New Puritans

O M Gosh. Is it me or are there an astonishing number of stories in our oh-so-clean media about the dangers of alcohol? I can hardly open a paper, switch on the radio or hit a news website without a constant stream of sometimes accurate/sometimes not, stuff leaking out about the horrors - alledged - of the pop. Given that hacks are dedicated boozers as a rule this is interesting.

What's more interesting is does this tell us anything about the current climate re: booze? I think it may do.

• Young people drinking too much = binge drinking. Middle classes drinking too much = dinner party. One's ok, the other isn't.
• Endless fears about pregnancy, parenthood and alcohol.
• More fears about the health/ASB impacts of alcohol.

And so on. And before I get it in the neck from my police chums - I've been to the bars where you drink and the institutional bingeing and in some cases expectation that everyone gets hammered after a shift is/are awesome.

My point is this. We can't take drugs, you can't smoke cigs, now it seems no one is allowed to drink. But as humans we seem programmed for the desire to experience altered states of consciousness, achieved in all sorts of ways be it religious ecstasy, spinning round as kids till we drop, drugs, whatever. And if the New Puritans force people away from drug #1 they'll switch to #2. Here's a lesson. In the 80's and 90's the drug Ecstasy was hugely popular - up to half a million doses taken each Saturday night. But those who took it fore swore alcohol. Ecstasy was judged to be more fun, less violence inducing (difficult to smack someone in the face when you're loved up) and an all-round improvement on booze. But the combination of crackdowns on Ecstasy-fuelled parties and the aggressive advertising and reductions in price of alcohol led people to ditch so much E and go back or on to booze. With the results we see on our streets and in our A+E depts every night. You reap what you sew. Yes there were a few sad E related deaths and injuries but they were/are as nothing compared to the damage caused by alcohol. So what will happen if the current anti-booze campaign continues? People will switch back to something else e.g. Ecstasy. So it goes.

Oh dear, Oh dear

My chums in the police blogosphere have gotten very exercised by my comments on pcbloggs.blogspot.com in which I merely pointed out that it's quite a good idea to wait for a trial before deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. Oh yes and I did say I thought castrating Chavs (I paraphrase but you get the picture, is tantamount to recommending a policy of eugenics). In my business we see this sort of muddled thinking all of the time. The police are just as good at jumping to conclusions as the rest of us and then get upset when this is pointed out to them. Guildford 4, that nice civil servant who got off the 'Belgrano' official secrets charges because the jury wouldn't be swayed by a biased judge and CJS etc. Yes, from time-to-time the police make mistakes and it's right that in a democracy they should be held to account as well as appreciated for the good work they do.

Crash and Burn

You have to laugh don't you? I went through security on my way out of Philadelphia airport - as you do/must/have to.

I had my, ahem, liquids in two separate clear baggies as per regs. So I thought. Mistake; there were lots of signs up as we got towards the checkpoint and the X-ray machine saying that only one baggie was acceptable. So when I got there I asked a security guy if I could take two bags through. 'No Sir, one only came the reply'. 'I can take one through for you' said the kindly lady behind me. 'Is that ok?' I asked the man. 'Yes' he said. 'Well thank you Mam' from me. We met up after security and I got my Clarins and Clinique gifts for my wife back. Could have been anything but as long as it was in one bag that was OK with security.