Posts tagged ‘alcohol’

Alcohol gimmickry

According to a report on the BBC yesterday, the government is planning to implement so-called ‘Sobriety Orders’:

Offenders who commit alcohol-fuelled crimes are to be monitored with ankle tags and breath-tested to ensure they stop drinking, under government plans.

Police will have powers to impose “sobriety orders” on drinkers cautioned for minor offences, such as criminal damage or public disorder.

There will be regular breath tests, with known weekend bingers tested then, and ankle tags to monitor movements.

Sure, we can all agree that people who commit crimes, be they under the influence or not need to be punished but is breath testing potential drunks (at what cost in police time?) really a good idea?

Given what we know about how much profit government makes from alcohol I think not.

For serious and violent criminals with drink problems, ministers want to introduce new laws enabling the courts to impose sobriety orders as part of a suspended or community sentence.

If they are serious and/or violent criminals then they shouldn’t be getting suspended or community sentences in the first place – they should be sent to gaol!

Offenders would have to wear ankle tags that continuously monitored alcohol levels, for up to four months.

Erm, how does an ankle tag measure the amount of blood in one’s alcohol stream? Are those wearing one supposed to breathe on it every so often or is it going to be taking a blood sample on a regular basis?

Another type of tag, which has been tried out in England, uses a GPS system which would alert the authorities when people visited certain proscribed areas – such as pubs.

Ok, standard GPS tracking. Civilian or Military accuracy however? Don’t want to have issues with someone being in – or claiming they were in – the building next door. Also, it is possible to go to a pub and not drink.

Justice Minister Nick Herbert said: “Alcohol-fuelled violence and criminality causes mayhem in our towns and city centres.”

Mayhem? The dictionary defines mayhem as:

  1. Violent or damaging disorder; chaos.
  2. The crime of maliciously injuring or maiming someone, originally so as to render the victim defenceless.

Which is a somewhat OTT description of the civil disorder that a minority of people get up to after a few sherbets.

Indeed this idea seems so flawed that even the politicians on the opposition benches as well as the rent seekers can spot the holes:

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: “Increased use of community sentences, tagging, monitoring and initiatives to support those with drug and alcohol dependencies will require more resources.

“The government need to answer important questions about how they propose to fund increased use of community sentences given the Ministry of Justice budget faces cuts of a quarter.

The Prison Reform Trust said the government seemed to be resorting to “populist gimmicks” when current policies were actually working and had public support.

If this silly idea does go ahead, how long before someone suggests that each and everyone of us who likes a drink needs to have our consumption monitored, regardless of whether or not we have done something criminal under the influence of alcohol?

The Cost of Alcohol

Our glorious leader is all over the MSM this morning as they wibble on about what they have been told he will say on the subject of alcohol and ‘its cost to society’ when he visits a hospital today.

According to this pre-announcemet announcement, in 2006/7 (I assume they mean 2006/7 tax year), the cost was £2.7bn.

Sounds a lot, yes?

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics the government raised over £7.9bn through alcohol taxes in the 2006/7 tax year.

Now I realise that it has been almost 20 years since I sat down to do my dumbed down GCSE Maths exam but as far as I can see that is a net income to the Treasury of approximately £5.2bn.

Might I therefore suggest that iDave takes his latest piece of stupidity and sticks it?

On the difficulty of buying booze

Hello, my name is MG. I’m 33 years old and I need to tell you that sometimes I like to buy alcohol from my local Tesco supermarket.

In a country populated by grown-ups that had a government with a relaxed attitude to the drinking habits of the citizenry such a confession would obviously be unnecessary.

However as we all know the UK has none of these things which is why I find myself confronted, with increasing regularity, with demands from the checkout assistants that I produce ID to confirm that I am indeed old enough to purchase the wine or beer that sometimes falls into my shopping basket.

