It's Child's Play Really ...

Just a quicky today ... if you want a considered approach to tackling "binge drinking" from political "think-tank" Demos ... then read on it certainly seems to make more sense than some of the current thinking on Minimum Pricing.

Make "them" pay ...

Half-baked? Half-Wit?

Speaking during his weekly Call Clegg programme on LBC Radio, Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said he supported the idea of imposing levies on people who get “blind drunk” and end up in hospital or at a police station. Here are some highlights:

 

“I’ve actually got quite a lot of sympathy with the basic principle that says why should someone that goes out and gets completely blind drunk, behaves appallingly, gets themselves into trouble and a scrap - why should other people always have to pick up the tab to help them out?”

He said it was unacceptable for the taxpayer to continue to pick up the bill for the National Health Service to treat patients whose injuries were caused as a result of excess alcohol. Mr Clegg added: “It’s quite difficult to do it but I actually think the principle you’re talking about is a not entirely bad one."

“Some-one who wilfully through their own actions basically creates a lot of trouble and hassle for the NHS which everyone else has to pay for, at some point you might want to say to them maybe not on the first occasion but… I don’t have the how but I do understand the why.”

Mr Clegg said it was correct that pub landlords should be required to “cough up in order to deal with the problems they create” He added: “The rules have changed so that local authorities can get nightclubs and pubs and others where there is evidence that they are systematically turning a blind eye to the problem that they are creating, that they have to chip in as well, for instance to shoulder some of the policing costs.

“That was something that I was very supportive of. You know what it’s like, there are parts of our towns and cities where frankly it can be a bit of a no-go area on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night."

“And I don’t see why people who create some of that problem shouldn’t shoulder some of the costs for dealing with the problems that they partly create.”

So let's have a look at what Mr Clegg has to say in some detail shall we? Because whilst I can fully understand where he's 'coming from' I can't say I agree that the ever-increasingly-demonised social drinker or hard-working, law-abiding publican should continue to be the whipping boy for 'sound-bite' politicians.

If one is to directly charge drunks for their policing and hospital costs (above and beyond what they pay in duty and tax) then surely it should be the same for careless drivers? As I reported earlier the extrapolated costs of careless or dangerous drivers is some £52 billions a year to the economy. Will Mr Clegg be seeking to recover the costs from those who through their own choice end up pranging their jalopies and then require the emergency services and the NHS? If the answer is yes, then by all means come after drinkers. But why stop there? What about all those wilful toddlers that will insist on falling off swings and roundabouts who require medical assistance? Will their piggy-banks be raided to pay for the nice doctor?

Mr Clegg seems to have been woefully ill-briefed or is being deliberately ingenuous to suggest pub landlords alone should “cough up in order to deal with the problems they create”. What about the off-licences and supermarkets who supply all the alcohol at 'pocket money prices' to many drinkers so they can 'pre-load' before they ever reach a pub on their night out? Will Mr Clegg be fining the off-trade where there is evidence that their sales have caused a visit to the local nick or A&E department? If the answer is yes, then by all means come after pub landlords who continue to serve those already drunk ... the mechanism is there ... it's called The Licensing Act, 2003.

If ever there was a sector of the alcohol retailing industry that "are systematically turning a blind eye to the problem that they are creating" surely the off-trade must be the prime suspect? If Mr Clegg had the political balls to take on all of those "people who create some of that problem" I would have some sympathy for his point of view. But to single out pubs and clubs as the only ones to "shoulder some of the costs for dealing with the problems that they partly create” is crass and indefensible. At least Mr Clegg has the honesty to intimate that pub landlords are not wholly to blame.

Perhaps if this proposed policy were applied even-handidly across both the on-trade and the off-trade then no doubt the Treasury's coffers would be full enough to provide the policing and alcohol education needs of society so that town-centres stop being "no go areas".

I've neither the time nor the inclination to tax my brain with how this would be applied, just as it would appear our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister failed to do. How would one work out the proportionality of responsibility for either a pub landlord or a supermarket manager? Or for that matter a careless driver or the car salesperson who "bigged up" the speed and power of the latest hot hatchback? Perhaps Mr Clegg should engage his brain before opening his mouth?

Although if it ultimately ended up with Jeremy Clarkson being financially responsible for his endless deification of the internal combustion engine, that might not be a bad thing ... and to quote Jezza ... " and on that bombshell, goodnight!"

Just Kidding ... Not!

Apologies to those who may have read about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Report onLocal Variations In Youth Drinking Cultures elsewhere. Which is my way of saying "damn your eyes Pub Curmudgeon" for beating me to the draw.

