How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
The same report points out that enforcement is very low in Scotland, and yet it's had a pretty big effect on drink driving collisions. A bit like the 20mph limit in Wales.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Even in Scotland you can still just about have 1 glass of wine or 1 pint of beer, certainly if you are eating and not very thin
You have absolutely no way of knowing that and that is the whole point
Do not drink and drive
Of course you can know. A portable breathalyser is £50-£250, at the top end with same accuracy as the police, or disposable ones are about £2 each.
Thinking about it, why not make it part of licensing that a pub has a breathalyser patrons can use on exit.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
Only if we think the other 40% is delusional fantasy.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Surprising snippet of info for today, or possibly this month, James Robertson Justice an early researcher into Trump’s COVID light cure, and Duke of Edinburgh wanted it covered up.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
The biggest worry for rural pubs are the new business rates. Tom Kerridge, who can no doubt suffer them more easily than most, reckons his smallest pub will see an increase from 50k to 124k pa. I spoke to my accountant this morning, and she says thousands of firms will wind up in April due to the rates
It's actually pretty difficult to over-estimate the impact of villages losing their pubs which, in most cases, have already lost their post offices and other community facilities.
Labour are in a real bind as I think there is a sea-change coming in the public attitude towards taxation which will include much less sympathy towards welfare/benefits. Not at all sure how they can counter it.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
Although I don’t like Peroni, Guinness or Heineken with alcohol in it I do like the zero alcohol versions.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.
Guinness Zero is surprisingly like the real thing. Christ know how they make it.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
Although I don’t like Peroni, Guinness or Heineken with alcohol in it I do like the zero alcohol versions.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.
I'm not a Guinness drinker, but the 0% Guinness is ok. Mentioned earlier was Kaliber. I remember that and NOT with fond memories. They do seem to have cracked the 0% beer now. According to my wife they haven't cracked the 0% wine.
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Well, the vast majority do. And my experience of rural pubs is that people walk to them too if they are having more than a half pint. Otherwise they'd already be breaking the law.
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
The Rest is Entertainment presents More in Common polling on national treasures (spoilers: they're all old and David Attenborough heads the lists) and politics. Who would win an election if voting were confined to fans of particular national treasures? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzV-AiYvfnA&t=1685s
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
Although I don’t like Peroni, Guinness or Heineken with alcohol in it I do like the zero alcohol versions.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.
Guinness Zero is surprisingly like the real thing. Christ know how they make it.
Osmosis I believe which is how they can retain most of the taste. In the old days I assume it was by heat or freezing.
I could be making all this up so happy to be corrected. Got it from a brewery tour.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
With alcohol in your bloodstream you automatically become guilty of causing a crash, yet you may not have been the cause. If (say) 2 out of 3 accidents do not involve anyone with alcohol in their blood, then why would we assume that an accident in the 1 in 3 where at least one person has consumed alcohol, is due to that?
(I find this hard to explain - but assume Car A is driven by a complete tool, overtakes on a blind bend, and causes a crash with Car B that is driven by either someone with alcohol in the their blood or not, the cause is the tool, but in the former case the 'innocent' party would get done by the law)
But this is, in 1066 terms, a GOOD THING. I have had various conversations with people minded to drink drive because, delusionally, they did not believe that it affected their own driving. They could handle their drink, be more careful etc. The argument that they may lose their licence and face the shame attached to a drink driving conviction as well as the horrendous insurance premium implications for an accident that was not even their fault would often make them pause.
Does anyone else think that Starmers little potshots at Reform show a bit of insecurity and worry?
No but I do think Labour's strategy of attacking Reform is misguided because the beneficiary is likely the Conservative Party. Obviously Labour would point to current polling showing Reform wins everything.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
It should be no surprise given that Labour in power has little time for this part of the hospitality industry.
Maybe we should all stay at home and never drive anywhere or touch a drop of anything.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
Some sort of subsidy to make free soft drinks for designated drivers seems sensible. Devon and Cornwall have a local scheme.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
"Councillor Paul Swaddle, Leader of the Westminster City Conservatives, said though it was disappointing to see a Tory councillor switch parties, Cllr Cunningham had become increasingly disengaged with the job.
"He said she had begun to miss meetings, turned up late or failed to be over her brief. He claimed she has been sacked from her position on the Planning Committee and lost the trust of party figures when she withdrew her candidacy for the seat of Rotherham during last year's General Election at the last minute."
I guess he would say that, wouldn't he, but she does seem to fit the typical profile of a Reform defector. Not exactly a team player.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Well, the vast majority do. And my experience of rural pubs is that people walk to them too if they are having more than a half pint. Otherwise they'd already be breaking the law.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
It should be no surprise given that Labour in power has little time for this part of the hospitality industry.
Maybe we should all stay at home and never drive anywhere or touch a drop of anything.
That would really enrich life.
Only eat raw vegetables too !
I’m sure the puritan lobby would find something else to pivot onto. Got to keep that govt Money rolling in.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010
I'd like to see some evidence that bus services have fallen by 75% since 2010.
