Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Friday, March 15, 2013
The Peril of Cheap Booze
This story just goes to show the consequences of selling cheap alcohol.
That's a very rare, extreme case, isn't it? I mean, it's hardly fair to suggest that every cheap drunk in the country is going to end up in Parliament. Most alcoholics impose far lighter costs on society.
And besides, even if you could cure alcoholism, there is no evidence to suggest that the scourge of Parliament would thereby be eliminated. Correlation and causation are two very different things.
Good to hear from you 3H! To those who don't know you, I think that your blog is one of the funniest things on the web, albeit off-the-wall in a big way. The Clowan cycle is a masterpiece.
It's worth mentioning that if he was a Police officer, he would be sacked. Further proof, if any were needed, of the chasm between us mere plebs and most politicians.
It's a fairly fundamental part of our democracy that MPs can't be sacked. It's particularly important that they can't be sacked by the Crown. Technically, they can't even resign, though the Chiltern Hundreds mechanism exists to provide a way around that. They can be expelled from their party, and Joyce already has. Their constituents can choose not to return them at the next election, but he seems to have preempted that by saying he'll stand down at the next general election.
I can see an argument for legislation allowing a constituency to raise a vote of no confidence. But I don't see that ever getting through Parliament!
@ Biscuit - I assume it was deliberate schadenfreude that the BBC article you chose included an interview with Chris Huhme?
It would be absolutely exceptional now for any serving officer convicted of a criminal or drink-driving offence not to be sacked. I suspect most Police officers with convictions are where the offences pre-date their service.
@David McL The Coalition Agreement includes a chapter on "recall" elections of MPs who are sentenced to custodial terms of 12 months or less. But as you rightly point out, Parliament has shown little inclination to speed the passage of the Bill, which has been swept into a corner and left to gather dust.
Not sure you can really describe this as a consequence of 'cheap booze' without having some credible reason to believe that if alcohol had been more expensive, it wouldn't have happened. I'm not convinced that more expensive drinks would have dissuaded him (either on this occasion, or in the past).
It's possible to come up with situations where more expensive drinks could lower consumption and hence reduce alcohol related violence, but it seems to be stretching things a lot to describe *this* as one of them.
God I'm slow! I've ony just caught on to the 'ren[n]ard' / fox thing... But I do think you're rather harsh on poor BS, Kate. Cut him some slack, eh? Got to keep him in a good mood. He's not nice when he gets all snappy & snarly.
Before we get too hung up on cheap alcohol, perhaps it's worth having a look at the Swedish model: Over there, alcohol is strictly controlled and only available from government-run shops at a very high price. And they have one of the highest numbers of alcoholics...
I remember being told that Norway (another place with what amounts to fiscal Prohibition) has a very high per capita rate of sugar consumption - apparently used for home-brew........
More precisely it's the consequences of selling alcohol to/for a particular individual, and that, in turn, for the Police officers and courts that have to sort him out.
For alcohol, how is 'cheap' measured, in any case (pardon the pun)? An individual from Scotland might well know and consume good scotch, and still behave as badly. Surely, the House of Commons bar would not serve bad / cheap scotch to the ruling classes ?
My copy of Private Eye finally arrived today, and contains the interesting factoid (in a 'Number Crunching' box) that the subsidy to bars and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament amounts to £5.8m. That represents an annual sum of £4,000 per member of both Houses (1,480 in total) by my reckoning. Not bad. Makes our biscuits look pretty paltry!
There are lots of places to drink in the two houses and, at the end of a busy day, that's fine with me. Am I alone though in wondering why, according to the BBC news 'The independent MP for Falkirk is still being held by police after the reported fracas during a karaoke night at the Sports and Social Club, while police investigate the incident.' A karaoke night, in the commons???
Since this post makes reference to the perils of cheap booze (and therefore, by implication, the case for minimum pricing), I would just intervene from Spain to point out that alcohol taxation here is such that the unit price is significantly lower than in the UK, but does not lead to similar outcomes. It is not the price of alcohol which is the problem but a person's relationship with alcohol. That is what Britain should be addressing among young people, although I grant you, minimum pricing doesn't cost government as much as tackling the real cause.
Entirely agree, Ian. The whole binge drinking and associated violence culture does seem curiously linked to the UK ('though there are analogies with Sweden and Finland, where booze is very expensive, and alcohol fuelled violence quite prevalent, which rather undermines the 'unit price' strategy).
