Health chief in call for alcohol price hike (From Daily Echo)

Quote:- The £26,000-a-year night time economy manager is being brought in to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour...
.
Now give me a clue who this person is being employed by. Who is he going to be paid by
.
I thought that it was the police's job to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour

what mixed messages our young receive - 24 hour drinking, youth picked up and warned, no indecent exposures, no dirtying the sidewalk, indeed, no expense spare to pick up these yoickes, not even charged with a cup of tea - what a haven these little numb skulls are - even their parents do not receive a 'bill' and grin at their erstwhile sink leval kids and not remind themselves, 'where did I go wrong'.

goard

This would be unfair on us real ale drinkers. People who get rowdy or unwell on alcohol drink lager, or alcopops. You never see a can of Fuller's HSB discarded on the floor, it's always a cheap can of lager, or the occasional cider can. Increase the cost of Carling and Fosters, by defenition that's what lager louts drink, don't increase the cost of my Old Speckled Peculiar Farmer's Bottom.

As long as that is rolled out to supermarkets too, as many of us pointed out yesterday, youngsters will have a few cheap drinks at home before they go out, so they don't spend as much. Therein lies the problem the supergiants like Tesco are a law unto themselves and refuse to stop stocking very low cost booze.... however, this won't solve the problem completely - young people in school need to be educated about the harm drinking does alongside the healthy eating dialogues that already exist. Us parents also need to do our bit. I lost my father to alcoholism and I know what it's like, it's something I've instilled in my kids how dangerous it is and you can be pulled into alcoholism/binge drinking so very easily. There's also a lot of peer pressure, my son has had the mickey taken out of him for 'not drinking' or not drinking too much, i.e. a couple of pints then he goes onto the OJ. He has felt enormous pressure from his mates and called a 'wuss' etc.

It would be a good idea to increase the prices that supermarkets charge. Walking into my local supermarket, one is presented with a mountain of cases consisting of various brands, with offers such as two for fifteen pounds. Each case can consist of ten or more bottles or cans. This can be at a cost of as little as 70p a can, cheaper than a bottle of squash or lemonade. Where is the logic in all this, when the bulk buying power of supermarkets can get away with offering the public such scandalously low prices for alcohol, as this will only increase consumption enourmously in the run up to the festive season.

The oldest trick in the book for kids is to take with you a half bottle of spirits or a hip-flask when going out for an evening. That way, the drink is much cheaper and you can buy a cola at the bar to dilute the neat spirits.
I worked in a late bar during the 1970s and after we closed I sometimes checked the ladies loos - empty half bottles of spirits were everywhere.

Southampton has the worst social nightlife in the south of england by a country mile. So lets increase prices and watch the only remaining pubs close down. Its also far from being cheap "booze". The handful of pubs doing such pricing are no doubt trying to stop going out of business.

Like others have said nobody seems to be giving a **** about the local sotonians.

The actual council are to blame for turning bedford place into a student ghetto. Allowing all those halls of residence in archers road.

The Daily Echo just seems to be jumping on the national media bandwagon. Cheap desperate journalism. Southampton "bashing" just to sell its grotty newspaper.

Pub & Club prices are already high enough to put people off drinking there. There is no such thing as a cheap night out anymore.The key to less individual consumption is education - if prices are deemed to be too high, there will be a surge in Black Market alcohol availability , not too disimilar to the Cigarette scenario.

What next - most accidents happen at home so ban homes?? a lot of people are hurt in car crashes so treble the price of fuel to reduce the number of cars on the road??

If we sacked all the busy-bodies, research councils, quangos and politicians we'd save a fortune, which could be spent on better things (and our lives would be a lot happier)

At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends.

I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced.

I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it.

And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

If the council intends to increase the price of alcohol then shouldn't we see a decrease in the price of something useful, like fruit or petrol??

Why can I buy a vodka and red bull for 90p in Bedford Place when a punnet of ready ripe fruit costs me £2.99?

Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority?

The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions.

A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few.

As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe
r equally-so-we-don't-
offend-the- guilty.

1 litre of Bailey's original Tesco £18.00
ASDA £9.00

hmmm I wonder where I would go for my mum's tipple?

JohnLR wrote:
Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority?

The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions.

A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few.

As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

I know! If we raise the price of a pint of milk to £5,000 then we can cut back on heart attacks! This is fantastic! The new solution to all problems is to price everything so that the electorate can't afford to do anything except sit at home eating gruel and conforming! Genius.

I really hate what's becoming of this once-great country

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote: Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority? The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions. A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few. As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

Capitalism has nothing to do with 'Licensing'. It's up to the Local Authority to remove the individual alcohol licenses from the supermarket chains and restrict them to the local 'off-licenses' and pubs / clubs.

Now this would be in an ideal world but the socialist-liberal EU would invariably stick their legislative noses in and the supermarkets would complain about unfair or restrictive legislation.

