tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post7822988885508234977..comments2024-01-01T16:01:35.711+00:00Comments on Dick Puddlecote: Minimum Pricing: Sheemed Like A {Hic} Good Idea At The TimeDick Puddlecotehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-54381664052095641252012-04-26T22:33:18.315+01:002012-04-26T22:33:18.315+01:00Must seriously consider restarting the home brewin...Must seriously consider restarting the home brewing. Made some lovely beer which only cost about 30p per pint.frankc130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-29050967789798998662012-04-26T19:32:56.788+01:002012-04-26T19:32:56.788+01:00Not pissed Dick, just confused and bewildered as u...Not pissed Dick, just confused and bewildered as usual, they're politicians and tax eaters remember.<br />Trying to price tobacco out of people's range did not work, they just buy contraband now. Same will happen with booze, plus ... expect a rush of prople taking up home brewing.Ian R Thorpehttp://www.greenteethmm.com/inflation-debt.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-14039351758971759712012-04-26T17:34:41.009+01:002012-04-26T17:34:41.009+01:00But if the objective was purely to consume alcohol...But if the objective was purely to consume alcohol units as cheaply as possible, you wouldn't go out in the first place. You do that to socialise with friends, to celebrate etc.<br /><br />And, accepting the logic of minimum pricing, <i>relatively</i> cheap prices within the on-trade are likely to encourage "irresponsible" consumption even if considerably higher than off-trade prices. Once you're in the bar, going to the offie is no longer an option. And you can't save on-trade drinks to consume the next day.Curmudgeonhttp://pubcurmudgeon.blogspot.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-62942903711978620612012-04-26T17:34:08.234+01:002012-04-26T17:34:08.234+01:00The answer is what prompted the curiosity to look ...The answer is what prompted the curiosity to look into it more, with more than a little help from Gawain. ;)<br /><br />http://englandexpects.blogspot.co.uk/ Dick_Puddlecotenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-5657743175819888892012-04-26T17:22:21.769+01:002012-04-26T17:22:21.769+01:00Jeff, that's the suggested minimum price for w...Jeff, that's the suggested minimum price for where it is 30p in the off-trade. The suggestion is 100p for where the off-trade is set at 40p. If we follow that upwards, it means the suggestions being made by politicians recently - anywhere up to 60p so far - mean the on-trade level would be set at up to 140p, meaning it would be illegal to sell a pint of Carling for less than £3.26 a pint. Dick_Puddlecotenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-39343923665253640692012-04-26T13:18:17.218+01:002012-04-26T13:18:17.218+01:00So the advice was "subject to legal privilege...So the advice was "subject to legal privilege"? <br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of such phrasing would indicate that the "privilege" refers to the right t keep such advice private. It does NOT forbid making the advice public.<br /><br />If I am correct in that, then Lord Henley's decision NOT to make the advice public is pretty much completely and totally an admission that the advice was indeed that there were at least substantial legal difficulties. Otherwise what possible motivation could he have for refusing to say "Our advice showed no conflict/problem." ?<br /><br />It's sort of like being on a trial for murdering your wife. The prosecution lawyer asks you, "Did you shoot your wife?" and you answer, "My lawyer has advised me not to answer that question."<br /><br />Well, duh, how many lawyers would tell their client not to answer that question if indeed the client did NOT shoot his wife?<br /><br />- MJMMichael J. McFaddenhttp://www.facebook.com/michael.j.mcfadden1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-27370213369476834482012-04-26T12:50:17.844+01:002012-04-26T12:50:17.844+01:00"It is also because increasing prices of chea..."It is also because increasing prices of cheaper alcohol in the on-trade dampens down the behaviour switching effects when off-trade prices are increased."<br /><br />Usual error of logic. If the off trade minimum is increased from 40p tp 50p, why would that encourage switching to the on trade with typically around an 80p unit price? In fact exactly the opposite would take place. To reach the same level of inebriation for the same cost, drinkers would consume a greater proportion of their units at home.JonathanBagleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-30933243013313571122012-04-26T11:16:12.424+01:002012-04-26T11:16:12.424+01:0080 p a unit, that's only about £1.60 a pint, h...80 p a unit, that's only about £1.60 a pint, half the average now. What's the problem?Jeffsmith92noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-37015217661777880232012-04-26T10:43:30.747+01:002012-04-26T10:43:30.747+01:00I have warned them. But will they listen?