TOPIC:

"oblivious":c51kgb8i wrote:

"UpsidedownA":c51kgb8i wrote: That suggests that whether something counts as real ale or not is entirely down to whether it is cask- or bottle-conditioned or not. So, it wouldn't matter whether adjuncts are used, and therefore something like Dungarvin's Blackrock Stout would count as real ale.[/quote:c51kgb8i]

CAMRA all forget that historically most London brewers where quite free with sugar and maize ion there brews[/quote:c51kgb8i]

Well, the letter seems to be saying that they've remembered now.

"UpsidedownA":33cf0bml wrote:
Well, the letter seems to be saying that they've remembered now.[/quote:33cf0bml]

But there still like to brush it under the rug, as shown by this quote "some breweries that use a small proportion of brewing sugar."

Pedigree use around 17% sugar, that not a small amount!

OK 17% is not a small proportion. That's true. But I wouldn't say the letter tries to brush it under the rug. Do you mean this represents a climb down from their original position? That's probably right.
They say explicitly that
1.
they have given up trying to define pure beer and
2.
don't apply a Reinheitsgebot type prescription that it can only contain malted barley, water, hops and yeast.
And they close by saying
3.
that what matters for counting as real ale is the conditioning and dispensing arrangements.

"UpsidedownA":1tedwdbe wrote: that what matters for counting as real ale is the conditioning and dispensing arrangements.[/quote:1tedwdbe]

But they freely bander around words like "traditional" and other such phrases, but don't take into historical reality. Such as London mild that where never conditioned in the cask or primed an when sent out stright out from the brewery an served immediately and thus would not satisfy the term of "real ale"