A ban on alcohol sponsorships will just be pointless

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/28/dont-ban-alcohol-sponsorship-in-sport

Version 0 of 1.

Most of the times I’ve landed in trouble it was because of booze. In a disproportionately large number of what could be termed “social catastrophes”, alcohol featured hugely – squatting right at the centre of the mayhem in the manner of a smirking dipsomaniac goblin.

This isn’t a confession, lament, or “mea culpa” (though perhaps it should be); it’s just a fact. Without going into too much gory detail, booze (more precisely, the over consumption of booze), got me into much more bother, in far more ways, than illegal “evil” drugs ever did – and by some margin. Yet I still don’t think that there’s much point in banning alcohol sponsorship in sport.

Leading figures in the medical establishment disagree and are collectively demanding a ban on alcohol firms sponsoring sports clubs and events. They feel that this kind of advertising is contributing to underage drinking, when children should be encouraged to lead “healthy positive lifestyles”. They say that self-regulation isn’t working, and ask why, when high profile clubs, such as Everton and Celtic, aren’t allowed to promote tobacco, they are permitted to advertise alcohol? The rationale is that such promotions lead to unconscious positive links between alcohol and sport, with people drinking more and at a younger age. Countries, such as France, Norway, and Russia already have a ban on alcohol advertising in sport, while others (including Ireland and Australia) are thinking of doing likewise.

These are all valid points, and of course children shouldn’t be drinking. Even when the drinker is of age, alcohol is getting stronger, and the units are getting larger, leading to devastating health problems. Last week, local government leaders called for reforms regarding “saturation zones” – 208 areas in England and Wales (up from 160 in 2012) that are “saturated” with pubs, bars, clubs, and other premises licensed to sell booze, leading to excessive drinking and subsequent disorder. It would appear that freely available potent alcohol is everywhere, crashing through our streets like a brain cell-annihilating tidal wave. Then there is the obvious jarring disconnect between sport and alcohol. However, does this any of this actually prove that young people start drinking, and drink more, because they see the names of alcohol companies on sports shirts? And where does this kind of thinking end – should alcohol be banned during all major sporting events, including mass family pub screenings, in case children see adults enjoying sport and alcohol at the same time? There’s also gender to consider. Generally speaking, young boys are more interested in sports than girls, so why isn’t this starkly reflected in the way young men and woman drink?

What made someone like myself career about, drinking like the proverbial fish? Certainly not sport though perhaps later it was journalism. More seriously, most would agree that youth is a time when both sexes like to whoop it up. In truth, the reasons that young people start drinking, and how much they drink, seem myriad – ranging from family history cum influence, societal norms and peer pressure, to just plain loving getting trashed. While there are young teetotallers and moderate-drinkers, for many young people, alcohol is the social fuel of choice – just as it was for previous generations.

Which is the point. Don’t young people start drinking because… they’re young people? This is what young people do, and have always done. They did it long before brand logos started appearing on sports tops, and the smart money says that they’d keep on doing it, if logos were ever taken off. Thus, a ban sounds good but what would it achieve – a rebellion against big brands, a nod to consumer health? That’s good, but it’s still not a direct link between sports advertising and youth drinking. The only connection between young people and alcohol is that young people have always wanted to drink it.

‘Probably racist’? Yes, and definitely a blithering idiot

American rightwing commentator Rush Limbaugh has reacted to the rumour that British actor Idris Elba may be the next James Bond with his customary restraint and erudition.

Admitting that he was “probably being racist”, Limbaugh said that Elba couldn’t be Bond because he was black and that the role should go to somebody “white and Scottish” like all the other Bonds (nope, there was only the one). Limbaugh then posited the view that casting Elba as Bond would be akin to getting George Clooney to play Barack Obama.

Hmm, not really – please allow me to explain. Obama is what’s known as a “real” person – therefore it would be strange to have him portrayed by a white actor. By contrast, Bond is what is commonly referred to as a “fictional character” – therefore one could expect a lot more flexibility regarding casting. I hope this clears things up for Limbaugh and anybody else who might be feeling confused or indeed “probably racist”.

This seems to be about white opposition to cultural icons being taken over by ethnic minorities and “liberal-thinking”. Their “whites-only” stronghold is crumbling and they don’t like it.

Back on my high horse over hunting

The final Boxing Day hunts before the general election and the news arrives that, should they get in, the Conservatives plan to repeal the hunting ban, possibly via a pact with Ukip.

Clearly, David Cameron has his eye on the rural vote, but isn’t this rather presumptuous? The fallacy persists that just because you live in the countryside, you’re anti-townie and pro-hunting, which is twaddle.

I originally came from the country (a traditional Tory stronghold at that), but I always hated fox hunting. In fact, there are many rural dwellers who either despise hunting or simply don’t care either way. Does Cameron realise this?

Perhaps it’s more the case that the people Tory politicians tend to mix with in the countryside are pro-hunting and angry about the ban (particularly if they’re wealthy donor types). What about all the other people who have never hunted, never wanted to, and object to the practice – otherwise known as “the majority”?

This is not to get entangled in the increasingly tired arguments thrown up by the pro-hunting camp. People who hunt don’t do it to “keep down numbers” (there are far more efficient ways) – they do it because they enjoy it. Otherwise, why don’t they just go for a lovely fast ride?

Then there is the “class-war” guff about all the different kinds of people who hunt. To my mind, there’s only ever been one type of person who hunts – the cruel kind. If some of these people are also socially insecure enough to want to hunt, I feel doubly embarrassed for them.

As it is, it’s time to stop presuming that anyone who lives within 300 yards of a stile is pro-hunting.

It turns country people into caricatures, when they’re easily as disparate as city dwellers.