Drinking, The New Smoking.

I read in the Metro this morning that 80% of doctors and nurses polled by the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Physicians believed that putting the price of alcohol up would curb people's drinking habits. The Metro article is quite short (and I'll cover why in a second) but the BBC have a much longer version of the same thing here that also mentions that the Prime Mentalist isn't too keen on the idea.

It seems Gordon is worried that moderate drinkers would be hit by such a plan. You think? I think Gordon is probably more worried that people who drink would hate him to the point of murder if he was seen to set minimum prices on alcohol, as Liam Donaldson wants.

But that's not my main point. The Metro, on the same page as the snippet linked to above, also had this spectacularly stupid idea.

Busy town centre pubs may be forced to introduce orderly post office-style queues when they run cheap drink promotions. Pubs and clubs may also have to limit customers to buying two drinks at a time, ban drinking in the queue and hire extra door staff to prevent trouble breaking out. Landlords would be made to give authorities a week's notice of promotions and pay for extra police officers to patrol, Oldham council in Greater Manchester has said.

Because pubs have plenty of spare cash at the minute, don't they? They could easily afford to pay the (presumably now hiked up massively) rate for doorstaff and/or police out of their huge profits*. The upside presumably would be that you wouldn't be able to go to the bar and get a round in for more than you and one person.

It gets better though.

Bars which refused to sign up to the new measures would be stripped of their licences.

Nice touch there: volunteer to do this, or we'll put you out of business. I wonder what kind of cocksucking ass hat would even think about being linked with an idea as monumentally insane as that?

MP Phil Woolas has described Oldham town centre as like the 'Wild West' at weekends.

Ah, there's a shock. Phil "we'll stop immigrants, oh wait, we can't, we're in the EU" Woolas. Or Phil "rent-a-quote" Woolas, as I like to think of him.

Amusingly - for me, at least, your mileage may vary - Alcohol Concern (a made-up charity, funded pretty much entirely by the Government, yet wheeled out as a legitimate voice of the public in matters such as this) said the plans "might have little effect" and added: "A pub is a very different environment to a post office."

Used to be very different from a Post Office, would be more appropriate. There are now a couple of worrying similarities. Firstly, there used to be lots of Post Offices, but quite a few of them have closed down and you have to blame that on the government. Secondly, you can't smoke in a Post Office.

I would also like to point out at this point, that while doctors, nurses and various government types are attempting to reduce alcohol intake by the majority of the population (and buttering us up for a minimum alcohol pricing structure by mentioning it at every fucking opportunity) the bars of Westminster in which the MPs drink are subsidised. By you, the taxpayer.

Fuck the Government. Fuck the minimum price of alcohol idea. Fuck the Nanny State. And fuck the arsewipes who cannot manage to drink without getting themselves injured.

This is my body, I will decide what does and does not go into it. I will not come crying to you if I damage myself and you will leave me the fuck alone and stop telling me how to live my life.

Now get back to your taxpayer funded porn and stop bothering me.

* - Sarcasm, for those that missed it.

The Daily Mash - Again Bang On The Money

In a "report" titled "WHY ARE ALL THE PUBS CLOSING? ASK PEOPLE WHO NEVER GO TO THE PUB"

Millions of people across Britain who never go to the pub were last night asking why all the pubs were closing down.

As it was revealed that 2000 pubs have closed in the last year, non-pub goers said their community would not be the same without the local pub they never went to.

Margaret Gerving, from Peterborough, said: "I was delighted when the smoking ban came in because it meant I could finally go to the pub without being killed.

"But then I didn't, mainly because I'm not the sort of person who likes going to pubs. I prefer to stay in with a carton of pomegranate juice and a bag of pine nuts and make long lists of all the things I want banned.

"Now it turns out that nobody else is going either because quite a lot of the people who used to go to the pub also liked to smoke. But none of this explains why all the pubs are closing down."

Julian Cook, from Devon, said: "Our local pub looks really lovely from the outside. It's got flower baskets and a nice old fashioned sign. Unfortunately it's used by local people with accents who dress differently from me and who are, I suspect, incredibly racist."

Which would be hilarious if it weren't so true. The next bit however did make me laugh out loud.

Former pub owner Charlie Reeves, from Hereford, said: "We were told that the smoking ban would mean lots of young mums and dads bringing their children in. But that didn't really help because there's only so much Guinness you can pour down a three year-old before it falls asleep."

