Kenneth MacDonald investigates whether Buckfast Tonic Wine can really be blamed for crime and antisocial behaviour. He enlists top scientists in the search for evidence about the drink's effects and uncovers new and surprising evidence. He hears allegations of a plot against the drink and looks into the role of a monastic order while trying to crack the Buckfast Code.
(Mmmm... Here's a novel thought: quadruple the retail price of Buckfast Tonic Wine, and then tour the streets after the change has rippled through the youth community, and see what label is on the bottles they are holding. The monks can go on their merry way in peace, and instead of tackling the real problem, those who were formerly blaming Buckfast for crime and antisocial behaviour will have a new target to chase).
I'll likely watch this but have to say that it would matter not a jot if by some legal miracle the Buckfast product could be withdrawn from sale by banning it or raising its resale price to a prohibitive level. Other companies would simply fill the gap by introducing wine type drink with the same kind of kick.
Yes I know it has been a major factor in many brutal crimes but if it wasn't Buckie it would have been something else. The real problem is the thugs we have a continual record of producing in this small country.
Although it was avaliable when I was young I never heard of anybody drinking Buckfast. The wild drinks of choice were those quality 'British fortified wines' like Eldorado (LD) and Lanliq (Lanny) not that I ever ........ hmmm.
Buckfast ? Its something society has to live with. Better down the throat than up the nose or in the arm I say.
A couple of years ago, in the interest of science as they say, I bought a bottle of Buckie. I thought it was quite expensive for what it was and it tasted foul. I expected some kind of herby taste but it was like vanilla that had gone off. I also found it almost impossible to drink much at a time. I don't know how the youngyins can stomach it.
A few years back the drinks that seemed to get the blame for rowdy behaviour were the various weird coloured concotions like MD 20/20 and Aftershock. I once tried Aftershock and decided I'd rather do what the old Soviet Navy conscripts were doing and drinking, and that was torpedo fuel.
The Buckie programme provided a surprise of sorts, and some interesting responses, so rather than waffle, I thought I might just summarise it by a diagram.
It may be somewhat over-simplified, but I think it captures the general idea of a product that apparently contains the caffeine content of 8 cans of Coke, the Buckfast rep's steadily spin-filled responses, and the details of the monk's charitable status - and the rather complex and intriguing business model behind the charity front.
I wonder if they have removed any references to Buckfast in the new series of Rab C Nesbitt? I would be rather unfortunate timing after last night's programme!
There was one big question that the BBC reporter never asked Jim Wilson of Chandler & Co, the distributors of the wine and that was why supermarkets won't stock it. That might just have shut him up.
Indeed, it's a real nuisance, as I don't have a shell suit and value my integrity, I can't be seen buying it from an offy, and can't "hide" by using a self-service checkout in a supermarket.
It's easy to poke one cause and lay the blame at its door, and I've had a gentle prod myself in the diagram above, but as the subsequent posts here have highlight, if it's not Buckfast, it's LD, or Lannie, or something else eg cider, alcopops, or whatever.
While it's easy to point a finger at the chap that fronted for Buckfast and say "He's not doing anything", it should be equally clear that simply targeting the current port of call for these drinkers is merely going to move the goalposts somewhere else. Again, as noted above, it was once the super-brews with the high alcohol content that got the blame.
What would probably be more useful would be to take note of the continuing glass danger from all the bottles, not just Buckie bottles.
We already think it is a good idea to replace glass glasses with plastic "glasses" at events, so why not do the same for bottled alcoholic drinks?
After all, soft drinks are largely packaged that way now. And, milk bottles are a thing of the past too.
Any wine buffs that want their tipple ion glass can pay a £100 deposit, refundable on return of the bottle.
I think we ignore obvious things, and centre on items where we can blame "someone".
Dealing with glass bottles has no real target, it affects all producers.
Pointing at Buckfast (or any one of the others listed) means someone can stand up, and proudly say "I fixed them!" and claim credit - for a while at least.
While I don't think talk of a Buckfast ban is productive - it's merely the local MPs and politicians tool for making it looks as if the are "doing something" - I have to say that I am less than impressed by the response from the the monks.
