Spymaster]

The problem with one of the Fanboys - who I have on ignore incidentally - is their admission that they don't like Brewdog, they just use this thread for kicks and laughs.

That's because you've misrepresented that particular fanboy, who has repeatedly made clear that it's BD's beer that he doesn't like, not the company itself, which he believes is the same as most others in the industry.

The fanboy also knows that you just clicked on "show ignored posts" to read this

 

[brogdale]

There's one so clear, it couldn't be more obvious if you put fairy lights and neon signs on it!

No, you're quite wrong.
If a fellow (obviously intoxicated) poster had ever been daft enough to be in a BD premise and demanded to be served, there would, of course, be a causal relationship between corporate wrong-doing and any potential risks from the drunk individual, but that is not a 'parallel'.

 

[Spymaster]

No, you're quite wrong.
If a fellow (obviously intoxicated) poster had ever been daft enough to be in a BD premise and demanded to be served, there would, of course, be a causal relationship between corporate wrong-doing and any potential risks from the drunk individual, but that is not a 'parallel'.

No, you're just trolling now.

As you're aware, the parallel here is in the behaviours of the licensees. We have complaints about BD selling alcohol to intoxicated people, which overlook identical behaviour by non-Brewdog landlords, in which the complainants are no doubt complicit. That is a direct parallel.

 

[brogdale]

No, you're just trolling now.

As you're aware, the parallel here is in the behaviours of the licensees. We have complaints about BD selling alcohol to intoxicated people, which overlook identical behaviour by non-Brewdog landlords, in which the complainants are no doubt complicit. That is a direct parallel.

If you want whataboutery then, yes, there may be 'parallels' with other businesses that breach their licence, but has the same self-defeating nature of any whataboutery of clarifying the wrong-doing.

However, to remind you, we were discussing your re-assertion of teuchter 's shabby claim. In your own words:

It's drawing an obvious parallel with a specific action being complained of here, namely the continued serving of alcohol to intoxicated people, to something that the complainants undoubtedly do frequently themselves, and the hypocrisy therein.

Identifying the inconsistencies in your logic does not equate to 'trolling'...as you well know.

 

[Spymaster]

If you want whataboutery then, yes …

Thank you.

What you go on to quote and highlight, further bolsters my correctness in this passage of discourse.

 

[brogdale]

Thank you.

What you go on to quote and highlight, further bolsters my correctness in this passage of discourse.

Unless you're suggesting that the (unnamed) posters that you're alluding to are themselves pub landlords who breach their licence in the way that BD are accused of, you're just making a fool of yourself here.

 

[Spymaster]

Unless you're suggesting that the (unnamed) posters that you're alluding to are themselves pub landlords who breach their licence in the way that BD are accused of, you're just making a fool of yourself here.

This post is a prime example of a remark known in academic circles as, a load of misconceived bollocks.

Good to see that we're keeping PR1Berske engaged though. I was worried that by putting me on ignore he might miss out on my some of my more educational posts. I'm pleased to see that he's still reading them.

 

[Colin Hunt]

So against my better judgment I'm going to wade into this thread and give a personal opinion which isn't partisan. Both brogdale and Spymaster seemed to agree (before the aside on whether or not consumers are complicit) that management forcing people to sell beer towers to people who should've been refused alcohol isn't that bad.

Serving someone who's drunk is a crime under the Licensing Act but it's very rare to be prosecuted for that alone instead of in combination with other more serious offences. Instead, it's better to look at things from a licensing objective standpoint, focusing on the duties of any licensee to prevent crime, disorder, and public nuisance, and the parallel duty to protect public safety. The key thing is that where people are exhibiting clear signs of excessive drunkenness they are refused service clearly and compassionately, and that management train and empower staff to make these refusals.

Management overruling employees in this area without good reason creates an unsafe work environment and an unsafe environment for other customers who are drinking more sensibly. As someone who manages a licensed premises in London (post-pandemic career change from legal academia) I expect people to try and buy drinks when they're too drunk, and I also expect people to try and buy drinks for their friends who are too drunk. Refusing them (as long as it's done properly) almost never causes issues. Giving them that extra drink is the root cause of most issues that licensed premises face, from fighting to abuse of staff. Management creating an environment where staff are forced to second guess their intuition in these situations is just as dangerous as a poorly maintained cellar or an over-capacity venue.

