Lancashire TelegraphCall on shops to restrict strong beer in Blackburn with Darwen (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Call on shops to restrict strong beer in Blackburn with Darwen

Lancashire Telegraph: Call on shops to restrict strong beer in Blackburn with Darwen Call on shops to restrict strong beer in Blackburn with Darwen

SOME off-licences will be asked to agree to restrict the sale of super-strong beers, lagers and ciders under a new regime being considered by councillors.

Blackburn with Darwen borough is also looking at asking all premises that sell booze to commit to demanding proof of age from anyone who looks under-25.

Both are part of a new draft public health alcohol strategy being devised for the borough.

A report to the council’s licensing committee tonight reveals that 44 out of 326 pubs, clubs and off-licences were found to have served under-18s in 2012/2013 at least once and 26 per cent of 14 to 17-year-olds admitted to drinking alcohol at least once a week.

It wants to see licensees in areas where super-strength booze has caused concern to voluntarily sign agreements not to sell the products and for all to implement ‘Challenge 25’.

Public health chiefs want the council to call for a minimum unit price for alcohol of 50p.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:05pm Tue 7 Jan 14

onsidecobra says...

Stable, horse and door come to mind.
Stable, horse and door come to mind. onsidecobra
  • Score: 5

1:51pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Copperhead says...

Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ?
I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18.
Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ?
People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence.
And what do they mean by " super strength " ?
When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV.
So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ?
All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money.
Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue.
People may think they are concerned about our health.
No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.
Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ? I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18. Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ? People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence. And what do they mean by " super strength " ? When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV. So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ? All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money. Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue. People may think they are concerned about our health. No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies. Copperhead
  • Score: 14

5:12pm Tue 7 Jan 14

2 for 5p ridesagain says...

Business Opportunity in the making comes to mind.
Business Opportunity in the making comes to mind. 2 for 5p ridesagain
  • Score: 4

5:16pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Banford says...

Copperhead wrote:
Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ?
I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18.
Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ?
People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence.
And what do they mean by " super strength " ?
When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV.
So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ?
All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money.
Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue.
People may think they are concerned about our health.
No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.
I Quite agree with you the points you raise.
Challenge 25 has existed for a few years now yet is rarely enforced by shops as it ultimately pointless.
I don't fully understand how they can "restrict" the sale of strong beers. Put a cap on how many you can buy at any one time like with paracetamol?
People will just buy fortified wines instead.
Putting a minimum price per unit will push the price of cheaper brands higher but will not affect the more expensive brands. So I assume they asking us to drink quality rather than quantity.
The other thing is that more people may start brewing their own beer at home. Totally unregulated and people can make any strength they want. O.k, its illegal to run your own still but there are so many people growing their own weed these days next they will be running Moonshine....
The only way to deal with this is is to nip it in the bud and change peoples attitudes. Restrictions will just make them more determined.
[quote][p][bold]Copperhead[/bold] wrote: Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ? I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18. Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ? People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence. And what do they mean by " super strength " ? When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV. So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ? All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money. Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue. People may think they are concerned about our health. No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.[/p][/quote]I Quite agree with you the points you raise. Challenge 25 has existed for a few years now yet is rarely enforced by shops as it ultimately pointless. I don't fully understand how they can "restrict" the sale of strong beers. Put a cap on how many you can buy at any one time like with paracetamol? People will just buy fortified wines instead. Putting a minimum price per unit will push the price of cheaper brands higher but will not affect the more expensive brands. So I assume they asking us to drink quality rather than quantity. The other thing is that more people may start brewing their own beer at home. Totally unregulated and people can make any strength they want. O.k, its illegal to run your own still but there are so many people growing their own weed these days next they will be running Moonshine.... The only way to deal with this is is to nip it in the bud and change peoples attitudes. Restrictions will just make them more determined. Mr Banford
  • Score: 4

7:59pm Tue 7 Jan 14

ste.g says...

what the ell does it have to do with a council?this is NOT their jurisdiction or any of their business.
get back to doing what your suppose to instead of trying to bring in laws what parliament is there for
what the ell does it have to do with a council?this is NOT their jurisdiction or any of their business. get back to doing what your suppose to instead of trying to bring in laws what parliament is there for ste.g
  • Score: 4

1:58pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AnthonyUK says...

