The BBC reports that a bunch of neo-prohibitionists are complaining that a Welsh language festival is planning to start serving alcohol.

Selling alcohol (with food) seems a good idea at a mass festival, you’d have thought, but the Welsh council for alcohol and other drugs are, quite unsurprisingly, bitching at this reasonable move. They’ve started a petition to try and stop people from having a bit more fun whilst visiting the Urdd eisteddfod.

Chief executive of this fun-police organisation Wynford Ellis Owen tells us:

Evidence suggests that children and young people are more likely to become drinkers and heavy drinkers the more society normalises the use of alcohol - which is exactly what the Urdd is doing by introducing alcohol to the eisteddfod site.

We know this to be absolute bollocks (see here and here). We also know that children are drinking less than ever in the UK. This is just another example of some hideous neo-pro trying to interfere with people’s lives in a feeble attempt to justify their own whining, pointless existence.

The Welsh assembly’s view on this, “This is a matter for the Urdd.” Quite right! Not for anyone but them to be concerned with.

Edit: I’ve been pointed to an even more odious article about this on the BBC News website. Apparently, a loony Christian organisation have also complained about the possibility of over-18 year olds having a bit more fun. Their best argument is, "It's been shown that the availability of drink is a known factor in alcohol abuse. By making alcohol more available the Urdd is contributing towards the problem." Alas, their complaint could not be considered because they are not local to where the eisteddfod is happening. Good. This group has complained about the general availability of alcohol in the past; Shut up and piss off you bunch of interfering swine.

*Especially a festival in Wales, otherwise how could I stand them terrorising me with their close-harmony choral singing? These people look ready to terrorise me, alright:

At this years event they will feature some Mozart opera translated into Welsh and creative headgear competition for year six children. I need that drink now. I didn’t see Padlockigami in the program, alas:

The neo-prohibitionist’s favoured uncritical press-release reporter, the BBC News website, tells us we are drinking less. The amount of people buying alcohol from an off-license in the past year has dropped from 37% in 1998 to 27% in 2009 and we are drinking less in pubs and bars. If it were an enlightened reporter writing this story he/she would be bemoaning the state of our dwindling off-trade industry and decrying the sadly dying pub industry. However, instead we must worry about a less than 1% increase in the number of nebulously-defined alcohol ‘related’ deaths (it takes a few years for this number to track a decreasing alcohol consumption level) and be told, once again, that the government is planning a new anti-drink advert.

I was pleased that the story reported that the average consumption of alcohol by manual workers (10.6 units a week) was less than for professional workers (13.8 units a week). We are normally told, in quite patronising terms, that drinking is disproportionately a working class problem. This data would suggest that it is not so much a class problem, more a problem for a tiny sub-set of the whole population. It is these people who specifically need targeting rather than demonising all drinkers and attempting to de-normalise alcohol for the majority of healthy drinkers.

Whilst I would certainly agree that teenagers should not drink to excess, this piece of scare-mongering propaganda in the Telegraph can be neatly summed up by two quotes (one by an arch neo-prohibitionist) it contains:

We’ve seeing (sic) a slight decline in the number of children who drink – Don Shenker, total arse and Chief Executive of pseudo-charity Alcohol Concern

I am pleased that these statistics show a decline in the number of young people smoking, drinking alcohol and taking drugs - Children’s Minister ‘red’ Dawn Primarolo

Edit: The excellent post on Pete Brown’s blog rips the Telegraph’s alarmist article to shreds.

Sometimes you find yourself in possession of a really filthy bottle of Champagne and it is always a conundrum as to whether you can face drinking it. The key, of course, is to make cocktails with it and tonight’s extremely decadent fizz-based cocktail is the Olympique.

It is very simple, just pour a shot of yellow Chartreuse into a glass and top up with four shots of some woeful Champagne that you have probably been given by someone who doesn’t know any better. The cocktail should be a beautiful golden colour thanks to the Chartreuse.

