On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 10:16:24, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower Post by Serena Blanchflower Post by Tony Smith Gloucestershire
Has anyone's pub actually opened? Ours has not, though I shan't be going when it does.
I think the pub closest to me was opening yesterday but I haven't
heard how it went.
Good ! ;)
Yes, I assume that the fact that there's no chuntering on local social
media about it (other than wondering when/if the other pub in the
village is going to reopen and, when it does, what management it will
have), is good news.
I assume the "Good !" and "good news" mean you're pleased (as anyone
would be) that raucous behaviour (and other problems - lack of social
distancing for example) due to drunkenness hasn't returned.
It did occur to me that this would be the opportunity to introduce some
sort of alcohol quantity limit. I doubt there's any chance, due to (a)
practical difficulties, (b) revenue questions [and livelihoods], (c)
(a) Practical: comparing different types of drink; different quantities
for different people (e. g. men vs. women); "I'm buying a round, they're
not all for me!". I think they all _could_ be got round, but would
require not inconsiderable work.
(b1) Livelihoods. A significant number of people are employed in the
alcohol-selling industry, or related jobs (catering, entertainment, and
more). While it could be argued that the venues - and those employed in
them - don't _just_ sell alcohol, I suspect the extra income makes the
difference between viable and not viable for a fair number of venues,
and thus jobs.
(b2) [Government] revenue. A fair amount of government income comes from
excise duty on alcohol, plus VAT on the excise duty, and so on. Probably
not _that_ hard to quantify. A fair amount of government (national and
local) _expenditure_ also goes on this: direct on alcohol-related
diseases, and indirectly on extra injuries (fights, drunken drivers) -
and the policing of these matters. Probably a lot harder to quantify. I
do wonder how the two (revenue and [excess] expenditure) do compare,
(c) civil liberties. I think this - bolstered by (a) and (b1) - is
what'd kill any such suggestion: "they're limiting our pints", "nanny
state gone mad", "a couple of drinks never hurt anyone", "a little
alcohol [especially certain kinds, such as red wine] is _good_ for you",
and so on. I'm also aware that since high alcohol consumption isn't my
thing, I could be seen as calling for curbs on something I don't do
anyway, thus it wouldn't bother me, and I don't like to think of myself
as trying to stop other people doing things just because _I_ don't like
But I would have thought the opportunity would benefit from _discussion_
(Subject line - the transvestite/transsexual epicure: he just wanted to
eat, drink, and be Mary. IGMC ...)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
One of my tricks as an armchair futurist is to "predict" things that are
already happening and watch people tell me it will never happen.
Scott Adams, 2015-3-9