Mudge quite rightly points out some of the obvious correlations and findings contained in the report and is 'bang on the money' about the more asinine suggestions such as devoting more space to dancing to combat problematic drinking habits in the young adult market (18-24s).

My take on the report (sic) is not on the planning implications and recommendations for youth oriented drinking clusters, it's on JRF's implied criticism of this (and one assumes) previous administrations general youth and alcohol policies.

Here are some of the conclusions to the report offer to which I offer up the following:

Removing drinking clusters from areas associated with other young people and children - cinemas, bowling alleys, transport hubs/bus stops - all well and good, but without wholesale re-zoning and changes to the transport infrastructure I am not sure how this would be achieved.

"Encouragement for variety within youth drinking clusters: specifically tax breaks (business rates or the proposed late night levy) might be offered for properties that have a substantial area for dancing, live music and/or alternative ‘fun’ entertainment activities." The solution may be innovative, but I fear has little chance of success, I should imagine cash-strapped local authorities would be loathe to forgo any part of their dwindling revenue streams. Notwithstanding Curmudgeon's observation that extending dance facilities would only "stoke the febrile atmosphere", what the report fails to acknowledge or mitigate is the attraction of alcohol, whether consumed as a primary social function or as ancillary to activities such as dancing. Young people like to drink, period. It's part of their perceived right of passage from child to adult, and in all too many cases, the cheapest anaesthetic they can find for their boredom.

The report goes on to urge more recognition for "designated drivers" and offering low/non-alcoholic drinks along with more tax breaks in lower duties for low-alcohol products.

All good so far, and all things the hospitality industry have been campaigning for, but the real slap in the face for any section of those concerned with the issue of alcohol (mis)use by the under-aged are the following observations:

"Providing more funding for, rather than cutting back on support to, youth services, voluntary groups, sports and other types of non-alcohol provision aimed particularly at 12- to 18-year-olds." - bit of a no brainer there, but if the current administration continues hell-bent on more cuts this isn't going to happen 'Olympic legacy' or not.

Ditto "Channelling more funding to local government to raise the quality of parks, green spaces and shopping centres as places for activities or simply to ‘hang out’ for young people."

I doubt if there will even be the monies available for "The continuation of funding for partnership working between local authorities, the police and the health service to combat underage drinking, through early intervention, directions to leave and ChildSafe schemes, ID schemes, and enforcement campaigns on underage and proxy purchasing." Given the parlous state of local authority finances, one senior Tory commentator, the head of the Local Government Association, has warned "Councils are working hard to shield frontline services from the 28% cut to the money they receive from government ... If councils plundered their reserves to cover the cuts, the cupboard would be bare within five years ..."

So what is needed? Certainly not more disjointed thinking, as the current administration is exhibiting with their alcohol strategy and economic policy. As an industry we need to capitalise on findings such as the JRF report, it's time to stop being perceived as the cause of all society's ills and speak up for the immense good we do... jobs, taxes/duties, responsible retailing, social cohesion... but unfortunately our industry seems just as incapable of joined-up thinking as the nuMPties as evinced by recent reports.

Undercover boss … unrepentant boss ...

Updated on 18/7/12 ... see bottom of article ...

With our industry under constant assault from the health lobby and politicians looking for populist policy opportunities, Channel Four's expose of Luminar nightclubs in its Undercover Boss series has only served to reinforce prejudices currently held about the hospitality industry.

Another satisfied Luminar customer?

The unedifying sight of comatose youngsters, pools of vomit and trashed toilets throughout the length and breadth of the country in its various venues does no favour for Luminar either. Surely this isn't what Luminar were thinking of on their website where they are proud to announce: " We strive to create memorable experiences ..."

Peter Marks, the chief executive of the nightclub group was right to be "really angry" that his customers exercised so little self-control that they ended up in such a state. Personal choices and personal responsibility have to play a significant part in such scenarios, however, as a publican of over 30 years standing I did find Mr Marks' faux anger somewhat disingenuous. 

Where are the words of admonition for the managers and DPS' of his 70 strong empire? At whose behest have his clubs been offering "3-4-1" drinks promotions? Have none of his bar staff been trained to have even a rudimentary understanding of licensing law? 

Perhaps he shouldn't leave it so long to get out and about in his estate again because lame excuses about "supermarket competition" and "it's the recession" that drives his business activities simply won't wash. Plenty of operators not only obey the letter of the law but also subscribe to the spirit of the law and don't abrogate their social responsibilities purely in pursuit of profit.

Whilst I applaud his recognition of the hard-working individuals who were high-lighted during his week behind the scenes at the country's largest nightclub group, one cannot think that his corporate responsibility hat has gone back in the wardrobe along with the awful wig he wore.  