I have very happy memories of this drink (and, if I am honest, this cocktail has also deleted some memories). When I finished my final undergraduate exams I was met outside the exam hall by a lovely girl who was to become my ‘taller lying down than standing up*’ girlfriend. She presented me with a bottle of minor Champagne but refused to join me in drinking it with my wine friends in the post exam piss-up they had arranged. As luck would have it, one of my wonderful friends had brought a bottle of yellow Chartreuse along to the event and we mixed Olympiques. A very dissolute cocktail, and quite delicious too.

Of course, if you want to be really flash you can mix your Olympiques with the truly excellent VEP yellow Chartreuse. This is Chartreuse which has been aged for an unspecified number of years in large casks before bottling. It is smoother and more mellow than the standard stuff. A great drink but sadly quite pricy.

Green Chartreuse is a more alcoholic, fiery drink. When you feel the burn as you swallow you know it is doing you good. It is not really suitable for this cocktail, it is powerful and heady, and lacks the smoothness that the yellow version brings to Olympiques. Green has its place: for example, when you need to be invigorated to deal with lesser people it can really perk one up; a veritable command to go out and dominate inferior forms of life. Once again there is a VEP version of Green which is slightly less fiery and more refined. Great treat to have a bottle of this in one’s home, ready to charge one up should a lack-of-booze-style emergency occur.

Before I finish with Chartreuse (I still have some of my Olympique to finish) I should recommend Elixir Vegetal de Chartreuse. This is only sold in small (100ml) bottles, and described as a pick-me-up that will leave you feeling on top of the world. As well it might, having an impressive booze-quotient of 71%abv. This actually makes it bloody hard work to drink the stuff, but you can mix some with hot water for a warming winter drink, or put a few drops on a sugar cube just to enjoy its herbal flavours. You can also spray a mouthful between your pursed lips when holding a flame close your mouth and watch the impressive ‘fire-breathing’ effect. I am yet to try a few drops of Elixir Vegetal in fizz, it might well work a handy sub-interest Champagne-improver.

*If you are confused by the description of this lovely girl being taller lying down than standing up I shall simplify it: She was extremely well titted-out.

I mentioned the article on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist about the real history of binge-drinking in a tweet earlier. It is well worth reading, lots of interesting data there, and good criticism of the BBC News website’s latest bit of anti-drink propaganda. It makes the point very clearly that the moral panic over binge drinking is driven by pressure groups with the assistance of the press who are only too willing to uncritically report scare stories. There is some clear data in the article which shows the massive increase in the frequency of using the term ‘binge-drinking’ in the press has driven an increase in the use of the term by politicians. This has resulted in them being convinced we have a major binge-drinking problem and that ‘something must be done’.

There are three different terms being bandied about which refer to problem drinking, each with questionable definitions, and all using the same flawed interpretation of source data.

“More than 10 million ‘drinking at hazardous levels’” – Daily Telegraph

Apparently, a quarter of adults are hazardous drinkers. This alone makes it obvious that something is dodgy.

First, let’s see where the data comes from? It turns out that all data derives from the Office of National Statistics General Health Survey. This asks people how much they drank on the day in the last week they drank the most. This piece of information is then turned into weekly alcohol consumption, by multiplying the number of units by seven. This is a staggeringly duplicitous use of statistics.

If this laughably derived number is more than guideline maximum number of units a person should drink in a week (which we know are meaningless numbers just plucked from the air) then they are a hazardous drinker. Since the partner and I shared a bottle of light red wine today, we fall into this category.

Then there is ‘harmful drinking’. This is defined in the HSC report and by the BMA as “A pattern of drinking alcohol that causes harm to a person’s health or wellbeing. The harm may be physical, psychological or social.” They then go on to ignore the actual incidence of harm as being too difficult to know, and instead use the ONS GHS numbers as a proxy. They decide that anyone who consumes over 50 units a week regularly (35 for women) is a harmful drinker.