Google gives:
Long-Term Decline: Bus use in England had been falling for years before COVID-19, dropping from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024, notes the House of Commons Library. with numbers now increasing after covid.
Now its probable that rural bus services have fallen proportionally more but not all rural areas are the same - 5 miles from a major town can be rural only a different sort of rural to somewhere 50 miles from a major town.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Well, the vast majority do. And my experience of rural pubs is that people walk to them too if they are having more than a half pint. Otherwise they'd already be breaking the law.
Only if they live in the centre of the village right next to the pub
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
End of NATO or end of US membership of NATO? Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US. He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
NATO will survive without the US. But yes, everything Trump is doing currently seems to be supporting and encouraging Putin.
Maybe, but it asks hard questions. Like could newNATO defend Canada against USA. Could it defend Latvia against Russia. Could it defend Spain/Portugal against a USA who decided it was strategically essential to make them the 52nd and 53rd states of the union?
NATO is a finely crafted instrument for exerting US hegemony. NATO minus US would need a lot of treaty changes and would mutate into something else. I think either the UK or France would bow out. They are both fine with grovelling to the US, but couldn't stand being in anyway subservient to each other and both would expect to assume leadership of NATO 2.0 or whatever.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
We can do all of that too.
As I already said in rural areas young people can't go out anywhere other than a pub, even if they just want to drink a coffee or have a soft drink a pub is the only option but most people in rural areas are retired or late middle aged and do drink alcohol
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I didn't suggest combat troops. It's called boiling the frog.
"They" are already there, the guy who died last month was not just observing drone training.
We don't want a peace deal. We need Russia to be defeated.
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
Does anyone else think that Starmers little potshots at Reform show a bit of insecurity and worry?
Starmer is not very deft, and what he says tends to land badly (most of us have I think acknowledged that, certainly since becoming PM, Starmer is possessed of some intangible quality that just makes him come across insincere, unlikeable and rather patronising).
It is one of the reasons where, absent a sizeable rebound in the economy/polls, it just seems very unlikely to me that he can front another GE campaign.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
We can do all of that too.
As I already said in rural areas young people can't go out anywhere other than a pub, even if they just want to drink a coffee or have a soft drink a pub is the only option but most people in rural areas are retired or late middle aged and do drink alcohol
Fine, but then they shouldn't be driving, non-drinking driver, walk, taxi or lift.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
The biggest worry for rural pubs are the new business rates. Tom Kerridge, who can no doubt suffer them more easily than most, reckons his smallest pub will see an increase from 50k to 124k pa. I spoke to my accountant this morning, and she says thousands of firms will wind up in April due to the rates
It's actually pretty difficult to over-estimate the impact of villages losing their pubs which, in most cases, have already lost their post offices and other community facilities.
Labour are in a real bind as I think there is a sea-change coming in the public attitude towards taxation which will include much less sympathy towards welfare/benefits. Not at all sure how they can counter it.
It feels like there should be a business model that works for some kind of village hub that combines pub/post office/atm/workspace/cafe/shop/delivery lockers, even if none of those are currently viable on their own. (Assuming it is a village big enough to have had shops and pubs in the past of course).
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I don't get the preoccupation with troops on the ground.
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I didn't suggest combat troops. It's called boiling the frog.
"They" are already there, the guy who died last month was not just observing drone training.
We don't want a peace deal. We need Russia to be defeated.
Which is not going to happen while this US President is in office given most European nations populations are not willing to slash their welfare states and state pensions on the scale required to put into defence and arms for Ukraine to defeat Putin absent massive US support too. Plus Putin could use a tactical nuke if he faced outright defeat.
So at best it will be a peace deal on current lines
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I didn't suggest combat troops. It's called boiling the frog.
"They" are already there, the guy who died last month was not just observing drone training.
We don't want a peace deal. We need Russia to be defeated.
Which is not going to happen while this US President is in office given most European nations populations are not willing to slash their welfare states and state pensions on the scale required to put into defence and arms for Ukraine to defeat Putin absent massive US support too. Plus Putin could use a tactical nuke if he faced outright defeat.
So at best it will be a peace deal on current lines
Is that "at best"? Continuing the war might not gain the Ukrainians much land, but might just destroy the Russian economy. And certainly kill more Russian soldiers and destroy more kit
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
We can do all of that too.
As I already said in rural areas young people can't go out anywhere other than a pub, even if they just want to drink a coffee or have a soft drink a pub is the only option but most people in rural areas are retired or late middle aged and do drink alcohol
Fine, but then they shouldn't be driving, non-drinking driver, walk, taxi or lift.
Most people in or near the countryside want to go out to a country pub for a drink or two from time to time and to be able to drive themselves and their family there and back without forking out for a taxi.
Banning even having 1 pint or 1 glass of wine if driving is left liberal nanny statism of the worst kind and must be fought and fought hard and would just send even more voters to Farage
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
I suspect there is lower hanging fruit available.
Well, I'm already trying to avoid Amazon, with mixed results. What about Etsy? The last thing I bought from Etsy was from a maker in Ukraine, so if I boycott Etsy, on the basis of it being American, then I lose all these opportunities to buy from small-scale sellers in Europe.
