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
Frosty Jack large bottle £4.50 up to £11.25 in Scotland
|
By:
I just like to make you aware of the current situation
People who have radical ideas are often castigated by mainstream/popular theories/philosophies etc, but are proven right eventually. hope this helps |
|
By:
"Supporters of ( sin taxes ) should be prepared to explain to what extent they think the aim of cajoling
people into adopting healthier lifestyles justifies forcibly reducing people’s living standards." Dr Kristian Niemietz Well done that whisky association though - they really tried to stop the rot, but the court has said the SNP can crack on and make poor people even poorer because the SNP have the right intentions. |
|
By:
The Monks down my neck of the woods are having a party tonight the filthy rich bast'rds.
Boogieing all the way from the front door to the alter of the Abbey. Noisy feckers  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
...and that's quite sad, isn't it?
|
|
By:
Either way, from what I gathered, the extra money goes to retailers. That's a really strange decision. If you want higher alcohol prices through state control, it should be in the form of tax that is only allowed to be used to fund alcohol therapies.
Increasing tax doesn't stop retailers absorbing the increase, hence the minimum price. I imagine there might be a way to coordinate minimum price and tax if required, but first minimum price had to be introduced. Some countries have state controlled monopolies for alcohol sales. |
|
By:
Generally in favour of the move, but unsure about a couple of things.
A 500ml can of 4% lager is now minimum £1? I think that is too much. The figure of '50p' minimum per unit is almost arbitrary. We already tax alcohol in a number of ways based on type and ABV. Why add another layer rather than combine or simplify? Is it true that the retailers benefit from this pricing? If so, unbelievable. |
|
By:
think the idea of min pricing is to circumnavigate where alcohol tax goes ,this is a cute plan to increase prices with a view to imposing a windfall tax on retailers by the Scottish government ,think that was the initial plan and perhaps Westminster haves since seen the opportunity to do likewise and hence there won't for the time being be an extra tax on retailers in Scotland as UK Gov are going to follow suit ,this is how extra layers of legislative governments are exploited .Initially the talk was 150m a year windfall tax for Scotland but reckon it could be much more ,fail to see how the figures of potential deaths prevented are calculated , people with little cash will still be able to afford cheap drink ,and as mentioned on here certain middle of the road beer will go up and go up by a fair bit ,the possible gains for Scotland in a windfall tax would have been offset by the serious mobile drinkers going south to stock up so in no doubt Westminster will follow suit ,think the SNP have been looking of a way to retain more tax from alcohol brewed in Scotland ,unless rest of UK follows suit brewers/retailers north of the border could be the biggest losers ,along with the poor punters who will have to pay ,cider market been dealt a blow IMO ,although frosty jack at 7.5% and under £4 for a 3l bottle is perhaps just too cheap but maybe they should have imposed tougher licensing laws in the areas that needed the help ,a close look at these areas and how the problem has been cultured and allowed to go unchecked is perhaps overdue .
|
|
By:
...and....breathe....
|
|
By:
...and....breathe....
|
|
By:
Relax jack , am using old hardware and this place and it ain't very compatible ,so easier to ignore punctuation protocols ,I do sympathise , although if your gunna be effective in attempting to highlight layout over content you only want go be pressing the reply button ONCE , otherwise it looks a tad off.
 |
|
By:
We all know how this goes.....
Now that it's been approved, expectations will be down played - 'no magic bullet' etc. As with the smoking ban, it will fail, but'research' will be commissioned which will distort the figures beyond all recognition to prove it's been a success. 'We can do more' they will shout! -'The next logical step' will be to raise the MUP to 60p or 70p and ever upwards accompanied by outdoor bans, advertising bans etc.etc The puritans will never stop. Meanwhile, UK alcohol consumption is the same as it was in 1980. |
|
By:
Is cigarette consumption also the same as it was in 1980?
|
|
By:
Meanwhile, UK alcohol consumption is the same as it was in 1980.
yeah but most of that was me. |
|
By:
It probably is actually. There probably weren't many folks eating cigarettes in the 80s either. What about smoker prevalence in 1980 compared to today though?
|
|
By:
Is cigarette consumption also the same as it was in 1980?
No because I gave up |
|
By:
The smoking ban in public places has quite obviously improved health. To say that the stats showing this are "made up" says quite a lot about the person making the claim.
|
|
By:
You were only allowed one true vice and that is alcohol, now its being taken away from the poor as best as they can without outlawing their own consumption.
The proletariat is viewed as a commodity, somebody to provide the product that others profit from (the price above the cost to make, or in this case the work involved) and productivity has to continually advance....so Leary's mantra of 'Turn on, tune in, drop out' has to be attacked at every opportunity. |
|
By:
Is cigarette consumption also the same as it was in 1980?
No. "yeah but most of that was me" |
|
By:
dave1357 thinks that The smoking ban in public places has quite obviously improved health
Firstly - if it's that obvious, give a link to the paper that shows this. One that has not been debunked on the excellent website http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/ Secondly - even in some fantasy universe where it had an effect, does it justify the impingement on the liberty of consenting adults to do as they wish in indoor premises. Thirdly - are you aware that even if justified, you are making everyone else poorer because as the iea have showed, smokers, drinkers and sugar-fat eaters are saving the NHS money |
|
By:
yeah that's right bongo smoking is good for you, carry on with your good work, sorry I woke you up.
|
|
By:
No answer from Dave......
|
|
By:
It improved my health and aided me in keeping off but perhaps seeing my mother dying of lung cancer should have been enough.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Do they really save the NHS itself money btw? I've seen studies in Germany about it, but in all those they didn't save our health system any money. They cause extra spending. That's the same in all studies I've read about. In some, but not all, a smoker is a net gain for society due to the tobacco sin tax he pays and him dying earlier and hence receiving less pension.
Others that take into account a loss of productivity, loss of human ressources due to mortality, an unability to work, rehabilitation etc. come to a big net loss for society. |
|
By:
inability to work, pardon me.
|
|
By:
And they usually get criticised for it and don't have the audacity to try and act like said policies are "progressive".
|
|
By:
Speaking for myself, alcohol consumption has improved my life. I'm not a heavy drinker at all, in fact I'd say I was a light drinker, but the ability to lighten the mood and socialise with a few drinks on the odd occasion definitely improves my mental health.
|
|
By:
The thought of a sanitised society is deeply depressing.
|
|
By:
Comparison to the smoking ban in public is stupid. Artificially inflating prices is completely different from banning something in public. A more suitable comparison would be the the price hikes on **** by duty which has been shown it doesn't really work in reducing smoking. people just pay the higher prices. At the very least it raises money that can be spent on public health services. This farcical policy doesn't. It simply leads to a windfall for supermarkets.
|
|
By:
I'd prefer to see positive action for health like free fruit and veg.
|
|
By:
the veg wouldn't get eaten -it would wither away in the fridge
 |
|
By:
Free fruit and veg in Scotland?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btb7TVZt7QA |
|
By:
Actually woman get vouchers for fruit and veg during their pregnancies.
I think it continues after birth but not sure for how long. |
