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".

A survivor from a parallel apocalyptic universe speaks...

From the BBC:

A new campaign called "Badvertising" is demanding an immediate end to adverts for large polluting cars...

Andrew Simms, one author, said: "We ended tobacco advertising when we understood the threat from smoking to public health. Now that we know the human health and climate damage done by car pollution, it’s time to stop adverts making the problem worse. There’s adverts, and then there’s badverts, promoting the biggest, worst emitting SUVs is like up-selling pollution, and we need to stop."

I've no sympathy with people who drive unnecessarily large vehicles (whether gas guzzler or SUV, it's all just conspicuous consumption and a pain in the arse for pedestrians and people in sensibly sized cars), but I doubt that an advertising ban is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

The car manufacturers probably won't care too much. The main purpose of advertising is to retain market share and not increase the size of the overall market. So it's an arms race and an advertising ban is a straight cost-saving.

But it gets funnier. The Stigler, on Twitter, asked:

Andrew Simms? The bloke from NEF who was saying we only have 100 months to save the planet from irreversible climate change back in 2008?

Presumably.

It's worse than I thought - leaving your own home is now basically a crime.

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made:

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

2020 No. 350 PUBLIC HEALTH, ENGLAND

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020...

6. Restrictions on movement

(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

In criminal law, "reasonable excuse" can be used as a defence against a crime. So if you smash a car side window for the fun of it, that's clearly a crime. If you see a child or dog suffocating on the back seat on a hot day, you are allowed to smash a side window in order to save its life (OK, that might be "implied permission" but same general idea). So, if you need a "reasonable excuse" to do [something], that [something] is a basically an offence, which is restated in para 9.

The full list of narrowly defined "reasonable excuses" is below.

This is completely over the top. On the basis of (questionable) scientific advice, our government, like most governments, wants to reduced infection rates by restricting person-to-person contacts. Fair enough.

If you jump in your car, whizz round for a bit and then park up and go back inside, you don't come into contact with anybody you are not doing against the general spirit of the legislation, so why the hell is it not a "reasonable excuse"? How is that different - in terms of infection risk - to going for a bicycle ride?

The whole section should be re-written to say that you are only allowed to leave your home and come into contact with anybody else in order to [etc].

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a) to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b) to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c) to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d) to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e) to donate blood;

(f) to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g) to attend a funeral of—
(i) a member of the person’s household,
(ii) a close family member, or
(iii) if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h) to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i) to access critical public services, including—
(i) childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii) social services;
(iii) services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv) services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j) in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k) in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l) to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m) to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

Driving for the sake of driving is apparently not an "essential journey"

The lock down rules have the aim of reducing person-to-person contact as far as possible.

Misguided or not, that's a clear enough basic principle.

So no more going on holiday by 'plane or train (fair enough); work from home if possible (fair enough); try and cut down on your shopping trips (one big shop a week instead of popping out for what you need - fair enough); no driving to beauty spots for a walk or picnic (too many other people there - fair enough). They classify this as "non-essential travel".

There is no earthly logic that says simply driving round in a circle for the joy of it goes against the basic principle (especially on empty roads with petrol at 102.9/litre). You get out of the house - with significant benefits for your mental health (doesn't mental health count as 'health reasons'? The alternative is hitting the booze much earlier in the day) - and you come into contact with precisely nobody.

In terms of person-to-person contact, driving is better and safer than going cycling or walking (which people still do in groups). Driving to your holiday home does not increase the number of person-to-person contacts so does not go against the basic principle either. But if you are employed by killjoys and banstubators, you have to toe the line I suppose.

A copper at a roadblock in the middle of Epping Forest yesterday informed me in no uncertain terms that joy riding is "non-essential" and therefore basically against the law - which they just made up on the spot. The logic is arse-backwards. Even more galling was the fact that said copper was standing well within two metres of me; and the road block was near a car park full of people going for walks or cycling.

There aren't expletives enough in all the world's dictionaries to describe the mentality of whoever decided that joy riding goes against the basic principle (which it clearly doesn't). According to The Telegraph, Mr Loophole even says that you might be void your insurance by doing so.

Remember to stock up on cars to keep you going until 2050.

From the BBC:

A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans. The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050...

The change in plans, which will be subject to a consultation, comes after experts warned the previous target date of 2040 would still leave old conventional cars on the roads following the clean-up date of 2050.

I'm not sure if my three will last long enough to see my through until they take my licence off me. From the wording, it doesn't appear that they'll ban the sale of second hand cars in 2035, so they'll be a solid investment from about 2030 onwards. I hope I don't forget to buy another one or two in the early '30s.

"Trump plans ban on sale of flavoured handguns"

From the BBC:

US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration will ban flavoured handguns, after a spate of shooting-related deaths.

Mr Trump told reporters shooting at people was a "new problem", especially for children.

US Health Secretary Alex Azar said the Firearm and Drug Administration (FDA) would finalise a plan to take all non-lead flavours off the market.

There have been six deaths and 450 reported cases of chest injuries tied to shootings involving flavoured handguns across 33 states. Many of the 450 reported cases are young people, with an average age of 19.

Lead-related deaths are holding steady at around 40,000 per annum.

Or, they could just buy "male" razors...

From the BBC:

A Lib Dem MP wants to stop items such as razors or deodorants from being priced differently based on whether they are marketed at men or women.

On Tuesday Christine Jardine will introduce a bill to Parliament banning what she calls "a sexist tax"...

An investigation by The Times newspaper in 2016 found that women and girls were charged on average 37% more for clothes, beauty products and toys.

In the same year, a petition accused Boots of charging £2.29 for an eight-pack of women's razors compared to £1.49 for a 10-pack of male razors.

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.

"From Veganuary to Dryathlons, so begins the month of self-inflicted misery..."

From City AM:

This year I will be doing Ginuary. I’m sure the concept is self-explanatory.

Badly calibrated test of the week

From the BBC:

Almost two million people have taken the heart age test and 78% of participants have a heart age higher than their actual age.

Of those, 34% were more than five years over their actual age and 14% at least 10 years higher.

Tossers.

Nobody move or the bottom of the barrel gets hurt!

From the BBC:

What's in the no-deal Brexit plans?

In the 24 documents, which cover industries including medicine, finance and farming, it says...

* New picture warnings will be needed for cigarette packets as the EU owns the copyright to the current ones

FFS.

"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?

"I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste."

From The Daily Mail:

Sadiq Khan has defended his approval of a giant 'baby Trump' blimp which will fly above London during a visit by the US President...

"My views are irrelevant. The issue is 'Do they have freedom to protest, freedom to assemble and should they be allowed to do so? If it's peaceful and it's safe they should.'

Piers Morgan asked the mayor if he would have endorsed a giant black baby blimp of Barack Obama in protest during his presidency, or an image depicting Mr Khan as a pig despite that being offensive to Muslims.

Mr Khan said: 'If it's peaceful and if it's safe. Look, I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste.'

Piers Morgan came up with some really good suggestions there, although he chickened out of suggesting that Obama's balloon would have been a monkey with Obama's face on it, that would have really got the crowd going. I'm all in favour of the Trump balloon, and would have been equally delighted by a pig with Khan's face.

Returning to the main issue, Khan has made it his job to censor stuff, like adverts with pictures of slim women and adverts for affordable ready cooked meals. Pity Morgan didn't confront him with those examples.

... let's fund the NHS instead

Meme kindly created by Jeremy L:

Your taxpayers' money, hard at work.

From the BBC:

The NHS in England is to get an extra £20bn a year by 2023 as a 70th "birthday present", Theresa May says. It means the £114bn budget will rise by an average of 3.4% annually - but that is still less than the 3.7% average rise the NHS has had since 1948...