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I didn't suggest combat troops. It's called boiling the frog.
"They" are already there, the guy who died last month was not just observing drone training.
We don't want a peace deal. We need Russia to be defeated.
Which is not going to happen while this US President is in office given most European nations populations are not willing to slash their welfare states and state pensions on the scale required to put into defence and arms for Ukraine to defeat Putin absent massive US support too. Plus Putin could use a tactical nuke if he faced outright defeat.
So at best it will be a peace deal on current lines
Is that "at best"? Continuing the war might not gain the Ukrainians much land, but might just destroy the Russian economy. And certainly kill more Russian soldiers and destroy more kit
It would also kill more Ukrainians and there are more Russian men than Ukrainian men and it would hit both economies
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
I suspect there is lower hanging fruit available.
Well, I'm already trying to avoid Amazon, with mixed results. What about Etsy? The last thing I bought from Etsy was from a maker in Ukraine, so if I boycott Etsy, on the basis of it being American, then I lose all these opportunities to buy from small-scale sellers in Europe.
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
I bought a keyboard for the Mac and Windows yesterday, after advice here. A Logitech "Signature Slim Combo MK950", which is as svelte as I am myself.
Thanks for the advice, all.
The Germans make a lot of their "imported into America" cars in the USA aiui.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
Some people don't like those who drink. Some people don't like those who drive. Some people don't like those who live in rural areas.
And some people don't like a combo of those who drink or drive or live in rural areas.
Reducing the alcohol limit is a way to hit people in those groups.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I've previously proposed reducing the on-licence alcohol duty rate as a balance to increasing the off-licence duty rate.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
I'm not sure. Just stick a field hospital or logistics doing aid work somewhere in Western Ukraine. Obs they'll need air defence etc. Next time Medvedev twitters on about how unacceptable it is, just say "er, they're already there".
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
For now but if we are stupid enough to put combat troops and fighter jets in Ukraine at a time when even the US President won't join us in doing so we would be more at risk of a nuclear missile attack on London from the Russians than at any time since WW2.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I didn't suggest combat troops. It's called boiling the frog.
"They" are already there, the guy who died last month was not just observing drone training.
We don't want a peace deal. We need Russia to be defeated.
Which is not going to happen while this US President is in office given most European nations populations are not willing to slash their welfare states and state pensions on the scale required to put into defence and arms for Ukraine to defeat Putin absent massive US support too. Plus Putin could use a tactical nuke if he faced outright defeat.
So at best it will be a peace deal on current lines
Is that "at best"? Continuing the war might not gain the Ukrainians much land, but might just destroy the Russian economy. And certainly kill more Russian soldiers and destroy more kit
It would also kill more Ukrainians and there are more Russian men than Ukrainian men and it would hit both economies
It's surely up to the Ukrainians to decide where the balance lies. In any case, they are killing many more Russians than they are being killed
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
I'm at the pub at least 3x a week. I don't think I'm part of that constituency - though I am quite unusual being young and keen for that much drinking. The running club I'm a member of is the real driver of it, oddly enough.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
Pub landlords are like farmers. Constantly predicting disaster and threatening to top themselves. They can and should be ignored.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Fine if you live in inner London or Manchester where there are plenty of cafes, bars etc about not just pubs.
In rural areas like mine there are none of those, at most there is 1 pub per village if that, no cafes, no bars, so lose the pub there is nowhere to drink even a soft drink or to eat either bar maybe a monthly farmers market.
Attitudes like that are further examples of why left liberals and this useless Labour government have nothing but contempt for the countryside, villages and small market towns
I lived in a village called Cradley, 9 miles from Ledbury, 5 miles from Malvern and 10 miles from Worcester and so went to pubs in Ledbury and Malvern and pubs and clubs in Worcester. I never drank alcohol when I was driving. We did take turns to drive.
If Scotland can manage a reduced drink drive limit, so can England and Wales. Pubs have been on their arse for two decades. Things change. Rock and roll is dead, move on.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
Some people don't like those who drink. Some people don't like those who drive. Some people don't like those who live in rural areas.
And some people don't like a combo of those who drink or drive or live in rural areas.
Reducing the alcohol limit is a way to hit people in those groups.
On the one hand having 4 people die on the roads a day, every day, is pretty shocking. However, driving and road use is something that is both potentially very dangerous (driving a vehicle weighing a ton or more at speeds in excess of 50 mph) yet also remarkably safe (what is the accident rate per mile driven?)
What is the acceptable death toll for the freedom that driving allows? Is any death/injury acceptable? Could all deaths/injuries be avoided?
A bit like the 30 to 20 mph move in Wales, the proposed changes to drink drive limits are about cultural change. A landlord representative on Radio 5 from Scotland said that there were no significant changes in pubs after the change was made from 80 to 50 mg per ml. Some people changed what they drank but pubs didn't close. I'd foresee similar in England and Wales. Of greater concern is the longer term viability of pubs that everyone loves at Christmas but not during the rest of the year. There used to be three pubs in my Dad's village when I lived there, the Royal Oak, The George, and Plume and add in the social club. Its down to one pub with restricted opening hours and the club. People's habits have changed. People drink at home with cheap booze from the supermarkets. Pubs in the country need to have more about them than drink alone.