Given the absurd way the totals are calculated, this means that if my partner and I had decided to share a bottle of 8% German Riesling, in addition to the 12% red wine we had, we’d suddenly have turned into harmful drinkers, even if we had not had anything else to drink all week.

Finally, there’s binge drinking. That is defined in the UK as having more than 8 units a day (6 for women) on at least one occasion in the last week. That’s a bottle of weak wine, or three pints of Stella. That meaning is quite different to what was considered binge-drinking 10-15 years ago.

Whenever reports appear in the media on how we are drinking ourselves to death, it is important for as many people as possible to challenge the dodgy figures being used by anti-drink campaigners in a blatant attempt to de-normalise alcohol. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever lived with someone with serious alcohol problems, or themselves drunk enough to give them health or social problems.

So, next time you read something alarmist, claiming that a quarter or third of people are misusing alcohol, don’t be shy to point out what the figures add up to in the context of real alcoholic drinks, not difficult-to-visualise units. Who knows, that may persuade at least some journalists to use their own judgment rather than recycling hysterical nonsense press releases.

This ‘missing out on lunch’-method of losing lard seems to be working quite well for me. What is even better (although not perhaps on the ‘minimising calorie intake’-front) is that I am so pleased with myself for fighting off the crazy hunger all day that I feel quite justified in rewarding myself with a nice little drinkie. Today I am drinking Westons Perry.

This perry is suitably charged with booze action, being 7.4%, but the thing I like best about it is its lovely, slightly sweet fruitiness. Nothing wrong with liking slightly sweet or fruity things, of course, and such drinks are not just for the ladies. I’m a big man and I feel quite at ease drinking this charming beverage. Yeah, a big man!

Westons make an excellent range of cider and perry. My favourite ciders of theirs are the Henry Westons Special Reserve Vintage Cider, which clocks in at a suitably heroic 8.2%, and their Organic Vintage Still Cider, tipping the scales at 7.3%. This last one is flat and comes in a three-litre bag in box. Despite this unattractive packaging, which suggests to some people that it is merely fuel for alcoholics, it is a really complex and interesting cider. More in the style that real cider twats go for instead of being a charming, fizzy fruit-fest, but it is properly good and not actively nasty. In view of this I would be fascinated to try their news release, pictured below.

It may only be 6%, it may be organic (which isn’t a factor that even remotely concerns me when I go drink shopping), but if it is up to the quality of the Still Vintage Cider, I can see it being characterful and compelling. I’ve got to look out for vats of this in the shops; I don’t think I’ll be disappointed by it.

We are told (by a most informative article on the Slate) that cider is going to be the next big thing in the US. This would be a Good Thing as real cider is a characterful, improving drink; we all need characterful, improving drinks from time to time. As the Slate article points out, most commercial ciders in the US are made from eating apples or concentrated apple juice; this means they’ll never be terribly complex or interesting expressions of cider. However, before we slag off our cousins over the pond let us not forget that the big names in cider over here in Blighty (Strongbow, Dry Blackthorn, Woodpecker and the like) are also filth made from concentrated juice. I’ve never had any of the US artisanal producers of cider mentioned in the Slate, but given the high enjoyment factor and general affordability of decent cider I’d suggest that my reader from the US keeps their eyes open for them. I’d be very pleased to hear your opinions should those ciders (or any other decent offerings) be found. Of course, if you see a bottle of Westons (who seem to make more high quality cider than it is possible to believe) or any of the other cider I’ve recommended, you should buy it and enjoy a taste of England.

Cheers!

I’ve mentioned that I am trying to shed some lard from my frame. As usual, today I have been crazily hungry and desperate to have a substantial lunch. Yet lunchtime has passed and I haven’t touched any food. This deserves a reward.

