Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Ban pleasure!

Oh, dear fucking god, will these fuckers never piss off? Why is it that every pleasure that we have is to be regulated and eventually legislated out of existence? They've gone for fox-hunting, smoking and now they're getting started on the booze.
Alcoholic drinks will carry new health warning labels by the end of 2008 under a voluntary agreement between ministers and the drinks industry.

The labels will detail alcoholic units and recommended safe drinking levels.

Bottles and cans currently have alcohol percentages, but only some state what this equals in alcoholic units.

Public health minister Caroline Flint says exactly what the labels will say is not decided, but the warnings will not be as strong as for cigarettes.

Anyone else looking forward to "Low Sperm Count", "Alcohol Causes Cirrhosis Of The Liver" and "This Drink Is Going To Fucking Kill You" warning labels? Oh, and don't forget the "If You Take One Sip Of This Drink, You WILL Go Home And Beat Up Your Wife And Touch Up Your Kids" warnings.

Still at least it's a voluntary code, eh? Rather than this fascist government legislating on it. [Emphasis mine.]
The measure was first proposed three years ago, but both sides have struggled to agree on a format.

It is not known how many drinks firms will sign up for the scheme, but ministers said if the industry did not comply, the government would introduce legislation.

Oh, what a fucking surprise! This government does love its legislation, doesn't it? Is it because they are a bunch of fucking authoritarian cunts with absolutely no sense of proportion and only their puritanical instincts to guide them in how to make everybody's lives that little bit more miserable. Fuck, I hate them.

And, naturally, various hideous awful pressure groups—encouraging our government to curtail our freedoms whilst being funded with our money—are there on the sidelines, sticking their entirely unwanted views in our faces, like a small goblin holding a turd up to my nose.
Alcohol Concern welcomed the scheme but said it did not go far enough.

Don Shenkar, director of policy and services for the charity, said: "We'd like there to be more information in pubs and bars, in terms of the sensible drinking limits there."

Oh, you would, would you? Well, I don't. I am fed up with constant preachy bloody signs everywhere I look. Quite apart from the fact that they remind me of the bunch of arseholes that we are ruled by, they're so fucking ugly.

And how, precisely, are pubs that have a constantly rotating selection of ales supposed to cope with government-sanctioned signs? Will they receive their alcohol unit signs along with the font badge? And what if, as often happens, the badge and sign don't arrive? Will they not be allowed to serve the beer? And why doesn't everyone involved in Alcohol Concern fuck off and drown themselves in a vat of malmsey?—that'd give them something to be concerned about.
However, Annette Fleming, chief executive of Aquarius, a Midlands-based alcohol and drugs charity, questioned how effective the labelling would be.

She told BBC Radio Five Live: "It begs the question, that once people have had one drink out of a bottle, are they really going to be bothered to read the tiny print that talks about units?

"I'm not sure it will actually make a difference."

Well, quite. So what is the fucking point, eh? Labelling on cigarettes hasn't been effective: why else would the EU—which, as Croydonian found, is subsidising tobacco growers to the tune of €920 million this year—be legislating to put pictures of diseased lungs and other such monstrosities on packets of fags (I've got a cigarette case, so up yours, Brussels)?

But it is because these fuckers always need to find something to ban in order to justify their own existence. So, fox-hunting and fags are nearly conquored, so it's time to move strongly against alcohol. We can hardly pretend to be surprised; the attacks have come fast and furious over the last few years: we had surgeon John Smith trying to limit people to three drinks a night, the EU Commission report on "passive drinking", health "experts" setting ludicrous "binge-drinking" definitions, the Preston police trying to ban "vertical drinking", the bloody EU (again) trying to curb alcohol advertising, the move to ensure that all drinks in pubs are served in plastic recepticles, and Patsy cocking Hewitt begging the Chancellor for some of that hot Polly-style lovin' much higher alcohol taxes.

This last was one of my more vitriolic posts and this one paragraph basically sums up my attitude towards all of these attempts to infringe on my freedom to get absolutely stoshus.
Go fuck youself, you stinking apology for a cunt of a human being; did I say human being? I meant hideous chicken-brained whore of a monkey's arse dipped in aubergine surprise—the surprise being that it is made of aubergines and shit, shit, shitty-shit-shit-shit—and mashed up with the pus-filled discharge of a diseased, eighty-year-old whore's raddled, smelly and very badly-packed kebab. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you cunting cunt cuntitty cunt cunt. Tit.

