Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ALCOHOL IN IRELAND currently costs so little that a “fatal” amount of alcohol can be bought for €10, a new survey has suggested.
In its latest alcohol market review and price survey, Alcohol Action Ireland (AAI) has said that the price of alcohol in Ireland “demonstrates the remarkable affordability of alcohol to everyday shoppers”.
The report said that there is an urgent necessity to implement the Public Health Alcohol Bill, including minimum unit pricing to ensure the low-cost of the strongest, cheapest alcohol will be tackled.
The survey also suggested that alcohol can be bought at a low-cost from not just major retail operators, but across all levels of retail.
Conducted over seven days in July across four nationwide locations – two urban and two regional/rural centres – suggests that cider products remain the cheapest, strongest alcohol products available to the off-trade consumer.
Beer products are the second cheapest just ahead of wine and spirit products such as gin and vodka.
The HSE low-risk weekly guidelines on alcohol consumption for healthy adults aged 18 to 65 are currently 17 standard drinks for men and 11 standard drinks for women.
The methodology deployed sought to establish the unit cost per standard which is set at 10g of pure alcohol in each product surveyed. So, for example, a 4.3% beer product in a 500ml volume container contains 1.7 standard drinks, while a 37.5% gin product in a 700ml contains 21 standard drinks.
A man consuming alcohol within the HSE low-risk guidelines can reach the weekly threshold for as little as €8.49 and women consuming alcohol can reach the weekly threshold for as little as €5.49, according to AAI.
“At this level of affordability, for a tenner you can buy enough drink to cause a fatal alcohol overdose,” Dr Bobby Smyth, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist and AAI board member said.
The market review and price survey was carried out in two Dublin locations (south country and north inner city), one regional city (Sligo), and one rural town (Ballina) by AAI between 22 and 29 July.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why are they constantly referred to as girls, when 1 woman is 30?
@Ariana:
Have you been living under a rock the past few weeks? Don’t you know that any foreigner under the age of 35 is now considered a minor?
That’s probably a nod to those ‘girls,girls,girls’ signs in red light areas.
Very strange for 4 women, the youngest being 21, to be refferred to as little girls!
@Ariana: headlines nothing else….
”Four little girls” aged 21, 22, 23 & 30. It doesn’t get much more patronising than that. Yet these supposedly vulnerable ”little girls” have had their income stolen by the state and look set to be deported. So much for decriminalising sex workers. Very telling that the supposed anti-trafficking NGO warriors are nowhere to be seen.
@David On Tour: if you bothered your are to read the article you would see the women wanted to be sent home. Ireland can’t deport EU citizens for a summery offence dimwit
@Karl Carroll: They wouldn’t need to be ‘sent home’ if sex work was actually decriminalised. Isn’t that what the NGOs and Fitzgerald are supposed to be pushing for?
Yeah why wouldn’t they want to be sent home.Thats where they wired the 100 grand they made working in the relief agency. Innocent they are definitely not.
Is this a spoof Willie Byrne investigating a brothel?
Brilliant!
He the man
Quite bizarre on a number of levels.
First of all , the women involved weren’t ‘young’ per se. The reflex impression gained by the headline is that the people involved were say 17 – 19. Not 21 -30 years of age.
One cant help thinking the headline refers to the bizarre reference by the Detective as these ‘little girls’ . Presumably , the detective refers to them as such to self-promote his saviour status to the judge , which he underlines again by stressing ‘trafficking victims’.
Clearly the women involved were not forcibly trafficked – otherwise ,relief and a willingness to embrace the role of ‘trafficking victims’ status would help their case . That they were adamant that they were there voluntarily seems to be utterly disregarded by the condescending gardai referring to some mysterious ‘ Dublin or Belfast’ pimps .
Is that really what passes for detective work nowadays?
And the landlord – why was he not questioned on who was paying his rent? Surely , if the gardai were concerned about organised crime , then presumably the landlord could shed light on the ‘third party’ who pays the rent ?
Then to confiscate their €5,000 AND fine them €200 each while BELIEVING them to be victims. JFC!
Guarantee that there was no survelliance as described by the detective – this raid was done almost on the spur by neighbour complaints and so the garda involved just ‘sexed’ up the case for self-serving reasons. Just shoe-horn the ominpotent auld ‘Dublin or Belfsat pimp’ and you can patronise the women involved as mush as you like .
There are plenty of known brothels in all major towns & cities which the Gardai could raid but don’t . This raid certainly didnt occur to fight crime.
The very nice guard was trying to get them off the charges by suggesting mitigation, most probable too btw.
@Range Rover P38:
But then why was the landlord not questioned ? Allowing your premise to be used as a brothel is currently a criminal offence – never mind , if a venue for some criminal organisation based in ‘Dublin or Belfast’ or somewhere .
Tbh, if i was a detective and i genuinely thought they were trafficking victims, i’d be damn sure i’d speak to the landlord and see what his story was regarding payments.
In this case, ‘ ah,shure’ , lets get rid of them by glibly referring to them as victims, little girls and then confiscate their money AND fine them for their impertinence at being perceived victims even when they’re adamant they’re not.
@John Mac: Exactly. And where are the protests of Ruhama, Rachel Moran, ICI & TORL at the treatment of these ”prostituted women”? Or do these particular sex workers not count as the right sort of victim?
Why the reluctance to accept their own testimony that this was their decision? It’s like a purposeful denial of their agency. From what I read there is no evidence to suggest someone else involved and even evidence to the contrary. Saying they wouldn’t have the wherewithal to organise it themselves, why? Because they are women? How demeaning. Fair play to the judge though for highlighting the landlord, probably the first recognised tenancy rip off that hasn’t been excused.
Men HAD to be involved, we corrupt all women and at the same time, make all their bad decisions for them!
@Jeffrey McMahon: actually it was wrong to insult the landlord. They could have rented elsewhere if they wanted.
The reason for not accepting the testimony should be obvious, because trafficked people are often induced, threatened or lied to about what will happen if they point any fingers.
@Karl Carroll: So the best course of action is to arrest them, confiscate their earnings and impose individual fines, then tell them their landlord was ripping them off? Is this how we should treat supposed trafficking victims?
@David On Tour: they should be but on a plane and sent back where they came from and not allowed return end of….
@Peter donnelly: So in your view, (contrary to that of the Gardaí and the propaganda of local NGOs) they weren’t coerced or trafficked?
David – do you mean contrary to their sworn statement given to the police that they operated alone? A sworn testimony that would normally be enough to firmly convict anyone else. You mean that these women disrespected our police and courts by lying to them?
@Gone Feisin: I simply asked Peter Donnelly a question regarding his post.
And I replied, oh the joy of the internet in connecting people. Your previous comments are all of the same strain. Either these women are innocent victims lying to police and therefore guilty OR they ran the brothel themselves and are guilty. Either way, not legal.
@David On Tour: Yes, absolutely arrest them, this gets them away from the gangs controlling them.
if they wont speak after that then what would you suggest? Oh yeah,legalising it because thats solved all the problems in Germany and Holland, right?
@Gone Feisin: And either they were indeed trafficked by persons unknown, in which case they should not have been arrested and fined or they were here of their own free will, in which case the proposed decriminalisation so enthusiastically promoted by the govt and NGOs should be illustrated up front. After all, what could possibly be gained by prosecuting sex workers (who are all supposedly ‘victims’) for the non-crime of working together for safety?
@Karl Carroll: No-one is advocating legalisation as in Germany & Holland Karl. Sex workers, Amnesty, the WHO & UNAIDS all favour decriminalisation, as in New Zealand.
Yeah working together for safety, but if there was a guy there who helped them organise it then he trafficked them? The double standards on this issue is ridiculous. The proposed legislation is not in force at the minute, they knew this and deserve to be punished. Taking their money is punishment for illegal earned funds. They got off light
Sometimes I don’t understand peoples angles here. So a woman can say shes trafficked and govt believes her, provides santuary et al and everything is good, woman says she isn’t trafficked, she’s lying to protect or coerced, govt provides santuary et al and everything is good. Where is the part where a woman realises she is unskilled but attractive and can make serious money selling a product that is always in demand and can have a life she wants?
@Gone Feisin: You’d need to ask TORL / ICI etc & Frances Fitzgerald that question. According to them, no woman could possibly consent to being a sex worker. Therefore they are left with the first two options you mention.
Ya know, I dunno jack about commercial space but I’m beginning to think, you could throw a bunch of cash at some landlord for a unit and open up anything you feckin like and the authorities wouldn’t come near you
@Eugene Walsh:@Eugene Walsh: and this is based on the fact that the brothel was raided and shut down? That’s sound logic!
Man they interviewed must have got some shock…be kinda hard to explain away..
He only went in there to get directions on how to get away from there!
What happened to the 5000 grand, was it taken or returned to these ladies. Calling them girls, not accepting there sworn testimony that each one was guilty of running a brotel reduced the charges these women could be found guilty off. Blaming some invisable pimps from Northern Ireland or Dublin who trafficked them into Ireland made them is ways victims of cruel men instead of enterprising women who enjoyed a tax free holiday in Ireland while making a bit of money. Escort Ireland has pages covering every county for years now, a complete menu of fornacation for Irish men and women. In some cases people who have no other means of getting a ride, it’s more of a health service really. Word must have spread in Eastern European countries that money can be made with very little chance of detection by gardai even though it’s one website, no need for the dark web in Ireland. The only disadvantage is that you are charged by the half hour. We Irish like getting value for money so these ladies would have worked hard for the earnings. The ex nuns and feminists will be devising more legislation to curbs people’s enjoyment driving women like this into the arms of real crimmials and gangsters.
Ageists
Ah God love those” little girls”, They hadn’t a clue what they were doing.my a*se! Am I missing something here?
Legalise and regulate. State out of adults bedrooms .
have your say