Driven to drink

There's nothing new about the under-age drinking moral panic, it was around in the 1980s and possibly before. But it has reached new heights (BBC News: Parents to get youth drink guide) with parents of under-age drinkers being threatened with parenting classes and prosecution, and encouragement (on pain of possible licence revocation) of sellers of alcohol to check the ID of anyone under 25 (a way of marketing ID cards to young people, perhaps?)

To be fair, there is one good reason why young people drinking excess alcohol is unwelcome - the increased health risks. Yet these vary from age to age, making the blanket ban on alcohol sales to anyone under 18, unfair. And counter-productive - as mentioned in the report, it is widely believed that "the illicit nature of alcohol added to its allure." The best way to reduce under-age drinking is to stop the irresponsible marketing of alcohol, by cheap promotions and advertising campaigns (which often appeal to young people).

Besides, the most often quoted reason for the clampdowns on under-age drinking is that it "leads to anti-social behaviour" - a message rammed down out throat by actual adverts, and by biased newspaper reports and "crime documentaries" (often seen especially on the smaller Freeview channels). Such Establishment propaganda masquerading as "news" or "public information" creates the impression that all under-age drinking leads to violence and vandalism. Yet not only is this overly simplistic, it also ignores the fact that much alcohol-related crime, including violent crime, is carried out by people over 18 and even well over 25. And is sometimes taken less seriously by the law than under-age drinking, as it can be harder to prove. (A few years ago, me and members of my family suffered a campaign of harassment by an alcoholic, in which he frequently threatened violence.) Indeed, it tends to be drunken adults, rather than teenagers, who are responsible for drunken wife-beating and child abuse, and drink-driving - less obvious to the public than "rowdy teenagers", but just a little more serious!

Even for young people who don't drink, the moral panic on under-age drinking has negative effects. Much entertainment, including discos and live bands, takes place in licenced premises (whether pubs or nightclubs) - which have always tended to exclude kids, and ever more stringent licencing laws are making this problem more acute, not less. No wonder, then, kids often have little to do but hang around on the streets. Where they are more likely to end up being enticed into joining a group of binge-drinkers.

And who can blame kids for wanting to "act grown-up" (of which drinking alcohol is often seen as a part), when they have to to get into half of the entertainment venues :-(

Enough to drive you to drink ... trebles all round!

Legal model is plane stupid

I'm kinda getting used to seeing new stupid age restrictions (see my previous article on age restrictions), so the ban on under-18's being implemented by some model flying clubs (as detailed in this Spiked! article) should not really surprise me anymore.

Yet what is surprising, appalling but surprising, about this age restriction is that it is not a direct result of the government (or even the establishment) having deemed model plane flying to be unsuitable for kids. Rather it is an indirect result of over zealous legislation drafted with the alleged aim of protecting children from paedophiles - for more info, see the Manifesto Club website.

In my view, by far the most pernicious aspect of the need for "enhanced" Criminal Records Bureau disclosures is that these disclosures are not confined to criminal (or even civil) court convictions. According to The Case Against Vetting report:

"CRB checks reveal offences of which people were accused but not convicted, encouraging discrimination against people on the basis of unproven accusations. Indeed, the climate of fear and precaution means that employers would feel remiss if they did not take such information into account. The ‘better safe than sorry’ approach means undermining natural justice at the expense both of law-abiding adults and the children who might have benefited from their work."

Don't get me wrong, I understand that kids do need to be protected from being harmed by paedophiles - and would have more time for vetting if the CRB checks were restricted to proved criminal convictions.

At the same time, it must be borne in mind that countless times more kids are killed each year in road accidents than by paedophiles (or even by child abusers in general). Since a disproportionate number of road accidents are caused by unlicenced or banned drivers, surely it is time to force people selling cars to do CRB checks on prospective car buyers, to make sure they're safe to drive a car.

To this end, I have set up a petition to Tony Blair, urging him to make car sales subject to CRB checks. If you agree, as I do, that kids need to be protected from maniac drivers, please sign the following petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make buying a car involve Criminal Record Bureau checks