Don't like the truth? Then shoot the messenger.
It's the British way.
It's the British way.
-
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Johnson's a right arsehole, I think. He's being defending the right of the coppers (or rather, the chief coppers' union, for fuck's sake) to keep tabs on who they like, even people who are not even suspected of breaking the law. -
La la la. We can't hear you!
It's the dishonesty that sucks here. I mean, it'd be kind of legitimate, if depressing, for the Gov't to say "look, you're just the scientists, it's your job to give us expert advice on scientific aspects of the drugs problem, in confidence, and for us to make policy, in which your advice will be just one of a number of factors, other factors including public opinion. You've gone beyond your role here and broken the rules by lobbying in public for change of policy."
But the Government (Johnson leading) didn't say that at all of course. Instead, they just lied and put out a letter with insulting dishonest spin about "losing confidence" in the guy.
Dishonest cunts.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
David Nutt works at Bristol University and as a consultant on some stuff in the NHS Trust I work in. A guy I used to work went to school with his son, and remembers what a big fuss it caused when he made those comments about ecstasy being no more dangerous than horse riding. I find it difficult to believe things like that when they're reported just like that.
But this is a bit off, all the same. I had to be a linesman once, for a university inter-department football match. I did the best I could (I've had infinitely more respect for linesmen ever since) and didn't knowingly give a single offside decision my team's way that shouldn't have gone (on a couple of occasions I got shouted at by our goalkeeper for not sticking my flag up when the other team were attacking). At half time, the referee jogged over to me and told me he was calling the offsides himself from his position in the middle of the fucking pitch, and just needed me to indicate who had the throw-ins. This story seems somewhat similar, in a way. Why appoint an adviser if you're going to ignore what they say anyway?
Oh, also:
BBC, for fuck's sake!much more simplerComment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
SamLKelly wrote:
To be fair to refs at that level, that's a pretty typical attitude. Was involved in Sunday football for nearly 20 years so know the drill.But this is a bit off, all the same. I had to be a linesman once, for a university inter-department football match. I did the best I could (I've had infinitely more respect for linesmen ever since) and didn't knowingly give a single offside decision my team's way that shouldn't have gone (on a couple of occasions I got shouted at by our goalkeeper for not sticking my flag up when the other team were attacking). At half time, the referee jogged over to me and told me he was calling the offsides himself from his position in the middle of the fucking pitch, and just needed me to indicate who had the throw-ins. This story seems somewhat similar, in a way. Why appoint an adviser if you're going to ignore what they say anyway?
Going back on topic, Nutt seems to have some eccentric views but that doesn't seem to be a genuine reason to sack him.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
What do you consider to be his 'eccentric views'?Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
If they're right, what he's said about ecstasy & cannabis.
It's just the impression that he's generalising, though realise he could have been misquoted.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Generalising is eccentric?Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
David Nutt on Sky News this morning: the Advisory Council is a dead duck.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
There are bigger things to get angry with Johnson about than this, to be honest, though he is being a twat here too.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
E10 Rifle wrote:
Come on E10R, it's worse than twattishness. He's saying if you serve as a government advisor the government get, in effect, to vet the views you express in public. At best it's Lysenkoism Lite.There are bigger things to get angry with Johnson about than this, to be honest, though he is being a twat here too.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Oh I completely agree, though it didn't viscerally anger me quite as much as what he said about not shedding many tears for protestors caught up in the massively expanded surveillance state he seems happy to preside over.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
He's appearing at a dinner in Harrow in December. I haven't got the £25 for the privilege of meeting him. And telling him what I think of him. Any sponsors?Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Wyatt, that whole "government advisers not to rock the boat in public" is actually not something I find particularly sinister. Maybe it's because I recall my days as a Whitehall civil servant 20 years ago getting to grips with the fact that I was not allowed to join any political party etc. It kind of makes sense as part of the deal of being an adviser, given the obvious scope for embarrassment and farce that arises from "people on the team slagging off the captain". As I said in my post above, it's more the dishonesty that bugs me on this occasion.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
He's not a civil servant, he's an academic. As in "academic freedom". His independence is supposed to be part of the point.
he can't do his job--his real, actual proper job--if he's required to yoke his public stataments to some Government line. That's the opposite of how science works, and no scientist ought to tolerate it. I expect many resignations over this.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
The British model of a professional Civil Service, who had spent their careers building up expertise talking to all the various professionals in a particular field in order to act as the gateway to provide Ministerial advice on policy, and the idea of government-appointed "advisers" instantly leapfrogging that institution and having the direct ear of Ministers instead, never appeared a happy marriage.
The "Sir Humphrey" model had its problems too, but the latter variation was always bound to lead to moments like this.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
I dunno, Wyatt. Yes, he's an academic, but if the government gives him money to advise them, there are certain channels through which they expect to be advised. Reports, regular meetings, etc. Not through the media. By becoming an advisor of this sort, I think he takes on some of the same responsibilities as the civil service has in terms of not briefing against the people who are paying him.
If he wants to resign in a huff because they aren't listening to him, ignoring science, etc. and *then* brief against the government: great, that's completely legit. But speaking to the media and saying "I'm a government advisor, and I think the government is shit" - even if he is entirely correct - is not on.
Edit: on a second reading of the BBC piece Hobbes linked to, I realise it's not entirely clear what he sequence of events was. It *sounds* like the government asked for advice, came up with a position Nutt didn't agree with at which point he slagged them off. In which case my post above stands. But it's not 100% clear that's what happened - if he was not slagging off the government and simply re-stating the results of clinical studies then it would be quite different.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
They don't.I dunno, Wyatt. Yes, he's an academic, but if the government gives him money to advise them...Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
It's a pro bono position? Really?
OK, that's different.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
THERE CAN NEVER BE A PRO BONO POSITION!It's a pro bono position?Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
AG: some pretty good background and context for "independent scientific advisers" in the UK here. I think you can see why people are cross.Comment
-
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Ha! Unable to download. Apparently the authorities in the PRC agree with Alan Johnson as to the paper's subversive content.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
I don't get this. If you take on a role of government adviser you have to be circumspect. And you certainly shouldn't campaign for your preferred outcome. If you feel uncomfortable about it, don't take the job. Making facile comparisons with Horse Riding was a political statement, and extremely naive and open to challenge.
I think the Academic Freedom argument is bollocks. The science might point in one direction, but the decision still needs to be taken by someone accountable to the public without overinfluence from advisors.Comment
-
La la la. We can't hear you!
Of course it does. Who's saying otherwise?
Bullshit: it was quite explicitly aimed to help people compare small but significant risks, which Nutt feels (rightly, I think) that we as a species are bad at.Making facile comparisons with Horse Riding was a political statement, and extremely naive and open to challenge.
He's been badly misunderstood by some, and traduced by others, on this.Comment
Comment