Mr Banford wrote:
Copperhead wrote:
Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ?
I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18.
Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ?
People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence.
And what do they mean by " super strength " ?
When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV.
So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ?
All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money.
Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue.
People may think they are concerned about our health.
No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.
I Quite agree with you the points you raise.
Challenge 25 has existed for a few years now yet is rarely enforced by shops as it ultimately pointless.
I don't fully understand how they can "restrict" the sale of strong beers. Put a cap on how many you can buy at any one time like with paracetamol?
People will just buy fortified wines instead.
Putting a minimum price per unit will push the price of cheaper brands higher but will not affect the more expensive brands. So I assume they asking us to drink quality rather than quantity.
The other thing is that more people may start brewing their own beer at home. Totally unregulated and people can make any strength they want. O.k, its illegal to run your own still but there are so many people growing their own weed these days next they will be running Moonshine....
The only way to deal with this is is to nip it in the bud and change peoples attitudes. Restrictions will just make them more determined.
Not quite correct supermarkets and some cornershop chains DO enforce Challenge25 quite vigorously;and the headoffices of these establishments DO drum it into sales staff to enforce and uphold with strong action against employees who don't or refuse to entertain it by suspension/retrainin
g of those staff or in serious cases, dismissal.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Banford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Copperhead[/bold] wrote: Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ? I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18. Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ? People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence. And what do they mean by " super strength " ? When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV. So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ? All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money. Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue. People may think they are concerned about our health. No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.[/p][/quote]I Quite agree with you the points you raise. Challenge 25 has existed for a few years now yet is rarely enforced by shops as it ultimately pointless. I don't fully understand how they can "restrict" the sale of strong beers. Put a cap on how many you can buy at any one time like with paracetamol? People will just buy fortified wines instead. Putting a minimum price per unit will push the price of cheaper brands higher but will not affect the more expensive brands. So I assume they asking us to drink quality rather than quantity. The other thing is that more people may start brewing their own beer at home. Totally unregulated and people can make any strength they want. O.k, its illegal to run your own still but there are so many people growing their own weed these days next they will be running Moonshine.... The only way to deal with this is is to nip it in the bud and change peoples attitudes. Restrictions will just make them more determined.[/p][/quote]Not quite correct supermarkets and some cornershop chains DO enforce Challenge25 quite vigorously;and the headoffices of these establishments DO drum it into sales staff to enforce and uphold with strong action against employees who don't or refuse to entertain it by suspension/retrainin g of those staff or in serious cases, dismissal. AnthonyUK
  • Score: 2

4:50pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Banford says...

AnthonyUK wrote:
Mr Banford wrote:
Copperhead wrote:
Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ?
I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18.
Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ?
People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence.
And what do they mean by " super strength " ?
When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV.
So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ?
All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money.
Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue.
People may think they are concerned about our health.
No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.
I Quite agree with you the points you raise.
Challenge 25 has existed for a few years now yet is rarely enforced by shops as it ultimately pointless.
I don't fully understand how they can "restrict" the sale of strong beers. Put a cap on how many you can buy at any one time like with paracetamol?
People will just buy fortified wines instead.
Putting a minimum price per unit will push the price of cheaper brands higher but will not affect the more expensive brands. So I assume they asking us to drink quality rather than quantity.
The other thing is that more people may start brewing their own beer at home. Totally unregulated and people can make any strength they want. O.k, its illegal to run your own still but there are so many people growing their own weed these days next they will be running Moonshine....
The only way to deal with this is is to nip it in the bud and change peoples attitudes. Restrictions will just make them more determined.
Not quite correct supermarkets and some cornershop chains DO enforce Challenge25 quite vigorously;and the headoffices of these establishments DO drum it into sales staff to enforce and uphold with strong action against employees who don't or refuse to entertain it by suspension/retrainin