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
That would take at least a decade and many billions to develop the doctrine, training pipeline and supporting systems to get to a "first rate" air force. As can be seen from giving UkrAF F-16 and Mir2k. Made absolutely no difference to the situation in the couple of years they've had them.
BOG is cheap, quick, easy and generates favourable headlines (until they start getting killed) so you can see its attraction for Starmer/Macron.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
The biggest worry for rural pubs are the new business rates. Tom Kerridge, who can no doubt suffer them more easily than most, reckons his smallest pub will see an increase from 50k to 124k pa. I spoke to my accountant this morning, and she says thousands of firms will wind up in April due to the rates
It's actually pretty difficult to over-estimate the impact of villages losing their pubs which, in most cases, have already lost their post offices and other community facilities.
Labour are in a real bind as I think there is a sea-change coming in the public attitude towards taxation which will include much less sympathy towards welfare/benefits. Not at all sure how they can counter it.
It feels like there should be a business model that works for some kind of village hub that combines pub/post office/atm/workspace/cafe/shop/delivery lockers, even if none of those are currently viable on their own. (Assuming it is a village big enough to have had shops and pubs in the past of course).
Village that we recently lived in (in Ireland) used to have two shops, one of these shops attached to the pub which also has a fuel station (and they do oil deliveries for home heating oil). Both shops closed - small shops with low footfall are spectacularly unviable, even if sharing overhead costs with other businesses.
Not sure either Starmer or Badenoch are coming out well on what should be a serious debate about Ukraine and national defence.
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
Starmer prevarication about a statement on troops on the ground in Ukraine was not only attacked by Badenoch but also the Speaker
He should have made a statement today
Troops in Ukraine are for the ears of one person and one person only, Donald Trump, so he doesn't throw his out the pram on Ukraine. It's an outrage they have to do this with a supposed ally but that's where we are. Starmer committed to a Commons debate in the highly hypothetical situation where troops are actually going to be used. That's good enough for me.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Fine if you live in inner London or Manchester where there are plenty of cafes, bars etc about not just pubs.
In rural areas like mine there are none of those, at most there is 1 pub per village if that, no cafes, no bars, so lose the pub there is nowhere to drink even a soft drink or to eat either bar maybe a monthly farmers market.
Attitudes like that are further examples of why left liberals and this useless Labour government have nothing but contempt for the countryside, villages and small market towns
I lived in a village called Cradley, 9 miles from Ledbury, 5 miles from Malvern and 10 miles from Worcester and so went to pubs in Ledbury and Malvern and pubs and clubs in Worcester. I never drank alcohol when I was driving. We did take turns to drive.
If Scotland can manage a reduced drink drive limit, so can England and Wales. Pubs have been on their arse for two decades. Things change. Rock and roll is dead, move on.
Fine but not everyone will have a driver they can turn to to drive for them and as Bart showed there is no evidence from France and Italy they have lower death rates on the roads with the same drink drive limit as Scotland, indeed the opposite relative to England and Wales.
If anything could get me cheering a Farage premiership it is your last 2 lines!
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
Pub landlords are like farmers. Constantly predicting disaster and threatening to top themselves. They can and should be ignored.
No they shouldn't, they are the backbone of rural communities
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
I suspect there is lower hanging fruit available.
Well, I'm already trying to avoid Amazon, with mixed results. What about Etsy? The last thing I bought from Etsy was from a maker in Ukraine, so if I boycott Etsy, on the basis of it being American, then I lose all these opportunities to buy from small-scale sellers in Europe.
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
Found this which isn't bad. Some of the 'British' brands are ultimately American owned but you do have choices. Deliveroo rather than Uber Eats, Pret vs Starbucks. Is it really central to people's way of life to buy Nike, Coca Cola and Kellogg's?
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
Pub landlords are like farmers. Constantly predicting disaster and threatening to top themselves. They can and should be ignored.
No they shouldn't, they are the backbone of rural communities
I thought that was farmers with massive inheritances?
Not sure either Starmer or Badenoch are coming out well on what should be a serious debate about Ukraine and national defence.
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
Starmer prevarication about a statement on troops on the ground in Ukraine was not only attacked by Badenoch but also the Speaker
He should have made a statement today
Troops in Ukraine are for the ears of one person and one person only, Donald Trump, so he doesn't throw his out the pram on Ukraine. It's an outrage they have to do this with a supposed ally but that's where we are. Starmer committed to a Commons debate in the highly hypothetical situation where troops are actually going to be used. That's good enough for me.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
Worked for Starmer as LOTO though... Nobody more morally compromised than Starmer sitting quietly in Corbyn's nest of antisemites, saying not a word.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
Pub landlords are like farmers. Constantly predicting disaster and threatening to top themselves. They can and should be ignored.