Until the trade we all love and work in takes "personal responsibility" for its actions - irresponsible drinks promotions and in this instance blatant disregard for licensing law (allowing customers to get so drunk they are comatose and require an emergency ambulance to be called) - then the health lobby and politicians of all hues will continue to use our industry as a whipping boy. As his in-house medic commented £50 of sales for the club and £1,000 cost to the NHS can't be right. (Doesn't it say something about his venues that he has to employ in-house medics in the first instance anyway? Or is it just "good practice" these days to ensure minimal chances of legal action or licensing reviews being taken against the company and its venues?)

One thing I did notice is the preponderance of young people in his clubs … perhaps if his company developed other market segments apart from the 18-24 year olds and made his venues more attractive to older customers he might not need to resort to the lowest common denominator of Jägerbombs at two quid a pop and make a decent living out of those who know how to enjoy a night out without getting completely and utterly wasted and don't mind paying a reasonable price for the privilege … just a thought …

And in the spirit of balanced comment … was this dreadful glimpse of the "night-time economy" all down to the selective editing of the program makers to show only the shocking and "make good TV" ? Answers on a postcard please …

... an answer I didn't expect to see were these crass comments by  Peter Marks in the Publican's Morning Advertiser ... my, boil, making, blood ... in any order you like! There really is no hope for some is there?

Football Crazy? Or how to have a great EURO2012

Last week in the Publican's Morning Advertiser there was a piece on police "demonising" pubs by asking them to complete a questionaire on their plans for EURO 2012. So ignoring the hype and legal opinion of "heavy handidness", what lies behind is some excellent advice from the Police, which I have paraphrased below for your information. Nothing will kill off your business faster than a major public disorder incident ...

Why not think about letting your local police team know what you are planning in advance, so they can factor your activities into their planning, as grandma said the police are sometimes a publican's best friend.

Check that whatever you are planning is covered by the terms of your Premises Licence, especially with regard to anything taking place outside, if it's not covered then you may well need a Temporary Event Notice. Make sure any promotion you run complies with any conditions set by the licensing authority. (see the article on running responsible promotions on the How To Run A Pub website)

If you are the Designated Premises Supervisor(DPS), make sure that you are on duty for your big events, make sure you have enough staff on duty to cope with the number of customers you expect and that you have discussed with your team the running of the event.

If you really are expecting a large number of people to attend any given match then consider using SIA registered Door Supervisors, ticketing for the event and perhaps even limiting the number of doors customers can use to access your pub. (Check that all fire exits are completely clear and unobstructed) Make sure that the DPS/duty manager holds the keys for the front doors and can secure them at any stage.

You might also think about buying in polycarbonate or other plastic "glasses", this could save a lot of time in service (customers don't have to wait for clean glasses) and if a significant number of people are outside on beer decks, gardens or patios it could save a lot of broken glass. Similarly you might think about decanting bottled beers etc to plastic glasses for the same reasons or buying in stock in PET bottles.

Make sure your staff are doing regular clean-ups, collecting glasses and clearing tables as often as possible, you might even dedicate staff to this job, it's a good way to keep an eye on things, especially under-18s who might be watching the match and any ne'er do wells that these events can attract. This is especially important at half-time and at the end of any match. Keeping smoking areas clean and tidy is also important.

Whilst your TVs are likely to be well placed, try and ensure that they can't be seen from the street, you don't want a crowd of customers blocking pavements etc trying to watch through the windows.

Any big event at your pub is potentially a time for "difficulties", so make sure your CCTV is working, cameras not obscured by bunting etc and that you have enough disk space or blank tapes on hand.

Pass on any reports of disorder to local police (and other premises if you are in a Pubwatch scheme), in the event of trouble outside the premises, keep customers inside and if there is trouble at your premises, call the police immediately and stop serving alcohol.

As with any other time, as a responsible retailer,  make sure that there is no excessive consumption of alcohol - remember it is an offence to continue to serve somebody who has had too much to drink.

All in all what you need to do is carry out a risk assessment for any event that is likely to attract abnormally large numbers of customers, record your findings (you may need it later if there is an incident and you need to prove to the licensing authority that you took all reasonable steps to make sure you ran a safe event).

With a bit of luck and some careful planning you can enjoy the financial benefits of this major sporting event and continue to run a "tidy house".

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ... Part 4

Minimum Pricing for Alcohol is being mooted as a solution to the problem of binge drinking.

The graph (right) is taken from a House of Commons Briefing Paper for MPs on Alcohol  it opens as a PDF.

