Friday 6 July 2012

The University Of Bath Would Like Your Help!

It's often bemoaned in the comments here that we are never consulted when research is done to produce statistics on lifestyle issues. Well, thanks to those nice people at the University of Bath, that can all change right here and now.

They are seeking the public's opinions on minimum alcohol pricing, and that - presumably - includes we happy band of jewel robbers. So while you are enjoying your favourite tipple this evening, why not spend a few minutes of your time by taking their survey here and telling them precisely what you think about the idea.

There's even a prize draw with a chance to win up to £250 in amazon.co.uk vouchers. So kind of them that how can you possibly refuse, eh?

Enjoy.


48 comments:

PatNurse said...

It seems I don't drink enough to take part therefore their prejudices about people who drink can't be substantiated by me. I drink about one bottle of wine per month but they expect me to drink more. I also don't understand numbers so unless you have a maths degree be prepared to get frustrated enough to give up like I did. Nanny and her big brother Bully are out to get their new target of people who enjoy alcohol and drink responsibly and need their thugs in the Uni of Bath to twist the "evidence" to suit. 

Jay said...

Excellent. Survey completed.  In one of the comment fields, I left this comment:

"Raising the price to change consumption habits is a terrible idea and will only make people poorer. Do not do it. But if it happens, then I will have no choice but to buy alcohol in another country and bring it here to the UK. We have had enough of government's interference (including Anna Gilmore's) in our lifestyle choices. Give it a rest already and do something productive for once."

I also had a little fun with the questions, saying that min pricing would mean I would drink way more spirits at home.  :) 

Xopher said...

I'm a social drinker so only drink at home maybe once or twice a year. The reduction of duty on barrels of beer would reduce the price in the pub and lead to more enjoyable 'controlled' drinking venues but that's not what they want.
many questions provided no answers suited to the non-home drinker and forced false responses = crap agenda driven survey.

P JH said...

Given the last few questions, I fully expect at least some of the 'results' to be based on crossbreaks of the submissions. "100% of those in favour said..."

Smoking Hot said...

Be interesting to see what comes of that. Can you purchase alcohol with the Amazon voucher? ... just wondering :)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Oh absolutely, that's the only kind these days. It's pretty transparent what kind of press releases they want to issue as a result of this. But when the wrong people answer the questions, they have to spin it a different way. ;)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Well, it's obvious that if the price goes up, you would. Goes without saying, doesn't it? ;)

ThomasHobbes said...

Have left comments, I don't think they'll quote me somehow.

Incidently, I noticed that the Tobacco Retailers Association have a stand at the Civil Service Live event today.. bet Lansley won't like that.

Dr Evil said...

80 units a week according to their ridiculous tables. if i was in the USA that would be around 40 units. What a stupid parameter is a unit at 8 grammes of alcohol. Plucked from the air. 15 grammes in the US.

nisakiman said...

Ha! How many units do you consume a week! Bloody silly question, but I figured it would be the '40 or more' box. Then when I did the next page, it totted up to 84. And I don't drink nearly as much as I used to. I consider myself a man of moderation these days.

What tosh.

Dr Evil said...

 I also pointed out that you can get strong beer (eg Crest lager 10% ABV) still in 500ml cans and I can buy 4X500 ml tennants special for £5 and you can buy strong cider in 3 litre bottles. Their volumes for purchase were way off the mark. I pointed out that to dedicated drinkers who enjoy a tipple the price is irrelevant.

sillyusername said...

Thank you. I had fun with the survey. I live in Norway, the government here has a total monopoly on alcohol sales and charges horrendous levels of tax on drink. Does this make any difference to alcohol consumption? No. Does this prevent Norwegians getting shit faced on Friday nights? No. In fact it has created a culture of binge drinking. Norwegians have no idea how to enjoy a glass of wine, they only know how to empty a bottle if someone gives them a chance. All Scandinavians drink like it was going out of fashion, why? Because prohibition was invented in good old Scandinavia.

shelldon said...

Is there anywhere you can say that you used to be a social drinker but since there,s never many people out since the smoking ban, it,s a waste of time going now.

Jay said...

To be honest, every time government does anything that affects me, I drink way more spirits at home.  Gov't legislation will be the alcoholic death of me, I just know it.

Simon Cooke said...

Have completed questionnaire - you can see how it might be manipulated!

Have sent it on to all and sundry

Curmudgeon said...

A lot of leading questions in that one. "What would be the best alternative methods of reducing excessive alcohol consumption?" "Er, I don't think it is excessive and doesn't need to be reduced."

And is it best to frig it by saying you drink virtually nothing, or loads?

Plus when it asks you how many units a week you drink, you can't say "mind your own fucking business".

But the two pages before the last one certainly give you the opportunity to put your views across.

Curmudgeon said...

Yes, there's a question on how increasing the price of off-trade alcohol would affect how much you drink in pubs and bars, which then gives you the opportunity to explain your answer.

Lars Folmann said...

It's only in Norway, Sweden, and Finland they have alcohol monopoly, not in Denmark

PJH said...

14g for the US actually. Better still is Japan with 19.75g (http://harridanic.com/wiki/Alcohol_Units) Denmark and South Africa have the most lax 'reccommended weekly limit' at (for males/females) 252g/168g - States is 196g/98g, UK is 168g/112g(!)

Mine is averaging around 120 (UK) units a week (947g)

sillyusername said...

 Sorry, did I say anything about Denmark? Nooo, I only mention Norway.

PJH said...

I get the impression from my work visits to Norway (talking to the 'locals') that  they're not adverse to a bit of cross-border 'getting pissed on a Friday/weekend' in cheaper Denmark. How much cheaper Denmark actually is I didn't ask, but it appears to be an incentive. Especially when I was paying about 5 quid a pint when I was in Norway last (about 18 months ago.)

Norway (at least the parts I've been in, which included Oslo) doesn't have any establishments that are the equivilent of a UK pub - i.e. a business whose main purpose is to sell alcohic drinks in a social setting. Nearest you'd get is a restaurant.

Mudplugger said...

Re: location. 
My comment in the survey says: "I have not visited any pub, bar, club or restaurant since the Smoking Ban.  I shall never spend a penny in any of them unless and until the Smoking Ban is repealed."
And it's true.

Steve said...

I had some good fun filling in that ridiculous 'survey'.
What a load of tosh it is. Any undergraduate student submitting that piece of crap as being suitable for determining public preferences would have it thrown back in their face.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Funny you should talk about undergrad students. The public health community held a seminar in Durham this week to train more of them in methods of producing bullshit science. Check it out on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23PHRCoE12?q=%23PHRCoE12 

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Yep. A couple of boxes which offer opinion, but not too many in case you say the wrong thing. 

I counted nearly a dozen different angles they were aiming at for their questions. Each one gives them a soundbite for press release. And I don't thinkit happened by accident. 

Dick_Puddlecote said...

That question was designed cleverly. Getting how many units you buy first and then asking you what you think you are consuming. 

It's a regular tactic to say that the public are blissfully uneducated about their unitary intake ... so they should be educated (coerced) more. 

Neatly designed, but still junk science by stealth. 

Haddock said...

I don't drink at all but am good enough with numbers to fill in a questionnaire...if they can invent figures then so can I

Steve said...

I almost gave up when there wasn't the option of pint bottles in the 'how do you buy your beer' section, but persevered nonetheless.

What an appalling excuse for disinterested research.

Tom said...

Can anyone suggest a throwaway UK address, with postal code, and people outside of UK could enter as well (maybe for the Queen, MPs, someone like that, or for someone anti-smoking and anti-drinking, we could enter them into the survey/contest as well?). As alternative comment, one might suggest that the reason one only drinks 100% at home is due to the smoking ban and further suggest that minimum pricing will only encourage more smokey-drinkys and overseas imports from Belgium to avoid the duty.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I have to pull you up on the 'disinterested' bit. They are very interested in the results as it helps their salary ... but only if it confirms the action they want to advocate anyway.

Those serious scientists, eh? ;)

Tom said...

Never mind, it only requests an email address, no mailing address, so it's open for anyone, including outside of UK.

John said...

Survey said:









"The introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol:



























Would mean that I never again voted for the political party that introduced itWould mean that I am less likely to vote for the political party that introduced it





Would have no effect in deciding who to vote forWould mean that I am more likely to vote for the political party that introduced it

Would mean that I always voted for the political party that introduced it"

Where's the option for "Would not vote for the pricks whether or not they introduced it"



















 

banned said...

That was a fun survey, voted as would be expected (ie that price would make no difference whatever) plus

"Price is not  a factor, I rarely drink in pubs because I cannot smoke there".

