Nanny Censors

Thailand has temporarily lifted a decades-old ban on the sale of alcoholic drinks in the afternoons as it seeks to boost tourism.

Liquor stores, restaurants and other accredited establishments can now sell beer, wine and spirits from 14:00 to 17:00 as part of a six-month trial.

The move comes just days ahead of Christmas and the New Year holiday, both peak seasons for tourist arrivals.

Alcohol sales in the country are now allowed from 11:00 to midnight for the next 180 days while a committee studies its impact.

The impetus for change started when it was announced that drinkers rather than bar owners would be punished for out of hours drinking. The fine was set at 20,00 Baht (£235). It was feared that tourists would stay away rather than risk being arrested for crimes they couldn't possibly be expected to know the details of. Its a nightmare to tangle with the police in Thailand as there is a significant risk of being taken to the cleaners by corrupt people in the law enforcement system.

Drinkers face hefty fines from 8 November under new amendments to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which strengthen restrictions on hours of alcohol sales. Individuals caught drinking or being served alcohol between 2pm and 5pm, or from midnight to 11am, could face penalties of 10,000 baht or more.  Of course it is not as simple as that, both the location (eg undefined entertainment zones) and premises type (eg restaurant/bar) have an impact too.

The law, first enacted in 1972 to restrict alcohol sales between 2pm and 5pm at most retail outlets and supermarkets, has now been updated to shift responsibility from sellers to consumers. Although licensed entertainment venues, hotels, certified tourist establishments and international airports are exempt, customers themselves are now liable for violations. Authorities say the move is aimed at curbing excessive drinking and promoting public order, though critics argue it will damage the hospitality sector.

Restaurant owners have voiced concerns that the legislation will harm their businesses. Thai Restaurant Association president Mr Chanon Koetcharoen said the restrictions will impede growth because customers are now directly penalised. He cited an example where a customer who buys a beer before 2pm but continues drinking after the cutoff could be fined under Section 32. This will impede the growth of the restaurant industry, said Mr Chanon,.

On Bangkoks Khao San Road, known for its nightlife and backpacker crowd, businesses are continuing to serve alcohol throughout the day, despite the restrictions. One assistant manager said sales could halve during the banned hours as customers become more cautious. With the possibility of drinkers themselves being fined, sales of alcohol may halve during those times.

Complaint:

The Reprobates seems to glamourise illegal behaviour with its name, accompanied by a mugshot image. The bottle neck also carries an image of a cross-bar gate -- an image clearly associated with counting days in prison.

Code paragraph 3.2(b)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that The Reprobates Sparkling Wine was in breach of the Portman Groups Code of Practice.

The company explained that the term reprobates was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The company stated that the term reprobates was similar to rascal, a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfies Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that reprobates created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the alcohol industry.

The Panels assessment

The Panel discussed whether the drinks packaging created any association with illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name, The Reprobates, to determine how the term reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producers response that reprobate was intended to be akin to rascal, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, reprobate was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that reprobate could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.

The Panel discussed the front label, which included a photo of a man dressed in 1930s attire holding up a board which read The Reprobates. The Panel considered the positioning of the man in the photo, staring straight ahead while holding a board, which did appear to be very similar to the classic mug shot position. This interpretation was compounded by the serious expression and rigid stance the character maintained as opposed to how one might usually pose for a photograph with a smile and relaxed posture. Furthermore, directly above the image on the neck of the bottle was the inclusion of numerous lines presented as a tally which was designed to mimic the appearance of carvings. The Panel considered that tallies were often used in the context of a prisoner counting the number of years they had served in prison, typically crudely etched onto a wall or other surface. The Panel noted that such tallies were synonymous with prisoners who were serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes as a way to keep track of passing time.

The Panel considered the name The Reprobates within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count and considered that a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.

The Panel considered the presentation of the product and noted from the producers response that the imagery had no contemporary relevance. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that it advised against glamourising crime which linked to contemporary illegal behaviour. The Panel further noted that guidance stated that the severity of crime depicted or referenced could also impact how illegal behaviour may be applied under the Code by the Panel.

The Panel carefully considered the cumulative impact of how criminal behaviour was portrayed on the product packaging and noted that it did not glamourise contemporary illegal behaviour. However, the Panel acknowledged that while contemporary crime was not necessarily glamourised by the packaging, a clear and dominant association with illegal behaviour had been created through the name and imagery which had resulted in what appeared to be a fairly lengthy prison sentence, therefore inferring that a serious crime had been committed.

Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drinks name, a mugshot style image and number tally which inferred that a sufficiently serious, if unspecified, crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, created a direct and dominant association with illegal behaviour. The Panel considered that as there was no other brand narrative to contradict these points, or any alternative explanation offered by the company, it was reasonable to conclude that a consumer would interpret the labelling in this manner. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

Product discontinued

A complaint against Chronic Cellars Space Doubt Zinfandel has been upheld by the alcohol industry's Complaints Panel.

The complaint was made as part of the Portman Groups independent proactive audit of the UK market, raised concerns that the term 'chronic' was associated with high-strength marijuana and that the name 'Space Doubt', was a play on words sounding similar to spaced out which had an association with drug taking.

The Panel also considered whether the name of the product, Space Doubt, alongside the name of the producer, Chronic Cellars, could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2(b)for creating an association with illegal behaviour.