Followed by the bit I'd like on a t-shirt:

"Then there's the added factor that a pub with children in it isn't really a pub, it's a fucking hell hole."

Scottish Drinkers, It Appears You're Next.

As the Scots are used to being fucked first - it was they who had to endure the Poll Tax first - they should have been expecting the upcoming change to alcohol sales that has been revealed by Scotland on Sunday.

MINISTERS are to press ahead with a crackdown on sales of cheap alcohol in a move that could be fast-tracked through Parliament in as little as six months, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

In the biggest shake-up of alcohol laws for years, the Government is expected to confirm tomorrow that cut-price drink offers will be banned, minimum prices on alcohol imposed and a higher age limit set on off-sales.

A minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, as advocated by health campaigners, would result in rocketing prices. A two-litre bottle of cider, currently priced at around £3, would cost £7.50. Wine would also increase in price, with a £3 bottle of wine possibly rising to a minimum of £5.

The controversial plan to increase the age limit for off-sales to 21 is to remain in the proposals, despite opposition from students.

Scotland on Sunday understands that ministers may seek to place some of the measures – such as the ban on "Buy One Get One Free" deals – in the existing 2005 Licensing Act, which is due to come into force in September.

The Act enshrines "protecting and improving public health" as a key objective of all licensing decisions, so the Government may argue that it gives the power to ban cheap drink offers. The same logic could also be applied to plans to impose minimum pricing.

What the Scotsman fails to add is that this should guarantee a boom for retailers just South of the border. Imagine the queues of 18 year old Scots hanging around Tesco in Carlisle until they open at 8am on a Monday. It's not as if they've got much else to do, is it? But bootlegging is at least a career. Or it is until the Government down in England make similar changes to the law.

Drinkers, you're fucked next. Please adopt the position and lube yourself thoroughly, this may hurt.

Anti-Drinking Campaigns


The above image comes courtesy of the Drink Aware Trust and is on display across London (and probably the rest of the UK) at the moment.

It suggests that just by looking at your recycling bin your friends & neighbours can condemn you for being drinking too much alcohol. Given the amount of interest the Council also have in your recycling and trash habits, you can also infer that the Council will be coming to the same conclusion: you drink too much.

The text accompanying the advert on the website says:

Recycling. You feel good when you do it, don't you? You're doing your bit to save the planet after all. But do you ever look at the wine and beer bottles you're putting out and wonder 'just how did we manage to get through all that since last week...?'.

But hang on just a tick, shall we?

First up, we only have recycling collections every fortnight. Over the course of two weeks there's a very good chance that even following the Government's own recommended alcohol intake (which they made up, by the way) a family of four (as children are allowed to drink alcohol from the age of 5) could get easily get through the amount of bottles shown in the advert.

Secondly, what the fuck has my alcohol consumption got to do with the Government? I pay tax on what I buy, the manufacturers pay tax on what they produce, and the Council Tax gets paid towards the cost of collecting the empties. So what's the problem?

If I cause myself or anyone else an injury or become a nuisance, then I should expect to be punished accordingly. There's no "second hand drinking" argument like there was with smoking (even though that has yet to be proved to exist either) so I fail to see why the Government or the Council should be interested in the slightest.

More to the point, it would be beneficial for young children to see alcohol being consumed (in moderation, naturally, and at appropriate times) around the house as they are growing up. They're then less likely to drink to extremes once they are legally allowed to go into pubs and clubs (assuming there are any pubs still open once they get to 18).

This Nanny Government has decided that alcohol consumption is bad for the general public, so they're on their way to making it socially unacceptable. So children won't be exposed to it, won't know how to deal with it, and will, in all probability, get fucked off their face as soon as they possibly can. Which will let the Government go to the next level and introduce prohibition. And that was a raging success in the States, wasn't it?

Quelle Shock, Not.

In a completely unsurprising move, a report by a group of MPs has called for the end of happy hours and a curb on supermarket's setting alcohol prices at a loss.

The Home Affairs select committee said reckless drinking was placing a heavy burden on police resources. One possible solution for England and Wales, MPs said, would be legislation setting a minimum price on alcohol. Scotland's new licensing laws already include powers to fix alcohol prices to stop cut-price promotions and happy hours, and ministers in Edinburgh say they might seek to set minimum prices for drink.