 

[editor]

Management overruling employees in this area without good reason creates an unsafe work environment and an unsafe environment for other customers who are drinking more sensibly. As someone who manages a licensed premises in London (post-pandemic career change from legal academia) I expect people to try and buy drinks when they're too drunk, and I also expect people to try and buy drinks for their friends who are too drunk. Refusing them (as long as it's done properly) almost never causes issues. Giving them that extra drink is the root cause of most issues that licensed premises face, from fighting to abuse of staff. Management creating an environment where staff are forced to second guess their intuition in these situations is just as dangerous as a poorly maintained cellar or an over-capacity venue.

Excellent point. And it's worth remembering that Brewdog staff members aren't just being forced to sell intoxicated punters another pint - they're being compelled to serve them over four pints in one go,

 

[brogdale]

So against my better judgment I'm going to wade into this thread and give a personal opinion which isn't partisan. Both brogdale and Spymaster seemed to agree (before the aside on whether or not consumers are complicit) that management forcing people to sell beer towers to people who should've been refused alcohol isn't that bad.

Serving someone who's drunk is a crime under the Licensing Act but it's very rare to be prosecuted for that alone instead of in combination with other more serious offences. Instead, it's better to look at things from a licensing objective standpoint, focusing on the duties of any licensee to prevent crime, disorder, and public nuisance, and the parallel duty to protect public safety. The key thing is that where people are exhibiting clear signs of excessive drunkenness they are refused service clearly and compassionately, and that management train and empower staff to make these refusals.

Management overruling employees in this area without good reason creates an unsafe work environment and an unsafe environment for other customers who are drinking more sensibly. As someone who manages a licensed premises in London (post-pandemic career change from legal academia) I expect people to try and buy drinks when they're too drunk, and I also expect people to try and buy drinks for their friends who are too drunk. Refusing them (as long as it's done properly) almost never causes issues. Giving them that extra drink is the root cause of most issues that licensed premises face, from fighting to abuse of staff. Management creating an environment where staff are forced to second guess their intuition in these situations is just as dangerous as a poorly maintained cellar or an over-capacity venue.

Good post Colin.
One small thing, though; I didn't explicitly say that the beer towers for the pissed "isn't that bad", just that I thought there were other, more obvious issues (possibly) specific to the Waterloo BD that the claims highlighted. I have to admit that, on reflection of your post and others, my initial reaction may have been wrong, or at least superficial.

 

[Spymaster]

So against my better judgment I'm going to wade into this thread and give a personal opinion which isn't partisan. Both brogdale and Spymaster seemed to agree (before the aside on whether or not consumers are complicit) that management forcing people to sell beer towers to people who should've been refused alcohol isn't that bad.

Serving someone who's drunk is a crime under the Licensing Act but it's very rare to be prosecuted for that alone instead of in combination with other more serious offences. Instead, it's better to look at things from a licensing objective standpoint, focusing on the duties of any licensee to prevent crime, disorder, and public nuisance, and the parallel duty to protect public safety. The key thing is that where people are exhibiting clear signs of excessive drunkenness they are refused service clearly and compassionately, and that management train and empower staff to make these refusals.

Management overruling employees in this area without good reason creates an unsafe work environment and an unsafe environment for other customers who are drinking more sensibly. As someone who manages a licensed premises in London (post-pandemic career change from legal academia) I expect people to try and buy drinks when they're too drunk, and I also expect people to try and buy drinks for their friends who are too drunk. Refusing them (as long as it's done properly) almost never causes issues. Giving them that extra drink is the root cause of most issues that licensed premises face, from fighting to abuse of staff. Management creating an environment where staff are forced to second guess their intuition in these situations is just as dangerous as a poorly maintained cellar or an over-capacity venue.

Yes. Apart from my own, this is the only intelligent post in the last few pages of the thread. The point of contention of course, is that BD are somehow unique in this kind of behaviour, rather than indicative of a generally poorly administered industry.

 

[editor]

A large percentage of my friends work in bars, and while it's an industry where staff are rarely treated particularly well, I've never heard any of them come up with a list of complaints as long as those about Brewdog, nor have I ever heard them complain that managers are forcing them to serve large quantities of beer to already-pissed customers that they don't want to serve.

 

[equationgirl]

He has a good point though. I very much doubt there's a single poster here who hasn't bought a drink when they've been pissed. There's actually a law in the UK against selling booze to drunk people. It must be one of the most frequently ignored licensing laws in existence, by just about every pub in the country!

As you suggested yourself, this is a very silly rabbit hole for the brigade to be charging into.

I haven't drunk since 1995, so me - I haven't bought a drink when pissed. Because I haven't been pissed since my first year of uni and would not drink till I was blackout drunk.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I wonder how much things have changed since 2014, when 84% of seemingly drunk people would get served in pubs and bars.

Serving drinks to those who are drunk - Ward Hadaway

What has happened? Researchers at Liverpool John Moores University sent actors pretending to be drunk into a series of city bars. The actors were trained to act drunk using slurred speech, unsteadiness, lack of eye focus and fumbling and were then sent to buy alcoholic drinks at 73 bars in a...

www.wardhadaway.com

 

[editor]

I wonder how much things have changed since 2014, when 84% of seemingly drunk people would get served in pubs and bars.

Serving drinks to those who are drunk - Ward Hadaway

What has happened? Researchers at Liverpool John Moores University sent actors pretending to be drunk into a series of city bars. The actors were trained to act drunk using slurred speech, unsteadiness, lack of eye focus and fumbling and were then sent to buy alcoholic drinks at 73 bars in a...

www.wardhadaway.com

Were they being ordered by their bosses to serve them half gallon beer towers?

Serving a clearly drunk person an extra pint is reckless. Serving them 4 pints of strong booze in one go is positively dangerous, as the staff have explained.

 

[Spymaster]

I haven't drunk since 1995, so me

I think it's safe to assume that people who don't drink alcohol are implicitly excluded from discussions regarding people who do.

 

[PR1Berske]

That's another poster I can put on ignore.

 

[kenny g]

Years back I worked in a pub that had a Friday night four pints of Stella Artois for the price of three jug promotion. It was messy as hell and I will never forget some of the scenes. It put me off the "wet trade" for life.

At absolutely no point whatsoever were we as bar staff told we had to serve anyone, and were in fact fully supported when we told people we thought they had had enough for the night.

The problem with a four pint serving of a strong beer is that 4 pints will get most people pissed or merry and 8 pints will get some people violently aggressive/ out of their minds/ incapable/ maudlin/ incapable/ incontinent/ lost/ in tears or worse. Treating a four pint measure as yet another commodity in a bar environment, especially as a last orders measure is the height of irresponsibility.

It is worth mentioning that anyone can apply for a licensing review under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17

 

[kenny g]

I think it's safe to assume that people who don't drink alcohol are implicitly excluded from discussions regarding people who do.

There is a time when potentially amusing trolldom crosses over to needless offence. Maybe time to reflect.

 

[brogdale]

Treating a four pint measure as yet another commodity in a bar environment, especially as a last orders measure is the height of irresponsibility.

I'm sure that the corporate business would say that the 'towers' were for sharing and that may equate to a table of 4 people merely having their 'last orders' pint, but I can't imagine that at 11pm that sort of thing was being actively or effectively managed.

 

[Spymaster]

The problem with a four pint serving of a strong beer is that 4 pints will get most people pissed or merry and 8 pints will get some people violently aggressive/ out of their minds/ incapable/ maudlin/ incapable/ incontinent/ lost/ in tears or worse. Treating a four pint measure as yet another commodity in a bar environment, especially as a last orders measure is the height of irresponsibility.

Maybe worth asking yourself how likely it is that they're selling 4 pint measures to single punters rather than groups of pissed lads at last orders?

 

[Spymaster]

I'm sure that the corporate business would say that the 'towers' were for sharing and that may equate to a table of 4 people merely having their 'last orders' pint, but I can't imagine that at 11pm that sort of thing was being actively or effectively managed.

Great minds, Broggers

 

[brogdale]

Maybe worth asking yourself how likely it is that they're selling 4 pint measures to single punters rather than groups of pissed lads?

How would they know, particularly if under managerial pressure to sell product?