You would have thought that it should be fairly easy to realise that I am clearly an adult, even if you are unable to say exactly how far beyond the currently minimum legal age of 18 I am. Sadly this is not the case as my local store operates a policy of asking for ID if you don’t look over 25.

Yes, the first time I was asked I was flattered. However as I do not habitually carry ID with me – UK law not yet requiring me to do so – this quickly turned into irritation and these days I save time by just going straight to irritated.

On the first few times I argued but you quickly learn that arguing with a checkout assistant is like arguing with a brick wall (and their supervisors are no better) so I no longer bother and instead start unpacking any goods I have already placed into my bags back to the checkout before picking up my (now empty) bags and walking out of the store.

This inane idea of challenging anyone who might be under 25 is the follow up to the ‘Challenge 21’ policy and is the brainchild of the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG) and it is co-ordinated by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA).

It’s purpose? To reduce the amount of alcohol sold to under 18s. It’s members? Most, if not every, supermarket chain operating in the UK.

Why does it exist? Because following a meeting with Charles Clarke, one of the many authoritarian Home Secretaries this country had to put up with under the last government, the retailers apparently mutually agreed to sell out and get into bed with government, rather than to stand up to them and live with the bullying that would have probably otherwise have followed. Thus ‘Challenge 21’ was born.

However as those blessed with half a brain cell and an understanding of history know, surrendering just means you get to spend a good long while being someone else’s bitch. In the case of the RASG this means that their work is supported by the Home Office, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health.

This is apparently evidenced by the newer ‘Challenge 25‘ scheme:

However, with levels of sales to minors still not low enough and the personal consequences of illegal sales for the member of shop staff more severe, retailer employees requested a program which gives them a greater backing and a higher margin of error in challenging customers for proof of age.

Yes, when it is your paycheque on the line, you want to do your damnedest to ensure that you don’t get screwed over. Sadly it also means that common sense tends to go out of the window at the same time.

However how much did the RASG fight when the government of the day looked to start imposed these harsher penalties – or did their previous lack of doing so mean that they had no corner to fight?

I think it is probably safe to say that it was the government which decided that the level of alcohol sales to minors was still too high, although what that figure is I do not know – but one suspects that any figure above zero would be considered too high. Given that the utter elimination of alcohol sales to children is impossible, will the industry wake up to the situation they have found themselves in or are they now, like CAMRA, completely suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

I meanwhile have decided that the time has come to find another supermarket to spend my money in.

Alcohol silliness in Scotland

Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) will be, from Saturday, dealing with the law of unexpected consequences with respect of their changes last year to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. The Alcohol Bill 2010 was aimed at banning the selling of alcoholic drinks at a discount and restricting alcohol advertising.

However, because it only applies in Scotland, online orders from companies who distribute from England are unaffected. One company who are therefore taking advantage of this is everyone’s favourite supermarket bogeyman, Tesco, who have sent out a marketing e-mail to customers saying:

“Great news! All orders placed at TescoWine by the case will still qualify for these discounts when applicable as your wine is dispatched to you from our distribution centre in Daventry, England.”

No doubt other supermarkets and online wine retailers will follow that lead, if they have not done so already.

Predictably the nu-puritans don’t like this with Jennifer Curran, from the fake charity Alcohol Focus Scotland, saying:

“Tesco’s move, which encourages the bulk-buying of alcohol, flies in the face of its claims to be a responsible retailer. This is a blatant attempt to get round the law.”

Blatant it might be but if your politicans are going to pass a law with such an obvious loophole then expect it to be used. Tesco are providing the method, the market will decide if it is worth their while or not.

The politicans also aren’t happy about it. A government spokesman said:

“Internet sales represent only a very small proportion of the alcohol sold in Scotland, but it is an area that we watch closely to see if further action is necessary.”

What further action you blithering morons? Do you seriously think you can stop this sort of thing from happening? If so, how? More regulation, perhaps this time concerning purchasing alcohol from other countries? Searching vehicles as they cross the border from England?

Answers on a postcard please to Alex Salmond…