The fuckers are lying again

Programme makers asked Sheffield University to model the effects of a 50p per unit minimum price, which would push the price of the cheapest bottle of vodka from about £9 to £13.

Statisticians estimated the effect would be 50,000 fewer alcohol-related deaths in England among over 65s, over the course of 10 years.

Look, total alcohol related deaths are of the order of 9,000 a year for the whole grunting country.

Making booze a little more expensive is not going to stop 55% of those deaths.

The cunting fucks are lying to us again. Hang them.

23 thoughts on “The fuckers are lying again”

  1. I’ll bring some piano wire.
    Ropes too good for ’em.
    When are these fake charities going to be cut ,all they do is piss everyone off,destroy businesses, waste taxpayers money and bring legitimate science into disrepute.

  2. It’s not even that. How many of those 9000 deaths are amongst the over-65s? If it is less than 60%, this price rise is going to be truly miraculous.

    Pre-pendantry note: yes, I would consider a 92.5% reduction in the death rate from any cure “miraculous”.

  3. “When are these fake charities going to be cut…”

    It seems the answer is ‘Never, while they provide sinecures for ex-MPs and civil servants and their friends and families’.

  4. C777 – never come across a fake charity before. If you’ve found one, notify the charity commission so it can take action.

  5. As someone approaching that watershed, what gets to me is the intrusiveness of the whole thing. You’d think that someone with 3/4 of their allotted lifespan behind them could be trusted to make their own decisions about how they exit this mortal coil. If one chooses to do so by necking cheap vodka, what exactly is the fucking problem?

  6. ONS data for 2010 say there were 3,651 alcohol-related deaths in 2010 in England among people aged 55 and over (sources and more data on my blog).

    I am deeply sceptical about the Sheffield University research.

  7. Hang on. Neither the Beeb nor Sheffield Uni are fake charities? Nor, frankly, are the RCP or ACPO?

    Noting that people may wish the Beeb and ACPO were differently organised and funded but that doesn’t make them fake or even charities.

  8. Aren’t ACPO a limited company?

    I haven’t looked in here at Worstall’s lately but I’m glad I did. Otherwise I’d never have known about this drink-related holocaust among pensioners. They must be dropping like nine pins. So I’m just off to my Dad’s to confiscate that bottle of whisky I bought him for Christmas. Can’t be too careful.

  9. It’s not lying, per se, it’s weaselling.

    The question here is is how you define ‘alcohol-related deaths’. Is it…

    a) deaths that are directly attributable, at least in part, to the effects of alcohol, e.g. alcohol poisoning, liver disease and accidents and violent incidents in which alcohol is a factor, etc.


    b) deaths from any cause in which alcohol consumption has been identified as an epidemiological risk factor, regardless of the size of the increase risk or complexity of the association and presence of significant confounding factors, in which case ‘alcohol-related deaths’ will include a number of cancers, CHD and a shitload of other causes of mortality to inflate your figures.

    It doesn’t take genius to figure out that that Sheffield University has been using definition (b) in their models.

  10. @Ian B

    And my Dad’s love of Rioja? He’s only 84, lives off blood transfusions but it’s the 1/2 bottle a day that is going to kill him, right?

    I’d better get over there quick and sort him too. Surprised he hasn’t gone already.

  11. I wonder whether “alcohol-related” means the same when it refers to deaths as it does when it refers to crime, namely “someone involved had been drinking”. If two people are fighting, it’s “alcohol-related crime” if either one had been drinking. Perhaps “alcohol-related death” includes falling off a cliff while pissed, or being pushed off a cliff by someone who’s pissed.

  12. “I thought fags killed everyone”

    Nope, generally law-abiding. And soon they’ll be able to get married, too.

  13. Put up the price of booze and for the over 65’s deaths from malnutrition and hypothermia will rise and there will be little reduction in deaths from alcohol related diseases.

  14. In relation to alcohol can I use the female argument of ‘my body, my choice’ as usually used in terms of pregnancy and abortion?
    Whats the difference?

    JuliaM – those do not look like fake charities. Look like they get some of their income from various sources. And charities have been campaigning and lobbying governments now for hundreds of years. With some success.
    Someone defining a charity as fake simply because they believe it is does not make the charity fake. Then again, the person or group who put the site together may have trouble following the definition of ‘charity’ as used by the body responsible for overseeing them.

  15. Martin Davies – there are some charities on the Fke Charity site that seem to be outposts of the government rather than charities. Certainly, organisations that receive most of their income from central or local government do seem to be pushing the limits of what a charity is. Even more so if their aim is to lobby the government. Look up, for example, London Sustainability Exchange. or Leeds Healthy Living Network, or National Obesity Forum or Equality Challenge Unit

  16. The *old* definition of a Charity excluded all those involved in political lobbying and banned them from using charitable funds to relieve the burden on the rates. But New Labour changed the rules and put some of its apparatchiks in charge of interpreting the new rules so that an educational charity can be *required* to relieve the burden on the rates by subsidising a state school in order to maintain its charitable status.
    There is no point in complaining to the Charity commission until the apparatchiks have been replaced. Until then we have an Orwellian situation where the government is paying people to lobby the government to carry out New Labour policies.

  17. Martin,

    You aren’t trying very hard and, consequently, aren’t winning over very many people.

    These “charities” aren’t defined as fake “because someone believes it is” – the definition they use is both clear and reasonable.

    Here it is:
    “We define a Fake Charity as any organisation registered as a UK charity that derives more than 10% of its income—and/or more than £1 million—from the government, while also lobbying the government. That lobbying can take the form of calling for new policies, changes to the law or increases in (their own) funding.”
    (their italics).

    It was jolly difficult to find though: they had hidden it very carefully in the second paragraph in the centre of the home page text.

  18. The implied policies are grossly inconsistent.

    On the one hand we have a government that mandates the Liverpool Care Pathway to thin out the ranks of money-eating oldsters.

    On the other then we have this shower battling to keep the wretches hale and hearty and thus drawing pensions etc.

  19. Solved by making booze more expensive for over 65s only. Don’t just card folk who look young. Card everyone and then reprice the drink if necessary. Simples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *