The Home Secretary Alan Johnson is considering sacking his top expert drugs advisor following criticism of the government's decision to reclassify cannabis.
Professor David Nutt, who chairs the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, yesterday accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence by their decision to move the drug back up to Class B from C last year (see my previous post, Scientists v Politicians: Round 3).
An e-mail sent to the BBC by an official in the Home Office this morning says that "yesterday's coverage may have some serious repercussions for Prof Nutt and his position as chair of the ACMD".
The note goes on to say "discussions are being had (at) a very high level regarding this issue and a decision will be taken early next week."
Professor Nutt knew nothing about the moves to dismiss him when I spoke to him earlier today, but seemed resigned to the possibility. "They are bound to be considering that," he told me, "thinking about the least worst option."
John Watson wrote: > An e-mail sent to the BBC by an official in the Home Office this morning > says that "yesterday's coverage may have some serious repercussions for > Prof Nutt and his position as chair of the ACMD".
> The note goes on to say "discussions are being had (at) a very high level > regarding this issue and a decision will be taken early next week."
Firing expert advisors who tell you things you don't want to hear is a tactic worthy of the George W Bush administration.
Heaven forbid anyone should instead recall why it was that they sought out the opinion of the expert in the first place, and take what he has to say to heart.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Brother Nate
<bron...@gmail.com> wrote: >John Watson wrote: >> An e-mail sent to the BBC by an official in the Home Office this morning >> says that "yesterday's coverage may have some serious repercussions for >> Prof Nutt and his position as chair of the ACMD".
>> The note goes on to say "discussions are being had (at) a very high level >> regarding this issue and a decision will be taken early next week."
>Firing expert advisors who tell you things you don't want to >hear is a tactic worthy of the George W Bush administration.
Shooting them is a tactict worthy of Stalin but this lot haven't reached that stage yet.
>Heaven forbid anyone should instead recall why it was that >they sought out the opinion of the expert in the first place, >and take what he has to say to heart.
In message <rheme5ln3cn6dtle42ok82j9hv83i06...@4ax.com>, AlanG <inva...@invalid.net> writes
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Brother Nate ><bron...@gmail.com> wrote: >>John Watson wrote: >>> An e-mail sent to the BBC by an official in the Home Office this morning >>> says that "yesterday's coverage may have some serious repercussions for >>> Prof Nutt and his position as chair of the ACMD".
>>Firing expert advisors who tell you things you don't want to >>hear is a tactic worthy of the George W Bush administration.
>Shooting them is a tactict worthy of Stalin but this lot haven't >reached that stage yet.
> John Watson wrote: > > An e-mail sent to the BBC by an official in the Home Office this morning > > says that "yesterday's coverage may have some serious repercussions for > > Prof Nutt and his position as chair of the ACMD".
> > The note goes on to say "discussions are being had (at) a very high level > > regarding this issue and a decision will be taken early next week."
> Firing expert advisors who tell you things you don't want to > hear is a tactic worthy of the George W Bush administration.
> Heaven forbid anyone should instead recall why it was that > they sought out the opinion of the expert in the first place, > and take what he has to say to heart.
> -- > Brother Nate > bron...@gmail.com > Moral Compass
Lay off George Bush. People who have to make tough decisions seek opposing viewpoints. That last tough decision you had to make was filling your huge gut up at Burger King or Dairy Queen.
<f...@norman-wells.co.uk> wrote: >In message <rheme5ln3cn6dtle42ok82j9hv83i06...@4ax.com>, AlanG ><inva...@invalid.net> writes >>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Brother Nate >><bron...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>John Watson wrote: >>>> An e-mail sent to the BBC by an official in the Home Office this morning >>>> says that "yesterday's coverage may have some serious repercussions for >>>> Prof Nutt and his position as chair of the ACMD".
>>>Firing expert advisors who tell you things you don't want to >>>hear is a tactic worthy of the George W Bush administration.
>>Shooting them is a tactict worthy of Stalin but this lot haven't >>reached that stage yet.
>Have you really forgotten about David Kelly?
A conspiracy theory that has never been proved and is unlikely to be true anyway.
That is not to say it couldn't happen in future if this lot remain in power :(
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:15:48 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>AlanG <inva...@invalid.net> posted >>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:29:27 +0000, "Paul C. Dickie" >><f...@norman-wells.co.uk> wrote: >>>Have you really forgotten about David Kelly?
>>A conspiracy theory that has never been proved
>Of course it hasn't been proved. How could it possibly be proved?
I posted the answer to that but you snipped it
>>and is unlikely to be >>true anyway.
>Why?
The UK government does not have a record of assassination unlike the Russian or US or Bulgarian or French governments.
|
