When I say "hatred of alcohol", I of course don't mean the "refined" sipping of fine wines and designer lagers in cafes and restaurants, but the consumption of "cheaper" types of alcohol offered at a discount by supermarkets (those same supermarkets who are being subsidised by Nanny in her "Supermeals" initiative) and off licences.
Using the Christmas break to relax a little, and contemplate his vision of society over a glass or two of champagne, David Cameron has let it be known that he is unhappy with the current pricing structure in the booze industry.
Cameron has ordered officials to develop a scheme in England to stop the sale of alcohol at below 40p to 50p a unit.
A Whitehall source recently told the media:
"The Prime Minister has decided that when it comes to alcohol, something pretty radical now has to be done and he is keen on the minimum price.
It is complicated how this can be delivered, particularly under European law, but it is clear that the voluntary approach has not worked."
So there you go folks, "voluntary" (ie free market principles) is not in the lexicon of thinking of our political "elite".
Does minimum pricing actually reduce alcohol abuse?
As with all of Nanny's schemes, there is no scientific data that actually stands muster to back up her claims.
I lived and worked in the Nordic region (1996-2000), where alcohol prices were kept artificially high by the state (illegal under EU rules by the way) and where the state had a monopoly on the high street sale of alcohol (also illegal under EU rules).
The result of this nonsense was that people would do their utmost to find cheap booze (eg smuggled from Denmark, or home brewed), and the level of public drunkenness was the same as I have seen in the UK. The difference being that many people would bring their booze in secret into a pub, and sit in the toilet to drink it.
Nice!
All in all this idea won't work, and is in fact illegal under EU rules.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I hope you don't mean that "Sitting in the toilet to drink it" is illegal under EU rules???
ReplyDeleteNot yet it's not:)
ReplyDeleteThe more I listen to Mr Cameron's talk, the more I feel I was correct in suggesting he is not a Conservative but a progressive Marxist.
ReplyDeleteHe has mooted price control on alcohol, putting limits on how much top people can earn, more and more state interference in more and more areas of our lives; sounds like a Marxist to me.
With so little real difference between the main parties, we cannot say we have a real democracy can we......No real choice means no real democracy.
Again, it just shows how Nanny treats adults like children; punishing sensible drinkers because of a few idiots, is like keeping the whole class in because one shit was talking.
Would anyone like to bet against me if I said that this price fix will not apply within the Palace of Westminster?
And the opposite is also true.
ReplyDeleteIn countries where booze is relatively cheap there seems to be less of a problem with alcohol abuse.
It is often said that that drunks and obese people cost the Health Service a lot of money. I am sure that alcohol abuse and weight issues do cost a lot of money in the UK; but people have paid, and continue to pay an awful lot of money into the system. The money that it ‘costs’ the Health Service is not theirs as a right, it is ours that we have paid in, and given a choice I feel sure that most people would want an efficient reactive service, rather than an inefficient proactive service as we have now.
I don’t think there can be any doubt that there are an awful lot of fat bastards in the UK either, certainly more than a generation ago. But being overweight is only partly due to what an individual eats. Exercise is the answer.
As kids we ate all sorts of foods that would now be considered as unhealthy, but the difference was that we used to run around and play. Now kids are not encouraged to play at school for fear of hurting themselves. They are also discouraged from playing outside of school because of mass hysteria over paedophiles.
Physical exercise should be treated like any other subject at school. At present a fat kid can opt out of the lessons because they don’t want to be teased or they are ashamed to shower and get undressed in front of others. They should, of course, be made to do extra PE lessons, the same as they should be made to do extra work if they were failing in Maths, English or any other subject.
The Government want the forthcoming Olympics to leave a legacy. They should have used the event when it was first given to England to encourage competition and a healthier lifestyle.
This would be the same Cameron, famous as a member of the infamous Oxford drinking club. He should talk, bl***y hypocrite. Of course, no doubt the "proud parent" paid up in his case.
ReplyDeleteDerek
The BBC are well up to speed on this subject with an alcohol-hate item appearing on the hourly "news" bulletins. The other day they had two, one about the supposed dangers of cheap vodka which "might have 20,000 times more methanol than allowed". I can't remember the other one but it was equally lurid and unlikely.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly true that smokers are net contributors to the NHS. They pay more in tobacco duty than it costs the NHS to treat smoking related diseases.
ReplyDeleteThe cost of treating smoking related diseases is often used as a stick to beat smokers with... But if all those smokers quit tomorrow, then my tax would need to go up... So I applaud smokers for sacrificing their own health to save me some tax.
I suspect that the same is true for drinking, but I haven't seen any data to support it.
BBC South Today have been reporting that persons arrested for drink driving are up by 9% on last year.....This begs some questions and I have sent this Email to them to have them answered......
ReplyDelete...................................
"Dear Sally,
Firstly may I wish you and the team a very happy new year.
I am concerned about the reporting of the DD figures in our area. All the media reports, including South Today's, have given just the rise in arrests for the offence, but for me, this may be a real distortion of the reality.
First I must say that any drink driving offence is a serious offence and just one is one too many.
We get the percentage rise on last year's figures reported but, we are not told whether the number of roadside tests has increased; for example, if the number of tests doubled and the figure rose by nine percent, then the figures are, in essence, an improvement on last year.
Now I don't know whether the number of tests have increased but, many of my friends have been stopped and tested this Christmas, whereas I know of none that were tested last year.
The figures also do not mention how many of these tests led to charges or convictions, because many that are borderline at the roadside, pass back at the police station and, as I understand it, those that give a 40mg sample are not prosecuted because of the margin of error in the equipment.
I don't normally question what South Today reports but, this story appears to be either spun by the government/police against the knowledge of the media or perhaps the media are helping the state/police to have yet another pop at drinkers at a time when Mr Cameron is starting his anti drink campaign in relation to minimum pricing.
By the way, I neither drive nor regularly drink, but I am aware of the power of the media and how opinions can be formed and distorted by semantics and limiting what information the public actually gets told."
I don't know if I shall get a response but I shall keep you posted.
Tonk: What an excellent and well composed letter.
ReplyDeleteI expect you will receive a bland PR-speak reassurance.
Toy Trumpet;
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words.
I suspect they will just ignore my Email and pretend it doesn't exist.
Regards.
When I say "hatred of alcohol", I of course don't mean the "refined" sipping of fine wines and designer lagers in cafes and restaurants, but the consumption of "cheaper" types of alcohol offered at a discount by supermarkets (those same supermarkets who are being subsidised by Nanny in her "Supermeals" initiative) and off licences.''
ReplyDeleteTosh Ken! Fine wines and food are freely available at Tesco ... providing you don't get stopped by the security bods on the way out. Ask 'Celebrity' Chef Anthony Worral-Thompson ;o)