Tee hee

From The Telegraph:

Buckfast sales in Scotland surged 40 per cent after Nicola Sturgeon introduced alcohol minimum pricing, according to an official analysis that prompted more warnings her flagship public health policy had backfired...

The Tories said that minimum unit pricing (Mup) had prompted drinkers to switch from cheap drinks such as cider - the cost of which rose substantially - to stronger beverages like Buckfast. The price of the tonic wine was unaffected by Mup's introduction in May 2018 as it costs around £8 per bottle, more than 50p per unit of alcohol.

One might almost think that producers of the stronger stuff had a hand in this misguided legislation, as it sets a barrier to entry to cheaper competitors...

Hey Prof! Where can I buy this "cheap, strong alcohol"?

From the BBC:

Alcohol killed more people in 2020 in England and Wales than in any of the previous 20 years, official data shows. There were 7,423 deaths from alcohol misuse last year [compared to a total population of about 65 million] - a rise of 20% from 2019, the Office for National Statistics says.

Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance - a coalition of charities and campaign groups - said the increase in deaths linked to alcohol was "devastating". "Each of these numbers represents a life of an individual cut short by alcohol consumption and a family that has been left in mourning."

Prof Gilmore said the government must urgently introduce an alcohol strategy which addresses health inequalities, improves access to treatment "and stops the sale of cheap, strong alcohol that is so harmful to health".

What is happening to our once great nation?

From Sky News:

People in the UK are drinking less alcohol, despite an increase in worldwide consumption.

Using World Health Organisation data researchers found UK consumption fell from 12.6 litres of pure alcohol a year per adult in 1990 to 11.4 litres in 2017.

The study, published in the Lancet, predicted the downward trend would continue, falling to 11 litres by 2030.

From the BBC:

British people are having less sex now than in recent years, according to a large national survey.

The findings, published in the British Medical Journal, suggest nearly a third of men and women have not had sex in the past month. That's up from around a quarter in 2001, according to the data from 34,000 people.

Less than half of men and women aged 16 to 44 have sex at least once a week, responses show. Over-25s and couples who are married or living together account for the biggest falls in sexual activity across the 21-year period.

From the ONS:

Main points
* There were 696,271 live births in England and Wales in 2016, a decrease of 0.2% from 2015.
* In 2016, the total fertility rate (TFR) decreased to 1.81 children per woman, from 1.82 in 2015.
* The average age of mothers in 2016 increased to 30.4 years, compared with 30.3 years in 2015.
* Women aged 40 and over had a higher fertility rate than women aged under 20 for the second time since 1947.
* Over a quarter (28.2%) of live births in 2016 were to mothers born outside the UK, the highest level on record.

(My mother was born abroad, as was my wife, and we have two children, so that last figure does not particularly bother me, here for the record only)

From The Guardian:

Nearly a million more young adults are living with their parents than was the case two decades ago, a study has found.

The figures, in a report by the right-leaning thinktank Civitas, will fuel concerns that too little is being done to protect young people from Britain’s housing crisis.

The proportion of people aged 20 to 34 who live with their parents has risen from 19.48% in 1997, equating to 2.4 million people, to 25.91% in 2017, equating to 3.4 million.

From Public Health England:

The adult smoking rate in England is continuing to decline year on year and is now at a record low. In 2017, 14.9% of people in England aged 18 years and above smoked, accounting for 6.1 million people.

If this trend continues it will reduce to between 8.5% and 11.7% by 2023. PHE is calling for the NHS long-term plan to commit to achieving a smokefree society by 2030 with an adult prevalence of 5% or less.

I'm sure that shifting taxes from production/consumption in the real economy to taxes on land values will help reverse these worrying trends, quite by how much remains to be seen...

Reader's Letter Of The Day

From The Metro:

First day back at work and I'm already fed up with people telling me how much better they are feeling during Dry January.

Firstly, I couldn't care less, and secondly, I am doing 'Febrewery' next month, when I will drink alcohol every day just to annoy you.

Ishmael, Watford.

"Statistics misuse 'biggest health problem in Northern Ireland'"

From the BBC:

Figures obtained by BBC News NI show the number of alcohol-related deaths in Northern Ireland is the highest on record. Between 2001 and 2016, more than 3,500 deaths in Northern Ireland were attributed to alcohol.

Coroner Joe McCrisken said: "We have an enormous problem with alcohol use, misuse and abuse in Northern Ireland. The figures are frightening because they show that the number of alcohol-related deaths is increasing, so it's important to raise awareness about the dangers."

Okey doke.

Northern Irish population 1.9 million, average life expectancy 70 years, makes about 25,000 deaths a year.

3,500 'alcohol related' deaths (whatever that means) in 16 years = 220 per year.

In summary, only one in a hundred deaths has been accelerated by 'alcohol misuse' or is 'alcohol related'.

Dealing with alcohol-related illnesses costs the health service about £250m a year, said Dr George O'Neill, the chairman of Addiction NI.

And how much does VAT and duty on alcohol sales raise? About three or four times as much as that.

He added that 12,000 people were admitted to hospital each year with alcohol-related problems in Northern Ireland...

£250 million a year divided by 12,000 hospital admissions = £20,000 per admission. That is surely a completely made-up number and at least four times as much as the overall average cost per admission.

... where 170,000 people drank hazardously and 47,000 drank harmfully.

And out of 170,000 'hazardous' drinkers, only 220 die a year (see above) and 99.9% will survive quite happily, so it can't be that 'hazardous', can it?

"It's only half past twelve but I don't care..."

"... it's five o'clock somewhere."

My favourite country and western song at the moment, musically and lyrically.

Strewth Sheila, 'Straya has fake charities too!

From the BBC:

The vast majority of Australians worry that national drinking habits are excessive, according to new research.

An online poll commissioned by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (Fare) also found 92% of Australians believe alcohol is linked to domestic violence.

Fare surveyed 1,820 people across Australia...

Ho hum.

From FARE's our history page:

The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), formerly the Alcohol Education & Rehabilitation Foundation (AERF), is an independent, not-for-profit, national health organisation based in Canberra, Australia.

Established in 2001 by the Australian Parliament with a $115 million grant, the Foundation was set up to distribute funding for programs and research that aimed to prevent the harms caused by alcohol and licit substance misuse...

The balance sheet on page 11 of their 2015 accounts shows they've burned through two-thirds of the original $115 million.

Note 2 on page 20 shows all their investment income, the next largest source is government funding of $164,217, previous year $226,377.

Meaningless Alcohol-related Statistics Of The Day

From The Daily Echo-o-o:

The "enormous" toll of excessive drinking on Britain's emergency services is laid bare in a new parliamentary report. Police, ambulance and A&E personnel face a risk of violence and verbal abuse as they attend drink-fuelled incidents, the inquiry found.

Those are clearly punishable offences, the good news is that in most cases, the perpetrators won't be hard to identify and/or arrest. The other news is that alcohol consumption in the UK has been falling for years, so unless they want to claim that this overall decline results from a large number of people drinking less masking a smaller people drinking a lot more, their whole thesis fails.

The report from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Harm painted a stark picture of the scale of resources devoted to dealing with alcohol misuse. It called for a number of steps including lowering the drink drive alcohol limit and introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol.

Drink driving is already - rightly - a criminal offence, but don't they do the damage by crashing, not by stepping out of the vehicle and assaulting emergency services? And what on earth does minimum pricing have to do with this anecdotal..?

One statement [from a police officer] said: "I can take my team through a licensed premise, and by the time I take them out the other end, they will have been felt up several times."

a) Well bloody arrest them on the spot.
b) Pubs seem to operate maximum pricing anyway, so any minimum price will not affect the behaviour of people in pubs and clubs.
c) It's probably being in a crowd rather than being drunk which makes people think they can get away with feeling up female coppers.

MPs and peers took evidence from police officers, fire crew and paramedics. In one area, 86% of police officers surveyed had been assaulted by people who had been drinking.

Sorry to say, but being assaulted verbally or physically is one of the risks of being a copper, and we can assume that most coppers have been assaulted a few times, the fact that most of them have been assaulted at least once by somebody who was drunk is hardly surprising. The article does not say how often fire crews and paramedics are assaulted, so again, we can safely assume it is a much lower figure (although not something we can brush aside as a risk of the job).

"Britain's top doctor asks drinkers to choose"

From The Daily Mail:

Britain's top doctor today reminded people that every time they have a drink, the pleasant buzz will help them forget her shrill incessant whining..

Dame Sally Davies appeared in front of MPs to defend her strict new booze guidelines, insisting it was her duty as chief medical officer to drive people to drink with her constant hectoring.

