Was this the end of AJ4PM?
November 2nd, 2009How come he was even thought to be a contender?
The splash leads of both the Times and the Guardian won’t make happy reading at the home office this morning. For the David Nutt resignation looks set to be followed by others raising questions over whether ministers are ever serious when they ask experts for advice.
Adding to their problems is the home secretary’s appearance with Adam Boulton on SkyNews yesterday when he appeared to totally lose it under close questioning. For the one thing you’ve got to avoid when the cameras are on you is to lose your rag and that, surprisingly, is what Alan Johnson did.
Maybe Gordon knew what he was doing when he made the man being talked up as his successor the home secretary. This is a job that’s become a grave-yard for Labour politicians - just think of Jacqui Smith, Charles Clark and David Blunkett to name but a few.
Johnson’s response was unexpected given his apparent sure-footedness in the past. His easy self-deprecating style has usually defused most situations and generally he has had a good press. When he got the job in June I thought it was a good appointment and perhaps a platform for greater things.
The problem he’s got now is that the story could dominate at least one more news cycle as other members of the committee follow the lead of their chairman and resign as well.
It’s a natural for Cameron at the next PMQs and you can see him using it to draw conclusions about the whole government being in a mess.
Johnson’s still favourite in the betting to succeed Brown but that, surely, won’t last.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Another challenger to Brown falls under the bus… Looks like the general election will be fought under that banner of “Gordon Brown - five more years!” after all.
Shame!
Off to the sweaty armpit of Africa. Be good….
The Home Office is always a graveyard, regardless of party.
Go Yankees! 4-3 top of the 8th
Cannot agree with the spin from Mike or Marquee @ 1. Johnson was very forceful but I wouldn’t call it “losing it” or “losing his rag”. He forced the point home confidently.
Advisers advise, Ministers decide. Had the advice been unpopular and the Minister went along within, people would have a stab for not leading.
As someone on the right of the political spectrum, I don’t see this clip as a negative. Might just be me!!!
re 3. The standard technique when being questioned like this is to lower your voice and respond quietly and more slowly. You need to sound measured. Johnson came over in the clip as being furious about being asked the question.
Yes the “Advisers advise, Ministers decide” response was the correct one but he allowed his bluster to get in the way. What matters more than what you actually say is the way you say it. By that test AJ failed.
One thing I’ve been thinking about this is was it Johnson’s decision to remove the adviser or was he leant on? I usually get angrier when I have found myself put in an awkward position than when I have walked into it with my eyes open. Was the outburst on Sky because he was defending something he didn’t entirely agree with?
Someone already posted the Mail article about Blair’s financial empire:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224190/Inside-Blair-Inc-Complex-web-official-duties-secretive-private-companies-business-deals-make-life-No-10-lucrative.html
What i thought was interesting given Treasongate and our political elite’s planned solution to the “Indigenous Problem” was him choosing “Windrush” as the base name for half his companies.
On a more people-reading theme, if i knew anything about hacking i’d bet “Firerush” and “Earthrush” would be likely passwords.
On topic:
The problem for all the possible contenders (imo) is they’ve been possible contenders too long. Everyone knows McDoom is sh*te. Half the country thinks he’s completely ******. And yet all of them have been *potential contenders* for what seems like years without doing anything about it.
They all look a bit shabby and worn now like they’ve been in a shop window too long. The effect seems to be speeding up as well as Miliband2 is already getting that slightly musty look about him and he’s only been in the frame a few months.
Cruddas’ strategy of staying out of it looks ever more wise to me (if he doesn’t lose his seat).
There’s something about the way AJ speaks that comes across (to me anyway) as indicative of emptiness. Maybe I’m being a snob and it’s the accent or the glottlestops – I don’t know. But when I listen to him I just think ‘airhead’. Am I alone in this?
And it made me wonder if this is a wider theme. If you listen to almost any Tory – Dave, Osborne, Hague, Fox, Hannan, Gove, etc – yes some of them have their accents but they all speak clearly, and lucidly. They speak normal English. You may or may not agree with what they say but the mode of delivery comes across as ‘switched on’.
Almost every time I listen to a Labour person speaking they as always seem to have an affected way of speaking, or an annoying accent or both (sorry if that’s an ’ism’ but people like Balls, Brown, Ainsworth, Johnson, etc just can’t seem to speak normal English). The content is also stuffed with codewords like ‘investment’ or ‘progressive’ or ‘social justice’ – these may be fine and well meant and understood by many but to me it seems formulaic and unthinking. I always feel they’re reciting lines, no matter what the question was, and doing it in an annoying way. The way most Labour people speak makes me react negatively and has for a very long time.
I haven’t really noticed anything with LibDem ways of speaking. There is, of course, never any content – but the mode of delivery has never made itself into my consciousness. No news is good news here as it means the voice is not drowning out the message.
Any psychologists out there? Is my negative reaction to Labour talk really just my dislike of Labour manifesting itself when they open their mouths? Or are they really and non-subjectively just bloody irritating to listen to (even to lefty types)? Does this impact the polls? (I never found Blair uncomfortable to listen too – rather the opposite in fact).
7 “I always feel they’re reciting lines, no matter what the question was, and doing it in an annoying way.”
They don’t really talk, they preach.
The one New Labour word that always makes me reach for my metaphorical Luger is “stakeholder”.
Quite turns my stomach. I hear normal people using it now, as well.
UGH. Perhaps instead they should use the timelier word “knifeholder”. Violent crime is soaring under Labour:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091102/tuk-jump-in-violent-crime-by-strangers-6323e80.html
The term they use that makes me want to shoot the telly is: ‘What people want is…’ and they tell us what their shitty policy is. 99 times out of 100 what people want is nothing at all like what they assume or hope it is.
Labour don’t communicate. Look it up in a dictionary. Communication is a 2 way thing. Labour are stuck on ‘transmit’. The ‘receive’ function has been out of action for a decade.
10 - The phrase that I find I want to do harm to people who use is “The important thing is”.
I have been absolutely clear about this
what people want
is for us to keep doing the right thing
and it’s really important, that we get on with the job.
(Any cabinet minister interview of the last 2 years…)
One thing we Brits do with incomparable wonderfulness is to dream up TV show formats and sell them to the world (Idol, Strictly, X Factor, Britain’s got Talent, etc, etc).
I have just had a moment of clarity. We should start a weekly political interview show called ‘Electrical Bullshit Bingo’. They wire up the week’s chosen politico to an eletric shock doodah before kick-off and if at any time during the interview we hear any one of a series of these stock no-no irritating phrases (maybe chosen in polls by the viewers) then they get zapped. That would sharpen the muppets up a bit!
