Thursday, August 20, 2009

The bansturbation will never stop

Oh dear, oh dear: it is at times like this that your humble Devil—frothing libertarian loon as he is so often described—starts to feel a little sorry for those die-hard Conservatives.

For it seems that The Massively-Foreheaded Cunt™ has decided that cracking down on booze should probably be on the agenda.
The Tories have unveiled radical plans to crack down on the binge-drinking culture.

They would treble taxes on alcopops and strong lagers and ciders, outlaw 'loss leader' sales in supermarkets and strip takeaways and food stores of late-night licences.

Such tax changes would mean a four-pack of extra-strong lager such as Carlsberg Special Brew costing an extra £1.30, a bottle of powerful cider an extra £1.25 and a bottle of alcopop an extra 50p.

[Fuckwit Cameron] said: 'Drink-related violence and crime are a massive problem. We need to look at the unbelievable availability of very cheap drink, getting three litres of cider for £1.99, at all hours of day and night. We've got to do something about this.'

Why? Why not actually get the police to do some fucking policing, you fucking twat? Why don't you abandon the idea of punishing the innocent because you cannot be arsed to punish the guilty, eh?

Poor old Jackart is somewhat dismayed
—can it be that he finally realises that the Tories are not going to be in any way a libertarian government? Or even more liberal?
I guess all we can hope is that the Tories are less enthusiastic bansturbators, and this is kite-flying to appease the bitter harridans with mouths like dogs arseholes who read the Daily Hate. Puritanism: the nagging fear that someone somewhere might be having fun cannot be sated, and the Tories are foolish to try. The Scottish Tories are, after all, opposing this illiberal lunacy in Scotland.

Yes, you cling onto that one straw, Jackart, my friend: you keep trying to convince yourself that it'll all be better when this collection of shits get their hands on the levers of power. Even though it won't be.

After all, I think that you'll find that James Brokenshire flew this flag a year ago—he was a cunt then, and Dave's a cunt twat now.

So, the Tory agenda is... er...

Lower taxes?—nope. An end to alcohol controls?—nope. A sensible attitude to smoking?—nope. A less bansturbatory attitude to films or magazines?—nope and nope. Reform of the NHS?—nope. Decisive action on MPs' expenses?—nope.

What, precisely, do these cunts stand for? Oh yes: more of the same.

When will so-called "libertarian Tories" wake the fuck up and realise that their little pet party is not fucking libertarian?
The Tories are not libertarian, have never been libertarian and any member of the Tory Party who claims to be a libertarian—and this applies doubly to those Tories in Parliament, i.e. the leaders of the Tory Party who make the policy—is either deluded or lying.

When will these "libertarian Tories" realise that they are neither outside the tent pissing in, nor inside the tent pissing out?—they are just dribbling piss all down their trousers.

As Tory Bear points out, Call Me Dave has a history of contradicting himself, or—as we principled people call it—of vacillating, dissembling and straight-out lying.
Hmmm. What happened to personal responsibility, that little concept you spoke of just over a year ago. It wasn't all nanny state and dictating to people what they should drink then:
"David Cameron declared yesterday that some people who are poor, fat or addicted to alcohol or drugs have only themselves to blame.

He said that society had been too sensitive in failing to judge the behaviour of others as good or bad, right or wrong, and that it was time for him to speak out against “moral neutrality”."

Please continue...
“Of course, circumstances — where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school and the choices your parents make — have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices people make.”

And now Dave has decided that this isn't, in fact, the case: now Dave has decided that he should dictate what we should drink, what price we should drink it at and where we should drink it.

This reminds me of when Dave said that he was a libertarian... And then decided that he wasn't a libertarian after all.

Actually, I reckon that The Massively-Foreheaded Cunt™ is a libertarian. Only, it's not the kind of libertarianism that I believe in: no, Dave believes in "libertarian paternalism", just like those totalitarian bastards Alan Maryon-Davis and Julian le Grand.

And regular readers will know precisely how popular that concept is around here.

Ain't that right, Dave?


Friday Night Smoke said...

I can hear a massive can of worms being opened..
As for "libertarian tories" I guess that would apply to me, although I am not a member of the party. Perhaps through sheer jaded delusion, I certainly *hope* that they will be better than the present lot in that respect, and I think that the "core philosophy" of the Conservatives is closer, and I know that a great many of the grassroots support 'proper' liberal policies. I think that if a libertarian government is what we want (I would presume that for readers of DK this is true) then we would be better off at least trying to nudge the tories in that direction, rather than putting all of our eggs in organisations such as LPUK (laudable as they are).
As for "libertarian paternalism", I've read Nudge, and I would describe it as "the least dodgy way of doing dodgy things". The logic and methods are good, but the core assumption (that the state should attempt to micromanage the population, 'coz nanny knows best) remains.
And yes, I do agree that "Call me Dave" is (to put it lightly) not my first choice as PM.

Anonymous said...

I would have thought you'd be pleased with this, DK. If the Libertarian Party is ever to be anything more than a hobby for a handful of pseudo-intellectual saddos wanking over Ayn Rand, it'll have to attract libertarian-leaning Tories.

If things fall out as your post suggests, a Cameron government should see an eventual fracturing of the Conservatives and a corresponding growth in the power of LPUK.

JuliaM said...

Thank god, I was beginning to think I was the only one to read this and practically start glowing with barely concealable rage...

The best bit was the point where he said: "'We want to encourage personal responsibility.

People have to be held responsible for what they do, and if they behave badly having drunk too much they should feel the weight of the law, they should be prosecuted. "

This. Right after saying that he believed raising taxes for all and banning things was the answer.

Jesus wept! Either he doesn't read what he is told to say, or he doesn't understand it. Which is it?

Ian B said...

As I keep saying, the Conserative Party are nineteenth century progressives, whereas the New Labour Party are nineteenth century progressives, and the Liberal Democrats are ninenteenth century progressives. There was a bit of a falling out in the twentieth century when the Old Labour Party became a bit marxist, and the Conservative Party let some strange woman in was a bit economically liberal, but that's all sorted out now.

English Conservatism is not, and has never been, a liberal movement. This country fell to progressivism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and the old argument since has been over which specific policies will create the bestest "progress". Tories tend to want something to do with the Church of England, and hitting people with sticks. Labour want to improve people by giving them stuff. But ideologically, all the parties are naught but top-hatted pillars of the community, trying to build various different versions of Port Sunlight.

Up until the nineteenth century, british "liberty" largely consisted of a ruling class not overly interested in the state of the populace, and a populace who'd rather throw a brick at a magistrate than follow some pettiflogging regulation. Once the ruling class got religion- that is, the idea of "improvement" of the people- we were fucked.

James Higham said...

When will these "libertarian Tories" realise that they are neither outside the tent pissing in, nor inside the tent pissing out?—they are just dribbling piss all down their trousers.

Is that what that nasty smell was?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Devil you're a married man now - isn't it time to stop fretting over cheap cider?

Believe me when the adolescent devilettes come staggering home, pissed out their skull at 2 oclock in the morning (assuming you proceed to the next link in the chain) you will be cursing local 'offy' although not yourself of course - parent's can't be blamed for such wayward behaviour can they?

Devil's Kitchen said...

No, A&E, I shall blame them and myself. And discipline them, if need be.

What is it with people like you that you cannot grasp that I actually believe most of what I write, and try to live by the principles that I espouse?

I must seem very strange to you.


Anonymous said...

Tis madness I tell ya!
Who in their right minds thinks that if the illegality of various drugs and the high price that generally accompanies them doesn't stop peolpe seeking out and abusing said drugs, that higher prices (but still legal) will affect alcohol abuse?

Bald headed John.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Jesus, only married for a week and already he's planning kids. Does Bella know about this? :o)

the a&e charge nurse said...

Judging by his performance in cyprus the Devil is clearly a quick worker, Obnoxio - but I'm afraid you have missed my point.

I'm not trying to play some kind of later day Mystic Meg in order to speculate about the next 'phase' of the Devil's whirlwind relationship, although it goes without saying that I hope everything works out well for the happy couple.

No, I was merely inviting one or two of the Libertarians to step outside of their solipsistic bubble so that they might recognise that cheap cider can be associated with collateral damage (or whatever euphemism is used for a glass in the face nowadays) amongst our hormonally driven and difficult to manage teenagers.

My point was a broader one aimed at any parent who has had the misfortune of sitting in casualty at 2 o'clock in the morning waiting for somebody that was in medical school a few weeks ago to patch up their child's various injuries.
Here's a nice example of the type of thing that I'm talking about - and it is rare for alcohol not to have been a factor.


Why not close the pubs at a reasonable hour?

bella gerens said...

A&E, do you really expect either of us to feel such worry at the prospect of what as-yet non-existent children might or might not do decades in the future that we begin to support foolish policy we would never otherwise cease to ridicule? What you call 'solipsism' (and goodness, do you use that word often) is nothing more than simple disregard for an emotive argument that relies on circumstances that may or may not ever come about.

(And I hope any future devilette would have more taste than to drink cheap cider, since I intend to instruct her on the finer points of life long before she's old enough to contemplate choosing a beverage on her own. Just as my parents did, and their parents before them.)

Vicola said...

