Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The Temperance Movement Piles On The Pressure

The BMA- now entirely a temperance organisation- has called for a total ban on alchohol advertising. My, it seems like only yesterday I was saying to drinkers, if you support this smoking ban you’re next, and they were saying, LOLZ, no, drink doesn’t waft around, anyway everybody loves drink, they wouldn’t dare…

Note how the authors of the report are identified in the headline as “doctors” rather than a specific organisation, thus creating the illusion that all doctors everywhere want a ban, not just a committee at their trade organisation. The report gets a quote from one of the authors, named as Professor Gerard Hastings, a quick google of which reveals he’s the head and founder of the “Institute of Social Marketing”. What’s that? Well, it’s an anti-advertising lobby group, that’s what, basically pushing the message that advertising is evil and teaches us bad things, whereas a bunch of fucking cunts like Gerard Bastard Hastings pumping out propaganda day and night isn’t, presumably. Oh, and he’s director of “the Cancer Research UK Centre for Tobacco Control Research”, so I think that’s a pretty clear indicator of what him and his gurning cohorts are planning to do to drinkers.

The report pumps out the usual rubbish- that we’re all suddenly drinking far more for instance, which simply is not true (I can’t be arsed to look up the stats, but we’re not) and bear in mind this quote from his ISM website-

“Tobacco, which kills half its long term users, provides an extreme example of this, but other industries like alcohol and food are also coming under scrutiny.”

Where tobacco leads, drinks and food will follow. You have been warned.

Also, not surprising to see odious rentaquote wanker Don Shenker of fake charity Alcohol Concern with more grist for the mill.

Remember people, this is Britain. You’re not here to enjoy yourself.

***
Update

The ever reliable Dick Puddlecote has the stats on consumption (not rising as I said above) and a more thorough discussion.

18 Comments

  1. JuliaM says:

    “Note how the authors of the report are identified in the headline as “doctors” rather than a specific organisation, thus creating the illusion that all doctors everywhere want a ban…”

    Yep, that was the very first thing I noticed about it too. The Beeb loves to do that…

  2. IanB says:

    The thing I can’t fathom- not rhetorically here, I really can’t work it out- is why the Establishment, the MPs, journalists, and so on, are so easily taken in by this stuff. We can see it’s an orchestrated campaign. Why can’t they? I don’t believe that all MPs, let alone the whole of Fleet Street, are ideoligically committed to temperance. So where’s their cynicism? Why do they just go along with it? Can they really not see what’s going on here?

    Honestly, that’s the one thing that leaves me permanently baffled.

  3. NickM says:

    As I said here:

    http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4216

    Doctors no longer identify themselves. Neither do nurses. Ian, they go along with it because it’s the “right thing” to do and then go and have a pint afterwards.

  4. JuliaM says:

    The only thing I can come up with is they need to fill those column inches somehow, and today’s journalists are nothing if not lazy…

  5. RAB says:

    Very true Julia, most journalists are very lazy and much less skeptical than they used to be. Investigative journalism has practically ceased, and given that there is now 24 hour rolling news, most of them never even get out of the office.They are quite content to rewrite press releases from the “Experts” without questioning one word of them.

    But here is irony for you.

    The BMA regularly used to hold its annual conference in Dublin, had been doing it there for donkeys years, good town to party in see.
    Then Ireland brought the smoking ban in a couple of years before Scotland, Wales and England.
    The very first conference in Dublin, after Ireland brought in the ban, had to be cancelled and moved eleswhere, because a large number of the conference delegates were unhappy that they would not be able to smoke and have a drink as they used to!

  6. DavidNcl says:

    @IanB

    Hegemonic discourse.

  7. JuliaM says:

    “The very first conference in Dublin, after Ireland brought in the ban, had to be cancelled and moved eleswhere, because a large number of the conference delegates were unhappy that they would not be able to smoke and have a drink as they used to!”

    I hate them even more now!

  8. IanB says:

    DavidNcl

    Touche. Indeed.

  9. El Draque says:

    Agree overall.
    Just am not happy about calling them a “Temperance Movement”.
    I studied the original t-total movement at university. Yes, a long time ago.
    But the overwhelming amount of their activity was devoted to persuading individuals not to drink. And persuading girls to refuse a man who drank to excess, and so on.
    Not an attempt to ban the demon drink.