But at the Commons committee hearing she sensationally claimed: "I would like people to take their choice knowing the issues and do as I do when I reach for my glass of wine and think - am I going to give in to non-stop nannying or am I a grown adult with a tedious day job who likes to relax in the evening?

"Like most people, I express my preference each time I have a glass."

Fun Online Polls: Dry January & Moving exams for Ramadan

The responses to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

How will you respond to the new drinking guidelines? (choose all that apply)

Selection
I will reduce my consumption to 3 units a day - 3 votes
I will go without alcohol for 2 days a week - 1 vote
I will go without alcohol for the whole of 'Dry January' - 2 votes
I will ignore the new guidelines completely, they are a load of nonsense - 182 votes
Good. I was with the majority on this. And an excellent turnout, thank you to everybody who took part.
--------------------------------
Moving from one bit of creeping Islamification of this once great nation to another…

Pupils taking GCSEs and A-levels face timetable shake-up to accommodate fasting Muslims

Personally, I am absolutely appalled by this on so many levels. I'm an atheist, I'm a default Christian, I'm a Westerner and a democrat etc.

I believe in education and what underpins it, i.e. routine. Ramadan moves forward by eleven days, so if they bring it forward each year for two years, in the third year the whole academic timetable will have to be pushed back by a month so that exams fall after Ramadan etc. FFS, if people want to do this stuff, then there are plenty of other countries where they can go and do it, there is no need for the UK government to muck up the lives of our own children.

And as a more rational Muslim (to the extent there is such a thing) wrote in yesterday's Evening Standard letters:

When we fast, we give up our natural right to eat [in order] to worship God and ingrain a sense of sacrifice. This is well understood in many Muslim countries, such as my grandparents' native Pakistan, where exams continue as normal during Ramadan.

The spirit of Ramadan is to tolerate our normal routine while sacrificing our right to eat. yet here, instead of sacrifice, we find Muslims being afforded extra rights to make their lives easier.

While the intention of the exam boards is admirable, in this case I don't think it's necessary - especially as Muslim children shouldn't be fasting until they are older anyway.

Syed Ahmed

So that's this week's (slightly belated) Fun Online Poll.

Changing the exam timetable to accommodate Ramadan: what do you think?

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Fun Online Polls: Floods & Dry January

The results to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

What is the better way of minimising flood damage?

Scrap subsidies for upland deforestation and allow rivers to meander - 58%
Keep the subsidies, straighten rivers and keep dredging them - 42%

The correct answer is obviously 'both' i.e. upstream we should stop subsidising deforestation and allow rivers to meander (and reintroduce beavers); and downstream we should do more dredging, remembering always that dredging and straightening just shift the problem elsewhere (see Jubilee River and Wraysbury). In other words, if you increase the flow capacity of a river at any point (by dredging, widening or straightening), then you have to make sure that the flow capacity everywhere further downstream is at least as great.

But faced with the deliberately stark choice (basically George Monbiot vs agricultural landowners), the first option is the better one.
------------------------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll.

How will you respond to the new drinking guidelines?

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

"Why are drugs illegal?"

David Nutt on top form in The Guardian:

... the short answer to the question “why are (some) drugs illegal?” is simple. It’s because the editors of powerful newspapers want it that way. They see getting drugs banned as a tangible measure of success, a badge of honour.

He then ruins an otherwise excellent article by finishing off with this:

And behind them, the alcohol industry continues secretly to express its opposition to anything that might challenge its monopoly of recreational drug sales. But that’s another story.

Baseless health-scare story of the day

From the Daily Mail:

They are the go-to device for anyone trying to quit smoking - or seeking a lesser evil than cigarettes.

But e-cigarettes could trigger problem drinking, a new study has warned. People who use the devices are significantly more likely to consume more alcohol than those who don't use them, researchers claim.

Moreover, those using e-cigarettes and alcohol together report drinking more. Usually, when people quit smoking they also quit drinking, the researchers said. Therefore, those who use e-cigarettes to quit smoking may miss out on this added benefit of quitting, they said.

The researchers concluded by urging people not to ignore the 'knock on' effects of e-cigarette use.

Not even Dick Puddlecote or Christopher Snowdon in their bitterest full-on satire mode could have dreamed up this level of bullshit.

That was then, this is now.

BBC, December 2013:

The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) has urged the UK government to abolish the automatic annual increase in duty on wines and spirits.

The industry body is fronting a campaign to encourage consumers to raise the issue with their MPs. It said the alcohol duty escalator was damaging the domestic market and punishing consumers when household budgets are tight.

The Treasury said 90% of Scotch whisky was exported and unaffected by UK duty.

Quite correct.

Although UK alcohol duty (and especially spirits duty) is far too high (with VAT on top, of course), it only affects domestic demand as it is not levied on exports; output is fairly fixed in the short term, so all things being equal, higher domestic duty is 'good' for exports. The same logic applies as it does to domestic duty on imports, which is 'bad' for imports.

That economics Wunderkind Osborne has now finally decided to firmly grasp the wrong end of the stick and came up with shit like this in his Budget speech today:

Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to help families with simpler taxes – and with lower taxes too...

And to back one of the UK’s biggest exports, the duty on Scotch whisky and other spirits will be cut by 2% as well.

Quite clearly, all things being equal, this will reduce exports of whisky.

"Employees who enjoy a drink are more productive"

From yesterday's Evening Standard:

Employees who are consume above-average amounts of alcohol are capable of working an extra ten hours per week, according to a study.

Women who knock back at least two glasses of wine in the economy clocked in nine-and-a-half hour plus days during the working week. Men who regularly drink three pints an evening were capable  of the same long hours.

Researchers studied 333,693 people from 14 countries and concluded that an 11 per cent increase in alcohol use enabled people to endure much longer working hours.

... cheaper than water

Ah, I fondly remember the good old days of last year, with shock horror headlines like this...

Channel 4 Dispatches find supermarkets selling beer cheaper than water

Today they were clobbering us with this...

Milk cheaper than water: supermarket price war drives down price of a pint

Supermarket price wars have pushed the price of four-pinter milk below that of some bottled waters...

When bought in a four-pint bottle, the price per litre of milk has dipped to 43p, compared to 44p for bottled still water.

If you do the numbers, the pump price (excluding tax) of a litre of petrol is considerably lower, at 32p per litre.

... which all reminds me of the 1985 film Water, the key scene is when Michael Caine has to explain to the disappointed islanders that they can actually sell 'table water' for a far higher price than they could sell the crude oil they were hoping to find.

What goes around comes around, eh?

Fun Online Polls: Dry January & Charlie

The responses to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

By how much will you reduce your alcohol consumption during Dry January?

A lot - 2%
A bit - 2%
Not at all - 14%
Oh, I do wish they'd **** off and leave us alone - 82%

A very good turnout of 131 voters, thanks to everybody who took part.
------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll should be fairly self-explanatory: Êtes-vous Charlie?

Fun Online Polls: Back to work & Dry January

The results to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

On which of the following days will you be at work over Xmas and New Year?

Monday 29th - 27 votes
Tuesday 30th - 27 votes
Wednesday 31st - 26 votes
Thursday 1st - 13 votes
Friday 2nd - 29 votes
Saturday 3rd - 16 votes
Sunday 4th - 16 votes
Not back to work until Monday 5th Jan - 16 votes
Other, please specify - 5 votes

Thanks to the 61 people who took part. Today is my first day back at work since Xmas, so I guess I'm one of the lucky 25%.
-------------------------------------------
The question on everybody's lips and foremost on everybody's mind is no doubt how much they will reduce their alcohol consumption during Dry January.

So that's this week's Fun Online Poll.

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Xmas Fridge 2014

The old fridge conked out so I bought a new one (£129 from Curry's, and no thanks, I don't want to pay for a three-year extended warranty).

Clearly, the contents will change of the next few weeks (e.g. overflow food if the main fridge is full), but to get the ball rolling, 3 bottles of Tesco Cava, 2 bottles of Tesco lemonade and the rest is approx. 50 cans of Foster's.

How can you 'confess' to something which isn't a crime?

From The Daily Mail:

The research found for more than one in seven British people a single glass of wine in the evening is not enough - and they regularly polish off a whole bottle all by themselves.

A further one in three people admitted to drinking at home alone, with 15 per cent confessing to often emptying the bottle on their own...

You 'admit' that you turn up to work drunk and you 'confess' to a drink driving offence.

You don't do either of those for something which is entirely legal and doesn't do any harm to anybody. I don't even think that drinking one whole bottle over the course of an evening is excessive, it's only three or four decent sized glasses.