Fancy a pint?

Why would any company sell to the public at a loss? The BBC reports that supermarkets are doing just that with alcohol. They must stand to gain more out of it than they're losing or there'd be no point. The Beeb also reports that MPs want a ban on happy hours and a minimum price for booze. There's even an unhappy Superintendent from the Devon and Cornwall police force standing inexplicably in a rain storm, being interviewed by a reporter on BBC News 24 about it. Alcohol, it seems is this week's moral panic, but it's clearly not the common factor here. It's what some people do when drunk that's the problem.

I like a drink, in fact I like a lot of drink, but I've not seen any alcohol-related violence in years. The reason is where I drink. The people beating each other up in town centres at 3am on a Sunday morning didn't come from the backstreet boozers that closed at 11pm but behind whose curtains the landlord is still holding forth about the issues of the day with a few selected friends. The people causing social trouble have been drinking predominantly in one of the massive, impersonal chain pubs that stack the booze high and sell it cheap, need a massive security presence, and in some cases need to insist on a positive ID before allowing entry.

Here's another thing. If you set up a camera in a town centre late on Saturday night and wait, younger drinkers will act the fool in front of it. Maybe the sight of a camera captures the imagination of a generation not used to having their inhibitions lowered, and who have grown up with the idea that it's good to be on TV, regardless of context. If you're ITN and want a sure fire way of making the average Daily Mail reader tut in disgust, you film a report outside a big chain pub at chucking out time. People see the camera and it's as if they're reacting to a posy-hypnotic suggestion in some cases. They must goon about in front of it. Alcohol isn't a new invention. Neither are people. What is new is the context. Society itself has changed.

So, take P as being the population who drink, T as being a subset of P whose members cause trouble when drunk, and E as the establishments where T gets tanked up. Clearly, most of P isn't the problem. It never was. So, why are people saying all of P should have less access to alcohol to prevent T from doing their thing? Surely it's just T who should have less access.

Oh sh*t, I think I've just argued in favour of ID cards.