I WAS appalled that the writer of the comment column described the action of Scottish & Newcastle "an example of corporate crassness" (January 28).

This story, which covered the whole front page, most of an inside page and was featured in the comment column, concerned a few ex-employees of John Smith's brewery who were having their retirement privileges brought into line with other retirees from the same company.

Why should this particular group have inequitable perks? These ex-employees did not "give" years of service to the brewery, they were paid for their services just like all other workers are. Also the statement that these privileges would only save the brewery about £1,000 a year is utter nonsense. If 40 people take two pints per day, three days per week then this amounts to over 12,000 pints per year (with duty being payable on each pint).

Add to this the cost of keeping the "wet canteen" open exclusively for this activity then the figure of £1,000 per year is pure fiction.

If meeting for a pint of beer forms an important part of life to these folk then why can't they continue to meet in a local pub and pay for their ale like everyone else has to?

Their privileges have not been stopped altogether, but merely brought into line with those of other ex-employees, which seems fair and just to me.

Bob Sissons,

The Oval,

Pocklington.

Updated: 10:34 Thursday, February 10, 2005