The Council wouldn't have the stomach or financial clout to fight any legal action bought by the supermarkets but would happily waste £26kpa on a 'non-job'. So who looses out in all this? The socially repsonsible drinkers & pubs / clubs owners.

You really couldn't make it up!!

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe r equally-so-we-don't- offend-the- guilty.

We wouldn't need to create such a role if such a culture wasn't allowed to be created. What about the group of MPs, including that of Sandra Gidley who went all the way to new Zealand to conduct a study into drinking? Didn't that cost about 80k?

Shoong wrote:
At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends.

I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced.

I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it.

And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there.
Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

JohnLR wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote: Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority? The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions. A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few. As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

Capitalism has nothing to do with 'Licensing'. It's up to the Local Authority to remove the individual alcohol licenses from the supermarket chains and restrict them to the local 'off-licenses' and pubs / clubs.

Now this would be in an ideal world but the socialist-liberal EU would invariably stick their legislative noses in and the supermarkets would complain about unfair or restrictive legislation.

The Council wouldn't have the stomach or financial clout to fight any legal action bought by the supermarkets but would happily waste £26kpa on a 'non-job'. So who looses out in all this? The socially repsonsible drinkers & pubs / clubs owners.

You really couldn't make it up!!

You are right, local authorities wouldn't have the stomach or money to fight the supermarket's, but if central government introduced laws restricting the sell of alcohol to only pubs, clubs and restaurants, supermarkets and shops would have to comply, but of course they won't do that, due to loss of revenue (taxes) and of course the withdrawal of party sponsorship.

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote:
At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends.

I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced.

I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it.

And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there.
Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

JohnLR wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote: Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority? The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions. A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few. As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

Capitalism has nothing to do with 'Licensing'. It's up to the Local Authority to remove the individual alcohol licenses from the supermarket chains and restrict them to the local 'off-licenses' and pubs / clubs.

Now this would be in an ideal world but the socialist-liberal EU would invariably stick their legislative noses in and the supermarkets would complain about unfair or restrictive legislation.

The Council wouldn't have the stomach or financial clout to fight any legal action bought by the supermarkets but would happily waste £26kpa on a 'non-job'. So who looses out in all this? The socially repsonsible drinkers & pubs / clubs owners.

You really couldn't make it up!!

may i point out to you, that the EU is capitalist controlled the socialist have 38% of the seats in the EU ( before the last euro election the socialist had lest than 30% of the seats while the libs remained the about the same). while the lib hold another 6% of the seats ( and tend to fall on the side of right wing politics ) while the capitalist hold the majority of 56% of the seats in the EU. the capitalist in the EU have all ways had control of the EU.
and it has every thing to do with capitism, its all about the big boys and what they want and not the small business. supermarkets get a block licenses from main government but is subject to local rules and conditions. and the way out of this to stop this is by statue law, a new law forbidding the supplyers in selling discount alcohol when bought in bulk.

Georgem wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote: At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends. I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced. I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it. And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there. Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

Expect a knock on your door from their Legal Department - The beer has always done it's job for me! (Of course I do drink responsibly!)

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote: Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority? The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions. A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few. As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

Capitalism has nothing to do with 'Licensing'. It's up to the Local Authority to remove the individual alcohol licenses from the supermarket chains and restrict them to the local 'off-licenses' and pubs / clubs.

Now this would be in an ideal world but the socialist-liberal EU would invariably stick their legislative noses in and the supermarkets would complain about unfair or restrictive legislation.

The Council wouldn't have the stomach or financial clout to fight any legal action bought by the supermarkets but would happily waste £26kpa on a 'non-job'. So who looses out in all this? The socially repsonsible drinkers & pubs / clubs owners.

You really couldn't make it up!!

may i point out to you, that the EU is capitalist controlled the socialist have 38% of the seats in the EU ( before the last euro election the socialist had lest than 30% of the seats while the libs remained the about the same). while the lib hold another 6% of the seats ( and tend to fall on the side of right wing politics ) while the capitalist hold the majority of 56% of the seats in the EU. the capitalist in the EU have all ways had control of the EU.
and it has every thing to do with capitism, its all about the big boys and what they want and not the small business. supermarkets get a block licenses from main government but is subject to local rules and conditions. and the way out of this to stop this is by statue law, a new law forbidding the supplyers in selling discount alcohol when bought in bulk.

Good grief. You manage to reduce everything to "socialism vs. capitalism" don't you? Make no mistake, Southy, all government is capitalist, pretty much by definition. Some admittedly so, others by stealth. But they're all capitalist. Most people are, whether they care to admit it or not. You yourself have, several times, boasted of how much money you have squirreled away against your old age. You're a capitalist, you just don't want to admit it.

JohnLR wrote:

Georgem wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote: At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends. I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced. I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it. And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there. Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

Expect a knock on your door from their Legal Department - The beer has always done it's job for me! (Of course I do drink responsibly!)

