THWARTED

I was supposed to be away on my Tobacco UK Tax Resistance shopping trip but my plans were thwarted by the Belgians.

And the news when we arrived at Hull Docks that out boat to Zeebrugge was cancelled because of technical difficulties at the other end was not made any easier due to the ugliness of the city which we had to drive through twice in one evening.

My eyes still hurt from looking at the horrific architecture. Tried as I could to find something nice about Hull as we drove through, I simply could not.

The image of the City's Premier Inn is an example of how Hull got it all wrong. It looks rather like it was designed by people on acid - who had a bad trip half way through the build and then changed their minds.

I know my view is limited as I have never visited the city and I'm sure even Hull must have some heritage pleasing to the eye. I did sneak a look down into the Old Town as we passed and it looked quite nice but certainly the approach to Hull is a bloody eyesore.

The building which houses the Deep underwater attraction, for example, is just plain awful. There is a beautifully decorative old pub that stands on a corner as you enter Hull. It looks as if everything around it was demolished and then rebuilt in 60s asbestos.

Then there is the old, shattered, Airfix factory which, apparently, will be a business park. If the rest of Hull architecture is anything to go by, then I'm sure it will be built on the cheap and look pretty horrendous when it's finished.

The best thing about Hull, I think, is it's people. I felt sorry for the lady at the check in desk who had been on since 7am telling disgruntled passengers that their trip was off. She was monumentally patient with my grumpy other half and even managed to charm him around by throwing in a better cabin and bus transfer to and from Zeebrugge to Bruges.

I told her we hadn't eaten - as we planned to eat on the boat despite the expense - and a hungry man is an angry man. She advised that there were plenty of nice places to stop and eat in Hull. We didn't find them. As we drove through the ugly place we passed take away after take away and the only restaurant we could find was Chinese.

It was on the edge of what felt like a really rough area, next to a place that sells conservatories, but there was no parking that we could see - except a space that threatened clamping for a release fee of £75.

As we were only an hour or so from home, we decided to drive back to eat. We pulled into Damon's restaurant - a place we haven't been for years because it is rather over priced for what you get. We felt all dressed up with no where to go and so justified the stop.



The place has always been non-smoking on the restaurant side and if you wanted to smoke before, you had to go the bar. I didn't mind that. I did, however, find their no smoking sign offensive. It boasted "It's The Law!" to rub smokers' noses right in it - despite the fact that its walls were littered with images of old 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s Hollywood stars like James Dean - all with fags in their mouths.

Monumentally hypocritical but at least the photos help to keep alive my culture and they haven't been airbrushed on demand by the anti-smoking industry yet.

It was one of very few visits to eat out since the ban and I recognised why I hate it. It felt like being at work. I don't mind not smoking at work. I can handle that fine. But when it comes to my leisure time, I should be able to decide where I spend it and how. A fine meal was also ruined by not being able to have that after meal smoke - like the after meal brandy that others are still allowed to enjoy.

The pleasure of eating out has gone.

Now we're home again, I'm back to work, and looking forward to a rescheduled shopping trip next week if all goes to plan.

Maybe I'll shut my eyes as we drive through Hull next time - and then the nightmares won't return.

NUGOVT - SAME OLD FRAUD

Phil Williams explains how the NuGovt was conned by the self-interest cronies appointed by the last Govt which the public kicked out of office.



This is yet further evidence that the ConDems are totally naive and stupid and will believe any old tripe put forward by Labour's civil servants who despite a general election, are still making policies that the majority of non-smoking and smoking voters rejected at the ballot box.

They want choice, equality, to be treated as grown ups, and to be allowed to decide for themselves where they socialise and who with. The NuGovt doesn't care about the voter which is why I believe it will lose the next election. People are already fed up and if they do not do something to address the very real concerns of freedom of choice v dictatorship, then they are finished as parties.

Tory supporters are already hanging their heads in embarrassment at this "socialist" NuConservative party and frankly, the LibDems have become a laughing stock. If they do not change their bigoted stance on smokers, then other parties will get the support that might have gone their way

They've lied to their core support - students - and their once in their history go at being in Govt has only shown that they are no alternative. The hopes people had in them to be "different" from the other two main parties has only been exposed as false and built on nothing more substantial that straw.

Yes, the Lib Dems are finished as a party. I think some will stay with the Tories as the best hope of keeping their fat salaries. Others will join NuLabour - and as that thoroughly corrupt party has bragged - in the thousands.

The only decent LibDems I know are Coun Carl Minns from Hull and the Mayor of Market Rasen, Ken Bridger. I wish they'd both see sense and cross over. Ken I know is very much an ordinary bloke trying to do good. From what I have learned of Carl, I feel he is the same. UKIP needs more people like that. Their talents are wasted with their party of choice.

I recall Dudley UKIP councillor Malcolm Davis - who crossed over from the LibDems - said he was disillusioned with his former party and many more feel like he does.

UKIP can become the new party of the people for the people. It is growing from the bottom up and is taking support from the LibLabCon party. It is not full of "nazi brownshirts" as jealous critics put out to scare away support. It's full of people fed up at being ignored over all sorts of issues - the smoking ban being the one that affects 12 million potential voters.

The media also criticises UKIP because its prospective MPs are ordinary people so fed up with the LibLabCon dictatorship, that they have taken matters into their own hands in a bid to get that change that Britain so desperately needs if she is to survive, and her people are to remain free.

They are not slick politicians trained in the art of lying. They are honest men and women who tell it as they see it. They may say things people don't like - but at least they know what they are voting for.

Currently the main parties are making Britons that thing they said they'd never be - slaves.

Strong bottles

My recent post about bottled Butcombe Bitter raised the long-running issue that many beers are significantly stronger in bottled form than they are as draught real ale. Butcombe is 4.0% ABV on cask and 4.5% in bottle. Jennings Cumberland Ale has a 0.7% difference – 4.0% versus 4.7%, and Young’s Bitter goes one point further with 3.7% against 4.5%. Other “offenders” (if such they are) include Marston’s Pedigree, Fuller’s London Pride and Deuchar’s IPA.

I fully understand why brewers do this – draught beers in the pub are meant for “sessioning”, while premium bottled ales are generally consumed in ones or twos in front of the telly and and the fire. They’re different environments, and drinkers are looking for different things from their beer. There are plenty of PBAs around the 5% mark, but ales of that strength don’t sell well in pubs, whereas few bottled ales come in below 4%. Undoubtedly a 4.7% beer will differ significantly from a 4% one, but is there a slight element of deception involved? And which is truly the “authentic” brew?

Brains SA, one of my favourite bottled beers on the more “malty” side of things, is the same strength in bottle and cask – 4.2%. In the olden days, a beer of that strength was nicknamed “Skull Attack” in Cardiff, but in the PBA stakes it now seems something of a lightweight.

RIP CS - FROM FACEBOOK

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children

He declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll...and going to the pub

The brewing industry is in a slow, steady decline. Beer volumes are 25% down over 14 years. High duty levels are putting drinkers off and making profitability difficult, resulting in a wave of takeovers, mergers and brewery closures. Customers are increasingly being tempted away by the attractions of a night in at home. Sounds familiar? Maybe, but that’s not 2011, it’s 1959.

