Vladimir's Cure

Before I went to Russia, my fellow blogger the Beer Nut wrote somewhere - was it twitter? - I can't find it anyway, something to the effect of "Just wait to you see a country totally ruled by strong drink".  So when I went, I thought I'd find the place littered with scary drunks, pubs full of gangsters and an attitude to drink that would make Glasgow seem like a temperance hall.  Instead I found a very civilised place - OK it was posh Moscow and St Petersburg - and no sign of drunkeness at all.  The bars and pubs were filled with lovely, well dressed people sipping wine and having a very nice time in a quiet way. The only potential drunk I came across was me.

OK.  It was so expensive that you couldn't afford to get drunk, so worryingly these anti alcohol Johnnies have a case study that they could possibly use.  But that was in bars.  Drinking from the offie was cheap. Not as cheap as good old GB, but still reasonably cheap.  So maybe they just get pissed at home?

In one bar, a short measure half litre of Young's Double Chocolate Stout and a half of Harp (in a McEwan's glass) was over a tenner.  Why did I choose Young's?  It was on offer. Why didn't I drink Russian beer?  They didn't sell any - a feature of many Moscow bars.

More of Russia soon,  but building works at home make internet access and somewhere to sit and do it, tricky at the moment.

Why Minimum Pricing Doesn't Really Work

Convinced that minimum pricing works, or that increasing prices will sort out the binge drinkers? Watch this and think again.

Even if you still are convinced about minimum pricing, you can at least have a laugh.   
I stumbled across this while looking for something else. It's good to share.

Funny or Not?

Have you heard of  Oban Bay Brewery? No, me neither. Not until I read yesterday's Scotland on Sunday. Seems they produce beers with "jokey" names (aimed at tourists they say) and that's got them into hot water with the Anti Alcohol Lobby and CAMRA.

The cause of this stooshie? A beer called Ginger Jakey - a jakey being a colloquialism in Scotland, for an alcoholic down and out. I'd have shown you the offending beer label, which is printed in the paper, but not on line, nor on the Oban Bay site, but instead a similar one from their web site.

Make your own mind up. SoS has the story here.

Mixed Messages

I usually don't tackle problem drinking on this blog, as others such as Tyson and Curmudgeon do it so much better, but I will give it a go for once. It seems to me that our politicians are getting extremely muddled on alcohol. Did I say "getting?" Of course I should be saying they "have got", or if I was American, "have gotten" extremely confused.

As Tyson points out in his blog, minimum pricing isn't the answer to Britain's alcohol problem, if problem there be. From my point of view, reducing overall consumption might well be though. So what do we hear today? We hear from the British Beer and Pub Association that alcohol consumption in 2009 saw the sharpest year-on-year decline since 1948. The 6% drop was the fourth annual decline in five years.

Despite our alleged propensity to drink too much, we consume less than the EU average and 13% less alcohol than in 2004. So the continual banging on about over indulgence is actually having the desired effect. We are, as a whole, drinking less every year and repeating our drinking less year on year. If you like to put it another way, the messages are getting through. This sits rather oddly with minimum pricing which will not affect the behaviour of those with a problem. The general trend is down, so maybe those that like to tax the poor out of a much needed drink, might like to turn their attentions on those that are actually causing themselves harm?

That of course would mean looking at ways to tackle the actual problem rather than tar all drinkers with the same brush. It would mean looking a lot more closely at a lot of very complex issues, to which there is unlikely to be a simple answer. Fat chance of doing that. That's too difficult. Better simply to jack the price up for everyone and put windfall profits into the big supermarkets, who some would say, are guilty of causing much of the availability of cut price drink and therefore the problem, in the first place. From the pub goer's point of view, this is a superficially attractive solution, but then again, I believe the Trojan Horse was a bit of a looker too. Don't be fooled. This is thin end of the wedge stuff.

An interesting side snippet; in 2009, the UK ale market increased its market share of all beers for the first time since the 1960s. Hooray!

Neo-prohibitionism

No, you haven't dialled up Curmudgeon by mistake. It's still me, but a different thing this time. Mudgie is always banging on about the anti alcohol brigade, so I draw his attention and yours to this in the Morning Advertiser.