My door will remain knock-free, thanks! They've never made any secret that their business model revolves around bulk-buying end-of-life drink and selling it cheap.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote: Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority? The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions. A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few. As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

Capitalism has nothing to do with 'Licensing'. It's up to the Local Authority to remove the individual alcohol licenses from the supermarket chains and restrict them to the local 'off-licenses' and pubs / clubs.

Now this would be in an ideal world but the socialist-liberal EU would invariably stick their legislative noses in and the supermarkets would complain about unfair or restrictive legislation.

The Council wouldn't have the stomach or financial clout to fight any legal action bought by the supermarkets but would happily waste £26kpa on a 'non-job'. So who looses out in all this? The socially repsonsible drinkers & pubs / clubs owners.

You really couldn't make it up!!

may i point out to you, that the EU is capitalist controlled the socialist have 38% of the seats in the EU ( before the last euro election the socialist had lest than 30% of the seats while the libs remained the about the same). while the lib hold another 6% of the seats ( and tend to fall on the side of right wing politics ) while the capitalist hold the majority of 56% of the seats in the EU. the capitalist in the EU have all ways had control of the EU.
and it has every thing to do with capitism, its all about the big boys and what they want and not the small business. supermarkets get a block licenses from main government but is subject to local rules and conditions. and the way out of this to stop this is by statue law, a new law forbidding the supplyers in selling discount alcohol when bought in bulk.

Good grief. You manage to reduce everything to "socialism vs. capitalism" don't you? Make no mistake, Southy, all government is capitalist, pretty much by definition. Some admittedly so, others by stealth. But they're all capitalist. Most people are, whether they care to admit it or not. You yourself have, several times, boasted of how much money you have squirreled away against your old age. You're a capitalist, you just don't want to admit it.

lol that is funny georgem. me a capitalist far from it, socialism is not capitalism, just look at the word in it self the word socialism its all about what is good for the majority of people the ordinary person and there social well being.
dont get mix up about the labour party they stop being a socialist party back in the days of the socialist witch hunt that was started by kinnock in side the labour party. kinnock was also the labour leader that started to turn the labour party into a capitalist party. so in affect we have had 30 years of capitalist policy.

Repitition....deviat
ion.....repitition.

You wouldn't be a very good contestant on radio 4's Just a Minute. In fact, you'd be completely hopeless. We could talk about tiddlywinks and somehow, the subject would lead back to capitalism.

Bartonian wrote:
Repitition....deviat ion.....repitition. You wouldn't be a very good contestant on radio 4's Just a Minute. In fact, you'd be completely hopeless. We could talk about tiddlywinks and somehow, the subject would lead back to capitalism.

This is for Mouthy Southy.

What a great idea - NOT. Yet another case of applying a penalty to the majority, for the actions and alcohol misuse of a minority. Why should responsible people suffer the consequence of some of the mindless students that are attracted to our city because of its educational prowess. These facilities should be footing the £26k bill for this “anti social manager” – they should also pay for some extra policing to protect local residents while they’re at it. Idiots will always be idiots whether fuelled by cheap drink or some other cheap chemical means to achieve total brain dysfunction – all I ask is to leave me out of it and not penalise me financially for the fault of others.

Georgem wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

Georgem wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote: At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends. I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced. I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it. And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there. Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

Expect a knock on your door from their Legal Department - The beer has always done it's job for me! (Of course I do drink responsibly!)

My door will remain knock-free, thanks! They've never made any secret that their business model revolves around bulk-buying end-of-life drink and selling it cheap.

Ye gods, have you ever been to the Gaolhouse in Winchester? Never will you find a more villainous hive of scum & villainy. And chavs.
The beer is disgusting & haggard old drunks everyday.
The Southampton pub is in good nick but the beer tastes awful. And the food? Don't even go there...

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

southy wrote:

JohnLR wrote: Every posting on here, so far, has the same message - ie cheap supermarket alcohol, irresponsible pub & club management, lack of social responsibility, useless local authority foresight & poor decisions, ineffective policing and - most importantly - don't screw the responsible majority? The most cost effective way of censuring or reducing antisocial behiour is the introduction of a city wide 'pub watch' scheme and the stringent enforcement of licensing conditions. A prime example of a well run, socially responsible pub chain is JD Wetherspoon who invariably work with Local Authorities and Police to make sure that their pubs are suited to all sections of society - not just the stupid few. As ever Soton City Council want to spend the citizens taxes on another 'non-job' when the solution is a lot simpler and readily available.

well welcome to the capitalist world. for this is just a small part of what its all about, supermarkets getting away with selling cheap alcohol. cuts in the police force so they can no longer work properly.