I have a book entitled Called to the Bar – An account of the first 21 years of the Campaign for Real Ale, published in 1992. This contains an enlightening chapter by Richard Wilson on “The British brewing industry since 1750.” In this, he shows a table of UK beer production 1945-1988, which I have reproduced here. The steep fall from 1945 to 1951, and the continued slow decline throughout the rest of the 1950s, is very obvious. One of the main factors blamed for this was the rise of television, which was keeping people in their houses even when they had more money to spend. Wilson writes:

High levels of duty (not relaxed until the 1959 budget) and taxation bit hard into profits, and the brewers’ constant need to update their tied properties and breweries, after years of wartime neglect and severe building restrictions to 1953, meant that they had problems in generating sufficient capital to carry out their programmes of improvement. In these conditions of over-capacity, brewers continued to rationalise in the time-honoured way of acquiring additional breweries.

The 1959 production figure of 23.4 million barrels was the all-time postwar low. However, in that year’s Budget, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Derick Heathcoat-Amory cut beer duty for the one and only time in the postwar era, which seems to have given the industry a stimulus that it didn’t look back on for twenty years.

The period up to 1979 was one of impressive and almost continuous growth. Beer volumes were 32% up by 1969, and 73% up by 1979, which was to prove the all-time peak. The 1960s tend to be associated with sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, but it seems that for many people they mainly involved drinking a lot more beer, something that popular history seldom seems to recognise.

Undoubtedly to some extent this reflected a society that had more money to spend and was less straitlaced and more hedonistic than that of the 1950s. Young people have always been some of the biggest spenders in pubs, and in the 1960s the postwar “baby boom” generation was reaching legal drinking age. And, although it may pain those who accept the “CAMRA narrative” of the brewing history of the 1960s, the money spent on developing and advertising national keg beer brands, and in refurbishing dingy old pubs, attracted a lot of new customers. The brewers succeeded in giving pubgoing a more modern, upmarket and aspirational image than it formerly enjoyed. By 1979, regular pubgoing was far more commonplace, respectable and entwined in everyday life than it was in the 1950s – or is now.

It is also noteworthy that, after a drop in the early 1980s which it’s probably fair to attribute mostly to the recession and the rundown of traditional heavy industries, production remained steady from 1982 to 1988. Indeed, even in 1997, total beer sales were still 34.8 million barrels. Maybe 5% of that was imports, so it wasn’t really much below the 36.7 million production barrels of 1988. The big decline has pretty much entirely happened since then.

Total UK beer sales in 2010 were 27.0 million barrels, which assuming the same 5% imports, is still comfortably above the level throughout the 1950s. The key difference is that much less of the drinking is happening in pubs.

Another repercussion of the 1959-79 boom in beer sales was that brewers assumed it would continue indefinitely and invested in a lot of new plant that was never fully utilised. Significantly, the massive Courage brewery at Reading opened in 1978, and closed in 2010.

MORE ON THE DWARF

A couple of weeks ago we were still laughing at the story of the dwarf who pulled a vacuum cleaner around with his penis.

You might recall that among the myriad of dangerous stunts carried out by the Circus of Horrors Show, the one that the council was most worried about, and needed a risk assessment for, was a woman smoking as part of the act.

The story landed on my desk at work and I said I'd post up a copy of what appeared in the paper.

Anyone who wants to see the show can check out the tour dates HERE

Click to enlarge and read the cutting below

ELECTRO FAG REVIEW

When I first heard about E Cigs I immediately feared they would be a threat to the smoking culture because if they became popular then smokers would probably be forced to use them. I'll admit I've been a prig about them in the past

It is such unfounded fear that often causes such prejudice and I moan enough about how that affects smokers socially these days. Bloggers that I admire have spoken of how the electrofag can be a useful addition to smoking tobacco and so I opened my mind, changed my view, and grabbed the chance to try them when it came.

I met Cliff Ditchfield my local supplier who advertises on Facebook and he popped into work today with an E Cig kit.

I thought it would be a complicated thing but it's very easy to set up and you end up with a proper looking cigarette that can legally be smoked in public places. The end lights up when you draw on it and nicotine vapours come out. Nictotine is optional. You charge up the cigarette like a mobile phone when you need to.

There's a lot for £17.50 (£2.50 P&P) a pack. It's either one E Cig or one pack of E Cigs that equates to a pack of 200. I've always been crap at maths but either way it's a definite bargain.

I know I won't be able to smoke tobacco when I board the boat for my latest UK Tobacco tax resistance trip and so an electrofag will come in handy.

I was bored senseless during the 12 - 14 hour journey last time I took a boat and that's when I most want to smoke. It is not about "addiction" because I can travel without the need to smoke if I'm entertained enough. The cabaret scenario of the ship just doesn't appeal. I might watch a film that'll take up a couple of hours, but I will get fed up of the constant round of visiting the cafe, bar, and any other eaterie or pub onboard. I'll also miss that last reflective cigarette at bedtime so electrofag will come in handy then.

I can also use it at other times. I'm really looking forward to getting it out in Starbuck's and horrifying the management in my local Tesco's cafe. Both places carried offensive anti-smoker signs when we had choice before the anti-smoker ban came in.

I hear there are moves to try and ban the electrofag. I think it's because the puritans don't want to see anyone smoking in future. They don't just want to eradicate tobacco use but the whole culture that surrounds it. For all of the reasons above, I now see E Cigs as an enhancement to the smoking culture.

They are a great toy but they could never replace the real thing for me as a dedicated, lifelong smoker of 43 years from childhood. I smoke because I like the taste of tobacco, and, actually, particular types. Cliff's E Cigs have a cigarette tobacco taste like Lambert and Butler. He also has menthol. I've never taken to those. It's like smoking chewing gum to me. Perhaps by my next order he will stock something more like Golden Virginia or some other light shag taste.

I tasted nicotine in the electrofag and I got the sense of the smoke with the vaper that came out when I exhaled. But what I missed was that hit in the back of the throat, the one that sometimes makes me cough, after lighting a hand rolled cigarette without a filter fresh from the pouch.

The first experience was a bit like ordering a bacon sandwich and getting one with cold ham instead. I missed being able to stub it out. I missed the smell. I missed watching it burn down. I just stopped smoking it after a while. It seemed a bit dry and it felt a bit medical in taste. I neither enjoyed nor didn't enjoy it.

I would use it again but I would never stop smoking tobacco and certainly not for reasons of health until at least some unbiased research is done to show what the effects would be on some one like me. At present I feel it would be more dangerous to quit and better to continue to smoke moderately.

Those who want to quit would find E Cigs ideal and, from what I've heard, a better alternative to NRT because they more accurately mimic the smoking culture and can replace the habit of smoking.

A lady I work with immediately put in an order when Cliff came in because she wants to quit what she says is a habit and not an addiction. She misses a smoke most with a cup of tea. There is some family pressure but she's come to the decision to quit herself. Some smokers simply get fed up of smoking after a while.

* The unhappiness this continual attack on the smoking culture has made people since the smoking ban is crafted here By Dick Puddlecote. As usual, it's well worth a read and focuses on a recent study that shows most people have been as miserable as sin since July 2007.

The neo-Pros’ poster girl

There has been a lot of media interest recently in 21-year-old Laura Hall from Redditch who has been banned from every pub and bar in Britain. However, as Neil Davenport argues here, in reality this sad case is not so much an indictment of the evils of drink but of our society's failure to socialise young people properly, and banning her from pubs just serves to make the problem worse.

