Talk:Booze cruise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Booze cruise article.
Article policies
Booze cruise is part of WikiProject Tourism, which is building a comprehensive guide to tourism-related articles on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.

Editors are currently needed to tag tourism-related articles with {{TourismProject}}.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Other Countries

Very interesting, but do they call it a 'booze cruise' in Scandinavia?. ChrisRed 10:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They probably call them "spritresor" or similar, but we can't use that on English Wikipedia. BIL 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the US I've heard the term "booze cruise" applied to something also known as a "cruise to nowhere", wherein a boat will just sail for a few hours, loiter about, and then return to harbor. Generally the price of all-you-can-drink alcohol is included in the ticket. These are also popular in outside-of-the-US destinations where minors go on Spring Break, such as Cancun. I'll try to dig up some examples and update the bottom of the page. --JD79 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] European Court Ruling of 23 Nov 2006

I will update this article very shortly to reflect the verdict (now I know which month it is :-). ChrisRed 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah well.......:-) Old Gordon Brown must be fuming at how the EU has dashed his sincere aim to save the planet, by forcing thousands of cars and vans to drive to Belgium and back every pay day. (Sarcasm OFF :-)ChrisRed 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks for your contribution. Not sure of this though: "French tobacco duties have also risen, reducing further the economic advantage of a "booze cruise". Unless one is close to the Channel ports, it's unlikely to be financially beneficial. The motivation is changing, therefore, from purely economic to leisure and variety of choice". I live 150 miles from Dover. Since the French Govt raised tobacco duty, I now buy my tobacco in Adinkerke and fill the boot with Wine in Calais. Apart from the need to admire the stunning scenery around Dunkirk (?) twice from the motorway, the economic advantage remains the same. Happy Cruisin' :-) ChrisRed 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a smoker so can't speak for that. Last time I did a "cruise" (from Hemel Hempstead), as opposed to stopping on the way home, I had to note the costs (for the first time). I was surprised that there was little or no advantage, more so since Fench petrol has also increased in price. On yesterday's R5 phone-in, one former smuggler reported that it had ceased to be worth his time and risk to import beer for resale. I'll still go, however, for leisure and variety reasons - hence not being attracted by Adinkerke instead of Boulogne. Other people do report the same. I'd stand by my comment: it's not an absolutist statement - it records a change in emphasis. Nice that this article has attracted interest. Folks at 137 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes I agree that the main benefit now is for smokers, as the percentage savings to be had on tobacco at Adinkerke are far greater than the savings to be had on wine or beer at Calais, unless you buy wine in very big quantities. In fact at Adinkerke, a large proportion of the number plates are actually French nowadays. We just stop off in Calais on the way, to pick up wine at about 60% of the UK price. i agree that it wouldn't really be worth us driving all the way from W Berks for the saving on wine alone. ChrisRed 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is probably only true for the UK. Swedish citizens can still save a lot of money by going to other countries when purchasing alcohol. For example, Baltic prices can be very low. (Stefan2 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Again, fascinating, but this page is about the British coloquial term 'Booze Cruise'. It is not intended to be an article about cross-border shopping throughout the world. If the good people of Sweden find it cheaper to buy alcohol in the Baltic States, that's fine, but the Swedes must have their own Swedish word for what they do. Please create a Swedish-language page for this.ChrisRed 09:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)



[edit] French law limiting the transport of tobacco

This is not a new law. It was from 2005. Can you tell us why it has only been inserted into the article now?. Has the introduction of the law been 'delayed' until now, or have the French Customs only recently started to enforce it?. I've been over to Calais / Adinkerke at least ten times since then. The car park at Adinkerke is still full of French number plates, and I have not noticed anything different, or ever been more than glanced at by French customs either going in or out. I have, however, been quizzed at Dover Customs about 'where I have been to' in France. As I thought that my passport was valid for the whole of the country; I have written to both UK Customs and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask them for a list of places that I am not allowed to go to in France. I'll let you know. I know that HM Customs have powers that the Police can only dream of, but nevertheless, a Police Officer (although he may ask you the question) cannot actually demand an answer to it unless he cautions you first. ChrisRed 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] French law limiting the transport of tobacco

The law did pass the French legislature in 2005 but it only became active law in 2006 - it's at least quite new. There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not the law is enforced and it's actually quite tricky to be certain one way or another: there are verified stories of British tobacco tourists losing their 3600 cigarettes (and French tobacco tourists experiencing confiscations) but other stories exist of tobacco tourists being stopped, asked for car insurance documents and then not being subjected to a search or being searched at the Tunnel or ferry port and being allowed on their way. One thing is certain: the tobacco sellers association is using political pressure to ensure that the law is enforced. It's a crude law in terms of serving 1 interest group's agenda but it also presents itself as health conscious legislation - an attempt to reduce tobacco consumption in order to promote health and in doing so it frames tobacco rather like cannabis (in a way). It's a very clever move by the very interest group that wants to sell as much tobacco as possible! Some respectable legal opinions suggest that because the law pretends to be about health promotion it may well avoid undue censure by the EU/European Commission. The Commission is very angry about the law (it raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the EU and the ability of nation state governments to legislate according to a meta state agenda). The French Government wishes that the law would go away. But it won't. It's the law and whilst you may (and probably will) get away with breaking it you risk losing your load (although probably not your vehicle) if you do. It's an important part of the story and people need to be aware of the issues.

