Bring me my bow

Wells Bombardier is one of the best-selling premium cask beers in Britain, but it’s one that I’ve never really taken to. I’m not saying it’s a bad beer, but it has a distinctive kind of almost chewy maltiness that doesn’t appeal to me. Having said that, on a couple of occasions in the past year I’ve come across very well kept examples when it’s been the only cask beer in a pub.

In recent years, Wells have come up with a couple of “brand extensions” to Bombardier, building on the theme of “The Drink of England” by using phrases from Blake’s Jerusalem. One was the dark, rich, almost stouty Satanic Mills, which got some good reviews but now seems to have been delisted. The other is Burning Gold, which is still very much with us. The website says it is available as a seasonal cask beer as well as in bottle, but I can’t recall ever coming across it in the pub.

This has a strength of 4.7% ABV and comes in a clear bottle which shows off its appealing bright orange-gold colour, darker than most beers bearing the name “Gold”, which looks very good once in the glass. It has a fairly thin but lasting head and noticeable carbonation. There’s a subdued initial aroma of malt and fruit.

It’s a basically dry beer with a good balance of both malt and hops and some fruity notes. It’s quite a “big”, assertive, full-bodied beer in comparison with the understated London Gold, and isn’t truly in the characteristic floral, fragrant golden ale style, which to my mind is a plus point.

A distinctive and highly drinkable golden ale which has a much more robust character than many of the genre. It’s too strong to really be called a session beer, but certainly something you could happily drink more than one of.

SAKINEH UPDATE

I've been unable to shake from my mind the thought of the Iranian woman due to be stoned on the day she was due to die an inhumane death for her alleged adultery and murder.

The Iranian Govt has changed it's mind about which barbaric means it uses to take her life and has plumped for hanging instead but according to earlier reports her impending execution has not been carried out yet.

It seems the world is sitting by and grumbling disapproval at this case. The foreign office had strong words for a Tehran diplomat :

"I took the opportunity to remind him the UK Government would regard the execution of Ms Ashtiani as utterly unacceptable."

Someone pointed out to me today that we can't impose our Western morals on the Middle East. We may hate it and despise them for it, but they have to deal with things in their own way. It is their country and we have no right to tell them what to do any more than they have a right to tell us.

Does it matter to the world that the evidence gained to convict her is alleged to have been gained by torture? Obviously the world is jumpy about Iran's alleged nuclear technology and doesn't want to do anything to make Aminehjad blow. The life of one woman doesn't seem to matter in the wider scheme of things. I hate politics.

They keep telling us we live in a "progressive" world. I think in all sorts of ways, including our placid acceptance of this woman's fate, we are going backwards. I wonder how long it will be before we're living in caves.

Appearance money

The Good Pub Guide have announced that they are going to start charging pubs for inclusion as full entries - £199 a year for dining pubs, and £99 for those with a more limited food offer. They claim that this won’t lead to a reduction in standards, and that no pubs will be included that otherwise wouldn’t be, but inevitably any policy of charging for entries will compromise the independence of a pub guide. The problem is not so much that unworthy pubs will be included, but that worthy ones won’t be because they won’t pay up.

I’ve never had a lot of time for the Good Pub Guide, which gives the impression of being predominantly a guide to poncey dining pubs that I would go out of my way to avoid. But it does, perhaps in the interest of credibility, include a smattering of proper pubs – for example, the 2006 edition includes, in this area, the White Lion at Barthomley, the Marble Arch and Stalybridge Station Buffet.

It is exactly that sort of pub that is likely to feel it is not worth paying for an entry, thus leaving the guide even more skewed than it is at present and reducing the comprehensiveness of the information it provides for its readers. And, if a pub is on the borderline, but is willing to pay for an entry, can the editors really say that won’t affect their decision? Despite their claims, I can see this move damaging sales as the book will no longer be perceived as unbiased.