VB Raise A Glass Appeal 2010

Beer and Peace

A bit of a reference to the length and complexity of this post but it is something very close to my heart and I can’t just skim over it. Grab a beer, sit back and relax, and let me know what you reckon.

I’ve been thinking about the ‘two-sides-to-a-story’ factor surrounding the continuing argument surrounding binge-drinking and advertising’s role in its promotion.

This year’s VB “Raise A Glass” campaign has exceeded the total donated in last year’s inaugural campaign with $1,281,000 already in the kick. The 1.1 million raised last year came from a combination of direct website driven donations and a marketing promotion whereby $1 from specially branded slabs of VB was added to the total by Foster’s.

This year, as a result of some fairly negative publicity and the refusal of the Queensland branch of the RSL to participate last year, Foster’s moved to distance the fundraising from the notion that a commercial business can have a heart and still make a dollar and made a direct lump-sum donation to the appeal. And here is where it gets a little murky.

To give you a bit of background and the chance to make up your own mind here’s the story.

The Foster’s side;

A dollar from every slab of VB donated to RSL charities. (Changed this year to direct donation)

1500 kegs of VB donated to RSL clubs to sell and raise cash at ‘street level’. (Last year)

A series of six ads featuring returned servicemen ‘raising a glass’ to fallen mates.

A website designed to encourage current and ex-servicemen and their families to post stories about
the Australian experience in war over the last century.

A section on the website where donations can be made online.



The Against side; (with associated quotes and published arguments)

The association of a beer brand with the Raise a Glass appeal this year has raised the issue of binge drinking and its place in Australian culture on Anzac Day. (The Australian, April 2009)

"In recent years, Anzac day has morphed into an opportunity for young (and not-so young) people to get shit-faced and soppily nationalistic, which makes it an ideal target for a big beer company.

"VB's Raise a Glass campaign will no doubt find favour with anyone who thinks binge drinking is an appropriate part of remembering Australians who have served in wars, and it will raise plenty of useful funds for Legacy, but that doesn't make it ethical." (Trevor Cooke, Corporate Engagement Blog)

"People drink to excess because of exactly the message you're pushing on us. Loss, hurt, pain? Raise a glass! Raise another one! "We're giving you an excuse to keep going at it as well. And a warm, fuzzy feeling because a couple of bucks went to a charitable and decent organisation." ( Morgwn Shaw, Digital Art Science blog)

Victoria Bitter's latest marketing campaign — a tie-up with Defence Force charities — has come under fire for exploiting the Returned Services League brand to sell more beer. (The Age April 2009)

In shortened form, that’s the guts of the debate with the key elements of both side’s arguments outlined. The “NO” side contends that beer and ANZAC Day are poor bedfellows, that VB is ‘using’ the RSL to sell a product and that binge drinking is bad.

I can’t help thinking that this is another case of shooting the wrong messenger. I contend that we don’t have an alcohol problem as such – we have a dickhead problem. We have a problem with not enough parents prepared to show a good example to their kids nor to pull them into line when they stray from the guidelines of behaviour in a civilised society.

The argument that beer has no place in a commemoration of Australia’s most significant actions on the world stage rides a bit thin with me as well. Digital Art Science blog uses, among others the point that “Do veterans not struggle with alcohol abuse as they come to terms with the aftermath of their involvement in a conflict? Hasn’t anyone at VB/Legacy’s agency ever listened to Khe Sanh?”

Yeah they do, and I’m sure they have. Is it not OK to provide some money that might end up helping more than one or two of them, even if it means that a large chunk of the population (which doesn’t have a drinking problem) has to donate it? And if you’re going to quote classic Chisel, choose lyrics that help your argument – Khe Sahn references “Speed and Novacaine” not VB and more VB. Just sayin’, that’s all.

I reckon Defence Force chief General Peter Cosgrove sums it up pretty well in one of the ads when he says that he reckons Australian soldiers would hate to be thought of as anything but regular men and women despite having done a job for their country that was nothing short of extraordinary. I reckon they might also have appreciated a quiet beer at the appropriate time and that they might just have cut loose on leave at one time or another. Raise A Glass is as much about remembering them and taking the time to ‘share a beer’ with those no longer around. It certainly DOES NOT glorify war, nor does it encourage, promote or condone idiot drunken behaviour.

