According to a report from the BBPA (British Beer & Pub Association), the pub trade saw a 10.6% drop in sales from April - June, compared to the same period last year. And over the first 6 months of 2008 there has been a 9.6% overall drop in sales. This compares with a rise in sales in the off-trade (ie shops, and supermarkets) of 7.6% in the same 6 month period. Now of course given then increasing scarcity of spare cash for most of us, and the continued availablity of very cheap alcohol in the off-trade, these figures are not a surprise. But it does call into question why various bodies, notably those reporting to the government, continue to bash the pub industry round the head, whilst praising the supermarkets, with regards to the drunken idiocy of a minority of folk. Forgetting for a moment that most of these drunken twerps would be just as anti-social when sober (and indeed often are), why should the pub trade take the flack? Because although they get 'pre-loaded' on supermarket at booze before leaving home, it is out in the street that their antics are observed, outside the bars they visit having already got drunk.
A recent study done for the Home Office by KPMG suggests that 'most pubs' are selling to under age drinkers. A very strong claim, but on further reading their is an admission that in reality the 'pubs' visited were selling to people 'who may have been underage' - ie they are assuming. There are it seems many other assumptions in the report, and very little hard fact. The upshot is that supermarkets are praised for showing signs reminding us what the age limit is for alcohol sales, and no doubt are also praised for demanding pensioners show some ID before buying a bottle of whiskey. And the pub trade is told to get its act together or else. Now, if we want a licence up here at the brewery, we have to show (quite rightly) that we will not sell to underage drinkers - and show statements, policy, training, procedures etc to prove that we won't. The most obvious proof is that a) teenagers couldn't afford to buy from us, let alone make the effort to come up here in the first place, and b) that I could go into the supermarket, stock up on cheap cider & lager, show my ID (well, I do look very young...), then nip round the housing estate and make more money selling it on than I could up here selling our beer responsibly. And so the supermarkets get no blame, despite the fact they are the cheapest, and easiest way to get alcohol. You certainly couldn't walk out the pub with 48 pints and then sell them on round the corner. Maybe that is why the pub gets the blame - that and the fact that the supermarkets are a very powerful lobbying force, certainly much more so than the brewery and pub trade. I suspect this is changing at last, but it may be too late to stop a raft of stupid legislation that won't do a thing to make a few numptys behave themselves. And that is the point - they only people to blame are those who get drunk then feel the need to make a prize twit of themselves. They should be punished, not anyone else. After all Ford don't get blamed if someone is killed by a speeding Mondeo. After all, alcohol is safe until it is abused, and the abuser should be made suffer the penalty. Of course there should be a degree of responsibilty from those selling the alcohol, and yes there needs to be a way of hitting those who don't follow the law. But we need to make people more responsible. Yes, even 12 year olds - if they think they are old enough to have a drink, then they are old enough to do something constructive as a pennance. There must be something they can do down a coal mine.
I would put a link to the report on the Home Office website. Sadly all I could find from their website is that we are very likely to be attacked by terrorists. Of course what they mean are the Muslim Fundamentalists who take exception - and for the life of me I don't know why - to the fact that we have put our soldiers in their back garden, and seemingly left them there.
Don't you just love the politics of fear?
No comments:
Post a Comment