BII gives full backing to Pub is the Hub campaign'

The British Institute of Innkeeping ­ the professional body for the licensed retail sector ­ has been in full support of the Pub is the Hub initiative since the scheme was founded in 2001 by the Prince of Wales as president of Business in the Community and its Rural Action team.

The Pub is the Hub scheme endorses all that is great about the true British rural pub. The scheme offers advice, ideas and contacts to keep pubs trading in their communities successfully.

People seem to forget that the pub plays a vital role within the community. The balance between pub and community should be a happy one and the Pub is a Hub offers licensees helpful information to keep their pub at the centre of their village or town.

As our chief executive John McNamara says, the BII is "delighted that the Pub is the Hub initiative is really taking off.

"Never has there been a more turbulent time for the licensed trade with so many new rights and responsibilities for licensees to get to grips with.

"The advice and support the Pub is the Hub scheme gives to pubs in rural communities is invaluable and we fully support their activities.

"We hope the scheme continues to grow and receive the recognition it deserves."

Christine Dedman

Communications Executive

BII

ICP members stands by its Kalashnikov ruling'

Phil Dixon's history lesson on the origin of General Kalashnikov's gun is fascinating ( Portman shoots its own foot over Kalashnikov', letters Morning Advertiser, 24 February), and will be of interest to students of Russian military history everywhere.

Sadly, it is not really relevant to the decision of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) concerning the vodka that bears the general's name.

The panel that judges complaints under the code is not drawn from within the Portman Group itself, or indeed from its member companies.

This panel is independently constituted and chaired by former Metropolitan Police Com-missioner Lord Condon.

The panel concluded that fellow members of the community at large (aside from the odd student of Russian military history) would inevitably associate the name Kalashnikov with a destructive, widely-used modern weapon, and, therefore, with violence. In the panel's view, the product breached the code.

Panel members represent a diversity of backgrounds and experience and nobody has a vested interest in any decision. They simply look at the rules ­ which are supported by more than 125 drinks companies which have signed up to the code ­ and make their decision based on the evidence supplied by the company and the complainant.

If anyone were to make a complaint about any other product, they would consider it in exactly the same way.

If companies want to save themselves the time, money, frustration and embarrassment of having a panel decision made against them, all they have to do is pick up the phone and talk to the free, confidential pre-launch advice service before they finalise their production and marketing plans.

Prevention, as always, is better than cure.

Jean Coussins

Chief Executive

The Portman Group

Big boys tighten grip on independent brewers'

I write regarding the recent letter from Nick Stafford, commercial director of the Society of Independent Brewers. If only landlords were given the chance of ordering local beers from an independent body such as his ­ instead of being dictated to by our pubcos ­ many of us would be a damn sight happier.

I have written to my company, Pyramid, complaining at its slashing of beer choice from 20 cask ales to 14, plus a guest ale club, since I started 14 months ago.

After lobbying and petitioning I managed to get a further choice from the Beer Seller (paying Pyramid's prices), but this is seen as a privilege not a right.

Beer Seller's choice is limited and no beers from my local area are offered. For this, amongst other reasons, I offered to pay our pub company for the privilege of purchasing a guest beer myself only to be greeted with a very derogatory response from the sales director, for example, put up or shut up and buy a freehouse.

The Beer Orders were brought about to curtail the monopolisation of sales of beer by the "big brewers".

By the formation of pubcos these same brewers managed to sidestep the legislation and maintain their monopoly by tying the pubcos to their beers and preventing an open market.

As I have now found out, these companies are dictators, don't care about customer choice and run a similar monopoly to the "big brewers".

Although they are free to buy from any supplier, they charge way over market prices for their beer (up to £30 a firkin).

They are paranoid with their tenants "buying out", instigating regular cellar inspections, and prosecution of those caught.

If they spent more time providing better customer choice of products that are economically viable to us landlords, tenants wouldn't be tempted to "buy out".

Sorry to be negative about Mr Stafford's letter, but unless the Trade & Industry Select Committee report is more than the whitewash it appears to be, many independent brewers will continue to find it impossible to release the stranglehold the big brewers and pub companies have on the market, the customers will be denied their choice of local products and publicans wishing to promote local beers at sensible prices will be left kicking the barrel again.

And so much for trust and co-operation in the relationship between pubcos and tenant cited in the TISC report ­ it's more like mistrust and resentment in our industry.

Name and address supplied