Disagree with the government? Youre fired!

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, after criticising government policies.

Professor David Nutt, head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C.

He accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence and said drugs classification was being politicised.

The home secretary said he had "lost confidence" in his advice and asked him to step down.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is the UK's official drugs advisory body.

Following his sacking, Prof Nutt told the BBC he stood by his claim that cannabis should not be a Class B drug, based on its effects.

He described his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government".
At least he didn't go for a walk in the woods. :roll:
 
#2
It does seem strange to me that the Government appoints specialist advisors, and then fires them because their specialist advice conflicts with Government policy. Why bother appointing them in the first place?
 
#4
What more do expect from a Liebour Government,

would'nt look good against their anti-drug policies,

Wonder who'll be next to get the boot once their outspoken against the Government.
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#5
Err --- I think that you will find that if society disagrees with the Government..... Then the Government are fired ...... Like they will be in 6 months time. :clap: :clap:
 
#6
He's there to advise, not make policy, he shouldn't winge if his advice isn't heeded (whilst he is on the public payroll anyway).

He is also a Tw*t who doesn't realise how wrong his advice is...

Trotsky
 
#7
Yeah, who needs actual real scientific facts when you can have some vague feelings and scare stories to base policy on?
 
#8
Trotsky said:
He's there to advise, not make policy, he shouldn't winge if his advice isn't heeded (whilst he is on the public payroll anyway).

He is also a Tw*t who doesn't realise how wrong his advice is...

Trotsky
Well thats a load of balls, he did not get paid, there was nothing wrong with his advice, loads of children get injured, or killed, every year by there ponies, more people die from booze and fags than drugs, most druggies who overdose recover at great cost to the NHS, the places where they have declasified some drugs have lowered the crime rate, all true
 
#9
Somebody should tell him that giving unpopular advice to Labour politico's is far worse for ones health than smoking a kilo of crack.

He should think himself lucky that he did not end up going for a stroll in the woods.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
The only people that Labour wants advising it are 'Yes men'. Little nodding dogs they can stick in the back window of their policies, to be seen by the voters as it drives off into the statute books.

The drugs advisor has been sacked because he didn't nod through a government choice. Someone else (another scientist) took a walk in the woods because he said that WMD claims were wrong.
 
#11
Labour won't listen and won't take the advice of independent advisers that they appoint to take a scientific look at a problem. Unless of course the findings match their own policies. If they wanted findings to confirm that their policies were correct they could have done one of two things.... employ a non-independent and probably not-so-scientific committee to agree with their view, or made policies that were based on scientific fact and were correct in the first place.

If the scientific evidence doesn't match your policy, say your policy is based on a 'moral stance', not that it is based on science, or that the science is wrong. Nobody would have a problem with that. They are after all (supposed to be) politicians not scientists, that's why they have 'scientific advisers'. But once again, Labour prove how useless they are, making themselves look complete cnuts by not thinking about what effect an announcement will have, or in this case, a sacking.
 
#12
Biped said:
The only people that Labour wants advising it are 'Yes men'. Little nodding dogs they can stick in the back window of their policies to rubber stamp their oh-so-clever policies.

The drugs advisor has been sacked because he didn't nod through a government choice. Someone else (another scientist) took a walk in the woods because he said that WMD claims were wrong.
This bloke Prof Nutt, has more degrees than a compass and has been a government adviser since 1971, but Gorden Brown knows more about drugs than him, simples, Gorden is a God LOL
 
#13
to be fair. any drug policy other than long sentances ban ban ban drugs evil evil evil :twisted:
IS going to make you look a total kunt in front of the daily mail etc.

fact is vast numbers of people use cannibis and es and coke every week and don't die.
police action never stopped a single junkie ever getting hold of illegal drugs
even on the days they were celebrating a major drugs haul.
 