The five-year funding settlement covers just front-line budgets overseen by NHS England. About a 10th of the overall health budget is held by other bodies for things such as training and healthy lifestyle programmes, including stop smoking services and obesity prevention programmes. The BBC understands these will be protected, but beyond that it is unclear what will happen to them.

?!? One-tenth of £114 bn is £11.4 bn, which is approx equal to our net contributions to the EU budget.

Would anybody like to chip in for a battle bus, with "We spend £220 million a week on stop smoking services and obesity prevention programmes. Let's fund the NHS instead." written on the sides?

Questions to which the answer is "no"

From the BBC:

Gambling ads: Would a pre-watershed ban protect young people?

This is an ineffective solution to a non-existent problem. Fun article though, they're really jumping the shark.

Next.

Fun with numbers (race to the bottom)

From The Evening Standard:

Fast-food takeaways will be banned from opening within 400 metres of schools in a bid to tackle the capital’s child obesity epidemic.

In addition, all new chicken, fish and chip and pizza outlets will have to sign up to minimum healthy food standards before getting planning permission. Sadiq Khan will announce the policy in his draft London Plan, the capital’s “planning bible”, due to be published later this week.

You know the answer is going to be 'zero', but let's do the numbers.

400 yds = 366 metres.

A circle with a radius of 366m has a surface area of 420,000 sq m = 0.42 sq km.

There are approx. 3,700 schools in Greater London (24,372 x 8 million/53 million).

3,700 schools x 0.42 sq km = 1,554 sq km.

Surface area of Greater London 1,569 sq km

I was a bit slow on the uptake here.

Dan Cookson beat us all to it, and even the BBC has pointed out that "In some parts of London, the only places that new fast food outlets would theoretically be allowed are in the middle of parks or the River Thames."

Fun Online Polls: Fixed-odds betting terminals & The Brexit Bill

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

What 'should' be the maximum bet on fixed-odd betting terminals?

£2 - 19%
£20 - 4%
£200 - 1%
It's none of the government's business - 76%

Thanks to everybody who took part, 105 votes in total, a good turnout (albeit spread over two weeks).

'Nuff said, I think. These machines - and gambling in general - is something I (and presumably a lot of other people) instinctively dislike, it's always a negative sum game and seems all rather depressing. But that in itself is no reason to ban something.
------------------------------------
Our strong and stable leader appears to be adopting a bizarre variant of the black sheriff in "Blazing Saddles"'s negotiating tactic, i.e. taking the whole country hostage and offering to pay the EU £40 billion in ransom for a safe return of the Brexit negotiations.

Ho hum, seems a bit craven to me, but not as bad as the original ransom demand of about £100 billion.

So that's week's Fun Online Poll.

"How much should the UK be prepared to pay the EU to kick start the Brexit negotiations?"

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Fun Online Polls: The North-South divide; Fixed Odds Terminals

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

The UK's North-South divide runs from...

Chester to London - 8%
Bristol to Norwich - 76%
Other, please specify - 16%

A low turnout of 50,even though I was away last week so this Poll ran for a fortnight.

Thanks to everybody who took part or left a comment, but I'm with the majority on this. If you've spent half your life in Oop North and half Darn Sarf, you know the difference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And lo, The Righteous are out in force again:

Gambling addict warns against fixed-odds betting terminals

A recovering gambling addict has warned others about the dangers of using fixed-odds betting terminals in bookmakers. The man, who asked to remain anonymous, said he had lost as much as £15,000 in a day at betting shops in Reading town centre.

The government is conducting a review into the machines, which account for more than 50% of bookmakers' profits. The Association of British Bookmakers said a report suggesting the maximum bet should be reduced from £100 to £2 was "flawed".

You can't even begin to pick holes in these claims and counter-claims, they are one giant hole. I'm not going to waste your time or mine by trying to guess what the actual substance is before picking holes in it anyway. The only fun bit is waiting for Philip Davies to spring to the defence of the betting industry for the eight zillionth time.

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

What 'should' be the maximum bet on fixed-odd betting terminals?

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

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.