Interesting to note at this juncture that the bars in Westminster are subsidised. And you can still smoke in them. Unlike your local bar, that can now apply for reduced business rates (not that anyone actually told the bar owners, and the tax office initially turned them down) due to the smoking ban

Keith Vaz (a twat of some renown) chairman of the committee, said retailers must end a "pile it high, sell it cheap" culture around drink. He accused supermarkets of flouting the spirit of a voluntary code on alcohol sales.

"We cannot have, on one hand, a world of alcohol promotions for profit that fuels surges of crime and disorder and, on the other, the police diverting all their resources to cope with it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"At the moment you have a situation where so much of police time is taken up dealing with alcohol related crime. Happy hours lead to unhappy communities. Loss leaders in supermarkets cause real misery to city centres on a Saturday night."

Couple of things there Vaz, you cunt, if the booze sold by supermarkets is being sold at a loss, then it's not going to be making them a profit, is it? Secondly, I would suspect that the majority of the booze sold by supermarkets is consumed at home, not in a city centre, particularly as it's now illegal to consume alcohol - or carry an open container of alcohol - on public transport.

Thirdly, and a point I've mentioned previously, it is illegal for supermarkets - or indeed any group of companies - to set prices among themselves. We have (or had at least) a veneer of competition in business. If I can sell something slightly cheaper than you can because I have economies of scale or a better business model, then I can and indeed *should* sell it cheaper than you do.

To force supermarkets to sell alcohol above a minimum price doesn't encourage them to improve their methods to lower prices for the consumer, does it? No, any improvement will only increase their profits and, as a Labour politician, you should be against that. It would also lead to an increase in the RPI, which will also look bad for you. You talentless fuckwit.

Still, don't let that worry you. Nanny knows best. A Home Office spokesman said: "We know the police and the public remain concerned about alcohol-related disorder. We have given the police, licensing authorities and trading standards officers a range of tough powers to tackle alcohol-related disorder, including on-the-spot fines, confiscating alcohol in public places and closing down premises that flout the law.

"Alongside this, the Department of Health has commissioned an independent review on the effects of alcohol price, promotion, consumption and harm which will be published shortly." And you can pretty much guarantee that report isn't going to be terribly positive, can't you?

You may be a smug non-smoker who happens to like a drink or two. You don't go into bars, yet you supported the smoking ban in there. You drink exclusively at home and you haven't once been arrested for causing a disturbance or public nuisance. And now you will feel the power of Nanny knowing best. Nanny doesn't want you drinking, so you will have to pay more for your booze than you previously did.

And there's nothing you can do about it. Except plan a revolution.

The New Puritanism

Obviously keen to follow up their campaign to make smokers into a demonised section of society - latest plans show that smokers won't be allowed to adopt or foster children - the Government are now going after the other big revenue generators: drinkers.

In the past month I've seen proposals to increase the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 (and hasn't that worked out brilliantly in the US?), for there to be a separate area in shops for alcohol so that customers have to queue twice (so that their "alcohol purchases can be scrutinised by other shoppers") and in Scotland, a proposal that while you can buy alcohol in pubs at 18, you can't buy it in a shop until you're 21 (which won't cause any confusion at all, will it?)

This is on top of the on-going campaigns the Government have to get fat people to eat less, and everyone else to eat what the Government decides is healthy and good for them. Combined with the recent call, by Ed Balls, to ban the opening of fast food outlets within a certain radius of schools, and you would suspect the Government are actively going after the Nanny State title.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are both still legal, yes? Burger King, McDonald's and the like aren't force-feeding anyone, are they? We're not in some weird Arab state run by keep-fit non-smokers, are we? At least not yet, at any rate.

So why the hell are the Government insistent on interfering in people's lives to this extent?

You'd think that with the current financial crisis - nothing to do with Gordon Brown's management of the economy over the previous decade, oh dearie me, no - the Government would have less time to fuck about in the petty areas they seem to love. But no. You'd be quite wrong. Because the Prime Mentalist himself waded into the "scandal" of Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand's radio show to give his two pence worth.

Despite it being FUCK ALL to do with him - although handily deflecting public glaze from his general cockpuppetry - Brown demanded action be taken.

Why, you incompetent fucksock, are you getting involved? Oh wait, I know. It's because he's a fucking Puritan dictator.