No they shouldn't, they are the backbone of rural communities
I thought that was farmers with massive inheritances?
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
I suspect there is lower hanging fruit available.
Well, I'm already trying to avoid Amazon, with mixed results. What about Etsy? The last thing I bought from Etsy was from a maker in Ukraine, so if I boycott Etsy, on the basis of it being American, then I lose all these opportunities to buy from small-scale sellers in Europe.
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
Found this which isn't bad. Some of the 'British' brands are ultimately American owned but you do have choices. Deliveroo rather than Uber Eats, Pret vs Starbucks. Is it really central to people's way of life to buy Nike, Coca Cola and Kellogg's?
They think Cawston Press is 30% cheaper than Coke. Typically its 200-300% more expensive.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
Pub landlords are like farmers. Constantly predicting disaster and threatening to top themselves. They can and should be ignored.
No they shouldn't, they are the backbone of rural communities
I thought that was farmers with massive inheritances?
And the land they farm for the nation, yes
Usually it’s tenant farmers who are doing the actual farming
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
People don't want to go to pubs. I went to a local celebrity's gastro pub near me just before Christmas. 2 Michelin rosettes (not stars) and the quality of food was a disappointment. The produce was fine but the cooking was poor. I won't go again.
Someone mentioned Kerridge. The quality he provides is phenomenal, if justifiably expensive, so maybe he has a point, but Landlords providing crap food and beer are the architects of their own downfall.
You are balancing the potential suicide of landlords (which is awful) with the road fatalities of drunk drivers and their victims.
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
I suspect there is lower hanging fruit available.
Well, I'm already trying to avoid Amazon, with mixed results. What about Etsy? The last thing I bought from Etsy was from a maker in Ukraine, so if I boycott Etsy, on the basis of it being American, then I lose all these opportunities to buy from small-scale sellers in Europe.
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
Found this which isn't bad. Some of the 'British' brands are ultimately American owned but you do have choices. Deliveroo rather than Uber Eats, Pret vs Starbucks. Is it really central to people's way of life to buy Nike, Coca Cola and Kellogg's?
Okay. Turns out I'm already eschewing so many American brands I've forgotten they exist.
I'd not heard of Nothing phones before, but the OS is still Android, just as with Samsung phones.
Not sure either Starmer or Badenoch are coming out well on what should be a serious debate about Ukraine and national defence.
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
Starmer prevarication about a statement on troops on the ground in Ukraine was not only attacked by Badenoch but also the Speaker
He should have made a statement today
Troops in Ukraine are for the ears of one person and one person only, Donald Trump, so he doesn't throw his out the pram on Ukraine. It's an outrage they have to do this with a supposed ally but that's where we are. Starmer committed to a Commons debate in the highly hypothetical situation where troops are actually going to be used. That's good enough for me.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
Badenoch is being noticed and her approval has risen considerably
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it?
Trump being Trump
Which is a euphemistic way of saying that he should be removed from office forthwith...? The guy is demonstrably not fit to run a whelk stand.
That is obvious to most everyone but how can he be removed from office ?
Two thirds of the Senate, or 25th amendment route. Easy! Well, if some Republicans grew a spine…
Not sure either Starmer or Badenoch are coming out well on what should be a serious debate about Ukraine and national defence.
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
Starmer prevarication about a statement on troops on the ground in Ukraine was not only attacked by Badenoch but also the Speaker
He should have made a statement today
Troops in Ukraine are for the ears of one person and one person only, Donald Trump, so he doesn't throw his out the pram on Ukraine. It's an outrage they have to do this with a supposed ally but that's where we are. Starmer committed to a Commons debate in the highly hypothetical situation where troops are actually going to be used. That's good enough for me.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
Badenoch is being noticed and her approval has risen considerably
Whereas Starmer is as unpopular as ever
I don't think FF43 has forgiven her for taking a stance against trans fundamentalism.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
It’s a good start, and as said earlier well done to Starmer for being in the vanguard.
Obviously the more the merrier, but getting the two European nuclear powers on board at the start should be a positive sign to others currently on the fence or dealing with historic difficulties.
Sadly the bear is out of its cage, and we all need to do what’s required until it’s firmly back under control.
Not sure either Starmer or Badenoch are coming out well on what should be a serious debate about Ukraine and national defence.
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
Starmer prevarication about a statement on troops on the ground in Ukraine was not only attacked by Badenoch but also the Speaker
He should have made a statement today
Troops in Ukraine are for the ears of one person and one person only, Donald Trump, so he doesn't throw his out the pram on Ukraine. It's an outrage they have to do this with a supposed ally but that's where we are. Starmer committed to a Commons debate in the highly hypothetical situation where troops are actually going to be used. That's good enough for me.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
Worked for Starmer as LOTO though... Nobody more morally compromised than Starmer sitting quietly in Corbyn's nest of antisemites, saying not a word.
I agree up to a point - there's always partisanship. The difference here though is that Starmer wasn't in Corbyn's shadow cabinet when *he* was LOTO. In fact he had moved very decisively against Corbyn at that point.