Interesting - a good piece to set you thinking.

Glasses, Glassings and Doubtful Statistics

The Design Council has announced that is has developed two new prototype beer glasses to combat the problem of glasses being used as weapons in pubs and clubs. Basically the technology in one case offers a resin layer in the glass that will prevent glasses from sharding when broken, while the other is layered like a car windscreen, making it hard to smash and less dangerous than the current type of beer glass. They won't look or feel different, so well and good.

Along with this though there are some statistics which made me gasp with surprise. It seems that there are 87,000 glassings a year. Not innocent injuries caused by contact with a broken glass, say in picking one up that you've knocked over, but actual violence using a beer glass. What? That is an average of 238 a day. Now I don't know about you, but I find that hard to believe. I have been going in pubs for well over thirty years and been in some bloody rough ones, but thankfully I have never seen any glass related violence ever. I don't doubt for a second that it happens - and when it does it tends to be front page news - but 238 a day? Really? Does anyone else find that an unbelievable figure?

This is compounded (according to Alan Johnson the Home Secretary - pictured) by an alleged cost to the NHS of 2.7 billion pounds. What? That would suggest that each incident costs the NHS £31,000. Really? Can this possibly be true?

Anything that makes glasses safer without resorting to plastic is fine with me, but do we really need simple measures that sort out a minority problem to be accompanied by such obvious distortion and hyperbole? Pete Brown has already shown that government use of its own statistics is, shall we say, selective, but now it seems the government is heading towards Goebbels motto of "the bigger the lie, the more the people will believe it."

And that just won't do.

Photos of the new glasses will be available later today.

Muddled Thinking and the Anti Drink Lobby

We all know that the vast majority of drinkers drink responsibly don't we? Well more evidence to support this has come from that drink sodden place Scotland, whose Government seem to think has slipped beyond the pale, judging by their hysterical behaviour. Latest figures show that those consuming more than the Governments arbitrary figures fell by 4% for men and 3% for women. In addition, the number of offences of drunkenness recorded by police fell 10% and the number of drink-driving offences fell by 8%.

"These figures are very welcome, although they seem to fly in the face of some of the comments on alcohol and health being made by the Scottish Government," said Scottish Beer and Pub Association chief executive Patrick Browne.

Mr Browne goes on to say that the police should be using their existing powers to tackle anti social behaviour rather than seeking new ones. Isn't that what the PM was saying yesterday in his farewell speech to his party conference while at the same time giving “power to Local Authorities to ban 24-hour drinking?" He needs to wisen up; that power already exists in the current Licensing Act, put through parliament by his own government. Shouldn't he know that? If there are problem areas and pubs, shouldn't the authorities be tackling that using the powers they already have? If they aren't, why aren't they?

This muddled thinking infuriates, but I doubt if it'll make a jot of difference to the anti alcohol lobby.

A Level Celebrations Banned

It seems my neighbours, Oldham Council are at it again. They stepped in and banned a night club "Mink" - great name - from running drinks promotions, including free champagne, free vodka jellies, and buy one, get one free on selected drinks. The operator was told to cancel the promotion or face immediate closure for failing to carry out a risk assessment - one of the licensing conditions imposed by the council.

I don't like Oldham Council's overall approach one bit. It seems to me they opened the Pandora's box some years ago and are now desperately trying to close it. The late night scene and ghettoisation of the Town Centre started well before the new licensing laws, with bars being encouraged to apply for late night extensions. It's being going on and growing for years, but a couple of things occur to me in this getting the genie back into the bottle exercise. Aren't most A level students under 18 when they get their results? And anything that saves the poor buggers from "vodka jellies" is probably a good thing.

The Publican has the story here.

Back on the Booze - After a Hiccup

Having been up since four a.m. to catch the six thirty three to Glasgow, I was feeling thirsty when I got off the train at Glasgow Central. I took the short walk to Queen St Station with a view to nipping into the Counting House for a pint. It was just before ten in the morning and a few were in, though no-one was at the bar. I should have been alerted by this, but wasn't. It's a fine big pub, an ex Bank of Scotland HQ with a load of grand features from a time when banks were built to impress. I ordered a pint of Rooster's Oakey Cream just to show I'm not entirely a stick in the mud - well OK because it was right in front of me. "Will you be having breakfast?" was the reply. "Er, no". I had been fed on the train. "Alas" quoth our fair maiden, "you can't be served alcohol until eleven."