Thanks for that. Recommend that if you do get goods confiscated, to obtain and keep both proof of legitimate purchase and confiscation receipts very safe, so we can drag them through European courts later as part of group action. Whether you love or loath Gordon Brown and HM Customs, at least they do observe the law as it stands, even if they don't like it :-) ChrisRed 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, wife has just reminded me that a french police car drove into the Adinkerke shop while we were there last trip. The two officers queued with everybody else, and left happy with a black plastic bag full of cigarettes!.ChrisRed 08:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Encyclopedic Tone Tag

Someone has added a 'Formal Tone' banner. Perhaps they have their own agenda, but (after re-reading the page as objectively as possible) I cannot see how the article contravenes wiki's guidelines. It is written in 'clear English', not pompous or over-verbose, but then not too colloquial or 'folksy' either. I cannot speak for the 'Other Countries' section, which is completely outside my knowledge, and which I leave well alone. Given that the article is about a colloquial term, I think that the article (if not the talk page) is formal enough. The banner tells the reader to refer to this talk page for discussion, but the user who added the banner has not added anything to this page to justify their stance. I'll leave the banner in place for a few weeks, then (if there are no more comments) I will treat it as 'POV Graffiti' and remove it).ChrisRed 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a ref for the article - it's a reasonable prompt to ask for these. I've also located the editor who added the tone tag and asked for some details of his concerns. Folks at 137 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It needs more then one reference. Vegaswikian 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that first reference is reliable (BBC), establishes the UK use of the term and supports much of the detail in the article. In fact, unless there are other dissenters, I propose to remove the "noref" tag in a few days. Of course "noref" tags can be added to individual sections. Folks at 137 19:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When you read the article, it looks like a how to on avoiding taxes. Statements like 'As with many activities, there are winners and losers, arguing for and against change.' clearly don't appear to be encyclopedic especially as the opening paragraph for a section. Of course those of us in the US know what this term means. A cruise with the only purpose of drinking. That is not even mentioned in the article. Tone was best cleanup tag for the problems I saw. A rewrite is clearly in order and an expansion to cover the other uses is appropriate. The tag was not placed for any 'POV Graffiti' reasons and that suggestion is totally off the wall and unjustified. Maybe this article needs a new name to cover the broader issues since it is not apparently just about the cruise. What does French tobacco law have to do with this? Nothing from that section. Again a rename and rewrite might be the best option for this article. Vegaswikian 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, Vegaswikian doesn't understand the UK meaning of "booze cruise". "When you read the article, it looks like a how to on avoiding taxes." Well, yes it is - in the UK. "Of course those of us in the US know what this term means. A cruise with the only purpose of drinking." Not so in the UK, it's explained in the opening para - plz read it. If every article in Wiki that was not totally comprehensive had this tag, then it would be everywhere. If there is a specific US sense, then edit the article. "What does French tobacco law have to do with this?" Read the article - a "booze cruise" - in the UK sense - is a way of avoiding duties/ taxes, principally on alcohol but also on tobacco and petrol and diesel (in fact anything). The article attempts to define the term and discuss issues that arise. "Statements like 'As with many activities, there are winners and losers, arguing for and against change.' clearly don't appear to be encyclopedic... " Please define "encyclopedic". The phrase complained about is clearly factual - read the UK press, listen to radio. I could argue that the article has clearly alerted a US individual - Vegaswikian - to a wider meaning outside his/her experience and this is part of the purpose of Wiki. I agree that one ref is unsatisfactory, but it does demonstrate the basis for the article, and time will allow others to add more. Folks at 137 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't go in for this edit-warring stuff, but suffice to say that the article is meant to describe the practice of 'booze cruising' as understood in the UK. If it means something else in the USA, please feel free to create a section, or even another page to describe the different US usage. The comment on 'How to avoid taxes' looks odd. Booze cruisers still pay tax legitimately, but exercise their common-sense by shopping around and paying tax where it is low rather than where it is high. I should imagine that Americans pop across state lines for the same reason. How is that tax avoidance?
Anyway, I will add something about the Dover-Dunkirk run later. This route seems to be becoming the route of choice for smokers. Not only is Dunkirk much closer to the Belgian border, but Norfolk Line seem to take a less anal attitude to the (fare-paying !!) smoker than the other two...allowing a reasonable amount of covered accomodation on the lifeboat deck for those who 'pop outside for a smoke'. ChrisRed 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A spot of nit-picking: tax avoidance is the legal arangement of one's affairs (or behaviour) to reduce taxes - tax evasion is doing the same, using illegal means. I don't intend or expect to start an edit-war, there's always a reasonable, amicable solution. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Folks at 137 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My fault, actually - 'edit war' was the wrong phrase. Let's call it tax optimisation. The Chancellor imposes as much tax as he can without affecting consumption; we consume as much as we can without paying tax :-) Who's for a 'WikiBoozeCruise' sometime this summer? ChrisRed 07:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Taxation rating

I see that this article has been rated as "low" priority. I'd be interested in the reaoning, given the impact on the UK Treasury and the numbers of people involved. Folks at 137 20:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the general practice for priority/importance and class determination rationales to be posted on the comments pages of an article. For this article, please see: Talk:Booze cruise/Comments. An alternative link to this comments page can be found in the WP Tax banner, where you noticed the priority classification.EECavazos 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)