What Badenoch has going for her is that she's up against a very unpopular prime minister and she's not as dire as Robert Jenrick. Politics is a competitive game - you just need to be better than the other guys, you don't actually need to be any good.
Nevertheless the Conservatives are heading for a mauling at the next election under Badenoch on current trajectory. Even worse than 2024, the worst result in the party's 200 history.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Unfortunately they need to deploy to Greenland first!
Surprising snippet of info for today, or possibly this month, James Robertson Justice an early researcher into Trump’s COVID light cure, and Duke of Edinburgh wanted it covered up.
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
That would take at least a decade and many billions to develop the doctrine, training pipeline and supporting systems to get to a "first rate" air force. As can be seen from giving UkrAF F-16 and Mir2k. Made absolutely no difference to the situation in the couple of years they've had them.
BOG is cheap, quick, easy and generates favourable headlines (until they start getting killed) so you can see its attraction for Starmer/Macron.
There was someone on the wireless the other day saying Western air forces spent months training Ukrainian MiG pilots how to fly F16s and were tearing their hair out because they still use Warsaw Pact tactics and get shot down.
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
It’s worth noting that Trump will personally control the revenues from this oil. It’s a massive bribe nothing else
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
It’s a good start, and as said earlier well done to Starmer for being in the vanguard.
Obviously the more the merrier, but getting the two European nuclear powers on board at the start should be a positive sign to others currently on the fence or dealing with historic difficulties.
Sadly the bear is out of its cage, and we all need to do what’s required until it’s firmly back under control.
I also think it would be rather odd for us to be putting our troops in the firing line if we were to be going back to business as usual with the Russians. Isn't this Europe's trump (NPI) card? The US removing secondary sanctions against Russian oil and US businesses going back to Russia might help but surely what Russia needs is to sell its hydrocarbons to Europe? Can it revive its economy without that?
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Unfortunately they need to deploy to Greenland first!
Assuming we aren't actually going to shoot at the US, it would only take a token poison pill deployment, surely.
There's only one golf course in Greenland with grass, so maybe deploy there?
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
Although I don’t like Peroni, Guinness or Heineken with alcohol in it I do like the zero alcohol versions.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.
I'm not a Guinness drinker, but the 0% Guinness is ok. Mentioned earlier was Kaliber. I remember that and NOT with fond memories. They do seem to have cracked the 0% beer now. According to my wife they haven't cracked the 0% wine.
They haven’t, but Sainsbury’s did a nice non-alcoholic mulled “wine” over Xmas.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
Some sort of subsidy to make free soft drinks for designated drivers seems sensible. Devon and Cornwall have a local scheme.
Yes, postmix stuff and cordials cost pennies, the highest margins of anything in the pub. I knew pubs that did this three decades ago, and if not then one of the group would be ‘Des’ and the others would buy his soft drinks in exchange for a ride home.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Unfortunately they need to deploy to Greenland first!
Assuming we aren't actually going to shoot at the US, it would only take a token poison pill deployment, surely.
There's only one golf course in Greenland with grass, so maybe deploy there?
I'd guess you'd deploy to the main Danish military airbase and try not to make the fuelled transport aircraft ready for a rapid departure too obvious.
Not sure either Starmer or Badenoch are coming out well on what should be a serious debate about Ukraine and national defence.
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
Starmer prevarication about a statement on troops on the ground in Ukraine was not only attacked by Badenoch but also the Speaker
He should have made a statement today
Troops in Ukraine are for the ears of one person and one person only, Donald Trump, so he doesn't throw his out the pram on Ukraine. It's an outrage they have to do this with a supposed ally but that's where we are. Starmer committed to a Commons debate in the highly hypothetical situation where troops are actually going to be used. That's good enough for me.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
Worked for Starmer as LOTO though... Nobody more morally compromised than Starmer sitting quietly in Corbyn's nest of antisemites, saying not a word.
I agree up to a point - there's always partisanship. The difference here though is that Starmer wasn't in Corbyn's shadow cabinet when *he* was LOTO. In fact he had moved very decisively against Corbyn at that point.
What Badenoch has going for her is that she's up against a very unpopular prime minister and she's not as dire as Robert Jenrick. Politics is a competitive game - you just need to be better than the other guys, you don't actually need to be any good.
Nevertheless the Conservatives are heading for a mauling at the next election under Badenoch on current trajectory. Even worse than 2024, the worst result in the party's 200 history.
On half the current polls it will be Kemi deciding whether Farage or Starmer is PM in a hung parliament. On the MiC poll today Farage would have a majority and it would be neck and neck between Starmer and Kemi as to who lead the party with second most seats and who would be LOTO
End of NATO or end of US membership of NATO? Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US. He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
NATO will survive without the US. But yes, everything Trump is doing currently seems to be supporting and encouraging Putin.
Maybe, but it asks hard questions. Like could newNATO defend Canada against USA. Could it defend Latvia against Russia. Could it defend Spain/Portugal against a USA who decided it was strategically essential to make them the 52nd and 53rd states of the union?