Seems the laws have changed. She said as they are designated a tourist zone, no alcohol is allowed without eating, until eleven and then, just two drinks are permitted. I have to say I was astonished. Scotland lead the charge towards UK licensing law liberation and now it seems, they are reversing the process. Another victory to the anti alcohol lobby?

So I sat in George Square for half an hour watching the tourists - yes there were loads of them - and then walked the mile or so to Charing Cross, where my enforced drought was ended by two pints of easy drinking Killellan in a more or less deserted State Bar while reading the Glasgow Herald.

Just to be sure I was really enjoying things, I went to the Bon Accord too, where a very robustly hopped and bittered Inkie Pinkie from Inveralmond reminded me that water and lime is fine in its place, but is no subsitute for good old beer.

A Lesson from Australia

Last April the Australian Government slapped a 70% tax increase on RTD's ( Ready to Drink) or to you and me, alcopops. The aim was to curb youth binge drinking, allegedly fuelled by such things. It has been successful in one way, in that it saw a drop in sales of alcopops, as youngsters turned to other drinks to fuel their alcoholic desires. Beer sales rose.

Now the party is over. The Australian Senate has ruled that rather than a genuine attempt to curb binge drinking, it was merely a tax grab. In a March vote they overturned this, costing the government AUD 1.6 billion (EUR 835 million) which it had expected to collect from the increase in tax over the next four years. It may also mean the government will have to hand back an estimated AUD 300 million (EUR 156 million) it has already collected since it gazetted the law last April.

Now I rather thought all governments were just tax grabbers, but maybe that's just me. The Australian Senate is obviously made of more thoughtful stuff. But it shows that when you tinker with alcohol duty to attempt one outcome, you are just likely to shift the problem elsewhere, leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill.

I hope HMG is aware of this and taking note.

Radio 4 is at it too!

The Southport Drinker rails against the anti alcohol lobby a lot. Stonch too has pointed out the insidious way they make their point. The Pub Curmudgeon also vents his spleen in this direction and the re-incarnated Tyson has exasperatedly mentioned it too in a recent post. You don't need me to add to this, but one thing. As I go about my household duties, I listen to Radio 4. So what's coming up at 12 noon in "You and Yours?" I quote "Alcohol:How can we reduce the harm alcohol causes our society?".

Looks like I'll be listening to the Navy Lark on Radio 7 instead. Or maybe Five Live. I doubt if my nerves can stand another bloody lecture!

Ironically what does the BBC use to illustrate its show? Look at the picture and see.

What Kind of (Heavy) Drinker are You?

The Department of Wasting Public Money, in this case masquerading as the Dept of Heath has identified nine types of heavy drinker as it launches a new alcohol campaign. Or should I say, a new anti alcohol campaign. Experts said helping people to understand the reasons for their drinking habits was "very useful".

The types identified are:

• Depressed drinker
• De-stress drinker
• Re-bonding drinker
• Conformist drinker
• Community drinker
• Boredom drinker
• Macho drinker
• Hedonistic drinker
• Border dependents

If you want to know what they all mean, the types are described here:

I think they have missed a trick here though. The beer geek drinker is absent from the list. Perhaps it is because we are not heavy drinkers, preferring to sniff and spit? Or perhaps this nonsense is just a waste of time and money? Anyway I'll find out. It seems that a pilot of how this is going to work in practice is being run here in the North West. It will specifically target heavy drinkers. Over 900,000 households will receive leaflets through the post highlighting the link between drinking and conditions such as cancer and liver disease. How will they know which houses to send it to? Will I get one?

I don't know or care. I am feeling very much better now and after a little light shopping, I'm off for a drink!

The government hopes this "tailored" approach will help 4,000 people in the region to reduce their drinking within a year. I think they will find the recession will do that much more effectively!