So a scientist employed by the government to advise on drugs policy has been sacked and his colleagues are resigning in support of him. A bit like a professional strike I suppose.
I think it was wrong to sack him for expressing an opinion, surely that is what he was paid to do. I think his colleagues are right to withdraw their labour in support of him. What does everybody else think?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Drugs Advisers Resigning
last reply
20 replies
1.6k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Your account shall be terminated immediately and we may report you to the relevant authority if your behaviour on our website consists of any of the following:
Anything illegal and contrary to the laws of England and Wales, including (but not limited to!) the promotion, suggestion or allusion to , or any non consensual acts, hard drugs or any other kind of illegal activity.
Kenty, on a previous thread the advice from a Mod was that general discussion of drug-related issues in the media is ok, specific discussion of personal drug-taking is not. The relevant part is I think the 'illegal' bit.
HTH? ;)
Ben, the sacking of Alan Nutt would seem to indicate that the governments drug policy is based not so much on the best scientific evidence about the relative harmfulness or otherwise of certain drugs, but is based purely on public perceptions, and they were bloody pissed off at him for highlighting that. The regrading of cannabis against the advice of the Advisory Council for example looks like it's all about being seen to be tough on crime and the causes of crime yadda yadda ya, and isn't in any way evidence based. Alan Nutt had to go mainly because his speech was a fairly obvious, albeit indirect criticism of the governments populist approach to drug legislation in the face of the facts, and as his employer, they couldn't very well allow that, could they? ;)
N x x x ;)
Your such a sceptic Powers...tut tut.
Actually being really honest, no it had nothing to do with who started the thread.
I have seen threads locked in the past for discussing a drug issue, allbeit a few years ago now.
Maybe SH have relaxed things a bit and allowed adults to debate adult subjects.
Lets hope so eh?
Actually being really honest, no it had nothing to do with who started the thread.
I have seen threads locked in the past for discussing a drug issue, allbeit a few years ago now.
Maybe SH have relaxed things a bit and allowed adults to debate adult subjects.
Lets hope so eh?
Sex God
I'm going with what Know-it-all-in-Leeds says too re AUP. ;)
The discussion is around the sacking of a scientist and subsequent resignation of his colleagues, who just happen to work in a government think-tank. It's comments like the above, which have no relevance to the discussion that will get the thread locked though.
As for his sacking being wrong, lots of companies have clauses about disclosure and bring the organisation into disrepute. I think it's when he took his own personal opinion and had it placed into the public domain that he went too far.
This is not the first time he has made controversial statements that have 'bucked' the governments official line and I'm sure he has been 'advised' of such prior to his dismissal.
I can understand that he feels frustrated by government policy, the council he belongs to have made numerous recommendations regarding drugs policy, yet the government continues to make judgments based on political influences. Imagine that. :doh:
However I agree with the government when they state that he has crossed the line between making recommendations and becoming a campaigner and that this has made his position unattainable.
The discussion is around the sacking of a scientist and subsequent resignation of his colleagues, who just happen to work in a government think-tank. It's comments like the above, which have no relevance to the discussion that will get the thread locked though.
As for his sacking being wrong, lots of companies have clauses about disclosure and bring the organisation into disrepute. I think it's when he took his own personal opinion and had it placed into the public domain that he went too far.
This is not the first time he has made controversial statements that have 'bucked' the governments official line and I'm sure he has been 'advised' of such prior to his dismissal.
I can understand that he feels frustrated by government policy, the council he belongs to have made numerous recommendations regarding drugs policy, yet the government continues to make judgments based on political influences. Imagine that. :doh:
However I agree with the government when they state that he has crossed the line between making recommendations and becoming a campaigner and that this has made his position unattainable. Sex God
Quote by GnV
At least this scientist got to walk away, as the last one who disagreed with Government policy was found dead in mysterious circumstances :shock:
There's still time....... :shock:
Sex God
Politicians need to bring asdvisors in to give them information. It is the advisor's job to provide the best advice they can, based on scientifically accepted data and analysis. It is the politician's job to a) take the advice as provided or b) not take it and give a damned good reason why not - based on their own scientifically accepted data and analysis. Obviously they won't have any - but that's not the point.
This wasn't a personal opinion on what colour curtains they should use in No 10. It was a considered and well (secientifically) supported assessment of the relative harm-effect of the various recreational substances avaiable to the population.
At no point did he say cannabis is harmless. And the harm rererred to is not just personal, mental or physical, harm. It includes family and social effects as well.
The government (I will not give them the courtesy of captial letters any more) have got rid of someone who they should respect and listen to and whose 'advice' is worth a thousand times the full replacement cost of the whole sorry lot of them. And they were STUPID enough to not even bother pretending it was for anything other than not toeing the party line.
This wasn't a personal opinion on what colour curtains they should use in No 10. It was a considered and well (secientifically) supported assessment of the relative harm-effect of the various recreational substances avaiable to the population.
At no point did he say cannabis is harmless. And the harm rererred to is not just personal, mental or physical, harm. It includes family and social effects as well.
The government (I will not give them the courtesy of captial letters any more) have got rid of someone who they should respect and listen to and whose 'advice' is worth a thousand times the full replacement cost of the whole sorry lot of them. And they were STUPID enough to not even bother pretending it was for anything other than not toeing the party line.
