We don't like what you say... - YOUR'E SACKED! >:(

[EvilDarkMagicians]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8336635.stm

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

Prof Nutt criticised the reclassification of cannabis
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".

Read Mark's thoughts in full and the correspondence between Alan Johnson and Prof Nutt
And he denied that he had been trying to undermine the government's policies on drugs.
"I am disappointed because, to be honest, all I was trying to do was help. I wasn't challenging the government," said the former adviser.
"We can help them. We can give them very good advice, and it would be much more simpler if they took that advice rather than getting tangled up in other sorts of messages which frankly really do confuse the public."

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

i saw that the other day too. a bit odd bringing in experts if you don't like what they say. although i can sort of see why they sacked him i think it could have gone differently if they just talked to him.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

i saw that the other day too. a bit odd bringing in experts if you don't like what they say. although i can sort of see why they sacked him i think it could have gone differently if they just talked to him.

There reasons for sacking him (apparently) was because they didn't like how he was going about saying it. Not what he was saying. I call bullshit.

[SaintB]

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

They do, they just want to follow the advice of the expert who agrees with them.

[The Black Forrest]

\

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

Wait? Politicians sack people for not following the party line?

[Kobrania]

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

They do, they just want to follow the advice of the expert who agrees with them.

Which are none, or have phony degrees.

Cannabis has been proven to be only as harmful as tobacco.

Skunk is a different breed and vastly more powerful, which I think should be a higher class.

[New Chalcedon]

I seem to recall (from Kavjalit Singh's book Questioning Globalisation, if I recall correctly) that the politicisation of advice was started in the UK in the 1980s, under Thatcher. The cause for this, as given by Singh, was that Thatcher ceased the practice of commissioning impartial, apolitical White Papers, instead going ot think-tanks for advice, which came out in what were nicknamed "Gray Papers".

Whilst think-tanks do an excellent job in many ways, and provide valuable competition (partly for each other's views), using favoured think-tanks' political views as basis for policy undermines the concept of neutral policy advice. Another factor was probably the politicisation of the civil service in general, most notably by the Blair Government's stacking of advisory boards with firendly figures to produce...predictable results.

So: neither big party is innocent of this - partisan/ideological blame-games can be left at the door, please. I think that the following can be agreed:

1. The policy implementation and advisory functions of the civil service (around the world, not just in the UK) are being politicised in order to suit hte government of the day;

2. This is a *bad* thing.

Which leads to an entirely different question: What can be done to stop it?

[GetBert]

So much for the New Labour promise that they would pursue evidence based policy. But instead we get Gordon Brown's Church of Scotland moralising.

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

Labour prove themselves idiots once again?

*Cue huge public shock*

[Buffett and Colbert]

What are these classes?

[GetBert]

What are these classes?

We have to go to special classes at school where we take....


...actually originally they were a guide for judges on sentencing, so offences involving class A drugs got longer sentences than those involving class B drugs. Their use has come to be conflated with how harm they do etc..

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Labour prove themselves idiots once again?

*Cue huge public shock*

I already lost faith in the Labour party in the wake of the expenses scandal. But tobacco is also just as bad to health in my opinion and I am therefore just wondering for curiosity, why not make Tobacco Class C? Or introduce a new category (D) which describes it as "potentially harmful, but not illegal"?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

They do, they just want to follow the advice of the expert who agrees with them.

Which are none, or have phony degrees.

Cannabis has been proven to be only as harmful as tobacco.

Skunk is a different breed and vastly more powerful, which I think should be a higher class.

Why haven't we banned tobacco, or legalise cannabis?

[Kobrania]

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

They do, they just want to follow the advice of the expert who agrees with them.

Which are none, or have phony degrees.

Cannabis has been proven to be only as harmful as tobacco.

Skunk is a different breed and vastly more powerful, which I think should be a higher class.

Why haven't we banned tobacco, or legalise cannabis?

Taxation.
Cannabis is to easily grown to be taxed.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Labour prove themselves idiots once again?

*Cue huge public shock*

I already lost faith in the Labour party in the wake of the expenses scandal. But tobacco is also just as bad to health in my opinion and I am therefore just wondering for curiosity, why not make Tobacco Class C? Or introduce a new category (D) which describes it as "potentially harmful, but not illegal"?

You really don't think the other parties wouldn't of done the same thing in their position...?
The conservatives probably did...

[Greed and Death]

i saw that the other day too. a bit odd bringing in experts if you don't like what they say. although i can sort of see why they sacked him i think it could have gone differently if they just talked to him.

Look he is an adviser.
He gives advice, the advised has the option to follow or not follow the advice.
Basically as I read this he gave advice that was not followed, then proceeded to complain about in the media.
Due he is going to get fired.

[Angleter]

i saw that the other day too. a bit odd bringing in experts if you don't like what they say. although i can sort of see why they sacked him i think it could have gone differently if they just talked to him.

Oh, they do that a lot. They made Frank Field Minister for Welfare Reform and told him to think the unthinkable. He did, and they sacked him.

My drugs policy is that the following should be illegal on the same level (14 years, unlimited fine):

-GHB
-Heroin
-Cocaine and Crack (but not coca)
-Amphetamines

And anything else that commonly causes overdoses (but not alcohol) or can be used as a date-rape drug. Any of these drugs that are smoked should be illegal to take in public places (but not tobacco) and being intoxicated with any of these drugs in the streets would be illegal (like drunk and disorderly). Drug-driving would be equally illegal as drink-driving.

[Conserative Morality]

Ah, Britain, when will you cease to amuse me?

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

Ah, Britain, when will you cease to amuse me?

Probably never, let's face it.

[Yootopia]

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

Because changing the level of illegality of cannabis 3 times in about 5 years would be a bit much.

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

Labour prove themselves idiots once again?

*Cue huge public shock*

I already lost faith in the Labour party in the wake of the expenses scandal. But tobacco is also just as bad to health in my opinion and I am therefore just wondering for curiosity, why not make Tobacco Class C? Or introduce a new category (D) which describes it as "potentially harmful, but not illegal"?

A better system would be to make drugs legal, and forget the classes system totally. They can be taxed, regulated and quality controlled, the gateway effect of drugs such as marijuana could be minimised and people would be able to control their own bodies rather than just being told what to do by our nanny government.

[FreeSatania]

It seems the UK government is heading for another cock up. Why don't they want to follow the experts advice?

They do, they just want to follow the advice of the expert who agrees with them.

Which are none, or have phony degrees.

Cannabis has been proven to be only as harmful as tobacco.

Skunk is a different breed and vastly more powerful, which I think should be a higher class.

Why haven't we banned tobacco, or legalise cannabis?

Taxation.
Cannabis is to easily grown to be taxed.

Actually tobacco isn't all that hard to grow either. http://www.howtogrowtobacco.com/

[DrunkenDove]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 63579.html

the home secretary was supported by prime minister Gordon Brown, whose spokesman said ministers must take scientific advice into account, but they were not bound to follow it.

An extremely interesting attitude to have, essentially saying "we know we have no factual basis to keep doing this, but we're going to keep in doing it anyway, because we've always done it. Brown would make a good Creationist.