The charity Alcohol Concern Cymru's (AAC) have apparently convinced themselves that there is drinking problem amongst Welsh seniors.
It conjures up an image of seniors staggering out of bars, vomiting in the street, getting into fights and sleeping it off in police cells.
AAC are alleging seniors drinking over the recommended maximum in the week before rose from 22% in 2003/4 to 34% in 2009 for men and 7% to 17% for women.
The charity's local manager Andrew Misell made the alarmist claim that: "With the number of people over retirement age increasing, some researchers have even talked about a silent epidemic of older people's alcohol issues."
Alcohol Concern Cymru's (AAC) is what is sometimes referred to a "fake" charity. That is, a registered charity that receives the bulk of it's funding, not from charitable donations, but instead from the state, or interested state bodies, often by quite convoluted paths.
In this case it receives funding from the Welsh Assembly and the Department of Health. One can't help but suspect the objectivity of such 'charities'. It is in their interests to talk up 'problems' and to dance the tune of their major funders.
So what are the limits alleged to be exceeded the week before? For men 21 per week and 14 for women. A unit is 1/2 pint of beer, a glass of wine or a shot measure.
It means a man who had more than a pint and a half each day in that week would exceed that limit as would a woman who drank more than a couple of glasses of wine each day would be accounted problem drinkers.
Presumably, whatever their general level of alcohol consumption is, it can’t have done them any great harm over the last 65 years, or they probably wouldn’t have got to be seniors in the first place.
One wonders when the survey was actually done. After the New Year? During the holiday season?
In any event, the big problem with the statistics (gathered by the Welsh Health Survey) that AAC used, is that the way things were measured changed in 2006 - and they did not take that into account. So by comparing 2003 with 2009 they are basically comparing apples to aardvarks.
AAC were making the mistake of only measuring the change in the way the figures were recorded and compiled - not in the way people drink at all. Oops…
Still it made a great alarmist headline didn’t it - and how many people will ever notice?
Showing posts with label Alcohol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alcohol. Show all posts
Friday, 27 May 2011
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Food for thought
The UK government and it's indirectly government financed “pressure groups” and “Charities” have been really pushing the anti obesity thing for some time now with talk of taxing certain food products plus having set minimum prices for alcohol and punitive taxes on it too.
If you are overweight you are not just morally reprehensible because the Puritanical socialist-patrician classes don't approve of you.
No from their tone you are not just a resource hogging criminal because you are personally destroying the UK's National Health Service.
Now it seems you threaten the whole planet, every last one of us, every creature and plant you are personally making “Climate Change” worse and you must be stopped.
If you are overweight you are not just morally reprehensible because the Puritanical socialist-patrician classes don't approve of you.
No from their tone you are not just a resource hogging criminal because you are personally destroying the UK's National Health Service.
Now it seems you threaten the whole planet, every last one of us, every creature and plant you are personally making “Climate Change” worse and you must be stopped.
Friday, 18 April 2008
WHO seeks to persecute law abiding drinkers
“A New world authoritarian order?” He types, from his secret, heavily armed bunker, somewhere in Texas ;-)
Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?
Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”
One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.
Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.
They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.
Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.
The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.
That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.
This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.
WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.
Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.
Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…
Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?
Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”
One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.
Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.
They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.
Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.
The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.
That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.
This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.
WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.
Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.
Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Under age drinking in the UK - Then and now
It seems the Police have been cracking down on under age drinkers country wide. Around 25,thousand litres of alcohol - mostly beer and cider - were seized from around 5,000 ‘youths’, during a two-week operation involving 39 forces across England and Wales costing £700 thousand.
A Home Office spokesman boasted that information gathered by police during the operation would help them target individuals and trouble spots in future.
Sadly, this very comment, if anything this is an indication of just how bad things have become.
Minimal research informs that twenty years ago the officers who patrolled an area made it their business to know all their trouble spots and the individuals who needed targeting.
They acquired the information in their day to day patrolling and in conversation with their colleagues and the public. It was their bread and butter. They passed this information to someone who collated it, verified it, developed it and re distributed it.
Twenty years ago youths obtained alcohol, usually in the form of cheap lager, beer or cider, by means of either purchasing it from dodgy off licences of indirectly by getting, one way or another, older customers to buy for them.
Once obtained in sufficient amounts the ‘youths’ would have favoured haunts where they consumed it. Officers worth their salt would just happen to drop by to or discourage sales, visit the haunts and thus render them less attractive by their presence and take anyone too objectionable home to their parents.
This would be as effective with those who were not fond of authority as they would prefer to avoid a visit by the police and equally effective with many other households because of the embarrassment and would prefer to avoid a visit by the police in such circumstances.
So nothing has changed then – apart from the fact that it seems the police can effectively no longer just cart drunken youths directly home to a ‘place of safety’.
Much too much red tape - targets, ‘rights’ (courtesy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and convoluted Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE courtesy of Maggie Thatcher) rules, for that now – Oh and according to the home office, who are admittedly probably pretty out of touch with real policing, , it apparently takes £700,000 pounds just to find out something that used to come automatically.
A Home Office spokesman boasted that information gathered by police during the operation would help them target individuals and trouble spots in future.