Please could the producers put Yvette Cooper on first.
Patrick.Haven’y you realised? It is Tradeunionspeak. Sounds exactly like the Unions of pre-Thatcher days. Surprised they haven’t all started referring to consulting their “execativ”.The Labour big beasts of the past never sounded like that - Attlee, Healey, Foot ,Benn, Cook and others - DC is lucky not to have people like that around.
Mike @ 3: There is no “right” or “wrong” way - it is how it is perceived that is important. If Brown was capable of answering a question with such confidence and passion as Johnson then I doubt he’d be in as much trouble as he is. Now Brown masters the art of sounding tetchy and irritable when answering tough questions.
The one thing I noticed is - is Alan Johnson ill? He looked very red, ruddy and patchy. That was the only negative that caught my eye (very shallow indeed!). The manner of his answering came across to me as someone who wanted to put across the point he felt was being overlooked/misunderstood by the interviewer.
Like I said, that is merely this voter’s impression of the Johnson interview. As someone who is not likely to vote Labour I don’t suppose it matters that it was made me slightly more inclined towards Johnson (i.e. Brown was dropped before GE I doubt it would encourage me to vote Labour).
Absolutely spot-on Patrick! I have felt the same way for years and thought it was some form of vague snobbishness on part. I can never determine whether it’s the language itself, or the way it’s delivered. I suspect that it’s more likely the former.
Hateman is OK with the delivery, but she regularly uses the phrases that Scott mentions, and has me throwing things at the telly, screaming “How dare you! You no longer have a mandate!”
PS I tend to agree with John regarding Johnson. I’ve never particularly liked him, but I felt he came across as more substantial than usual, as if he’d finally grown a pair.
Johnson was only put forward because he is likeable compared the the rest of his deeply repellant front bench peers. He was never really in with a chance, but his old mates going on strike would have been the last nail in the coffin anyway.
Johnson’s doctrine (advisors advise but ministers decide) is correct. But his corollary (therefore we will sack advisors who disagree with us) is a sign of weakness. If Johnson had any of leadership potential he would acknowledge the advice while explaining the policy, and conceivably win the argument. Instead he tries to silence the advisor and leaves himself looking petulant and isolated. The underlying reason, of course, is the collapse of government authority. They are here today, gone tomorrow, in Robin Day’s resounding phrase, and more and more people will stop deferring to them.
Mike knows his stuff on communications and media presentation so I’ll assume he’s right that this was a bad performance, but my subjective impression was the same as John’s and Gadfly’s. His face looked a bit strange, but I thought the bit where he came back firmly at the interviewer was quite good - I think better of him having seen that interview than I did before.
i agree with edmund and the others that johnson was forceful, but i did not pick him as rude or arrogant. a bit of leadership and decision making is not a bad thing for labour.
if he gets 9 things right and 1 thing wrong per 10 ideas he is doing better than brown who does nothing either way and makes no decisions normally until the horse has bolted.
” the hardworking people of this country” is the trite phrase that gets me going…….how many catastrophes have been launched on their behalf ?
Mrs Mad said AJ was carp. As she’s apolitical but a shrewd judge, he WAS carp.
22, “Hardworking people of this country” leaves this voter cold too. When are politicians going to stand up for lazy people who live abroad?
“Hardworking Families”
Conjures up images of small children in coal mines.
Can’t single people be hard working either? Does one have to be hard working to count? Does the government have any more moral right to the money of someone who earned it easily, or someone living of previous efforts?
“Getting on with the job”
Sorry but put together with the Brown grimace leads to all sorts of unpleasant toilet images.
21 Alan Johnson’s approach in most of his Departments has been to keep his head down and not to stir up any controversy, getting a result the reputation of “a safe pair of hands”. Its rare as a result that we get to see him defending any action he has taken and when we have he doesn’t come across as nice Alan Johnson.
As Health Secretary his initial response to the Debbie Hirst case over private purchase of Avastin, where he seemed to be attacking her and defending the indefensible rather dented his image and soon resulted in a U Turn.
In the Drugs case he mishandled his response, again attacking when a more laid back approach would have defused the situation. “I recognise Prof Nutt, looking at the evidence, came to a conclusion and we took this into account in making our decision, which of necessity involved judgements of a social and political nature outside of his remit. Over-riding advice isn’t something we do at a whim but my responsibility etc. etc.”
One thing that concerns me is that Johnson today, in a letter to a newspaper, seems to be saying that Nutt was fired for disagreeing with the Government position. So you are only allowed to advise the Government if you agree with it? What sort of independent advice is that? I see no difference between expressing that opinion in private or public: in fact, to clear the air, all such advice should be made publicly. If Prof Nutt is to advise my servant (Mr Johnson) he might as well come clean and tell me what that advice is.
Getting angry with the interviewer can be effective in the right circumstances, for example, if he or she is continually asking a stupid question and refuses to allow an answer. Even then, it’s a high risk tactic and the line between justifiable annoyance and a Nott-like flounce is a narrow one.
Mike’s right when he says that the better response is calm and measured - if that’s possible to do (it does require the interviewer to play ball and not interrupt).
In Johnson’s case, it wasn’t just the approach to answering that was wrong, it was the message too. ‘Advisers advise and ministers decide’ is of course correct as far as it goes but there does then follow the question of what happens afterwards if the advice is ignored and especially if it’s ignored and the alternative policy introduced is justified on specious scientific grounds. It would be different if the advice had been A and the government had decided to do B and justified that decision on political grounds.
In that situation, surely the scientific advisors have every right to put their advice on the record? Otherwise, it would look as if they were in agreement and had proposed the policy. Now it just looks as if Johnson has thrown a strop because someone disagreed with him.
I’ve never been in the AJ4PM camp: I’ve always thought his comment about not being up to the job placed an impossible barrier for him (as well as being true). Still, that didn’t stop people pushing him anyway. I wouldn’t expect much more of that. Now, if only Miliband could be sidelined in Brussels …
Another bit of nastiness that got missed was that unfortunate Canadian lady who got caught out by the laws brought in to deal with forced marriages. Would AJ do anything to help - like hell he would.
Most annoying words in interviews: “inappropriate” and “paramount” as in “safety is paramount”.
Don’t see Johnson as ‘losing it’ here, even though I don’t rate him very much.
AJP4P45?
I don’t see the problem with this interview. He’s absolutely right. Advisors advise, politicians need to make the value judgments.