g of those staff or in serious cases, dismissal.
Not quite correct supermarkets and some cornershop chains DO enforce Challenge25 quite vigorously;and the headoffices of these establishments DO drum it into sales staff to enforce and uphold with strong action against employees who don't or refuse to entertain it by suspension/retrainin

g of those staff or in serious cases, dismissal.

ok, maybe i worded that badly.
My local lidl, co-op and asda have their tills automatically ask if the customer is over 25.
My local off licenses are totally different and never ask people. we should at least be glad they check if people are over 18.
I was merely agreeing with copperhead that the challenge 25 is a waste of time as the legal drinking age is 18.
[quote][p][bold]AnthonyUK[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Banford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Copperhead[/bold] wrote: Why do they have to " challenge 25 " ? I thought the legal age at which one could purchase alcholic drinks was 18. Is this the first move in a campaign to RAISE the minimum drinking age ? People in authority tend to create situations in order to give them something to do so as to justify their existence. And what do they mean by " super strength " ? When I first started drinking beer back in the dear old 1960s, people tended to drink in pubs. There were no supermarkets in those days and no off-licence chains like Bargain Booze. Beer in those days tended to be around 2-3% ABV. So what will be classed as " super-strength ' ? Will these public-sector puritans start off by saying it is 8% or 9% and then gradually reduce it to 4 or 5 % in order to keep themselves in work ? All this smacks of the way speed limits have been reduced in order to increase revenues from speeding fines. Roads that didn't have ANY speed limit less than 50yrs ago have seen the introduction of a 70mph limit, then 60mph, then 50mph and now even as low as 40mph in some cases. And I suppose the limits will go even lower as the government needs even more of our money. Alcoholic drinks will go the same way - a tax on the stronger stuff and then the definition of " stronger " will be lowered so as the increase tax revenue. People may think they are concerned about our health. No they aren't - all they are concerned with is getting their hands on as much of our money as possible in order to finance their policies.[/p][/quote]I Quite agree with you the points you raise. Challenge 25 has existed for a few years now yet is rarely enforced by shops as it ultimately pointless. I don't fully understand how they can "restrict" the sale of strong beers. Put a cap on how many you can buy at any one time like with paracetamol? People will just buy fortified wines instead. Putting a minimum price per unit will push the price of cheaper brands higher but will not affect the more expensive brands. So I assume they asking us to drink quality rather than quantity. The other thing is that more people may start brewing their own beer at home. Totally unregulated and people can make any strength they want. O.k, its illegal to run your own still but there are so many people growing their own weed these days next they will be running Moonshine.... The only way to deal with this is is to nip it in the bud and change peoples attitudes. Restrictions will just make them more determined.[/p][/quote]Not quite correct supermarkets and some cornershop chains DO enforce Challenge25 quite vigorously;and the headoffices of these establishments DO drum it into sales staff to enforce and uphold with strong action against employees who don't or refuse to entertain it by suspension/retrainin g of those staff or in serious cases, dismissal.[/p][/quote]Not quite correct supermarkets and some cornershop chains DO enforce Challenge25 quite vigorously;and the headoffices of these establishments DO drum it into sales staff to enforce and uphold with strong action against employees who don't or refuse to entertain it by suspension/retrainin g of those staff or in serious cases, dismissal. ok, maybe i worded that badly. My local lidl, co-op and asda have their tills automatically ask if the customer is over 25. My local off licenses are totally different and never ask people. we should at least be glad they check if people are over 18. I was merely agreeing with copperhead that the challenge 25 is a waste of time as the legal drinking age is 18. Mr Banford
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree