By my reckoning, I must now be a D-List Celebrity. Soon the Tabloid press will be publishing photo's of me wearing nowt but a thong, Relaxing on a carribean beach. Of course it will be a fake - partly because I can't afford such a holiday (nor do I have the time), but mostly because there are some things that even the tabloids wouldn't dare publish. But that is not the point. I have studied the from, I know how these things must work.
If we read the Entertainment pages of the BBC News website, we keep asking each other 'Who's that' or 'What did they do'. In short, none of todays stars & celebrities are known to us. Heck, I didn't even realise that Carol Barnes wasn't reading the News At Ten any more, let alone that the poor lass has recently (and sadly) passed away (can't think why, but as a young boy I recall the news being interesting when she was on). So following my stint on local TV in 2005 (Anglia TV News, marking our opening here at Greys), I have now made the level of local Radio - but this time the BBC, so it must be important. Given that, I reckon I must now be a celebrity - after all, it seems others have that status for doing equally little of value to entertain the nation.
So bring on the glitzy parties, dodgy photo's of me getting out the back of a limo. What, Oh, that's only girlies they do that too. Well photo's of me with dodgy people then. I can do that, I've been to beer festivals, plenty of practice in the 'Being See With Dodgy People Department' there.
In the meantime, if anyone wants to be able to say they were there when it all started, tough luck. The show I was one isn't even available on Listen Again. Perhaps I'm not so important after all. Oh well, I don't like champagne anyway.
Oh, why was I one? The Cambridge Science Festival - in particular a series of talks on Saturday Night (15th) on the matter of beer. We have brewed a beer to promote the festival, 'A Little Bitter Science' (do you see what we did there?), and a certain character who may bear a passing resemblance to me, is part of the line up of speakers. A line that was to have included Roger Protz, but it seems he has now found something better to do (you can do that, when you are famous). So yours truly got the chance to go live on air to promote the event, and also promote ourselves into the bargain. I just hope it all came across well. Not had any calls yet from the BBC to start work as a DJ on Radio One (I can wear a hat backwards and talk funny), but then given that Hollywood still hasn't got in touch following my TV debut in 2005, I guess these things take time.
In the meantime, see you Saturday night!
http://www.cambridgescience.org/ (search under 'beer') or email ed(dot)emery@thefreeuniversity(dot)net for tickets
Thursday 13 March 2008
Just To Clarify...
In hindsight, it appears I may have appeared anti-tax, anti government & anti health. Well, I maybe guilty on one charge there - but the others? No.
I fully appreciate we need a tax system to pay for a civilised society. Obviously roads have to be mended and cleaned, rubbish collected regularily, the Police, Fire Service & Armed Forces need full funding to a job that is of prime importance to us all - defence & protection. We need a fully funded Health Service to look after us, based solely on need - not age, wealth or background. We need Nurses, Doctors, Ambulance Crews, GPs and Dentists to enable this (and not forgetting the cleaners of course). And yes, we need people to collect these taxes, and ensure that we all pay our fair share. This is what civilised society is all about, and it has to be paid for. So yes, I agree with the need for taxes. I just like to think that the above listed items might also be the result of paying all these taxes. I might also, when pushed, believe that the methods of collection of these taxes should be simple, transparent & foolproof. But only when pushed.
Am I anti-health? No. All for it, and if that means that we have to forgo some dangerous pleasures every now & then, then so be it - surely no-one sets out to destroy themselves. But by the same token, why must our pleasures be dictated by minority groups of faceless suits & suitesses? A glass of wine, a wee dram, or even a pint or two a the end of the day has been shown to beneficial - but only in moderation. In much the same way that excercise can result in broken limbs, or walking/cycling can get you killed by a car. I mean, how much of a burden on the NHS are injured cyclists - who pay no extra taxes at all (yet)? Point is, quite rightly, no-one picks on such things - but if gangs of disaffected youths started cycling through shopping centres running people down, would it be fair to punish every cyclist in order to discourage them? No, of course not.
We have a growing anti-alcohol lobby in the corridors of power. Smoking has been targetted with success, and alcohol is now the new tobacco. Yes, it needs treating with respect. And the best way to do that is to drive into controlled environments, like say the pub. Instead, drinkers are now being forced to buy cheap booze from shops, and take it home (you know home, the only place where there always has been 24 hour drinking, not that the media have figured that out yet). And where there is no peer/social pressure to behave yourself. So pubs close, we lose our customer base, we close. Big breweries get bigger, beer miles increase, alcohol stays cheap through other savings forced by retailers expecting duty hikes not to be passed to them, and we all get sozzled on cheap booze at home, where no one suggests 'Isn't It Time You Went Home'. Because we've drunk more, we're more likley to be drunk in the morning, on the drive into work. And because the booze has to be cheaply brewed, natural ingredients go further out the window in favour of more chemicals, and you don't have to spend too much time Googling to see the KNOWN risks of chemical additives getting mixed in the body.
You know, I no longer care if as a small brewery we remain viable. If we were employed, then our hours would break EEC working time rules, and we'd be on less than the minimum wage. We're not alone - that applies to many small businesses in many fields. Yet even so, we pass to the state £3-4000 pounds (yes, thousand) each month in beer duty, VAT, PAYE, Climate Change Levy, Fuel Duty, plus all the associated costs passed to us by our suppliers. So, yes, I've a right to be bitter about the budget, taxes, and the lack of anything to show for it across society.
And if I see one more bloody chav on a TV interview proudly proclaiming how he's not going to get a job when he can get State Benefits, well, I shall bloody well join him. And in the process not only spend my benefits on dope, alcohol & cigarettes, but I'll hang around on the streets picking up ASBO's. And do you know what? I'll enjoy it.
I fully appreciate we need a tax system to pay for a civilised society. Obviously roads have to be mended and cleaned, rubbish collected regularily, the Police, Fire Service & Armed Forces need full funding to a job that is of prime importance to us all - defence & protection. We need a fully funded Health Service to look after us, based solely on need - not age, wealth or background. We need Nurses, Doctors, Ambulance Crews, GPs and Dentists to enable this (and not forgetting the cleaners of course). And yes, we need people to collect these taxes, and ensure that we all pay our fair share. This is what civilised society is all about, and it has to be paid for. So yes, I agree with the need for taxes. I just like to think that the above listed items might also be the result of paying all these taxes. I might also, when pushed, believe that the methods of collection of these taxes should be simple, transparent & foolproof. But only when pushed.
Am I anti-health? No. All for it, and if that means that we have to forgo some dangerous pleasures every now & then, then so be it - surely no-one sets out to destroy themselves. But by the same token, why must our pleasures be dictated by minority groups of faceless suits & suitesses? A glass of wine, a wee dram, or even a pint or two a the end of the day has been shown to beneficial - but only in moderation. In much the same way that excercise can result in broken limbs, or walking/cycling can get you killed by a car. I mean, how much of a burden on the NHS are injured cyclists - who pay no extra taxes at all (yet)? Point is, quite rightly, no-one picks on such things - but if gangs of disaffected youths started cycling through shopping centres running people down, would it be fair to punish every cyclist in order to discourage them? No, of course not.
We have a growing anti-alcohol lobby in the corridors of power. Smoking has been targetted with success, and alcohol is now the new tobacco. Yes, it needs treating with respect. And the best way to do that is to drive into controlled environments, like say the pub. Instead, drinkers are now being forced to buy cheap booze from shops, and take it home (you know home, the only place where there always has been 24 hour drinking, not that the media have figured that out yet). And where there is no peer/social pressure to behave yourself. So pubs close, we lose our customer base, we close. Big breweries get bigger, beer miles increase, alcohol stays cheap through other savings forced by retailers expecting duty hikes not to be passed to them, and we all get sozzled on cheap booze at home, where no one suggests 'Isn't It Time You Went Home'. Because we've drunk more, we're more likley to be drunk in the morning, on the drive into work. And because the booze has to be cheaply brewed, natural ingredients go further out the window in favour of more chemicals, and you don't have to spend too much time Googling to see the KNOWN risks of chemical additives getting mixed in the body.