Sauce for the goose

Council bosses in Carlisle have written to their employees suggesting that, if smokers have to clock out for a fag break, anyone wishing to have a ten-minute conversation about the weather should do the same. Certainly over the years I've witnessed some spectacular examples of timewasting through office gassing. The threat wasn't actually carried through, but antismokers should be very careful what they wish for as it could easily rebound on them. And, of course, anyone expected to clock out for a fag break is hardly likely to be prepared to go the extra mile, or even the extra half-inch, for their employer.

More beer stats

A few more points from the UK Quarterly Beer Barometer:

• Over the past three years, off-trade beer volumes have been falling as well as on-trade ones, albeit much more slowly, and in 2010 were 2.5% lower than 2007
  
• In 1997, off-trade sales in Quarter 4 were over twice those in Quarter 1. However, in 2010 they were only 56% higher
  
• 2010 was the first year in which off-trade sales in Q2 exceeded those in Q4
  
• For every year from 2006, Q2 has been the highest for on-trade sales, and has exceeded Q4, which tended to be the peak in the past
  
• For both categories, not surprisingly, Q1 is always the weakest quarter
  
• Off-trade sales show much more volatility than the on-trade – in particular, why did they jump by 10% in 1999 when the years on either side were flat?
  
• Off-trade sales always show a big Q2 jump in World Cup years
  
• If on-trade sales had continued to decline from 2008 to 2010 at the same rate as 1997-2007, they would now be 12.5% higher, which is in line with my earlier estimates of the smoking ban having caused an “above trend” hit to pubs’ wet trade of between 10 and 15%
  
• If current trends continue, the “tipping point” at which off-trade consumption overtakes the on-trade will come at some time during 2012

Does provenance matter?

The point was made in the comments the other day that the vast majority (in terms of shelf space anyway) of lagers on sale in the average supermarket are brands of foreign origin that are brewed in the UK – Carling, Fosters, Carlsberg, Stella, San Miguel, Kronenbourg 1664 etc. In the early days of CAMRA it was a major campaigning point that lager drinkers were being palmed off with an inferior (and usually weaker) British-brewed version of the original. In a sense, of course, this was true, but I'm not sure it ever represented a deliberate act of deception, and even thirty years ago I think most lager drinkers accepted that their tipple wasn't actually brewed in Copenhagen or Leuven. Of course, many of the early leaders in the lager market such as Harp, Skol and Tennent's never made any pretence of being anything other than British.

Nowadays, I doubt whether any consumer of "industrial" lagers genuinely believes they are getting an imported product and, to be honest, it's a matter of complete indifference to them. It's accepted as a fact of life that major consumer brands are produced in various countries and few people are at all chauvinistic about them. How many of its drinkers even realise that Carling originated in Canada and isn't a home-grown brand? I don’t really see any dishonesty involved at all.

Interestingly, as I was half-way though writing this post, this piece appeared on The Publican website discussing the very same issue:

Joe likes his lager beer brands for sure, and he has a reasonable idea of where they’re supposed to be from – not always spot on, but close enough. One thing’s for sure though, when you ask Joe if his Kronenbourg is certifiably ‘made in France’, the Gallic shrug that follows tells much of the story. He’s not that bothered. “It’s a global market place, mate. Volkswagens aren’t all made in Germany; these Armani jeans aren’t made in Italy”, says Joe. And he’s right of course.

However, move higher up the value chain and originality of source starts to become more important. Beck’s and Heineken, which occupy a kind of “premium mainstream” position, both make a point of being only brewed in their purported country of origin. The same is true of the currently fashionable Peroni, and of German beers such as Krombacher and Warsteiner which are often found in bars aiming to promote a slightly up-market, more discerning feel. Customers would be very unimpressed if they found out that Budweiser Budvar or Pilsner Urquell were being brewed in the UK, and to do the same for Duvel or Sierra Nevada Pale Ale would be unthinkable.

On the other hand, you will find that some brands seeking to cultivate a bit of a left-field image such as Asahi Super Dry are actually brewed in the UK. It must be a fine judgment on the part of brand owners as to whether or not brewing a “foreign” beer in this country is going to put its target drinkers off.

Of course, nowadays there is a contradiction between reducing “beer miles” and encouraging authentic provenance, and any condemnation by CAMRA of the licence-brewing of international beer brands in this country comes across as a touch hypocritical.

YOU DO THE MATH

Save tax - see Bruges





The only place in my home town where I can go for lunch these days is the hotdog stand. I've been quite a regular for a while now.



The only thing I hate about it is that the old Tourist Information centre next to it has been converted into a sexually transmitted infections and quit smoking centre. I guess they think all smokers must have the pox as well as a "filthy habit".



I like to stand outside of the door with my pocket ash tray, enjoying my roll up, while taking in the offensive and abusive posters plastered on the windows.



The latest shows they have brought back that jolly persuasive wheeze of saving smoker money for a nice little holiday. I haven't seen that one in a while.



"You Do The Maths" it proclaims while suggesting that we'd save up to £2000 in six months if we quit. I tried it HERE but couldn't work it out because it doesn't allow for tobacco smoking, only packs of cigarettes.



So I did my own maths and found it remarkable how much I'm saving and how much I'm enjoying my trips abroad by boycotting the tax on buying in the UK. My own rough calculator revealed I'm saving £336 every six months with still change left after my trip to save towards the next one.



I'm not great at sums, so I hope this is right, but I figured me and my other half smoke less than two packs of 50g each week between us - but allowing for two at £11 each - I worked out for six months at £22 for 100g it would cost us £528. In Bruges the price is £3.80 for 50g which I rounded off to £4 - £8 per week - and ended up with a cost of £192 for six months supply.



I've just booked a return boat trip to Bruges for £45 and that includes the cabin price so no cost of accommodation to add. It's a beautiful city that I remember being about beer and chocolate.



I went once before my tobacco buying days. I used to buy mine from the local family run tobacconists in town. Generations had served from behind that old wooden counter and it had been there almost as long as Lincoln itself - it became a victim of cheap black market sales a few years ago.



I think buying abroad will soon be the only way to get tobacco if you want to avoid the criminals as the unrestricted authorities are moving ever onwards towards the tobacco display ban.



I am sure the appeal against that by legitimate business is no more than a fly in the ointment of unrestricted denormalisation.



One of the commentors in that great debate points out that the eradication of tobacco by any means, the destruction of culture and the stigmatising of legal consumers is all part of the puritans' plan.



Here it is Baroness Dr. Elaine Murphy on smoking.



"You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit.



Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve."



They still claim it's about health but they don't even need so called "evidence" any more. Lies are acceptable now to achieve an ideological aim and spread prejuidce and hate.



It appears because we smokers just won't do as we are told, Nanny's had a fit and now she's set her Big Bully Brother Nudge on to us.



If my ribs are already feeling bruised from Nanny's gentle touch, then I'm in for a few broken bones with Bully Nudge. I suppose it won't matter that even the main stream media is saying this won't work. It's about hate not health so it won't move the bigots one inch.



Meanwhile, I'm surfing to find out what we can do in Bruges, where we WILL be able to smoke inside, and enjoy the feeling of relief at Bully's Jackboot off my neck if only for a little while.

Eat up and enjoy yourself

There's an excellent article about food and dieting from Dominic Lawson in today’s Independent. It concludes:

Back in 1974, Dr Lois McBean and Dr Elwood Speckmann produced what remains the most incisive demolition of the pseudo-nutritional cults, in a paper on what they termed “food faddism”.