Forgive my simplicity, but aren't monks supposed to be some sort of religiously oriented do-gooders with the welfare of others as one of their concerns, and a desire to stay away from society and temptation, among other things.
Yet here we have an order that is singularly uncaring about its effect on the world outside its walls, and apparently only interested in maintaining its means of making a fast buck(fast) through something that is considered a vice - alcohol, and if we include the caffeine aspect, drugs.
Their logic, which was first spouted by their representative, is also a sham, and a classic example of "bad science" as they are committing the worst sin of misusing statistics, and twisting the numbers to suit their own argument. Specifically:
Quoted Text
But the monks have issued a statement defending the wine, which its distributors say has just 0.5% of Scotland's alcohol market.
It said: "What is clear is that there are serious, social problems in some parts of Scotland and that in some of these parts there are people who abuse alcoholic drinks, including Buckfast Tonic Wine.
"Deplorable as these are, it is hard to see how one product with only a small percentage of the market can be held responsible for all the social ills of such an area.
"This seems a rather rapid leap of logic. Has anyone considered that the misuse of this wine by some could be seen as a symptom rather than a cause of such problems?"
They seem to think that because they only have "just 0.5% of Scotland's alcohol market" this somehow means that the number is trivial, and conveniently forget, or ignore, that that 0.5% couldrepresent almost 100% of:
Quoted Text
Buckfast Tonic Wine was mentioned in 5,638 crime reports from 2006 to 2009, Strathclyde Police said.
One in 10 of those offences were violent and the bottle was used as a weapon 114 times in that period.
Now, I am not claiming or suggesting it does, but merely applying the same "bad science" as the monks.
The point I am making is merely one of disappointment that monks, who I understand I am supposed to offer some sort of automatic respect to, would respond in the way this order has when informed of problem which they may, and I only go so far as as to say may play a part in.
I would even endorse their question "Has anyone considered that the misuse of this wine by some could be seen as a symptom rather than a cause of such problems?", but deplore their apparent denial of involvement or contribution to that symptom.
I have my suspicions that the rest of the alcohol trade are trying to divert attention from themselves. Would they be as keen to ban or restrict sales if it was made by an abbey in Scotland and certainly not if it was manufactured by one of the big brewers or distillers.
It seems analogous to the heroin makers calling for a ban on one brand of glue because that brand was mentioned by 0.1% of those questioned by the police.
Don't know about the alcohol trade, but Scottish Labour have certainly seen a chance for some blatant electioneering...
Scottish Labour health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie said: "I believe the risks involved in consuming caffeinated alcohol are so great that the Scottish government must take action.
Unless, of course, they can provide details of their campaign on this issue - prior to the TV programme we have considered above.
I'm not going to waste any of my time looking for it though.
The Buckfast people are not going to contribute anything helpful, and merely reinforce their intransigent stance:
The distributor's spokesman, Jim Wilson, accused Labour of "scaremongering".
Strangely, there does actually appear to be a couple of voices to be heard that are making some sense (unless I have not realised I am drunk while I read this ):
Quoted Text
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon, said: "This is a smokescreen to hide a blatant disregard for parliament, which is the proper place to debate the issues around the Alcohol Bill - not a hand-picked talking shop designed to delay and distract. Obsessing about Buckfast, which accounts for 0.5% of alcohol sold in Scotland, ignores the elephant in the room, which is the excessive consumption of cheap alcohol that's fuelling health and social problems and costing Scotland billions every year."
Lib Dem justice spokesman Robert Brown said: "We need to look at ways to change Scotland's drinking culture effectively. More understanding is needed about why young people start drinking- whether Buckfast, beer or alcopops- in the first place. Simply banning one or the other will not do the trick."
Jackie Ballie might recall that her administration - under Jack Whit-his-name done he-haw about this problem. Despite the efforts of the Honourable Westminster member (a real MP) for Coatbridge.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
The Buckfast Code
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
ICQ
Skype
Site
):
Thread Tags
