Jason crock   10 #25 Posted August 27, 2017 (edited) Having tasted it once I concur it tastes like rats urine. I can understand now why 8% stouts ales and lagers are hard to find in the UK due to draconian tax laws. Edited August 27, 2017 by Jason crock I don't know Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
nightrider   13 #26 Posted August 27, 2017 Be careful now. Things aren't always that simple. https://www.carling.com/heritage  well that would depend on whether the original "ale" recipe they took over in the 1800's has anything to do with the lager produced in the 20th century...it could well be the lager is a more recent invention. Pete Brown's book has a lot of details on this, but I can't remember it all now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Lurgh Mor   10 #27 Posted August 27, 2017 Having tasted it once I concur it tastes like rats urine. I can understand now why 8% stouts ales and lagers are hard to find in the UK due to draconian tax laws.  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! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   863 #28 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! and hes crap at it too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
taxman   12 #29 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." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   863 #30 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." bunch o lightweights Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tzijlstra   11 #31 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.' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jason crock   10 #32 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
choogling   14 #33 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Danny_Boy   10 #34 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3   10 #35 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #36 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...