So there.

Where do we find these bloody parasitic busybodies, eh? We are crying out for more scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors, doctors, nurses, anyone competent and all we seem to end up with is these fucking killjoy scum.

No wonder the moral fibre of this once-great country seems to be going down the fucking toilet. What a bunch of cunts.


JuliaM said...

" a small goblin holding a turd up to my nose."

You have a real way with words.... Priceless!

tarquil said...

"We are crying out for more scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors, doctors,"

Everyone knows that men are generally smarter then women, but feminists hate this so they sabotage boys education at primary school level.

Fidothedog said...

Oh for fucks sake, have they not worked it out yet that the reason we drink is that they have left us fuck all else in this life that has not been banned, regulated to buggery and/or taxed out of existance.


Anonymous said...

I'll drink to that!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Agreed, very fair summary.

Bag said...

Everything will be attacked in time. Won't be long beforeplaying with yourself is a capital offence. By that time suicide will seem like a great thing to do.

These whingy whiney do gooders will be the death of us all.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Fair enough Devil, but can't we do something about the disinhibited pish-heads who can't really enjoy a Friday night until they've sunk a broken bottle into somebodies face ?

And life would certainly be easier without the glassy eyed motorists who are breathalysed in casualty after damaging themselves or the other poor sod who got in the way.

Labels on the can might not be a bad idea - but instead of providing advice about units perhaps they should be used to remind consumers to clean up their own piss, shit and vomit, and to refrain from pitching up at a hospital because they are too inadequate to find their own way home.

I'm all for freedom of choice in the substance goody shop - but surely this entails personal responsibility when things get out of hand, because inevitably they will - I know, I see it every time I work nights.

Devil's Kitchen said...

A&E Charge Nurse,

Fair enough, but once again we come down to the problem of punishing everybody for the sins of a few.

Got a problem with bottlings? Fine: actually get the police to do their fucking job and hunt down the bastard and then double the maximum sentence.

Same applies to drink-drivers. Catch them and double the punishment. Triple it if you like.

But you are always going to get people like that. OK, make those who need their stomachs pumped pay for it.

As you know, I support a paying health system: it's the only way that you will make people responsible for their actions.

And those that still turn up arseholed? Well, sorry, Nurse, but that is part of what you are paid to do.


archduke said...

hey DK - did you hear the news today about the ban on 10 cigarette packs in Ireland.

dundering idiots - from today you can only buy 20 packs in Ireland.
so, rather than a 10 pack, you'll have kids with 20 packs , and thus, will end up smoking more, much sooner in life.

the brain melting fuckwit illogicality of the neo-fascist new puritans.


DuSanne said...

I suspect these measures will make more of a difference than the alcohol charities expect, just not the kind of difference they want.

No longer will Duane, swilling his Smirnoff Super Ice Extra, and Kev, on Shitelager Premium have to argue the toss about who is drinking the 'hardest' drink. I can even see drinking games developing...last one to 20 units gets the round in etc. or some kind of pikey bingo.

Flint and co. have obviously never been in a pub and seen the dregs scanning the ABV figures on the pumps so they can pick the strongest lager.

Anyway to paraphrase some comedian I head...I don't care, it's only a government recommended amount, and since when does the fucking government get anything right?

the A&E Charge Nurse said...

The 'FEW' !!!!!!!
Devil, have you been on the special brew again ?

The percentage of alcohol related problems in A&E is huge, and increasing;
The main problems are falls/collapse [including fits], head injury & assault [including domestic violence], and this is before we even start on mental health issues or overdoses.

And by the way, why should nurses be responsible for dreary men or women who piss themselves in the pursuit of oblivion - do we have to medicalise all problems in living ?
Are you seriously suggesting that A&E staff should waste their time mollycoddling these gormless muppets rather than dealing with more serious cases.

I have no problem with the full range of goodies being made available to the discerning consumer, all I ask is that adrenaline seekers accept the inherent dangers of their choices when they crash and burn........or is that expecting too much ?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Charge Nurse,

Get some perspective, please. Now, I know that it may seem to you that the entirety of those who drink end up in your A & E department but, actually, of the vast numbers of people who drink every day, the percentage which ends up in your lap is very small.