Sounds fine to me. I don't drink strong lager or cider so it looks like I'll still be able to get twatted out of my tiny mind on vodka or wine for the same price. However if they do decide to tax my tipple of choice until I have to choose between food and alcohol, I will go after the swines with the full force of my fury.

johnny nunsuch said...

With rights come responsibilities something forgotten especially by vote chasing politicians

boy dave's glee club has the catchy slogan "Vote for Change"

what change dave - one set of cunts for another set of cunts

Never trust a Tory

J. Wibble said...

I would like to ask the Daily Mail what precisely the buggery is "powerful cider". Does it smack people in the face for you? Alcohol is not some kind of magical voodoo force compelling people to act like morons, as the government seems to believe. Alcohol is only a problem if you abuse it, like steak knives or barbecues.

No tax increases on Jack Daniels then, my husband will be happy. Cheap vodka should be taxed as petrol or lighter fluid, since that's what it bloody tastes like.

JuliaM said...

"No, I was merely inviting one or two of the Libertarians to step outside of their solipsistic bubble so that they might recognise that cheap cider can be associated with collateral damage..."

Do you seriously think that, without alcohol, these would be chiorboys (an d girls) instead?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Agreed, Bella - the debauchery of the middle classes usually involves a few glasses of house white augmented by a few happy pills.

JuliaM - fair point, the self destruct button is part and parcel of the adolescents rights of passage - I guess I worry too much?

Devil's Kitchen said...


Yes, you do worry too much. And you also have no sense of perspective.

The number of assaults in the UK is about 725,000 per year. Let us assume that every, single one of these is alcohol related.

Let's say that the working population of Britain—about 40 million—each have a drink twice a week. That makes 80 million instances of drinking per week, and 4,160,000,000 per year.

So, of the 4.16 billion instances of drinking each year, 725,000 lead to assaults—a conversion rate of 0.00174%*.

Not exactly significant, is it?

And bear in mind that we are attributing all assaults to alcohol and severely underestimating the instances of drinking.

So, yes, you worry too much.


* My calculator goes a bit wonky when trying to calculate such tiny numbers.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Devil, please take a look at Prof Sheperd's work.

I may worry but I still think you are a bit complacent.
Crime is under-reported - according to the Prof only 23% of cases (amongst a population of victims who had attended A&E) were recorded by the police.

This certainly matches my own experiences when despite a severe beating many punters simply prefer to lick their wounds and go home without ever involving the police.

But leaving aside the numbers game some of these alcohol related assaults are a life changing event both physically and psychologically (see earlier link for example of facial wounds).

As ever we will have to agree to disagree.

Ian B said...

The answer would be to look at a society that has banned alcohol, and see how serene it is. Notice how calm and relaxed and pacifistic the entirely temperate Islamic world is. Surely, temperance will lead to paradise on Earth.

Alternatively, maybe some people are just thugs, whether sober or drunk, and thugs happen to beat people up whenever there are opportunities. Or is it just me that has noticed that the sort of people who beat people up when drunk tend to be the same people who beat people up when sober?

Current said...


Remember your choices are Labour or Tories. There are no other significant choices. So, you must pick the least worst of the two, that is democracy.

Or you can not vote, which has the benefit of being neutral. Voting for anyone who isn't in a politically significant party is equivalent to not voting.

What you must understand is that nothing is going to change quickly. There is a long hard road ahead of us. Perhaps in half a century or so we can achieve something, it's unlikely to happen before.

the a&e charge nurse said...

IanB said ....... "Or is it just me that has noticed that the sort of people who beat people up when drunk tend to be the same people who beat people up when sober?"

No, thats wrong - the disinhibiting effect of alcohol is well known and in many cases is a significant variable in casual violence.

You are right about countries like Saudi Arabia, though - their crime rates are far lower than ours.

Simon Jester said...


So move to Saudi, then.

You authoritarian cunt.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Oh well done, Simon, what a thoughtful comment - you must have spent ages thinking about?

But I think you'll find it was Ian B who originally expressed great interest in different cultural approaches to alcohol - I merely drew attention to a difference in crime rates.

Does reporting facts make you an 'authoritarian cunt', perhaps it does amongst members of the BNP?

Simon Jester said...


You appear to wish similar restrictions on the sale of alcohol - and you cite the crime figures there with apparent approval.

I am at a loss as to the relevence of the BNP to the rest of the thread; if anything, I would expect the average BNP member to share your prohibitionistic tendencies.

If you're less than keen on the Saudi way of doing things, you have expressed it extremely poorly.

If you do admire their way of living, then I suggest you emigrate there post haste - and leave us drunkards to our preferred way of life.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Simon - can you tell me where I suggest prohibition?

