Agree completely, and in fact I have two articles coming up on my blog in the morning that touch on these issues of engagement and prohibitive measures regarding children consuming alcohol.

What I will say is that in almost every circumstance available, if you look to a place with a decent social education culture and lower age of consent for something than our country, you’ll find they have less of a problem than we do. Arbitrary figures as to when you suddenly become responsible enough to do something don’t do anything to stop kids from exploring their boundaries, especially on issues like drink and sex.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.

The law was never meant to stop 17 year olds drinking.

The age of 18 (adulthood by law) was a reasonable arbitrary age under which publicans could use the law as a justification for refusing to serve some one. This meant they could turn away children.

So if we now want to enforce that law – we need to change it to reflect the reality that 17 year olds are old enough to drink whether it is legal or not.

–

And what is worse is people like Brian Paddick spouting nonsence about enforcing the law because in a study, 4 in 10 outlets in london served a child – when ‘child’ includes soldiers and married couples.

My best friend and I first starting going to the pub when we were 16 and were regulars by the time we were 17. Even though the other regulars and barstaff knew of our age (which we were unaware of at the time), we were allowed there because we were responsible drinkers who everyone knew would never cause trouble or act like complete pillocks. I truly do find the idea of 20 year olds behing prohibited from consuming alcohol in a pub to be ridiculous, I’m only just 21!

Surely if the concern is young people over-consuming alcohol to such an extent that it represents a huge social cost, shouldn’t the standard economic solution be to raise taxes on alocohol (which I saw on the news yesterday is the plan, and good on ‘em)

He’s the former Vice-Chancellor – the Chancellor is the Duke of Edinburgh.

I agree though, a ludicrous suggestion.

I also doubt that any Cambridge VC has ever got close enough to the undergraduate population to converse with US students and form such an opinion. It is no doubt one which has been filtered through to Lord Broers from elsewhere.

Having said that, there’s no doubt a great deal of OTT drinking at Cambridge.

There is a lot of OTT drinking in Cambridge! Whoops about the Vice Chancellor thing- doesn’t alter the main point though- and I agree with everyone else’s comments.