We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
What are the chances of a nice big Tax increase on booze in the next budget, thanks to these new guidelines?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 31
|
By:
Where I come from the new guidelines cover Friday afternoon.
|
|
By:
Will give the SNP more excuse to give the supermarkets the minimum pricing windfall.
|
|
By:
they aren't guidelines.
|
|
By:
Yes, they are targets to hit by Tuesday.
|
|
By:
keep up. monday lunchtime
 my point is that that no-one has said "you should only drink this much", or, it's "dangerous to drink more than this" they're just saying that if you drink around this much or less you aren't increasing the risk of developing an alcohol related medical condition. but no-one's said stop doing it. assuming you're not alcohol dependent, and you're drinking doesn't harm other people, make your own mind up. page 21, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf |
|
By:
They've been described as guidelines in the media, DStyle.
Not law. What word should I have used? |
|
By:
I'm having one of those trendy sober January's, mostly so I can feel all superior to you drunkards
|
|
By:
I know Study. It wasn't directed at you. It's actually what the paper is called and it comes from the Guidelines development group.
But they aren't guidelines. It just data about risk. Indeed the paper is based on the following principles. People have a right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and its health risks, and There is a responsibility on Government to ensure this information is provided for citizens in an open way, so that they can make informed choices |
|
By:
How are they not guidelines? If not what are they?
|
|
By:
Every time you get in a car there is a chance you might die in an accident. Or fly. Or shave. Every action has risk, even going up the stairs. We all die of something, if drinking 25 units a week gave me a modest increase in the chance of somethng that I've got a small chance of getting .. well ..
What is the official "car journeys a week" limit? |
|
By:
I'm not arguing or disagreeing and this is to better my understanding, but what's a guideline then, how would today's thing qualify as guidelines?
|
|
By:
guidelines are for filling out tax returns, or preparing raw poultry.
with this, it's like asking can you give me guidelines on what to bet on so i don't lose my stake? it doesn't make sense. it's a bigger answer than that. it's stochastic not deterministic. now you can provide data about risk, but the choice of action is then based on an individual's appetite for risk. you cannot give or produce one-size-fits-all "guidelines". |
|
By:
A guideline by definition is a principle put forward to set standards.
They are puting forward the principle that more than a certain amount of units is damaging to health and that the standard should be to not drink more than a certain amount of units. Can't see how this isn't a guideline. If anything I'd take issue with the use of the "new rules" by the media because it is clearly not a rule which suggests that at least their is some sort of definite consequence for not adhering to them. |
|
By:
but my point is that no-one has the right to choose the level of risk increase for the entire population
it's just under a 1% increase in the risk of alcohol attributed death if i drink 14 units over 7 days. it's 3% for 21, 5% for 28, 11% for 42. |
|
By:
I'd totally agree with that. But the same could be said about cooking a chicken in the example you used. Not cooking it to the recoommened internal temperature etc probably only increases your chance of food poisoning by about 1% per 3 degrees or something.
If your point is that the guideline is an arbitrary figure pulled out someone's arse with little relevant consequence to any actual increase in damage caused to a persons health for the sole purpose of trying to reduce the amount of alcohol people consume then I would wholeheartedly agree, but I do think it's still a guideline. |
|
By:
It made me laugh when a woman appeared on our local television to denounce the Chief Medical Officer's latest advice on drinking limits... she was a pub landlady!
|
|
By:
i'll take the 11% dstyle .
|
|
By:
Boozing is unsafe at ‘any level’, thunders chief UK.gov quack
Show us your science. What? You mean you don’t have any? . http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/08/uk_alcohol_guidelines_are_junk_but_why/ |
|
By:
Didn't they say that drinking alcohol can cause certain types of cancers?
Which cancers, the big killers or the more curable ones? |
|
By:
Why don't they simply find a cure for cancer instead of spreading all these scare stories?
|
|
By:
Who's "they" ?
|
|
By:
Just a further pressing of the boot on yer neck..
And of course drink less = works more (allegedly) |
|
By:
We all said this would happen "when they finish with the smokers they will
start on the drinkers".Put both together and that's plenty of prime real estate for development from closed down pubs Take the internet(or glorified mail order)into account plenty more prime development for property barons to develop,and then nobody ever meets/talks to anybody total win for the ruling classes . That's why they always pick on something no more than about 30% of the population does so always on a win win situation At least i understand my rant |
|
By:
Didn't they say that drinking alcohol can cause certain types of cancers?
Which cancers, the big killers or the more curable ones? _____________ Mouth cancers i think . It's all to do with frequency of drink rather than the volume i hear . A bit like sweets/acids and dental diseases . |
|
By:
Anything can cause cancer , cancer is a disease simple as that
One day they are saying dont eat too much this , next week eat more Old people last years and it goes unnoticed until they get post mortem , my advice is that if you ever go for a check up and feel healthy and you get told you have cancer , dont go back until you are feeling ill. DEPOPULATION IS WHAT IS IT |
|
By:
If they taxed it right up to ridiculous levels , then just brew your own or import and sell it on , money to be made on every cut by those legal mafias
Im sure plenty are already doing it |
|
By:
every rise i should say*
|
|
By:
The Chief Medical Officer has got it wrong.
Moderate drinking protects against heart disease, but increases cancer risk. But heart disease and stroke risks are a bigger risk than the cancer ones, so moderate drinking is still going to result in a longer life. Aah, but the CMO says the beneficial effects of moderate drinking can also be achieved by exercise, so they subtracted the potential of exercise from the protective ability of moderate drinking, and hey presto, they've concluded that the optimal level of drinking is nil. |
|
By:
People die going for a jogs
Im sure bevvy heads wont care what a medical chief said |
|
By:
About as much as i care what [ This image is no longer available. ]
says.. |
|
By:
Its all a matter of Timing One Mo You Live The Next you Dead
 |