I wanted to thank them for their fancy Regions graphic supplied perhaps in case I had forgotten where I lived.

Jay said...

I feel like I must have missed something devious in the survey. I didn't see anything deliberately misleading. Are there questions that can be spun into junk?  Sure, definitely. But isn't that the point of most surveys?  But there were also questions that couldn't be spun. I had expected your typical anti-smoker/tobacco type survey with limited choice of answers leading to an absolute result regardless how the survey was completed.  This one seemed fairly balanced in comparison.  So did I miss something?

Also, we're now being followed on Twitter by the survey team... That's funny. 

nisakiman said...

 My comment was much along the same lines. Something to the effect of "Since the smoking ban pubs have as much ambiance as a doctor's waiting room. Why should I spend my money in them?"

P JH said...

As I said earlier, they'll use crossbreaks to spin the results, 'discarding' answers for those against minimum pricing:

"100% of those who agree with minimum pricing agree that minimum pricing will deal with the non-existant problem of booze drinking (despite the fact that alcohol consumption in the UK has been decreasing since 2004.)"

Or some-such. I'm fairly certain that particular phrase won't come out of this survey.

Curmudgeon said...

If anyone hasn't joined the pathetic 174 who have so far signed the online petition against minimum pricing, go here.

truckerlyn said...

I found the same, Pat.  All 3 sections that say " Assume that all of the price changes identified above occur. Please estimate the proportions (percentages) in which you would expect to consume alcohol given these new prices:" require the total that you drink to add up to 100.0, so this would show no change as the prices rise!Do they really think we are THAT STUPID!Like you, Pat, I drink very little, just one of the small bottles of wine a week (about a glass full) and an occasional Martini Rosso and lemonade, and only at weekends when I am not working!God give us strenght, PLEASE!

truckerlyn said...

Well, perhaps Haddock you could post relevant answers here for those of us who drink very little and struggle to make the amounts we drink/would drink as the prices increase add up to 100.0 when we don't drink a full bottle of anything in a month, let alone a week!

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I think the 100.0 refers to a percentage. So if all you drink is wine, just put 100 next to that. :)

truckerlyn said...

Ok, I can see that Dick, but how do we show that we would drink a reduced amount due to price increases?  Or does that question come later?

truckerlyn said...

Despite my comment below, I have now completed the survey, however, the last question as to how many units to you now think you consume each week was difficult as products such as Martini was not included in their chart - Martini is not a spirit, wine, alcopop, beer or cider! 

I put 4 units, in the end as I drink one med glass wine per week and 1 or 2 Martinis with lemonade, so I guessed that was close - well close enough for them, anyway!

junican41 said...

The only seriously misleading question was the one mentioned by Cumudgeon above:

"A lot of leading questions in that one. "What would be the best alternative methods of reducing excessive alcohol consumption?"

Since there was no 'other' box (space for comment), I tried to skip the question, but the survey would not let me. And so I ticked all the boxes. Despite the fact that the question said 'maximum 3', my answers were accepted. The funny part is that I have said all the way through that minimum pricing would not work, and so ANY alternative would work better - if it worked at all! But, As Cum said, I don't believe any woud reduce excessive consumption since excessive consumption is not defined and applies only at the individual level.

Normal ASH-type survey standards apply  

Sylvia said...

... and one can leave the email box blank if one wishes (I did, and it was accepted)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Sylvia: And why would you want to leave it blank? You can't win the £250 voucher ... and with that I realise that I haven't filled the bloody thing in myself yet! D'oh!

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I seriously hope the rest of the survey isn't as bad as this.

"The average price of a 12-pack of medium-strength beer is £7.00. Assuming that you buy at this price, how many individual cans do you consume in a typical week?"Err, *average* price of £7? Where on Earth do these people shop? The best deal you'll see on Carlsberg - at the lower end of the 3.8-4.8% scale - is around £8. Lie.

Sylvia said...

The problem I had was when it got on to how many units I think I consume/actually consume in a week. It allowed decimals in reply to the earlier question about percentage intake, but my actual average intake by units (just one glass of wine with Xmas dinner) works out at 0.024 per week, and it would only accept whole numbers (and no symbols, so I couldn't put <1 either). I had to just put 0, which makes a nonsense of my earlier responses. :(

Wanelson78 said...

I took it just in case I win the gift card, (leg Iron will sell some books if I do), but damn, I didn't even have to try and fudge the numbers to be an incredibly drunken wastrel!