He's the one who will decide what is good for us and what isn't. Anything that is bad will be banned, and the only things that are available will be those that are personally allowed by the Prime Minister. We people, you see, aren't pure enough of mind or deed to be allowed to make these choices for ourselves. We're too stupid to see the benefits or failings ourselves, so we *need* someone to tell us what to eat, what to drink, not to smoke, to do more exercise, to believe in a vengeful God who will punish us for not looking after the planet properly, to understand that the Prime Minister is doing a good job and not destroying the economy single-handed.

He is, in short, a cunt. A righteous cunt. A complete and utter righteous cunt.

Well here's something from me to you, Gordon. I will drink & smoke as I please and I will die when I'm supposed to. There's nothing you can do to stop me, because I am the revolution, and I want my fucking liberties back.

This Is Newcastle, Man!

Okay, so not as glamorous as shouting "This is Africa", but with a similar disregard for laws as the former colonies.

Newcastle's drinking culture has come under the spotlight today, with the Spy Bar in Jesmond selling bottles of strong lager for just 10p each. And yes, 10p is still a lot of money in Newcastle, thanks for asking.

Anyway, note the slight change in outlook between the BBC's interview:

Spy's owner, Mr Handa, said: "The bottles were being sold at full price months ago, but they were no longer on sale. Two or three cases, or 36 bottles, were later found behind the bar and were sold off at the cheap price, but they were limited to one per person and only offered to regular customers. There was certainly no promotion, no adverts or anything like that."

and that from the Metro.

Spy Bar spokesman said: "I don't think we have been irresponsible at all. We were given two crates of beer by the brewery and just wanted to get rid of it. If people are drinking too much alcohol that is their choice."

It most certainly is. Although for some reason (surely not bandwagon jumping?) the local police and council now want to get involved.

Police Supt Dave Wormald said: "Northumbria Police is committed to tackling alcohol-related disorder. My neighbourhood officers will be speaking to the management at this establishment to take the appropriate course of action to discourage them from offering such promotions." And if I were the management I'd be telling you to get out of my premises.

Councillor Anita Lower, executive member for community safety and regulation (which is surely the most pointless job title you've heard in quite some time) at Newcastle City Council, said the bar's management would be "invited to meet the council's licensing committee". Again, if I was invited to the City council, I would be telling them to fuck off out of my business.

What the bar did - regardless of how they did it - is not illegal. The big supermarkets do this sort of thing all the time (have you seen any wine advertised as £7.99 a bottle, £10 for 3?) and keep getting away with it. Bars are having huge problems getting anyone into them; the smoking ban and the public perception of a credit crunch are not ideal conditions for welcoming people to a night out.

This twunt - another Doctor, who can presumably afford £30 bottles of Claret - has a different idea though. (From the Metro article):

Dr Christopher Record, who works at Newcastle's Freeman and Royal Victoria Infirmary hospitals, said: 'The offer is absolutely monstrous. It's totally irresponsible, one bottle of that beer contains 2.8 units of alcohol and they are charging the equivalent of 4p for a unit.' The doctor added he wanted to see new laws making it illegal to sell alcohol for less than 50p a unit.

Now that, I believe would be called price fixing. And that is most definitely illegal.

Do As We Say, Not As We Do

Yesterday was the last day of term for MPs, who are now on their annual Summer holidays for a spectacular 76 days. If you thought teachers had a long holiday, try becoming an MP! Not only do you get paid so much more for doing so much less, you also get the opportunity to be a truly hypocritical bastard.

While coming out in droves to announce that there will be a clampdown on the alcohol industry and a forced end to "happy hours", MPs themselves enjoy the types of bar prices that the rest of us can only dream about. Oh, and they can also smoke while getting hammered at our expense, so that surely makes the whole thing more enjoyable, eh?

Compare this press release from ALMR that has uncovered hidden statistics which show the House of Commons Refreshment Department operated on a subsidy of £5.5 million of taxpayers’ money in the 2007/08 financial year, equivalent to total annual tax receipts from 35 pubs. When you've finished reeling in horror from that little statistic, check out the following:

Given the level of subsidy, it is unsurprising that MPs can enjoy much cheaper drinks than their constituents. A pint of Foster’s in Stranger’s Bar costs £2.10, compared with a national average of £2.80 (33% higher) and a London average of around £3.00 (43% higher). A House of Commons 8-year-old Scotch costs £1.35, while our politicians can enjoy a Pimm’s on the Thames-side terrace for just £1.65.

With the following report on the BBC which says Ministers have told the drinks industry to act more responsibly or face new laws governing alcohol sales.

Interim findings (of the government's review of the impact of pricing on alcohol consumption by Sheffield University) published to coincide with the consultation suggested cheap prices encouraged increased consumption in the young and heavy drinkers.

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians and chairman of the UK Alcohol Health Alliance, pointed out one in four adults is drinking more than the recommended daily amount.

"This is not just something affecting a small minority, it is not about the binge-drinking culture, it is affecting a large part of society. If we don't get to grips with it, it will have serious health repercussions.

"The key to tackling this is price. Alcohol is too cheap and that has driven up consumption."

Which does tend to support the ALMR press release which says:

The subsidy, not published in the House of Commons’ Annual Accounts, was £693,000 higher than in 2006/07, a 15% increase.

So despite (or perhaps because of) the low prices, the Houses of Parliament subsidy has increased in the past year. Yet these bastards are demanding an end to cheap booze in pubs and supermarkets!

Utter cunts.

Drinkers, You're Next!

As I mentioned many moons ago (before the smoking ban came into effect) the next target on the Government hit list would be drinkers.

Like smokers, drinkers are an easy target. They pay a huge amount in taxes and duty, and because of their habits, generally enjoy a shorter life thus relieving their burden on the state in retirement (pensions, nursing homes, long term care etc). Drinkers, like smokers, are also doing something which is perfectly legal - but seen by the Nanny State as a "bad thing".

Health Secretary Alan Johnson has proposed an "alcohol squad" to help towns with the most drink-related hospital admissions fight their alcohol problems. The aim, like everything else, is to improve the nation's health and was announced at the same time as an initiative to cut obesity in the youth of the country.

I can see this back firing in the long term, but hey, who thinks about the long term? Apparently, the Department of Health highlighted evidence to show that for every eight people who received brief advice, one cut down on the amount of alcohol they drank. So that's up to 12.5% less alcohol being sold. Which would mean less tax and revenue from Duty. Pubs will require less staff, meaning less Income Tax and National Insurance, plus a possible increase in Income Support.

Obviously, there would be a way of recovering the Duty and VAT lost, simply by putting the levels up, but this wouldn't be politically very sensible as most people seem to think the Government already over tax them as it is. They'd be right too. But the other method of recovering the lost Duty and VAT is even more dubious - forcing retailers to put the price up.

Funnily enough that's exactly what's been suggested. The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire has said over the weekend that supermarkets are "making as much money out of people's miseries as they can" and that prices need to be raised. He goes further, though:

"I think there needs to be some control on prices and I wouldn't have it as self-service. I would have it sold under the counter like cigarettes because alcohol is just as dangerous as tobacco."

Yes, that's right, *under* the counter. Good work there Chief! I can imagine it's been quite some time since you've been in a shop, but at the minute, cigarettes are available OVER the counter. Although not for the want of trying.

Also, not sure if you're aware of this - being a copper and all - but it's actually illegal for prices to be fixed. See this handy Government document, specifically the third item down which says

Competition law prohibits almost any attempt to fix prices - for example, you cannot impose minimum prices on different distributors such as shops.

Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, said action would have to come from the government, but it was willing to enter into discussions. She said:

"We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law."

That was on the back of the British Medical Association (who represent Doctors, well known for their love of a good old drink up) demanding in February that prices should be increased to discourage drinkers.

The British Medical Association report said pricing and promotion of drinks was fuelling an "alcohol epidemic". It called for an end to happy hours in pubs and cut-price supermarket deals as well as improved access to treatment. The BMA report is based on placing greater restrictions on the availability and access to alcohol. It did not recommend how large the tax hike should be, but pointed out a 10% rise could reduce alcohol-related deaths by nearly 30%. Alternatively, it could do fuck all apart from increase shoplifting and people poisoned by drinking meths, but the BMA aren't going to mention that, are they?

Obviously, the alcohol industry are up in arms about this. Michael Thompson, head of communications at the Portman Group, which is supported by the UK's leading drinks producers, said:

"We need to change the drinking culture by making drunkenness socially unacceptable, proper enforcement of alcohol laws by police, better education and a crackdown on the minority of rogue traders who serve alcohol to children should be our priorities,"

All of which are true. More to the point, if I drink to excess, but don't harm anyone, that's my decision to take. Not the Government's. I can get pissed and know I'm doing my bit for the country. If I die early, good, I've saved the Government a whole heap of money down the line while contributing tons now. Stop deciding what is and what isn't good for me - I will make my own choices, thank you very much.

