Further supplementary memorandum from
Simon Clarke
I am probably prohibited from saying exactly
what I mean when referring to much of the verbal evidence submitted
by the Pubco's yesterday, so will borrow a quote from Winston
Churchill.
I believe elements of Messers Tuppen, Townsend
and "The Giles'" statements to be "factual inaccuracies".
I had a brief discussion with Mr Luff after the hearing and mentioned
that I understood the difficulties the Committee must be experiencing,
determining fact from fiction. I realise that I am in one camp
and the other is bound to have an opposing view, however, if I
could demonstrate one or more of the statements to be untrue then
hopefully the Committee would attach only little weight to the
evidence submitted by the Pubco's.
To this end I suggested to Mr Luff that he,
or any member of his team, comes to the Eagle Ale House for a
demonstration of the Brulines system.
Both "bosses" suggested this equipment
was a sophisticated metering system which, in the words of Mr
Thorley, can determine the "density" of beer and water.
This is simply not true and I can prove it very simply. The equipment
is effectively nothing more than a spinning wheel with a counter
detecting how many times it goes round, as it cannot determine
the difference between beer and water the system "overcounts",
giving the impression that more beer is being sold than supplied,
many tenants have been falsely accused of buying beer outside
the tie and have been fined by the pubco's accordingly. Faced
with "apparently" solid scientific evidence, supplied
by Brulines, backing the Pubco's claim of "stealing",
tenants pay the fine rather than going to court and running the
risk of forfeiture of their lease.
Enterprise Inns have accused the Eagle of buying
out on a number of occasions and on each we have proved the figures
provided by Brulines to be wrong—it does not determine the
density of liquid in the pipe.
Brulines have basically altered their assumed
volume of water to accommodate the high cleaning standards we
operate. Their assessment of our dispensed beer is therefore nothing
more than an educated guess.
My point is that the Pubco's clearly misled
the Committee on this issue and therefore all their statements
should be considered questionable.
I believe members of Fair Pint will be touch
with further evidence to show that elements of the Pubco statements
are untrue.
December 2008
| 
