Monday, 1 February 2010

Defending the indefensible?

Apparently the average consumption per head at CAMRA beer festivals is 3.5 pints. This figure has often been viewed as surprisingly low, but in fact, if you assume the average strength of beer at such events is 4.5% ABV, it equates to 9 units of alcohol and thus, by the current reckoning, qualifies as a “binge”. And, of course, roughly half the punters will be drinking more than that.

A few months ago I referred to a CAMRA pub crawl around Stockport Market Place, which involved visiting 8 pubs. If someone only had a half in each pub, and the average strength of beer consumed was 4.0%, that again adds up to 9 units. And in reality, most of the participants would have had a pint in at least one or two of the pubs. In the old days, when there were more pubs, more of them served real ale, and people were younger and fitter, such crawls could cover 12 or 13 pubs.

CAMRA often highlights the role of the “well-run community pub” in promoting responsible drinking. But if you went in any such establishment at 10.45 pm on any night of the week, you would undoubtedly find a high proportion of the customers had drunk more than eight units over the course of the evening.

Now let me make it crystal clear than I don’t disapprove of any of this, and if you’re only doing it a couple of nights a week it’s not realistically going to do you any harm. But of course Don Shenker and Sir Liam Donaldson would be aghast at such a tidal wave of irresponsible consumption. And you can just imagine the hysterical Daily Mail exposé: “They say they support responsible drinking – but in fact they’re routinely encouraging bingeing!”

It is a fact of life that pretty much all the activities of CAMRA are centred around drinking at levels that exceed the current official (made-up) guidelines. The leadership of the organisation must be fully aware of this. But they do have to tread very carefully not to lay themselves open to accusations of hypocrisy in championing the pub as the home of responsible drinking. And it underlines very clearly that you cannot effectively combat the rise of anti-alcohol sentiment while adopting the politically correct terms of reference of the Righteous – you have to challenge the whole basis of the argument.

This perhaps helps explain why CAMRA has been much less outspoken than many would wish over the rise of neo-Prohibitionism. But they are going to have to think very hard about it – it isn’t just going to go away and leave them alone.


  1. Clearly I'm average at a beer festival.

    I think the main problem is that a creditable level of 'responsible drinking' doesn't really seem to have been defined.

  2. Does CAMRA suggest that the pub is "the home of responsible drinking"? I rather thought the line was the home of supervised drinking.

    Having too much will always be the responsibility of the individual drinker.

  3. Three and a half pints?

    Christ, I can remember when three and a half pints was the average lunch.

  4. Well posted, Brian.

    I can't eat properly unless I've had at least four.

    Anyway, a decent festival will have at least a dozen ales I want to try, and they only sell it in halves (or pints).

  5. CAMRA has certainly often said that encouraging people to use "community pubs" will promote a more responsible approach to drinking. And there was the recent comment from Iain Loe that minimum pricing would not affect responsible drinkers as it would only impact on off-trade consumers.

    But the point of the post is not to knock CAMRA but to show how it is caught in a cleft stick as its whole ethos goes against what is now regarded by the Righteous as "responsible drinking".

  6. I pity the final landlord of the evening having to cope with all you pongy ale drinkers preloading at other pubs. How is he to tell how much you've necked and whether you should be served?

    Time for booze ration books, its the only way.

  7. I'm surprised you managed to find any pubs to 'pub crawl' around!

  8. Surely it's up to individuals to set their own levels of responsible drinking; after all we're all different, AND we're all adults!

    It is NOT the job of the Nanny State to decide arbitary limits for its citizens, and it's certainly not the job of the state to preach, lecture, badger or cajole us in any way whatsoever, regarding this!

  9. If someone breaks the law due to being drunk then the legal institutions need to deal with this.

  10. This is nothing to do with people being drunk or breaking the law - you can comfortably exceed the official guidelines without being in any sense drunk.

  11. Damn I was going to buy a new Hummer in late 2012 and drive around the country for a vacation, Now I am going to have to shave my head and join the Hari.s, Muslims, Jews, Jehovah s, Mormons, Christians, and a few other wing nut groups just to cover all my bases.
    [/url] - some truth about 2012


Comments, especially on older posts, may require prior approval. See here for details of my comment policy.