But I'm sure Middle Class England will be backing the Chief Constable, the Health Secretary and the BMA, because they think that alcohol related problems are down to the poor, the stupid and the North.

Sadly, they'd be wrong.

Jedis Attacked By Darth Vader

Just read this story and made myself laugh so hard I sprayed coffee out my mouth.

If you are interested, it was this particular section*:

Hughes, who was drunk and dressed in a black bin bag, shouted "Darth Vader!"

It's a lovely image, isn't it? A drunk man "dressed" in a bin bag - but with matching cape, apparently - jumping over a fence to attack two grown men (who were filming themselves playing with lightsabres, let's not forget) with a metal crutch.

I say "attack", all he managed to do was give one of them a headache and the other one a bruise, so it's hardly going to cause much of a disturbance in the force, is it?

It gets better though, the drunken man was late arriving to the trial. Possibly having some trouble getting his bin bags back from the dry cleaners, or something.

Earlier, when Hughes failed to arrive on time, District Judge Andrew Shaw issued an arrest warrant, adding: "I hope the force will soon be with him."

Top punnery from a judge there!

* - Although the sentence "alcohol was "ruining his life" and he had no idea where he got the crutch from" does come a close second.

Happy Not St Patrick's Day

While March 17th is traditionally the celebration of St Patrick's Day, this year's should have taken place on March 15th (what was my wedding anniversary, fact fans - oh, and Happy Birthday to Vixen for then as well) as today falls in the Holy Week of Easter.

For some crazy reason the Catholic Church don't like to have too many drunk people eating chocolate (or something) so this year's St Patrick's was moved. It'll be happening again in 2160. This is not the worst bit of moving that has happened to St Patrick, in 1940 his day was moved until April 3rd.

Still, good excuse to be drunk for three whole days, isn't it?

Calling Time On Pubs

In a report today, CAMRA said that 57 pubs a month are closing permanently. Last week the British Bar & Pub Association claimed that the figure was 27 per week. For argument's sake, let's call it three a day.

So, three businesses per day are closing. Three multiple sources of revenue (Business Rates, VAT, Duty, Income Tax etc) for the Government, gone. Three sources of employment for their local community no longer there. Three more reasons why a beer delivery company could lay off a driver. Three less places needing a window cleaner, a garden furniture company or an awning manufacturer.

It's not just a pub. It's a local business. It's the centre of many a community.

As I predicted many moons ago, first the Government went after smokers, next they'll go after the drinkers.

And drinkers, they've already started.

This week sees the Budget. It is widely predicted that taxes on whisky - kept at a constant level under Brown - will rise under Darling. Pints are expected to close in on a frankly unbelievable £4 a pint. The Tories have said they want a 50p tax on alco-pops*.

Do me a favour, pop into your local this month. It may be the last chance you get.

* - This goes to show how out of touch politicians are with reality. Who really still drinks "alco-pops"? Kids these days would prefer the numbing quality of vodka with the punch of Red Bull, or the soothing appley goodness of a "premium" cider.

Mackem Banned From Causing Nuisance

The BBC are reporting that a Sunderland man (and let's face it, that's hardly a surprise now is it) has been given an ASBO banning him from causing nuisance ANYWHERE in England & Wales*. Which is some achievement.

Getting over my own racism toward the great unwashed, I do find it utterly astounding that someone can get an ASBO for something so general as this. Surely it's illegal to cause public nuisance anyway? If you cause a breach of the peace, you can be arrested. So why give him an ASBO?

Since Labour came to power, they have introduced (and are planning on introducing still more) laws that are basically identical to ones already on the statute books, but just not fully implemented on a nationwide business due to their being too few police to do anything when they're broken.

Today, Jacqui Smith has announced she's going to give police more power to seize alcohol** from teenagers (under 18)***. Well, I know this'll come as a surprise to you love, but that's already a law. It's like saying "we're going to make murdering people with cheese illegal". The public go "oh good, there's been a couple of high profile cheese deaths recently, go you Jacqui" then pause and think, "wait, isn't murder of ANY kind already illegal?"

The Government really have missed a trick today. The guy from Sunderland has often been found shouting racist abuse from the City Hall steps at 10am while drunk. As a punishment he should be sent round schools to talk to kids about the dangers of alcohol. Once they realise that drinking could lead to being a Mackem, the kids are bound to stop binge-drinking in a heartbeat.

