Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Thursday, 29 December 2011

The State fails, so the people pay

Shifting the responsibility for licensing pubs and clubs from magistrates to the State has been the most colossal failure. Magistrates had a fair degree of discretion as befits those to whom we devolve such powers and although a licensing refusal could be appealed it rarely was; once the bench had decided that a landlord or landlady was no longer a fit person to hold a licence, then time was up. The State's petty functionaries could be allowed no such discretion, and licensing decisions based on a tick-list designed to ensure that Moldovan lesbians were treated equally have given us instead High Streets clogged with half-clothed drunks as they spill from places the old magistrates bench would never have permitted.  

But rather than admit defeat and retreat the limit of the central State, the government in a move so incomprehensible it must be genius has decided that this 'binge drinking' nuisance will be best solved by imposing a minimum alcohol price on supermarket wine. "Yes, I admit that it hasn't worked and that we've got it wrong. But by leaving it as it is and charging you an additional £700m in tax instead will at least ensure our chums in Diageo continue to do well even if it cripples the micro-brewery in your village" 

It stinks like rotten Mackerel. 


Weekend Yachtsman said...

They'll find out in due course that minimum pricing is contrary to EU law.

Greg Tingey said...

Furthermore, the really nasty puritan section of the so-called medical profession label ME a "binge" drinker, because I consume (approx) 16-20 pints of beer, and about two bottles of wine a week!
Which is complete nonsense.
Remember the so-called "safe alchohol/drinking limits" have (excuse me) NO SCIENTIFIC OR REAL FACTUAL BASIS AT ALL
They were made up out of thin air.

Anonymous said...


I only drink alcohol on a Saturday night, but I too am classed as a binge drinker because I have more than 2 pints (4 units) in one " session".

The whole thing is a nonsense.

Barnacle Bill said...

Cast Iron has pinched the Buffty frae Kirkcaldy's cloak, using it not as a "green issues" one, but a "health concerns" piece of clothing to cover his increased taxation cunning plan.

Anonymous said...

"Binge drinking" is not new…

A modicum of general knowledge, rather than a surfeit of statistics would indicate that the colder the climate, the bigger the problem with addictive behaviour…

Add to this the social problems created by the government's insistence on maintaining a slave class…

And 'Bob' is your mother's brother.

Anonymous said...

With centralisation comes procedure and, in our technological world governed by technocrats, automated.

This is one of my pet peeves.

Automation, by its very nature, requires rules, assumptions, data, and 'regularisation'. It craves ever more regulation and centralisation to 'perfect' its techniques.

It is a monster.

Cameron's minimum pricing of alcohol, according to the DT, would be in contravention of EU rules. So in pushing this measure through, he'll be cheesing off the EU, the CP right-of-centre and, very possibly, the LibDems.

For what? Cui bono?

As the Boiling Frog points out:

"Minimum pricing can either be so high that people can't afford it - which leads to other issues such as smuggling etc or just high enough for people to still afford and so in effect becomes a tax rise."

... which rings true. So it's a tax rise then, which will hit the poorest the hardest.

Weird. The political angst that will follow from this hardly seems worth it to me. So what's he up to?

What is one to make of the aggregate of his actions, to date?

It's almost as if he's out to destroy the political system. Almost at every turn, he has defied the logical, reasoned case and has rattled cages needlessly.

For what?

Anonymous said...

As I have always maintained; if tax is the answer to a problem, then the problem did not exist in the first place.

Coney Island

Anonymous said...

Aon wrote: As I have always maintained; if tax is the answer to a problem, then the problem did not exist in the first place.

Same can be said for AGW. The difference is in the tens of billions, but the principle is the same.

Demetrius said...

Members of the government should be obliged to work on shifts at the weekends in town centres with the clearing up squads and in the A&E wards as cleaners.

Dave_G said...

Laws already in existence could (indeed SHOULD) put paid to the problems caused by excessive drink but, as ever, our police seem reluctant to enact the laws they are duty bound to uphold. Perhaps we should be taking plod to task for dereliction of duty?

banned said...

Nothing new about binge drinking, whatever happened to "he drnk himself into an early grave"? and, as has been pointed out, 2-3 pints a night is labelled "binge drinking" which it is not, merely normal for some.

I remember one scare headline "third of teenagers use pubs regularly" with yards of made up statistics but failed to mention that 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers too.

Greg Tingey said...

Yes, but the opposite of "Gin Lane, was "Beer Street" which was promoted as healthy!

Now, even moderate beer-drinking is being attacked by the christian and muslim puritan bastards.

Budgie said...

Greg T said: "even moderate beer-drinking is being attacked by the christian and muslim puritan bastards."

Twaddle. The whole point of the post is that "cheap" alcohol is being "attacked" (ie taxed) by the bureaucratic state, as a result of the failure of the bureaucratic state, backed up by spurious elfansafety concerns promulgated by the bureaucratic state.

Greg Tingey said...

NOT twaddle.
Your "safe" limit is 4 units a day.

Which is a deliberate LIE by the state apparat.

Budgie said...

What part of "spurious elfansafety concerns promulgated by the bureaucratic state" don't you understand, Greg?