Home

John Rentoul

John Rentoul is chief political commentator for The Independent on Sunday, and visiting fellow at Queen Mary, University of London, where he teaches contemporary history. Previously he was chief leader writer for The Independent. He has written a biography of Tony Blair, whom he admired more at the end of his time in office than he did at the beginning.

You can contact John in the comments area or email him at j.rentoul@independent.co.uk

TotalPolitics - Top Blogs - Media

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Censorship update

Posted by John Rentoul
  • Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 09:58 pm
Further evidence that Britain is now a police state is the sacking of Professor David Nutt as an adviser on drugs policy to the Government. Someone called Les King has now resigned in protest from the advisory panel that Professor Nutt chaired, saying: 

"The Home Secretary denied David Nutt freedom of expression."

Someone alert Henry Porter. Meanwhile, if any member of the underground resistance could let me know, via the usual samizdat channels, what David Nutt's subversive and viciously suppressed opinions are, I'd love to know.

For a sensible view, read Conor Ryan on why "Alan Johnson was right to sack Prof Nutt".

Comments

[info]rma_reborn wrote:
Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 11:20 pm (UTC)
And why, you ask, is Professor Nutt, so angry? Is it because he was hired to give advice - which the government ignored because it was unpopular?

Science isn't there to win votes, science is there to uncover hard facts and present them to the public. I do not care how many votes Alan Johnson thinks he'll loose for being true to the science, he's lost far, far more votes for this thuggish and frankly baseless act. Professor Nutt is right, LSD, ecstasy and cannabis are far, far less harmful than alcohol. Perhaps it is time for an honest debate on them, instead of hysteria and politicking?
Dear J,
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:30 am (UTC)
To find out you need to go to Resistance H.Q in the Shankill. Wear a Celtic top, knock on the nearest shibeen door an use the password "There's an awful lot of coffee in Brazil" the reply is "Cha cha cha".
Well, yes...
[info]zansal wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC)
If you don't like what the messenger is telling you - shoot the messenger...

Find another messenger who will give you the advice you want.

Difference of opinion must be seen as dissent that cannot be tolerated - after all we need highly politicized scientists ready to back government policy at the drop of a hat. Otherwise how can Government policy exist?

Simple really.
Dangerous drug? - Labour response - 24 hour drinking...
[info]zansal wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:17 pm (UTC)
IAS factsheet extract :

Overall probably around 1 in 16 of all hospital admissions are for alcohol-related causes.

Alcohol-related diseases account for 1 in 8 NHS bed days (around 2 million) and 1 in 8 NHS day cases (around 40,000).

Up to 35% of all accident and emergency attendances and ambulance costs are alcohol-related.

Between 12 midnight and 5am, 70% of attendances are alcohol-related.

At peak times in A&E Departments, 40% of all attendees have a raised blood alcohol level 14% are intoxicated 43% are problematic drinkers

Common reasons for alcohol-related attendance at A&E Departments include:

violent assault�road traffic accidents
road traffic accidents
psychiatric emergencies
deliberate self harm

www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/nhs.pdf
Value for money?
[info]zansal wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 03:20 pm (UTC)
It gets even better from AJ...

Not happy with shooting the messenger (Nutt) who said Alcohol was dangerous (costs the NHS an estimated 1.6 billion GBP per year), AJ has ordered an expensive review of the drug advisory council membership and their roles.

AJ is really worried that they do not provide value for money. That's code for "we will root out all dissent until these scientists come to their senses and let everyone know that alcohol and tobacco are not dangerous drugs".

So, what I want to know is : what on earth is AJ taking these days? He's clearly in the grip of some mad smack battle.
[info]paul_hutton_1 wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 11:56 pm (UTC)
I feel you, Conor Ryan and Melanie Philips (amongst others) are wrong to defend Johnson on this. If Nutt breached any rules by publishing his editorial in a peer reviewed journal or by giving his lecture to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies then he should go. Although such rules would be misguided they are the rules and he should bave accepted them if he wished to continue as an advisor.

However - it seems he has not even breached the rules:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/11/david-nutts-controversial-lecture-conformed-to-government-guidelines.html
Advertisement

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Report Comment

To report an offensive comment for review, please send a Personal Message and provide a link to the comment. The moderators will review it and take action if necessary.
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by [info]chasethestars