Yes, I cite the under-reporting of alcohol fueled violence but perhaps you would prefer it if the public remained ignorant (until they are directly affected by it themselves, of course) - as I mention above the Prof has done some interesting work in this area, make of it what you will if you can be bothered to follow the links.

I do not wish to restrict the sale of anything, alcohol or drugs for that matter - people can drink themselves to death if they want to (at least it keeps my mortgage provider in a state of near ecstasy).

In fact half the time its hard not to stifle a little snigger at some of the loud mouth beery cretins who find their way into police custody or A&E (after chunks have been taken out of their head).
The women who have been slapped around by their drunken partners provide less amusement, of course.

The BNP reference was simply a response to the fuck-off-to-another-country abuse that you felt necessary to dish out earlier

We all the know this is the preferred BNP option for those that do not toe the party line, not to mention those who like to keep their head stuck up their arse for fear of what they might see.

Fact is crime rates ARE lower there

Simon Jester said...


Under sophistry, see...

"can you tell me where I suggest prohibition?"

The title of this post is "The bansturbation will never stop" - and you take a contrary position to the author of the post.

But I am glad to see you apparently didn't intend to support prohibition.

As far as I am aware, the BNP's position on people "fuck[ing]-off-to-another-country" relates to the colour of their skin. I haven't made a detailed study of all their policies, though.

DK said...


"Fact is crime rates ARE lower there"

Well, yes. Although their reporting is nowehere near as comprehensive as ours.

Also, might I suggest that the supposed non-availability of alcohol is possibly one of the tiniest factors in Saudi's lower crime rate?

Of course, if you are suggesting that we should adopt Saudi punishments—such as executing murderers, chopping the hands off thieves and stoning women to death for being raped—then we can have a discussion... ;-)


DK said...

P.S. Please note that the Saudis do all of the above whilst sober! Can you imagine what it would be like if they were pissed...!


the a&e charge nurse said...

Simon said ....... and you take a contrary position to the author of the post.

Not exactly although I was curious to hear if our gainfully employed, and now happily married host still regarded cheap cider as the holy grail of personal politics - for good measure I threw in a universal concern about parents dealing with their tanked up teenagers but JuliaM has already expertly dealt with this matter.

You are right the BNP are obsessed with skin colour but IF they secure greater political leverage who knows what they are capable of next?

Devil - your comment about pissed up Saudis will have me chuckling all night.
I'm delighted to learn that your recent romantic adventures have not blunted your razor sharp wit.

Anonymous said...

A&E nurse seems to be an authority on all matters medical, social, political, etc, we all know the type and they can go and fuck themselves.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Anonymous (11:26) - if abuse is allied to razor sharp wit, or more importantly some degree of political insight then it can be a joy to behold.

You, on the other hand come across like an angry drunk in the A&E waiting room - and you seem to have taken even less time than Simon Jester to formulate your observations (if that's possible).

Why bother?

Anonymous said...

sterotype away - you're so far of the mark that it is pitiful

the a&e charge nurse said...

Which substantive point are you challenging, anonymous, or do you just like making a noise?

Anonymous said...

PS I've read your self-opinionated bullshit on several blogs & no-one cares what you think. That's what stings. It is helpful to remind you of this fact.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Calm down anonymous, you're starting to sound like a stalker.

Anyway, feel free to ignore any future posts by the A&E Charge Nurse, I'm sure plenty of others do.

One of the great virtues of blogging is that if you don't like what you are reading you simply move on to the next commentator.

Blogging is a broad church my angry, and censorious friend.

bella gerens said...

Anonymous recently: if you really think what A&E has to say is 'self-opinionated bullshit,' you might enlighten us all by explaining why. By slinging insults at a person whose views, as he quite rightly points out, you're not obliged to engage with, you undermine whatever point it is you're trying to make.

A&E: Quite apart from your stereotypes about middle class vices (and I wish to point out that never in my life have I taken a 'happy pill'), I sympathise entirely with your desire to liberate people from the dangers of being beaten up by alcohol-fuelled thugs. I just don't think that imposing price controls is the solution. Whenever that's been tried, wherever, and for whatever reason, it's been a disaster. If you think it won't affect the price of your own occasional, responsible tipples--or indeed the price of anything else--you're mistaken. Let the government, if it wishes to reduce alcohol-related violence and illness, focus on prosecuting and punishing crime properly and adopting policy that will reduce the causes of alcohol dependence. I don't have a solution--I freely admit that--but the pricing of goods is not a realm in which governments should become involved, if its spectacular historical lack of success is anything to go by.

archduke said...

dont forget - it was the Tories that banned outdoor raves in the early 90s with their "repetitive beats" legislation.