tzijlstra Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 Just reading the actual decision and it appears taste tests were done and Carling consumers actually preferred the taste of the weaker brew. "However, we note that this did not contravene the statutory labelling requirements (see above) which provide for a +/- 0.5% ABV labelling tolerance and that MCBC was careful not to alienate consumers who, taste tests indicated, preferred the beer with the lower ABV." 'Yeah, I like sample B.' 'Why?' 'Tastes more like sparkling water.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason crock Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 I have never tasted "rats urine" (sic). Earlier today I was drinking an 11% stout. And you, pal, are seriously at the wind up ya cheeky monkey! I'm sorry you felt sic of carling. You have me intriguing about this 11% stouts. I'm german so I'm probably a cheeky chip monk lost in transit ---------- Post added 27-08-2017 at 22:24 ---------- and hes crap at it too I'm a tolerant person and never inbune nobody. You however never start a sentence with a capital. Are you silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choogling Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 If you drink carling then you deserve everything you get. Its weaker than a nun's pee how would you know a nuns pee is weaker than the standard version are you some sort of an expert in tasting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_Boy Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 I don't mind Carling, it's an okay session drink, but then again I'm not a hipster beer snob. Reading the article I think Coors have just been quite clever, reading between the lines they say if they tell the tax man they brew at 3.7% they pay less tax but they're allowed a 0.5% buffer either way. That suggests to me it's a tax avoidance plan, brew at 3.7% with a .5% buffer means you can still achieve 4% but pay less tax. It's a loophole in my opinion and quite clever of the brewer. If they brew at 4% they pay more tax if they "brew at 3.7%" with a .5% tolerance they can still achieve 4% and pay less tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 I don't mind Carling, it's an okay session drink, but then again I'm not a hipster beer snob. Reading the article I think Coors have just been quite clever, reading between the lines they say if they tell the tax man they brew at 3.7% they pay less tax but they're allowed a 0.5% buffer either way. That suggests to me it's a tax avoidance plan, brew at 3.7% with a .5% buffer means you can still achieve 4% but pay less tax. It's a loophole in my opinion and quite clever of the brewer. If they brew at 4% they pay more tax if they "brew at 3.7%" with a .5% tolerance they can still achieve 4% and pay less tax. Yep, it's exploring a loophole in taxation and packaging laws Not many drinkers will now there is such a variance in the strength of their regular brew, and will accept the strength stated on the product. Needless to say a big commercial brewer is going to fairly precisely control their ABV. If lowering the tax bill depends on it they won't mess it up. Maybe packaging laws should be changed to state the variance of the brew, or variances at a particular brewery. Say from the previous year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Yep, it's exploring a loophole in taxation and packaging laws I agree and its a loophole that I'm certain will soon be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 I agree and its a loophole that I'm certain will soon be closed. People that are unhappy with this discrepancy should boycott Carling for a period of time, I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 People that are unhappy with this discrepancy should boycott Carling for a period of time, I will. This could involve every mass market brewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowt2pctoday Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 why would you drink carling anyway?? i love hearing some people say oh i had 10 pints of carling last night lol, yes and??? try that with stella, Peroni or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny_Boy Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 why would you drink carling anyway?? i love hearing some people say oh i had 10 pints of carling last night lol, yes and??? try that with stella, Peroni or similar. Well you've sort of made the point for me, if you're out on a session you might drink Carling because as you say if you drink ten pints of Stella you might find yourself in a gutter covered in your own vomit where as if you're drinking Carling you'll end up safely tucked up in bed at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now