Given that Cameron et al are calling for Minimum Pricing based partly on the rise in binge drinking ... well this is one sector of the population that is reducing this type of activity without minimum pricing.

What could have caused this drop in the absence of minimum pricing? Could it have been education and campaigns such as DrinkAware and the entire drinks industry from brewers to pubs?

Time to say "No To Minimum Pricing" as it will be the wedge that the health industry will use to force ever more draconian alcohol consumption controls ... just as the clean air campaign in pubs culminated in the smoking ban.

Apart from the ludicrous suggestion that a minimum price of 40p a unit would reduce consumption, the effect of this measure would disproportionately affect the less well off in our society, unlike the (ex)members of the Bullingdon Club if the picture I featured on April 1st is anything to go by ... and no, it wasn't a spoof.

Open Wide ...

Scaremongerer?

It seems that not a day goes by without another health professional warning the public of the latest threat to public health caused by alcohol ... but always when drunk in excess... 

This is the latest proposal from The Royal College of Surgeons' Dental Journal:

Dentists should screen patients for signs that they drink too much alcohol, researchers have said. Questionnaires could be handed out at the start of consultations to identify those with hazardous drinking levels.

"Alcohol misuse can impact on the oral health of patients attending primary care services in numerous ways.

Excessive alcohol consumption is not only a risk factor for sustaining orofacial injury (either through falls, road traffic accidents or interpersonal violence) but also implicated in the aetiology of potentially fatal oral disease, including cancers of the mouth, larynx, pharynx and oesophagus."

Patients who drink lots also suffer tooth decay and erosion of the tooth surface and alcoholic drinks high in sugar may also contribute to the development of cavities they say.

"After screening, the individuals identified as misusing alcohol could then be offered treatment, including brief motivational advice sessions delivered by hygienists or dental nurses ...

Liaison with the patients' medical practitioner could also result in referral for specialist care should the patient demonstrate alcohol dependence or depression, for example."

All well and good until you listen to Professor Jonathon Shepheard (University of Cardiff, School of Dentistry) claim that

"... an estimated one in five men and one in seven women in the UK regularly binge-drink, which costs the UK economy approximately £25 billion a year ..."

Just where does he get his figures from? Probably the same databank that Andrew Lansley used to mislead the public into thinking that “Last year there were 1.2 million admissions to hospital associated with alcohol.”

And just what does "excessive alchohol consumption" actually mean? Unless they are referring to those recommended daily units so famously plucked from the air by "government scientists". 

Plenty of other culprits out there for dental problems ... they could start with soft drink and confectionary manufacturers for a kick-off.

 

So look out for more probing into your personal life by means of the pre-examination questionnaire at a dental surgery near you soon!

Breaking news ... London man set to lose job due to minimum pricing ...

"Re-shuffle, what re-shuffle?"

If there's one job loss that I shan't mourn brought on by this administration's disconnected, disjointed and misinformed Alcohol Strategy it will be that of the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley.

As reported in the redoubtable Independent Lansley is said "to be furious that David Cameron has overruled his concerns over the legality, morality and effectiveness of the proposal designed to tackle Britain's binge-drinking culture. It left Mr Lansley looking isolated and sparked suggestions he will lose his job in the next reshuffle."


Let's just analyse some keywords in that report:

Legality ... I am sure that 'Europe' will have something to say about minimum pricing at some point ... good job the Treasury has all that above inflation alcohol duty escalator money to burn when they appoint a veritable army of high-paid lawyers to defend its decision when it is challenged in the courts.

Morality ... allowing (along with the previous administration) certain elements of the off-trade to continually flout the principle of "responsible retailing" and the four licensing objectives in the Licensing Act, then take it out on the majority of consumers who "drink responsibly" especially those on low incomes ... but let's face it the 'undeserving poor' don't deserve a pint at the end of a hard days graft.

Effectiveness ... unless the minimum unit price is set well above the currently mooted level of 40p it just won't work. Put it to something like £1.20 a unit and the disparity between off-trade pricing and on-trade pricing would all but disappear. There would be no incentive to drink at home when the price one pays in the supermarket is the same as in the pub ... the latter of which, of course, on the whole provides a safe controlled environment for social drinking. (Note to Georgie Porgie ... here's a bit of joined up thinking ... think of the increased corporation tax and VAT this would generate ... gotta pay for all those lawyers!)

Designed ... this implies some sort of intelligence and forethought, something that is clearly not evident in the Alcohol Strategy, unless it has been a carefully crafted 'knee-jerk reaction' to certain reports about the rise in liver disease or hospital admissions .

