Drinkers have more fun

Somehow I doubt whether Sir Ian Gilmore and Don Shenker will be latching on to this piece of research that shows that teetotallers suffer higher levels of depression.

Those who abstain from alcohol are also more likely to lack social skills and have higher levels of anxiety, it was claimed.

Non-drinkers even have more mental health issues than those considered heavy drinkers, the survey found.

One reason why non-drinkers were more gloomy could be that they have few friends, the study suggests.

“We see that this group is less socially well-adjusted than other groups,” said research leader Dr Eystein Stordal, from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Sounds a bit like something from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious, but the fact it’s from gloomy, prohibitionist Norway is all the more reason for the miserabilists to give it credence.

I can respect vegetarianism, as it is following a sincerely-held (although in my view misguided) principle, but I can never get teetotalism at all – it seems to be a case of deliberately donning a hair shirt and cutting yourself off from one of life’s greatest pleasures for fear of beginning a slide down the slippery slope. Not being bothered about alcohol is one thing, but actively avoiding it on principle something else entirely.

Access all areas?

I recently concluded a poll which asked the question: “Should children be allowed in all areas of pubs?” There were an impressive 61 responses, and the results were as follows:

Yes, at all times: 3 (5%)
Yes, at lunchtimes and early evenings only: 11 (18%)
Yes, at lunchtimes only: 3 (5%)
No, all pubs should have a child-free area: 44 (72%)

The poll was originally prompted by a discussion – I think on the CAMRA forum – where someone was complaining about being asked to leave a pub in mid-evening because he had children with him. He seemed to think that was unreasonable, but the poll clearly shows that well over two-thirds of respondents believe that pubs should offer their customers a choice of child-friendly and adult-only areas throughout the day.

Yet I find it very rare that pubs (or at least the pubs in residential and rural areas where people might be expected to bring children) have an explicit policy of keeping part of their drinking area for adults only. Shouldn’t it be a basic maxim of customer service that you give people what they want – and here we are talking about choice, not a uniform, one-size-fits-all solution?

It should be made clear that the poll was entirely concerned with the policy towards admission of children that people would like to see offered by pubs – it had nothing to do with the law of the land.

Now in what other context have we heard the complaint before about pubs not giving (or being allowed to give) their customers a choice?

Too much information?

A report from market research consultancy Mintel claims that people in Britain are drinking more than they think because of “stealth increases” in the typical strength of drinks. The implication is that drinks manufacturers are in some way subtly reformulating products to make them stronger, whereas in reality we have seen the strength of many drinks such as Stella Artois, Old Speckled Hen and Dry Blackthorn cider actually reduced.

In fact, though, what is happening is a change in the mix of drinks consumed, with people moving away from light German wines to richer, fruitier ones from the New World, and abandoning milds and weak bitters and lagers for more premium beers. And it’s disingenuous to suggest that drinkers don’t know what they’re doing – in fact a major reason for the demise of the old-style cooking lagers such as Skol and Heineken was making their very low alcoholic strengths public. In the 70s and 80s, standard draught Carlsberg was a mere 3.0% ABV. Brewers for many years campaigned against the publication of strength information as it would expose just how weak many of their products were.

Anti-drink campaigners are always going on about the need to provide information to consumers of alcoholic drinks, with the result that the back of a bottle now looks like the safety instructions for a nuclear power station, but of course one of the key pieces of information is the amount of alcohol actually in the drink, which inevitably some will use to choose stronger ones. Indeed this problem, if it is a problem, could be said to stem not from ignorance amongst consumers but from knowledge.

The report is also inaccurate in referring – as many others do too – to Britain’s “rising alcohol consumption”. While it is true we are drinking more than we did in the 1950s, as Gavin Partington of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association points out, since 2004 per capita alcohol consumption has actually been falling.

And a report like this does raise the question of whether the UK now has the greatest level of ill-informed anti-drink hysteria in the Western world. In European terms, we are well down the league of alcohol consumption, yet hardly a day goes past without some new scare about the dangers of drink.

Inncider deal

It’s reported today that Irish firm C & C Group, makers of Magners Cider, have acquired the Tennent’s lager brands and the associated Wellpark Brewery in Glasgow from Anheuser-Busch InBev. It’s also interesting that they have acquired the distribution rights to InBev brands such as Stella and Becks in Scotland and Ireland, so the two won’t be in direct competition with each other in those territories. It’s a striking fact that Tennent’s Lager still commands over half of total on-trade lager volume in Scotland. It isn’t clear from the reports what is to happen to the iconic tramp fuel brand Tennent’s Super.

I posted last month about the possibilities of such a sale. It’s unusual for a major brewer to divest a substantial part of their brand portfolio in this way, although the nature of the deal seems to make C & C more of a junior partner than a direct competitor.

There must be a large question mark, though, as to whether this deal will actually bring any benefit, or make any difference, to the discerning consumer of either beer or cider.

Directions by pub

It’s long been a British tradition to give people directions using pubs as landmarks. But, sadly, nowadays it’s more likely to be “turn left at the lights by the site of the Red Lion, then straight ahead by the boarded-up Dog & Partridge, fork right by the McDonalds in the old Crown, then left again at the block of flats where the King’s Head used to be”. I wonder what the record is for people continuing to refer to a road junction by the name of a long-defunct pub.

Vanished into a black hole

One of the biggest recent mysteries in the brewing world was InBev’s cancellation of the launch of the 5.5% ABV Stella Black, when everything was apparently ready to go. There appears to be an obvious gap in the market between the typical 5% premium lagers, and the mind-numbing and unpalatable 9% supers, but it’s one the mass-market brewers seem strangely reluctant to fill, no doubt for fear of an adverse reaction from the anti-drink lobby.

And maybe, given Stella’s nickname of “wifebeater”, calling a stronger variant “black” conjured up unfortunate images of black eyes.

In case you’re wondering, a Google search for images of “Stella Black” produced the stuffed pussy.

The future may not be real

Regular readers of the blog will be aware of my appreciation of the architectural and beery delights of the city of York. On my most recent visit, prompted by this posting by The Beer Nut, I called in at Pivo, housed in an ancient half-timbered building just off the main shopping street, which bills itself as a “world beer free house”. It has three cask beers, but its unique proposition is a range of about ten unusual imported beers served on draught (in keg form), mostly in the proper branded glassware – with half-pint and pint lines. It’s not the usual suspects, either, no Krombacher and Hoegaarden here. There were even British kegs from Meantime. The prices aren’t as steep as you might expect, with the 4.7% ABV Czech lager Bernard Svetly Lezak at a mere £1.45 a half, which is probably less than the usual price of Stella in York. It seems to attract a youngish, upmarket clientèle, and it was striking to see groups of them happily supping and discussing exotic, often cloudy beer. It may not appeal to the old-time Mild and Bitter diehards, but it has to be said that this kind of bar (regrettably all too rare) feels far more forward-looking and aspirational than a bare-boards boozer serving Slutty Sally and Old Disreputable.

Having said that, the Swan on Clementhorpe is a traditional pub par excellence, with a range of six cask beers and a great atmosphere and, to be honest, somewhere I personally feel more at home.

A little of what you fancy

It seems that cigarette, alcohol and junk food sales have soared in the London area while spending on fruit and vegetables has fallen. The article quoted interprets this in a negative way as slipping back into “unhealthy” lifestyles as a response to the financial and mental pressures of the recession. But could it be that people are seeing through the ever more shrill and ludicrous claims of the Righteous health lobby and taking the entirely sensible view that a little of what you fancy does you good?

(h/t Raedwald)

Marketing on strength

One of the reasons given by Alcohol Focus Scotland for their complaint to the Portman Group about BrewDog’s Tokyo* was that it was being “marketed on the basis of strength”. This is obviously a gross misrepresentation, but it led me to think that in practice alcoholic drinks of any kind never are marketed on strength – indeed it is something that goes against advertising codes. People may choose a particular category of drink, but within categories nothing ever seeks to appeal on the basis that it is stronger than its direct competitors.

