I agree with the Secular society.

[Anchorman]

.......well, at least on their efforts to highlight the menace of 'bucky', anyway. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-39555998

[Robbie]

Having read that article Anchor I agree with you. Never knew it was such a powerful and dangerous drink! Have been to Buckfast and even bought some as present. Won't do it again.

[Bubbles]

Oy! Leave our wine alone, no one says Scots have to drink it. Next it'll be our scrumpy under attack.  To much Whiskey also fuels violence.  Whiskey could also be said to be a powerful and dangerous drink in sufficient quantities. Or should that be whisky? 🤔

🙃
It's a tonic wine, disgusting stuff, only meant to have a glass or two.
It's an alcoholic version of red bull.

The monks aren't doing any harm by having a charity status, it keeps them as a community off the dole.

[Robbie]

Ah Rose, a different point of view! Maybe I will buy it as a gift again  if I go there, hadn't thought of the monks being on dole (they produce honey too from their bee hives). Must admit I've never tried Buckfast wine & take your word for it that it tastes disgusting.

Down here alcoholics - poor ones you see on street - have less sophisticated tastes & seem to drink cans of Special Brew and cheap wine. Spirits are for the better off and drunk indoors.

[Harrowby Hall]

It's a tonic wine, disgusting stuff, only meant to have a glass or two.

Disgusting it may be, but it goes a treat with a deep fried Mars Bar ....

[Nearly Sane]

Since it is like whisky, then it shouldn't be treated differently, so the charitable status should be withdrawn.

[Robbie]

The Wiki article on Buckie is informative for someone like me who'd never before given it much thought and Scotland is mentioned a lot. Also learned a new word -"Ned (culture)".

The drink seems to be more popular in Scotland than in other places.

So there's two types of Buckie in different bottles. I can't see how it's like whisky apart from the obvious point of being an alcoholic drink but take your word for it.

Th charitable status doesn't bother me one way or t'other,i leave it to others to worry about the fine points of that. All sorts of things have charitable status that could arguably be considered an abuse of the system.

Nobody has to drink it, it's not that cheap is it?

[Gordon]

Grounds for the charitable status, according to the link in the OP, is that 'The trust justifies its existence as a charity in its annual report, stating its aim is the "advancement of the Roman Catholic religion", yet they are clearly running a profitable business. If I had an alcohol manufacturing business I want to develop then I wouldn't expect charitable status, so as NS notes the Buckfast wine business should probably be treated on the same basis as any other brewery or distillery business.

I'd be interested to know on what basis the 'advancement of the Roman Catholic religion' merits charitable status. 

[Anchorman]

My kirk is in the midst of a graveyard. That ground is the property of the local authority, but we try to keep it tidy. Every Sunday Morning, I can guarantee we'll find a number of Buckfast bottles - usually smashed against gravestones, and a couple of vodka litre bootles as well. The local 'neds' use the 'bucky' to get the caffeine/alcohol rush, then top it up with vodka, with results that don't really need imagination. 'Bucky' replaced another cheap plonk in the seventies - Lanliq - as the starter fuel, and it's endemic in rural and urban youth culture here. Personally I think it's a terrible taste, but taste, apparently, has little to do with it. I find the constant denials that their product is in any way harmful from these monks simply ridiculous.

[Robbie]

Perhaps the import of Buckfast wine could be banned in Scotland if sufficient members of the population disapprove of it. It really is not a big problem south of the border - other things are.

The laws on what is and what's not eligible for charitable status need to be sorted out if that is a concern. All sorts of religious things have charitable status. Monks don't get state pension at 65, they have to be self supporting until aged 80 when they get a little something from the state. If the wine loses its charitable ticket they'll still make some money out of it and diversify into other things. There aren't many of them left so "promoting the Catholic faith" ,their original aim which does seem anachronistic,will die out or pass to others.

I forgot to post the wiki link in my last post so put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckfast_Tonic_Wine

[Humph Warden Bennett]

.......well, at least on their efforts to highlight the menace of 'bucky', anyway. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-39555998

You don't have to drink it if you don't want to.

