Jump to content


MPs want Happy Hour ban

Recommended Posts

It'll be the Takeaways next - especially encouraging the lardies by giving mayo as a free extra, and SALT! don't talk to me about the harm salt does...I can see it now....salt only to be sold in those little packets with a £1 surcharge. I'm going to stock up now, just in case. And work-related stress, that'll be next, where we will have to pay to work....oh, we already do.

 

Of course, like Gordon's famous budget, the increases in the working man's tipple will be offset by looking after those who prefer Veuve Cliquot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may be that alcohol doesn't actually cost the country money overall. Last month there was this article on the costs of smoking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm

 

The anti-smoking group ASH said that treating smokers costs the NHS £2.7bn per year, only for the smokers' rights group FOREST to counter that the annual tax revenue from smoking is £9bn. The government is therefore making a profit from smokers.

 

I'm not sure what the figures are, but it shouldn't automatically be assumed that the combined annual health and policing costs related to alcohol are less than the annual alcohol tax revenue. The government may be making a profit from drinkers as it is from smokers.

 

If these figures are to be believed, it's not just the NHS costs to be considered. People who are too ill to work from the effects of smoking will be getting benefits, allowances, etc too. By the way, I'm not making a judgement either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that your neighbor Michigan doesn't allow drink sales on a Sunday which doesn't stop them from crossing the state line into Indy, which makes a mockery of sabbath laws.

 

Actually, Indiana has a similar law -- no alcohol sales at liquor or food stores on Sunday, although it can be purchased by the glass to drink on the premises at restaurants and bars.

 

Here's another good one: No alcohol sales (at bars or stores) during voting hours on election day; that goes back to the old days of paying winos to stuff the ballot boxes.

 

And another: Children cannot enter a liquor store with their parents but they can watch their parents get ****** at a restaurant with a bar in plain view.

 

And another: Grocery store employees under 21 cannot sell alcohol; therefore, the adult customer must hold the bottle or six-pack over the scanner and push the cash register button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if he pays more in he,s entitled too

 

Thats like saying, I drop litter on the floor, because my taxes pay for a person to clean the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just one more sign that the lunatics are gradually gaining control in the U.K. [ I happened to spot something today in Yahoo news about an obesity warning, re-" 90 % of U.K. children " ! ]. The strange thing is, that as the Nannies make life more restrictive for about 95 % of the population [ of whom about 75 % are sheep ], the other 5 % cheerfully carry on maiming each other, killing or wounding passing innocents, nicking whatever isn 't tied down......etc....

 

Thus the scum carry on laughing and the well-behaved [ sheep or not ] get the worst of both worlds. No wonder record numbers are emigrating ! I would have thought that all those who cheered on the anti-smoking, anti-hunting laws [ and the other 3,000 NEW laws since 1997 ] would have seen the anti-eating, anti-boozing laws coming along from a million miles away.

 

I guess it 's a lot easier for Old Bill to deal with mild, generally law-abiding folk, rather than violent thugs and thieves, but when you 've got targets to meet.............. !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon most people wont be able to afford a night out, which wont be a problem because 5 pubs/bars a day are going out of business in this country, so there wont be anywhere to go.

 

Nu Labour (diet tories) are no longer a party of the common man and ceased to be soon after being elected.

 

George Orwell got it right, he was just 30 years out on the date by 2014 all our movements will be curtailed & monitored, the p**cks in Westminster (who work for us, not the other way round!!!) will not be happy till we're all sat behind locked doors after 8pm , watching celebrity dancing on ice in the jungle, or some other tripe, the only people who may be out are those doing illegal things.

 

"Excuse me sir do you know your out after 8pm? Wheres your id card? Don't have one? Your nicked!"

 

Someone has already said on this thread we are a nation of sheep, apathetic the bone, where is the spirit of our ancestors? Our forefathers fought, brave men and women died for freedoms we are allowing this government to deprive of us day after day. When will we just say "NO, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

 

When your diet tory candidate comes canvessing (sp) for your vote ask them why the party that was set us as a party of and for the people no longer represents the common man/woman, why do they think as adults we cant be trusted to make our own decisions, Nearly 4000 new laws (not all bad i will concede) have been passed since 1997 (roughly one a day) mainly nanny laws

 

Might be a time for another peasant's revolt, maybe a few heads on pikes on westminster bridge will show these profesional lame brains they work for you and me not the other way round!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again the British government faces a problem with its usual primitive management technique, to put the price up.

