Nutt sack

[ludwig]

What do people think of this - was the government right to sack him?
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../politics/8337185.stm

[ChuckFickens]

Great Question title :)

[brionon]

I'm Pretty sure it was An Expert and Not a politician who told us that Marijuana causes mental problems. But,we know that Experts change there minds about 5 times a week. So YES.

[LoftyLottie]

Some discussion going on in Body and Sole Ludwig.

[LoftyLottie]

http://www.theanswerb...l/Question824748.html

Forgot the link, sorry.

[ludwig]

Don't know what you mean Chuck.
Personally I'm not sure - on the one hand what's the point appointing an expert advisor if you're just going to sack him when the advice he gives contradicts a policy you've already decided on?
On the other, is he just a disgruntled employee who's trying to embarrass the government by 'campaigning against their policy' because they annoyed him by ignoring his advice?

[ludwig]

..thanks lottie, didn't know that.

[LoftyLottie]

Well actually News is a better category for this Ludwig.

[LoftyLottie]

It was advice based on a team which Nutt headed, not just the research and thoughts of one person. His team are behind him and two have already resigned. So, I believe the Government have shown their true colours and have proved that they have no intention of taken any advice that conflicts with their plans. They just want to be seen to be doing what they promised, ie. employing outside advisors.

[youngmafbog]

Do you expect any different from these control freaks 'running' the country. It should be opened up for debate but problem is many of these experts, just like the ones banging on about Global Warning, know if they buck the trend research money will run out

[jake-the-peg]

Drug policy is made not just on data but on "moral" grounds too.

People think they are *better* - more upstanding than drug abusers - they justify that by the harm drugs do.

But If I were to suggest that I was better than may of you because I don't drink Alcohol I'd be quickly termed a pompous prig!

Nutt was effectively attacking these prejudices - Politicians know that you don't win votes by contradicting people's prejudices - even if you're right.

So we have a conflict of fact and politics.

Nutt made the mistake of talking to the media behind the back of his "employers" - that will always get you in trouble - it would probably get me sacked - I'd guess it would get a lot of you sacked too.

Incidently I'm willing to bet Cameron will be the "invisible man" on this one.

He has the choice of supporting the Government's attempts to silence a critic - or appearing soft on drugs.

[123everton]

An adviser is answerable to the government, the government is answerable to the people.
So yes they were right to sack him.
Unless you want to be governed by committee?
You could give it a name that is suited to hand picked proffessionals employed to tell you what they know to be right, we could call it the Polit Bureau.
See where that gets us.
Did I spell it right?

[LoftyLottie]

Why was it necessary to sack him? OK he leaked information but should this lead to his sacking and disregard for the report? Would he have been sacked if his report had supported the government's proposals?

[LoftyLottie]

They didn't have to accept the report surely?

[jake-the-peg]

His report will be disregarded because it didn't say what most people (inside and outside of westminster) wanted it to say.

He way sacked, basically for going to the media.

Imagine you did this and went and briefed reporters on a report your company had asked you to compile.

Would you expect to keep your job?

[Sqad]

I have stated my opinion on Body and Soul, but I cannot let some of your comments go unanswered.

brionin.......I have already answered that point on Body and Soul......nonsense.

Ludwig...he was sacked for "going public"...that means publishing his work and findings in a Journal of Neuro pharmacology that nobody but the boffins would read. He also lectured about his work to the Psychiatrists BEFORE he was sacked. After being sacked he then explained his work to the media.

Do you really want research and conclusions suppressed?

jake.....Cameron IS supporting the Government.....only the Lib Dems are talking sense.

I am appalled.....read my comments under "Apalled" in Body and Soul.

[LoftyLottie]

OK Jake point taken However, what I am saying is would he have kept his job if they agreed with his report. Peronally, I think he would have done. A telling off perhaps but he would have kept his job.

[sherminator]

Jake also EVEn if I agree that he shouldnt speak out against his employer what about the fact that the govenment have paid him to do work and as soon as they didnt agree with his fact based assesment they dont listen to what he has to say!?

[jake-the-peg]

Sqad - Cameron has no choice

He supported the move of Cannabis to C from B and the provision of Heroin and safe injection rooms for addicts.

Then he said that was a mistake.

He can't U turn a second time even if he wanted to

The best he's managed is to say the sacking was "Unseemly" - what is that? an etiquette quibble?

He can't even be clear on whether he accepts Nutts conclusions - he's said the riding comment "Wasn't the best way of putting things"

How weak is that?

[Sqad]

jake....I am not making a Political point.....Brown versus Cameron.....give it a rest eh? The "weakness" as you call it is Political whichever party you support.

Sherminater...........the Advisary Committee are UNPAID......I bet not even expenses ;-)

[sherminator]

Paid or not the point remains they give him a job to do he does it they dont like the answer and now make policies based on what? Is there any way to find out what they have based it on?