There are existing laws regarding being drunk and disorderly and to me it seems quite simple,enforce them and if necessary increase the penalties until people realise that it`s time they began to behave in a civilised manner. Apparently Sweden and Norway have rather lenient ideas regarding punishment of law breakers whereas get drunk violent in some of the Mediterranean countries and you will soon be reminded that it`s not a good idea
That some people abuse alcohol is not a reason for imposing a minimum price on those who don't. The purpose of tax is to raise revenue; social control is not the business of the Revenue.
I don't smoke and I barely drink, and I will soon be a public-sector pensioner, so I suppose that every change which has an inflationary effect by increasing the price of something I don't buy is good news for me! But I don't see it that way. I want the Government off my back.
As for Joyce, technically the House could expel him - but better not. Let him stew until 2015.
Interestingly we live in times when there are complaints that too many MP's are middle class, affluent and out of touch with their constituents: his behaviour is no different to some of his constituents... whilst I'm not condoning it - I think it would be a sad day for democracy if "interesting characters" and those with troubled lives were excluded from politics. He will have an almost unique insight into the judicial system as encountered by many ordinary people every day. He probably has a better idea how the inefficiencies of the court system work in reality than people at the MoJ looking at tables of stats.
From a US perspective, I don't see what the problem is: A quick look at Wikipedia indicates that a Westminster MP represents about 98,000 people, while a report from the Institute for Alcohol Studies indicates that the UK has about 968,000 violent alcohol-related incidents annually, based on 2010 data. Even with a healthy reduction to account for re-offending, it seems that in the interest of representative democracy, your parliament should contain at least 3-4 violent drunks, not just one. If you're short a few, I suppose we can ship some congressmen over to make up the totals.
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
That's a very rare, extreme case, isn't it? I mean, it's hardly fair to suggest that every cheap drunk in the country is going to end up in Parliament. Most alcoholics impose far lighter costs on society.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides, even if you could cure alcoholism, there is no evidence to suggest that the scourge of Parliament would thereby be eliminated. Correlation and causation are two very different things.
Good to hear from you 3H! To those who don't know you, I think that your blog is one of the funniest things on the web, albeit off-the-wall in a big way. The Clowan cycle is a masterpiece.
Deletehttp://bogol.blogspot.com/
A 1st for me........but a second time for Mr Joyce. What an utter cretin.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/09/eric-joyce-fine-assault-commons
It's worth mentioning that if he was a Police officer, he would be sacked. Further proof, if any were needed, of the chasm between us mere plebs and most politicians.
"if he was a Police officer, he would be sacked."
DeleteApparently not
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7936041.stm
It's a fairly fundamental part of our democracy that MPs can't be sacked. It's particularly important that they can't be sacked by the Crown. Technically, they can't even resign, though the Chiltern Hundreds mechanism exists to provide a way around that. They can be expelled from their party, and Joyce already has. Their constituents can choose not to return them at the next election, but he seems to have preempted that by saying he'll stand down at the next general election.
DeleteI can see an argument for legislation allowing a constituency to raise a vote of no confidence. But I don't see that ever getting through Parliament!
@ Biscuit - I assume it was deliberate schadenfreude that the BBC article you chose included an interview with Chris Huhme?
DeleteIt would be absolutely exceptional now for any serving officer convicted of a criminal or drink-driving offence not to be sacked. I suspect most Police officers with convictions are where the offences pre-date their service.
@David McL The Coalition Agreement includes a chapter on "recall" elections of MPs who are sentenced to custodial terms of 12 months or less. But as you rightly point out, Parliament has shown little inclination to speed the passage of the Bill, which has been swept into a corner and left to gather dust.
DeleteAlcohol brings out the inner nature of the drinker. Some giggle, some sleep and some fight. The trait for violent activity must already be present.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Cockney Copper. MPs complain about their work schedule, but there's no shortage of those wanting to join the ranks.
Not sure you can really describe this as a consequence of 'cheap booze' without having some credible reason to believe that if alcohol had been more expensive, it wouldn't have happened. I'm not convinced that more expensive drinks would have dissuaded him (either on this occasion, or in the past).
ReplyDeleteIt's possible to come up with situations where more expensive drinks could lower consumption and hence reduce alcohol related violence, but it seems to be stretching things a lot to describe *this* as one of them.
Irony, dear boy, irony. The Palace of Westminster sells very cheap drinks.
DeleteThis assumption that your readers are all 'boys' is very worrying, Bystander.
DeleteKate C
I cleave to the established principle that the male shall embrace the female, in every possible sense.
DeleteVery droll. You foxy thing. Clearly cut out for a senior position in the LibDems!
DeleteKate C
God I'm slow! I've ony just caught on to the 'ren[n]ard' / fox thing... But I do think you're rather harsh on poor BS, Kate. Cut him some slack, eh? Got to keep him in a good mood. He's not nice when he gets all snappy & snarly.