<a href="http://curmudgeoncolumns.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/april-2012.html" rel="nofollow">I have warned them</a>. But will they listen?Curmudgeonhttp://pubcurmudgeon.blogspot.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-89064527186712345292012-04-26T10:22:11.904+01:002012-04-26T10:22:11.904+01:00That#s the bit that will wind the beards up "...That#s the bit that will wind the beards up "differential minimum pricing". Can't say they have not asked for it.Carpe Zythahttp://twitter.com/CarpeZythanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-63033875684876945232012-04-26T10:16:43.570+01:002012-04-26T10:16:43.570+01:00Alcohol was always the prime target of the puritan...Alcohol was always the prime target of the puritans and reducing pub numbers has to part of the denormalisation agenda. Clearly, the smoking ban was a precursor. theprognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-10616193823329271562012-04-26T09:05:18.986+01:002012-04-26T09:05:18.986+01:00Yes, perhaps it would be. Still, if you're vo...Yes, perhaps it would be. Still, if you're voluntarily colluding with government, then you get a pass. It will passed off as a responsible health initiative, you see... like voluntary age ratings on video games, before that became mandatory. It's all the same to me...Jayhttp://nannyingtyrants.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-18287716442816913982012-04-26T08:39:09.980+01:002012-04-26T08:39:09.980+01:00Nah, that's illegal on two levels - colluding ...Nah, that's illegal on two levels - colluding on price-fixing, and manufacturers seeking to control the retail price of their products.<br /><br />On the wider issue, looks like I'll have to stock up on popcorn, Dick :-)Curmudgeonhttp://pubcurmudgeon.blogspot.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-90066993371922255282012-04-26T00:53:16.804+01:002012-04-26T00:53:16.804+01:00A minimum alcohol price for pubs, you say?
Oh man...A minimum alcohol price for pubs, you say?<br /><br />Oh man. I hope, with all my heart and soul, that they try to get that passed. I've always lived in hope that one day the government would go too far with the nannying* and that may be the point where it all falls down about their self-righteous ears. (Oi! Cameron! NO!!!)<br /><br />*personally, I feel they reached that point years ago, and I'm sure you'd agree. …Zaphhttp://twitter.com/dotZaphnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-6698375746755746782012-04-26T00:04:01.388+01:002012-04-26T00:04:01.388+01:00Indeed l did :)Indeed l did :)Smoking Hothttp://twitter.com/N2Declarenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-69228268465678637382012-04-25T23:46:15.571+01:002012-04-25T23:46:15.571+01:00You forgot the link.
http://www.nme.com/blog/ind...You forgot the link. <br /><br />http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=8&title=john_lydon_s_back_inside_this_week_s_nme_28&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 <br /><br />Interestingly, the vid froze halfway on the first watch so I reloaded. The first preceding ad was for Jack Daniels with a thumping soundtrack, the second for Cobra beer ... with a thumping soundtrack.<br /><br />Advertising to the youth element one might say. They'll be on it soon, no doubt. Plain packaging of booze for the children? More inevitability than pipe dream now. Dick_Puddlecotenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-45304493057882281252012-04-25T23:31:55.173+01:002012-04-25T23:31:55.173+01:00Has a 20 year wait for a new PiL album mellowed Jo...Has a 20 year wait for a new PiL album mellowed John Lydon? What do you think? Yep, the biggest gob in music is back, and he’s just as pissed off and antagonistic as ever. On the government: “Two cunts for the price of one” (NME)Smoking Hothttp://twitter.com/N2Declarenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-61331897533346530762012-04-25T23:18:49.205+01:002012-04-25T23:18:49.205+01:00Random late night thought: Any chance of the drin...Random late night thought: Any chance of the drinks industry instituting a "voluntary" minimum price in order to [foolishly] curry favour with gov't, thereby avoiding the legal issues and any possible drawn-out legal battles? I know that sounds far-fetched, but then again, what isn't these days? Jayhttp://nannyingtyrants.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.com