Their list of its typical adherents bears repeating today: “Miracle seekers or those who adhere to an uncritical belief in bizarre or unrealistic promises; ritual or authority seekers; those pursuing ‘super’ health; paranoiacs; ‘truth’ seekers; fashion followers and the ‘afraid’ who are anxious about the uncertainties and threats of living.”

That last category is the most telling; it makes the point that those who are frightened by food are frightened by life itself. Eat up – and enjoy yourself.

And, what’s more, it says:

The analysis, in this highly respected academic publication, concludes that overweight people live longer lives, and that those who are obese in old age tend to live longer than those who are thin. They are also, say the researchers from the University of California, more likely to survive certain dangerous medical conditions such as heart disease, renal failure and type 2 diabetes.

More sobering statistics

According to the most recent figures produced by the British Beer & Pub Association, total UK on-trade beer sales in 2010 were 14.2 million bulk barrels. This represents a decline of over 44% since in 1997, when the corresponding figure was 25.6 million barrels – and indeed a fall of over 60% since the 37 million barrel high point of the on-trade in 1979.

There hasn’t been a single quarter since 1997 when on-trade beer sales have shown a year-on-year rise. The biggest single year-on-year fall was 10.6% between the second quarters of 2007 and 2008, the first full year of the operation of the smoking ban. Between 1997 and 2007, the average annual decline was 3.5%. Over the past three years, that has accelerated to 7.3%. 2010 was 7.5% lower than 2009.

So, apologies to the Pollyannas of the beer world, but there’s precious little light at the end of the tunnel visible for pubs there. If the recent trends continue, in five years’ time the on-trade will be down below 10 million barrels a year.

OUCH MY HEAD

I had my first experience of a smoky-drinky gathering last night and the banging head I had this morning reminded me of how much fun it was - but also that next time my contribution will be tea bags instead of a bottle of red.

I always enjoy tea and cigarettes more than a pint and a fag because alcohol just doesn't agree with me. I could never be an alcoholic, for example, but I do miss cafes and restaurants. I can't handle them these days because having to sit outside means the tea is cold before I get to it. There's no point sitting inside as a smoker. Tea without a cigarette is like whisky without soda, gin without tonic, or coffee without sugar and cream.

The smoky-drinky was in fact a joint birthday party in someone's garden shed kitted out with everything you need including ashtrays, log burning stove, and kitchen.

I discovered too late that the place had a kettle. Oh well, perhaps next time I'll take my Yorkshire's and then I won't need to get my other half to stop the car on the way home for me to puke in the hedgerows - and avoid the nasty hawthorn bush which poked me in the eye.

Two strong coffees this morning with toast and then two cuppas on top sorted me out. I'm told the magic hour for hang overs to disappear is 3pm the following day. With just 30 minutes to go, my suffering is almost over and I must get in touch with last night's host to thank him and ask when is the next one?

Smoky-drinky's are happening across the country as people - both smokers and non-smokers - come together in private groups to enjoy each other's company, stick two fingers up to Nanny and enjoy a social evening as normal people did before they were excluded from Nationalised Pubs, Restaurants and Cafes on 1st July 2007.

A taste of the West, and the East

I’ve expressed my liking before for Butcombe Bitter, a beer that for me is always associated with being on holiday in the West Country. It’s a distinctive bittersweet copper-coloured beer with a strong hop character and a kind of earthy, rustic note. Apparently it was the biggest selling draught beer brand in the UK not available in bottle, but that has now been rectified. (The speling misstakes in the hedding are quite amuseing) I picked up a bottle from Morrison’s the other day. It’s stronger than the cask, at 4.5% ABV rather than 4.0%, but otherwise seems to have much the same character. This will definitely be a repeat purchase.

Another interesting bottled beer I picked up in Morrison’s was “Sun Lik Chinese Beer”, at a bargain £1 for 500ml of 5.0% ABV. This has a deliberately naïve-looking label that suggests a genuine Chinese import, but on closer inspection it turns out to be brewed under licence by Shepherd Neame in Faversham. With rice as a declared ingredient, it’s an inoffensive, sweetish but surprisingly full-bodied lager that would be ideal for washing down Oriental food, but is never going to really challenge the tastebuds.

MY TWO PENNETH WORTH

Ages ago - before I could do THIS - I wrote in admiration of Baroness Warsi who seems to have upset a lot of people lately by branding Brits Islamophiobic bigots.

She said :

"Indeed, it seems to me that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.
For far too many people, Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate – even commendable – thing. You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.
The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice. So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think “terrorist” …when they hear “Halal” they think “that sounds like contaminated food”…and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically “that woman’s oppressed”. And what’s particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.
We need to think harder about the language we use. And we should be careful about language around religious “moderates”. This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of “moderate” Muslims leads: In the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: “not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim”. In the school, the kids say “the family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad”. And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a Burkha, the passers-by think: “that woman’s either oppressed or making a political statement”.


I don't recall any of the above fears and prejudices in the UK until Bush and Bliar waged war for oil in the Middle East. The guilt at anti-Muslim feeling should be laid squarely at their feet.

Their war - that still entangles us - brought with it a wave of asylum seekers from war torn countries with vastly different cultures. They came too many and too fast to the UK. It caused insecurity, fear and conflict in big and small communities - some of which changed more in a decade than in half a century.

Unrestricted EU migration compounded the problem and the anger that began to build bit by bit.

Anyone who complained like Gillian Duffy were branded as racists. That's when rage came because the British people are, by nature, a tolerant people and they feel misjudged.

I don't believe that the British white or otherwise cause racism as Warsi suggests. Those who believe in Islam and integrate with white, Black or Asian neighbours are not seen as an enemy. I find people mostly wary of those that the Govt has told us to be wary of.

And then there are those who add insult to injury and bring the Muslim community down with them like Shaykh Asrar Rashid.:

"A RADICAL cleric sparked fury ­yesterday by branding the Queen a “disgusting woman” and slamming British Muslims who join the Army.
Ranting Shaykh Asrar Rashid also suggested white people were the main cause of racism.
The controversial imam, who preaches in mosques in Birmingham, told radio listeners the Queen was a ­“disgusting woman because she knighted Salman Rushdie”."

There's simply only so much people can take. To some of us(relatively) white British, his comments about Her Maj are shocking and akin to saying something blasphemous about Mohammed.

I do believe there is a fear of Muslim culture among Brits which is provoked by people like Rashid who use Islam for their own medieval purposes. Baroness Warsi and the wider Muslim community must find a way of bringing these people under control because British patience is simply wearing thin with it all.

I'm encouraged by this response to his appalling comments though :

A spokesman for the Muslim ­Council of Britain said Rashid’s comments on the Queen were “disrespectful” and “disgusting”.
He added: “As Muslims we are ready to show respect to leaders.
“We may disagree with some of the things she might do and say but that does not give us the right to be insulting to her.
“Theologically speaking, there is nothing that prevents a Muslim joining the British Army. To date there are 350 serving Muslim officers, men and women, in the Army.”


Those of us who are British despite our colour, ethnicity, background, or religion, are in this war together. We are not Islamophobic - we are Fundamentaphobic. We generally hate extremism of any kind no matter what the issue. We respect other cultures and simply ask for the same respect and consideration.