Sex God
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I think it was wrong to sack him for expressing an opinion, surely that is what he was paid to do. I think his colleagues are right to withdraw their labour in support of him. What does everybody else think?
Interesting topic Ben :thumbup:
Cant help remembering the pldge made by the government why they took up power in 1997, stating that all future policy making would be evidence based, with input from expert domains and decisions made around the evidence available to support it. It seems they forgot to add that they will only do this when it suits their needs
Sex God
It just seems to me to be yet another example of the present incumbents unerring ability to look and behave like total idiots....he was right to highlight the glaring inconsistency in government policy on drugs (legal and illegal) and his compatriots were right to react in the way they have to his shoddy treatment
The whole point here is.....is he right or not?
If what he states is accurate,for which I believe it is, hence why the Government have taken the steps they have.
What is the point of employing someone to do a study, then sack them because it does not meet with your own agendas?
I think what they have done stinks and reminds me of the MMR fiasco that Blair started.
The way they sacked him makes you wonder how right he actually is. Or what are the Government so afraid of?
If what he states is accurate,for which I believe it is, hence why the Government have taken the steps they have.
What is the point of employing someone to do a study, then sack them because it does not meet with your own agendas?
I think what they have done stinks and reminds me of the MMR fiasco that Blair started.
The way they sacked him makes you wonder how right he actually is. Or what are the Government so afraid of?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
The whole point here is.....is he right or not?
If what he states is accurate,for which I believe it is, hence why the Government have taken the steps they have.
What is the point of employing someone to do a study, then sack them because it does not meet with your own agendas?
I think what they have done stinks and reminds me of the MMR fiasco that Blair started.
The way they sacked him makes you wonder how right he actually is. Or what are the Government so afraid of?
Whilst not entirely disagreeing with your point I think you'll find the MMR fiasco was the work of certain sections of the press and a whole bunch of idiot parents......much as I dislike Mr Blair and what he did to what was once MY party there are some things he cannot be held responsible for
Staggers not meaning to labour a point ( no pun intended )...
Now Blair made the situation much worse by not answering the most vital of questions...." did you get your son vaccinated "?
He never answered that question which led many parents to presume he did not, hence why so many parents failed to give their child the jabs.
As he stated in that artical something about not taking a Governments advice?
He could have very easily averted peoples fears but chose not too.
But in this case highlighted in this thread, the Government have hidden agendas, and this professors findings are going to be completely ignored. I know who I would believe...a Government minister, or a leading professor?
I would not trust a minister to even put in an honest claims form.
Now Blair made the situation much worse by not answering the most vital of questions...." did you get your son vaccinated "?
He never answered that question which led many parents to presume he did not, hence why so many parents failed to give their child the jabs.
As he stated in that artical something about not taking a Governments advice?
He could have very easily averted peoples fears but chose not too.
But in this case highlighted in this thread, the Government have hidden agendas, and this professors findings are going to be completely ignored. I know who I would believe...a Government minister, or a leading professor?
I would not trust a minister to even put in an honest claims form.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
MMR fiasco that Blair started.
Now Blair made the situation much worse
Apologies for the clumsy editing
Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
snip..
Cant help remembering the pldge made by the government why they took up power in 1997, stating that all future policy making would be evidence based, with input from expert domains and decisions made around the evidence available to support it. It seems they forgot to add that they will only do this when it suits their needs
It was to be a
Now, it's just a nanny state
Quote by kentswingers777
The whole point here is.....is he right or not?
If what he states is accurate,for which I believe it is, hence why the Government have taken the steps they have.
What is the point of employing someone to do a study, then sack them because it does not meet with your own agendas?
I think what they have done stinks and reminds me of the MMR fiasco that Blair started.
The way they sacked him makes you wonder how right he actually is. Or what are the Government so afraid of?
You going to enlighten us as to how Blair started the MMR fiasco? The story had been running for years before Blair refused to answer a question.
If the persons opinion on the policy is dictated by the fact he/she has ever taken drugs?
The fact remains drugs including cannabis all have a hand in mental health issues, if you disagree with the Govt policy on the subject , how can you possibly go to work each day and take the money? as for striking , well there lies another question.
Do you agree with striking because of your political views against that of the thread?.
All drugs should be banned, full stop.
Striking should be banned, full stop.
There is better ways of resolving issues than walking out and leaving the people you are there to support in the lurch.
The fact remains drugs including cannabis all have a hand in mental health issues, if you disagree with the Govt policy on the subject , how can you possibly go to work each day and take the money? as for striking , well there lies another question.
Do you agree with striking because of your political views against that of the thread?.
All drugs should be banned, full stop.
Striking should be banned, full stop.
There is better ways of resolving issues than walking out and leaving the people you are there to support in the lurch.
Sex God
Quote by Ben_welshminx
So a scientist employed by the government to advise on drugs policy has been sacked and his colleagues are resigning in support of him. A bit like a professional strike I suppose.
I think it was wrong to sack him for expressing an opinion, surely that is what he was paid to do. I think his colleagues are right to withdraw their labour in support of him. What does everybody else think?
I think this just proves the current Governments arrogance, It is my way or the high way!