Capitalism has nothing to do with 'Licensing'. It's up to the Local Authority to remove the individual alcohol licenses from the supermarket chains and restrict them to the local 'off-licenses' and pubs / clubs. Now this would be in an ideal world but the socialist-liberal EU would invariably stick their legislative noses in and the supermarkets would complain about unfair or restrictive legislation. The Council wouldn't have the stomach or financial clout to fight any legal action bought by the supermarkets but would happily waste £26kpa on a 'non-job'. So who looses out in all this? The socially repsonsible drinkers & pubs / clubs owners. You really couldn't make it up!!

may i point out to you, that the EU is capitalist controlled the socialist have 38% of the seats in the EU ( before the last euro election the socialist had lest than 30% of the seats while the libs remained the about the same). while the lib hold another 6% of the seats ( and tend to fall on the side of right wing politics ) while the capitalist hold the majority of 56% of the seats in the EU. the capitalist in the EU have all ways had control of the EU. and it has every thing to do with capitism, its all about the big boys and what they want and not the small business. supermarkets get a block licenses from main government but is subject to local rules and conditions. and the way out of this to stop this is by statue law, a new law forbidding the supplyers in selling discount alcohol when bought in bulk.

Good grief. You manage to reduce everything to "socialism vs. capitalism" don't you? Make no mistake, Southy, all government is capitalist, pretty much by definition. Some admittedly so, others by stealth. But they're all capitalist. Most people are, whether they care to admit it or not. You yourself have, several times, boasted of how much money you have squirreled away against your old age. You're a capitalist, you just don't want to admit it.

lol that is funny georgem. me a capitalist far from it, socialism is not capitalism, just look at the word in it self the word socialism its all about what is good for the majority of people the ordinary person and there social well being. dont get mix up about the labour party they stop being a socialist party back in the days of the socialist witch hunt that was started by kinnock in side the labour party. kinnock was also the labour leader that started to turn the labour party into a capitalist party. so in affect we have had 30 years of capitalist policy.

Who ever, what ever! Socialism, capitolism, beerism!

£26kpa is contra bono publico!

Common sense avoids political parties and political ideology.

Increasing petrol prices do not seem to cut the number of deaths in road accidents. Perhaps restaurants should increase the price of food to try and reduce obesity.

The majority of sensible posts on this subject allude to the same things - don't punish the majority for the sake of the minority. Young people will drink and get very drunk, ever has it been thus. They drink at home before they go out so that they spend less. The 'ladies' take their own bottles in their handbags so they spend less. These are the people who should be targeted - hit them hard when they misbehave - make drunkenness a contributing factor when sentencing rather than a mitigating factor. Then leave the rest of us alone - those who can enjoy a couple of beers or a bottle of wine with dinner without throwing up or feeling the need to fight someone. STOP THE NANNY STATE NOW - leave my cheap booze alone.

Carpe Diem wrote:
The majority of sensible posts on this subject allude to the same things - don't punish the majority for the sake of the minority. Young people will drink and get very drunk, ever has it been thus. They drink at home before they go out so that they spend less. The 'ladies' take their own bottles in their handbags so they spend less. These are the people who should be targeted - hit them hard when they misbehave - make drunkenness a contributing factor when sentencing rather than a mitigating factor. Then leave the rest of us alone - those who can enjoy a couple of beers or a bottle of wine with dinner without throwing up or feeling the need to fight someone. STOP THE NANNY STATE NOW - leave my cheap booze alone.

Well said!!!! You have hit the nail on the head!

ban alcohol, smoking, cars and fat people and save lives.

Bartonian wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe r equally-so-we-don't- offend-the- guilty.

We wouldn't need to create such a role if such a culture wasn't allowed to be created. What about the group of MPs, including that of Sandra Gidley who went all the way to new Zealand to conduct a study into drinking? Didn't that cost about 80k?

Well remembered Bartonian. What a fact finding mission that must have been for Mrs Doubtfire. I wish one her constituents would force her to show the itinerary of that trip and explain what aspect of drinking is so unique to New Zealand that it required a whole month's on-site study?
I'd be interested to know why such study could not have taken place online?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bartonian wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe r equally-so-we-don't- offend-the- guilty.

We wouldn't need to create such a role if such a culture wasn't allowed to be created. What about the group of MPs, including that of Sandra Gidley who went all the way to new Zealand to conduct a study into drinking? Didn't that cost about 80k?

Well remembered Bartonian. What a fact finding mission that must have been for Mrs Doubtfire. I wish one her constituents would force her to show the itinerary of that trip and explain what aspect of drinking is so unique to New Zealand that it required a whole month's on-site study? I'd be interested to know why such study could not have taken place online?

What relevance do Andy Locks Heath, Bartonian and Sandra Gidley have when considering the council tax payers of Southampton ?

Southy shows himself yet again to be a fool and a liar. First he is a fool for " blaming" capitalism for low prices in the supermarkets - We've heard it all now. yes if only we had marxist socialism we could force everyone to pay more for things that the secretariat decided they could have. Alcohol today, bread tomorrow eh Southy? Secondly Southy spends all his time distancing himself from New Labour and describing himself as a "true" socialist, and labour as nothing to do with true socialism, yet here he is quite happy to claim that 38% of the EU parliament is socialist when he knows full well that they are at best centre left social democrats more in common with Tony Blair. They are not marxists are they? Now tell us the truth - what percentage of the EU parliament would support a marxist manifesto such as your socialist party Southy? 38%?? yeah right

Carpe Diem wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bartonian wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe r equally-so-we-don't- offend-the- guilty.

