Will a minimum 40p per alcohol unit cure binge drinking?

by , Conversation Editor Consumer Rights 23 March 2012
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
1 - 2
avatar

It’s Friday night, I’m preparing for a big night out. I pop to the shops, top up my alcohol cabinet and get ready to hit the town. Will the 40p unit price proposal really stop this kind of behaviour and sober up Britain?

Beers lined up

You’ll likely to have seen headlines that the government is set to charge a minimum alcohol unit price of 40p. The move is hoped to reduce binge drinking and anti-social behaviour.

The government claims the 40p a unit minimum price could result in 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 9,000 fewer alcohol related deaths over the next decade. In fact, reports in the Guardian say this move could add £135 to the annual bill of a heavy drinker.

Do you think higher prices will help any of the UK’s drink-related social problems, or will it just be another price rise for consumers to cope with this year?

Preloading alcoholic drinks

We’ve hosted similar alcohol discussions on Which? Conversation in the past. Last year the government proposed minimum alcohol prices suggesting a 400ml can of lager couldn’t be sold for less that 38p and a bottle of wine for no less than £2.03.

Commenter M Richards wasn’t sure whether last year’s minimum alcohol prices would solve the issue and proposed more extreme measures:

‘People intent on getting drunk will in the main not be deterred by the modest price changes. I would introduce hospital charges for people who need treatment and are drunk, and a high fine for anyone drunk committing a violent offence.’

And Ken Milne thinks the issue has deeper roots:

‘Over reaction to binge drinking is causing other problems when perhaps we should find out why there is a need to binge drink in the first place.’

Some sobering thoughts

And although the government believes responsible drinkers will be unaffected by the changes, commenter Chris Gloucestershire is worried that they will:

‘I strongly disagree with this approach to combat binge drinking. By increasing the price of booze the government is penalising everyone for the actions of a minority. That simply isn’t fair, worse still it treats everyone with equal contempt.

‘Binge drinking is a British social problem. On the continent booze is much cheaper and they don’t seem to have this problem to any significant degree.’

At today’s suggested 40p a unit, a weak can of lager (3.6% alcohol) would cost at least 80p and a bottle of wine (12.5% alcohol) would be £3.75.

Do you think such alcohol price increases would stop binge drinkers from hitting the bottle?

And if you’re wondering, my Friday is more likely to involve a small glass of sauvignon blanc, in my PJs, tucked up in front of the TV. There’ll be no ‘drunken mayhem’ in my flat tonight (fingers crossed).

49 comments

Add your comments

avatar

Tony Hereford

No! the worst offenders will find the money from somewhere, this will only punish sensible drinkers!

avatar

wavechange

Supermarkets need to clean up their act or they should lose their licence to sell alcohol.

avatar

Jo

If anywone has a drnk problem/wants to get sloshed of an evening, they will find the money from somewhere this is just another hike on taxes. BUT for those who drink so much they have to be taken to A&E or a booze bus then they should pay for their treatment as it is totally self inflacted.

avatar

colin c

Is this is going to hit the English cider producers hard, as don’t they get a reduced rate of tax at present compared to other drinks?

I’d agree with both above, sensible drinkers will be punished, and there really needs to be a clampdown on sales to underage kids. A small Tesco near where I used to live lost its licence for 3 months for this, and they absolutely howled about how unfair it was!

avatar

Joe Taylor (@nwcan)

sensible drinkers? Is it really sensible to drink dilute poison and pay through the nose for the privilege? Are there any sensible smokers?

avatar

Womble10

This is not a tax going to the exchequer, it is retained by the shop and will bolster their profit on which tax should be paid.

Sensible drinkers will be the main losers, as always! Binge drinkers will find the money. It will make no difference to the appalling levels of drunkeness on our streets. We should revert to fewer opening hours for pubs and clubs, stiff penalties for drunken behaviour including community service at the times when these drunks would normally be drinking, & require alcohol resellers to support alcohol education for young people.Big fines if sell alcohol to kids with the money going to education.

avatar

Chris, Gloucester

Womble10,
Whilst I agree it will be the sensible drinkers who suffer unneccessarily and a minimum 40p per unit will not make any difference to the binge drinker you’re wrong about the tax.
VAT remember goes up with each increase in price so the treasury will be taking a “skim”.

The real worry is that this lame and very unfair approach to a real problem is the best our Government can come up with. No wonder the nation is in the state it’s in if this is typical.

avatar

garry

I am strongly against any increase in duty on alcohol which I see as a cynical money making exercise by the government. If the government are genuine about tackling the issue perhaps they could explain how they would use the extra taxes to tackle the problem.
In my view, binge drinking will remain a problem until the section of the population that currently drink to excess on a night out start to view it as socially unacceptable themselves.

avatar

m.

NO.
Why is it that everyone apart from our lawmakers knows how to reduce binge drinking?
Solution: We are not French, so bring back the licensing Hours.
Only allow alcohol sales from, Pubs; Dedicated Off Licences; night clubs & similar venues.
Ban alcohol sales from: supermarkets ; convenience stores ; sporting events.

Historically we are a nation of binge drinkers,.
Described by the Normans in 1066 as, “shaven headed, tattooed with many piercings and would drink until they are stupefied and ill”
Etched by Hogarth in the candid Gin Lane study [1775] at that time “a third of London’s population was to be found lying drunk in the streets”
So nearly a thousand years of binge drinking, only tamed by the introduction of licensing regulations, designed to keep us sober enough to be able to produce armaments and fight WW1. So we knew then how to sober up Britain, but our lawmakers unable to learn from history unchained the beast. Pumping mega profits into cronies companies & revenue [fines] into the courts coffers.

avatar

Joe Taylor (@nwcan)

Well said

avatar

jontycampbell

“Ban alcohol sales from: supermarkets ; convenience stores ; sporting events.”

So the majority have to suffer at the hands of the minority, again?

It would be better not to make drinking expensive, but the *consequences* of drunkenness expensive, such as police intervention or ER treatment for drunken incidents chargable.

I had an seizure on the morning after a night out in Calgary, Canada (I was not drunk though) caused by the alcohol irritating my brain from the slight hangover – I had forgotten to take my usual 300mg of Dilantin (Epanutin) and my insurance had ran out the day before.

I got charged £283.50 ($450 Can.) for the Ambulance ride and £409.50 ($650) for the spell in ER and full bloodwork/complete blood count (CBC).

It was my own fault, and I don’t mind paying for it.

If persons getting admitted to ER for their own inability to control their own inebriation, and invoiced for it, it could prevent the problem arising in the future?

avatar

Harry Macdonald

Yes, well done David Cameron. This will have no effect on moderate social drinkers and could even bring the cost of other goods down if the supermarkets have to stop selling booze at a loss and get their profits by putting up other prices. It might even help the low paid if it discourages them from buying the first drink and then buying more than they can afford when under the influence.

avatar

m.

Did Marijuana rising from £60 an ounce to over £200 cut down dope smoking?
Have you seen the price of cocaine recently, hasn’t stopped its usage from rocketing.
Alcohol is the most widely used drug on the planet, with the most addicts, raising the price will only mean those who cannot afford it will get the money from elsewhere.
Then there is the return to bathtub gin………….

Hi M, best to keep this Conversation on the topic of alcohol and other legal products. Thanks, Patrick.

avatar

Em

>>> Alcohol is the most widely used drug on the planet <<<

Misinformation: it's caffeine.

avatar

wavechange

I use Fairtrade drug dealers for my caffeine.

avatar

m.

Nope it’s Oxygen.
I even have a cylinder beside my bed !!!!

avatar

Joe Taylor (@nwcan)

The reason we’re in this situation is yet another example of how corporate interests have been able to influence government these last 30 years, regardless of the obvious health and social implications

avatar

William

I’m never in favour of punishing the many for the behaviour of the few. Why not just fine those who up end in the cells overnight £500 for the privilege (that would also hit drink drivers too hehe). Similarly for those causing trouble in A&E. The money could help fund the NHS and the police force. As 40p per unit isn’t likely to affect the problem drinkers as it isn’t harsh enough.

avatar

m.

So called ‘moderate drinkers’ do not down 2 litres bottles of strong cider, followed by a bottle of supermarkets own brand ‘cheap as chips’ vodka before going out on the lash.
I cannot see how a 40p per unit minimum can be considered as punishing the many, cheap easily obtainable alcohol is a curse on any society.
The price rise is aimed at the loss leading end of the market, the give away booze, It will not affect the middle & upper ends, where most ‘moderate drinkers’ buy their booze.

Having watched many of the ‘police in action’ type programmes I have noticed one common thread.
Man is obviously so drunk he cannot walk. stand etc…
Police approach him and rouse him from the bench, pavement, car, wall he is sleeping on or against.
They then talk to him as if he is rational, in control of his faculties and is not drunk at all.
He is obviously incapable of reacting in a sober rational fashion, so he is arrested and fined, I am not describing any violence, just failure to cooperate with the polices request because he is so drunk he is incapable.
If the Govt. can raise £500 a pop for every drunk the police pull in, then why should they stop this lucrative money earner?

Despite our Govts’ continued insistence on the sensible drinking drinking patterns of Europe a quick study will find that alcoholism is more prevalent there than here, yes the drinking may be moderate, but it is continuous throughout the day, though the French etc… may not get blind drunk of an evening, you will find that many are permanently tipsy. However that is acceptable in their culture.
This extract from the Mail [21/04/2011] shows just how ingrained all day drinking is in France, completely unacceptable here of course

‘Nobody should object to a small drink on jobs,’ added Didier Mangione, of the SGP-FO trade union, which is contemplating the industrial action.

‘We have received a new memorandum outlawing alcohol, and this is completely unacceptable,’ said Mr Mangione.

‘CRS officers do not have any more or less alcohol problems than anybody else in society. They should be allowed to drink in moderation.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379264/French-riot-police-threaten-strike-alcohol-ban-duty.html#ixzz1py3cSMJj

avatar

Philfrom'ull

Another way to tax the working man/ woman,

All that will happen is more people will need use the NHS as more illegal “hooch” made from anti-freeze etc hit the streets, disguised as the real thing – so Criminals make profit & the government loses Tax and has to ask the working Man / Woman for more tax,. and so the circle starts.

avatar

Cazz

It so simple ….40p won’t do a damned thing except squeeze the rest of society who don’t binge. Sledge hammer and nut syndrome as is always the case.
The answer is simple – fine those who are found on the street drunk and disorderly or disturbing the peace. Its a set £500 pounds to get out of jail and if you require medical assistance its £1000. Can be taken direct from earnings or benefits until paid off. One or two of those hitting the pocket would do a damned sight more than 40p a unit!!

avatar

John Mac

Here we go again,why not go for the perpetrators?
NHS should bill those wasting recources.
Police should fine heavily for those banged up overnight.
Holiday firms should be told to prevent so called club reps from organizing binge drinking and drinking games.
PLEASE LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE.

avatar

wavechange

Is it not time we should be savouring the taste of alcoholic drinks rather than throwing them down our necks. The canned bland, pasteurised lager that is the main problem is drunk only because it contains alcohol.

I respect those who don’t drink alcohol, but there are fine real ales to be had in pubs, superb malt whiskies and so on. It’s more fun becoming a connoisseur rather than a drunk. In moderation, drinking is unlikely to damage your health and you will spend a lot less than those who throw cheap lager etc. down their throats.

avatar

Em

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reaction to this proposal from “moderate” and “sensible” drinkers, who really need to look at the facts before leaping to conclusions about how it might affect their own spending on alcohol.

I’ve worked through the dozen or so “2 for £19” offers currently running at Sainsburys. Only two would fail the £0.40 per unit minimum price test. These are Carling (2 x 15 x 440ml x 4%ABV) with a minimum price of £21.12 and Strongbow (2 x 15 x 440ml x 5.3%ABV) at £27.98.

Shop at Sainsburys and drink Budweiser, Carlsberg, Coors, John Smith’s, Kronenbourg or Mangers and you are already paying slightly over £0.40 per unit. Even so, about half of the minimum unit price will go to cover the duty and VAT on alcohol. Should we really expect the beer itself to cost less than the cheapest can of fizzy water with chemical flavourings and colours that you might (not) want to buy for your kids? At this sort of unit price, it does!

OK, so the above examples are multi-buy prices which will be banned, but the supermarkets and brewers are not stupid. Firstly, there is no economic reason why 2 packs of beer sold together should be cheaper than 2 packs sold separately. Sainsburys will just have to offer single packs for £9.50, if they want to keep their customers “merry”. Secondly, brewers will have to make larger packs if they want to push more beer per transaction.