Many years ago, Whitbread got into hot water with the Advertising Standards Authority by advertising Gold Label barley wine (then sold in nip bottles at 10.9% ABV) as “as strong as a double whisky” and nothing remotely similar ever appears nowadays.

I can’t recall seeing Gold Label in a pub for ages, but it still lingers on in 33cl cans in the off-trade, now reduced to 8.5% ABV, and presumably selling overwhelmingly to old blokes. Interestingly, its makers seem to be able to extract a premium price for it, four cans typically selling at just under £5, or 44p per alcohol unit, compared with the 35p more typical of super-strength lagers.

There’s a review of canned Gold Label here on a site – Hywel's Big Log – that is refreshingly different from the usual CAMRA/beer geek style of beer reviewing.

Old Tom to be castrated?

The Tories’ plans to triple duty on “high-strength” beers and ciders are ill-considered, indiscriminate and unlikely to achieve their stated objectives. They may put people off drinking the likes of Special Brew and Diamond White, but they will also impact on high-quality strong ales such as Robinson’s Old Tom, recently voted world’s best ale, Belgian imports such as Chimay and Duvel, and the products of independent cidermakers. These products are consumed responsibly by discerning drinkers and already are often relatively expensive in terms of price per alcohol unit.

Yet again beer and cider are being unfairly singled out when wines and spirits are equally to blame for our supposed alcohol problems.

The vast majority of the alcohol-fuelled disorder we see on our streets results from people consuming normal-strength drinks. The super-strength products are overwhelmingly drunk at home and scarcely feature in pubs.

And you can bet your life that the promise to reduce duty on “low-strength” products will only apply to the sub-3% pisswater that nobody wants to drink, and not to everyday quaffing beers in the 3-4% range.

It is also inevitable that if there is a sudden jump in duty levels at a particular strength level, numerous products will cluster just below that level, thus distorting the market.

The plan is a thoroughly bad idea which is likely to cost the Tories many votes from people who would often see themselves as their natural supporters. More proof, if it were needed, that defending the interests of responsible drinkers is not a straightforward party political issue.

Useful idiots

As usual, the Filthy Smoker tells it as it really is, and completely destroys the very weak argument that minimum alcohol pricing might in some way help pubs (strong language alert).

And do you know what? Even if they make the minimum price £2.50 per unit, I will still not be returning to the pub. Why? Because I am not standing in the f*****g street to drink a pint of beer...

The SLTA and CAMRA are making a big mistake co-operating with latter-day temperance groups on this minimum pricing issue. They are not people who can be reasoned with because they are not reasonable people. They cannot be appeased. They cannot be compromised with. The government has no right - no right at all - to decide how much a drink should cost. That should be the only message the politicians hear on this issue. And for anyone in the pub industry to collaborate with these puritans in a selfish attempt to undo the damage that occurred last time they got tricked by them is nothing short of pathetic.

If you're wondering why I've used a few asterisks, it's because I want my posting at least to be readable in offices and other places where Internet filters are in operation.

Unsustainable communities?

Over the past few years, CAMRA has devoted a lot of campaigning effort to getting the piece of legislation known as the Sustainable Communities Act passed. They claim that: “The Act provides a channel for local people to drive Central Government assistance and action to improve the economic, social and environmental well being of their area. This means that local people can use the Act to promote community pubs and the availability of local beers.”

But it completely escapes me exactly what in practical terms it is meant to achieve, or how it is to be done. Surely the best way of ensuring the success of pubs is to encourage more people to go to them, which seems to be dramatically at variance with recent government anti-drink initiatives, not least Oldham’s notorious crackdown. As far as I can see, the actions of local government almost always seem to be directed towards curbing the activities of local businesses, especially small independent ones.

It seems to me the best way to protect pubs is for government, whether central or local, to keep out of their hair...