And some, on ANZAC Day might just down one too many with their remaining mates at a pub or an RSL (I had more than a few with some of them in Canberra last ANZAC Day) but I reckon they’ve earned it. Does the VB Raise a Glass appeal have a direct causal link to drunken dickhead binge-drinking and violent behaviour as some are suggesting? Hardly. That’s not to say we don’t have a problem – far from it – but let’s not try to solve one social problem by banning a totally and unrelated different social activity.

These are just my thoughts. It nice to think that the freedom to criticise something and the technological means to transmit these criticisms and my ability to pose a contrary position are all the result of the actions of people who went before us and gave up plenty to defend the principals of goodness against evilness.

Thank you to you all. I will ‘raise a glass’ in your memory. And not just on ANZAC Day.

Cheers
Prof Pilsner

2010-05-05

The ‘Corona Conundrum’

The madness of the festive season as it relates to a fully booked restaurant has left me a bit short of time and inspiration for posts of late, and for this I apologise.

As I reflect on the past month or so I am reminded of some lessons learned long ago which seem to hold true today. In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

We had several occasions over Christmas where a corporate group had booked out the back room, the front room or the whole restaurant for the company staff and their partners. It was fascinating to see how different groups had completely different nights despite all sharing similar ‘conditions’. They all had an ‘open bar tab’ policy while some went for the full 3 course sit-down affair and others chose to ‘let the cattle roam’. Free-range festivity, if you like.

One particular group who have been a regular booking for a few years now had the whole place to themselves again and a limited bar until, at a time decided by the boss, spirits would be available. They have a three course meal and we make sure each year that we feed them up early before they are able to put away too many beers. They decide beforehand on our full range of local beers – plus Corona. That means everything from VB to Fat Yak, from Carlton Draught to the James Squire range, Beez Neez and Boag’s Premium. But guess what? Yup, not a single beer leaves the fridge other than Corona.

And each year it’s the same. A few of the lads just have one or ten too many and things can get just a little bit cloudy. And each year when it comes to settling the bill, the reaction is the same; “How many Coronas did they put away?! Is that number RIGHT?!” The number this year, for those playing along at home, was 96. The group was 56 people, roughly half male and half female with a handful of soft-drinkers. So how do we allow so few blokes to drink so much, I hear you ask. Well, the simple answer is; WE DON’T.

And here’s the thing I want to talk about. And no, I’m not going to bag Corona or cast aspersions on those drinking it. This is more than that. Each year when the boss does ‘The Corona Count’ he finds it harder and harder to believe that his boys would drink so many. As I said, they don’t. You see, there are two elements at play here.

First, when a group has a full sit-down dinner they tend to keep their beer close by (most even drink from a glass!) and they drink until they have finished the beer and then move onto the next one. When they are allowed to roam they go outside for a smoke and a chat and put the beer down. Wherever. When they come back inside they just front the bar or a waiter and get another. Why? That’s my second point.

When you put a ‘Zero Value’ on something, most people will, indeed, give it zero value. In other words, when the product is free, there is far less concern for the product. None of these peanuts cared about leaving a half full (or worse) beer on a ledge, on someone else’s table or on the ground outside – because they hadn’t paid for it. We even had one bloke come up to the bar, order four Coronas, nick off to the toilet and return half an hour later and decide the beers were too old and ordered four more. What do you do?

For some it is an opportunity to tell their mates how much they ‘drank’ and for others it’s a case of ‘striking while the iron’s hot’ and drinking as though it’s someone else’s money. Which, afterall, it is.

The fact that Coronas were on the ‘free list’ probably contributes to the wastage – do these blokes just want to be seen as drinking a fancy import? Does the fact that Corona is (he thinks of a nice way of putting it) a mildly flavoured, less beer-like and easy drinking beer contribute to the conundrum? Is it just really a great buzz for me to tip so much of it down the sink at the end of the night?

They might be back again next year and we might play the same ‘game’ all over again. Or maybe things will change as the penny finally drops?

Cheers
Prof. Pilsner

It’s not just me, then?

A great post over at Pete Brown’s Beer Blog that touches on some issues we have been examining here for a while.

