If there is a customer niche that hasn't been met by the Fullers range - for a distinctive pilsner that is - there's at least a good argument for developing something.

The UK experience thus far has not been that encouraging. Neither an ersatz 'lager' (this series entertains but doesn't inspire http://boakandbailey.com.../10/ersatzsteiner-pils/ ) nor 'merely' a clone of a good pilsner is going to do.

There are some rather good lagers around - http://www.sabotagetimes...e/top-10-summer-lagers/ lists some (I've tried a couple of these - Bredog beers though I found far too gassy), and Camden Town Brewery's Hells lager I've enjoyed http://www.camdentownbre...y.com/year-round-beers/ at the brewery bar. It's clear there is a good market that is out of the more normal Fullers range. I've no doubt that the brewery can and should innovate and develop. Discovery was aimed I thought at the cross-over market, and Wild River is a good example of development and a beer that stands out from the hoppy competition.

So something with something of the biscuitiness and dryness of Chiswick, but a lot crisper, would be one to work for.

But, the point of the original question, as I understood it, is that one or two very respectable real-ale producers already have brewed highly successful "real" lagers. They were not seeking to emulate the gassy, tasteless global producers - I hesitate to call them brewers - but to produce a rather original genuine live ale that widened the choice offered to their customers. Anyone who sampled Harviestoun's real lager would appreciate it as an interesting but very different proposition to their stunning "Butter and Twisted". If experimenting does not prove a major distraction, and why should it(?), then there's no obvious reason why traditional brewers shouldn't give it a whirl. I have been a CAMRA member since 1977 (good grief) but I'm in favour of brewers trying out new styles of ale. Lager is about a "style", that style does not automatically mean a tasteless, gassy or chemical product! Even if UK lagers have left us with that prejudice!

It seems there are a lot of beer snobs here. As someone who loves ale, porter, stout and all other non-lager beer styles in between and brews their own beer at home exactly as Fullers do, I'm itching to have a go at making lager, but it requires more equipment than I currently have (to brew at home) than ale.

Why are so many of you against lager? Yes, many of the big brands are pretty bad, but there are (as many have pointed out) some great lagers out there. As for lager being full of chemicals, it's simply not true - even of the big brands and to tar many continental beers with the same brush is shocking. Have you never heard of the Reinheitsgebot (Bavarian Purity Law)? This stated only water, barley and hops could be used in brewing beer (revised in 1993 to allow yeast to be used for bottom-fermented beer, and for different kinds of malt, and sugar to be used for top-fermented beer).

Would you never drink Fullers bottled beers because they are pasteurised? It's all a matter of taste. I don't drink white wine because I prefer red, but I still know there are some great white wines out there.

One final thing. If you were in the only pub on an island and you knew the Fullers beer they had on a hand pump wasn't in the best of condition or hadn't settled yet, would you really rather drink that over a decent bottle of lager you knew to be perfect?

Lager doesn't have any taste and is for those who don't truly appreciate what they're drinking...drinking for drinkings sake.