What would you suggest? Would you prefer that you don't treat them -- are you advocating an idea of selective medicine? That you and your staff should decide who gets treatment?

I have suggested charging these people so that they realise that there are financial penalties above and beyond the amount of money they shove down their necks (and, as we all know, incentives matter); what else could be done?

As someone on the frontline, would you like to suggest a solution?


Anonymous said...

like a small goblin holding a turd up to my nose.

Were you referring to a particularly diminutive smoker there? Sounds like one of the nasty little polluting fuckers to me anyway.

Smoking is/was a liberty. A complete fucking liberty if you ask me. Bastards. It's a pity it only kills 50% of them. If I had my way they'd all be first against the wall.

As for piss-heads, if it takes them more than 3 years to drink themselves to death they should be ashamed of themselves and voluntarily go and jump(or stagger if preferred) off the nearest cliff or tall building(preferrably with a spotter to ensure no innocent passers-by are creamed). In fact, that'd be a good idea for the smokers too.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Devil, I'm sure you know that A&E staff have a duty of care to ALL patients brought to us - we accept that when we sign on the dotted line, and thats exactly as it should be.

It doesn't matter if it's some middle class twerp who has shat himself after too many glugs of chardonnay, or a lager & dope loving hoodie with a steaming damp patch on his low riding designer jeans.

I must admit we are rather glad to bid them audieu as they shuffle out of A&E wearing the standard issue hospital pyjama bottoms.

What is the solution you ask [tongue in cheek no doubt] God knows - but I can't stand Flint & Co and to be honest I don't really have a problem with the party animals, I'm just glad it's not me suffering with raised intracraniel pressure in the morning.

Stephen Tolkinghorne said...

It's almost as if they're honestly of the belief that people who drink can after can of Stella don't actually know that it's alcoholic.

As for causing 'low sperm count' - what the hell are they on about, it's the sort of scum who tend to drink themselves into oblivion on a nightly basis that we don't want to breed - there's enough of their illegimate offspring hanging around on street corners and scrounging off the welfare state, we don't want more of the blighters. We should be encouraging them to drink - it might act as a contraceptive for them.

Anonymous said...

Can't say I've ever read what's written on a beer can beyond the brand name. They could be putting next week's winning lottery numbers on there for all I know. Seriously, who the fuck reads beer cans?

Anonymous said...

I liked the idea of the Drunk Coach, Paramedics and Cops weeding out the merely drunk who sleep in locked booths with cctv. Charge them £150 for their stay.

Have treatment booths like peep show rooms / super loos that can be hosed down afterwards / during their stay.

I have been in A&E on a Friday night and frankly its horrific. I wouldn't want to do it.

£250 for non medical cases at the hospital.

£500 for a stomach pump.

£100 fine for filing your tax return late and £50 for affray? You can see the Government's priorities can't you?

Oh don't forget, the reason for the warnings is so that they can push the tax up, after all we all know its bad for you - don't we!

Vicola said...

Why are they bothering? There's no need to put "If you drink all of this you'll kill thousands of brain cells, dmamge your liver, act like a twat, sing in public and throw up in the morning" on a bottle of vodka because we all already know it. So why bother? I said last year that once they'd finished hanging, drawing and quartering smokers they'd start on booze and unfortunately I was right. Since Westminster is the only place aside from prisons and mental units that is exempt from the smoking ban can we also assume that the vintage bottles of Port in the WEstminster bar will also be exempt from a label telling them that after so many units of this their dick will no longer function normally and they will develop an urge to dance like a monkey?

RightForScotland said...

Warning: Booze Bad

Anonymous said...

This reminds me so much of a few months ago when the government and media began bleating on about 'binging' on alcohol. It all began with a purported move to crack down on the kind of drinkers who end up in the gutter on a Friday night (and often have to be put together again by A&E Charge Nurse). However, suddenly the emphasis changed from a move to reduce public order offences to a move to demonize drinkers of all kinds.

Under the current official understanding of 'binge-drinking', if I have a sherry before dinner, share a bottle of wine with my husband, then have a glass of port with the cheese afterwards, I am placed in exactly the same category as the Friday-night free-range city-centre vomiters - a 'binge-drinker'.