    (Yes, it mutated into a Prohibition Movement. But that’s different, and came later.)

    These scum at the BMA are a different animal entirely.

    (Odd historical note: The Temperance Movement got going after the 1834 Beer Act freed up anyone to open their houses to the public and sell drink – the original “pubs”.

    And now we have the current obsession with binge-drinking arising after the freeing of opening hours.

    Is it something about freedom they don’t like?
    Maybe that’s it !!

  10. Great piece as usual, Ian. My post was rather kneejerk upon reading the BBC article so I didn’t look into the background of the authors till just now.

    However, it just makes me more angry. It’s a one-sided piece produced with the single purpose of coming to a predetermined conclusion.

    Now I have looked at their document, it seems that amongst the raft of stats, the only one that explains their phrase “Alcohol consumption in the UK has increased rapidly in recent years”, picked up so dutifully by the BBC, is the BMA’s own report, which was also dutifully reported word for word by the BBC.

    In that document, they concluded that alcohol consumption has increased considerably since 1950.

    So, for recent years, read ‘the past 60 years’.

    It’s lying, is what it is.

  11. El Draque: It’s the temperance movement in all but name. The BMA document was approved by the Alcohol Health Alliance, a coalition of bodies including the Institute of Alcohol Studies who are the modern incarnation of the temperance movement. They are funded by the Alliance House Foundation who ARE the temperance movement – they simply dropped the ‘temperance’ bit from their name in 2003.

    Here’s a little taster of the terminology of the BMA document:

    Over the centuries alcohol has become established as the country’s favourite
    drug. The vast majority of people use it, most on a regular basis (Robinson & Lader 2009), and not drinking, either on a specific occasion or in principle, is perceived as an oddity that has to be excused

    Temperance hasn’t gone away, it never will. There are always going to be people who don’t drink, trying to stop people who do like drink, from doing so.

    They’re just more sneaky about it nowadays.

  12. NickM says:

    Two weeks ago I was in A&E. I was not PFO. It was wet grass, fell over. The doctor I saw obsessed about how much I drank, smoked and ate. Not the night before but in general. If I had been PFO then it might have been relevant but I wasn’t and I wasn’t flailing for a pie and though lung-cancer might be smoking related falling down a slippy bank into a stream is not. He was ticking boxes and not attending to my health. Which I sort of thought was his job. Fortunately the nurse who actually treated me was very different.

    I trusted her to put 11 stitches in my leg. I wouldn’t have trusted him to take-up a pair of trousers.

  13. Sam Duncan says:

    Can I suggest that the report being published today is no coincidence? This weekend, ridiculous new licencing laws came into force in Scotland, including minimum pricing and a ban on happy hours (see Mr. E’s Sunday post* for a laugh about that). I’d be astonished if this was coincidence. They want the same for you south of the Tweed.

    * No, not that Sunday Post. Although I imagine it’s all for it.

  14. NickM says:

    Minimum pricing is an obscenity. It has no effect on the elite enjoying a rather cheeky Merlot but for the poor or for students buying a four pack of Carlsberg it’s a major pain. Ditto “happy hour” and various promotions. When I was a student Wednesday was the night, not Friday or Saturday. Because it was cheaper.

  15. IanB says:

    That’s why they want it, Nick.

  16. TDK says:

    Fisked here by the Filthy Smoker

  17. NickM says:

    TDK,
    Not fisked, utterly destroyed. TFS is brilliant.

  18. IanB wrote,

    “The thing I can’t fathom- not rhetorically here, I really can’t work it out- is why the Establishment, the MPs, journalists, and so on, are so easily taken in by this stuff. We can see it’s an orchestrated campaign. Why can’t they? I don’t believe that all MPs, let alone the whole of Fleet Street, are ideoligically committed to temperance. So where’s their cynicism? Why do they just go along with it? Can they really not see what’s going on here?

    Honestly, that’s the one thing that leaves me permanently baffled”

    Quite. When I saw the report of this proposal on some the Channel 4 news I noticed that throughout the entire debate, not once did anybody ask why we should believe this measure would have any effect on teenage binge drinking.

    It was also defended along with a proposal for minimum price regulations on alcoholic drinks. I wished they had a call in service so I could phone in and say “I want to binge drink next Saturday: Why should I not be free to do so?”

    Rich

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: