Again, I would point out that nowhere in the article does it say this is "instead of", but rather "as well as". So unless you've got some sort of other concrete evidence the pint is being withdrawn, you're getting hot under the collar about something you've entirely made up (or "doing a Littlejohn", if you prefer).

However, to humour you, as we've already debunked the technical problems of dealing with different sized glasses and different prices for different sizes and different types of drink (which pubs and drinkers do already and have been doing for many years) I'll deal with the cultural bit. As we've established the pint will still be available, so you could still say "fancy a pint?". Even if it weren't, you could still say "fancy a pint?" because people would know what it meant as a turn of phrase, and even if for some bizarre reason this were outlawed, you could still say "fancy a drink?". No-one would ever say "Fancy 550ml after work" whether the unit they usually drink is a pint, gallon, firkin or magnum, as I'm sure you're entirely aware. People don't say that in other countries where the pint isn't the usual unit, and yet bars and pubs thrive all over the world. You know, it's almost as if the unit itself isn't the most important thing...

So in a nutshell, you appear to be worried about something that isn't happening which itself is an extension of something that only might happen anyway, and even if it did happen it would only affect people who can only deal in pints and further cannot cope with other measures being available, who by definition would therefore also be unable to cope now. Your biggest worry would appear to be the fact that British pub culture is entirely based around the units beer is served in and would implode should any other unit be sold alongside the ones already in place, rather than it actually being about the beer, the pub itself, the atmosphere and the people.

That leads me to conclude that one or more of the following is true:
(a) You *really* like straw man arguments
(b) You drink in a very bizarre, unit obsessed pub (the Rain Man's Arms?)
(c) You seem to think that any idea with some sort of offshore origination is inherently a bad one

Oh, and just as a final note - a lot of bottled beer and cider in pubs is already sold in non-pint units (500 ml, 450 ml, 330 ml). So arguably this is just draught catching up with what is already available and has been for some time. So, do you have any other solid technical or cultural reason not already debunked against offering drinkers the same unit of draught beer/lager/cider that they can already purchase as a bottle (and by offering it as draught you're more likely to sell local, British drinks rather than mass-produced megabrewery products and imports) given that you will still be able to purchase drinks for yourself by the pint should you so wish to, or would you rather see British companies hamstrung by some absurd false sense of nostalgia for something that hasn't even gone away anyway and was never the keystone of pub culture in the first place?

Why change though?

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

Why change what? Nothing is changing. Something is potentially being added - use it, don't use it. It makes no difference to what you want to do if you want to drink pints, but might be a better choice for someone else.

Here's a hypothetical question. You take a young lady (or man, I make no assumptions) to a pub for a drink. You buy a pint. S/he would like to try the locally-made cider, but it only comes in halves or pints. S/he doesn't want a half as that's an amount less than a can of coke, but doesn't want a pint as s/he might not like it. So s/he opts for a 2/3rds (or schooner, or whatever it gets called).

Would you prefer that, or forcing her/him to buy an amount they don't want or - worse still - forcing them to opt for a bottled, imported European cider instead?

Or to put it another way, is your argument really "I don't want someone else to have that choice, even though it makes no difference to me"?

yes!



only in the same way as the starbucks size options, basically large and "holy fuck!".

as for other size options, yeah, they'd be nice, we'd still have pints, other opions would be good as only having pints and halves avaliable for everything on draught is a bit silly. it doesn't really take into account the variety of beers and ciders pubs sell, some of which are a tad on the strong side and you wouldn't want a whole pint of them.

edit: as for "fancy a pint?" it's already just a turn of phrase, i'll happily invite people out for coffee inspite of not drinking it, my friend in brussels still deals in fivers, tenners and quids inspite of the units in question being euros rather than pounds.
so yes, in conclusion, we'll still have pints, and they'll still be refered to in casual conversation, you'll just be able to have a bit less if you happen to fancy a leffe.

_________________
i have an art blog: http://procrastinationathon.blogspot.com/
and a review blog: http://blindwithwoodenhands.blogspot.com/
double blog! what does it mean?

You could lose the value comparison though, I think that would be the main issue in many bars, and with the larger brands. I see some pretty clever marketing now with bottled beers.

The bar I work in has recently been given a load of the new Bud '66' to sell, it comes in 275ml bottles and is 4.1% (ish), yet costs the same as it's older brother in 330ml at 5%. Yet from the other side of the bar it looks like you are getting exactly ther same. I've noticed a similar thing happening in supermarkets over the last decade or so - it's pretty tough to do a price comparison of bottled beers. It was much easier to have a shelf full of either 440ml cans or 330ml bottles, and nothing inbetween.

Right now, all branded glasses come in various sizes, but still have the same volume. So it would be quite easy order a Becks and get a 450ml glass looking, and costing the same as a pint of the Stella equivalent.

I think if you just add a standard measure 2/3rd pint glass into the equation, it wouldn't be too much of a problem, and would work well for Belgian lagers and ciders as mentioned above (not to mention preventing my ridiculous hangovers from pint after pint of Old Rosie cider!). If you completley abolish any kind of standard serving measure though, you run the risk of ever decreasing portions as seen in bottled beers as breweries/publicans try to keep their heads afloat.

Absolute fucking piss, that stuff. Avoid.

It really is, I've even turned down free ones...

large/enormous.
Hard to calculate units consumed/stay within drink-drive limit.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Or alternatively you could just not drink at all if you plan to drive?

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

My understanding of this is that the pint IS going to be replaced by something else. It is being done because:



The implication of these words appears to be that the 'pint' is not good enough because it is the wrong size. I agree that nowhere in the article does it specifically mention that the pint is going to be abolished. But the rhetoric does suggest it. As a suggestion only. i.e. when English cricket fans celebrate future match wins against Australia they won't be celebrating with pints. Suggesting that either pints won't be available or that they will have all changed their minds and decided to drink a new measure which will be about the same as 3/4 of a pint instead. If the story is all about the English cricket fans simply changing their minds then the story would take on a real air of improbability. So the story is in fact about the withdrawal of the pint.

To settle this argument one way or another we could look up the legalisation which is forcing this change and unpick the text until we get to our answer but I’m not going to bother. I’m pretty sure the journalist will have already based the story on some sort of clear understanding which he/she has interpreted into the story for us plebs to digest.

So what conclusions can we draw from the mere existence of this story in the newspaper? I wouldn't just put it down as a hoax and move on as some people on here seem so willing to do.

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

That tinfoil hat really brings out the colour of your eyes. How does 'more choice' imply that they're going to replace one measurement with another? That's exactly the same amount of choice.

Yeah, where are you getting that from?

And you still fail to see why you where humiliated at the election

_________________
"..The Daily Mail - not so much a newspaper as an idiot's guidebook issued in bite-size daily installments" Charlie Brooker

The article simply 'suggests' in several ways that the pint is going when this new legislation which is under consideration is passed into law.

When you disagree with me on this... i.e. to say that the pint is not going... you are saying I am either a. misinterpreting the article or b. that the article is wrong.

Actually I don’t care whether the answer is a. or b. The article suggests the pint is going and many of you believe that because that is what was written that the opposite is true. I suspect if the words were slightly rearranged and the story was published in the Guardian instead then it might carry more weight? I know you guys like to dismiss the Telegraph as a posh version of the Mail. I should add... personally I don't read either, someone else emailed me the link to the website.

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

The article may imply that but since there no source for that suggestion and any potential bill has yet to be put before parliament then we have no way of knowing anything one way or the other.

_________________
"..The Daily Mail - not so much a newspaper as an idiot's guidebook issued in bite-size daily installments" Charlie Brooker