Sadly, this very comment, if anything this is an indication of just how bad things have become.
Minimal research informs that twenty years ago the officers who patrolled an area made it their business to know all their trouble spots and the individuals who needed targeting.
They acquired the information in their day to day patrolling and in conversation with their colleagues and the public. It was their bread and butter. They passed this information to someone who collated it, verified it, developed it and re distributed it.
Twenty years ago youths obtained alcohol, usually in the form of cheap lager, beer or cider, by means of either purchasing it from dodgy off licences of indirectly by getting, one way or another, older customers to buy for them.
Once obtained in sufficient amounts the ‘youths’ would have favoured haunts where they consumed it. Officers worth their salt would just happen to drop by to or discourage sales, visit the haunts and thus render them less attractive by their presence and take anyone too objectionable home to their parents.
This would be as effective with those who were not fond of authority as they would prefer to avoid a visit by the police and equally effective with many other households because of the embarrassment and would prefer to avoid a visit by the police in such circumstances.
So nothing has changed then – apart from the fact that it seems the police can effectively no longer just cart drunken youths directly home to a ‘place of safety’.
Much too much red tape - targets, ‘rights’ (courtesy of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and convoluted Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE courtesy of Maggie Thatcher) rules, for that now – Oh and according to the home office, who are admittedly probably pretty out of touch with real policing, , it apparently takes £700,000 pounds just to find out something that used to come automatically.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
NICE advise alcohol ban for expectant mothers
NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) who withhold life saving treatments to save the Government money are changing the advice they give to pregnant women concerning alcohol. Up ‘till now they have advised that small daily amounts were fine, a unit of alcohol a day.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Hike in UK alcohol duty is bigger than advertised
I was out of the country, enjoying the benefits of a less punitive tax regime, for Gordon Brown’s darling glove puppet’s first (and hopefully last) budget.
I was pleased ;-) along with the health fascists at the British Medical Association (BMA), to see the "large rise", on top of the already outrageous levels of taxation imposed on alcohol by the glove puppet - They have been so effective on curbing alcohol abuse to date that much more of the same is a sure recipe for success.
The huge price hike in duty on alcohol (six per cent above inflation), 55p on a 70cl bottle of spirits coupled with the increase of 14p in the duty on a bottle of wine is bound to stop the quality single malt whisky fuelled drunken binges of retired colonels and vicars in our high streets at weekends. Not to mention the sparkling wine fuelled thuggery so prevalent in our towns and cities.
Of course it is a moneymaking exercise. The last thing the state wants is for us to cut back on buying alcohol as this would eat into their revenue. It makes a nice fig leaf for gouging levels of taxation to wave at the naive though - and an excellent excuse for ever more intrusive measures of social control.
It’s the gift that just keeps on giving because every penny increase in duty allows a corresponding increase in VAT, so that 55p headline increase is actually a hike in the Government’s cut of over 64p per bottle and that’s just the hike, not the total taken. Oh and don’t forget you already paid tax on the money you are being taxed for spending, when you originally earned it.
But we should all feel hap-happy about it because… Ahh! it’s allegedly going towards a good cause - towards ending “child poverty” by 2020.
New Labour are unlikely to ever have to actually live up to such a distant target. Though it would be nice to believe they might be slightly more effective at it between now and when they finally get kicked out of power, than the pathetic showing they have managed to make on this moving target to date.
I was pleased ;-) along with the health fascists at the British Medical Association (BMA), to see the "large rise", on top of the already outrageous levels of taxation imposed on alcohol by the glove puppet - They have been so effective on curbing alcohol abuse to date that much more of the same is a sure recipe for success.
The huge price hike in duty on alcohol (six per cent above inflation), 55p on a 70cl bottle of spirits coupled with the increase of 14p in the duty on a bottle of wine is bound to stop the quality single malt whisky fuelled drunken binges of retired colonels and vicars in our high streets at weekends. Not to mention the sparkling wine fuelled thuggery so prevalent in our towns and cities.
Of course it is a moneymaking exercise. The last thing the state wants is for us to cut back on buying alcohol as this would eat into their revenue. It makes a nice fig leaf for gouging levels of taxation to wave at the naive though - and an excellent excuse for ever more intrusive measures of social control.
It’s the gift that just keeps on giving because every penny increase in duty allows a corresponding increase in VAT, so that 55p headline increase is actually a hike in the Government’s cut of over 64p per bottle and that’s just the hike, not the total taken. Oh and don’t forget you already paid tax on the money you are being taxed for spending, when you originally earned it.
But we should all feel hap-happy about it because… Ahh! it’s allegedly going towards a good cause - towards ending “child poverty” by 2020.
New Labour are unlikely to ever have to actually live up to such a distant target. Though it would be nice to believe they might be slightly more effective at it between now and when they finally get kicked out of power, than the pathetic showing they have managed to make on this moving target to date.
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Tesco willing to work with the UK State (thus logically against it’s customers) on banning 'cheap' alcohol
It is interesting to note that Tesco appear to be cravenly responding to New Labour’s, authoritarian, patrician, health fascist line, that supermarkets are selling alcohol to the proletariat too cheaply.
At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.
It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.