We wouldn't need to create such a role if such a culture wasn't allowed to be created. What about the group of MPs, including that of Sandra Gidley who went all the way to new Zealand to conduct a study into drinking? Didn't that cost about 80k?

Well remembered Bartonian. What a fact finding mission that must have been for Mrs Doubtfire. I wish one her constituents would force her to show the itinerary of that trip and explain what aspect of drinking is so unique to New Zealand that it required a whole month's on-site study? I'd be interested to know why such study could not have taken place online?

What relevance do Andy Locks Heath, Bartonian and Sandra Gidley have when considering the council tax payers of Southampton ?

Well said Carpe Diem, Locks Heath, Winchester and Romsey contribute what to Southampton?

Although they have an opinion, I find it bit rich they are moaning about spending our council tax on this waste of £26k on this night time economy manager.

I like would to know what this job is all about, surely the daytime economy manager could do the job

Carpe Diem wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bartonian wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe r equally-so-we-don't- offend-the- guilty.

We wouldn't need to create such a role if such a culture wasn't allowed to be created. What about the group of MPs, including that of Sandra Gidley who went all the way to new Zealand to conduct a study into drinking? Didn't that cost about 80k?

Well remembered Bartonian. What a fact finding mission that must have been for Mrs Doubtfire. I wish one her constituents would force her to show the itinerary of that trip and explain what aspect of drinking is so unique to New Zealand that it required a whole month's on-site study? I'd be interested to know why such study could not have taken place online?

What relevance do Andy Locks Heath, Bartonian and Sandra Gidley have when considering the council tax payers of Southampton ?

Well, I was born and brought up in Southampton, and Mrs Gidley's constituents include Southampton residents. Is that good enough for you?

Was it Labour or the Lib Dums who brought in this mess in 2005? I know for a fact that the Tories have tried all they can to reverse the current laws but can't due to the legislation. It stinks that the council now has to waste £26k a year trying to sort out a problem created by a past administration

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Bartonian wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: well said JohnLR - The "city" (ie us council tax payers) have just created yet another a £26kpa job (plus pension) to do what you have succinctly summarised in a single post. Except of course he or she won't follow your advice. Instead after a year or so of "discussion" It will be the same old make-everybody-suffe r equally-so-we-don't- offend-the- guilty.

We wouldn't need to create such a role if such a culture wasn't allowed to be created. What about the group of MPs, including that of Sandra Gidley who went all the way to new Zealand to conduct a study into drinking? Didn't that cost about 80k?

Well remembered Bartonian. What a fact finding mission that must have been for Mrs Doubtfire. I wish one her constituents would force her to show the itinerary of that trip and explain what aspect of drinking is so unique to New Zealand that it required a whole month's on-site study? I'd be interested to know why such study could not have taken place online?

I would like to know, as not a word has been said about it since. All I reqad was the nice hotels they all stayed in and the photos they took whilst doing their sightseeing. It makes the holiday programme look like a knees up in Cleethorpes. They are quite happy to spend our taxes in such a way, and they are also happy to make us pay it.

Georgem wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

Georgem wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote: At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends. I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced. I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it. And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there. Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

Expect a knock on your door from their Legal Department - The beer has always done it's job for me! (Of course I do drink responsibly!)

My door will remain knock-free, thanks! They've never made any secret that their business model revolves around bulk-buying end-of-life drink and selling it cheap.

I think there is a bit of snobbishness here. I drink regularly in Wetherspoons' three pubs in Southampton city centre and the one in Shirley. I have never had a bad pint of bitter there. Even if they buy in bulk and the beer is near it sell by date, it does not mean to say it is not perfectly drinkable.
The food they serve is also good for the price. Sure some of it may come from a plastic bag and be microwaved but that is common these days in all sorts of eateries, even those where you pay a lot more than at Wetherspoons.
If they were considered to be poor they would not be so successful as they are. In fact, they would have closed.

JohnLR wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote: The majority of sensible posts on this subject allude to the same things - don't punish the majority for the sake of the minority. Young people will drink and get very drunk, ever has it been thus. They drink at home before they go out so that they spend less. The 'ladies' take their own bottles in their handbags so they spend less. These are the people who should be targeted - hit them hard when they misbehave - make drunkenness a contributing factor when sentencing rather than a mitigating factor. Then leave the rest of us alone - those who can enjoy a couple of beers or a bottle of wine with dinner without throwing up or feeling the need to fight someone. STOP THE NANNY STATE NOW - leave my cheap booze alone.

Well said!!!! You have hit the nail on the head!

It is an aggravating factor in sentencing; whoever thinks it is not does not know anything about sentencing.

Not only does alcohol cause drunkeness (although I am sure this is a surprise to most students who think they can drink gallons of it without affecting their tiny brains), it also increases the effect of prescription medications, such as anti-depressives and psychotrophic drugs.

Oh and mixing it with weed does not do the imbiber many more favours either.

Some of these students would be good candidates for rehab in any case; they seem to have a suicide wish. Booze, drugs and students just do not miss. The money we spend on looking after these half-wits would be better off spent closing the universities and building more NHS facilities or spending money on senior citizens. These cretins (students) are not worth tuppence.

Cheap booze don't cost live's it the idiots that drink too much that do.Perhaps if i had the income of a Doctor i would'nt mind but i don't.
the Medical Experts thought by putting up smoking would stop people It Didn't so if you put up the price of alcohol would people stop buying no.Do i smoke No do i enjoy a pint or two Yes do or have i injured somebody through either No so don't tag me with what idiots do thank you.

Punishing the majority of sensible drinkers, by raising prices, is completely the wrong way to go about solving the problem of anti social behavior. The proper enforcement of just 2 existing laws would solve a lot.
1) Hefty fines for those who serve alcohol to those who are already obviously drunk.
2) Hefty fines and a night in the cells for those found drunk and disorderly in the street causing a nuscense.
If these were enforced with zero tolerance, I think people would soon understand that such behavior was unacceptable.

Bowmore wrote:
Punishing the majority of sensible drinkers, by raising prices, is completely the wrong way to go about solving the problem of anti social behavior. The proper enforcement of just 2 existing laws would solve a lot. 1) Hefty fines for those who serve alcohol to those who are already obviously drunk. 2) Hefty fines and a night in the cells for those found drunk and disorderly in the street causing a nuscense. If these were enforced with zero tolerance, I think people would soon understand that such behavior was unacceptable.

Excellent; then see you on site of the new police building, you can be responsible for building the new 42 cell custody suite and opening it in December 2010.

I doubt if the police would support your zero tolerance attitude to alcohol transgressors; there's enough idiots get into custody already without filling it up with brain dead drunks. Not a good idea, my son.

News Fanatic wrote:

Georgem wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

Georgem wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote: At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends. I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced. I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it. And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there. Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

Expect a knock on your door from their Legal Department - The beer has always done it's job for me! (Of course I do drink responsibly!)

My door will remain knock-free, thanks! They've never made any secret that their business model revolves around bulk-buying end-of-life drink and selling it cheap.

I think there is a bit of snobbishness here. I drink regularly in Wetherspoons' three pubs in Southampton city centre and the one in Shirley. I have never had a bad pint of bitter there. Even if they buy in bulk and the beer is near it sell by date, it does not mean to say it is not perfectly drinkable. The food they serve is also good for the price. Sure some of it may come from a plastic bag and be microwaved but that is common these days in all sorts of eateries, even those where you pay a lot more than at Wetherspoons. If they were considered to be poor they would not be so successful as they are. In fact, they would have closed.

I went to the Standing Order for a meal with my wife a month or so ago, walked in and looked at the clientele inside and walked out. We ended up paying a bit more somewhere else for a nicer meal in better surroundings. In this case less certainly isn't more

Condor Man wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Georgem wrote:

JohnLR wrote:

Georgem wrote:

News Fanatic wrote:

Shoong wrote: At an average of £3 a pint I wouldn't call that cheap so I can say that a night out is never cheap for me including buying for friends. I personally think we are blaming all of societies woes on cheap booze. If our streets were policed properly & bars & clubs had morals with adequate staff to control the venues this problem would be greatly reduced. I hear constant wailing from people about cheap liquor. Yet no-one does a thing about it. And sorry, if you live near a late night venue then you should have thought of that before you moved in there.

You are going to the wrong pubs. Wetherspooons (you have one in Winchester - The Old Jailhouse) had and may still have a pint of bitter on sale at £1.35. Even more expensive bitters are less than £2 there. Wetherspoons pubs are good and I have never seen anyone misbehave in one, although I am sure they do get the odd one.

Wetherspoons are fine if you don't mind drinking watered-down beer that was already past its sell-by date, in the company of morons. (Note: I'm not referring to YOU as a moron)

Expect a knock on your door from their Legal Department - The beer has always done it's job for me! (Of course I do drink responsibly!)

My door will remain knock-free, thanks! They've never made any secret that their business model revolves around bulk-buying end-of-life drink and selling it cheap.

I think there is a bit of snobbishness here. I drink regularly in Wetherspoons' three pubs in Southampton city centre and the one in Shirley. I have never had a bad pint of bitter there. Even if they buy in bulk and the beer is near it sell by date, it does not mean to say it is not perfectly drinkable. The food they serve is also good for the price. Sure some of it may come from a plastic bag and be microwaved but that is common these days in all sorts of eateries, even those where you pay a lot more than at Wetherspoons. If they were considered to be poor they would not be so successful as they are. In fact, they would have closed.

I went to the Standing Order for a meal with my wife a month or so ago, walked in and looked at the clientele inside and walked out. We ended up paying a bit more somewhere else for a nicer meal in better surroundings. In this case less certainly isn't more

There are other good Wetherspooons pubs not 1/2 a mile from there, including the Giddy Bridge. Sorry to disillusion you but the Standing Order has always been a slum anyway, which you would know if you were the slightest bit conversant with our city.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Southy shows himself yet again to be a fool and a liar. First he is a fool for " blaming" capitalism for low prices in the supermarkets - We've heard it all now. yes if only we had marxist socialism we could force everyone to pay more for things that the secretariat decided they could have. Alcohol today, bread tomorrow eh Southy? Secondly Southy spends all his time distancing himself from New Labour and describing himself as a "true" socialist, and labour as nothing to do with true socialism, yet here he is quite happy to claim that 38% of the EU parliament is socialist when he knows full well that they are at best centre left social democrats more in common with Tony Blair. They are not marxists are they? Now tell us the truth - what percentage of the EU parliament would support a marxist manifesto such as your socialist party Southy? 38%?? yeah right

andy it's well known that you cant stand people who points out things that the capitalist world stands for.
ok let me point this out to you, who was it that change the laws in the late 80's, that allowed supermarkets to sale what ever they like, there was a time when there was limitations set on the sale of a alcohol and the price that they could be sold for in supermarkets and they was subject to opening times in selling alcohol. then in the 90's the pubs, bars and clubs opening hours licencing laws change.
now to the other bit, true socialism is left of centre, new labour is not blair and brown have shown that in there actions to be right wing (capitalist). why else would there be a call for a bran new polical party ( C.N.W.P ) whitch all types of socialist are taking part in. and yes andy 38% of the EU is socialist and labour party is not part of it, you can tell all the true socialist party they all stand under the same banner, labour party do not, why do you think why new labour change its colours for red and white to red and yellow and put a yellow rose in the logo for. but it still do not take away the fact that the EU is capitalist controlled 56% . and why do only 38% of the EU supports the people charter and the rest dont and that inclue's new labour. new labour is not a socialist party its a capitalist party.
lets face it andy your a capitist snob

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: Southy shows himself yet again to be a fool and a liar. First he is a fool for " blaming" capitalism for low prices in the supermarkets - We've heard it all now. yes if only we had marxist socialism we could force everyone to pay more for things that the secretariat decided they could have. Alcohol today, bread tomorrow eh Southy? Secondly Southy spends all his time distancing himself from New Labour and describing himself as a "true" socialist, and labour as nothing to do with true socialism, yet here he is quite happy to claim that 38% of the EU parliament is socialist when he knows full well that they are at best centre left social democrats more in common with Tony Blair. They are not marxists are they? Now tell us the truth - what percentage of the EU parliament would support a marxist manifesto such as your socialist party Southy? 38%?? yeah right

andy it's well known that you cant stand people who points out things that the capitalist world stands for. ok let me point this out to you, who was it that change the laws in the late 80's, that allowed supermarkets to sale what ever they like, there was a time when there was limitations set on the sale of a alcohol and the price that they could be sold for in supermarkets and they was subject to opening times in selling alcohol. then in the 90's the pubs, bars and clubs opening hours licencing laws change. now to the other bit, true socialism is left of centre, new labour is not blair and brown have shown that in there actions to be right wing (capitalist). why else would there be a call for a bran new polical party ( C.N.W.P ) whitch all types of socialist are taking part in. and yes andy 38% of the EU is socialist and labour party is not part of it, you can tell all the true socialist party they all stand under the same banner, labour party do not, why do you think why new labour change its colours for red and white to red and yellow and put a yellow rose in the logo for. but it still do not take away the fact that the EU is capitalist controlled 56% . and why do only 38% of the EU supports the people charter and the rest dont and that inclue's new labour. new labour is not a socialist party its a capitalist party. lets face it andy your a capitist snob

Or even a capitalist snob, were you able to spell properly.

If you are going to make an argument with people, even on here, its best that you were able to form words correctly and spell. Otherwise your argument is not going to stand for much, is it?

small spelling error thats all donald2000, normally i get that word right. or are just nic-picking

Yes, I am nit picking; you know why? I dont think it furthers your argument when you advocate socialism but cant spell the name of its antithesis, capitalism.

As I said to you before, either you want this town and its newspaper to be a nasty little provincial place, or you want to further the sum total of human knowledge, its up to you.

Donald2000 wrote:
Yes, I am nit picking; you know why? I dont think it furthers your argument when you advocate socialism but cant spell the name of its antithesis, capitalism.

As I said to you before, either you want this town and its newspaper to be a nasty little provincial place, or you want to further the sum total of human knowledge, its up to you.

and nic-picking only cements my arguement, it tells people that you do not have a case the same has insulting people or calling them names.

Yet the Capitalist dream that people were led to believe was true is hard to break...we are all swimming in circles now with little or no protection from the sharks. With those on the outside being picked off at random because they have played the game as they were told...NOW they are blamed for playing...your not meant to win...your there to be exploited, This is what your Tory's, Lib/Dem's and new Labour have done in the last 30 years.
It's only the Socialist that stand in there way, To take every thing you got. And this is why more and more people around the world, Are looking at socialism its the politics of the future.

southy wrote:
Yet the Capitalist dream that people were led to believe was true is hard to break...we are all swimming in circles now with little or no protection from the sharks. With those on the outside being picked off at random because they have played the game as they were told...NOW they are blamed for playing...your not meant to win...your there to be exploited, This is what your Tory's, Lib/Dem's and new Labour have done in the last 30 years. It's only the Socialist that stand in there way, To take every thing you got. And this is why more and more people around the world, Are looking at socialism its the politics of the future.

Southy, you give the game away - 'your not meant to win...your ther to be exploited'.
What's your definition of winning. Winning implies some form of competition. Competition is a basic premise of capitalism - you have to compete and win to survive. Socialism and Communism do not work - name one country where it has. Socialism and Communism are all about subjugation of the masses and making all people suffer the same low standards of living. It also stifles self determination and the will to strive to do better - after all, why struggle to become a lawyer or doctor if you know the state will pay you the same as a bin man. The only people who benefit from socialism and communism are those who make the rules and run the country. Probably best that you don't use every article on the web site to have a bash at capitalism. If it was not for capitalism in this country how do you think we could afford the NHS and free state education (bad as they may be they are a better option than what is available in most communist countries).

'bad as they (the NHS) may be they are a better option than what is available in most communist countries'.

And even better than in the real 'dog-eat-dog' capitalist countries like the US, where people are driven to bankruptcy by illness. Yay for progress.

well carpe diem, its the other way round, its capitalism that subjugation of the masses. by cheap slave labour, more crime, more poverty, more homeless, keeping unemployment high, more wars. keeping people in dept, bigger cuts, recessions and depressions. it also holds back technology so they can extract the maximum amount of wealth, before releasing new technology. 80% of the worlds wealth is owned by 2% of the worlds population.
when you look at countrys like cuba, who produces more doctors of all types and nurses and teachers than any one else in the world. venezuela since they voted in a socialist government the people of this country have been better off there lifes are improving, same with libya.
what obama have just said and done to the burma government, ( a country that the government has been kept in power since the 1990 by the usa, even lo they lost election to the socialist party, in 1990 1995 2000 2005 and will lose the next election in 2010, and the socialist party in burma will more than likely to sweep to power all because of what obama has done and said, the burma government no longer has the support of the usa to prop them up in power.
the ex satelite states of russia are also now turning towards socialism. what was east germany socialism is gaining strength, why because people are getting fed up with capitalism many are worse off now than when they was under communism. so they are looking at politics that is in between and that is socialism. the tory's told people a lie 20 years ago when the berlin wall came down, they said it was because of capitalism why the berlin wall came down, this is not true, it was because of who died in spandau prison and agreement that was made between the allied forces. to with draw from germany on the death of this high ranking officer from hitler germany. he should of died years befores but the americans was keeping him alive on drugs. russia collapses was all down to what stalin did, and that was the slaughter and murder of socialists. in china the socialist party have been driven under ground now for 40 plus years, and are still working under ground, in vietnam communist and socialist are working together and there people of the whole of vietnam are much better off and again there lives are improving.
and when you look at countrys that did not go into recession they all have socialism policy in place. apart from china no one is quiet sure what there politics are at the moment but then again i think the china government dont even know them selfs, but it looks like a type of keysian policy some thing like we had between 1945 to 1979. before thatcher change our policy to neonationlism and neoliberism and ever since we had problems with greed, recessions, crime, proverty, high employment, cheap labour, homeless, dept, .
capitism biggest fear is the ballot box. the masses will turn on them. capitalism dont want you to have the vote or you to vote, its been a perfect situation for them in the last 30 years, with the 3 main partys all capitalist partys, thats why they is less and less people voting now because there is no choice between the main 3 partys they are all about the same capitalism, and thats why the unions are now breaking away from labour and starting to support groups like the socialist party who are part of the call for a new workers party (C.N.W.P).
the NHS and state education is paid for by its people though taxes and NHI payments, and not from capitalist enterprise, capitalism only is a leach it draws out state tax money for there own pockets.
what obama will do next i think will be to lift all trade embargos on all socialist and communist countrys.

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote: Yes, I am nit picking; you know why? I dont think it furthers your argument when you advocate socialism but cant spell the name of its antithesis, capitalism. As I said to you before, either you want this town and its newspaper to be a nasty little provincial place, or you want to further the sum total of human knowledge, its up to you.

and nic-picking only cements my arguement, it tells people that you do not have a case the same has insulting people or calling them names.

I dont want to insult you; I just want you to be able to show that your arguments have some validity by being able to spell properly, so that people have some respect for what you are saying. If you think thats insulting, then you must have a very low tolerance threshold for criticism.

ah i under stand you now. your learn that my english is my weakest point in life, but i make up for it in many other fields. every one has a weak point weather if they know it or not.

I have been on many a night out when me and my friends bought these so called £1 shots or jellyvodka shots and i think that the amount of actual alcohol is so minimal you'd be better off licking the carpet.