63 FPT Witan
uhh, No, I have said my concerns of late have been Tory policy on Europe and their policies for recovery (and some geenral concern over readiness), not ‘everything’
Blanchflower I have had a lot of time for, yes, I also said yesterday that I disagree with his latest interview/position (more stimulus) and that I think that boat has now sailed and settled against the Labour/Stimulus/No Cuts position and hence the Tory position seems from here the only one it is reasonable to follow (the other having failed by being implemented weakly and in the wrong area).
In terms of Europe, I want to see out relationship with Europe defined - whether we are moving with Europe or of we are treading a different path (there are reasonable arguments for either, but no for just drifting along) and as it is an area the Tories have been somewhat stretched on historically and recently, I want to see them come out with something strong that makes things clear. A test of suitability to govern, as it were.
Yes, I realise I have been a bit of a negative nelly on all things Tory of late - an over-reaction to concerns or whatever. I will not be voting for Brown/Labour and I will not be voting Lib Dem. I will not vote UKIP or BNP. I would like to see this government replaced, I would like it to be by a party I have full confidence in. That confidence has been shaken lately in terms of the Tories, so I am looking for reassurance. The dalliance with alternatives pretty much ended with Q3s figures to be honest.
Longer term, I’ll see how the new government does and what the opposition recreates itself as. And if I am in despair of all of the mainstream parties at the GE (hopefully not) I would vote Green as my nominated protest.
9. SeanT. Why don’t you read your own link? It doesn’t say violent crime has gone up but that the PROPORTION of violent crime committed by STRANGERS has gone up. A meaningless statistic infact put out by the always misleading Chris Greyling.
Yes Johnson is finished. He was indescribably bad-and that’s ignoring the stupidity of what he did.
It’s got to be miliband.
31 arrgh!
AJ4P45
The sacking of Professor David Nutt was a display of petulant arrogance; a lightweight sacking a heavyweight just because he could, just because he was the Home Seckertry and this scientist johnny was getting a bit above himself. Give these so-called experts a bit of slack and they get ideas above their station. They’ll be thinking they’re as important as we politicians next.
The whole sorry affair has shown with startling clarity that when the issue of a possible successor to Brown first came up, Johnson was absolutely right in his own candid assessment of his intellectual resources and leadership potential. He’s just not up to it. One of life’s also-rans.
Gordon Brown only lasts in his job because the alternatives, bar none, are even more truly dreadful than the jowly cyclops himself.
People talk about Cruddas and he has a semblance of normal human being about him but in Dagenham and Rainham he is under assault from a Tory/BNP pincer movement and may not survive the great cull of 2010.
Oddly enough, Harriet Harridan comes off best presentationally but her attachment to a sectarian Islingtonite middle class hatred of white males must make her electoral poison to many.
32. But when the government reclassifies a drug upwards and describes it (wrongly) as lethal, it looks as if they are doing it on the basis of advice - and bad advice at that.
As people know who’s on the advisory council, that is potentially damaging to their reputation and the minimum that the HS owes them is to publicly acknowledge that he was taking the decision against the advice of the council. In the absence of him doing that, they have every right to put their point publicly. Rather than sack them, it’s then for the HS to justify the policy on the basis on which the decision was taken.
All this AJ4PM has been stoked up by only a small section of the media. Further the man himself categorically said on TV that he wasn’t “up to the job”, however only a few gullable people still believed he could be a favorite for PM. Unfortunately Mike appears to be one of the few!
Actually having looked at Johnson on your link he wasn’t ‘indescribably bad’. He was though on the other news chanels where they cut the clip to ten seconds and the blood red colour in his cheeks made the ten seconds even worse.
We’ve all seen a lot of Professor Nutt AFTER his sacking - where he has been robust in defending his point of view and criticising the govt. But what happened BEFORE - and got him sacked?
He gave an academic lecture in July, to fellow academics in Kings College, which was then published in an academic paper last month. In this he wrote:
‘One thing this government has done extremely well in the past ten years is to cut away much of the moral argument about drug treatments. They have moved in the direction of improving access to harm reduction treatments…wholly endorsed by the scientific community…For reasons that are not clear, the same evidence based claim has not happened in relation to the classification of drugs of misuse’
And for this - he gets sacked?
Its not as though he was writing articles for the Daily Mail.
This is clearly an attempt by the Govt to muzzle Scientific discussion. And as MaggieThatcherFan observes, AJ4P45….
OT, but relevant to a previous thread, BoJo opines on the fall of the Berlin wall
Communism took power away from the people, eroding democracy with the promise that the system would improve their quality of life in exchange. It failed dismally. Remember, remember the 9th of November, and remember all the idiots – some now running this country – who supported communism in their youth. Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling – how will you be celebrating the Fall of the Wall?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/6483804/Forget-Guy-Fawkes—remember-remember-the-Ninth-of-November-for-the-fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall.html
42. Good to see that BoJo is channelling Tom Knox. Hah.
2. A measure of the political graveyard that is the Home Office: since the start of the 20th century, there have been 42 Home Secretaries. Only two of these have gone on to become Prime Minister: Churchill and Callaghan. Churchill had a gap of almost three decades between his time at the Home Office and entering Number Ten and Callaghan also went into opposition and then to the Foreign Office in between.
By contrast, six Chancellors of the Exchequer and three Foreign Secretaries made the transition directly during the same period, not even counting those who’d served in either office earlier in their career.
I didn’t see the interview but if Mike says Johnson was poor then I would expect that Johnson was poor.
To me, Johnson has appeared completely out of his depth since his promotion to the Home Office.
Jonson has told us that he is not up to the PM job and he is right. He would only become PM if he was gifted the Labour leadership before the next GE - and I can’t see that happening. His supporters have effectively ruled him out as a leadership contender after the GE.
He’s been a false favourite for a while now. And as for his, “I’m Simon Pure” comment on Question Time!!
I still think David Miliband is the most obvious possible next Labour leader. His profile has risen significantly recently. I don’t think he will get the EU job and I think he is using that potential job offer to demonstrate his standing and importance to the Labour Party; who are pretty lacking in big hitters now.
So it’s BM4PM! (BM = Bananaman).
Russell @ 36
He’s just not up to it. One of life’s also-rans.
What an indictment of our political system. He is after all a holder of one of the great offices of state.
44. “there have been 42 Home Secretaries. Only two of these have gone on to become Prime Minister”
…and we must be thankful on a daily basis that Jacqui Smith is on the right side of that statistic!
Movement on SPIN this morning. Miliband(s) joint favourites, Johnson losing ground
AJ has had far too many softball interviews. Cosy repartee with Andrew Marr has not geared him for dealing with tough questions. This is also a factor in Brown’s (multiple) deficiencies when giving interviews. The average Tory frontbencher, by contrast, gets used to dealing with constant interruptions and curveball interrogation.
I only heard AJ’s remarks on the radio, and it sounded as if he had lost it.
Writing to the Guardian defending his position must be a sign of desperation - he and his officials clearly couldn’t persuade anyone else to do it.
Still leading R4 Today 8.00 Bulletin - and lead item post news. Best quote from Gruaniad letters today: “the sacking of Professor David Nutt ably demonstrate that only policy-based evidence is acceptable” - Charles Clarke being interviewed as Johnson still running scared - and not exactly leaping to Johnson’s defence.
A banana didn’t finish David Miliband off, countless poor interviews have not seen Gordon Brown shooed from the job, so one poor interview shouldn’t be terminal for Alan Johnson.
What has been much more damaging to Alan Johnson has been his apparent expectation that the job should fall into his lap without any work on his part. Perhaps he really didn’t want the job.
As ScottP notes at 48, there has been movement on SPIN. Two observations on this:
1) The curious ranking of Ed Miliband ahead of David Miliband on the table, even though their spreads are the same - a hint of where the next move might be?
2) The width of the field and a lack of a clear favourite.
I had thought that Brown’s extraordinary ability to take any given minor event and turn it into a political disaster, with himself on the receiving end, was unique to him, but it now looks as if Johnson shares it - maybe that’s at least one qualification AJ’s got, to be Labour PM…
FPT, Rod Crosby, that’s a very sad story. I hope that it’s an unusual one.
On topic, I think AJ was right when he said he’s not up to the job. Post-election, I think that Cruddas would be their best choice, but he’s under real threat in Dagenham & Rainham, but if he held on, he could expect the usual party leader’s boost, in his seat.
Interestingly mixed views about the niterview on the thread. Personally I disagree with the sacking (because I agree with HistoryBoy - better to say you get a wide range of advice and you reserve the right to disagree, but still welcome diverse input) but I was impressed with AJ’s vigour. One can be too measured ansd apologetic in politics.
Patrick’s comment on ways of speech do, I think, show that Shaw’s comment on the English language still applies (’the moment an Englishman speaks he makes another Englishman despise him’). I know people who react exactly in that way to Cameron, Osborne and Davis (though not Hague). I’m afraid it is partly a class thing, and it’s why Tony Blair appealed to people who don’t normally like Labour - “ah, that’s better, here’s a Labour chap who speaks like me”. But it’s complicated because some people don’t want a politician to sound like them, but to sound like their idea of what figures in authority should sound like.
45,50: if you want to see the interview (it’s only a minute and a bit) just click on the picture at the top of the thread. Mike usually does this when he’s commenting on an interview, and very helpful it is.
I have just discovered, as part of my research for the next Tom Knox, that Roman games and circuses would sometimes feature animal rape of human victims.
Giraffes, lions, wolves, wild boars, cheetas, horses and zebras were all trained to ravish male and female prisoners; sometimes the assaults were so brutal the victims would die, and the animals were encouraged to then devour the corpses as part of the spectacle.
In one notorious circus event “hundreds of tiny blonde girls” were raped by a horde of priapic baboons, then there was an intermission for choc ices.
You gotta hand it to the Romans. They knew how to put on a show.
npmp is right, blair did not sound like the masses but they could identify with him and saw things in him that they admired.
Er, my bad, Apologies! I have just realised it is early Monday morning there, rather than mid afternoon, so probably the wrong time for tales of classical zoophiliac circus-based rapine.
53. Are we absolutely sure this was not Gordo’s idea? It does have all the hallmarks of Brown’s mentality. Populist measure, trying to look tough on drugs while destroying career of man who has the chutzpah to talk about horse riding (classic class divide). Clunking fist tactics. Having said all that I’m not certain this will do the government any harm with their heartlands.
sean t, i am impressed the romans had choc ices.
the animal rapes sound rather gross, and i can think of better uses for hundreds of cute blondes than being rogered by a giraffe. although the giraffe may have enjoyed it.
Caught up with the discussion with Rod on the previous thread about the tragedies among his friends and would like to add my sympathies - but as Rod implies, life seems to be a lottery with equally absurd prizes and punishments for no good reason at all. All we can really do is help each other through the rough bits as much as we can, and especially remember to enjoy the good bits.
redcliffe, like you I have a relative who suffers from disabling difficulties - used to be depression, now anxiety. If you want to drop me a note about what helped your relative I’d appreciate it (NickMP1 at aol dot com).
60 - This story will do no harm (but not much good) with certain voters, but it’s a toxic story with urban professionals, first because many will think the decision a bad decision, secondly because the decision-making process looks warped and thirdly because the Home Secretary looks to be suppressing freedom of speech.
As it happens, I agree with the Home Secretary on both his decision on the drug classification and on his decision to sack Professor Nutt, but he’s not exactly defended his actions well.
Speaking as a person who is also a scientific advisor, (but not in this field) my advice is given in confidence and I expect that confidence to be upheld by both the giver and receiver, as happens with a solicitor.
The advice always has to be based on the best scientific evidence available globally at the time (has Prof. Nutt’s evidence been published?) whether it fits your personal moral compass or not.
Frequently the honest answer is a “not sure” or “don’t know” as it often takes many decades to finally prove or disprove that a certain substance harms human health (e.g. smoking).
So we return to the basic question of whether Prof. Nutt’s terms of reference allow him or his committee to use or publicise their findings, which are the property of his/their employer, without the permisssion of that employer. If he does that without permission then his/their employment contract has been broken and thus terminated.
Most of my advice relates to “what if” scenarios and much unecessary panic or harm would conclude based on the publication of the results of scenarios that have a minute chance of occurring. Hence the importance of mutual confidentiality.
If a scientist wishes to engage in the world of politics then let that person put themself at the mercy of the electorate.
On a more serious note, can I add my voice to the sympathetic chorus re Rod Crosby’s harrowing comments last night. I have had similar experiences myself, though not as stark and shocking.
Libera nos, Domine.
On speech, NPMP, Patrick
As one who grew up in a poor family in the shires, and can speak English clearly and in a manner easily understandable the around the globe, I despise people who refuse to improve their command of their mother tongue.
There are many erudite speakers of our wonderful language with significant regional accents. There is nothing wrong with this. However, anyone who would struggle to make themself understood to those who have spent years of effort learning the modern global language, should be ashamed of themselves.