#14
Alan Johnson seemed to be a decent guy but has shown himself to be a bit of an arrsehole over this. but I guess with Broon soon to step down, Johnson is eyeing up the top job
 
#15
I have no time for Labour but I can't think of any jobs anywhere where you wont get in severe shite for publicly criticising your boss. I can see reasons why they might want to reclassify cannabis, not least because of the amount of scientific disapproval of the original down-classification.
The fact that many people use drugs and don't die proves absolutely nothing. There are people who have had their lives and their mental and physical health ruined by drugs, death is only one possible outcome. There are people who drive cars whilst drunk who don't kill themselves or others, that is hardly an argument to legalise drinking and driving.
Governments always sack those who they employ who outwardly criticise them. They take the view that they should toe the party line by either keeping quiet or actively supporting. Most Government advisers who wish to criticise the Government resign first so they can do so, as a point of principle. An adviser is just that, they give the Minister their advice and he uses that advice together with his political acumen to render, what is essentially, a political decision that makes them look tough on crime in many people's eyes. Politics has always been about perception rather than substance.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Markintime said:
I have no time for Labour but I can't think of any jobs anywhere where you wont get in severe shite for publicly criticising your boss. I can see reasons why they might want to reclassify cannabis, not least because of the amount of scientific disapproval of the original down-classification.
The fact that many people use drugs and don't die proves absolutely nothing. There are people who have had their lives and their mental and physical health ruined by drugs, death is only one possible outcome. There are people who drive cars whilst drunk who don't kill themselves or others, that is hardly an argument to legalise drinking and driving.
Governments always sack those who they employ who outwardly criticise them. They take the view that they should toe the party line by either keeping quiet or actively supporting. Most Government advisers who wish to criticise the Government resign first so they can do so, as a point of principle. An adviser is just that, they give the Minister their advice and he uses that advice together with his political acumen to render, what is essentially, a political decision that makes them look tough on crime in many people's eyes. Politics has always been about perception rather than substance.
Indeed. This is why when a scientist or advisor happens to agree with government, they trot them out and display them. "Look, see? Our policies have the backing of our pet advisor/scientist! We are right!"

When the puppet doesn't agree, he loses his job if he wants to say so.

That's a cracking example of what is wrong with our system of government.

Whips is another one.
 
#17
He was the government's adviser on drugs. He was there to give his advice to the government, not make controversial statements in public or to comment on policy. I wonder whether he was entirely comfortable with that when he described his sacking as an example of the government's "Luddite attitude" towards science and accused Gordon Brown of making "irrational" remarks about the dangers of cannabis. He gives advice. The government of the day makes the policy. That is true of any adviser. But he should just have been told to STFU, not sacked and made a hero.

However, this just shows what I have said for many years, which is that you cannot have a proper debate about drugs in this country.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Good Gods!

Again, I find myslef agreeing with Ashie. Correct in every respect.

I must go and have a lie-down, and hope it goes away........
 
#19
OldSnowy said:
Good Gods!

Again, I find myslef agreeing with Ashie. Correct in every respect.

I must go and have a lie-down, and hope it goes away........
I thought that myself.

Fook me, agreeing with 'Ashie' !

*Fetches revolver, bottle of Famous Grouse, retires to study, etc,etc..
 
#20
Markintime said:
The fact that many people use drugs and don't die proves absolutely nothing. There are people who have had their lives and their mental and physical health ruined by drugs, death is only one possible outcome. There are people who drive cars whilst drunk who don't kill themselves or others, that is hardly an argument to legalise drinking and driving.
They weren't saying that it was perfectly safe, just reporting their findings in comparison with alcohol and tobacco. Their findings actually said that the psychological effects of cannabis was over stated.

Governments always sack those who they employ who outwardly criticise them. They take the view that they should toe the party line by either keeping quiet or actively supporting. Most Government advisers who wish to criticise the Government resign first so they can do so, as a point of principle. An adviser is just that, they give the Minister their advice and he uses that advice together with his political acumen to render, what is essentially, a political decision that makes them look tough on crime in many people's eyes. Politics has always been about perception rather than substance.
The advisory posts are not paid and are nothing to do with 'party' so why should they have to 'toe the party line'? Of course they are just advisers and their advice can be ignored. The fact is that rather than being 'ignored', and rather than just saying that they were taking a moral stand, the government stated that the findings of their one year of scientific study were wrong. They are not scientists just arrogant.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads