Forbidden Fruit

I blame the parents. The influences that surround young people in the home have a significant effect on the way that person grows up. In many ways you would think then that Sir Liam Donaldson's latest advice is sound: Don't let children drink before they are 15 and don't permit drinking in front of children. This is based on scientific research, and a final guidance is given on alcohol and children.

There is an underlying principle here that is absolutely correct. The way we deal with alcohol in the eyes of our children will effect their attitude to it when they are older. It is the responsibility of parents and any other adults to ensure young people develop with a mature and healthy regard for social drinking. How then can we make sure that this happens?

In the eyes of our chief medical officer the best way of doing this is to be overly protective and bring up our children in a completely alcohol free environment. I fundamentally disagree with this and once again I shall try and explain why.

Responsible drinking does not just happen by running a prohibitionist attitude towards young people and then suddenly letting them loose in an adult drinking culture once they reach a legal age. There are significant and detrimental effects of this method of youth discipline. For a start, no adult has enough control over youngsters to be able to watch their every waking hour. Levels of responsibility have to be carefully increased as the young person gets older. By the age of 15, which is the age that is now being recommended for a young person to start their responsible alcohol training, most young people already have a strong social life outside of the family home. If no parentally supervised drinking has taken place there is a very real risk that this activity will have already commenced on the park benches. The age old forbidden fruit will have tempted too much and the real problem of park bench drinking will have started.

I do have to point out that I understand the medical and social risks of young people under the age of 15 drinking too much and too often. But then that is something that even a 44 year old like me has to worry about a little for my own health. It is however a matter of, and here is that word again, responsibility. Of course I'm not going to allow my children to drink 4 pints every night, for that matter 4 pints in any night. At the age of 12 and 13 I wouldn't even consider allowing them more than say a couple of units one night a week. I cannot see how this level of responsible and supervised drinking can damage their well being. Indeed, if it is backed up with the one message that I believe is more important than anything else: It is not big and it is not clever to get drunk and behave like a dick head.

On Christmas day I hope we will sit down for dinner. There may be as many as 3 under 15 year olds at the table. There might be some wine and there might be some beer; we have a good cellar to choose from here. Does Liam really think I'm going to tell these young and intelligent people that even one glass is endangering their lives? Does he really think that telling them they are not old enough to understand yet how to enjoy this mysterious pleasure is somehow going to lessen their desire to try this out-of-reach taboo?

I firmly believe that it is the steady alienation of young people that creates some of the problems today. Drinking culture is much more generation divided today than it ever has been in the past. I know it is perhaps becoming a cliché, but the public house is a safe and supervised place to drink. A public house and a private house have some things in common and private houses, where a responsible adult can supervise, represent the best training ground a young person can get for responsible and healthy drinking.

There is a base message underneath the prescriptive detail that perhaps we need to look at. The way we deal with young people and alcohol can shape their future drinking habits. This I fundamentally agree with. I just do not believe that prohibition ever helped anybody when it comes to drinking. Being drunk in front of young people is indeed showing a poor role model. Excessive drinking by young people will cause medical problems with immature and developing physiology. These are facts that presumably is where the science is. However, the occasional drink never hurt anybody and if done as part of education this can only be a good thing. I believe there is a poor connection from the science to the advice which is further proof of the neoprohibitionist stance of this Government.

I do not believe this sort of detached thinking is the solution to the problems of drink induced health problems. I am not denying that there is evidence of real problems and there really are sections of society where drunken behavior is a big problem. Education is the solution, not draconian age limits. I feel insulted that as one of the "middle class" who really does believe that the education of the developing future adults in my care is being handled correctly, they have the wrong target as usual. Of course, I would like to think that if the young people who are carrying my genetic information into the future, along with instilled wisdom, will realise that lack of respect for the culture I'm training them in will result in a firm rebuff.

A slow and careful introduction to the art of drinking is more effective than false and arbitrary age limits. People do not suddenly mature into a different person at a magic age. Of course we should be concerned about how those young people in our care are nurtured. Of course we should be worried about them drinking on park benches and do what we can to prevent it. Giving young people the park bench as the only option available will drive them there, unsupervised and with the inevitable consequences that brings.

While I was checking the information about this issue on the Department of Health website I did find some good news; Sir Liam Donaldson is to retire next year. Not before time. Unfortunately, I doubt his successor will be any better.

Pints per week

I recently ran a poll about how many pints people drank in the pub per week. Tandleman is doing one on bottled beers at home which nicely compliments this one. Perhaps total units per week of alcohol would be next.

Anyway, interesting results. Most importantly lets try and convert to units. Assume 2.2 units per pint which is just under 4%. Yes I know some will drink weeker beer, but others, like me, also like stronger stuff.

I've rounded and adjusted figures a little as going on the original question left holes like twelve and a half pints per week. Perhaps not completely scientific, but hey, it's just for fun anyway.

Percentage of polled by units of alcohol

2%    zero

25%    <12

34%    12-27

14%    27-45

20%   45-88

0%     > 88

Interesting? Well it looks like more than 50% of you are below the government recommended maximum anyway. Some drink no beer in a pub, it would be interesting to know why you read my blog. That's not a complaint though, I like people reading my blog, whoever you are.

If you drink more than 8 units a day or 50 units a week then you are at high risk, according to the NHS. oops, that's me then.

Personally I think it has a lot to do with overall lifestyle. If you smoke, always eat greasy fried processed food, eat very little in the way of vegetables and fruit and don't exercise then this level of alcohol is probably going to contribute to an early death. But that's your choice, be happy if it is. It could be argued that not drinking or smoking or eating unhealthy food makes for a long and miserable existence.

If you eat a reasonably balanced diet, exercise a little and try not to smoke you will probably get away with 50 units a week. I hope so cause that's about where I am.

Of course I didn't specify pints of beer in my question. Did everybody assume I meant beer? Also it doesn't include drinking at home. Do people really do that?

What makes a great pub?

I know that there will be plenty of you will disagree with me on this one. I will of course make broad sweeping statements here that will have many, many exceptions. I think though, it is an interesting question worthy of airing.

I would say, without doubt, the best pubs are freehouses. This is a non negotiable point in my view. It is just not possible for a tied house to do everything that I want from a pub. There will be an element of predictability in the beer range and rarely anything at all from a good microbrewery. Generally there will be ties in other areas of the business such as bottled beers, wines and spirits which will limit customer choice. There will be a product range which generally leaves me feeling cold. I like to see things that I have never seen before when I visit a pub, not the predictable range of mass marketed products I can get down the supermarket for a fraction of the price.

Now I know Tandleman and Tyson will jump in and tell me how good the tied houses are around their neck of the woods. I will certainly be disappointed if they don't comment. But while tied houses can be good, the best of them are never as good as the very best free houses. Tied houses are a reality though, despite some of us, me included, wanting to put an end to it, I rather think it's a futile struggle.

It is possible to make a tied house very good, not the best but putting on a good show. The best example in my view, that I have visited recently, is Jeff Bells pub of Stonch's blog which gets a mention here. I hope Jeff doesn't mind me using his pub as an example, but having visited and talked to him he clearly is working the ties he has to his advantage. When I was in there I had two good beers. He had Timothy Taylors on, which I can get easily anywhere, but two others of a reasonably interesting rarity for me. I believe he chooses carefully off his list to give good variation for his customers. My only complaint was the lack of use of a sparkler on northern beers.

The key though to a great pub is the right ambiance. This is affected by so many things. Lighting, furniture, temperature, decor, music and hosts welcome; a thing that Jeff Bell clearly works very hard at. The ambiance is also affected by the customers themselves. This can be a difficult ingredient for the publican to get right. What I find is that for me, the more pleasant clientele are generally to be found in the freehouse. The tied system normally encourages a volume style of trade. The landlord, be it pubco or regional brewery are looking to maximise barrelage and so marketing and promotions are on a sell more save more basis. These pubs tend to push the higher profile, mass produced and mass marketed products such as "cooking lager" and "Alcopops" that are associated with, in my view, less savoury clientele and "binge drinking".

In discussions with a friend of mine who runs a highly regarded pub we shared our experiences of "regulars" affecting the ambiance in the pub. In my friends case the existing customer base sat right in front of the handpulls in a way that was intimidating to new customers. Effectively staking their right to be sat exactly where they were. Eventually this group had to be banned for the pub to progress. This is one of several pubs I hold in high regard, where they are completely and proudly free of tie. The lack of any mass produced products make this type of pub very special. Lager HAS to be properly lagered rather than some fast fermented thing that is effectively a light mild just gassed up and chilled to death.

Another great freehouse closer to me has the most wonderful ambiance due to it's refusal to serve any mass marketed products. Keeping out the "cooking" lager reduces the mass brand conscious types that are, in my view, the source of the social problems facing the pub industry. The sense of belonging to the establishment is so much appreciated by the regulars that they positively welcome all comers to peruse the array of handpulls, and if Continental fizzy is your thing then you are directed to the discreet gassy stuff that might contain many true pilsners or lambic fruit beers.

Clearly some of the smaller tied houses are suffering. Looking at the reports from the Pubco inquiry that is currently getting going there seems to be some worthy grilling being given to the pubco's. Jeff Picthall has provided some links. It is my belief that the tie is not good. It may help some regional breweries to survive, but this is at the expense of small community pubs being able to be flexible. I have tried to take a balanced view here but I believe that the disadvantages of the tie far outweigh the advantages.

For me the tie restricts the abilities of smaller community pubs to be flexible and limits the customer base to a bland, one size fits all, mass produced, mass marketed and go large style product range. It encourages volume consumption by the methods of promotion brought down from the pubcos and breweries.

Yes, phasing out the tie may well result in some regional breweries failing. But why is that a problem? We have more new microbreweries springing up all the time. Loosing Tetley's for instance is no bad thing. There are so many newer beers around and many more to come, I expect. If that is the price to pay for better pubs then I'm all for it.

I have found myself damning the tied system here more than I intended to. My intention was to support the freehouse. I maintain that the best pubs will always be freehouses. So why then is it that the industry is stating that it is the freehouses that are more likely to close? I think the main reason is because when they could, the pubcos bought up the more viable properties leaving the rubbish to the free market. Although I have no firm data to hand, the number of free houses as a proportion of the overall number of pubs has been falling for many years. This has to be a concern for the beer drinker.

The pubcos and the regional breweries alike are only interested in money. Yes sure, I am too as a pub owner. But I also care about what I'm selling. Pubcos and big breweries alike only really care about money for the shareholders. They may own the precious rights to the brand of beer that you grew up with, but they can't all live forever.

We must remember one thing, and if the rest of what I have said does not ring true, then I hope these final words you can agree with. We need to do something fast about our pubs. With so many closing we need to rethink what we are doing, and rethink fast. This is happening with the pubco inquiry, but as Nick Bish has pointed out “evolution” and not “revolution” is required and that any dumping of the tie overnight would be "cataclysmic".

I just hope it is not too late for many pubs.

More on the tie

Firstly, Hoppy Birthday Tandleman - It's not the blog authors birthday you understand, just his blogs first year. I have Tandleman to thank in part for helping me find my way in the blogging world by comments on my blog, and putting up with my comments in reply to his writings.

Another blogger who has helped me is Jeff Pickthall, who regularly puts up worthy issues for discussion and provokes Tandleman into interesting counter comment. Recently the discussion has been over the tied pub. Tyson also occasionally has some things to say on this and other subjects that cause stimulation of my thought processes.

What is interesting about these three worthy characters is that although they seem to disagree on finer points, there seems to be a general consensus that there are problems with the tie system. What is not being agreed upon is just what should be done. Ho hum, at least there is some common ground. Mr Tandleman has helped me realise that the discussions are good.

But what shall we do about it??

I don't know, but Mr Tyson made an interesting post here about the governments ideas to tackle drink related problems. His post seemed to have a level of sarcasm in it as far as I could tell. No? Must be my imagination then. Anyway, after recent postings by all three of these bloggers I started doodling - and the diagram here is the result after tidying up.

Jeff's recent post

Tandleman's recent post Actually I thought he'd made more posting on the subject - perhaps I'm just getting mixed up with comments

I knew there was another one,It's here

Alcohol disorder, binge drinking

Binge drinking and alcohol fuelled disorder continue to be a problem. Many town centres are filled with unacceptable behaviour at weekends. Many pubs are ruined because the licensee feels they have no choice but to accept the trade. Pubs in general are given a bad name because of the unreasonable behaviour of a few and so nice people don’t like to go in them. The government is targeting this with various proposals including minimum pricing, restrictive advertising and alcohol duty, but as Beer Blether on his blog points out, the thing that will solve the problem is education.

Raising taxation of alcohol is convenient for the government. The majority of the population believe that alcohol is a problem. They accept alcohol taxation better than tax on fuel, income or general purchase tax, so the alcohol problem is a convenient smokescreen. Taxation is probably not going to reduce excessive drinking. It will if anything, result in the worst offenders saving up for a big "bender". The problem is caused by various social and cultural problems and the root cause needs to be tackled rather than simply whole sale alcohol restrictions.

A significant part of the antisocial UK drinking problem is to do with culture or arguably the lack of it. When I was starting out my drinking career there were two sides to it. There was the side that involved joining my mates going to the local town and getting hammered, and also hopefully getting laid (The consumption of alcohol as well as having an ugly mug successfully prevented any promiscuous activity in this writer's case). The other side involved a more diverse age group which sometimes included my parents and was always much more civilised. Any unacceptable behaviour was frowned upon and even if my parents were not there they often got to know about it.