A special level of hell exists to torture those for whom speech is a method of stringing together meaningless platitudes and sound bites, twisting the meaning of words to suit their ends and generally debasing the fair language of the immortal bard.
Unfortunately much of our political class speak in this way.
Back on topic, did everyone know that you can cross breed a donkey and a zebra? I didn’t either, but you can, and the result is called a…. zonky.
No kidding. Here’s a picture:
http://tinyurl.com/yhzecx6
Having watched the clip a few times I think this was a deliberate tactic on AJs part, not a blunder. He has a reputation for being laid back and maybe lacking the guts and fire for the top job. This shows him in a new light being passionate and tough. Far from wrecking his chances it looks like his bid for the top job. And unlike Miliband banging on about Nazis (which I thought was a disaster) this is a subject ordinary people will relate to and shows AJ is in touch with their concerns.
67, haven’t there been efforts to recreate the quagga by combining zebra and horses?
66, at the end of the day, when all’s said and done and in the fullness of time I think you took the words right out of my mouth.
68, disagree. It made him look like he was having a hissyfit.
I do think it will do sod all damage to Labour because most people probably agree with the Government’s view, but Postman Alan did not look tough, in my eyes.
Mind you, I’m a grizzled Yorkshireman, and he’s just a poncey cockney.
It just shows you how desperate Labour are for talent. They are thinking about putting the postman in charge. LOL.
67. That zonky is cute!
64. Financier “has Prof. Nutt’s evidence been published?”
Here:
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf
Well worth reading - fascinating stuff on reporting in the popular press of drugs-related deaths - those stemming from alcohol or tobacco very rarely, from Paracetamol, 1 death out of 265 cases are reported, Morphine 1 in 72, Cocaine 1 in 8, Heroin 1 in 5, Ecstasy, 1 in 1.
I’m not to sure it will do AJ harm in fact the opposite, showing emotion on an issue like drugs, might go down well with the mass of the electorate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224578/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Fatuous-dangerous-utterly-irresponsible–Nutty-professor-whos-distorting-truth-drugs.html
I’ve noticed Dave, (now there’s a surprise) is staying well away from this subject.
72, might find this interesting. Zonkeys, zeedonks and zorses are all mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagga
Interesting stuff, but not as impressive as enormo-haddock.
Good Morning Sacked Advisory Voters For Nick Palmer Worldwide
Meanwhile …. Apologies to my faithful JARHEAD reader. Sadly I’ve been laid up in the four poster for several days. Clearly I nibbled on an off pie !!
Coming up on JARHEAD with only three days to polling - A Mike Smithson special !! …. The defered second debate and results, results, results !!
Dirty tricks in the election PB has apparently forgot:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2009/11/02/dirty-tricks-row-hits-snp-by-election-campaign-as-candidate-makes-different-claims-over-birth-place-86908-21791556/
This looks more and more like a relatively comfortable Labour hold.
Isn’t what matters for AJ what side of public opinion he is on?
I was discussing this with a relative who was appalled at the scientist’s view on the relative dangers of cannabis and ecstasy. Despite pointing out that the scientist was probably talking about the proportion of deaths involving both in comparison to alcohol and horse riding they just weren’t for listening.
The media frenzy over drugs deaths compared to other ‘recreations’ and the social acceptibility of alcohol compared to drugs has made them think it is a greater evil.
In voting terms such opinions are probably banked towards those that vote (older generation) compared to those that don’t (the younger generation).
I think that’s the context AJ’s position has to be taken in. Anger doesn’t hinder appealing to that group either who I would say make up a bigger proportion of voters than those who support decriminalisation.
It’s also one David Cameron will avoid for past historical reasons.
55. Nick P - I had the same reaction to Sinn Fein politicians, who the BBC dubbed with ‘nice middle class’ actors when Thatcher had her bonkers ban on hearing their voices - when that was lifted and we heard their real accents my initial (stupid) reaction was ‘god they’re thick’. Which of course said a lot about me, and nothing at all about them.
69 A quagga was a subspecies of Burchell’s Zebra - now called Equus quagga rather than Equus burchelli - so its being recreated by selecting Burchells with markings close to the extinct form. So its a copy rather than an original rather like the Hecks cattle and aurochs and Hecks horses and Taipans. Odd to think my father’s grandfather saw quagga in their thousands when he hunted across the veldt (may even have shot some helping them to their extinction).
Well I’m sure we all agree with this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/6480680/MPs-expenses-David-Wilshire-compares-treatment-of-politicians-to-Jews-in-Nazi-Germany.html
Out with the hankies.
nick, comment noted.
I reckon if John or Edward stood against Gordon it WOULD BE curtains for him.
We could have John as PM and Edward as President of the European Council.
Be another Poland type equation.
Got 20-1 on them last week.
If they can do so well perhaps we should put our election money on an outside bet, Clegg or Farage perhaps!!!!
70. I should add that AJ did nothing for me and I thought his blow dried hair looked particularly poncey. There again, to paraphrase a certain G.Brown ‘there is nothing they could say to me now that I could ever believe’.
The enormo-haddock? Wow.
Off topic, but the odds in Glasgow NE are moving sharply to the SNP. Even since shadsy commented on this last night, Ladbrokes have moved their prices for the SNP in from 11/8 to 6/5. Could one or more of our Scottish contingent - oddly quiet recently - comment on what is going on?
73. CarlottaVance: fascinating stuff on reporting in the popular press of drugs-related deaths - those stemming from alcohol or tobacco very rarely
At least in part, I suspect, because it’s very rare for deaths from alcohol or tobacco to be instant. Dying of lung cancer after a thirty years smoking twenty a day does not a headline make.
IDS supports AJ!
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/nutt_does_not_have_the_beacon_of_knowledge_on_drugs_says_ids.html
81. I was hitherto unaware that Jews in Hitler’s Germany got £25,000 tax free every year to pay for luxury second homes, plus £400 a month free food, plus £250 in petty cash “no questions asked old boy”, plus first class travel everywhere, plus the ability to employ family members, plus a handsome cash pay off, plus subsidised restaurants with endless subsidised wine and dinners, plus of course an enormous pension.
It puts a whole new gloss on the Holo-c-a-u-s-t. Thankyou, Mister Wilshire.
Bon Giorno.
Anyone who thought thet AJ4PM was a good bet, and I include OGH, was clearly a little bonkers.
But then, every now and again people are entitled to speculate.
