Hamish Champ: 'Brulines blog lands author in spot of bother shock!'
When licensee and Publican blogger Mark Daniels told me he was going to write a piece on his experience with Brulines he acknowledged that he would come in for some stick.
He wasn't wrong. Like issues such as the beer tie and the smoking ban (remove pin, bring back arm, etc), beer flow monitoring technology in general - and Brulines' kit in particular - gets many foaming at the mouth much as your average Daily Mail reader foams at the mouth after happening upon a story concerning two gay men who get married and then want to adopt children.
Some who read Daniel's piece - in which he said he found Bruline's i-draught gear quite useful - questioned his judgment. Some questioned his sanity. And in one case - somewhat ironically - a reader questioned his writing skills.
Members of a well-known campaign to rid UK pubs of Brulines' kit predictably came up with some rather ripe comments, and they weren't the only one who slated Daniels for having the temerity to say that in his experience Brulines works for him.
He wasn't saying it was perfect, mind, just that he didn't have a huge problem with it.
One reader was so outraged by the cheek of Daniels to fly in the face of perceived wisdom on the subject that he wondered if in fact Brulines' chief executive had written the article (he hadn't) and whether Daniels has shares in the company (to my knowledge he doesn't).
Like anyone convinced that their truth is the only truth, those lodging the more, shall we say 'robust' attacks have an issue with what Daniels wrote because they believe so unswervingly in their own view of the world. Their way, when it comes to Brulines and its ilk, is The Way. Stand in the way of The Way and you deserve to be swept out of the way. If you see what I mean.
Like when Sky News Westminster hack Adam Boulton completely lost it with Alistair Campbell the day after the general election, some people get that passionate about something they cannot and will not countenance that someone else may take a different viewpoint. Anger often follows.
One reader angrily suggested that with his article Daniels has helped undermine the case against Brulines being so carefully constructed in a smoke-filled room somewhere. Come again? He just said he thinks the system works for him. If the legal argument being built against the technology is as watertight as I'm being led to believe it is then where's the harm in one licensee saying he thinks it's 'OK'?
Still, we all have our bête noires. I don't like bigots, for example. In fact you might say I'm bigoted against bigots. Which, er, kind of makes me a bigot. So I suppose I should take issue with myself as regards my own bigotry. In fact I (That's enough. Ed.)
It seems to me that the level of slagging off Daniels has received simply because he happens to see a benefit in an unpopular technology does said technology's detractors little credit.
But feel free to disagree. A number of you usually do…