This late adolescent behaviour is normal; perhaps it has been one of the only normal things I have done in my life. The problem is that although there is a natural desire to carry out this youthful exploration of adult behaviour there are less checks and balances these days. The influence of a broad age range of community within the pub provided that check and balance.

At one time, drinking and remaining civilised was the sign of being a grown up. Being aggressive, rude, stupid or throwing up was seen as not being able to hold your drink. Now it seems it is acceptable to behave unsociably, because it’s all the fault of the alcohol, not the person drinking it. There is a culture of being expected to be drunk if you are having a night out. This is also fuelled by the industry promoting increased consumption through various activities, most notably happy hours but also suppliers encouraging increased purchasing by pubs on the grounds of economies of scale. There is little in reality about promotion of drinks because of the added value of their quality, but that would not benefit the big manufacturers and associated distributors. This is where real ale could really take centre stage. It IS THE responsible drink. People drink it to enjoy the drink, not some hazy removal from reality that is simply a stone throw from drug abuse. We need to make it cool to appreciate the flavours of a drink rather than it’s ability to get you pissed.

Then there's the Portman Group mentioned elsewhere, which I believe is an attempt to cover up what the big drinks companies are doing. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but damage limitation is being exercised here by this industry sponsored group. I have no confidence that this initiative will do anything to help the situation.

A significant backwards step these days is the removal of the ability for sensible parents to educate children in the art of responsible drinking. Unless I completely misunderstand the 2003 licensing laws, there is now no provision for responsible adults to be permitted to purchase alcohol for anybody under the age of 16 for consumption in a pub. It is still permitted in the confines of your own home provided that the child is over the age of 5. The law used to allow adults to buy an alcoholic drink for somebody aged under 16 with the licensee’s permission providing consumption was supervised by a responsible adult and it was consumed in a room where alcohol was not dispensed.

A summary of the law is here. There is however some sound advice about how to deal with underage drinking as a parent here

I believe that if under aged people, in the company of their adults, were allowed a half of beer or a small glass of wine on the family outing to the pub, more people would grow up appreciating responsible drinking. Young people nowadays don’t have any respectable drinking experiences and once let loose on the adult world go mad like a kid in a candy shop or the proverbial bull in a china shop.

In a recent, and much critiqued piece by Jeff Picthall, he talks about peer pressure when out drinking in his home town. When trying to appreciate his beer his mates told him “Get it down your neck, you ponce”. This attitude is rife and no mate would truly try to ruin a person’s appreciation of fine beverage or wish liver damage on a friend. But this is the way it is and it won’t change without education.

The growth of the younger drinking scene, the culture of not having had a good night out unless you have made a pavement pizza or forgotten what you did, or preferably both, has increased the problem. The introduction of alcopops gave teenagers the opportunity to drink without having to gain the acquired taste that is needed for more grown up drinks. Lager, as we who like to enjoy a drink for it's taste know, is drunk because it does not taste of anything, it’s a way of just getting drunk without the drink challenging the drinker. For me part of the struggle of growing up was learning to drink "bitter".

Pubs are now seen as customer focused. This is no bad thing but there is an increase of attitude from many customers; “c’mon mate, we’ve put loadsh ‘f money over zthu bar tonight, letths hav ‘nother one?”. Pointing out that they have had far too much already, it’s time to shut up, and they should go home is seen as poor customer care. Respect for licensees and a return to the time when a polite refusal was respected would do wonders. Modern customer focused approach to doing business has resulted in a lack of implementation of the right of the licensee to refuse service of any customer who is behaving in an inappropriate manner. Indeed, there is the right for that matter of refusal of service without reason, but due to various practicalities this is extremely hard to implement.

There are laws already in place to tackle alcohol related crime and they will work if enforced, we can't just leave it to the licensee to do this. Education, education, education as I think one politician said. The government was once happy to put money into a huge amount of anti smoking advertising. We now need greater sociable drinking awareness.

Drinking is fun. It can be a great relaxation. Much of the reason I believe less people are going to pubs is because many of the people who run them think that selling volume is the answer. This makes pubs full of drunks. Making sure the antisocial are not allowed in pubs makes them much nicer places to be and so nicer people will visit.

I need to point out that I found this a hard piece to write - I'm not quite happy with it but it's better than it was. I need to thank Ann for her constructive criticisms and help.