We don't take kindly to insults to our head of state, or our forces when our children are being killed in the same war that is killing Muslims as well - the one that we all agree we didn't want.
.
It's time we were out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the radical nutters who bite the hands that save them here should be kicked out of the UK - but we should never smear all Muslims with their bile. They don't all hate us nor want to force their culture upon us and Brits should be free to resist if a clash of cultures causes us to go against our own rules, laws and moral boundaries.

Standing up in Spain

Josie Appleton reports how bar owners in Spain are refusing to take draconian new restrictions on smoking in public lying down:

In this battle it is crystal clear what is at stake in smoking bans, and what the different sides represent. This is not a conflict between smokers and non-smokers, but between those who are for the bureaucratic regulation of social life and those who are for tolerance and liberty.

The Spanish pro-ban movement is defined not by its dedication to health or even non-smoking (prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero himself is a smoker). Rather, its defining feature is a conformist mentality: an emphasis on following the rules, obeying to a minute degree official proscription for the regulation of social life…

…Bars are becoming political battlegrounds. When police visited the rebel Marbella bar and reported the clients who were smoking, the owner launched a broadside against the officers. Bars are starting to form into political associations, sensing that there is strength in numbers and that if there are enough rebels then the law will be unenforceable. In one area of Madrid, a group of bar owners formed what was, in effect, a rebels’ syndicate, pledging that they will all do ‘as much as possible to ensure that you can smoke in their businesses’.

It’s a pity we couldn’t have seen more determination and collective resistance in this country – although, to be fair, it is more difficult if you are a manager or a tenant than if you were an independent freeholder. Mind you, in Britain, they’d probably send in the SPG on the sighting of such a grave threat to public order as someone smoking in a pub.

As a libertarian non-smoker, I would prefer to live in a free society than one in which my personal preference is imposed by diktat. If left to free choice, it is likely that the result would be a mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments, and smoking and non-smoking rooms, in the same way as bars play different music or have different dress codes.

Precisely my own position.

Smoking in pubs: what I’d forgotten

The place was actually open and trading for a start. It wasn’t one of the 7,000-odd that have closed since 1 July 2007.
It was busy, lively and convivial. There was good crack on the vault side.
There were some genuine characters in the place.
There were dogs. Proper country dogs. That belonged to the smokers.
There wasn’t an offputting aroma of sweat, flatulence, urine, cooking fat and cleaning fluid.
Half the customers weren’t forced to cower outside in the rain and wind like pariahs.
There weren’t any humourless middle-class bigots sitting in the middle of an empty room proclaiming how nice it was now there was no smoke – and no smokers – in the pub.
Nobody moaned about how supermarkets were killing pubs.
Oh, it was terrible. I’d gladly have it back tomorrow.

(prompted by this from someone who you might have thought would know better)

LIARS DAMAGE PUBLIC TRUST

There's been an almost daily assault lately of anti-smoker propaganda and the absurd Third Hand Smoke(THS) is one of the most obnoxious because it's aim is to create smokerphobia and exclusion of a minority group.

Those who want to eradicate tobacco by any means might think smokers are fair game to attack. But it would be nice to think, at least, that it's because they really do believe the health threats and are genuinely terrified of us.

So why do they admit to lying through their teeth to get funding - and why would funders and Govt continue to support these bigoted groups when they admit to being less than honest?

Rich White from Smokescreens points out that junk science is thrust purposefully on an unsuspecting public with the aim of causing prejudice and fear and ultimately exclusion of a social group.

What this really means is that individuals with a prejudice agenda are able to openly admit it and receive lavish amounts of money in return. It's a shame that America has just celebrated Martin Luther King day, a man who is revered for helping to erode social segregation, but simultaneously it is working hard to segregate another group of society - even fabricating evidence to do so.

America is embracing new prejudices while crowing about how far forward it has moved as an alleged "tolerant" and "equal" society. The UK blindly follows this trash because our leaders are quite simply thick, cowardly or naïve.

I fight for freedom of choice and I believe in individuality although I always thought of myself as more socialist than capitalist because I've always been poor. It was a surprise therefore to find this blog listed as "Right Wing" by Total Politics.

Perhaps I've changed and if so it is the smoking ban that has done it. Perhaps politics has and it isn't about "left" or "right" anymore.

I believe the battle is now between those who want to be left alone and those who want to control every move they make. Libertarianism V Authoritarianism as Josie Appleton writing in Spiked observes when examining the recent imposition of the smoking ban in Spain:

In this battle it is crystal clear what is at stake in smoking bans, and what the different sides represent. This is not a conflict between smokers and non-smokers, but between those who are for the bureaucratic regulation of social life and those who are for tolerance and liberty.

I WANT SOME OF THESE

I'm surprised Nanny's global cousins haven't tracked down the makers of this product and forced them out of business.

After all, the packaging is rather attractive and I suppose it doesn't matter if they are only rolled with tea. The chiiildreen might just take to this sort of novelty idea and, as Nanny continually tells us, today's youth is so stupid they'd be moved to smoke the real thing as easy as they'd fall into hard drugs after a taste of cafe latte.

These cigarette shaped tea bags would no doubt have smokerphobics in a state of blind panic if I pulled one out of a pack in Starbucks or Pret a Manger after requesting a cup of boiling water.

As one who loves both tea and cigarettes, I could smoke both but tea is always best drunk and tobacco best smoked.

I'm sorely tempted to buy a pack or two of Cigarettea but there doesn't appear to be a link.

Ah well, time I put the kettle on again anyway.

A useful idiot?

I can’t say I was particularly surprised to read the reaction of CAMRA’s Mike Benner to the government’s “minimum pricing” plans, although even so it was dismaying to hear him recycling the anti-drink lobby’s stock catchphrase about supermarket lager being sold at “pocket-money prices”.

He then went on to say “For any ban to have a meaningful impact it is vital that the cost of alcohol production is factored in, which for beer will produce a floor price of around 40p a unit – double what is being proposed,” which shows a total failure to understand the economics of the off-trade alcohol business. Has he never been in a discount offie?

In reality it’s not remotely difficult to buy own-label or minor brand beer, for about 30p a unit, and I don’t think anyone’s making a loss on that. Equally you can buy wine for £2.99 a bottle, and spirits for £8.99. Those drinks may be cheap crap, but they’re not loss leaders.

The whole business about supermarket loss-leading on alcohol is a delusion. Tesco are not fools, but they do know how to drive a hard bargain, and I’d be amazed if more than 2% of the total alcohol units that go out of their door are sold at below the suppliers’ invoice price. Probably not even 1%. As Richard Dodd of the British Retail Consortium (quoted by Chris Snowdon here) says: “if you just stop and think about it for a minute, no business could survive – let alone thrive – if it was routinely selling large amounts of product at less than it was actually paying for it.”

CAMRA are often heard parroting the line that “well-run community pubs have been recognised as part of the solution,” but in reality the anti-drink lobby couldn’t give a toss about community pubs which, in any case, are almost without exception dens of the kind of binge-drinking they deplore. Show me the pub where nobody ever drinks three pints of Stella (or equivalent) at a sitting. They are just playing a cynical exercise in divide and rule, and people like Mike Benner have been suckered in.

The phrase ‘Useful idiot’ has often been used as a pejorative term for those who are seen to unwittingly support a malign cause through their naïve attempts to be a force for good. And it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Benner has become a useful idiot for the neo-Prohibitionists.

