From The Metro:
Customers are expected to take advantage of the recent Alcohol Scotland Act, which stops two-for-one deals and discounts on wine bought in bulk. It means chains like Majestic, which only sells in bulk, must now sell individual bottles of wine at the lower multiple-buy price available in England.
The chain has three outlets in Edinburgh – just 64km (40 miles) from Berwick-on-Tweed in Northumberland. While a single bottle of Rioja Reserva 2001 costs £13.99 south of the border, in Scotland it sells for just £9.99. Tattinger champagne is £5 a bottle cheaper while Argentinian chardonnay is £2 less at £9.99.
That doesn't really make sense. People will happily drive a few miles to buy cheap booze/fags in bulk (see: Northern France, Belgium) but why bother driving 64 miles each way to buy dozens halves of dozens of bottles of Rioja Reserve for £9.99 if, presumably, Majestic sells them for £119.99 £59.99 for a case of twelve six in England?
But clearly, wine lovers in Scotland will be getting a slightly better deal (unless Majestic otherwise fudges its pricing strategy), so that's a good start.
Members of the Scottish parliament warned of the loophole before the law came into force this month but the government said the measures were ‘another positive step forward in reducing harmful consumption of alcohol’.
You don't say. As ever, they saved the best bit 'til last:
The day before the law came into effect, Tesco told Scottish customers they could still benefit from online wine deals – as orders were sent from Daventry, England.
See also: Amazon delivering CDs to the UK via the Channel Islands.
Oh Fuck Off!
1 hour ago
19 comments:
Just wait till one of Daventry's local papers,the Northampton Chronicle and Echo gets hold of this:in Jan this paper described a government proposal for a cheap booze ban as" good but not good enough" citing as evidence "Campaigners against high alcohol prices in Northampton say Government plans to reduce the cost of alcohol don't go far enough."
"...for a case of twelve in England?"
The Majestic case price for wine now applies to the half-dozen, as all true wine lovers must know, Wadders.
DBC, that last bit doesn't ring true.
D, duly corrected. Now answer me this: the plural of 'a dozen' is clearly 'dozens', but what's the plural of 'half a dozen'?
Half a dozens
Surely Majestic can sell individual bottles of wine in Scotland for whatever it likes, so long as it doesn't offer a bulk discount. I very much doubt whether there is anything in the law that says it has to match the best bulk discounts available in England.
WV = "mudgeog" ;-)
Half a dozens
If I may be pedantic, I think "half-a-dozens" would work better :-) .
Tesco told Scottish customers they could still benefit from online wine deals – as orders were sent from Daventry, England.
And I just bet there was some merriment amongst Tesco personnel at the pols not being smart enough to suss that one. They must have almost wet themselves, all the while trying to keep a straight face.
what's the plural of 'half a dozen'?
Twelve
Formed by analogy with half-a-pint, half-a-mile, etc.
Example "How many half-pints are there in a gallon?", "There are 6 half-miles in a league." and so on. So "There was a gross of gobstoppers but I ate half-a-dozen. How many half-dozens are left? There are 23 half-dozens left.".
Can be extended to "quarter-of-an-hour" and the like.
plural of "half-a-dozen" is "half-dozens"....because I say so....
Curmudge, you might think so, but there is no end to what the pol's think they can regulate.
FT, VFTS, D, F, ta for suggestions, I think "half-dozens" sounds best on its own, but put it into a sentence and it still sounds like crap.
I agree "half dozens" but without the hyphen. I'm not sure which is the correct grammar though.
SS, fair point, if in doubt, leave out the hyphen and don't join two wordstogether.
MW Does n't ring true?You what!
This is word for word what they printed.
Admittedly the idea that there is an organised campaign for lower alcohol prices in Northampton is a bit of stretch.
Check Chron and Eck Thursday 20 Jan 2011.
I think that they deserve more respect for putting the most hopeful,if distorted, spin on the usual bad news for drinkers.
BTW the rule for hyphens is :use to form a compound adjective before a noun i.e." a word-for-word account" as opposed to the usage above.(I did n't teach English for all those years for nothing: nothing is all I've got to show for it.)
DBC, I tried searching on the NC&E and I couldn't find anything where somebody said: ""Campaigners against high alcohol prices in Northampton say Government plans to reduce the cost of alcohol don't go far enough."
Can you post-a-link to the actualarticle?
MW You doubt the word of a gentleman?An insult,Sir, to be avenged with rhubarb.My seconds will attend on yours tomorrow.
DBC, all I can say is, I searched 'alcohol' on their site with a date range 19 to 21 Jan 2011 and the only article to show up was something completely different.
MW More fool you when I gave you the exact date and wording.
I'll have to call off the preparations for trial by rhubarb as the heavily leaked Plan B for the Economy from Compass published tomorrow is supposed to include LVT (see Observer circa Page 7 inset panel )But no doubt you'll disbelieve that .Quite honestly if LVT was enacted and the Homeownerist Press self-combusted I would n't really believe it either.
DBC, that I do believe. And if we just switched over to LVT lock stock and barrel, with some sort of reduction for lower earners in high value housing, then by and large
a) Nothing much would happen, things would just be a bit better all round
b) Those squealing loudest (and rightly so) would be high earners in high value housing who are pissed off that their neighbours only pay half as much as they do for the same benefits
MW,Actually the Plan B report ,available in its entirety from Tim Worstall's site, is a bit of a let-down on LVT .There's a surprise!
Also none too bold when it comes to taking credit creation into public hands .
Post a Comment