You know, I no longer care if as a small brewery we remain viable. If we were employed, then our hours would break EEC working time rules, and we'd be on less than the minimum wage. We're not alone - that applies to many small businesses in many fields. Yet even so, we pass to the state £3-4000 pounds (yes, thousand) each month in beer duty, VAT, PAYE, Climate Change Levy, Fuel Duty, plus all the associated costs passed to us by our suppliers. So, yes, I've a right to be bitter about the budget, taxes, and the lack of anything to show for it across society.
And if I see one more bloody chav on a TV interview proudly proclaiming how he's not going to get a job when he can get State Benefits, well, I shall bloody well join him. And in the process not only spend my benefits on dope, alcohol & cigarettes, but I'll hang around on the streets picking up ASBO's. And do you know what? I'll enjoy it.
Wednesday 12 March 2008
You're Too Kind...
So, only 4p a pint then. Yippee. Just watch the price of beer in pubs go up, it won't be hard to spot. Now watch what the supermarkets etc do. That'll be a bit harder I reckon.
So once again the morally straight, law abiding, sensible majority will pay a bit more to allegedly stop the scare of the week, when those that should be targeted will just be laughing.
Still, we've been spared (for a short time) a further 2p on a litre of fuel. Given that it's gone up so bloody much of late, I'm not sure I'd have noticed another tuppence, but hey ho.
After several years of working for ourselves, we are still worse off than we would be if we had spent that time on the social. It's a sobering thought....
So once again the morally straight, law abiding, sensible majority will pay a bit more to allegedly stop the scare of the week, when those that should be targeted will just be laughing.
Still, we've been spared (for a short time) a further 2p on a litre of fuel. Given that it's gone up so bloody much of late, I'm not sure I'd have noticed another tuppence, but hey ho.
After several years of working for ourselves, we are still worse off than we would be if we had spent that time on the social. It's a sobering thought....
Tuesday 11 March 2008
Nature's Bounty Blown Around...
Well, it's early March, and thanks to Global Warming all the early migrant birds have been blown back to Africa, and all we've got here are several million, and possibly more, Black-Headed Gulls. The Reed Buntings occasionally risk an appearance, and we've got a couple of ducks (Mallard, one of each) who have been trying land for 2 days now but keep getting caught in a strong updraught.
Because of our location, atop an escarpment overlooking the future Anglian Sea, we catch a lot of wind, mostly due to there being no-one else to the North or West to do so for us. Obviously it's a bit worse currently than normal, but it's been a bit hefty round 'ere on & off for several weeks. But then not as bad as elsewhere along the Southern & South Western coasts, so we're not complaining.
Our 'Lawn', familiar to many visitors, has now been ploughed up. This has much delighted the aforementioned gulls who have managed to strip most of the worms, and because there has been several trillion of them, the normally very defensive Buzzards have seemingly left them alone, although this maybe because the Buzzards have been blown on an extended glide to somewhere just beyond Pluto. If I can ever open the door against the wind I'll let you know.
Still, we can all be thankful that it would be a lot worse if it wasn't for all the sterling work being done to raise taxes in order to reverse global warming. I don't know how it works, but it does. I've been told so. Oh yes.
Because of our location, atop an escarpment overlooking the future Anglian Sea, we catch a lot of wind, mostly due to there being no-one else to the North or West to do so for us. Obviously it's a bit worse currently than normal, but it's been a bit hefty round 'ere on & off for several weeks. But then not as bad as elsewhere along the Southern & South Western coasts, so we're not complaining.
Our 'Lawn', familiar to many visitors, has now been ploughed up. This has much delighted the aforementioned gulls who have managed to strip most of the worms, and because there has been several trillion of them, the normally very defensive Buzzards have seemingly left them alone, although this maybe because the Buzzards have been blown on an extended glide to somewhere just beyond Pluto. If I can ever open the door against the wind I'll let you know.
Still, we can all be thankful that it would be a lot worse if it wasn't for all the sterling work being done to raise taxes in order to reverse global warming. I don't know how it works, but it does. I've been told so. Oh yes.
5p Or Not 5p, That Is The Question...
It's ten to five in the afternoon, and in 24 hours time we will know just what the Budget will bring. Will alcohol duty be lifted by a large degree to 'tackle binge drinking'? Will Spirits be left alone, as usual, with other forms of alcohol going up by inflation? And just what is inflation? Does it really include the spiralling costs of anything involving road transport (ie everything), grain (ie most things edible and therefore a neccessity), or any of the real rip-off's of modern life.
Does anyone even care? And where does all this extra money go?
Back to the point. It is almost ineviatable (and some would say vital) that alcohol duty will increase. The smart predictions across the web suggest 5p a pint on beer - although many are calling for more, even double that. At the very least it will be a penny based on recent years.
But will increased duty fix Binge Drinking. No. To be fair, I don't think anyone believes increased taxes on their own fix anything, but lets have a closer look, shall we? Ahhh yes, through the Round Window....
1. The Increased Revenue Will Recover The Social Cost Of Drinking.
Well, maybe - but only if alcohol consumption continues at current rates. A fact which defeats all the arguments about cutting consumption. After all, less drinking equals less duty income, so more has to be raised pro-rata. And so overall income doesn't really go up. So how can it then pay for extra 'services'.
2. Increased Tax Will Reduce Consumption/Illness/Death etc etc
How much is a pint of strong lager in the pub? Approaching £3 a pint, maybe more in places. And in the supermarkets/high street shops? A lot less, certainly under a pound, well under when you factor in special offers. So firstly, a rise in cost will drive trade away from the pubs, and into the arms of those retailers already selling either below or just above cost prices. Now maybe these retailers will pass the rise on in full, but it will still leave the price a long way below that at which people will pay in the pub. So just how much will it reduce consumption? How many of us can honestly say that they don't find it easier to drink more at home than they would on a night out? Do we serve pub measures at home when drinking wine or spirits? I am not convinced that driving drinkers into their front rooms is for the best. More importantly, assuming that increasing the price will decrease the consumption relies heavily on a belief that people drink solely because the alcohol is cheap. In which case France must be full of sozzled medically wrecked folk. Well, it wasn't the last time I looked. France is full of places selling alcohol cheaper than in the UK. Do they have trouble at 2am every Friday night in Lyon? Do they have gangs of teenagers drunkenly loitering on street corners? No. But then do we? Oh yeah, we see the press coverage, but when did we last see it for real. Sure, some places have a problem, but not the whole country. But yet it is deemed OK to penalise the whole country.
3. Under Age Drinking Is Out Of Control, And Needs To Be Stopped.
Yes, yes and thrice yes. But just how bad really is it? Evidence seems to be out there certainly, and there is no denying the problem. But think back to your childhood. You are asked questions about your lifestyle. What is the overriding aim to your answers? The truth, which may be sad & pathetic compared to what society says is the norm? Or do you flower it up a little bit, to fit in with what is perceived to be the social norm. Point is, just how reliable are the surveys that suggest kids are binge drinking at 12/13/14/16 etc (if we asked a teenager to name the worlds best song, we wouldn't accept there answer, so why accept any other. That said, they may well be right of course, on all counts). And what percentage is this of the total number in that age group. What I am saying is do we know just how much spin there is here - all the drinking data floating around seems to come solely from parties with an axe to grind, be they at the prohibitionist end (and they are out there), or from the denial end. Personally I believe it is growing problem, I believe that nearly all adults out here of all ages have been guilty of drinking, maybe heavily (if only once), before they were 18. So with that element of sanctimonious hypocrisy out of the way, there is one question that should be asked above all others. Why do you drink? I suspect that 'It's Cheap' will not always be the main reason. Whilst I can't deny cost is not a factor at all, it is surely more important to sort out the problem - otherwise the focus will move from getting drunk to something else, and I doubt that'll be a sudden uptake of tapestry and community projects. Why didn't previous generations binge drink? Or did we, but because of a perceived social framework we maybe all behaved a lot better. Are kids behaving anti-socially because they are drunk, is getting drunk just one of the ways of behaving anti-socially. When we see a group of teenagers, what is the first thought that comes into our heads? Do we see yobs, or do we see a group of friends just 'hanging out', just as we did in our day (probably hating it when we were told what to do, when to do it...).
I'm afraid society has a raft of problems - none of them caused by drugs, guns or alcohol, but all lead into an interest of those three. And no amount of tax will cure us.
4. The Health Service Is Creaking Under The Weight Of Alcohol-Related Disorders.
Let's face it, the NHS is just creaking. This is the result of many things - medical science can do new things every day, and they all need to be paid for. When the NHS was created, no-one really imagined being able to replace organs, repair eyes, add robotic limbs. Heck, they never even saw the need for acres of managers and all the seminars that they need in order to survive. Not even the endless oppurtunities for White Papers, Policy Documents, etc etc. The NHS is badly underfunded, heavily over managed, and subjected, on top of all this, to constantly costly fiddling from politicians more interested in leaving their mark than benefitting the country. But all that aside, should the NHS have to treat self inflicted illness. If you ignore all the advice, and give yourself a knackered liver, should everyone else be liable? The argument that suggests we shouldn't is very strong. But what about a broken limb sustained while playing football down the park? I don't see the point in football, so why should I pay to pick up the pieces? What about fat people? And those in car accidents? Point is, where do you draw the line? Food poisoning whilst on holiday in Tunisia? Not my problem mate. So yes, alcohol-related health problems may well be a drain on resources, but then so are many other self inflicted illnesses that the NHS has to treat. The answer? Stop people drinking to excess is the obvious one, but ask why they do so in the first place. Why is alcohol so damned important to them. And what will they replace it with if they can't afford it?
It's all very difficult. Alcohol is a drug. It has adverse effects in large doses. But in small doses it can be beneficial. Of course there are some who would argue this way for certain illegal drugs, and in many ways alcohol is just as dangerous as class A drugs. But the overriding thought in my mind is society has many ills, and just raising taxes won't solve this one. By all means restrict access to it - reduce the number of off licences, control the minimum price in those that are left in you have to. But a blanket raise of taxes will only serve to further reduce the viability of controlled drinking establishments (ie responsible pubs), increase the viability of those more interested in attracting customers (ie shops using drink as a loss leader), and drive the vulnerable onto the streets/into their homes, where they really can consume alcohol 24 hours a day (unlike 99% of all licenced premises...). And if you think alcohol causes crime now, just wait until these criminals have to steal even more before they can have a drink...
Does anyone even care? And where does all this extra money go?
Back to the point. It is almost ineviatable (and some would say vital) that alcohol duty will increase. The smart predictions across the web suggest 5p a pint on beer - although many are calling for more, even double that. At the very least it will be a penny based on recent years.
But will increased duty fix Binge Drinking. No. To be fair, I don't think anyone believes increased taxes on their own fix anything, but lets have a closer look, shall we? Ahhh yes, through the Round Window....
1. The Increased Revenue Will Recover The Social Cost Of Drinking.
Well, maybe - but only if alcohol consumption continues at current rates. A fact which defeats all the arguments about cutting consumption. After all, less drinking equals less duty income, so more has to be raised pro-rata. And so overall income doesn't really go up. So how can it then pay for extra 'services'.
2. Increased Tax Will Reduce Consumption/Illness/Death etc etc
How much is a pint of strong lager in the pub? Approaching £3 a pint, maybe more in places. And in the supermarkets/high street shops? A lot less, certainly under a pound, well under when you factor in special offers. So firstly, a rise in cost will drive trade away from the pubs, and into the arms of those retailers already selling either below or just above cost prices. Now maybe these retailers will pass the rise on in full, but it will still leave the price a long way below that at which people will pay in the pub. So just how much will it reduce consumption? How many of us can honestly say that they don't find it easier to drink more at home than they would on a night out? Do we serve pub measures at home when drinking wine or spirits? I am not convinced that driving drinkers into their front rooms is for the best. More importantly, assuming that increasing the price will decrease the consumption relies heavily on a belief that people drink solely because the alcohol is cheap. In which case France must be full of sozzled medically wrecked folk. Well, it wasn't the last time I looked. France is full of places selling alcohol cheaper than in the UK. Do they have trouble at 2am every Friday night in Lyon? Do they have gangs of teenagers drunkenly loitering on street corners? No. But then do we? Oh yeah, we see the press coverage, but when did we last see it for real. Sure, some places have a problem, but not the whole country. But yet it is deemed OK to penalise the whole country.
