Disagree with the government? Youre fired!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vampireuk, Oct 30, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

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

    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?
  3. Dead men walking, Johnson and his cronies will soon be taking the long walk too with any luck......
  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.
  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...

  7. Yeah, who needs actual real scientific facts when you can have some vague feelings and scare stories to base policy on?
  8. 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.
  10. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    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. 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.