An average bottle of wine (750ml x 12.5%ABV) will have a minimum price of £3.75. I too consider myself to be a moderate and sensible drinker, and it’s a few years now since I have found any wine I would be prepared to drink for that kind of money. Considering HMRC will take about £2.40 of that amount in duty and VAT, it’s not surprising that a glass of wine produced, stored for a year, transported half-way-round-the-world and sold for just 22p is going to taste pretty foul.

In summary, anyone in the UK who drinks because they enjoy the product rather than to get cheap alcohol down their neck should already expect to be paying over £0.40 per unit and will be unaffected. But by the same calculation, it’s unlikely to have any impact on the binge drinkers, either.

avatar

littlegreycat

Spot on.

This is all about generating political comment whilst concealing the fact that this isn’t going to make much if any difference to nearly all purchasers of alchoholic drinks.

avatar

richard

Sorry – the approach is completely wrong – IF the aim is to reduce binge drinking – then the most effective way is to have really punitive punishments for those that actually binge drink – and not unfairly punish those that don’t binge drink – like state pensioners.where a small increase will have an disproportionation effect as they are already poverty stricken.

Let’s have £1000 fines plus real costs (like A&E costs) for second offence. The £1000 for each additional offence.rising to total ban and tags. The money to be collected from wages or benefits (if you can’t afford to pay the fine – you can’t afford to drink.)

The price hike will not deter binge drinking – but it is highly likely to increase smuggling and the making of home brew (which is very easy to do – used to teach it at school to non exam kids) – or worse illicit spirits.

Like everything this inept government does – it is not thought through (except when it is pandering to the demands of the rich) – It hasn’t worked in other countries – like Norway..

The crushing of cars of uninsured drivers is having an effect on numbers.- because the punishment is high enough to deter.

avatar

wavechange

You are a great enthusiast of large fines, Richard, but do large fines work if people can’t afford to pay them, or do they encourage people to turn to crime? Perhaps community service might be a better punishment.

You criticise the current government, but have previous governments successfully tackled the problem of binge drinking?

I think you are right about the danger of increased smuggling and illegal distillation of spirits. Home brewed wines and beers are not usually associated with binge drinking and making them is already an interesting and rewarding hobby for some pensioners.

Maybe there is a case for putting binge drinkers through a drinking awareness course, equivalent to the speed awareness courses that many drivers attend if caught exceeding the speed limit.

avatar

Em

If this measure is designed to stop the practice of “preloading” cheap alcohol before a night out on the town, it’s hardly going to make a difference. Drinks from a supermarket will still be cheaper than on-licensed premises. Nor is it necessary, if existing legislation is properly enforced.

Section 140 onwards of the Licensing Act 2003 lists various measures designed to stop persons who are already intoxicated from entering licensed premises or being sold or served alcohol. If you have already consumed a skinful, pubs and clubs should not be admitting you or serving you further drinks – it’s a criminal offence!

So why aren’t pubs and clubs enforcing these measures? Is it all to do with the money? The derisory fine for serving a drunk is £80 – far less than the cost of the damage they could cause to themselves and others.

And why aren’t licensing authorities closing down the establishments that discharge their clients onto the streets after they have been supplied with further alcohol, in violation of the terms of their licence? What’s the matter with a little enforcement using the powers they have been granted? Vested interests?

Or perhaps licensees need to take on strict liability for any damage or person injury caused as a result of their reckless business practices, before they will start to take their legal responsibilities more seriously?

Unfortunately, we are all paying for this mess whether we like it or not. A minimum of 40 pence for a unit of alcohol should be the least of our concerns.

avatar

Yorkshire Teuchter

Thank you for saving my time typing out all that you have said.

Preloading suggests the problem drinks are being served by licence premises, so they are responsible for serving the problem ones. A proactive approach or lose their licence. Commerce will still find a way to make money on a night.

avatar

Robert

As many others have said the increase will not stop people from finding the money. Look at how the price of fuel has well outstripped inflation, yet we still buy lots of it. I predict a boom in homebrew shops too!

Part of the UK’s problem is that it does not seem to be socially unacceptable to be intoxicated in public. If society regarded drunks with the same revulsion as we regard drink driving, the problem would reduce.