This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.
Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."
Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.
It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.
At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.
It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.
This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.
Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."
Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.
It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.
Monday, 21 January 2008
New Labour want to impose random breath tests
It seems New Labour now want to give the police powers to be able to breath test drivers on a whim and institute mass roadside checkpoints.
They appear to base this on their normal inability to understand the implications of their own skewed statistics combined with their tendency towards an authoritarian solution to anything they perceive as a ‘problem’.
It seems they are attempting to justify this with their Christmas Drink driving states. They show that the number of drink drivers stopped dropped despite a recorded increase in the number of tests (that police are measured on).
During the 1980s the number of people killed and seriously injured in drink-drive collisions in Great Britain fell from over 9000 (1,450 deaths, 7,970 serious injuries) to just less than 5,000 (760 deaths, 4,090 serious injuries).
Over the last decade or so, figures have fluctuated year on year, but overall there has been no particular trend up or down.
It is questionable if even massively increasing the number of breath tests will make a significant difference.
If the government actually wanted to reduce drink driving, as opposed to extending it's grip on the citizen, it might be better advised to reprise the hard hitting anti drink drive campaigns of the 80s and early 90s and helped make drink driving unacceptable. But this time include drugs in the message. From the figures it appears that actually worked quite effectively.
Our current system seems to have served us well over the decades, but New Labour never heard of leaving anything that works alone - and by their actions one could be forgiven for assuming they are embarked of a long term plan to undermine public trust in the police in an attempt to turn them into an occup
They appear to base this on their normal inability to understand the implications of their own skewed statistics combined with their tendency towards an authoritarian solution to anything they perceive as a ‘problem’.
It seems they are attempting to justify this with their Christmas Drink driving states. They show that the number of drink drivers stopped dropped despite a recorded increase in the number of tests (that police are measured on).
During the 1980s the number of people killed and seriously injured in drink-drive collisions in Great Britain fell from over 9000 (1,450 deaths, 7,970 serious injuries) to just less than 5,000 (760 deaths, 4,090 serious injuries).
Over the last decade or so, figures have fluctuated year on year, but overall there has been no particular trend up or down.
It is questionable if even massively increasing the number of breath tests will make a significant difference.
If the government actually wanted to reduce drink driving, as opposed to extending it's grip on the citizen, it might be better advised to reprise the hard hitting anti drink drive campaigns of the 80s and early 90s and helped make drink driving unacceptable. But this time include drugs in the message. From the figures it appears that actually worked quite effectively.
Our current system seems to have served us well over the decades, but New Labour never heard of leaving anything that works alone - and by their actions one could be forgiven for assuming they are embarked of a long term plan to undermine public trust in the police in an attempt to turn them into an occup
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Yet more ‘calls’ for increased UK stealth taxation on alcohol
The BBC Reports that an ‘Alliance’ has been formed by ‘medical organisations’ and ‘charities’ to increase pressure on the government to curb excessive drinking and provide more ‘resources’ for alcohol-related health problems and increasing tax.
An ‘alliance’ coincidentally makes it difficult to follow the money, but normally when an individual pressure group/charity sticks it’s head above the parapet individually, they have a strong vested interest in talking up funding for themselves, and/or they are directly, or indirectly, funded by the state - so have a strong vested interest in promoting more taxation for their paymasters. Alcohol Concern for instance is largely funded by UK Department of Health.
It is interesting to note that many groups that regularly call on the Government to raise taxation levels for various reasons are part of a set of Russian dolls, that if you follow the money, through various sources eventually turn out to be State funded.
These groups justify their claims by inflating the statistics on their particular bête noire to include not only examples of their particular ‘problem behaviour’ but by stretching the goal mouth a significant proportion of the general population. Alcohol being a particular case in point.
'Hazardous' drinking for instance - The way that is classified would effectively make the entire French nation, who are held up both as both healthy and as sensible continental drinkers, hazardous drinkers, according to the state-funded NWPHO. I am sure the French will be pleased to hear that.
The BBC report contains uncritically reported claims about under age drinking yet their own recent reporting points out that fewer underage teenagers are drinking regularly, due, according to a Trading Standards survey, at least in part, to more effective enforcement of the perfectly adequate existing sales regulations.
Is it not time the public stood up to these people and told them where to stick their dubious reports, authoritarian ways and continuous demands for higher stealth taxes?
An ‘alliance’ coincidentally makes it difficult to follow the money, but normally when an individual pressure group/charity sticks it’s head above the parapet individually, they have a strong vested interest in talking up funding for themselves, and/or they are directly, or indirectly, funded by the state - so have a strong vested interest in promoting more taxation for their paymasters. Alcohol Concern for instance is largely funded by UK Department of Health.
It is interesting to note that many groups that regularly call on the Government to raise taxation levels for various reasons are part of a set of Russian dolls, that if you follow the money, through various sources eventually turn out to be State funded.
These groups justify their claims by inflating the statistics on their particular bête noire to include not only examples of their particular ‘problem behaviour’ but by stretching the goal mouth a significant proportion of the general population. Alcohol being a particular case in point.
'Hazardous' drinking for instance - The way that is classified would effectively make the entire French nation, who are held up both as both healthy and as sensible continental drinkers, hazardous drinkers, according to the state-funded NWPHO. I am sure the French will be pleased to hear that.
The BBC report contains uncritically reported claims about under age drinking yet their own recent reporting points out that fewer underage teenagers are drinking regularly, due, according to a Trading Standards survey, at least in part, to more effective enforcement of the perfectly adequate existing sales regulations.
Is it not time the public stood up to these people and told them where to stick their dubious reports, authoritarian ways and continuous demands for higher stealth taxes?
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Another Government funded health body pushing for tax hikes on alcohol
The health fascists are at it again.
In a story, largely picked up and uncritically reported by the media, the North West Public Health Observatory NWPHO are pushing the idea that middle class drinkers regularly indulge in drinking ’hazardous’ levels of alcohol.
'Hazardous' drinking is defined as regularly consuming between 22 and 50 units a week for men. Guys - That would make you a hazardous drinker if you often have a pint and a half a day.
For women, hazardous drinking is defined as regularly consuming 15 to 35 units a week. Ladies – If my sums are correct that means you are a hazardous drinker if you often have a glass of wine a day.
So then. More of the current practice of picking a range of figures that is slanted to take in normal behaviour and allowing that to ‘inflate’ the results. Results that are then given an alarming semantically loaded label. A label that conceals the actual range and can be used to beat up on anyone who queries the figures.
Exactly why are they pushing this agenda? Someone has to pay for all that lost cigarette tax if the Government are to be kept in the style they are accustomed to.
Tellingly, having effectively invented, or at least massively inflated, a so-called ‘problem‘ the Director of the (you guessed it) NWPHO, Professor Mark Bellis, is pushing for ‘substantial’ increases in the price of alcohol to help to tackle it.
Now who funds the NWPHO? Why the people who tax us of course, the Government, through the Department of Health.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The average French person drinks 60.13 Ltrs of wine per annum. That is over 80 bottles or around 321 glasses. Around the bottom end of the ‘Hazardous’ range.
So that would make the entire French nation (who are reputed to know a thing or two about wine and be reasonably healthy with it) hazardous drinkers according to the NWPHO…
In a story, largely picked up and uncritically reported by the media, the North West Public Health Observatory NWPHO are pushing the idea that middle class drinkers regularly indulge in drinking ’hazardous’ levels of alcohol.
'Hazardous' drinking is defined as regularly consuming between 22 and 50 units a week for men. Guys - That would make you a hazardous drinker if you often have a pint and a half a day.
For women, hazardous drinking is defined as regularly consuming 15 to 35 units a week. Ladies – If my sums are correct that means you are a hazardous drinker if you often have a glass of wine a day.
So then. More of the current practice of picking a range of figures that is slanted to take in normal behaviour and allowing that to ‘inflate’ the results. Results that are then given an alarming semantically loaded label. A label that conceals the actual range and can be used to beat up on anyone who queries the figures.
Exactly why are they pushing this agenda? Someone has to pay for all that lost cigarette tax if the Government are to be kept in the style they are accustomed to.
Tellingly, having effectively invented, or at least massively inflated, a so-called ‘problem‘ the Director of the (you guessed it) NWPHO, Professor Mark Bellis, is pushing for ‘substantial’ increases in the price of alcohol to help to tackle it.
Now who funds the NWPHO? Why the people who tax us of course, the Government, through the Department of Health.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The average French person drinks 60.13 Ltrs of wine per annum. That is over 80 bottles or around 321 glasses. Around the bottom end of the ‘Hazardous’ range.
So that would make the entire French nation (who are reputed to know a thing or two about wine and be reasonably healthy with it) hazardous drinkers according to the NWPHO…
Monday, 10 September 2007
We’re all going on a Summer Holiday...
Apologies to regular visitors. Postings are likely to be a little sparse on the ground for the next couple of weeks. The ‘staff’ will be taking a well-earned and overdue break.
Given the complete absence of the (was it the met office?) predicted record summer temperatures and continued drought we intend to escape and maybe find some actual summer.
Somewhere there is no need of the ‘evil’ patio heater, the new 4x4.
Somewhere the tax on alcohol is far less punitive.
We do plan to do stuff that would have the hearty disapproval of the health fascists – and possibly others.
Some ‘binge drinking’ (over 4 glasses of wine in a session), or possibly some ‘problem drinking’ (two or more glasses of wine a day), oh - and eating plenty of good food. So that’ll upset Sir Liam Donaldson, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer.
Don’t tell, the BMA, or Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire, but we will probably be doing some drinking in the street too – well sitting outside a local café or taverna having a drink, or two, at some point.
A flight or two may also be involved…
Comment moderation is on.
Please don’t get out of the habit of visiting.
Given the complete absence of the (was it the met office?) predicted record summer temperatures and continued drought we intend to escape and maybe find some actual summer.
Somewhere there is no need of the ‘evil’ patio heater, the new 4x4.
Somewhere the tax on alcohol is far less punitive.
We do plan to do stuff that would have the hearty disapproval of the health fascists – and possibly others.
Some ‘binge drinking’ (over 4 glasses of wine in a session), or possibly some ‘problem drinking’ (two or more glasses of wine a day), oh - and eating plenty of good food. So that’ll upset Sir Liam Donaldson, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer.
Don’t tell, the BMA, or Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire, but we will probably be doing some drinking in the street too – well sitting outside a local café or taverna having a drink, or two, at some point. A flight or two may also be involved…
Comment moderation is on.
Please don’t get out of the habit of visiting.
Thursday, 16 August 2007
UK Police Chief calls for price controls, tax hikes - and increases in police powers
The government campaign, publicly spearheaded by NU-Lab’s John Grogan, to raise extra revenue on alcohol gathers pace and now they have got Nu-Labs ‘politicised policemen’ weighing in amongst others.
The Chief Constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahy, (surprise, surprise) wants yet more police powers to stop drinking in the street and is urging his political masters to increase taxation on alcohol and raise the legal drinking age to 21.
Jon Stoddart, the Chief Constable of Durham Police, is supporting his ‘suggestions’ as “sensible” and the Chief Constable Northumbria Mike Craik is also calling for hikes in taxation on alcohol.
Maybe if these highly paid (evidently ineffective when it comes to drunks) police managers actually bothered effectively enforcing the existing applicable laws in those locations where it may be needed, before demanding new ones they might have more credibility.
Chief Constable Fahy amply demonstrates his authoritarian anti free market tendencies by also demanding the Government set price controls on alcohol. Calling for a high minimum price to be set for alcohol that it will be illegal to reduce, or discount.
"The supply of alcohol should not be left to the market," he liberally remarked…
This man is actually rather scary. This is a precedent we should never allow to be established.
The Chief Constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahy, (surprise, surprise) wants yet more police powers to stop drinking in the street and is urging his political masters to increase taxation on alcohol and raise the legal drinking age to 21.
Jon Stoddart, the Chief Constable of Durham Police, is supporting his ‘suggestions’ as “sensible” and the Chief Constable Northumbria Mike Craik is also calling for hikes in taxation on alcohol.
Maybe if these highly paid (evidently ineffective when it comes to drunks) police managers actually bothered effectively enforcing the existing applicable laws in those locations where it may be needed, before demanding new ones they might have more credibility.
Chief Constable Fahy amply demonstrates his authoritarian anti free market tendencies by also demanding the Government set price controls on alcohol. Calling for a high minimum price to be set for alcohol that it will be illegal to reduce, or discount.
"The supply of alcohol should not be left to the market," he liberally remarked…
This man is actually rather scary. This is a precedent we should never allow to be established.
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
Tory policy group wants to slap yet more tax on alcohol
One could be forgiven for wondering, what on earth the party ‘formerly known as the Conservatives’ that Dave the Chameleon leads should be called these days? ‘Symbol’ might do – something involving a white sickle and a hammer maybe - blue background of course. That tree thing looks like something a loan company would come up with…
The much heralded report by the ‘Social Justice Policy Group’, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, former party leader, is recommending extra duty on drinks. An overall rise of 10% (3p on a pint of beer, 15 p on a bottle of wine and 25p on a bottle of whisky)
Their plan is to use it to double the amount spent on the treatment of drug and alcohol problems. Sounds sort of ok-ish on the face of it…
No doubt IDS has been listening to the Sturmtruppen of the BMA and their tales of out of control bloodshot eyed, wild haired, binge drinkers rampaging across the country, knuckles dragging with a broken bottle in one hand.
Exactly how are they defining an alcohol problem these days?
According to the Institute of Alcohol studies in 2003, the definition of binge drinking used as a benchmark in official national surveys is: Consuming double the daily guidelines in a session.
That would be 6 units (about 2/3 of a bottle of wine) for women, or 8 units (about 4 pints) for men.
So Guys, officially if you have ever had 4 pints over the course of one evening, or drunk the equivalent of a whole bottle of wine in a sitting that would make you a binge drinker by that definition. Ladies – ever had 2/3 of a bottle of wine with a meal out? You too then, binge drinker. So that would be mostly all of us, at one time, or another, then…
Doctors may well see detrimental results of drinking. These are self selected especially for them, along with the questionably ‘disabled’ and those who are apparently suffering from ‘stress’ and need to retire early on medical grounds. Even the genuinely disabled and stressed are obliged to jump through the pathetic hoop to some extent.
This is not representative of the population as a whole, anecdotal evidence suggests many people actively avoid the Dr if at all possible. Face it you need to have plenty of spare time between 9 and 5, weekdays only, to even get to see a Dr these days.
When a significant proportion of everyone they meet fall into the pathetic ‘can’t manage their own lives’ camp it is hardly surprising that Drs begin to believe it applies to the whole population, ditto the Social Services - But no excuse for health fascism.
Dave the Chameleon will reject this idea, if he has any shred of self preservation, to avoid further completely unnecessary internal rows. Still the mere fact that this group is promoting Nu-Lab’s technique of using increased taxation to attempt social engineering is a damning indictment on his party.
Why does every politician reflexively reach to increase taxation?
Many of us enjoy a drink and have no problem with alcohol, apart from the fact that it is taxed so very much more heavily in the UK than anywhere else in Europe.