I know sometimes I bang on about certain issues (the posts that Mrs Pilsner refers to as my ‘Redneck Rants) but I just feel at times there is a need to create some balance in the debate. Binge-drinking has long been one issue that I have railed against. By that I mean the harm of binge drinking itself and the poorly formed arguments trotted out by the media.

We’ve spoken before of things like personal responsibility, taking ownership of your actions and ‘STC’ – Suffer The Consequences – and how it gets a bit annoying when the Good Majority gets punished along with the Evil Minority. Well it seems we are not in this fight alone, Beer Brothers. And Sisters, sorry Reg.

Writing for The Publican magazine, Pete has used the release of Government generated figures which show that the overall consumption of alcohol is dropping in the UK, to highlight the distinct lack of reporting of same by the nation’s major newspapers. These would be the same papers that manage to fill page after page with regular scare-stories of binge drinking, beer-fuelled violence and negative health effects of beer.

The article finishes by giving some suggestions as to how we might begin to redress the imbalance and bring some much needed sensibility to the problems faced by some in our civilised society. And here’s where we are both singing from the same hymnbook. Binge-drinking is a problem – for those who partake in the unhealthy practice, and those affected by their behaviour – but the problem is NOT as widespread as the media would have us believe.

We all need to take up ‘arms’ against the enemy. Next time the dinner party conversation comes around to this issue, pipe-up and remind those gathered that overall alcohol consumption is decreasing and bingeing is a problem for a small percentage of the population. We need to deal with it properly – but not by whipping the backs of those who are doing the right thing.

It’s not the final tap of the hammer that cracks the stone – it’s the thousands before it. Start hammering!

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

Now I can’t wait to get old

I love surveys. And studies. Any old grant-driven scientific research, really.

Do you know why? Because it’s pure entertainment. It is all about as relevant as the fifth placed finalist in Australian Idol, as important as Paris Hilton’s latest shopping trip, or as believable as Oprah and Dr Phil combined.

“Give us some cash and we’ll give you some stunning and world-altering figures about important social issues”, they say as they extend their grubby cash-grabbing hand.

“Give us even more cash and we’ll give you some even more stunning and more world-altering figures about important social issues which contradict the first!” With hand out.

Today I read that older Australians who have up to 28 drinks a week stand a better chance of warding off dementia than those who abstain. This data comes from 15 international studies involving more than 10,000 people so it’s not like one of those narrow, pissy little studies that trumpet mind-blowing results and then pop some figures into the fine print which show they phoned ten people or spoke to all the people on a bus one day.

Folk aged 60 or over who drank between one and 28 alcoholic drinks a week were almost 30% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease. This raises some very interesting questions. If I start drinking my 28 drinks per week BEFORE I’m 60, will the benefits be less – or will I just spontaneously combust? If I have 29 drinks, will the effects be reversed – or will my head just drop off? If I go one week without ANY DRINKS AT ALL will there be no ill effects at all – or will I suddenly forget my entire family as well as the ability to remember to remove my trousers before using the toilet? If I start before I turn 60 AND have more than 28 drinks will it be the same as swimming 29 minutes after eating rather than 30 minutes after eating? Will I walk into the surf and just explode?
>
Either way, I’m gettin’ an early start. Why wait till I’m 60? If I start now, surely my body will be better prepared for drinking into old age. After all, you don’t prepare for running a marathon by running a marathon! You have to do SOME training. Like the warning labels say – Excessive alcohol consumption can cause memory loss – or worse, memory loss.

Cheers – and drink up before the contradictory research is released,
Prof. Pilsner

"Ahs forgot to gets me a beer - Oh well, least I ain't BLACK!!"

Light thinking for a heavy problem

Beer only ever seems to make the front page of the paper when the news is bad, sad or stupid. Just once I’d like to see a front page story about a nice craft beer winning an award or a tax break being given to small volume brewers so that they might compete a bit more fairly with the bland multinationals but I guess I’ll be waiting a while.

Today’s news is alarming. Even the headline says so; “BEER ALARM”

“A huge drop in light beer sales has been blamed for the surge in street violence. Pressure to scrap the tax on light beer is building as more drinkers turn to stronger booze. Light beer sales have fallen 15% in seven years while street crime has soared 43%. Vic Health chief executive Todd Harper said yesterday there was a definite connection between the move away from light beer and the rise in drunken violence. ‘I definitely think the move to heavier beer is part of the problem’ he said.