The Secular Society can fluck off.

[Anchorman]

You don't have to drink it if you don't want to.

The Secular Society can fluck off.

-
Sorry, HWB,
I wouldn't touch the stuff.
However, had you seen the effects of the 'bucky culture' on too many young folk in Scotland you might wish to tax the stuff 200%.
As a matter of fact, a joint report by the Cofs and the RC churches in Scotland asked the monks in Ampleforth to increase their prices - and select which outlets their product was sold in Scotland, to try and limit the damage the 'bucky culture' caused.

[Rhiannon]

I've no problem with the product itself, but it's alcohol and should be taxed as such.

I don't think that will make the slightest difference to the rate at which it is consumed and if it is taken off the shelves something else will replace it.

As for how the monks square the effects of their brew with their morality, I have no clue.

[Robbie]

Unless they have taken the pledge or equivalent I don't think it is morally wrong for monks or anyone to else to brew alcoholic drink.  Neither is there anything wrong in drinking it - drinking to excess is a different matter. Buckfast is not meant to be over-indulged, it's a tonic wine whatever that may be. No-one forces it down anyone else's throat.

[Rhiannon]

Unless they have taken the pledge or equivalent I don't think it is morally wrong for monks or anyone to else to brew alcoholic drink.  Neither is there anything wrong in drinking it - drinking to excess is a different matter. Buckfast is not meant to be over-indulged, it's a tonic wine whatever that may be. No-one forces it down anyone else's throat.

In principle it should be fine but clearly there are serious problems associated with the drink that they produce. Simply to say that nobody forces anyone to drink it while continuing to churn it out cheaply, supply the places where it causes distress, still sell it in glass bottles and still profit from it strikes me as hand-washing. But then that's Biblical I guess.

[jeremyp]

My kirk is in the midst of a graveyard. That ground is the property of the local authority, but we try to keep it tidy. Every Sunday Morning, I can guarantee we'll find a number of Buckfast bottles - usually smashed against gravestones, and a couple of vodka litre bootles as well. The local 'neds' use the 'bucky' to get the caffeine/alcohol rush, then top it up with vodka, with results that don't really need imagination. 'Bucky' replaced another cheap plonk in the seventies - Lanliq - as the starter fuel, and it's endemic in rural and urban youth culture here. Personally I think it's a terrible taste, but taste, apparently, has little to do with it. I find the constant denials that their product is in any way harmful from these monks simply ridiculous.

The problem isn't the Buckfast though, it's the culture. If there were no Buckfast, they'd be drinking something else.

[Robbie]

Exactly.
To some unfortunate people, all alcoholic drink is poison.

[ad_orientem]

The problem isn't the Buckfast though, it's the culture. If there were no Buckfast, they'd be drinking something else.

Indeed.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem isn't the Buckfast though, it's the culture. If there were no Buckfast, they'd be drinking something else.

Agree but not a reason to have it as a charity

[Robbie]

Maybe it won't be a charity for much longer now the fact has been highlighted if there's enough outcry. That's one issue. But removing charitable status won't stop it being consumed.

[jeremyp]

Agree but not a reason to have it as a charity

Err no,

but then my position is that no religious organisations should have charitable status just because they are religious organisations.

[Nearly Sane]

Err no,

but then my position is that no religious organisations should have charitable status just because they are religious organisations.

Which given that is the OP is surely the point here?

[Rhiannon]

The problem isn't the Buckfast though, it's the culture. If there were no Buckfast, they'd be drinking something else.

I agree, but there is also taking responsibility. If people have a dependency problem I'd like to know that I'm not the cause of it.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree, but there is also taking responsibility. If people have a dependency problem I'd like to know that I'm not the cause of it.

Or claiming charitable status for pushing drugs.

[jeremyp]

Which given that is the OP is surely the point here?

It wasn't the point of my post that you seem to have taken umbrage to. That post was a reply to Anchorman's description of his churchyard and the point of it was that Buckfast going away is unlikely to improve the situation, unless the local Buckfast drinkers move to a poison that doesn't come in bottles that smash when you drop them on gravestones.