Priceless.

I fear you have missed the point

The issue here is that the Home Secretary is lying or stupid in her justifying an illiberal step that, so far as the evidence suggests anything, would not only stop hard working people being able to buy a midnight pint at their local pub – but would also lead to greater levels of crime.

Actually crime falling since the laws were changed doesn’t prove that the change in law cut crime. But what it absolutely definitely not prove is that crime rose as a result of that change in the law.

Which begs the question – why on earth is she planning to stop my local pub selling me a pint after a late night at work?

After all – I for one am not convinced that shoving every “drink as long as possible” type out onto the streets at exactly the same time all over every town is a recipe for a quiet walk home.

But equally, it is clear that some places do have problems with violence and other anti-social behaviours due to drinking. And longer licensing hours sometimes contribute to this, as they allow idiots to drink more – we all have met/been the type who just drink continually as long as possible. So these measures to address the problem are reasonably sensible and at least consistent in giving a voice to locals and requiring clubs to bear the costs they incur. No real problem there, unless it is used to crush all late drinking.

Although announcing that they are “introducing a ban the sale of below cost alcohol and consulting on how this can be achieved.” is not only illiberal, but seems to be the wrong way round…

Having said that, I have no problem with most of the actual proposals, particularly the charging of the external costs of their businesses to pubs and clubs.

Annecdotally its fallen. I was mugged in 1993, and my father’s car was broken into in 1995. Since then neither me or any member of my family has been the victim of a crime.

This is why annecdotal evidence about whether crime has risen or fallen is bollocks and meaningless, and why we use quantitative data Matt.

The single biggest change to crime statistics in recent times was the move to change reported crime that meant if one crime had three victims it counted as three crimes.

That change increased crime stats.

So maybe we (you) should list some of the changes in the stats that account for the massive fall in crime in this country?

Otherwise you come across as blind and ignorant.

If you actually bothered to read this site then you’d know this was horseshit. But nice try anyway… typical right-wing whataboutery.

Anecdotally it’s obvious that crime has risen dramatically over the past 14 years, I don’t what any home secretary says

This is why arguing with right-wingers is a complete fucking waste of time. “Because the evidence doesn’t suit my halfwitted opinions, I’m going to ignore it”. That’s your conservative manifesto right there…

Young people are disorderly. I’m really not sure that alcohol is a factor. They were in the days of Elvis, West Side Story, and “Meet the Beatles” and in those days teenagers couldn’t drink.

As for that Telegraph piece:

A statement from the university said: “The fact that some teenage girls are binge-drinking even more than boys suggests that in the UK and elsewhere a profound social change has been taking place.
“It is clearly no longer socially unacceptable for females to drink heavily or to become intoxicated.

Women didn’t get drunk until that *feminism* came along. Er, the “Thin Man” films, Elizabeth Taylor, housewives drowning sorrows in gin – they just didn’t exist. Profound social change? As someone said in another context, “Free at last, free at last. Praise god almighty, we’re free at last.” What people do to their own bodies is really no business of the state.

Shame this site didn’t spend as much time searching out the Labour spin on stats – perhaps it might retain a shred of credibility to criticise the Tories for it too.