DeleteBefore we get too hung up on cheap alcohol, perhaps it's worth having a look at the Swedish model: Over there, alcohol is strictly controlled and only available from government-run shops at a very high price. And they have one of the highest numbers of alcoholics...
ReplyDeleteI remember being told that Norway (another place with what amounts to fiscal Prohibition) has a very high per capita rate of sugar consumption - apparently used for home-brew........
DeleteBlackadder : Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
ReplyDeleteBaldrick : Yeah! It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron.
So, this Falkirk Wheel has come off its track?
ReplyDeleteFrom reported first-hand accounts it would appear he has been arrested for assaulting a Police officer.
ReplyDeleteIs it too much to hope he could be keeping Chris Huhne company soon?
The crime is not in the drinking it is in the consequential conduct.
ReplyDeleteNo amount of price hikes will stop people drinking
More precisely it's the consequences of selling alcohol to/for a particular individual, and that, in turn, for the Police officers and courts that have to sort him out.
ReplyDeleteFor alcohol, how is 'cheap' measured, in any case (pardon the pun)? An individual from Scotland might well know and consume good scotch, and still behave as badly. Surely, the House of Commons bar would not serve bad / cheap scotch to the ruling classes ?
Actually, the Scotch I have drunk in the House was both very good and remarkably cheap (as was the wine et al). BS's observation is very germane.
DeleteMy copy of Private Eye finally arrived today, and contains the interesting factoid (in a 'Number Crunching' box) that the subsidy to bars and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament amounts to £5.8m. That represents an annual sum of £4,000 per member of both Houses (1,480 in total) by my reckoning. Not bad. Makes our biscuits look pretty paltry!
DeleteThere are lots of places to drink in the two houses and, at the end of a busy day, that's fine with me. Am I alone though in wondering why, according to the BBC news 'The independent MP for Falkirk is still being held by police after the reported fracas during a karaoke night at the Sports and Social Club, while police investigate the incident.' A karaoke night, in the commons???
ReplyDeleteSometimes, judging from TV coverage, karaoke would be an improvement in the standard of Commons oratory.
ReplyDeleteSince this post makes reference to the perils of cheap booze (and therefore, by implication, the case for minimum pricing), I would just intervene from Spain to point out that alcohol taxation here is such that the unit price is significantly lower than in the UK, but does not lead to similar outcomes. It is not the price of alcohol which is the problem but a person's relationship with alcohol. That is what Britain should be addressing among young people, although I grant you, minimum pricing doesn't cost government as much as tackling the real cause.
ReplyDeleteEntirely agree, Ian. The whole binge drinking and associated violence culture does seem curiously linked to the UK ('though there are analogies with Sweden and Finland, where booze is very expensive, and alcohol fuelled violence quite prevalent, which rather undermines the 'unit price' strategy).
DeleteThere are existing laws regarding being drunk and disorderly and to me it seems quite simple,enforce them and if necessary increase the penalties until people realise that it`s time they began to behave in a civilised manner.
DeleteApparently Sweden and Norway have rather lenient ideas regarding punishment of law breakers whereas get drunk violent in some of the Mediterranean countries and you will soon be reminded that it`s not a good idea
That some people abuse alcohol is not a reason for imposing a minimum price on those who don't. The purpose of tax is to raise revenue; social control is not the business of the Revenue.
ReplyDeleteI don't smoke and I barely drink, and I will soon be a public-sector pensioner, so I suppose that every change which has an inflationary effect by increasing the price of something I don't buy is good news for me! But I don't see it that way. I want the Government off my back.
As for Joyce, technically the House could expel him - but better not. Let him stew until 2015.
Interestingly we live in times when there are complaints that too many MP's are middle class, affluent and out of touch with their constituents: his behaviour is no different to some of his constituents... whilst I'm not condoning it - I think it would be a sad day for democracy if "interesting characters" and those with troubled lives were excluded from politics. He will have an almost unique insight into the judicial system as encountered by many ordinary people every day. He probably has a better idea how the inefficiencies of the court system work in reality than people at the MoJ looking at tables of stats.
ReplyDeleteFrom a US perspective, I don't see what the problem is: A quick look at Wikipedia indicates that a Westminster MP represents about 98,000 people, while a report from the Institute for Alcohol Studies indicates that the UK has about 968,000 violent alcohol-related incidents annually, based on 2010 data. Even with a healthy reduction to account for re-offending, it seems that in the interest of representative democracy, your parliament should contain at least 3-4 violent drunks, not just one. If you're short a few, I suppose we can ship some congressmen over to make up the totals.
ReplyDelete