Don't give the government advice they don't want to hear.

Former Member

Professor nut has now been sacked.
Outragous.

What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?" he said.

Mr Huhne said if the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy".

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

Former Member

Well, it turns out he was sacked by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is Alan Johnson. Alan Johnson is an absolute coward, and a cunt to boot. His cowardly ways were revealed when he refused to stand against Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership some months ago, despite widespread rumours he would do it. Yet again, he takes the coward's way out.

This is an extremely dangerous precedent, which has also shown up the Tories for what they are - dishonest charlatans who are even keener to rim Rupert Murdoch's arse (apologies for the disturbing mental image) than Labour is.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Well, it turns out he was sacked by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is Alan Johnson. Alan Johnson is an absolute coward, and a cunt to boot. His cowardly ways were revealed when he refused to stand against Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership some months ago, despite widespread rumours he would do it. Yet again, he takes the coward's way out.

This is an extremely dangerous precedent, which has also shown up the Tories for what they are - dishonest charlatans who are even keener to rim Rupert Murdoch's arse (apologies for the disturbing mental image) than Labour is.

Trouble here is ...I think I agree with you SG ...where to turn for some sanity?
The standard of people who wish to rule ...the lack of inteligent well thought out ides based on some kind of reality ...leaves me a little worried for the future.
I can never vote again ...I might change my mind but it's going to take something I aint yet identified to persuede nme.
What a shower of creeps and arseholes who put themselves forward aye.

Former Member

It takes a special type of person to become an MP. Qualities such as being able to lie without blinking, and spending money that isn't your own without hesitation are essential. I feel guilty for putting in a large mileage claim, even if I've done the mileage, so it counts me out.

Former Member

You don't get sacked for giving them advice they don't want to hear, you get the sack for publicly criticising the decision.

Now, had the government said they were making the changes based on scientific advice, then going public would have been the right thing to do, but that wasn't the case.

Personally, while I feel the scientific advice given was correct, and while I feel the categorisation should reflect the advice, I agree with the action taken. Until the general public understand that alcohol and tobacco are really quite dangerous, saying cannabis and LSD are safer gives them quite a wrong message.


Summary:
Elected official makes a decision based on weighing the scientific advise, public opinion, and his judgment on the "message" sent by making changes.

Unelected scientist has a tantrum because he didn't get his way, and goes crying to the newspapers.

Minister sacks unreliable, indiscreet advisor.

Former Member

Big Gay wrote: »

You don't get sacked for giving them advice they don't want to hear, you get the sack for publicly criticising the decision.

Now, had the government said they were making the changes based on scientific advice, then going public would have been the right thing to do, but that wasn't the case.

Personally, while I feel the scientific advice given was correct, and while I feel the categorisation should reflect the advice, I agree with the action taken. Until the general public understand that alcohol and tobacco are really quite dangerous, saying cannabis and LSD are safer gives them quite a wrong message.


Summary:
Elected official makes a decision based on weighing the scientific advise, public opinion, and his judgment on the "message" sent by making changes.

Unelected scientist has a tantrum because he didn't get his way, and goes crying to the newspapers.

Minister sacks unreliable, indiscreet advisor.

er i believe the government came into power all that time ago saying they'd use research, when in fact they just ignored good research on harm

they reclassified as B cause of harm, when the research indicates it isn't as harmful as alcohol

Former Member

you've just proved my point.

Former Member

Well, my understanding is that Professor David Nutt took exception to Gordon Brown publicly stating that using cannabis was 'lethal' and this gross misinformation for the sake of political agenda could only be challenged in the open arena. If Nutt had spoken to Brown on the quiet regarding this inaccuracy, do you suppose Brown would have publicly reversed his statement? Yeah, right. Way to go, Nutt!

Former Member

... no doubt to be replaced by someone more quiet and amenable to the govenment's ridiculous attitude to drugs policy.

Former Member

Two more have resigned, and it's thought that this time next week, there'll be no drugs advisory panel because almost every scientist on it will have fucked off. The argument of the government is that if the advisory panel gives some advice, and the government fails to take that advice, then no member of the advisory panel should be allowed to come out and say that their advice wasn't taken, which is typical of their attitude to freedom of speech, I guess.

Former Member

Sod all of this!

Former Member

I know, what a load of crap this is?! Clearly not considering solid evidence from experts just to get votes. Not suprisinging or new, but pretty lame.

Former Member

Big Gay wrote: »

Summary:
Elected official makes a decision based on weighing the scientific advise, public opinion, and his judgment on the "message" sent by making changes.

Unelected scientist has a tantrum because he didn't get his way, and goes crying to the newspapers.

Minister sacks unreliable, indiscreet advisor.

My own, perhaps inaccurate interpretation (afterall it just depends what newspaper you read doesn't it?) was that he was a professor and expert in his field anyway, and comes in for free as an expert to give the government advice. He was away from duties, giving a lecture in cambridge on the risks of different drugs (as you would expect a professor involved in that area to do so!) and made the mistake of just giving his scientific perspective. That cannabis is actually safer than alcohol and nicotine, and the main reason it is classed higher is because of political reasons.

Next day, he gets sacked. That's really appalling in my eyes. Of course these experts are going to be doing their own things. It wasn't a directed dig or lecture specifically to rail against the government, but to inform other academics about the realities of drugs.

It would be like an MD saying for example (this is just an example, i dont know actual deathrates etc.), more people are killed each year by car accidents than by leukemia, but it is much more politically 'sound' to spend money looking after sick kids than pressuring car makers and such to make their cars safe. That's a pretty crappy example to be honest, but the principle, that an expert saying what the -scientific reality-, to a group of academics and other relevant parties etc. shouldn't be grounds for the government to sack them as an independent advisor.

Otherwise we have the situation where experts aren't experts but instead just add legitimacy to any government claim by saying lots of scientific stuff that vaguely supports it. And have letters after their name.