On a more positive note, Brendan O’Neill in the Daily Telegraph makes a robust attack on the concept of minimum alcohol pricing:

What we have in minimum alcohol pricing is a prohibition on the kind of boozing that Cameroons and Cleggites consider immoral: the cheap and speedy consumption of lots of drink with the aim of getting temporarily wasted. Such drinking might not be the high point of human civilisation, but it should not be punished and possibly even banned simply because it doesn’t conform to some political squares’ idea of what a proper night out is. This is prohibition through the backdoor, targeted at those whom the political classes consider to be reckless and self-destructive.

Not only is it an exercise in bansturbation, it also demonstrates rank snobbery and contempt for the less well-off in society.

HISTORY REPEATS?

They say things go in cycles and as there is much civil unrest - at least in the minds of millions of people unhappy with the dictatorial way this country is going - it reminded me of what happened in Britain 100 years ago this summer.

The country blew because the working man had enough of slave labour for low wages, disrespect from his employers, and the sheer bloody poverty gap between those that had and those that had nothing but the hours of a day spent trapped in dangerous factories and on railroads.

1911 was one of the hottest years on record - so intense was the heat that it even stopped the birds from singing - and they say this summer may well be another scorcher. A fine setting to the heated rage that currently bubbles under the surface and made worse by the ignorance of the establishment that cares only for the "agenda" and not the people that blindly support it with no idea of what they are voting for.

That was shown in the Oldham and Saddleworth Byelection. If only the 52% of non-voters had made a stand, come out to vote, and taken a chance on something different, the rest of us would have a voice and a slice of hope.

Instead they cleared the way open for the corrupt and thoroughly despicable Labour party to take the seat that is so far removed from it's roots as the working class man's friend that there is no point to it even pretending to care about anyone on less than £100,000 a year.

And as Leg Iron says, the country could spill over into violence because of the Labour win :

Labour winning that by-election was the best thing that could happen. Winning it with such a paltry share of the vote was even better. The control freaks are encouraged to push and push and push and that step too far comes ever closer.

I don't know what it will be. I don't know when or where it will happen. Neither does anyone else but it just came a lot closer to happening.

It won't be a momentous announcement. It will be a little thing, a trivia, a small nudge over the edge of the abyss we've been nudged towards for many years.

One last, lightweight, inconsequential straw.



For smokers those straws are piled on daily as new ridiculous health scares and threats hit the media fuelled and funded by Fake Charities that are simply a front for the establishment's agenda and Party ideology.

Oldham and Saddleworth is a seat in the BNP’s traditional heartlands, an area in
which they have had councillors and took over 11% of the vote at a Westminster
election. So it is an excellent move that UKIP managed to beat those primeval racists into fifth place.

The result was as follows:

Labour 14,718 (42.1%)
Lib Dem 11,160 (31.9%)
Conservative 4,481 (12.8%)
Paul Nuttall – UKIP 2,029 (5.8%)
BNP 1,560 (4.5%)
Others 982 (2.8%)

Interestingly the English Democrat candidate with 144 votes was beaten by the
Official Monster Raving Loony Party which got 145 votes despite the English Democrats
paying for two billboard sites during the campaign.

I'm guessing that UKIP's rise in popularity is not going down too well with the establishment which is now using "research" to scare the hell out of the electorate by claiming that UKIP is a far right, radical and racist party that is attracting bigots from the BNP.

The research does, however, acknowledge that UKIP is now the fourth party of Britain but it has the reasons for its rise in popularity all wrong.

In the recent Oldham by-election, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) confirmed its status as the fourth largest party in British politics, ahead of the British National Party (BNP). Now, with the local elections looming, experts are warning that UKIP looks set to become a successful radical right party, similar to those seen in countries like Austria, France and Italy, and a ‘significant vehicle’ for Islamophobia.

“Our research shows that Euroscepticism is not the whole story where UKIP is concerned,” say two of its authors — Dr Robert Ford and Dr Matthew Goodwin — experts on voting behaviour at the Universities of Manchester and Nottingham.

“There’s no doubt the party’s position on Europe is a big factor, but their supporters are increasingly concerned with attitudes more typically associated with the British National Party (BNP). Like far right voters, those who vote UKIP are dissatisfied with the mainstream parties and hostile toward immigration.”

The research is the first of its kind to analyse and understand the attitudes and motives of UKIP supporters. At the 2010 general election, UKIP called for an immediate halt on immigration, the ending of multicultural policies and a ban on the niqab and burqa in certain buildings. Its leader, Nigel Farage, has since given a “cautious welcome” to emulation of his party by the French National Front (FN), one of the most successful radical right parties in Europe.

“Our analysis shows while UKIP does mop up ‘defectors’ from the Tories - upper and middle class voters who largely follow UKIP to lodge their feelings on Europe at European Parliament elections - its appeal in domestic elections is rather different”, says Robert Ford, the lead author.

“In domestic elections like Oldham East, UKIP tends to do best amongst disaffected working class voters, who find UKIP’s populist attacks on immigrants, Muslims and the political establishment attractive. UKIP appeals to the same kind of voters as the BNP, but may be able to recruit a broader and more sustainable vote base, with UKIP voters outnumbering BNP voters three to one. While many voters who agree with the BNP’s political messages, they are turned off by its violent and fascist reputation. UKIP suffers no such legitimacy problems. It is in a position to not only recruit a much broader base of BNP support, but a much more sustainable base.”

The research also shows that due, in part, to its more moderate reputation, UKIP has succeeded in securing the votes of important groups like women, who have traditionally rejected the BNP due to its perceived extremism.

“Until now, getting to grips with UKIP has been extremely difficult due to an absence of any real systematic research,” Dr Goodwin adds. “This is why the party remains something of a puzzle to many.”

The paper; Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes: support for the UK Independence Party in the 2009 European Parliament Elections, looks at data gathered from the YouGov online panel in the week prior to the European Parliament Election, and is also authored by Dr David Cutts at the University of Manchester.

Amongst other methods, the researchers compared the views of more than 4,306 UKIP in a group of 34,000 randomly interviewed in the 2001 census. It builds on their previous pioneering studies of BNP voters.

“Ultimately” adds Dr Goodwin,”our research backs up assertions that UKIP, unlike the BNP, are thought of as a legitimate force in British politics, with access to mainstream media and political elites. Voters who shun the BNP are willing to listen to the same messages when they come from UKIP. UKIP may therefore function as a “polite alternative” for voters worried about immigration and Islam, but repelled by the BNP’s public image.”

The fact that YouGov - a throughoughly bigoted organsation that works for Govt and produces "results" that Govt wants to persuade the electorate that they really want a Govt that dictates to them how to live - leads me to believe instantly that this "research" is largely rubbish.

My own experiences of UKIP is that racism is frowned upon. Nigel Farage represents more accurately all of the different strands of discontentment running through British society and particularly it's concern at EU migration.

Not only do we have situation where English people are required to speak Polish so that they can work in British factories, but a friend of mine tells me his job is currently under threat because of a new Polish manager at his factory who is shoving out English workers to get her Eastern European mates in to the exclusion of the local unemployed.

This very cultural, third generation mixed race British born, non racist young man of 21, has been trying to get long term unemployed friends into jobs at his factory but all have been blocked by the Polish manager. Persecution by the ConDems because they have no work, and being pushed out of their traditional jobs by the EU, is why people are raging.

It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with fairness and wanting to be treated equally in the land of their birth whatever their ethnic genetics.

Others are simply terrified by Islam - a religion they do not understand in a country which is so culturally different to those in the Middle East where Islam rules. Can they really be dismissed as racist because they fear the loss of their own cultural identity?

Racism means judging a person by the colour of their skin. UKIP doesn't do that. Unlike the BNP, it welcomes people from all faiths and backgrounds and it is pulling in as many disaffected Labour and Lib Dem supporters of all faiths and colours as Tory supporters who miss Margaret Thatcher.

The establishment may want to believe - and "prove" to others - that UKIP is a Tory middle class protest party but it is so much more than that.

It is the only hope this country has got.

If the LibLabCon Party does not start to listen to the very angry electorate, then this summer may just prove to be as heated as 1911 as the ordinary person reacts to yet more state control which continues unabated despite the fact that we sent a very clear message to all three parties at the last election that we have simply had enough of it all.

We want our lives back. UKIP can deliver that. It's why I support the party in a way I haven't since campaigning for the former Labour party back in the early 90s.

* Photos from Devils Let Loose, the story of the Lincoln Riots 1911 by Pat Nurse. Copywrite Pat Nurse and Tony Gadd.

You what, Don?

Well, the theme of minimum pricing/below cost selling has been done to death, so I didn’t see much point in doing yet another post on the subject. But my eyes popped out at the comment by Don Shenker of Alcohol Concern in this report that: “Duty is so low in the UK that it will still be possible to sell very cheap alcohol and be within the law.” Come again, Don? The UK has the highest alcohol duties in Western Europe with the exception of the Irish Republic and the Scandinavian countries. By any international comparison, UK duties are in fact very high, and governments of both complexions have been steadily raising them through the “alcohol duty escalator”.

There was a blog, now sadly dormant it would seem, called Don Shenker is a C**t. It would seem that proposition is all too true. And a lying c**t at that. Indeed it is very striking how much of the neo-Prohibitionist case is built on a foundation of blatant lies – “alcohol consumption is at record levels”, “pubs are open 24 hours a day”, “alcohol is cheaper than it ever has been”, “Britain has the highest alcohol consumption in Europe” etc. Interestingly, that blog is still the first result suggested by Google when you do a search for “Don Shenker”.

Take your cue

This article underlines a point I have often made in the past, that people’s decisions as to which pubs to visit can often be influenced by subtle cues in the pub’s signage and exterior displays such as blackboards and A-boards.

This is another example of how consumers “read” pubs. Like a book cover or that feeling you get when you meet someone new – first impressions count. It’s the same with pubs. What a pub looks like from the outside is important because it tells customers what to expect inside.

In particular, cheap-looking signs and posters that seem to be trying too hard can be seriously offputting. It’s usually the case that the more strident the display, the worse the pub. I saw one the other day that said “Come in and try our lovely pub!” which, to be honest, smacks of desperation.

It should also be remembered that signs are not only trying to attract people looking to visit a pub on that specific occasion, but will also stick in the mind when people are passing the pub in the car or on the bus, and be remembered later on when people do want to go to the pub. One thing that always baffles me is why pubs in tourist towns where there is plenty of casual trade walking past the door fail to display their menus outside.

Once bitten, twice shy?

Another pub name gem courtesy of Google Street View. Somehow I doubt whether visiting American tourists will be too keen to call in at this Bury pub.

There’s gold in them thar hills

This isn’t really intended as a beer reviews blog, but I have to say I’ve been impressed recently by Hawkshead Lakeland Gold which has appeared on the shelves of my local Tesco (4.4% ABV, 500ml bottle). I’ve been critical in the past of the wave of insipid, floral “golden ales” such as the disappointing Young’s London Gold, but this is entirely different – a proper bitter bitter, with a powerful, flinty hoppiness overlying a robust malt base. It’s also more of a pale amber colour than truly golden. Definitely one worth looking out for. And no, they didn’t give me a free sample.

In contrast, from the same source I had a bottle of Coach House Cheshire Gold (4.1% ABV), described on the label as “a wonderful golden beer with a fresh citrus hop aroma and a refreshing pine lemon crispness.” This too was more amber than gold, but there the similarity ended. It was dull and muddy in taste, with poor head retention, and with a distinctly harsh note that almost seemed like an off flavour. I thought seriously about not finishing the glass, although in the end I forced it down. Coach House Brewery, set up by former Greenalls employees, has been going for many years, but I’ve never been much taken by their beers and this did nothing to change my opinion.

WHOSE CHILD IS IT?

Johnny Cash famously explains what it's like living with a stupid name and how it can mould a character.

I know some parents are guilty of inventing names so ridiculous it's uncomfortable for the child to live with. But is it really necessary for Govt anywhere in the world to step in and decide what each of it's citizens should be called?

In Norway in 1998 a woman was jailed for two days after failing to pay a fine for calling her son an "unapproved" name. Kristi Larsen said she was instructed in a dream to name her son Gesher (Hebrew for 'Bridge'), but the court decided the name was daft.

In Italy in 2008 a court banned an Italian couple from calling their child Venerdi (Friday). The judges reckoned the name - taken from 'Robinson Crusoe' - would expose the boy to 'mockery' and was associated with 'subservience and insecurity'.

Malaysian authorities have cracked down on "unsuitable" names in recent years and you can kind of see where they're coming from after one couple named their kid the Cantonese moniker Chow Tow – which means 'Smelly Head'.

In Denmark, the Govt gives parents a list with 7,000-odd names to choose from and special permission is needed to deviate from this list. Ethnic names, odd spellings and even compound surnames are forbidden. Anus was one rejected by the Govt last year.

In Japan one father named his child Akuma aka Devil. The authorities decided this was an abuse of the parent's rights to decide a child's name and a lengthy court battle ensued. Eventually the father backed down and the kid got a new name.

New Zealand decided that Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii could cause offence and ordered parents to change the name of their nine year old girl.

In Sweden, one couple chose Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 for their son. Apparently the name is pronounced 'Albin'. The parents chose it as a protest against Sweden's strict naming laws. Tax authorities must give their blessing to both first and surnames before they can be used.

There will always be some parents who want to give their child a name so unique it skirts daftness or shoots way beyond the bounds of "normality". Kids for their part grow up inventing a new name for themselves anyway if they don't like the one they've got. I'd rather the cause of bullying against children with weird names be addressed rather than bully their parents to name it in accordance with state requirements. To me it's yet another example of how we constantly encourage intolerance.

If the state can name a mother and father's child, what control of our children could it take next? Would it ever tell us what clothes are suitable to dress them in? Will boys always have to wear blue and girls pink? Surely they'd never tell us what we should and shouldn't feed our kids would they?

Children learn from their parents and their experiences. Wrapping them in cotton wool can only create a nation of BORGS. Unique names however silly create unique individuals. Why is individuality such a problem?

Any state taking control of a simple choice such as naming a child signals a very dangerous move. There was a time when I was proud to know that such oppressive Govt control would never happen in Britain. Now I just wonder how long it will be before our Govt embraces the opportunity for this control under the usual guise of the "greater good."

INSANITY

If I've read THIS right then it seems that these days pulling a vacuum cleaner around with one's penis is far more socially acceptable than smoking.

These people really are philistines, bigots, and idiots.

Wouldn't it be great to have a local authority that's run by people with some kind of intellect. At least Skegness is not prepared to brush this issue under the carpet on stage at least.