‘Anything that can kick start a change in the culture of alcohol consumption in Australia to encourage the consumption of low alcohol products will be a positive one‘, he said. The excise cut would see light beer drop 20c a stubby, or $4.80 a slab, and about 4c a pot in bars.”

“Vic Health believes the move would tempt full strength beer drinkers to make the switch. ‘If we look at the strong associations between consumption of full strength beer and anti-social behaviour, such as assaults, there is no doubt there is a connection between the two,” Mr Harper said.”

Crock of shite.

No one would disagree that the problem of drunken violence is a serious issue worldwide, but for goodness sake, can we please start attacking the problem at the source instead of making things up, using opinions as scientific evidence or blaming irrelevant factors? Please??

First, Todd, a 14% decrease in light beer sales over seven years is not “a huge drop” in the overall context. Sales figures show that beer sales across the board have dropped – we are drinking less, but better, as the rise in premium, imported and craft beer sales would suggest – it is not just light beer that is lower. But, hey, if it helps to whip up the hysteria for your cause then, by all means, go right ahead.

Second, I am just hanging out to hear how a light beer sales drop is related in any way to a 43% increase in street crime. Blokes don’t go out and biff other blokes for no reason because they don’t drink light beer, they do it because they are complete and utter dickheads. They don’t drink light beer, not because the tax is too high, but because they (a) don’t like it, (b) their mates will think they are poofters and (c) because it won’t get them shitfaced!! They’re dickheads, remember?!! The only people who still drink light beer in this country are old blokes, designated drivers and blokes who like watery beer, none of whom have made the papers for beating up Grannies or starting riots.

Third, I don’t have any evidence to support my claims but I see that I don’t really need to. Todd, you can’t justify your own findings and throw scare around because (you) “definitely think the move to heavier beer is part of the problem”. I definitely think it is a cultural and behavioural issue brought about, in part, by a gradual acceptance of poor behaviour with no consequences and no punishment, so I’m right.

Of course I don’t mean to make light (pardon the pun) of a serious issue, but it just burns my brew every time I hear beer in general getting the blame for the problems caused by a bunch of bottom-feeders who will cause strife regardless of the price of heavy beer, the tax on light beer or the value of the New York Stock Exchange. Let’s deal with the dickheads – sort out why they are being dickheads, help them out or kick their arses if they don’t want to follow the standards of a normal, civilised society – and stop blaming beer. It loves us and wants us to be happy.

Cheers,Prof. Pilsner

No thanks, I’ll be fine

I was laying in bed last night with one eye open and blearily caught an ad for the latest ‘feel good by making you feel guilty’ initiative to target drinkers. The wrong drinkers.

This latest effort is called ‘FEB FAST’ and encourages us to “sacrifice or alcohol intake during the shortest month of the year and, at the same time raise funds to support organisations working to reduce alcohol ... harms in young people through research, prevention and service delivery activities”.

It is based on the premise that we have all been silly and evil and unhealthy during the Christmas and New Year period and we must all feel very, very guilty and be cleansed and purified by coughing up enough coin to fund programs to tell pissed idiots that they perhaps shouldn’t drink quite so much. Like they’ll listen.

Don’t get me wrong, here, I have said many times that I support efforts to reduce the human and financial cost of drink and drug abuse but I object to being made to feel guilty and be expected to fund the cure by giving away some beery enjoyment for the privilege. Plus, we all contribute plenty through income as well as beer taxes and levies and education efforts should be funded this way. It may just be me, but I also had a heap of trouble trying to find out where the money goes, how much they raise and who skims off the top but I’m prepared to attribute that to poor website design until I can determine otherwise.

Having said that, if you want to give away the beers for a month, and donate to a group of marketing, legal and other commercial types like those listed for FEB FAST - good for you. But how about the option of donating the equivalent of what you spend on beer for the month (as I proposed for Movember) as an option? Lose the whole guilt trip thing.

Plus, you buggers have already taken over October with your ‘Oc-Sober’ promotion. And finally how about looking into effective ways of getting the message to those who really need it and won’t heed it? I don’t have the answers but I’m guessing that it doesn’t involve preaching to the converted.

