Home Politics & Debate
Fill out The Mix's Annual User Survey for a chance to win a £200 Amazon voucher, to shape our services, and get closer to earning a badge!
Need support urgently? Click here

"Booze Britain": Doom-sayers left with egg on their faces

SystemSystem Posts: 8,623 Staff Team
Violent crime down since the introduction of extended hours drinking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm

Will the likes of the Daily Mail now apologise for their despicable campaign? :mad:
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Crime down, but alcohol related illness and long term health damage up...then again people drinking at home has never been on the agenda for governments or think tanks, always the case of jumping ontop of bandwaggons about drink crime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But what makes you think extended hours mean people drink more?

    In many cases, it'll probably mean actully drinking less, and far more responsibly.

    It is not up to the State to decide on our behalf when it's time to go to bed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But what makes you think extended hours mean people drink more?

    I think it has little to do with the opening hours, but people are drinking more, especially women. I read a survey in the paper in Sunday saying that most 20-30 year old women now consume 4 or more bottles of wine a week. Thats not healthy and women get addicted a lot sooner than men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I should have said i didnt think it has anything to do with longer drinking hours...just in general alcohol illnesses are up and health related probloems from it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, I see what you both mean. Yes, we drink more as a whole and there are going to be health repercussions. However keeping restricted hours was not the answer- if anything part of the solution.

    For what is worth they drink like fishes in Spain as well, "cafe culture" or not. I guess the difference is that by spreading their drinking over longer time and by having longer hours they don't get the familiar Saturday night drunken brawls many British towns get on a Saturday night.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I support the extension of licensing hours I think its too early to say what the long term effects are going to be. Very few pubs have extended their opening hours, that may change as people get used to longer opening hours.

    Also as people get used to extended opening hours they may increase their drinking.

    The more interesting thing will be whether the none smoking in pubs will have an effect. Currently pubs tend to attract more younger people, who don't care about smoke (or smoke themselves) and tend to have less older non-smokers. If it drives younger people away (and they smoke and drink at home or at mates houses instead) and get more older (who tend to be less involved in pubs) will that decrease violence?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    I think it has little to do with the opening hours, but people are drinking more, especially women. I read a survey in the paper in Sunday saying that most 20-30 year old women now consume 4 or more bottles of wine a week. Thats not healthy and women get addicted a lot sooner than men.



    most alcohol consumed is consumed at home btw :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    most alcohol consumed is consumed at home btw :)

    Of course, but whether you drink 4 bottles of wine a week in a pub, at home or standing on your head its still going to knacker your liver.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Will the likes of the Daily Mail now apologise for their despicable campaign? :mad:
    No. And I don't believe they should have to either. The Mail (and other newspapers) were right to raise concerns like this. And with the news coming from The Independent, the newspaper for squidgy liberals, I'm not entirely convinced.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    No. And I don't believe they should have to either. The Mail (and other newspapers) were right to raise concerns like this. And with the news coming from The Independent, the newspaper for squidgy liberals, I'm not entirely convinced.

    Except its not, the statistics are coming from the Home Office, unless you think they are 'squidy liberals' (what does that mean by the way?).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Except its not, the statistics are coming from the Home Office, unless you think they are 'squidy liberals' (what does that mean by the way?).
    That's pretty much my opinion of the leadership of the Home Office too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    That's pretty much my opinion of the leadership of the Home Office too.

    I'm not quite sure you understand the term liberal, either that or you are so far right in terms of authortarianism I'm deeply frightened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    I'm not quite sure you understand the term liberal, either that or you are so far right in terms of authortarianism I'm deeply frightened.
    If you're referring to ID cards, then yes, this is where the Home Office breaks with its liberalism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    If you're referring to ID cards, then yes, this is where the Home Office breaks with its liberalism.

    And terrorism laws, restrictions on the right to protest, internment (luckily withdrawn), ASBO's based on hearsay, extraditing people where no evidence has to be put forward, restrictions on free speach, withdrawl of innocent till proven guilty.... Yep you're right, all just wolly liberals mincing about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    And terrorism laws, restrictions on the right to protest, internment (luckily withdrawn), ASBO's based on hearsay, extraditing people where no evidence has to be put forward, restrictions on free speach, withdrawl of innocent till proven guilty.... Yep you're right, all just wolly liberals mincing about.
    What about soft sentencing for criminals, the refusal to build more prisons, the rise of the Early Release Scheme, increasing use of community service? I suspect what we have now is the Home Office and Downing Street fighting one another.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    What about soft sentencing for criminals, the refusal to build more prisons, the rise of the Early Release Scheme, increasing use of community service? I suspect what we have now is the Home Office and Downing Street fighting one another.

    Sentancing has next to nothing to do with the Home Office, thankfully we have somewhat independant judges.

    Community service isnt soft, it works and is much less expensive than prison.

    Prisons dont work, so building more would be pointless and a waste of money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    No. And I don't believe they should have to either. The Mail (and other newspapers) were right to raise concerns like this. And with the news coming from The Independent, the newspaper for squidgy liberals, I'm not entirely convinced.
    If only they were just "raising concerns" stargalaxy...

    Try misreporting, misleading, personal attacks on Ministers, scaremongering...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Prisons dont work, so building more would be pointless and a waste of money.
    Whilst criminals are locked up in prison, they can't commit more crimes. That is why prison works. It's probably the most sensible thing Michael Howard has ever said. Build more prisons.
    Aladdin wrote:
    If only they were just "raising concerns" stargalaxy...
    Try misreporting, misleading, personal attacks on Ministers, scaremongering...
    It's not just the Daily Mail that does this. The Sun, (Aladdin's favourite newspaper) :p does this too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Whilst criminals are locked up in prison, they can't commit more crimes. That is why prison works. It's probably the most sensible thing Michael Howard has ever said. Build more prisons.

    And when they get to the end of their sentence? Or once a criminal always a criminal so keep them in forever?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    And when they get to the end of their sentence? Or once a criminal always a criminal so keep them in forever?
    Yes, I'd be in favour of that. Lock them up, throw away the key. I wouldn't be upset if murderers, rapists and paedophiles died in prison.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    It's not just the Daily Mail that does this. The Sun, (Aladdin's favourite newspaper) :p does this too.
    That's true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Yes, I'd be in favour of that. Lock them up, throw away the key. I wouldn't be upset if murderers, rapists and paedophiles died in prison.

    And the other 99% of prisoners?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    That's true.
    You and I both know that newspapers make their money from sensationalism. The Daily Mail had a fundamentally good campaign that was badly implemented from the start. Exposing links between government ministers and gambling firms was justified. Making personal attacks on ministers was not.
    bongbudda wrote:
    And the other 99% of prisoners?
    Different types of offences need different punishments.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Different types of offences need different punishments.

    Which is exactly why judges should be able to sentence themselves based on the evidence, and why community service is a good idea.

    I dont mean to be patronising SG, but prison isnt how you think it is, and prisoners arent what you think they are, a stupid mistake can mean a whole lot of trouble. They arent monsters and its in our interest not to treat them as such.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Violent crime down since the introduction of extended hours drinking:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm

    Will the likes of the Daily Mail now apologise for their despicable campaign? :mad:

    Haha! Victory!

    Daily Mail, apologise, yeah, once they've finished training the pigs to fly in formation....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    back to the drinking for a mo.
    longer opening hours seem to be working in the town centres where it is happening ...for all the reasons we argued they would ...SG.
    so far ...

    as for increased drinking ...has there been an increase in the available money in peoples pockets to spend on booze?

    SG ...your ideas on prison and sentencing sound seriously muddled.
    different sentences for different crimes your saying now ...well welcome to the other side of the argument!
    make your mind up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The more serious the offence, the more serious the prison sentence. That doesn't seem a very revolutionary concept, does it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    The more serious the offence, the more serious the prison sentence. That doesn't seem a very revolutionary concept, does it?
    this might come as a shock to you mate but ...robbing gold bullion from heathrow gets you a little longer on the porridge than stealing a mobile phone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Getting back on topic, here's what the Daily Mail says about this story.

    Well, well. Aladdin didn't point out the figures had been published two months early. Nor did he point out there's a £2.5 million campaign involving the police to see how the law beds in. I bet if we look again in a few months that alcohol-related crime will be rocketing. Rubbish law by rubbish government. It may not be popular to look at what the Mail says, but the Government can always trust a lazy, compliant paper like The Independent to do their bidding, can't they? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Getting back on topic, here's what the Daily Mail says about this story.

    Well, well. Aladdin didn't point out the figures had been published two months early. Nor did he point out there's a £2.5 million campaign involving the police to see how the law beds in. I bet if we look again in a few months that alcohol-related crime will be rocketing. Rubbish law by rubbish government. It may not be popular to look at what the Mail says, but the Government can always trust a lazy, compliant paper like The Independent to do their bidding, can't they? :rolleyes:
    your hypocrisy is stunning!
    heres me thinking the mail did the bidding of the tories ....
    the tories cut police numbers to the bone ...
    along with all medical staff and teachers and binmen and firemen etc etc etc etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.