tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post2884658529916160198..comments2024-01-23T16:53:02.428+00:00Comments on Mark Thompson: Is Chris Grayling Alan Johnson's mini-me?Mark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-14190748771711728142009-11-02T16:42:51.333+00:002009-11-02T16:42:51.333+00:00Welcome to "policy based evidence"!Welcome to "policy based evidence"!Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03591327286533118901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-31390721010773765842009-11-02T14:07:33.349+00:002009-11-02T14:07:33.349+00:00Urgent questions in the house at 3.30...Urgent questions in the house at 3.30...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-21888611636346803842009-11-01T13:23:42.678+00:002009-11-01T13:23:42.678+00:00Great Picture btwGreat Picture btwdazmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14859994295771083457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-44565776509389065282009-11-01T12:05:23.978+00:002009-11-01T12:05:23.978+00:00Alan Johnson's "justification" for s...Alan Johnson's "justification" for sacking David Nutt in the letter he sent him is both hilarious and sinister: "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy." Damn that inconvenient scientific advice for not being a team player ...<br /><br />"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."<br /><br />(Quoted from "Doctor Who: The Face of Evil", of all places)<br /><br />I originally had a mind to vote Labour in the next election, solely in the hope of keeping the Tories out, but there is now no danger of that, as Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson, and Chris Grayling seem determined to prove there is very little to choose between them in the reality vs. propaganda stakes. This sorry incident sinks the Labour party to much the same level as the BNP insofar as it seems they would rather encourage a sense of public fear based on a false claim (i.e. that cannabis / multiculturalism is the Devil's own invention) than base their policy on the actual facts rather than the artifically-stoked fear.Anthony Burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10697985121035511037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-4338281833601839002009-11-01T03:54:12.840+00:002009-11-01T03:54:12.840+00:00In all the excitement I had quite missed Grayling&...In all the excitement I had quite missed Grayling's comments, what a monumental dick.<br /><br />"latest ill-judged contribution to the debate"<br /><br />WTF ? As I point out in my own (practically mandatory) post on the whole sorry affair, Nutt was in fact presenting a briefing paper (‘Estimating drug harms : a risky business ?’) to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.<br /><br />Every single thing he said is backed up by facts, the paper is available <a href="http://www.tobacco.org/news/291891.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and a fascinating old read it is to.<br /><br />Johnson and Grayling make it sound as though he's just some mouthy bloke sounding off to the tabloids.<br /><br />I guess Charlotte is right about the Authoritarian Super Cocks !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-32845036293842959822009-10-31T20:27:53.113+00:002009-10-31T20:27:53.113+00:00Short answer "Yes".
I keep telling peop...Short answer "Yes".<br /><br />I keep telling people that the Tories will be even worse than Labour, and this is yet more evidence.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-2152414900933043132009-10-31T20:10:42.014+00:002009-10-31T20:10:42.014+00:00Surely the Conservatives position is explained: -
...Surely the Conservatives position is explained: -<br /><br />1. secondarily by wishing to put a marker down that advisers to their future government will be expected to give advice and nothing more;<br /><br />2. primarily by a desire to "park" the whole debate on drugs so it does not feature in a general election. There are two reasons for doing that, these being (i) it distracts from the issues that will decide the election, and (ii) Dave's views are doubtless still Dave's views and these might frighten middle England - or at least as interpreted for them by an unconscionable media parroting mischievous opponents.<br /><br />Do try to keep up, people! :- )Cardinal Richelieu's molenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-34253051209975422662009-10-31T19:52:48.111+00:002009-10-31T19:52:48.111+00:00"I don't understand what's changed.&q..."I don't understand what's changed."<br /><br />"He is now leader of his party and may well be Prime Minister in a few months time."<br /><br />I love your sense of humour!Dingdongalistichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17848569458025671647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-29550583400856441652009-10-31T16:31:32.215+00:002009-10-31T16:31:32.215+00:00Given the recent hilarity over MP expenses claims ...Given the recent hilarity over MP expenses claims and related hypocrisies, I expect these concerted efforts by Labour and the Tories to upstage each other over hard-line drugs policy reflects a desire to recover an iota of tabloid support as the elections loom, but such absurd "moral" posturing in the wake of the scandal is unlikely to encourage anything other than political apathy, benefiting none of the main parties. No wonder the BNP is looking so chirpy these days ...<br /><br />I do sometimes wonder if the application form for being a minister includes the question "Are you able to maintain a pompous, patronising facade without a square inch of moral high ground left to stand upon?"<br /><br />I will have far more respect for the first minister who honestly admits that of course alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis, but their use is too entrenched in our society to do anything about, and since few desire a completely laissez-faire policy on substances it's much more expedient for cannabis to be the scapegoat. I could understand and appreciate that, to an extent. What I do not appreciate is watching scientists being silenced while politicians stick to a lie that insults everyone's intelligence ...Anthony Burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10697985121035511037noreply@blogger.com