A small bottle of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale seems like an excellent reward. It is bottle-conditioned, which gives it more life and complexity. It also results in there being a small amount of dead yeast in the bottle, which some people think is a bad thing, not a bit of it! Good to see this beer was once alive. I like its floral, hoppy flavours and its pronounced bitterness is very refreshing. A very satisfying bottle of Pale Ale.

Pale Ale is one of my favourite styles of beer, and there are some good ones out there. My preferred variety is the much-loved Timothy Taylor’s Landlord, particularly when cask-conditioned although the bottled version is quite acceptable. When you see this beer in a boozer you should order it in a second, it is so excitingly livid and invigorating. For a pale ale the alcohol level is slightly on the low side at 4.3%. A cask of this was on offer at the wedding reception of two friends of mine; I found it so hard to choose between the Pol Roger Champagne, Arlaud Burgundy and the Landlord that I just had to keep cycling between the three.

There are two other good Pale Ales available from micro-breweries in my area of London.  The Union in Greenwich is the tap boozer for the Meantime Brewery, their London Pale Ale is quite delicious. Again, not so high in alcohol and a bright, refreshing drink. Zero Degrees in Blackheath is quite a fun micro-brewery cum bar and restaurant. You can sit gazing at the brewery equipment behind the glass walls in bar as you drink their excellent Pale Ale and eat one of their (sometimes good, sometimes woeful) pizzas. Some of the beers at Zero Degrees can be a bit hit and miss, but I’ve never had a less than excellent pint of their Pale Ale (the Black Lager is reliable, too).

I’ve been impressed by some Pale Ales from micro-breweries in the US. The first one I tried was Full Sail Pale Ale picked up when I was working in Alaska back in 1995. My chum Keithy and I purchased loads of this as it was such an enjoyable beer, really hoppy and refreshing (and preferable to the dreary Alaska Amber which seemed to be the beer on sale in most places). Sadly I have rarely seen this in the UK so have not had it for a few years. Bums.

The other US Pale Ale which has really done it for me is Burning River Pale Ale from the Great Lakes Brewing Company. Its slightly higher alcohol level (6%) gives a richness and weight which balances the hoppy bitterness very well.

My final suggestion for good Pale Ale is a Western Australian brew: Little Creatures Pale Ale. This is well-flavoured with American hops and they also chuck some Tasmanian-grown flowers in it to add to its aromatics.  This is also bottle conditioned, good! The ‘priced like Harrod’s’ corner shop in my housing development sells this and it is one of the few things in there that I do not resent paying their inflated prices for. Its good stuff.

Pale Ales can refresh and invigorate, one of my very favourite styles of beer. If you want more alcohol and more hoppy bitterness you should be going for India Pale Ale, and, as I have recently suggested, the IPA of choice comes from the Meantime Brewery. That is my favourite beer of all time.

The BBC, favourite news outlet of the neo-prohibitionists thanks to its relentlessly uncritical reporting, has an article on the new code of conduct that will be introduced for pubs later this year. It contains the usual dodgy statistics and quotes from self-serving moral guardians (including pronouncements from the odious arse Don Shenker), but let us look at the guidelines that the BBC mentions:

1. Bar staff and retailers will be legally required to demand proof of age of anyone who looks under 18 - to be introduced from September
2. Banning "irresponsible" promotions such as all-you-can-drink offers, women drink free deals and speed-drinking contests
3. Banning the dentist's chair game, which involves pouring a steady stream of drink down a customer's throat*
4. Free tap water for customers
5. Pubs must make small measures of beers, wines and spirits available to customers. To be introduced from September

The first guideline is worthless. Given that under-eighteens are not allowed in most pubs and not allowed to buy alcohol anywhere, how much difference will this really make? Supermarkets are the leading booze-merchants in the UK, how many have you been into that are not plastered in signs saying they’ll ask for ID if you look too young to be buying alcoholic drinks? None that I’ve frequented.