NATO is a finely crafted instrument for exerting US hegemony. NATO minus US would need a lot of treaty changes and would mutate into something else. I think either the UK or France would bow out. They are both fine with grovelling to the US, but couldn't stand being in anyway subservient to each other and both would expect to assume leadership of NATO 2.0 or whatever.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
People don't want to go to pubs. I went to a local celebrity's gastro pub near me just before Christmas. 2 Michelin rosettes (not stars) and the quality of food was a disappointment. The produce was fine but the cooking was poor. I won't go again.
Someone mentioned Kerridge. The quality he provides is phenomenal, if justifiably expensive, so maybe he has a point, but Landlords providing crap food and beer are the architects of their own downfall.
You are balancing the potential suicide of landlords (which is awful) with the road fatalities of drunk drivers and their victims.
People DO want to go to pubs here, in rural areas like mine there are NO clubs, NO bars, NO cafes and NO restaurants other than that in the pub. Pubs are a vital part of rural life.
As Bart showed a lower drink drive limit makes sod all difference to lives saved, EU nations with lower drink drive limits than ours have more road deaths
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
With alcohol in your bloodstream you automatically become guilty of causing a crash, yet you may not have been the cause. If (say) 2 out of 3 accidents do not involve anyone with alcohol in their blood, then why would we assume that an accident in the 1 in 3 where at least one person has consumed alcohol, is due to that?
(I find this hard to explain - but assume Car A is driven by a complete tool, overtakes on a blind bend, and causes a crash with Car B that is driven by either someone with alcohol in the their blood or not, the cause is the tool, but in the former case the 'innocent' party would get done by the law)
But this is, in 1066 terms, a GOOD THING. I have had various conversations with people minded to drink drive because, delusionally, they did not believe that it affected their own driving. They could handle their drink, be more careful etc. The argument that they may lose their licence and face the shame attached to a drink driving conviction as well as the horrendous insurance premium implications for an accident that was not even their fault would often make them pause.
Many, many years ago I went to a party at a friend's, and discovered he had Microsoft Flight Simulator which I had never seen. It had an option for showing graphically, after each landing, how well you had adhered to the glide slope. Initially I did pretty well, right down the slot. But then mu friend's wife came and hauled me offd to be sociable. A couple of glasses of wine later I returned, and found the effect was very noticeable, with major deviations up, down, port and starboard. And after the next cycle my efforts were unspeakable. And yet I wasn't even feeling the effects.
I've never since believed those who think they can drink even a couple without serious impairment. Or claim that others can.
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
That would take at least a decade and many billions to develop the doctrine, training pipeline and supporting systems to get to a "first rate" air force. As can be seen from giving UkrAF F-16 and Mir2k. Made absolutely no difference to the situation in the couple of years they've had them.
BOG is cheap, quick, easy and generates favourable headlines (until they start getting killed) so you can see its attraction for Starmer/Macron.
There was someone on the wireless the other day saying Western air forces spent months training Ukrainian MiG pilots how to fly F16s and were tearing their hair out because they still use Warsaw Pact tactics and get shot down.
I'd be interested to know who that is.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Ukrainians have been considerably outnumbered by the Russian air force (who've got more modern MIGs) and yet Russia has failed to achieve any kind of air superiority in four years. The Ukrainians can't be that bad.
Comments
Thinking about it, why not make it part of licensing that a pub has a breathalyser patrons can use on exit.
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops)
2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010
3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates
4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
https://x.com/jamesahogg2/status/2008854787115061443?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Nothing will happen. We've challenged plenty of other "red lines".
Anyway you've had your chance to pour slime on Israel for the day. Well done.
Labour are in a real bind as I think there is a sea-change coming in the public attitude towards taxation which will include much less sympathy towards welfare/benefits. Not at all sure how they can counter it.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
The Rest is Entertainment presents More in Common polling on national treasures (spoilers: they're all old and David Attenborough heads the lists) and politics. Who would win an election if voting were confined to fans of particular national treasures?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzV-AiYvfnA&t=1685s
I could be making all this up so happy to be corrected. Got it from a brewery tour.
Starmer is embarrassing
That would really enrich life.
https://visionzerosouthwest.co.uk/more-than-260-pubs-offer-free-drinks-to-lift-legends-this-christmas/
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/reform-gains-first-london-council-31918408
"Councillor Paul Swaddle, Leader of the Westminster City Conservatives, said though it was disappointing to see a Tory councillor switch parties, Cllr Cunningham had become increasingly disengaged with the job.
"He said she had begun to miss meetings, turned up late or failed to be over her brief. He claimed she has been sacked from her position on the Planning Committee and lost the trust of party figures when she withdrew her candidacy for the seat of Rotherham during last year's General Election at the last minute."
I guess he would say that, wouldn't he, but she does seem to fit the typical profile of a Reform defector. Not exactly a team player.
If a peace deal is agreed between Putin and Zelensky then peacekeeping forces maybe, combat troops before then absolutely not
I’m sure the puritan lobby would find something else to pivot onto. Got to keep that govt Money rolling in.