Rachel Miller

John Lancaster said...

The sheer poetry of your post enthralls me DK. I still cannot believe that our country's government thinks all we need is more legislation. This morning some dickhead said that for primary school children to raise their hands in class disadvantages the shy and introverted, and should be banned. Now there's another fine law waiting to be made. Get after them DK.

Neal Asher said...

Wasn't it the BMA who suggested, around about the time they were pushing for the smoking ban, that pub drinkers should be limited to two drinks each. This was rejected by the government as unenforcible, not because they thought if a crap liberty destroying idea. Fact is that this is the kind of legislation that creates more idiots: take away people's responsibility and you make more irresponsible people.

Roger Thornhill said...

john lanchaser: you forget, our government is made up of lawyers. All they understand is legislation, taxes and fines.

V said...

Love the sentiment - shame the majority of people in this country are just too keen on an easy life and will just roll over yet again!

Why is it that lefties are so happy to change everyone else's life style to fit in their own - yet, never suggest rules which would impede on their life styles?
The comments here also point out how popularity bias kicks in at every opportunity. It is noticeable with the Nurse. Of course she thinks everyone drinks to excess - she never meets drinkers who don't!
People who moan about smokers are always on the lookout for smokers to moan about! And politicians, what can you say? They spend their time trying to find things to do to justify their existence. If there were fewer of them, they would only be able to concentrate on the more important stuff - which would be better for the rest of us!

the a&e charge nurse said...

V - by all means continue to be an osterich when it comes to consequences of unbridled pleasure seeking.

If only I had a pound for the 'I can't believe it's happend to me' expression when a patient, accompanied by a worried, and equally bemused relative, ends up in A&E after being bottled, or worse....much, much worse.

I do not recall expressing any support for warning labels, other than to deter serial trouser soilers, and ambulance abusers from, well, taking the piss.
You clearly understand little of the social habits of nurse if you believe most of us are not social drinkers.

Look at my post[s] again - I'm all for a comprehensive range of mind warping agents - but during a night shift a low dose of something psychoactive is the only way to stay sane when confronted by so many pissed up wankers.


Anonymous said...

Let's face it guys, smoking kills and it's not just the smokers who're at risk from it. Drinking kills too and we're talking about a lot of people every year.

We have a huge problem with drink in this country. Even in white collar environments where people are very highly educated there is still a pressure on people to go on work nights out where the goal is to get completely wankered and you're an outcast if you don't want to drink.

Until getting pissed to the extent that you lose control of your bowels and/or decide to glass someone is socially unacceptable I think someone needs to tell people when to get off.

I personally know several people who've basically drunk themselves to death. It's clearly an evil drug in the wrong hands which destroys lives. Perhaps the civil liberties whingers should take that into account before they spew their completely useless, inane, illconsidered and utterly fuckwitted opinons on our shoes?

Why does it make sense that we ban cocaine, heroin, waccy baccy and all the rest when the drug which causes the greatest social problems in the country is still legal? Actually, that's a rhetorical question. Pass the alcohol duty, hic and light me a vested interest, cough.

I know somebody who knows a friend of Dionysus said...

Cracking rant, DK. We need a Minister for Intoxication.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, are you really too stupid to understand that the reason some people get drunk all of the time is because they *want to*? And much as you might not like the fact that they *want to*, it is none of your fucking business.

I think anyone who listens to R&B music is an idiot, I hate going to venues that play R&B music, and I'd be happier if all of the people who like R&B music would stop. But because I'm not a fuckwit like you, I don't think that the government should act to stop people from living their lives in the stupid fashion that they choose.


Anonymous said...

What does PDF stand for? Paralytically drunk fuckwit?

I want to beat your skull until what little brains you have have dribbled out onto your shoulders and thence the floor but, unfortunately, the law would take a pretty dim view even in the light of your "provocation".

Alcoholics/binge drinkers are my business when I'm forced to match them drink for drink on a work night out because if I don't I'll become the office pariah. It's my business when I then have to dodge aggressive drunks on the way home in order to avoid having my besutifully straight, noble(and very cute ladies) nose broken in an unnecessary vicious attack. It's my business when some drunk cunt crashes into my car parked on the side of the street and drives off,getting away with it because it's 2am and there're no witnesses.