The second and third guidelines sound quite reasonable. However, pubs and bars are legally not allowed to serve customers who they think are drunk. If a bar with an ‘all you can drink’-promotion serves people after they are already drunk then they can be prosecuted under existing legislation. So these guidelines already exist in practise and adding them once again to the statute books is another pointless piece of legislation-creep.

Number four: big freaking deal. It’d be a pretty rotten boozer that wouldn’t give someone a glass of water. I used to have views on drinking tap water in boozers, demonstrated by this anecdote: Many years ago when I met my good friend ‘Non-Stinky’ Jeff for the first time we had a couple of Bloody Marys at The French House in Dean Street (at the time they made the best BMs in Town, how the mighty have fallen…). When it came to round of drinks number three he said, “I should get back to work soon, can you get me a glass of water?” I refused point blank to order water in one of my then favourite boozers; it’d ruin my reputation with the other regulars. He went to the bar and asked for a glass of tap water which was presented to him with no complaints by the bar staff. In fairness to NSJ it was his first week of his first job in England, so understandable that he did not have three or four large BMs for lunch. I’ve mellowed a bit since then to the point that I once ordered a lime and soda for myself in a boozer; in my defence I was very, very ill at the time.

The fifth point again seems reasonable. However, given that most measures of spirits in UK bars are an already miniscule 25ml and that a half-pint of beer is also a quite small measure of what is generally not a strong drink, this is another example of unnecessary legislation-creep.

These additions to alcohol-mongers rules are backed up with a £20,000 fine or six months in the slammer if they are transgressed. Since we have established these new rules cover areas which existing legislation controls, making them worthless, the only real changes are the increased bureaucracy booze-vendors will have to deal with and the increased size of stick they provide to beat offenders. These seem slightly hollow reasons for adding new laws.

*Has anyone every seen this happening in an English pub? Present some evidence here and win a book by the 2009 beer writer of the year.

There is another story on the BBC News website trying to scare Scottish people into drinking less alcohol and accept pointless restrictions on their liberty when it comes to alcohol pricing and availability.

One of the things that vexed me about the article was that it says the average Scots drinker over the age of 18 drinks 26.5 units a week, more than the recommended 21 units. Since this story is an uncritical regurgitation of a press release from an organisation with an axe to grind about drinking, the BBC fails to mention that the recommended drinking limits have no meaning. They were just made up, set a a totally arbitrary level to try and encourage people to drink less. Being a few drinks over a totally meaningless limit does not mean that you are drinking to harmful excess, you are just drinking more than some smug, self-righteous, moral crusader would like you to drink.

Moreover, it is really irksome that the data is presented in terms of averages for the whole drinking population. An average means that some people are drinking more and some less than this, but by just attaching one number to everyone this becomes a blatant attempt to demonise, or at least to scare, every drinker in Scotland. Most people will be perfectly safe drinkers, it is only a few who drink to damaging excess. This group who see life through the bottom of a bottle could well do with some help with their habit, but if they don’t want that help then it shouldn’t be forced on them with ham-fisted legislation. The majority of safe drinkers should certainly not have their liberty to enjoy a few drinks compromised; it is a myth that reducing overall consumption of alcohol reduces the number of problem drinkers.

There are other problems with that article. For example, it quotes the Scottish health secretary repeating the same old lie that alcohol is getting cheaper. We also have to stomach the hackneyed, clichéd and trite statement that it is possible to buy an alcoholic drink for less than the price of some bottled waters; do they expect us to believe that people will be so scandalised by the price of fancy bottled water that they’ll buy cheap booze instead and become alcoholics? What a pile of drivel.

It is a shame that press-releases like this from neo-prohibitionist organisations are so uncritically regurgitated by the mass media. No attempt is ever made to check them for mistakes or unreasonable assertions. By letting these people publish their propaganda with no balancing views or data given we’ll all end up suffering when the control-freaks limit our freedom.

Edit: Pete Brown, beer writer of the year 2009, has also picked up on this disingenuous article and raises more good points as to why we should not be bothered with anything it says. Here is his blog post.