One part of the solution is certainly enforcement of the existing laws. In Australia, clubs are fined $5000 for serving a person who is intoxicated, and the bar person who served the drunk is also fined $5000. The police frequently patrol the clubs to see if anyone on the premises is drunk. You don’t see any drunks around those clubs. So, raise the fine for serving a drunk or allowing a drunk onto licensed premises, and fine the staff as well as the licensee. Also give police more powers to object to the granting or renewal of a license.

avatar

m.

Just a thought.
Move duty from : pint of beer, bottle of wine, bottle of spirits to n pence per unit of alcohol.
This means that the Govt’ increases duty to the 40p, 50p or whatever per unit, this increase in duty could be used to offset the impending fuel duty hike.
(George Osborne might even look good, trying to deal with binge drinking, and helping the motorists, OK him looking good might be too much to ask.)

avatar

Linloobyloo

What is it about our social situations that make them so hard for many to face unless senses are jaded by overuse of alcohol?
Again poorer families will be affected if dad needs more of their budget for the booze.
Young people tend to knock themselves out rather than face problems and feelings but why can they not talk to someone for help?
The government”s clamp down approach to dealing with problems does not make the reasons for the problem go away. Past experience has shown that if government ban or restricy any activity all that happens is that it goes underground but does not go away. When will they start to take a paternal approach to problems???

avatar

David W

If your addicted to drink it still won’t stop you, If you enjoy a night out and get legless fine them £100 keep locked up till that pay. But why should people pay extra for their drink when the do drink sencibly its just another tax on the majority, why should we not help those with the problem. I am afraid their are MPs in this government who earn far to much money and are not in touch with the real people. I subscribe to Which Magazine to get the best value deals (Why not set up a political party Which)

avatar

Old Pedant

Dave, I agree with you on fining legless drunks, and about our out of touch MPs.

However, I’m really sorry to be pedantic, but I think the education system has let you and many others down badly. Nothing wrong with your logic, but your ability to make a point in writing would have been greatly helped if you had been taught to use English correctly!

“If your addicted …” I think you mean “If you’re addicted …” (your is not short for you are)

“If you enjoy a night out and get legless fine them £100 keep locked up till that pay.” muddles 2nd person (you) and third person (them) and switches the principal from subject to object making it unclear who you refer to. (Does “them” refer to the drinker or the bar owner?) Better to say “If you enjoy a night out and get legless, you should be fined £100 and kept locked up until you pay.” (note also, till is a completely different word with a different meaning from until or ’til)

I’m assuming that you just left out the word majority between “the” and “do”

“sencibly” should be “sensibly”

“its just another tax” should be “it’s …” (short for it is… and the only time an apostrophe is used in that word)

“I am afraid their are MPs…” should be “.. there are MPs…”

“far to much money” should be “far too much money”

Please don’t shoot the messenger!

Thanks for your kind words David. I’m afraid we wouldn’t be able to set up our own political party. Which? is a registered charity and we’re party political neutral. We campaign for all parties to ensure consumers get a fair deal. If you’re interested in finding out more about how we work with politicians, we’ve some info here: http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/what-we-do/campaign-with-you/influencing-politicians

avatar

David W

I will make two comment’s if you got the gist of the comment the I’ve got my point over. If my english is bad I apologise. I just wish the people like you who are so knowledgable were running the Country instead the idiot’s now in parliament.

avatar

Old Pedant

Dave,

I apologise for being pedantic. You did get your points across.

avatar

Maurice

The medical professions, health & social services and the police all know that establishing a minimum cost per unit of alcohol will result in a reduced per captita consumption and an associated decrease in alcohol-related problems. The alcohol problems that are so predominant in current Irish/British society do not arise from the very very small percentage of people who are dependant upon alcohol. The mass of problems arise from over consumption by ordinary people because alcohol is relatively cheap and widely available. For years, at least since the early 1980s, research has clearly established increased and decresased per captia consumption based upon price and availability. It makes no sense referring to continental drinking cultures becasue our culture is very different. The facts remains that as long as alcohol is ridiculously cheap and widely available we will continue to face the many and varied social problems directly caused by over consumption. I would not mind paying extra for alcohol and I would not feel penalised because I and my children and loved ones are the very people who are contunuously assaulted and affected by the significant alcohol caused social problems that affect every other person within sociaty.

avatar

Robert

Yes, but the question is whether price (alone) is the right mechanism, especially in the current economic climate? On Maurice’s argument, alcohol consumption would have been falling since 2008/9 when people started getting poorer. Has it? I don’t think so – and have you bought a drink in a club recently? You need a mortgage to go with it!. Without an integrated approach to reducing the availability of alcohol and enforcement of the law, one can only draw the conclusion that the Government sees it as a revenue opportunity and nothing more.

If the Government is serious about reducing binge drinking and alcohol consumption generally they need to take alcohol out of supermarkets and sell it only in limited hours off-licenses (or in a separate area of supermarkets that is closed at 5.30 or 6.00 pm), reduce the number of clubs allowed in city centres, and their opening hours, or at least stop alcohol sales at midnight with a 15 minute drinking up time (I can hear the howls of anguish already!) By all means allow clubs to stay open later, but only selling non-alcoholic drinks. Also apply the existing laws on people who are drunk in public and licensees who sell to intoxicated people or in quantities that are likely to get people intoxicated. They should be fined for every drunk that leaves their premises.

Call me cynical, but I believe the Government does not want us to reduce consumption, as they would lose duty and VAT revenue. So a bit of minor tinkering at the edges is done for the sake of being seen to be doing something, but without actually tackling the problem. Limiting the hours for off-license sales would certainly reduce consumption, but I bet we never see it done!

avatar

David W

Thank you for you input Roger
As for alcohol being cheap, Maurice must have a fairly big income,
When alcohol is made the tax starts at the beginning of the potential ammount of the sugar in any form can make alcohol and then more tax is put at the end.
I believe it takes about 9 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of beer the way beer its going you will be drinking coloured water, (although it seems like that now) it is now becoming more economical to start your own brewing again wine or beer.(watch the share prices in home brew equipment)
Sorry about the english but in future years we might not have to worry about it there may be another national language, I have to look hard for English at the Hospital.

avatar

jontycampbell

Increase the price of a (legal or illegal) drug and you increase the crime that results in obtaining and distribution that drug. Raises in alcohol or Tobacco duty increase smuggling. Milton Friedman pointed this out decades ago.

avatar

john knight

I do not see why moderate drinkers should be penalised for a drunken louts. I agree with a previous emailer that drunks who have to go to hospital should have to pay for their treatment. Why is binge drinking such a problem such a problem for the English? I have just come back from the Canary Islands

avatar

Robert

John, We’re all dying to know what happened in the Canary Islands!!

avatar

john knight

Sorry my comment about the Canary Islands was cut short! We bought two litre bottles of gin for £4.90. If price is the main factor in determining the level of drunkenness? How come we did not see a single drunk in our fortnight?

avatar

gvc

I dont see why us as moderate sensible drinkers who I may add are not on wages like those that are making these decisions, should be penalised for drunken louts- they will find ways to get their kicks. I agree too with a previous emailer that drunks who have to go to hospital should have to pay for their treatment and leave us people alone to enjoy life — its so expensive to drink out in pubs now many of us have to stay home, have friends over and enjoy a few glasses of their favorite tipple.

avatar

jimbo

how large is 1 unit???

avatar

Robert

One UK unit is 10 ml of pure alcohol.

So:
A standard 25ml shot of 40% spirits is 1 unit, as is half a pint of 3.5% beer.
A small 125ml glass of 12% wine is 1.5 units, and a whole bottle is 9 units.
A large 175ml glass of 14% wine is 2.45 units and a whole bottle is 10.5 units.
A pint of 5.5% cider or beer is 3.1 units.

avatar

davidaw

I’m sorry to say this but longer opening hours and nigh on every corner shop selling booze and the High prices in bars and clubs cause the abuse themselves, increasing blanket prices for the majority says i want more money for the coffers. just dont vote tory in the next election.

Back to top

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked

Tired of typing your name and email? Why not register.

Register or Log in

Browse by Category

Consumer Rights

712 Conversations

8653 Participants

24544 Comments

Energy & Home

594 Conversations

6431 Participants

20988 Comments

Money

762 Conversations

5578 Participants

14336 Comments

Technology

730 Conversations

6773 Participants

17463 Comments

Transport & Travel

567 Conversations

4332 Participants

12308 Comments