I suspect you don't like R&B 'cause you've got no soul, much less rythm, and dance like a spasticated, and very drunk, Thunderbirds puppet.

I think that the smoking ban is the only good thing New Labia('cause they're all cunts) have done since they conned their way into power. Now, if only they'd legalise the euthenasing of useless cunts like you who post crap on blogs like this I might even forgive them some of the last 10 years.

Now fuck off and play in traffic. I think you'll enjoy it, if not for long.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Pigdog - people who want to get drunk all the time are quaintly referred to as alcoholic.

Alcoholism/uncontrolled drinking has obvious consequences for families and sometimes the wider community.

I'm all for drinking until you eject most of your blood supply after a torrential variceal haemorrhage [something that has to be seen to be believed].

But, perhaps 'drinking all the time' will stop being other peoples business when alcoholics no longer frequent the GP practice, hospital, or counselling services; assuming, of course, they are not one of a subset sent to jail due to a cowardly alcohol related offence such as wife battery.

Sorry to be such a bore but the statistics [on domestic violence, etc] are there for all to see.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Yes, we all know that alcohol is bad for some people. Thus, we tax it to pay for the externalities caused by those who are unable to cope with its effects.

Alcoholics/binge drinkers are my business when I'm forced to match them drink for drink on a work night out because if I don't I'll become the office pariah.

That might be the most pathetic thing that I've ever heard. Grow a fucking spine.


Anonymous said...


Well, thanks for input. May I ask why? When keeping my contract depends on ensuring that I "fit in" sadly I'll just have to keep plying the pathetic wankers I have to work with with alcohol and my lack of spine is neither here nor there.

Does your ire indicate a guilty alcholic secret? Are you the guy who insists people drink alcohol when in your presence even though they try to insist that all they want is a soft drink? If so, don't worry about it, you're secret's safe with us. I'm sure your next coma will obliterate all memory of my too-close-to-the-bone post.

Devil's Kitchen said...


Is it really in your contract that if you do not match your work colleagues drink for drink, or if you don't "fit in" you will lose your job?

I've never seen one of those before but, if it's any consolation, I am sure that clause would not be upheld by an employment tribunal.

A guilty alcoholic secret? Yes, sure; although, if I told you, it wouldn't be a secret anymore. But, strangely, although I can get heated in arguments (and I don't need to be pissed to do that), I have never had the urge to bottle anyone while drunk.

Do you see the point here? Not everyone is a drunk; not everyone is a violent drunk; and just because some are does not mean that the innocent should be punished because of a guilty minority.


Anonymous said...


It's a sad fact of life that our "culture" imposes an enormous pressure on people, men in particular, to be "one of the lads" and that, in general, involves getting paralytic and laughing and joking sbout one's antics at work the next day. Viz, falling asleep in the crapper, face down in a chicken vindaloo/ gutter and/or all three and still being first into the office in the morning.

I was a tee-totaller for long enough to realise that it didn't pay to be so. The office drunks viewed me with suspicion and disdain because I didn't "join/fit in". I'm not talking about on one contract either, I've had the best part of a dozen plus a couple of permie jobs and the pressure has always been there. I believe that the main issue is that they're scared to have someone sober around who's going to remember how much of an arsehole they've made of themselves the night before when they can't. I'm surprised you don't recognise the phenomenon.

I don't think I suggested that we live in a country filled with drunks either even though it sometimes feels like that. However, as a nation I think that a large majority does have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol and I'd agree with (almost) any attempts to mitigate that. Many people would be shocked to know just how much damage they've done to their bodies through binge drinking and if they knew they'd probably ease off. The only way to counter that is to raise the profile of the downside of alcohol as has been done with smoking.

I'm a libertarian at heart but libertarians also believe that there needs to some limit on personal freedom when one's actions adversely affect others. Smoking is a case in point as is binge drinking.

I think you should concentrate on exposing and ridiculing the truly barmy control freakery perpetrated by this bunch of fuckwits and have the decency to admit that at least one of their policies has been a good one, i.e the smoking ban.

Anonymous said...

Lol this is surely a windup. "Forced to binge drink to fit in." And now the government is going to pass a law equating everyone with this inept dimwit.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...