3. Under Age Drinking Is Out Of Control, And Needs To Be Stopped.
Yes, yes and thrice yes. But just how bad really is it? Evidence seems to be out there certainly, and there is no denying the problem. But think back to your childhood. You are asked questions about your lifestyle. What is the overriding aim to your answers? The truth, which may be sad & pathetic compared to what society says is the norm? Or do you flower it up a little bit, to fit in with what is perceived to be the social norm. Point is, just how reliable are the surveys that suggest kids are binge drinking at 12/13/14/16 etc (if we asked a teenager to name the worlds best song, we wouldn't accept there answer, so why accept any other. That said, they may well be right of course, on all counts). And what percentage is this of the total number in that age group. What I am saying is do we know just how much spin there is here - all the drinking data floating around seems to come solely from parties with an axe to grind, be they at the prohibitionist end (and they are out there), or from the denial end. Personally I believe it is growing problem, I believe that nearly all adults out here of all ages have been guilty of drinking, maybe heavily (if only once), before they were 18. So with that element of sanctimonious hypocrisy out of the way, there is one question that should be asked above all others. Why do you drink? I suspect that 'It's Cheap' will not always be the main reason. Whilst I can't deny cost is not a factor at all, it is surely more important to sort out the problem - otherwise the focus will move from getting drunk to something else, and I doubt that'll be a sudden uptake of tapestry and community projects. Why didn't previous generations binge drink? Or did we, but because of a perceived social framework we maybe all behaved a lot better. Are kids behaving anti-socially because they are drunk, is getting drunk just one of the ways of behaving anti-socially. When we see a group of teenagers, what is the first thought that comes into our heads? Do we see yobs, or do we see a group of friends just 'hanging out', just as we did in our day (probably hating it when we were told what to do, when to do it...).
I'm afraid society has a raft of problems - none of them caused by drugs, guns or alcohol, but all lead into an interest of those three. And no amount of tax will cure us.
4. The Health Service Is Creaking Under The Weight Of Alcohol-Related Disorders.
Let's face it, the NHS is just creaking. This is the result of many things - medical science can do new things every day, and they all need to be paid for. When the NHS was created, no-one really imagined being able to replace organs, repair eyes, add robotic limbs. Heck, they never even saw the need for acres of managers and all the seminars that they need in order to survive. Not even the endless oppurtunities for White Papers, Policy Documents, etc etc. The NHS is badly underfunded, heavily over managed, and subjected, on top of all this, to constantly costly fiddling from politicians more interested in leaving their mark than benefitting the country. But all that aside, should the NHS have to treat self inflicted illness. If you ignore all the advice, and give yourself a knackered liver, should everyone else be liable? The argument that suggests we shouldn't is very strong. But what about a broken limb sustained while playing football down the park? I don't see the point in football, so why should I pay to pick up the pieces? What about fat people? And those in car accidents? Point is, where do you draw the line? Food poisoning whilst on holiday in Tunisia? Not my problem mate. So yes, alcohol-related health problems may well be a drain on resources, but then so are many other self inflicted illnesses that the NHS has to treat. The answer? Stop people drinking to excess is the obvious one, but ask why they do so in the first place. Why is alcohol so damned important to them. And what will they replace it with if they can't afford it?
It's all very difficult. Alcohol is a drug. It has adverse effects in large doses. But in small doses it can be beneficial. Of course there are some who would argue this way for certain illegal drugs, and in many ways alcohol is just as dangerous as class A drugs. But the overriding thought in my mind is society has many ills, and just raising taxes won't solve this one. By all means restrict access to it - reduce the number of off licences, control the minimum price in those that are left in you have to. But a blanket raise of taxes will only serve to further reduce the viability of controlled drinking establishments (ie responsible pubs), increase the viability of those more interested in attracting customers (ie shops using drink as a loss leader), and drive the vulnerable onto the streets/into their homes, where they really can consume alcohol 24 hours a day (unlike 99% of all licenced premises...). And if you think alcohol causes crime now, just wait until these criminals have to steal even more before they can have a drink...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