Isolated ... this will be the feeling a lot of publicans get when the staff and customers have all departed for the night and the long dark night of the soul is upon them. A little reported consequence of this administration's mismanagement of the alcohol has been to further diminish the sustainability of thousands of tied community pubs by steadfastly defying the 'will of parliament' over regulation of the pubcos. As more and more pubs go to the wall, less and less 'safe places' are available for 'responsible drinking' ... let alone the costs in terms of ruined lives and increased benefit costs. Isolated? That'll be the solitary ounce of common sense the Cabinet share between them.

So don't spare a thought for Lansley, it would seem the majority in the NHS won't, he'll be fine with a couple of well paid directorships in the health provision industry ... save your compassion for the ordinary folk of this country who are just trying to make a living and have a pint and a natter come knocking off time.

P.S. Note to picture editor of the Independent - how about using a bottle of wine or spirits next time you run a piece on alcohol and save the images of beer for beer related stories - you lazy git!

Lies Damned Lies and Statistics, Part 3 or

Minimum Unit Price … MUP … a MUPpet initiative from a Muppet Administration.

 

(SEPARATED AT BIRTH?) 

Well the media has had a field day with David Cameron's announcement of minimum pricing for alcohol, whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Theresa May's pathetic attempt to divert attention from the Budget and divert the news cycle away from the Granny Grab tax changes.

A Department of Health Press release for the day estimated that reducing the number of units of alcohol sold by 1 billion would save a 1,000 lives a year and the Health Secretary announced that 

“Last year there were 1.2 million admissions to hospital associated with alcohol.”

HMG's pincer movement in the battle against alcohol abuse of the MUP (at a stupidly low level of 40p … see my earlier thoughts) and the Public Health Responsibility Deal an arrangement with the big drinks manufacturers to cut the strength of various lines of beer, wine and cider is typical of the the disjointed thinking of this administration. 

The press release came with a plethora of headline grabbing statistics pointing to or further alerting us to the demon drink … but is this the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Andrew Lansley's quote is a classic piece of political spin 1.2 million hospital admissions doesn’t mean that the same number of people are in A&E etc because of alcohol, as anyone who has been admitted to hospital whilst managing a health problem several times means the absolute number of patients will always be less than the number of recorded admissions.

You also have to take into account the way that admissions are recorded and the way that NHS statisticians manipulate these figures anecdotal evidence collected by FactCheck suggests that "analysts decided that a certain fraction of people who, say, fall over and twist their ankle, do so because they are drunk."

They go on to say "what the analysts do next is to assign a value based on the estimated likelihood of a certain percentage of injuries or illnesses being caused or exacerbated by alcohol to every patient. So if you fall over and twist your ankle for whatever reason you become a fraction – 0.22 per cent of a single drunk patient. And that number is then multiplied by all the people admitted to hospital for falls. It follows that, if the total number of patients admitted to hospital goes up, then the portion of those admissions theoretically attributed to alcohol automatically goes up too."

Since when does this equate to 1.2 million admissions related to alcohol? They don't as the NHS has stated that only 25% of "alcohol related admissions" were "wholly attributable to alcohol consumption". In the 2010 figures this meant 265,000 not 1.2 million! Further NHS reports also show that only of these admissions only 25% of those were attributed to a "primary diagnosis" as an alcohol specific condition. (For those of you without a calculator to hand this is just over 68,000).

Having looked at these figures I have decided that the rest of HMG's claims about fewer deaths probably won't stand up either, no so no need to spend hour upon hour trawling the net.  

What I did look at is the Introduction to the Government's Alcohol Strategy as it claims this startling piece of information:

but hides the Office of National Statistics reported change in alcohol consumption (or "clearances" as it calls them) in the UK as percentage changes recently: 2005/06 -2%, 2006/07 -1.3%, 2007/08 +1.2% and finally 2008/09 -7.2%.

So starting from a base point in 2005 alcohol consumption over the period to 2009 actually fell by a cumulative figure of 9.16% … okay so we pissed it up since the fifties but consumption in this country is falling.

Don't be fooled by the New Puritans or their political mouth-pieces and make sure you tell your customers the truth when they discuss it with you … as they surely will.

In the interim did you know that you can apply for a free £85 worth of resources, including a natty "Unit Measure Cup" to illustrate to your staff and customers what different drinks equate to in layperson's terms?


Go to DrinkAware to take up this offer get more information that will help you be a more responsible retailer than you probably are already.

Finally a huge thank you to Patrick Worral (Fact Check) for putting this train of thought in motion.


Now if Waldorf and Statler  (Cameron and Clegg) can just provide me with another opportunity to reference them as Muppets ... still that shouldn't be too long, should it eh?