The government are quick to compare us to Europe when it suits them but not seemingly in this case, in Europe alcohol is much cheaper but they don’t have the drink related problems we are supposed to have.

Sadly we don’t seem to have the political will to seek the root cause of the problem and deal with it, we just put the price/tax up and hope it will go away.

We are told that we have major problems with people getting drunk, causing trouble and ending up in hospital.

We are told the consumption of alcohol in this country has reached epidemic proportions, however this is not reflected in the pub business with hundreds of pubs closing each week across the country. Statistically sales of beer are at there lowest since the 1930s,

I go to my local pub and it’s empty most nights of the week, it only gets busy at the weekend. 30+ years ago when I started going in pubs you could not get a seat any night of the week.

So who is telling the truth? Are we being fed political spin? I remember the smokers saying the government will come after the drinkers when they have beaten the smokers and it seems the prophecy is coming true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside: Havent the "Permitted" units of alcohol that its safe to drink become steadily less and less over the years or is it just me imagining things...?

 

From the times online

 

Guidelines on safe alcohol consumption limits that have shaped health policy in Britain for 20 years were “plucked out of the air” as an “intelligent guess”.

 

The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.

 

Subsequent studies found evidence which suggested that the safety limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.

One found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain. Another concluded that a man would have to drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller.

 

The disclosure that the 1987 recommendation was prompted by “a feeling that you had to say something” came from Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced it.

 

He told The Times that the committee’s epidemiologist had confessed that “it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t” because “we don’t really have any data whatsoever”.

 

Mr Smith, a former Editor of the British Medical Journal, said that members of the working party were so concerned by growing evidence of the chronic damage caused by heavy, long-term drinking that they felt obliged to produce guidelines. “Those limits were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee,” he said.

 

Mr Smith’s disclosure casts doubt on the accuracy of a report published this week that blamed middle-class wine drinkers for placing some of Britain’s most affluent towns at the top of the “hazardous drinking” list.

 

The study, commissioned by the Government, relied on the 1987 guidelines when it suggested that men drinking more than 21 units a week and women consuming more than 14 units put their health “at significant risk”.

 

In a further attack on Britain’s drinkers, it was revealed yesterday that a coalition of health organisations is mounting a campaign to force a 10 per cent increase in alcohol taxation.

 

The group, headed by the Royal College of Physicians, is also seeking to secure the support of MPs for stricter regulation of the drinks industry and warnings on alcohol advertising. A total of 21 bodies, including Alcohol Concern and the British Liver Trust, will form the Alcohol Health Alliance, according to Harpers Wine and Spirit magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people used to meet up in the local pub have a drink & a chat discuss everyday life etc it was part of the community it brought people together ,and maybe the goverment dont like the idea of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it is the availability of cheap alcohol that means people now go to the pub having had a few at home - and then get mullered in as short a time as possible when the drink is cheap.

 

I thought the pub industry was in decline because of cheap alcohol available in supermarkets - so you should be in favour of limiting offers on it, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats like saying, I drop litter on the floor, because my taxes pay for a person to clean the streets.

 

A lot of people actually have that mentality!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then TV films and programmes with violence in them.

 

Then cartoons that may be violent or have racist ovetones.

 

Then films and tv with swearing.

 

Then films and TV with even the merest hint of porn IE a flash of ankle.

 

If you're a Simpson's fan you'll have already noticed this happening.

 

Episodes, which have already been shown on C4, are being repeated with some heavy editing.

 

Two recent examples:

 

The opening part of the Halloween Episode from last week. The censor is reading the script, laughing, then says "We can do without the crack pipe".

 

Marge & the kids leave Homer because he brought a gun into the house. They removed the bit where a 'lady of the night' says to Bart outside the motel "Looking for a good time?", and Bart replies "I sure am!".

 

The end of the same episode. Marge originally is about to bin the gun but sees herself in a reflection and decides to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.