Why should the sensible majority be expected to subsidise the relative few who have no self control, and/or a violent nature and use the fact that they have been drinking alcohol as an excuse?
If someone has a sufficiently bad problem surely they are likely to come to that attention of the police. Given some appearances before the beak for drunk and disorderly, ABH or GBH surely it would be more effective if a court fined them and used that to send them for treatment.
If someone sought some sort of treatment for themselves why not supply an interest free loan and arrange the treatment for them.
The much heralded report by the ‘Social Justice Policy Group’, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, former party leader, is recommending extra duty on drinks. An overall rise of 10% (3p on a pint of beer, 15 p on a bottle of wine and 25p on a bottle of whisky)
Their plan is to use it to double the amount spent on the treatment of drug and alcohol problems. Sounds sort of ok-ish on the face of it…
No doubt IDS has been listening to the Sturmtruppen of the BMA and their tales of out of control bloodshot eyed, wild haired, binge drinkers rampaging across the country, knuckles dragging with a broken bottle in one hand.
Exactly how are they defining an alcohol problem these days?
According to the Institute of Alcohol studies in 2003, the definition of binge drinking used as a benchmark in official national surveys is: Consuming double the daily guidelines in a session.
That would be 6 units (about 2/3 of a bottle of wine) for women, or 8 units (about 4 pints) for men.
So Guys, officially if you have ever had 4 pints over the course of one evening, or drunk the equivalent of a whole bottle of wine in a sitting that would make you a binge drinker by that definition. Ladies – ever had 2/3 of a bottle of wine with a meal out? You too then, binge drinker. So that would be mostly all of us, at one time, or another, then…
Doctors may well see detrimental results of drinking. These are self selected especially for them, along with the questionably ‘disabled’ and those who are apparently suffering from ‘stress’ and need to retire early on medical grounds. Even the genuinely disabled and stressed are obliged to jump through the pathetic hoop to some extent.
This is not representative of the population as a whole, anecdotal evidence suggests many people actively avoid the Dr if at all possible. Face it you need to have plenty of spare time between 9 and 5, weekdays only, to even get to see a Dr these days.
When a significant proportion of everyone they meet fall into the pathetic ‘can’t manage their own lives’ camp it is hardly surprising that Drs begin to believe it applies to the whole population, ditto the Social Services - But no excuse for health fascism.
Dave the Chameleon will reject this idea, if he has any shred of self preservation, to avoid further completely unnecessary internal rows. Still the mere fact that this group is promoting Nu-Lab’s technique of using increased taxation to attempt social engineering is a damning indictment on his party.
Why does every politician reflexively reach to increase taxation?
Many of us enjoy a drink and have no problem with alcohol, apart from the fact that it is taxed so very much more heavily in the UK than anywhere else in Europe.
Why should the sensible majority be expected to subsidise the relative few who have no self control, and/or a violent nature and use the fact that they have been drinking alcohol as an excuse?
If someone has a sufficiently bad problem surely they are likely to come to that attention of the police. Given some appearances before the beak for drunk and disorderly, ABH or GBH surely it would be more effective if a court fined them and used that to send them for treatment.
If someone sought some sort of treatment for themselves why not supply an interest free loan and arrange the treatment for them.
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
Teen Drinking Falls
Recently the “protect us all from ourselves” brigade and health fascists have done their best to ensure teenage drinking becomes a cause of major concern.
Earlier this year, the partially State Funded (via UK Department of Health) UK charity Alcohol Concern was calling for parents who taught their children how to handle alcohol moderately at home to be prosecuted.
A subsequent study confirmed the common sense view, finding that those who drank with parental supervision were in fact less likely to engage in binge drinking.
Now it seems that fewer underage teenagers are drinking regularly – due, at least in part, according to a Trading Standards survey, to more effective enforcement of the perfectly adequate existing sales regulations.
The survey found that nearly half of those who said they drank alcohol did so at home under parental supervision, or at family functions.
So it seems we may not, after all, need a plethora of new poorly drafted and ill conceived legislation making specific offences of, say - anyone under the age of three to purchase Polish Lager on a Wednesday after 4 pm with a personal cheque signed in green ink, whilst wearing red socks and carrying a copy of A Tale of Two Cities. Then there would be the offence of Aggravated purchase before 4 pm on Wednesdays…
The survey indicated the proportion of those aged between14 and 17 buying alcohol dropped by 12% to 28%. Those who said they drank regularly (that is at least once a week) fell from by 6% to 44% and those who never drink alcohol at all has risen by 5% in the last two years to 17%
Director of the Centre for Public Health, Professor Mark Bellis, said: "It is very positive that we have seen such a dramatic drop in kids buying their own alcohol.”
Unfortunately over 7% polled said they had been in a car (presumably actually being driven, as opposed to having subsequently regretted sex in the back seats) with a young person who had been drinking, and around 6% said they had regretted having sex while drunk. Given the age range involved 14 - 17 the majority of those polled should not be driving, drunk or sober.
Earlier this year, the partially State Funded (via UK Department of Health) UK charity Alcohol Concern was calling for parents who taught their children how to handle alcohol moderately at home to be prosecuted.
A subsequent study confirmed the common sense view, finding that those who drank with parental supervision were in fact less likely to engage in binge drinking.
Now it seems that fewer underage teenagers are drinking regularly – due, at least in part, according to a Trading Standards survey, to more effective enforcement of the perfectly adequate existing sales regulations.
The survey found that nearly half of those who said they drank alcohol did so at home under parental supervision, or at family functions.
So it seems we may not, after all, need a plethora of new poorly drafted and ill conceived legislation making specific offences of, say - anyone under the age of three to purchase Polish Lager on a Wednesday after 4 pm with a personal cheque signed in green ink, whilst wearing red socks and carrying a copy of A Tale of Two Cities. Then there would be the offence of Aggravated purchase before 4 pm on Wednesdays…
The survey indicated the proportion of those aged between14 and 17 buying alcohol dropped by 12% to 28%. Those who said they drank regularly (that is at least once a week) fell from by 6% to 44% and those who never drink alcohol at all has risen by 5% in the last two years to 17%
Director of the Centre for Public Health, Professor Mark Bellis, said: "It is very positive that we have seen such a dramatic drop in kids buying their own alcohol.”
Unfortunately over 7% polled said they had been in a car (presumably actually being driven, as opposed to having subsequently regretted sex in the back seats) with a young person who had been drinking, and around 6% said they had regretted having sex while drunk. Given the age range involved 14 - 17 the majority of those polled should not be driving, drunk or sober.
Saturday, 23 June 2007
BMA planning on demanding yet more controls on alcohol
The health fascists at the British Medical Association are planning on demanding a national ban on drinking in the street should be introduced at their annual next Tuesday.
They say it’s to combat Britain’s so-called ‘drinking culture’.
Given that councils can impose local ones where required it would seem to be completely superfluous.
It would stop you having a glass of wine outside. Depending on if ‘street’ was actually in public then it would spoil quite a few adult pick nicks.
Dr Christopher Spencer Jones, the chairman of the BMA's public health committee, said of alcohol yesterday that it is a “mind-altering drug” he went on:
"It can lead people to drive dangerously, have sex without a condom leading to unwanted pregnancies and make someone punch somebody and land them in court.”
No! ~ Alcohol doesn’t make anyone punch anyone. It’s people like Dr Spencer-Jones that give people who have had a drink the excuse, ‘permission’ if you like, to punch someone. It wasn’t me it was the demon drink. Pathetic cop out.
Also I am sure the good Dr is probably unaware that it is already an offence to drink drive, probably especially if you are having sex without a condom at the time ;-) An offence to drive with a fairly small amount of alcohol in their system. Alcohol doesn’t ‘lead’ them to it, they do it entirely of their own accord.
People are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally ill, including the action of getting drunk, drink driving, or beating someone up.
Adults should be free to drink alcohol and should accept responsibility for their actions, weather or not they have been drinking. They should also be ready to face the consequences of their actions. That's what being an Adult is about, taking reponsibility for yourself.
They say it’s to combat Britain’s so-called ‘drinking culture’.
Given that councils can impose local ones where required it would seem to be completely superfluous.
It would stop you having a glass of wine outside. Depending on if ‘street’ was actually in public then it would spoil quite a few adult pick nicks.
Dr Christopher Spencer Jones, the chairman of the BMA's public health committee, said of alcohol yesterday that it is a “mind-altering drug” he went on:
"It can lead people to drive dangerously, have sex without a condom leading to unwanted pregnancies and make someone punch somebody and land them in court.”
No! ~ Alcohol doesn’t make anyone punch anyone. It’s people like Dr Spencer-Jones that give people who have had a drink the excuse, ‘permission’ if you like, to punch someone. It wasn’t me it was the demon drink. Pathetic cop out.
Also I am sure the good Dr is probably unaware that it is already an offence to drink drive, probably especially if you are having sex without a condom at the time ;-) An offence to drive with a fairly small amount of alcohol in their system. Alcohol doesn’t ‘lead’ them to it, they do it entirely of their own accord.
People are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally ill, including the action of getting drunk, drink driving, or beating someone up.
Adults should be free to drink alcohol and should accept responsibility for their actions, weather or not they have been drinking. They should also be ready to face the consequences of their actions. That's what being an Adult is about, taking reponsibility for yourself.
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
UK Government targets drinkers in their own homes
UK Ministers have decided they want to change English drinking culture
Ministers want to change the English ‘drinking culture’ and the willingness to accept ‘drunkenness’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ as a normal part of life. They have a new strategy and are planning more social engineering…
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker stated: "It is unacceptable for people to use alcohol and urinate in the street, vomit and carry on.
All sounds reasonably ok so far, from a mildly authoritarian, curtain twitching perspective, you might think.
The strategy apparently includes plans for ‘alcoholics’ (presumably, sooner, or later, anyone arrested for being drunk) to be sent for compulsory counselling after being arrested.
Frank Soodeen of Alcohol Concern enthusiastically referred to the strategy as a "big step forward", but said still more money was needed. He went on:"We are incredibly excited. It looks far more, ambitious and far-reaching, than it’s predecessor.".
The Government is primly claiming there are 7.1m "hazardous and harmful" drinkers in England, costing the health economy £1.3bn. So they are looking for justification then. All those virtual criminals wasting ‘health economy’ money! Jail is too good for them!
But Health minister Caroline Flint doesn’t just have her sights on antisocial drinkers. Oh no!
This time they are also planning to target older people who they consider to drink ‘too much’, in their own homes. She glossed on: "There are people, adults, who on a very regular basis are probably drinking twice the amount that is recommended."
Who recommends? The Government. How much is too much? Well the Government tell you that, although the evidence had not changed they recently changed the advice for pregnant women.
Hang on! Let’s stop for a moment and go over all that more carefully.
The government forces you to be part of a decrepit, mismanaged, ‘health service’, that swallows millions extra - without any obvious improvement.
There is no choice, no opt out. It effectively uses force, or the threat of force, to make you pay significant amounts of cash into it weather you want to or not. No choice.
They then use the possibility that you may use this ‘service’ to justify intruding into what you do in your own home, in private, to make sure you are not damaging your health. Drink related this time. They are well on the way with smoking, how long before eating too much gets worked in there?
Is it still your health? Is it still your body? Not entirely if they want control over it.
And you don’t even get to make your own informed choice as to what ‘too much’ might be in any given circumstances. Not you. No they decide that for you.
Could you see the French putting up with that?
Ministers want to change the English ‘drinking culture’ and the willingness to accept ‘drunkenness’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ as a normal part of life. They have a new strategy and are planning more social engineering…
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker stated: "It is unacceptable for people to use alcohol and urinate in the street, vomit and carry on.
All sounds reasonably ok so far, from a mildly authoritarian, curtain twitching perspective, you might think.
The strategy apparently includes plans for ‘alcoholics’ (presumably, sooner, or later, anyone arrested for being drunk) to be sent for compulsory counselling after being arrested.
Frank Soodeen of Alcohol Concern enthusiastically referred to the strategy as a "big step forward", but said still more money was needed. He went on:"We are incredibly excited. It looks far more, ambitious and far-reaching, than it’s predecessor.".
The Government is primly claiming there are 7.1m "hazardous and harmful" drinkers in England, costing the health economy £1.3bn. So they are looking for justification then. All those virtual criminals wasting ‘health economy’ money! Jail is too good for them!
But Health minister Caroline Flint doesn’t just have her sights on antisocial drinkers. Oh no!
This time they are also planning to target older people who they consider to drink ‘too much’, in their own homes. She glossed on: "There are people, adults, who on a very regular basis are probably drinking twice the amount that is recommended."
Who recommends? The Government. How much is too much? Well the Government tell you that, although the evidence had not changed they recently changed the advice for pregnant women.
Hang on! Let’s stop for a moment and go over all that more carefully.
The government forces you to be part of a decrepit, mismanaged, ‘health service’, that swallows millions extra - without any obvious improvement.
There is no choice, no opt out. It effectively uses force, or the threat of force, to make you pay significant amounts of cash into it weather you want to or not. No choice.
They then use the possibility that you may use this ‘service’ to justify intruding into what you do in your own home, in private, to make sure you are not damaging your health. Drink related this time. They are well on the way with smoking, how long before eating too much gets worked in there?
Is it still your health? Is it still your body? Not entirely if they want control over it.
And you don’t even get to make your own informed choice as to what ‘too much’ might be in any given circumstances. Not you. No they decide that for you.
Could you see the French putting up with that?
Friday, 25 May 2007
UK DoH advises against any Alcohol
The UK Department of Health is now advising that pregnant women - and those trying for a baby - should avoid alcohol completely.
Previous advice was not to drink more than one, to two, units of alcohol, once, or twice, a week - and be sure not to get drunk at all.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Fiona Adshead stated:
"We have strengthened our advice to women to help ensure that no-one underestimates the risk to the developing foetus of drinking above the recommended safe levels.”
There appears to be no new evidence and no new studies to suggest the previous advice was unsafe.
From what Dr Adshead said, it appears reason they are changing the government line is because they think many women are unable to understand the previous advice - so they have decided to recommend against all alcohol?
So then, this looks rather like another example of the nanny state treating us as if we are all idiots, incapable of making sensible decisions ourselves.
Just because there may be a minority who cannot, or will not, look after themselves it does not mean all of us are not capable.
What next? Compulsory padded mittens and no cutlery?
Previous advice was not to drink more than one, to two, units of alcohol, once, or twice, a week - and be sure not to get drunk at all.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Fiona Adshead stated:
"We have strengthened our advice to women to help ensure that no-one underestimates the risk to the developing foetus of drinking above the recommended safe levels.”
There appears to be no new evidence and no new studies to suggest the previous advice was unsafe.
From what Dr Adshead said, it appears reason they are changing the government line is because they think many women are unable to understand the previous advice - so they have decided to recommend against all alcohol?
So then, this looks rather like another example of the nanny state treating us as if we are all idiots, incapable of making sensible decisions ourselves.
Just because there may be a minority who cannot, or will not, look after themselves it does not mean all of us are not capable.
What next? Compulsory padded mittens and no cutlery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)