* - I'm presuming that it doesn't include Scotland because being drunk and noisy in Scotland isn't so much causing nuisance as "joining in"

** - Most entertainingly police removed 6500 pints from kids in 2006; in a one month period between October and November. Now perhaps I'm being nostaligic for when I were a lad, but I'm sure our school alone used to consume more than that in a month. Tsk, kids these days, eh? No idea.

*** - Which would mean that sharing some wine with your children in a restaurant would now become illegal. And technically, all the supermarket shelf stackers would need to be over 18 to work in the alcohol section. She really hasn't thought this through, has she?

Fuck Your Laws... GLUG GLUG GLUG

From the legends at The Register, a story about a 64 year old German man, who when told he couldn't take his 1L bottle of vodka into the cabin of his connecting flight - ditch it or pay for it to be put in the hold - decided to drink the whole thing.

I salute the man. He is in a German hospital having been diagnosed with life-threatening alcohol poisoning, but you have to admire such determination. Particularly in the face of such stupidity from officials. You're allowed to take Duty Free on board planes, and this was a connecting flight.

As has also been pointed out to me, for some people I know, that is merely a warm up to a bigger drinking session. For other people I know (/me waves at Feldman) this is probably the only tactic that would allow them to get onto the plane in the first place.

Over 21? Yes, I'm 72

From the BBC, a report about a man who refused to confirm he was old enough to purchase alcohol - despite him being 72 - and was thus refused it.

He has complained at the "bureaucracy gone mad" but Morrison's explained that the particular store had to ask EVERYONE due to having previously been fined for selling alcohol to underage customers.

This brings to mind a visit to Chicago airport where I was asked to provide ID to buy a beer. I was, understandably, delighted. The legal drinking age in Illinois is 21 and I was in my early 30s at the time. This delight was unfortunately short-lived as the barman then asked the next customer for ID, and that guy was probably in his 80s!

Giving Up Drinking

This may come as a surprise to many people, but I've decided to give up drinking alcohol for the next month. If anyone sees me drinking alcohol of any kind, please be good enough to slap me senseless and inform the bar that I'm in that I shouldn't be served any more.

I've hurt, annoyed, upset, irritated, angered and pissed off far too many people who are very important to me while I've been drunk. My latest effort was on Wednesday evening/Thursday morning and totally accidental, but wouldn't have happened had I not been drunk. And I hate myself for it.

So I am quitting booze for the next month and we shall see how it goes from there.

This may seem drastic action - particularly given that I probably only drink two or three times a week and not especially loads then - but I think it's about time I stopped for a while, just to see if I still can.

Banning Kids From Drinking

Okay, so if the title reads like that, then it sounds perfectly reasonable to the casual reader that children should indeed not be drinking alcohol. If it was re-worded to the more contentious "Nanny State Rides Again" then you might get a different set of opinions.

Basically, a one-issue group has issued an ultimatum to the Government that children should not be allowed to drink alcohol AT ALL before the age of 15. It may come as a surprise that they're allowed to anyway, but as long as the alcohol is purchased by an adult, children as young as 5 are legally allowed to consume booze.

This is normally done in their home and under parental supervision - such as having watered down wine with dinner - but can take place in bars or restaurants where food is served (although then there is a specific list of what alcohol can be consumed).

If Alcohol Concern's message really is one of trying to curb underage drinking, shouldn't they be actually encouraging parents to introduce small amounts of alcohol into their children's lives from an early age, rather than the teenager suddenly trying to drink their own body weight in booze the second they get hold of it illegally?

I've spent a lot of time in States where drinking before the age of 21 is illegal, and it makes the allure of alcohol all the more appealing. If Alcohol Concern manage to persuade our Nanny Government that this should become law, the demon drink (and I do accept that there are a LOT of problems associated with it) will be in higher demand among pre-teens than it is at present.

"What do you mean I can't have any? I didn't want any before, but now you've taken it away from me, I'm desperate for some!"

Xmas Spirit 2006

Vodka, as per usual, beat the other competitors into a cocked hat. Sambucca did have a late run, but finished a distant second. Baileys would have been the outright winner - 10 shots on Xmas Day alone - but was disqualified because it's not really a spirit.

Tequila On A School Night.

It is not, I repeat NOT wise to drink several shots of tequila on a school night, no matter how good it feels at the time.

I'm the best part of useless today, but still only second most crap in the office! It seems Scott has his uses after all...

And I'm out again tonight, so tomorrow will be double fun.