The 100-unit week

Glyn of Rabid About Beer has recently been posting reports of his alcohol consumption, and some of his daily totals will undoubtedly cause paroxysms of horror amongst the Righteous.

This brought to mind a recent discussion on another blog (possibly Dick Puddlecote) about the “100 unit week” and to what extent that was normal or even achievable. While it’s not something I’d recommend doing every week, it’s a level I suspect many people attain when on holiday or over the Christmas period without feeling at all that they are drinking heavily. The key is to do it regularly and steadily, and to drink at lunchtime as well as in the evening to spread it out more.

Take for example someone on holiday somewhere sunny, who each day drinks two pints of 5% ABV San Miguel (or equivalent) at lunchtime, has a 250ml glass of 13% wine with his dinner, and then has two more pints of San Miguel later in the evening. Over seven days, that’s 102 units, yet most people observing that individual would conclude that he was keeping his drinking to a moderate level. And, of course, many British holidaymakers would undoubtedly consider that distinctly lightweight.

REFRESHING COMMON SENSE

Thanks Mark Wadsworth for bringing THIS to my attention.

Such common sense is refreshing.

Another fine example is that of tobacco. This industry is as old as Columbus. However, they want to eliminate it by a “death of 1000 cuts”. They attack snuff, cigarettes, and cigars in various fashions. They have taxed cigarettes so much that they have actually created a very lucrative counterfeiting industry that is worldwide. Like illegal drugs, our law enforcement agencies cannot keep up with the pace of the counterfeiting. Thus, bullying the tobacco industry actually promotes crime. If they eliminate snuff, they will soon come after cigarettes. Then, after doing that they will come after my cigars and I will fight that with every breath I take. Ice cream is not healthy so will that be next?

They are even becoming racial about this. The latest rage being kicked around in Congress and at the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is to eliminate menthol from cigarettes. Menthol flavor is the favorite of African Americans who smoke cigarettes. Nearly 80% of all cigarettes in that are bought by African Americans are menthol. The brand Newport is the king of sales. Yes, they want to strike a big blow directed at us Black folks. How brazen can they get?

The fact is we should communicate and together come up with solutions that are direct and simple if possible. We don’t have to destroy industry if an unwanted fish enters our waterways and we don’t have to put children at risk to protect a lethal pest. Also, we need not to eliminate choice for the sake of healthy habits. Quick thinking and bad information can cause this kind of hysteria and we must be vigilant and follow the road of common sense. Every problem has an intelligent solution; we just need to find it.

WHO WAS RIGHT?

Here's a thought - whose nightmare vision of the future are we living in - Orwell's or Huxley's

If there is a way to make this image bigger then I have no idea how so it's best viewed at the original source.

Will the schooner get off the slipway?

Well, you didn’t seem to be very enthusiastic about the prospects for success of the two-thirds pint “schooner” measure. I asked the question “Will two-third pint "schooner" measures take off?” and you answered:

Yes: 10 (23%)
No: 33 (77%)

However, it’s important to remember that, even if it doesn’t appeal to you personally, it may well do to others, and far from being the bureaucratic imposition that some have claimed, it is in fact a measure of liberalisation. Personally, I wish it bon voyage.

WHY OLDHAM NEEDS NUTTALL

I hear there are several candidates standing in the Oldham byelection but only one who speaks with their voice - Paul Nuttall, Deputy leader of UKIP.

The seat was vacated after lying scumbag Phil Woolas - who represented not Oldham but the corrupt and thoroughly untrustworthy Labour Party - was caught lying to get votes from the Limp Dumps.

Labour tends to put up quality candidates in elections such as David Chaytor but the Oldham voter would be pretty stupid to trust anyone from that party again.

Oldham voters are merely Labour's pawns and will be used to get what the party wants ideologically from the privileged sin-bin that is allegedly OLdham's and OUR Parliament.

You won't see UKIP - a Party that is growing and evolving from the grass roots up - on TV or in newspapers as they work tirelessly for Brits in the EU Parliament.

UKIP MEPs are not "Yes" men and women. They challenge these unelected masters like Baroness Ashton and ask those questions that we expect them to ask. They expose the hypocrisy of the system that alleges it represents us but does not allow us to even make the decision on whether or not we want it.

They say that the NuTories under Cameron are a bit touchy about their Conservative leader's support for his LibDem Deputy PM's party. Another example of a Party leader using Oldham for his own purposes in keeping the NuToryConDems in power.

At least one Conservative politician with vast experience knows that the coalition Govt is a sham and a UKIP presence in Parliament is of the greatest National interest. Who would have thought I'd ever agree with what that bloke says?

The fight that brings former party opponents together into the ring is Fascism which I think they call Paternalistic Politics these days in the Newspeak language that our current leaders have embraced.

Their fanatically puritanical and restrictive methods of controlling society, and charging us an arm and a leg for it, as well as their constant degradation of all things British, has led many people towards the BNP. That's a very dangerous move. They are just fascists of a different order.

The other smaller parties and individuals standing for the seat won't make any difference at all - except to take votes from Nuttall. If elected he will take the first step towards Oldham and the rest of the country getting control of their lives, their town, and their country back.

It is time for the revolution but it must be peaceful and shown at the Ballot Box. Oldham can take the lead and show the world and our masters in Parliament that the fight has started now.

Locail

Here’s a pretty devastating critique of the concept of “local food”, which has many parallels with the “Locale” enthusiastically championed by CAMRA. The article clearly shows that promoting local food for its own sake violates the core economic principle of comparative advantage and does not actually deliver any tangible benefits in terms of assisting the local economy or improving the environment. By all means eat local food and drink local beer if you actually prefer it, but if you’re just doing it out of a sense of duty you’re effectively burning money.

Tom Vilsack, the current (US) Secretary of Agriculture, stated, “In a perfect world, everything that was sold, everything that was purchased and consumed would be local, so the economy would receive the benefit of that.” Apparently Vilsack believes that we'd be richer if we made our own shoes, iPods, and corn. Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves.

Local food is generally more expensive than non-local food of the same quality. If that were not so, there would be no need to exhort people to “buy local.” However, we are told that spending a dollar for a locally produced tomato keeps the dollar circulating locally, stimulating the local economy. But, if local and non-local foods are of the same quality, but local goods are more expensive, then buying local food is like burning dollar bills – dollar bills that could have been put to more productive use. The community does not benefit when we pay more for a local tomato instead of an identical non-local tomato because the savings realized from buying non-local tomatoes could have been used to purchase other things. Asking us to purchase local food is asking us to give up things we otherwise could have enjoyed – the very definition of wealth destruction.

There is a point in pubs promoting local beers as a means of emphasising an area’s distinctive character – after all, you wouldn’t want to go on holiday to Cornwall and find Holts as a guest beer. It has to be said also that, once you get beyond meeting the needs of subsistence, preference in food and drink is essentially subjective anyway. But nobody should delude themselves that drinking local beers is in any objective sense “doing good”.

It always seems to me that there is also a strong element of snobbery involved in Locale, that it’s OK for me as a discerning world beer aficionado to drink Orkney Red McGregor or Cooper’s Sparkling Ale, but you lager-swilling plebs are bad people for drinking Magor-brewed Stella rather than Scrodgin’s Old Gutrot from a shed down the road. And all the arguing over the precise definition of “Locale” you see in CAMRA circles really is on a par with Mediaeval theologians debating how many angels can fit on a pinhead.