Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review
Getting a bit confused with this extra 40p that is going to be added to drink prices in Supermarkets ect.
Now on the news yesterday it says a bottle of Strong Cider that usually costs £3 will now cost £6 and a half bottle of Vodka will go up by £4.
Now what is going to happen to the normal family that probably can't afford the Pub prices so have a drink at home at the weekend to relax.
Looks like everyone is going to suffer for a problem with the minority that get legless because they have had to much to drink.
Then you have to ask who is going to profit from all of the extra revenue created by the new prices.Will it be the Government or will it be the breweries or whoever who sell the drink cheap but still make a profit on it.
Someone somewhere is going to make a vast amount of money with the new prices.
Sure it will help cut down on drunks but are we maybe not better off with drunks than with drugies which is sure to happen if and when the drink prices come into force.
It will hit pensioners the hardest probably especially those that cannot afford pub prices so have a little drink at home.
It will not affect me much as I got a box of cider 8 bottles at Xmas and still have 3 left but this looks like it is going to affect everyone that likes a quiet drink at home.
Were the prices quoted on the news wrong and just a bit of scaremongering or were they accurate.
The alcohol prices never went up in the budget but I can see why not now.
I believe it takes affect this summer north of the border so maybe get a good stock in before it starts.Just in case you run short of plant pots of course.
I can understand what the Government is trying to do but the 'flip- side' to this is, I am afraid, that those who cannot afford the cash to buy the alcohol etc may turn to crime to fund their craving for alcohol consumption
There is already enough crime and alcohol related incidents on the street and in cars and this move by the Government may just add to it....
I find it interesting that (apparently) it takes an MP assaulting others in a Commons bar (subsidised) to cause the Home Secretary to make a statement with reference to both behaviour and health.
The vast majority of the public drink alcoholic beverages sensibly whether at home or elsewhere. As a result of the behaviour of a few the majority will suffer a penalty; this hardly seems fair or right.
Perhaps the way forward is not to penalise those who enjoy moderate consumption but those who abuse it. For example a drunk tank could be set up where the revellers could sleep of their excesses and pay a nominal sum, say £50, as a fine to be released without going to court - the minimum for a court appearance, if found guilty, could be set at say £100 plus a drunk record. For those that injure themselves as a result of binging and use NHS facilities a further nominal sum, say £200 minimum, should be payable.
Where consistent alcohol abuse causes physical damage (sclerosis or similar) the NHS should be able to claim further payment or refuse treatment.
I would lay odds that such action would rapidly cause the idiot society to rethink their actions as a few examples received publicity and bank balances were depleted!!
It may also enable those who recycle beer cans (sensibly consuming the contents of course) to maintain a supply for their plants at reasonable cost.
The aims may be laudable but do they not remember the booze cruises of the 90s?
Retailers in France and Belgium are no doubt cheering in anticipation.
Why don't all of the brewers 'discretely' lower the strengths of their beverages, over a period of time...say, for instance, from Alc. 5.0% Vol. to Alc. 4.0% Vol. and then further decreases down to 2%?
Lidl decreased their own make beer from 4.0% to 3.8%., about a month ago.
This business has been discussed for a long time in Scotland with a view to implementation - so these same arguments have been had already up here.
As usual, Scotland leads and England follows?? (;-)
fourm member's post was an excellent summary of the situation.
I used the word 'apparently' deliberately as nothing has been done to cure this disease but much has been written and spoken about it. The fact the Joyce incident occurred may or may not have an effect, but it is very coincidental with the announcement.
As for the kneejerk element, the proposals hardly appear to have been thought through; not unlike Labour wanting an 'all day cafe society'.
More accurately, Scotland trials and England follows.
None of it will affect me to much, I've been off the meths at least a year and I only binge drink half a dozen times a year when England play rugby. No doubt the medical fraternity see that as worse than a steady assault on my body over the year...
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.