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

Top stuff from the Top End

There’s a place in Australia called the Northern Territory. Sandwiched between the pointy bit at the very top of Queensland on the right hand side and the plateau-shaped empty bit of Western Australia on the left, the Territory is a bit of an enigma, even to Australians.

The Territory is often referred to as the ‘Top End’ and is also home to ‘the Alice’ and ‘the Red Centre’. It has plenty of ‘Outback’ and ‘Dreamtime Land’ and a rather large portion of extreme ‘bugger all’. Rainforests and deserts, long gun barrel straight highways, magnificent picture postcard scenery and two centres of population – Darwin at the top bit and Alice Springs in the middle. That’s about it.

Taking up an area of around 1,349,129 square kilometres (520,902 sq miles) and containing just 218, 380 people it is the most sparsely populated state or territory in Australia. That’s a lot of space for so few heads. So how in God’s name do these folk get to drink so much grog?! New statistics from the Justice Department show that Territorians knocked back more than three million litres of pure alcohol last year. For those playing along at home, mark that down on your game cards at around 1,000 full strength beers per person.

Figures show that NT sold 3,225,555 litres in total last financial year. They broke this down thusly; every person over the age of 15 sank 1300 full strength beers. Just on four cans each per day. Per day. Per DAY!!! The Northern Territory Government declared that drinking was it’s No 1 problem. You think?!?

in the 50’s and 60’s, the Aussie culture was almost underpinned by the proud knowledge that we drank our way to he top of the charts and kept up with traditional (and highly populated) beer drinking countries around the globe. Jump forward to the present day and we are now drinking far less per head – but drinking increasingly ‘better’. More imported, boutique and craft beers.

It seems that the news is taking a little longer to reach our northern mates.

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

Now that makes more sense

I spotted a new campaign promoting responsible drinking among young people this week. It appeared in my local neighbourhood newspaper and it is new in more ways than one.

Rather than the usual approaches which either shame or blame the irresponsible, this one seeks to put a little common sense into the equation. I was attracted to it by virtue of the fact that it featured one of my Rugby League team’s stars, Billy Slater along with international basketballer Chris Anstey and netballer Sharelle McMahon. This is not a new thing, to use familiar sporting faces to catch a young uns’ attention, but the message in the ad was.

“We’re not saying don’t drink, just think” was the catch cry and it made me take notice. Not just because it was a sensible motto but for the fact that it had not been used before now. Instead of a campaign based around shock, fear or shame, here was a message telling those most at risk that having a drink is not a bad thing in itself but that doing it without using a bit of sense is a bit like jumping into a tank full of sharks using your ‘tackle’ as a lure. Maybe there’s an idea for the next phase of the campaign? Hmmm.

Anyway, it just struck me as sensible to accept that it makes little sense to assume that you can either stop kids going out to drink and that the shock tactic ads on TV don’t work because they don’t take into account the fact that teenagers generally consider themselves bullet proof. By saying to them; “look, we know you like a drink with your mates, no dramas, just use a bit of what God give ya and don’t be a dickhead”.

It’s so simple and sensible, it just might work!

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

The Shout’s Out

Yet another measure to combat binge drinking and associated late night violence which has been launched in Melbourne today has been roundly criticised by industry spokesmen.

This time a trial will take place which will see licensed venues unable to serve multiple, large or unmixed drinks after 1 am. These include shots and shooters, jugs of beer and any more than a single drink. No shouts. And already the cries of anguish and calls of “That’s bloody un-Australian!!” can be heard by the defenders of this Aussie institution. But it is not about The Shout.

Now this is not the most terrible thing to happen to drinkers but I have to question wether this will attack the root cause of the problem of irresponsible drinking. The problem as I see it is this; 1) Bloke goes out with group of friends to large nightclub or bar to celebrate or socialise. 2) Bloke has a few drinks a bit too quick. 3) Bloke begins to turn into dickhead. 4) Bloke keeps drinking. 5) Bloke becomes physically incapable of making his way to the bar but mates keep buying him drinks. 6) Bloke becomes more of a dickhead. 7) Night ends in tears.

Of course there are many variations on this scenario but the guts of the problem stems from situations similar to this. When I first stared drinking with mates I remember being well aware of staff – be it management, glassies, security or waiters – continually wandering through the venue. I don’t know that this happens to the same extent today. In the last few years of managing restaurants and bars I have seen a decline in the numbers of staff considered necessary to run a busy night and a trend towards keeping staff behind the bar rather than out and about.

My point is that if you are a well trained and well supported staff member and you are encouraged to move through the venue as the night grows long, you are more likely to see the bloke in the example above at about stage 3 – as he begins to show signs of becoming a dickhead. A quick word to the bar staff or the manager and before you know it, the bloke and his mates become aware that their time is limited if they don’t change tack. No warnings or aggro or risk of causing offence, just a subtle nod and a wink and we move on. The bloke and his mates behave and have a good night, the venue makes money and no one gets hurt.

Allow the bloke to develop full bore dickheadedness and let his mates buy him more drinks than he can handle and you still make money – but in the end, we all suffer for the folly of a few. Let him think that he can get shirt-faced and suffer no consequence and we are all in the poo. Venue managers need to be made more accountable for the drinks that they serve to dickheads. It won’t cost them money and it isn’t hard to do.

So do we solve the problem by refusing to serve multiple drinks after 1 am? Do we stop this bloke from becoming a dickhead by refusing him a shooter after 1 am? Do his mates find it impossible to buy him another drink because they can only get one at a time? Probably ‘not’ to all of the above. And really, by 1 am the beer-horse has bolted. By 1 am the problem is too far gone to be handled delicately and without fuss. The fact that this new plan will be trialled in just three venues for just one night suggests that those who have dreamt it up have no idea what goes on in pubs and bars and clubs, or they have no idea how to fix the problem.

It is too hard for pissed idiots to outfox sober, professional and well trained staff who work these venues every day. They can fix the problem. Perhaps they don’t want to fix the problem themselves for the same reason that the pissed idiots are able to get to be pissed idiots – no consequences. Maybe instead of creating time line based punitive measures to combat a problem that could have been nipped in the bud early on, is to punish the operators who allow the situation to exist.

Bang em’ with fines, threaten them with a weekend closure or removal of their livelihood – their license – if they can’t conform to simple and proven measures. And while they are at it, maybe they could get their staff to enjoy their jobs and create an atmosphere of friendliness and fun so that they become HOSPITALITY workers and not pseudo beer police. Pay them well, make their jobs rewarding and try to catch them doing something right, rather than just harping on the mistakes. They may just want to repay you with a strong work ethic, a keen eye for trouble and a vigilance that might just save us all a lot of strife.

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

Probably just a coincidence

Radio news in Melbourne this morning led with the story of the Victorian State Premier going on a ride-along with Police patrols in the wee small hours of the morning on Saturday night to view the alcohol related trouble caused by binge drinking.

The purpose of the trip was not, as you might expect, to show support for the ever decreasing and increasingly stressed police force, but to gather evidence before making a decision on the 2am ‘lockout’ legislation. As I have discussed in these pages recently, this lockout, which was designed to stop anti-social booze-fuelled mayhem, was so cock-eyed and poorly planned that not only did it not work, but even had it done so, nearly every ‘at risk’ business which applied for an exemption, got one.

So no one, except maybe the Premier himself, could really understand what he expected to see and how this would alter his thinking. “Hmmm, let’s see. I am looking at how a law that doesn’t do anything, implemented and enforced by no one and punishable by nothing, is working – even though you don’t have to abide by it – and I will observe any changes in the behaviour of pissed idiots as a result of changing nothing in order to determine if I will continue the plan into the future.”

The news reported that Mr Brumby went on a ‘fact finding tour in the early hours ... to determine the future of 2am lockouts” ... (he) “looked on as drunks were arrested, and he revealed serious concerns ... about the price society was paying for policing the intoxicated”. Ahhh!! Now there is a funny little thing! POLICING THE INTOXICATED!! Maybe instead of nanny-ing the many, the Government might think about ENFORCING THE LAW on the few who transgress!!??

But this would be the same mob who recently oversaw the down sizing of the force and its capacity to remove trouble makers from the streets as evidenced by the figures which show that 11 pissed idiots were arrested a couple of weekends ago, and 10 the weekend before. Compare that with 80 pissed idiots that were arrested and removed from the public domain on an average weekend last year!! Add to this that there are now two stations taking in these pissed idiots and around five that are not doing it anymore. Hmmm? Influencing your thinking, Premier?

And on to the newspaper. Let’s see, page three – no boobies, sorry, but a report which headlines; “POLICE QUIT AS MORALE SINKS” It seems that nearly 450 police members have quit or retired in the past 18 months as a result of dissatisfaction with the force. Of these men and women, 299 had been in the job for more than 10 years and 146 had more than 30 years behind the bell. That’s a lot of experience lost through members who are not even near the end of their foreseeable career length. A recent survey saw 3459 members respond and showed that two in three officers had considered quitting in the past year, citing lack of resources, stress and low force morale.

Mr Brumby might rethink his bullshit plan to control the evil grog, or he might just consider giving the streets back to the people who have traditionally provided the deterrent, the defusing and the solution to most of the social issues revolving around drinking irresponsibly.

The Premier goes for a ride to see what anybody could have told him was there while the very people who can solve the problem are being asked to sit back while he develops a plan that they will be asked to control and which will see them stretched to do – even if the plan WOULD work!

As I said, it’s probably just a coincidence.

Oh, just to clarify an error in last weeks bit on the alcopop tax - the figure the Federal Govt is sitting on is not 3 million, but 3 HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS -MOO Ha Ha!!!

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

New ‘Magic Pissed Idiot Detectors’ introduced

The Victorian State government has been busy lately in its quest to rid the streets of booze-fuelled mayhem. You may recall my post outlining the marvellous 2am lockout program which was designed to avoid the real social problems of irresponsible drinking by drafting a set of ridiculous guidelines which venues were generally exempt from following if they asked nicely not to. Well, the booze boffins have come up with an even better system to reduce the chances of drunks getting up to mischief.

Details are sketchy at this stage but it seems that some sort of ‘pissed idiot’ detector has been developed. The news story this morning reports that police “will be given the power to ban drunks ... from nightclub districts for up to one year under new tough-on-crime laws”. Now, it’s fairly simple to detect seriously pissed idiot from a distance, but how do you then ‘re-detect’ him or her over the next twelve months? Why, with some kind of hi-tech PI detector!

“To control unruly party-goers or law breakers ... Director of Liquor Licensing ... can declare that individuals be subject to bans of between 24 hours and a year”. So, we are going to see either a wall of police and security permanently positioned around the ‘nightclub districts’ in three regional areas and three inner suburban areas or, police will have access to detectors of some kind to determine the identity of previous offenders once they are caught.

Would’ve thought a good old fashioned ‘talking to’ by a burly walloper in blue would achieve better results much more efficiently and economically. A seasoned copper can spot trouble a mile off and a good seasoned copper can deflect trouble with a stern glare or a stern word or a stern phone-booking ... oops, we don’t go there no more, but, you get the drift? Most idiots play up because there is no apparent disincentive and no clear visible presence of punishment.

Instead of investing in Pissed Idiot Detection Technology let’s just get on with some community protection from the people we USED to entrust this job to. Until the do-gooding civil libertarians and incompetent government ministers took over the joint.

Cheers,
Prof. Pilsner

Beer Barons Battered But Bite Back

Or, ‘Why most politicians should be herded up and bitch-slapped with their own departmental reports.’

Our Federal Health minister, Nanny Nicola Roxon has been on something of a crusade of late. And I use the word ‘crusade’ in its ancient Neanderthal context where it means ‘a process by which we can stop normal happy responsible people from having any fun for as long as there are dickheads out there, being dickheads and doing dickhead things’. Shouting loudly from her pulpit (made from old beer cases) so as to drown out any voices of reason, she cried that ‘alcohol’ costs Australians $15 billion a year, and that the only people who didn’t think binge drinking was a problem were “the alcohol industry and the Liberal Party”.

Newsflash, Nanny. ‘Alcohol’ does not cost Australia $15b. DICKHEADS DO!! Making good people pay more for their beer and whatnot doesn’t make a dickhead stop being a dickhead. You dickhead.

But, ploughing on blindly through the fog of common sense, her department of Fun Finishers has rolled out a veritable septic tank full of policies and directives by which they expect to combat and defeat binge drinking. The only problem with their near sighted nannying is that it fails to observe the one basic fundamental issue at the guts of the problem. The dickhead. And HIS responsibility for HIS OWN actions.

Tax the shit out of alcohol, force producers to put warning labels all over their bottles and cans, ban liquor companies from sponsorship of sporting clubs and generally smack them on the wrist for daring to responsibly market and distribute legal and socially acceptable products..

So it was good to see the ‘Booze Barons’ fight back. It was also good to see the fine journalists at Melbournes’ Herald Sun go with the unemotive and neutral moniker of Booze Barons instead of something corny or facetious like ‘Industry Experts’ or ‘Successful Retailers’ or something dicky like that.

In response to the knee-jerk reaction of the Government, the four biggest players in the liquor industry – heads of brewers Lion Nathan and Foster’s and the chiefs of liquor retail divisions of Coles and Woolworth’s - were given the front page and a full page inside to give their opinions on five major areas relating to the drinking problems in our community.

They were asked to provide their thoughts on binge dinking, the recent taxing of ‘alcopops’ , low alcohol products, who’s to blame and what we can do to fix it.

All of them, in response to ‘who must take responsibility for alcohol related harm?’ echoed the same theme.

“Responsibility must lie primarily with the individual.” “An individuals decision to consume excessive amounts of alcohol and their actions are ultimately their own responsibility.” "We certainly believe the person who consumes the alcohol needs to take responsibility for their actions ..” ”Ultimately it comes down to individual responsibility to know and stay within (their) limits, the law and community standards.”

As to the scourge of binge drinking, all the stats point to a general decline in total alcohol consumption over the last three decades or so and, if we have a problem to address, it is the manner in which SOME people (dickheads) feel it necessary to drink i.e.; like dickheads. Brewers and retailers are subject to plenty of strict guidelines in terms of making, marketing and selling grog. Responsible service of alcohol and ID checks are all in place and are generally well adhered to. It must also be remembered that the VAST MAJORITY OF DRINKERS PURCHASE AND CONSUME THEIR ALCOHOL RESPONSIBLY. Sorry, the caps lock was stuck. So why do we need to punish the innocent rather than educate the guilty? And if education don’t work, then punish them. But not us.

A report on the story can be found here. But I’ve given you all the good bits and cut out the crap, so, really, why bother? Life’s short. Have a beer instead.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23965433-5014099,00.html#

I have a confession to make.

My Name is Professor Pilsner ...

And I am a binge drinker.

Well, I’m NOT REALLY. I like to enjoy the experience of a nice cold lager and I certainly like to savour the taste and flavour and aroma of a well crafted ale. I spend a little extra, most times, to be able to drink something a bit special and yet at other times I like to spend bugger-all and brew up 23 litres of homebrew for about 20 cents a stubby.

I usually have a beer or two as I prepare the family meal and then, depending on the meal, I will select a matching ale or lager to have at the dinner table. Most nights, when the little Pilsners are tucked into bed I will sit down with Mrs Pilsner and sip a nice rich amber ale or maybe a porter or a sparkling ale before popping off to stack some zeds.

Which makes me a binge drinker.

So says the government. You see, at no small expense to the taxpayer, our eminent federal leaders have seen fit to throw massive amounts of OUR cash towards combating the scourge of modern society; binge drinking. And, in conjunction with this, some pin heads in lab coats clutching clipboards and nodding to each other in an authoritative manner have decided that we MUST decide upon a number of mid-sized beers that will constitute a “binge”. Having added together the total number of girlfriends that these poindexters have had in their entire lives, they were able to settle on the number four and this, they have declared, is the magic number. Drink four beers and you are engaging in a binge.

Now, call me old fashioned but I always thought that binge drinking was a frenetic and continuous kind of irresponsibility perpetrated by knob-ends and dickheads who don’t respect the beer or who don’t have enough self control to slow down and enjoy a night out or who are unable to realise that they are drinking too much or too quickly. Apparently this definition was far too difficult to communicate effectively, let alone fit onto a flash card, so they just settled on “four beers”. Knobs.

See you all at the next big “binge”; dinner at my place tonight.

Cheers,Prof. Pilsner