Nutt's Sacking

[Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard]

You can advise whatever you like. He got fired because, after ignoring his proposals, he went on to make public statements attacking the drug policy for not accepting his proposals.

Basically, he could have kept offering his advice, so long as he kept it coming through the official channels, rather than going to the press in an aggressive manner. It's not exactly surprising that the guy got canned put in that light, is it?

He's a publicly-funded scientist, an academic making his research findings public. Being a government advisor does not preclude this. He is an expert here; if he thinks the official policy is wrong, damn right I want to hear it. OK, so there is an argument that it might have been better were he not director of the ACMD and voiced his academic opinion from the outside. But ultimately I think this makes no difference, other than in that case the Home Office would've been unable to get him out of the way. It doesn't alter the fact that there's a good chance the drug policy is not supported by evidence.

No, it's not surprising he got "canned", but that is more of a statement about this government than it is about what Prof. Nutt did. As Profs. Boden and Epstein put it:

the sacking of Professor David Nutt ably demonstrate that only policy-based evidence is acceptable.

[Scribbly]

Bullshit.

I know who Nutt is. He's the same idiot who claimed that using ecstasy is no more dangerous than horse riding.

There is no story here. Professor Nutt believes that drug use should not be punished as harshly as it is. He advises to that effect. He is ignored. Rather than continue to advise, he makes inflammatory, and frankly -stupid- comments to the press, so he loses his position as a government advisor.

Nobody is taking away his research, as government advisor's are not paid, they just... offer advice in their areas of expertise. The government doesn't want to continue to take advice from someone who criticises them openly and damagingly in public because they don't bow to his advice over the advice of OTHER experts, not to mention the political implications of doing so.

Frankly, I'm surprised he wasn't dropped after the first time this happened. I'm not sure what he expected when he did it the second time, but I'm tired of hearing about it as though it is somehow shocking that this is what happened.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My father used to work for the Canadian government.  He said there was only one (1) rule in Canadian and British civil service:

Never embarrass the minister.

[Scribbly]

Basically.

It's a tradeoff. Being a government advisor means that you are heard directly by the man who makes the decision, which means you are much closer to the heart of power.

But with that, comes the expectation that you are discrete, and keep your mouth shut in public.

Professor Nutt isn't a stupid man, though. He certainly knew what the result of this action would be. The fact that the rest of the council is backing him is probably an indication that the government is incredibly weak at this moment, and is losing support across the board. I suspect that the drug council are causing a deliberate schism, to further damage number 10 in the runup to the election.

[Cain]

Names?

Vince Cable, Lynne Featherstone, Jon Cruddas, Nadine Dorries (comedy inclusion), Kenneth Clarke, Diane Abbott, Lembit Opik (comedy inclusion), George Galloway (belligerent comedy inclusion), Norman Baker and....actually, that's all that currently come to mind.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Names?

Vince Cable, Lynne Featherstone, Jon Cruddas, Nadine Dorries (comedy inclusion), Kenneth Clarke, Diane Abbott, Lembit Opik (comedy inclusion), George Galloway (belligerent comedy inclusion), Norman Baker and....actually, that's all that currently come to mind.

Galloway...I know that name from somewhere...

[Cain]

He was Saddam's pal, who Congress attempted to interrogate and got humiliated in the process.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He was Saddam's pal, who Congress attempted to interrogate and got humiliated in the process.

Wait.

How can the American congress interrogate a British subject for actions not taken in America?

Oh, wait.  I don't know what I was thinking.

[Cain]

I think the precise accusation was that he bypassed the Oil-for-Food program and profited from illegal Iraqi oil sales, and since the UN had instituted the program at US insistence, they had the right to question him.  Or something.  I remember mostly at the time thinking a fight between Galloway and the Republicans was a win for everyone else, no matter who came out on top.

[Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard]

He was Saddam's pal, who Congress attempted to interrogate and got humiliated in the process.

Wait.

How can the American congress interrogate a British subject for actions not taken in America?

(I don't remember any extradition or major acts of compulsion involved in that particular case. I think he pretty much rolled up under his own steam looking for the fight.)

Cain, I notice you didn't include Ann Widdecombe for comedy value. :pouts:

[P3nT4gR4m]

George Galloway will fucking anybody

[Cain]

Cain, I notice you didn't include Ann Widdecombe for comedy value. :pouts:

I think Nadine Dorries is the new Ann Widdecombe, pretty much.  Plus the blogosphere lurves her (ie; trolled her blog so badly, she turned off all comments for forever).

[P3nT4gR4m]

Problem with Nadine Dorries is she doesn't have quite the same "last a bit longer" face, the imagining of which lets my GF get there before me

[Cain]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to do that.

On the other hand, if you read her blog, you'd know about the hideous abortion pictures she puts up, to convince us that fetuses are real people, and that could probably do the same job (unless you like that sort of thing, of course, but the same, in theory, applies to Ann Widdecombe).

[Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard]

In a way there's something cute about her, in a dark, paternalistic way. Her name often pops up in the BadScience forum.

From http://blog.dorries.org/id-1521-2009_11_A_ride_in_the_park.aspx :

Professor Nutt may appear to play the wounded scientist, the man of knowledge who has reached the edge of reason, but is he really just a closet Liberal Democrat?

That's just fucking low.

Regardless of the statistics, politicians have to make the much bigger decision regarding drug classification and policy. If they get it wrong, the voters can go to the polls and vote us out. That's the reason why advisers advise and ministers decide: it's called democracy.

D-E-M-O-K... how do you spell that? Mia retardo

Professor Nutt appears to have a well managed agenda. He's playing the news cycle like a fiddle; he knows exactly what he is doing.

I am sure today, unless he has exhausted his resources, he will provide us with a fresh news lift and there will be more to hear and read about the resignation of the nutty professor.

He has done the role of the advisor no end of harm in his pursuit to push his own questionable agenda, which could never have been in the long term interest of young people or the society within which we live.