![](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/b\/R29vZ2xl\/AVvXsEgz-mZ_1InlYUIDBhJ0f0eA8-dYf7v80B5UDmWcRD8uTk7s18OgpF3kaibeTcNCJtCwlmIubd14_Be-A3sf9giwqBIrTOw49pH3SEymIs5Yrd_CU3sBvxIBVlaHxZ0FbQhASiBF2KNKx0Q_O8H1OP8EuwPuPkWl-u6bf4YQ9EPAA0WJtND4Nqsk2kDna8Y\/s3426\/Sams%20Leaflet.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nI\u2019m getting behind with my posts again, although I shan\u2019t
\nbore you with what\u2019s been keeping me from blogging. I\u2019m part way through a
\nwrite up of last Fridays\u2019 <\/b>day at the seaside, aka a day out in Hastings <\/b>with
\nWest Kent CAMRA<\/b>, but with six pubs involved, there\u2019s a fair amount of detail to
\nplod through. <\/p>\n
Instead, I want to reflect briefly on the passing at the age Whilst organisations, such as CAMRA,<\/b> might have welcomed \n None of these changes had much effect on Samuel Smith\u2019s<\/b>, Because of its relatively small size Samuel Smiths<\/b> remained \n With regard to these, people tend to remember the more controversial edicts, such \n What is rather more concerning, is the often-arbitrary way \n
\nof 81,<\/b> of Humphrey Smith,<\/b> the owner of Tadcaster<\/b>-based, Samuel Smith’s Old
\nBrewery.<\/b> A controversial and divisive figure, in many respects, but also
\nsomeone who steered this staunchly traditional, family business, through the
\ntroubled waters of the late 20th<\/sup><\/b> and early 21st<\/sup>
\n<\/b>centuries. Those who have been through these times, in my case since the mid
\n1970\u2019s,<\/b> will be aware of the many changes that have occurred in the drink\u2019s
\ntrade during this period.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nsome of these changes, with hindsight the introduction of the 1989 Beer Orders,<\/b>
\ncaused serious damage to the drinks trade. The most damaging aspect of this
\nlegislation, however well-intentioned, it might have been, was the removal of
\nthe link between pubs and breweries, effectively turning the pub trade on its
\nhead. In the minds of many older drinkers, such as me and my contemporaries,
\nthe Beer Orders <\/b>destroyed the pub trade we remember, and replaced it with an
\nincreasingly cut-throat, dog-eat-dog race to the bottom.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nwhich was established in 1758<\/b>, in the North Yorkshire<\/b> town of Tadcaster.<\/b> It is
\nby far, the smallest of the three breweries based in the town, owning just 200
\npubs. <\/b>It is also an unlimited company, which permits it to maintain financial
\nprivacy, as well as allowing the directors to keep a tightly controlled family
\ngrip on the business.<\/p>\n
\nlargely unaffected by legislation such as the Beer Orders,<\/b> but that didn\u2019t mean
\nthat when Humphrey<\/b> took over the business, in the 1980\u2019s,<\/b> he didn\u2019t bring in
\nany changes. First and foremost, of these, was turning tenants into managers,
\ndirectly employed by the brewery, a move which enabled the business to dictate the policies
\nit has become well known for.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nas banning television, the use of mobile phones, and also swearing in Samuel Smith <\/b>pubs, but as the company website states, their outlets remain as “Havens
\nfrom the digital world”,<\/i><\/b> where conversation and interaction with other
\ncustomers is actively encouraged. Policies that few pub lovers could raise
\nserious objections to (unless one is trying to find the time of that last bus
\nor train home).<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nin which quite a few Sam Smith\u2019s<\/b> pubs have been closed, seemingly on the whim
\nof the brewery\u2019s late owner. An online search will reveal further details,
\nalthough some sources estimate the number to be just over half of the company\u2019s
\ntied estate of houses. Following Humphrey\u2019s<\/b> passing, it would be nice to see at
\nleast some of these outlets re-opening, especially in locations such as small
\nvillages, where communities have been left pub-less. <\/p>\n