I'd like to see some evidence that bus services have fallen by 75% since 2010.
Google gives:
Long-Term Decline: Bus use in England had been falling for years before COVID-19, dropping from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024, notes the House of Commons Library. with numbers now increasing after covid.
Now its probable that rural bus services have fallen proportionally more but not all rural areas are the same - 5 miles from a major town can be rural only a different sort of rural to somewhere 50 miles from a major town.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkAfzvQOPgY
Whether Jacob Rees-Mogg is an unbiased commentator is left as an exercise for the reader.
ETA his arrangement of tea and chocolate orange seems odd. Can he reach one without knocking over the other?
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
As I already said in rural areas young people can't go out anywhere other than a pub, even if they just want to drink a coffee or have a soft drink a pub is the only option but most people in rural areas are retired or late middle aged and do drink alcohol
"They" are already there, the guy who died last month was not just observing drone training.
We don't want a peace deal. We need Russia to be defeated.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
It is one of the reasons where, absent a sizeable rebound in the economy/polls, it just seems very unlikely to me that he can front another GE campaign.
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
So at best it will be a peace deal on current lines
Banning even having 1 pint or 1 glass of wine if driving is left liberal nanny statism of the worst kind and must be fought and fought hard and would just send even more voters to Farage
(Probably another way of saying Starmer is coming out badly. Badenoch has never been a serious politician)
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
Thanks for the advice, all.
The Germans make a lot of their "imported into America" cars in the USA aiui.
Some people don't like those who drive.
Some people don't like those who live in rural areas.
And some people don't like a combo of those who drink or drive or live in rural areas.
Reducing the alcohol limit is a way to hit people in those groups.
He should have made a statement today
Campaigners say Britain's dependence on Big Tech leaves critical systems exposed to political pressure
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/06/uk_urged_to_unplug_from/
This is the real problem, not your iphone knowing which pub you spent last night in before driving home.
If Scotland can manage a reduced drink drive limit, so can England and Wales. Pubs have been on their arse for two decades. Things change. Rock and roll is dead, move on.
What is the acceptable death toll for the freedom that driving allows? Is any death/injury acceptable? Could all deaths/injuries be avoided?
A bit like the 30 to 20 mph move in Wales, the proposed changes to drink drive limits are about cultural change. A landlord representative on Radio 5 from Scotland said that there were no significant changes in pubs after the change was made from 80 to 50 mg per ml. Some people changed what they drank but pubs didn't close. I'd foresee similar in England and Wales. Of greater concern is the longer term viability of pubs that everyone loves at Christmas but not during the rest of the year. There used to be three pubs in my Dad's village when I lived there, the Royal Oak, The George, and Plume and add in the social club. Its down to one pub with restricted opening hours and the club. People's habits have changed. People drink at home with cheap booze from the supermarkets. Pubs in the country need to have more about them than drink alone.
BOG is cheap, quick, easy and generates favourable headlines (until they start getting killed) so you can see its attraction for Starmer/Macron.
The pub has two large car parks.
In the meantime Badenoch is an unserious, morally compromised buffoon.
If anything could get me cheering a Farage premiership it is your last 2 lines!
Found this which isn't bad. Some of the 'British' brands are ultimately American owned but you do have choices. Deliveroo rather than Uber Eats, Pret vs Starbucks. Is it really central to people's way of life to buy Nike, Coca Cola and Kellogg's?
Pity.
Have you met a Jewish person yet?
Someone mentioned Kerridge. The quality he provides is phenomenal, if justifiably expensive, so maybe he has a point, but Landlords providing crap food and beer are the architects of their own downfall.
You are balancing the potential suicide of landlords (which is awful) with the road fatalities of drunk drivers and their victims.
I'd not heard of Nothing phones before, but the OS is still Android, just as with Samsung phones.
Whereas Starmer is as unpopular as ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3moqb0x31c
Obviously the more the merrier, but getting the two European nuclear powers on board at the start should be a positive sign to others currently on the fence or dealing with historic difficulties.
Sadly the bear is out of its cage, and we all need to do what’s required until it’s firmly back under control.
What Badenoch has going for her is that she's up against a very unpopular prime minister and she's not as dire as Robert Jenrick. Politics is a competitive game - you just need to be better than the other guys, you don't actually need to be any good.
Nevertheless the Conservatives are heading for a mauling at the next election under Badenoch on current trajectory. Even worse than 2024, the worst result in the party's 200 history.
I knew about her relationship with James Robertson Justice but not the light bulb. Tbh, I thought she'd died years ago.
There's only one golf course in Greenland with grass, so maybe deploy there?
As Bart showed a lower drink drive limit makes sod all difference to lives saved, EU nations with lower drink drive limits than ours have more road deaths
US trying to seize Venezuela linked tanker as it enters European waters
I've never since believed those who think they can drink even a couple without serious impairment. Or claim that others can.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Ukrainians have been considerably outnumbered by the Russian air force (who've got more modern MIGs) and yet Russia has failed to achieve any kind of air superiority in four years. The Ukrainians can't be that bad.