Legal blackmail

Total of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan = 224

"The reality is that legal fees are so high that most defendants want to settle as quickly as possible, rather than fight a case on its merits." 

Amen to that. I have had bitter and expensive personal experience. Regardless of the merits of the case, the best course is usually to surrender as early as possible to any accusations, however untrue.

That quote above is from a truly shocking article in the  Sunday Times. Non Britons are using our courts for alleged defamations on the web. Our libel laws offer the best chance of success.

The recent Carter Ruck apparent attempt to gag parliament excited MPs.  The chiropractors' attempt to stifle criticism against their absurd claims looks like a serious denial of free speech.

This is a task for parliament. We must rapidly address it.

Wrong allies

What's left of the accusation that the Tories have chose their European friends unwisely? He does not deny his earlier remarks that nailed the Tories' ally. That leaves David Milliband in the clear. The quotation was entirely accurate and it was fair to use it when he did. There is no need for an apology.

The general criticism that the Tories have deserted their natural allies in the Christian Democratic Parties will not go away. It's entirely true. The genesis of many of these groups is in fascism and nazi-ism. The disgraced David Wiltshire MP chairs the far right group in the Council of Europe. Membership of it by right wing Russians silenced the Tories on the invasion of Georgia.

Sooner, rather than later, the Tories will seek new European friends. 

Abuse of science

Sanity may prevail. More than half the advisory drug council's members  share their "horror and disgust" over the manner of the dismissal of Professor Nutt.

Dr Les King, a former head of drug intelligence at the Forensic Science Service, was first to act, followed by Marion Walker, head of the substance misuse service at Berkshire NHS foundation trust.

King said he had decided to step down because he felt Johnson had denied Nutt his "freedom of expression". This is entirely fair and reasonable. The first report I saw of David Nutt's speech said he was speaking in a personal capacity in his speech, not as chairman of the advisory body.

If Alan Johnson's precedent is tolerated, all future members of advisory bodies will be gagged from speaking on subjects of their expertise. It is not part of the role of Government advisers to restrict their academic work within the limits of Government prejudice. Who in future will accept an unpaid job as an adviser that muzzles free expression of scientific truths?

Comments

[John]

sign the petition to reinstate prof Nutt

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Back-Prof-Nutt/

[Kay Tie]

Guido's Monday cartoon nails it, I think:

http://order-order.com/2009/11/02/rich-marks-monday-morning-view-44/

For a long time, the politicians led the people. In this area, as in so many others, the public are ahead of the politicians. It's time for a grown-up approach to drugs.

[John]

Gordons only reason to upgrade cannabis was the usual political posturing and to assert his moral compass. The fact that his moral compass is so far from true north didn't deter him.

Non of the government understand the Misuse of drugs act and ahve been misappyling it for many years.

let me quote a barrister on this issue

Darryl Bickler wrote:
Professor David Nutt has woken the world up to the uncomfortable truth that the legal regulation of drugs has been improperly performed without regard to the evidence for some time, with tens of thousands of people having been pursued through the courts and into prison effectively for political reasons, and a culture of alcohol and tobacco misuse going unchecked for generations. The biased playing field of drug regulation resulted in relatively inadequate protection for users of alcohol and tobacco, whilst denying any legal rights or consumer protections for the millions of (scapegoated) controlled drug users.
It is widely but incorrectly assumed that this decision-making process is a matter of governmental discretion; however they must administer the law in accordance with its stated purpose, and in line with human rights considerations. The law requires that drugs that may cause harm to society are appropriately regulated. The fact that a majority enjoy a certain drug is irrelevant to the object of the law, if that situation causes the mischief to which the law is directed at curtailing.
There are two discriminations or inequalities of treatment at the heart of this; firstly the refusal of the government to categorise alcohol and tobacco as drugs under the law, and secondly for failing to distinguish between peaceful use of controlled drugs and the misuse of them. This situation probably remains because government have failed to understand the purpose of the law and tied themselves into international treaties that have no standing in UK law. Regulation under the law does not equate to prohibition. The only rational form of control is to put all dangerous drugs into the schedules of drugs under the law and then to make provision for responsible and peaceful adult use of such drugs by using the powers afforded to government under sections 7, 22 and 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. see drugequality.org

[Tony]

It seems to defeat the point of having a scientific advisor at all
Both Brown and Smith had made their minds up on drug reclassification before the research was reviewed
I can sort of understand that because that is just showing their prejudice (and lack of knowledge of the facts..)
But to make your mind up , and THEN ask someone to review the available evidence? Seems odd ..
At least I have a label for it now - policy based evidence..

[Kay Tie]

"We now have thrown all that away and instead seem to make polices on emotion and misplaced morals demanding that science finds the truth to substantiate them."

It's called policy-based evidence. It's a form of lying and is very common in politics. The Tories will do the same.

[John]

How far Labour has fallen from those bright days of the late 90's with Tony Blairs commitment to evidence based policies and his embrace of science.

We now have thrown all that away and instead seem to make polices on emotion and misplaced morals demanding that science finds the truth to substantiate them. When science exposes the irrationality behind this policy making they are gagged and sacked.

It shows the utter msiunderstanding of science by Gordon Brown and his utterances such as "lethal skunk" shows that he views the world through his own erroneous beliefs that bear little relationship to relaity.

Prof Nutt rightly pointed out that the whole public consultation "Drugs, Your community Your say" which showed the vast majority of the public wanted it to reamin at C and an equal amount for legalisation as wanted it moved to "B". The review of cannabis by the ACMD was just a sham he had already made his mind up to move it back to "B". SO he ignored the public he ignored the Scientific advice it seems that we now have rulers rather than leaders this is worhty of some tin pot dictatorship...what a sham

[Kay Tie]

"KayTie, people quote me all the time out of context. I have never complained."

And nor did Michal Kakinsky. But surely you can recognise that it's just plain wrong to falsely accuse someone of something so heinous?

You and David Milliband and your odious mate McShane insinuated - and still do - that Kaminsky is an anti-Semitic holocaust denier by opposing a national apology. You know - and we know - that these are smears because the opposition to a national apology is based on a principled belief that a national apology lessens individual guilt.

You haven't addressed the fundamental point that there are some odious parties in the EPP and the PES. You haven't accused the Labour Party of consorting with 9/11 deniers in PES. Why not?

[Paul Flynn]

It's bad news Valleylad. There are about 50 MPs that I still respect. Back to Chartism

[Paul Flynn]

KayTie, people quote me all the time out of context. I have never complained. It's useful sometimes because it brings people to the blog to check on the crazy accusations that follow. The Rabbi was clear on the Today programme that he wished to defend the good name of Poland. David Milliband is innocent. OK?

[Kay Tie]

"but there is little to distinguish the front benchers on either side."

One front bencher has experienced our police state first hand.

[valleylad]

I used to think Alan Johnson offered some home for the future, he's proved to be as thick, pointless and self-serving as the rest. I'll agree that things would probably be marginally worse under the tories, but there is little to distinguish the front benchers on either side. Looking on the bright side though there are still around a dozen MPs who I have some respect for!

[Kay Tie]

I'll give you 2 out of 3 for this post.

Sadly your defence of David Milliband is vague and fails to address the issues. You didn't address the issue of how both PES and EPP contain unsavoury parties and representatives. And you didn't address the specific issue of Kaminsky's supposed anti-semitism. You know full well that the "accurate quote" in the New Statesman was taken out of context. If this is the new standard of politics then you won't be complaining when people publish lies about you by taking your words out of context? I'm sure I can find an accurate quote of your words and surround them with misleading words of my own that make you look like a racist.