Suffer the little children

In CAMRA’s quarterly magazine BEER, veteran cookery writer Prue Leith has proposed that pubs should provide school dinners for children whose schools have no kitchens.

She seems to assume that pubs have cooking and waiting staff hanging around at lunchtimes doing nothing, whereas in reality pubs would need to recruit staff to carry out this function, and put them through the expensive and time-consuming CRB checks required for anyone working with children.

She says:

Many pubs are empty miserable places at lunchtime, with a couple of old codgers supping their pints in silence in the gloomiest corner.

Sounds like me, really, although I always try to find a spot where there is good light to read the paper. And does she imagine those old codgers would still be there if their quiet space was invaded by a troop of schoolkids? In any case, most of the pubs where that was the case have either closed down or stopped opening at lunchtimes.

To be honest, you have to wonder when she last went in a pub. Some of the comments inject a welcome dose of reality.

Nil by mouth

Last week, the BBC reported that alcohol was responsible for a 26% rise in cases of mouth cancer. This immediately had the whiff of dodgy statistics to me, and Pete Brown had a good go at it, especially with reference to the inaccurate link to beer.

When you look into the subject, it is clear that there are numerous risk factors for mouth cancer. By far the greatest is smoking, but chewing tobacco, mouthwashes and Human Papilloma Virus also feature alongside alcohol. And, even within the alcohol category, it is mainly linked with neat spirits rather than wine and beer.

It has also given rise to some ludicrous flights of bansturbation from the Righteous. Just look at this nonsense:

Dr Vinod Joshi, founder of the Mouth Cancer Foundation is suggesting people should 'avoid drinking alcohol altogether'.

The Department of Health's current advice is that men should not regularly drink more than 3-4 units of alcohol per day, and women should not regularly drink more than 2-3 units of alcohol per day.

He says: 'In view of the latest reports from Cancer Research UK, the current alcohol guidelines that we've got are actually very high.

'To reduce the risk of mouth cancer risk, the Mouth Cancer Foundation recommends that people should limit or avoid drinking alcohol altogether.'

For men, the Mouth Cancer Foundation recommends no more than occasional drinking of two standard drinks a day and for women no more than one standard drink a day.

Given that the current “guidelines” are ludicrously low, when he starts banging on that they are “very high” you have to question exactly what planet he lives on. Has this man ever been in a pub? And the question must be asked whether the Mouth Cancer Foundation is actually a fakecharity.

And it continues:

Hazel Nunn, health information manager at Cancer Research UK, says: ‘These latest figures are really alarming. Alcohol consumption has doubled since the 1950s and the trend we are now seeing is likely to be linked to Britain's continually rising drinking levels.

Umm, for the past few years, alcohol consumption in the UK has actually been falling. So why are you telling fibs, Hazel?

It all adds up to a typical fake health scare.

When alarmist reports speak of a “25% rise” in anything it is important to know what the baseline is. And apparently mouth cancer kills about 1800 people a year, as compared with 3000 with die in road accidents. I won’t be stopping going out of the house to avoid road accidents, and it’s highly likely most of those 1800 deaths are of people who have engaged in high-risk behaviours for many years. So it won’t deter me from drinking my quota, mostly in beer, each week.

Stretching the law

The Daily Mail reports that a disabled pensioner has been convicted of riding his mobility scooter while over the drink-drive limit. I had always understood that, as mobility scooters were not licensed vehicles, the same law applied to them as to pedal cycles, in that it was illegal to ride them when “under the influence of alcohol”, but there was no defined legal limit. However, in this case the man was breathalysed and found to have a blood-alcohol level of 122mg (the legal limit being 80mg). At that level, while not fit to drive a car, someone isn’t in any meaningful sense “drunk”, and it seems that the police are stretching the law in a way that was not intended. I know a number of old boys who use mobility scooters to get to the pub, and if they were being hounded for having more than a couple of pints it could kill off what social life they have. And I imagine a lot of people would be up in arms if the police sought to extend the same principle to pedal cycles.

The comments on the article also show a depressing level of prejudice against the disabled.