The producer argued that the name Chronic was surfer lingo meaning the best and that the surfer slang reflected the founders passion for surfing and the idea of selecting the best grapes to create exceptional wines The producer also explained that the name Space Doubt was created to reflect the complexity and wonderment of the world, encouraging moments of contemplation with the double meaning reflecting on vineyard row spacing during replanting.

The Panel considered the meaning of the word chronic and noted that, whilst it had a number of meanings including persistent and the best, it could also refer to strong cannabis. Given the number of ways chronic could be interpreted, the Panel considered how the word was presented in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.

The Panel considered the front label, including the company name Chronic Cellars, a stylised image of a skeleton sitting on top of the Earth observing a planet and the brand name Space Doubt alongside it. The Panel noted that the packaging was absent of any reference to surfing to give context to the intended meaning of Chronic as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the brand name Space Doubt sounded phonetically like spaced out, a phrase commonly used to infer impairment due to the effects of illicit drugs.

The Panel considered all of the elements of the packaging including the word chronic in the context of being spaced out and the positioning of the skeleton, which was sitting cross-legged in a relaxed pose staring into space, and concluded that whilst each element could have been acceptable in isolation, taken together they gave an overall impression of an association with illicit drugs. The Panel also considered that because the packaging created an association with illicit drugs and alluded to the effects of cannabis use, the product packaging also indirectly created an association with illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rules 3.2(c) and 3.2(b).

A brewery called Little Mesters Brewing produced a beer with a pump handle celebrating a master knife maker included a knife in the image.

A complaint read:

The idea of Stan is a homage to one of the last little Mesters in Sheffield. As much as I appreciate the respect to the history of the city of Sheffield in feel using a knife handle as a tap handle is perhaps a step too far and could encourage alcohol related violence. Complainant:

The Portman Group drink censor decided that the pump handle image transgressed against its rule:

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour

The company explained that the Stan IPA tap was a single tap handle in situ at a bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll it out further. The tap was a specially made ornamental knife handle to commemorate the craftsmanship of Stan Shaw, a master craftsman who made various knives ranging from ceremonial swords to pocket knives which included intricate designs known for their high quality. The company explained that Stan Shaw was widely regarded as the last Little Mester in Sheffield and he had made knives for numerous notable people including Queen Elizabeth II.

The company explained that the beer was over four years old and it had received no other complaints about it during this time. The company stated that it had recently taken over a new outlet where the tap was included as part of a wall with various branded taps. The company explained that the handle had no blade, nor any suggestion of a blade and without background understanding of Stan Shaw, the tap would be interpreted as unrelated to a knife. The company did not believe therefore, that the Stan beer tap created any association with adverse behaviour as the blade was in no way harmful.

Finally, the company stated that it would remove the tap handle if it was required to but that this would be disappointing for the friends, family and supporters of Stan Shaw together with the charitable trust it worked in conjunction with to keep the memory of the Little Mesters alive.

The Panel's assessment:

The Panel considered the image on the pump clip which included a stylised cartoon depiction of Stan Shaw posing with a knife. The knife was held in an upright position with Mr Shaw's body turned towards it. The Panel considered that this image drew attention to the knife and made it the central focus of the design. This image of Stan Shaw was surrounded by numerous other blades in a circular fashion alongside the word Stan.

The Panel discussed the wider societal context that knife crime within Sheffield and the wider UK was prevalent and noted that careful consideration needed to be given to alcohol marketing which included the depiction and any potential glamourisation of knives. The Panel expressed concern about the number of blades included in the imagery, particularly as they formed a prominent part of the design and appeared to be more akin to sharp weapons than utensils. The Panel noted that there were no handles attached to any of the blades which also made them appear more like dangerous weaponry than ceremonial or cutlery knives.

The Panel then discussed the image of Stan and noted that the knife was being held in an upright vertical fashion. The blade was curved into a tip at the end which gave the appearance that the blade was akin to a sharp dagger, rather than a blunted ceremonial knife. The Panel considered the combination of these elements meant that the imagery could potentially glamourise the depiction of sharp knives which were often used as weapons in violent crime.

The Panel then considered the tap handle in the context of the pump clip imagery. The Panel noted the company's response that the handle did not include a blade and that without context the tap handle would not be recognised as a knife handle. However, the Panel noted that as the tap handle appeared alongside the pump clip, it contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the marketing as a whole and increased the likelihood that a consumer would recognise it as a knife handle. The Panel considered the design was intended to mimic a knife handle and this was reinforced by the action required of pulling the tap, where a person's hand would be required to grip it in a similar fashion as one might brandish a knife.

While the Panel acknowledged that the producer had simply sought to celebrate an important local craftsman, it was of the view that any depiction of knives on alcoholic packaging had to be approached with great caution. Rates of knife crime in Sheffield and the rest of the UK had risen over recent years and generate a high level of public concern. In this instance, the Panel concluded that, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the tap handle and the pump clip, the combination of the image of a male presenting a sharp dagger-like knife, the multiple sharp knife blades and the tap handle which was designed to mimic a knife handle all resulted in a cumulative effect which glamourised knives that were not ceremonial or cutlery-like but instead sharp blades which could potentially be associated with knife-related violence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the pump clip and tap handle under Code rule 3.2(b) for creating an indirect association with violent behaviour.

Action by Company:

The company discontinued the product.