Alan Johnson clearly isn’t leader material and I’ve been constant in saying this. He will soon have a bevy of scientists saying that Labour never listens to advice, and having already made up their collective minds, go their own way.
Another nail in NuLabours coffin. Good!
7 Patrick, This is quite right. The vocabulary and syntax used by Labour politicians, as separate from the accent and the meaning, do not sit well with me as a Tory voter.
As well as the horrible words (yes, investment when what they mean is spending) and phrases (my favourite, ‘what we all want to see’) it’s an inability to build an argument from premises to conclusion. Their words are just unconnected sentences. I think this is due to the relatively worse education of a typical Labour MP.
Could it also be that socialism depends on us subverting our natural instincts, i.e. to keep that 40% of our income thanks very much, so it has to fudge and obfuscate. By contrast Tory policies are pure common sense, if all is going to plan!
(I’m sure there is also a small element of people favouring accents like their own.)
Personally I would favour active discouragement in schools of regional accents and grammar. I think they serve only to separate us in what’s really quite a small country anyway. In fact I’m surprised that regional accents have perpetuated themselves for so long.
Alan Johnson - I don’t think he ‘lost it’ during the interview. Maybe he departed from the politician’s tramlines when giving an interview, but that doesn’t mean anything to the ordinary viewer. Nothing wrong with some passion now and again.
But yes… lacking in many ways when mooted as a PM.
Any by the way, what is the reason (as not given by Johnson) why advisers can’t disagree publicly with the government? I mean, why? What harm does it do to the public? I don’t care if it’s awkward to the government; in fact that’s probably a good thing.
Perhaps Gordon Brown’s greatest(/last remaining) strength is his ability to out-manoeuvre internal opposition. Moving Johnson to the Home Office was a stroke of genius, because it is the one ministerial position which is virtually guaranteed to put the office holder at odds with large swathes of the PLP (even a PLP as casually authoritarian as the current version).
Similarly moving Miliband to the foreign office was a smart move, as Miliband inevitably became bogged down in diplomacy rather than inspirational leadership. Brown’s subsequent promotion of Miliband for the European role was a piece of political manoeuvering that even Blair would have to admire - at a stoke Brown has cut down his nemesis (Blair) while publicly being seen to lavish praise on him, he has improved his standing in Europe by offering France and Germany a solution to what would have been a dreadful quandry and he has dealt with Miliband by offering him a plum position - better suited to his talents - apparently on a plate.
Note that the other “big beasts” of this Labour government have largely been marginalised by their exclusion (voluntary or otherwise) from cabinet. Leadership credentials erode rapidly out of the limelight.
It is rare that we can say this about Brown, but he has played this one very well (looked at purely from a personal perspective).
Why is the Prof Nutt sacking a “natural for Cameron at the next PMQs” when the Tories are exactly like Labour where evidence-based policy on drugs is concerned, as Grayling’s backing of Prof Nutt’s sacking clearly demonstrated?
Compare & contrast:
Grayling of the Tories:
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the sacking had been “an inevitable decision” after Prof Nutt’s “latest ill-judged contribution to the debate”.
Chris Huhne of the LibDems:
But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the decision to sack the adviser had been “disgraceful”.
“What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don’t like, you sack the person who has given it to you?” he said.
Mr Huhne said if the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have “a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy”.
Don’t you follow the news Mr Smithson?
88
I wonder who’ll have most sway with the voters, scientists or the Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224588/Remember-David-Nutt-does-face-voters.html
Seem to remember a few years ago, Alan Duncan was forced to disown his views on drugs as expressed in his book, ‘Saturn’s Children’
Hague even put pressure on Duncan, (he crumbled) to remove the chapter from the softback version.
Perhaps Mr Duncan would like to come out in support of Professor Nutt: bet he won’t.
Wow! Alistair Darling has really gone up in my esteem. Certainly he is serious about trimming investment in the public-sector!
This from a CWJobs email:
Or is that the target rate of council-tax recovery in Manckieland…?
73: CarlottaVance:
Having quickly looked through the references at the end of your link, at first glance few are quoting hard scientific research over a period of 20+ years on the actual medical effects of taking each substance.
What the press tends to highlight is not relevant to scientific fact. It took over 40 years to prove the general link between tobacco and cancer, even though it was suspected well before then and even now there are people who have smoked tobacco all their adult lives and are unaffected well past the age of 80.
92. Welcome back ColinW!
89 “… it’s an inability to build an argument from premises to conclusion. Their words are just unconnected sentences.”
Very few British politicians at all are capable of this.
Yet, many members of the non-political class can do it routinely (Nikki Adams of the English Collective of Prostitutes was outstanding on Newsnight a week or so ago, and today Sir Christopher Meyer gave a very thoughtful and logical interview on Afghanistan on R4).
The British political class are the slops at the bottom of the chamber pot.
78. I agree. Labour are still keen to pedal ‘druggie Dave’. Associating louche drug taking with the upper classes is all part of Labour’s strategy. Nutt is a gift from this angle. The fact that virtually the entire cabinet admitted to smoking dope in that stunt back in 07 will be airbrushed out of history I suspect. AJ himself never made such a foolish admission.
Drugs is simply one of those things which the public is (not yet) willing to take a pragmatic view upon.
In which case, why have a drugs advisory panel on criminalisation issues?
92. ColinW - agree entirely, the Tories have kept their gobs shut and their heads down because they hold the same authoritarian views as Labour - only the Lib Dems have talked sense on this one. Thoughtful analysis from Mark Easton, BBC’s Home Editor on why Nutt was sacked:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/why_was_david_nutt_sacked.html
73. LondonStatto - there will have been alcohol related deaths over this weekend - accidents, choking on vomit - which we’ll never hear of - but one ecstasy death - we’ll know all about it!
91: As did moving Darling to CE….a wise move if you’re shoring up your own position.
100. CarlottaVance.
Ah, you’ve moved on from “deaths caused by alcohol” to the significantly more nebulous “alcohol related deaths”.
100
I don’t agree, The Conservatives have kept quiet because they want Labour to take all the flak.
92. Colin’s back! And barely a snarling insult in sight!
81/88.
David Wilshire, who compares treatment of politicians to Jews in Nazi Germany, is clearly not the sort of person the Tories want as an MP.
The one thing good about the expenses scandal, is that it will rid the party of backwoodsmen such as he.
antifrank at 85.
I really don’t know what could be causing that.
There was a confident outburst from Salmond last Friday but we had those before Glenrothes and know what hapened there.
It’s not exectly a constituency - would say has much potential for the SNP. Glasgow East was taken at a time when there was tangible anger at Brown resulting from the 10p tax and the cost of living.
I don’t get that feeling now. Glasgow East also had a sizeable middle class area. Glasgow North East doesn’t. It’s Glasgow East without the middle class enclave - and remember, the SNP won by less than 400 votes.
So I really don’t see where it could be coming from.
David Cameron will major at Prime Minister’s Questions on the lack of confidence that the advisory panel has in the Home Secretary - particularly if there are more resignations, as currently seems likely. It is an open goal and provided that he can do this without raising the substantive issue, he should score comfortably.
The Nutt story also usefully diverts public attention from the grim and damaging news coming out of Afghanistan. And the grim and damaging news about the economy.
103. - In that case why did Grayling pipe up? I agree the Tories are sensible keeping their heads down - but its a pity Grayling supported Johnson at the very beginning.
85. Antifrank - thanks for spotting that and I see also labour have also eased from 4/9 to 8/13. This is a big move and I wonder if Shadsy would like to comment.
106 - That was my own take, but there has obviously been a fair amount of money involved for Ladbrokes to shorten their price on the SNP twice and Victor Chandler to take their market down. It’s all very interesting.
103
No! they’ve kept quiet ‘cos their gutless worms. At least we know where AJ stands.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-anderson-lets-be-honest-legalise-drugs-and-society-would-benefit-1813200.html
That’s from one of Cameron’s biggest supporters in the press, would Dave put that in the manifesto?
Oh! I’m a hardliner on drugs.
102. Asphyxia caused by ingested vomit or blunt force trauma caused by a car crash - remove the alcohol, neither would have happened….similarly the actual cause of death in ‘illegal’ drugs - acute dehydration, respiratory arrest…same issue.
109, Grayling’s a plank who should be tossed overboard [if you'll pardon the slightly mixed piratey metaphor].
I come back and nothing has changed.
The same pygmies are being discussed as if they are real politicians. The only reason they are in the cabinet is because they make Gordon ******* Brown look like a heavyweight (a heavyweight ‘what’ is a topic for discussion).
The Milibands (maj. & min.), ‘Al’ Johnson, Mad Hattie, even Jack ‘fade to grey’ Straw: not one of them are going to get the top job while Our Glorious (and Courageous ™) Leader keeps his deathgrip on the (mythical) doorhandle of No.10.
I am actually inclined to believe all the talk of Leadership challenges is just an example of political shenanigans by The Dark Lord to keep attention focussed on anything other than the economic mess. Meanwhile the UK’s influence in the World continues its journey through the U-bend along with our future living standards ( paraphrasing Mike Bassett, England Manager: “Best placed among the World’s economies, my ****!).
Wonderful, ain’t it!
107. I really don’t think so. The open goal is the opportunity for Brown to insinuate some nasty association between ‘druggy Nutt’ and ‘druggy Dave’. Cameron has plenty to go on with Afghanistan.
92. Come on Colin!
You know that Grayling is a loose cannon in the shadow line-up.
He is the type who speaks before he thinks, aka the Sir Richard Dannatt remark at the Tory conference.
Cameron will have to get rid of him sooner than later.
116. PollyB.
Yeah, but no-one takes the “druggy Dave” thing seriously except for that idiot Maguire.
111. Antifrank - as it does not take big bucks to move a small betting market and I wonder if the SNP are placing bets to make their odds shorten so that they can support their claim that they are running Labour close?
188
Ooooh and Mel!
The really important question about David Cameron and drugs has not been asked. The pressing issue is not whether the Conservative party wunderkind-on-a-roll and potential leader ever took drugs (unless he has done so in recent years, at which point it ceases to be a youthful indiscretion and becomes a disqualification from office) but what his views are about how to tackle drug abuse. And here he is on entirely the wrong side. It is not just that he is equivocal about cannabis, indicating that he disagrees with his party’s policy of re-classifying it back to the more serious class B category of prohibited dugs (although he has also implied that he is rethinking that, in part at least because of the strength of skunk). It is that - despite careful caveats, so that he does not openly come out and say he wants to legalise drugs - he lines up with the drug legalisation lobby, and has displayed that lobby’s utter inability to understand the importance of law in signalling social disapproval and regulating behaviour.
On May 23 2002, he wrote in the Guardian that the war on drugs could never be won. Pointing out that drug policy had been an abject failure, he observed that this was because the focus had been on law enforcement:
Customs and Excise is supposed to keep the drugs out. The police and the courts are supposed to catch and punish users and dealers. It hasn’t worked. There have never been more drugs on our streets - and the prices have never been lower. It’s time for a new approach.
Wrong. The problem is not law enforcement. It is that the law not been enforced. Customs and Excise took a disastrous decision to stop actively targeting cannabis; as a result, cannabis flooded the British market, the price fell to rock bottom, cannabis use shot up and dealers moved increasingly into hard drugs to keep up their profit margins. On top of that, the police have for years failed to enforce the law against users, preferring instead to concentrate on catching dealers. This is a disastrous strategic error. The drug trade is driven by demand, not supply. And on top of all that has come this government’s catastrophic mixed messages about drugs, reclassifying cannabis to give the impression that a) it is not that dangerous (wildly untrue) and b) that it is no longer illegal (also untrue). The only successful drugs policy is one of zero tolerance, which involves the triple approach of law enforcement, treatment and prevention, as practised for example in Sweden where despite recent ups and downs the success rate in getting on top of drug abuse dwarfs anything that we have done.
What the Swedes understand is that drug policy only works if all the signals that a society sends out consistently say that drug abuse is an evil which simply will not be tolerated. That does not mean banging up every user. It does mean that drug use - quite apart from its supply - will not be tolerated and so there will be strategies for preventing it from happening and for dealing with it in a variety of ways when it does happen. If blind eyes are turned to some drug use, such as cannabis, on the (utterly mistaken) assumption that it is relatively unharmful, this destroys the consistency that is the absolute requirement to hold a moral and behavioural line.
Instead, Cameron comes up with the classic ‘harm reduction’ approach which, whether its adherents admit it or not, is a figleaf for legalisation. No doubt he is genuine when he says he abhors drug use and wants more effective strategies to combat it. But like so many people, he seems to have fallen for the callow and cynical sophistries which have allowed the deeply disingenuous and dangerous doctrine of ‘harm reduction’ to take root. Instead of aiming to prevent drug use, this approach merely seeks to minimise the harm it does. And to achieve that, it is necessary for drug use to be legalised so that it can be ‘managed’. So Cameron comes up with all the usual ‘harm reduction’ arguments - targeting help at users rather than seeking to prevent them from becoming users in the first place, providing injection rooms to ‘clean up the streets’ and prescribing methadone and even heroin to users to get them ‘to get off the streets and start to rebuild their lives’. True, he also says: ‘Ultimately, all treatments should have abstinence as their goal’; but treating with methadone and heroin usually means merely maintaining addicts in a state of addiction. This is not so much harm reduction as a surrender to harm creation.
In a diary for the Guardian Unlimited website in 2001, he wrote:
I am an instinctive libertarian who abhors state prohibitions and tends to be sceptical of most government action, whether targeted against drug use or anything else…Hounding hundreds of thousands - indeed millions - of young people with harsh criminal penalties is no longer practicable or desirable.
This is a very instructive statement. What he is effectively saying here is that he is instinctively sceptical of the value of law as the principal signaller of social opprobrium and policer of social order. It is therefore no surprise that he has also said that he believes that the UN should consider legalising drugs. If this were to happen, millions of mainly young people would be sucked into drug use, with incalculable ill-effects on both themselves and the societies in which they live.
The UN conventions have at their core the aim of eradicating drug use. There is currently a covert and increasingly successful global campaign under way to undermine and eventually destroy those conventions so that drug use can be permitted instead. This truly evil campaign, which would if successful result in misery for millions and most particularly among those who are most vulnerable to both the blandishments and the catastrophic damage of drug use - ie, those at the bottom of the social heap - is now firmly entrenched within the highest counsels of the British establishment and making more headway all the time. It is a campaign representing the nadir of social nihilism and irresponsibility.
If conservatism means anything at all, it is surely to defend society against such catastrophic predation. If the Conservative party votes to have as its leader someone who shares such attitudes, it will be signalling in the most unequivocal terms that it has no understanding of what is needed to defend or restore social order, and therefore has become utterly unsuitable to govern this country.
Personally i don’t think a ‘independant’ drugs advisory panel is of any real point at all.
Either they should always be listened to, in which case you get scientists making government policy.
Or they are ignored, in which case they’re pointless.
This formal panel is stupid, and is mainly only there to give the illusion of politicans looking as if they listen and are open.
Give the scientists the freedom to say what they think. and the politicans the repsonibility of making the decision.
120: If you’re going to copy n paste, at least give the link it comes from.
Reading Mel it seems that Cameron is heading in the right direction. Thanks for the reassurance, Coldstone.
Morning all and I see that nothing has changed since Thursday when I was last on PB.
So Alan Johnson, the man some of you thought PB material has blown himself out of the water losing the rag with Adam Boulton yesterday morning. To be fair to Johnson he has always said he is not up to the job of PM and now he has shown why.
Some of you either in hope or expectation have believed that either Gordon brown would resign for the good of the party or be removed. We Scots who know more about Brown have in the main expressed scorn at the suggestion. Now we read that Milliband may go to Europe forcing a by-election.
Gordon Brown would rather lose a handful of by-elections than stand aside or be pushed out. He knows that come next May the grateful electorate will prove the pollsters wrong when they return him with an increased majority, just as the “sage” of Westminster Sion Simons has predicted for several years!!
Meanwhile I don’t know if any of my Scottish colleagues yesterday reported the Scottish poll on Holyrood intentions showing that for the first time ever the Tories are expected to go through the 20 seat barrier in 2011. As I remind my SNP friends, remember 1979.
106 Glasgow East does indeed have several very middle class areas including some very exclusive areas around Mount Vernon where many footballers live in substantial detached Victorian villas.
Glasgow North-east has a great deal of what in the old days would be described as “upper working class” housing. In other words aspirational tradesmen and those of supervisor level who can afford a tenement flat but not a house. There is also a great del of rented property occupied by students, asylum seekers etc apart from the traditioanl springburn etc working class council tenants.
There are a great many very decent, hard working people in the constituency who have never been able to get out because the council wont or cannot give them a transfer of house but there are also very many problem families etc and I would certainly say socially Glasgow NE is more deprived than Glasgow East ever will be. I would not be surprised if David Kerr takes the seat but equally if Willie whatshis name for Labour holds that would surprise me little either.
for me the interest is whether the Tories beat the LibDems as in the past 2 “no hope” by-elections. If we do beat the LibDems then it suggests to me for example in Glasgow North the LibDems will not take the seat from Labour and will probably fall back. I spent a pleasant hour or so with a senior north-east Scotland LibDem councillor on Saturday evening and to say he was rattled is an understatement. If his attitude and behaviour is typical of LibDems in the north-east of Scotland at present then next year they are in for a very bloody nose.
120 - You’d include alcohol & tobacco in that?
122
From the wonderful Melanie Phillips archive in the Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-435577/A-private-past-yes-Cameron-sends-wrong-signals-drugs.html
118. I suspect we’re going to hear a lot more about Dave and drugs in the run up to the election. All the signs are that Labour is planning a very very negative dirty campaign. Links with far right fascists is for chatterati consumption. The drugs are for the masses. Middle class Jewish intellectual David Miliband leads on the former, working man AJ leads on the latter. BBC give it maximum back-up as they’re already doing.
92. On the nail ColinW. Greyling couldn’t wait to demand Nutt’s sacking. For those of us who despise the reactionary politics of the likes of Johnson it’s good to be reminded that Greyling and co will be even worse!
81. Very funny Coldstone!
120. Coldstone, once a genie is out of the bottle it is very difficult if not impossible to put in back in. The same is true of alcohol, tobbaco, knives, guns, speeding, mobile phones, disability payments, MPs expenses etc etc.
Mr Dancer - a fine analysis! Mr Grayling has proved himself to be a media idiot after what were very sure footed performances on Newsnight.
I confess to being impressed on R5 earlier by Huhne. It was the first *genuine* sounding performance from him that I’ve ever heard.
And he was spot on too. Grayling pandered to the Daily Mail reader quite unnecessarily - he should have attacked AJ for sacking Nutt/undermining confidence in scientific advice.
Complete chump.
127. Coldstone is already in overdrive on the subject. I rest my case.
129
So put this in the manifesto.
I am an instinctive libertarian who abhors state prohibitions and tends to be sceptical of most government action, whether targeted against drug use or anything else…Hounding hundreds of thousands - indeed millions - of young people with harsh criminal penalties is no longer practicable or desirable.
DC
Take the Bruce Anderson view, go on, do it!
130: I agree Grayling was wrong.
Scientists need to be given the freedom to give what they beleive to be the cold hard facts of an issue. Without pandering or having to consider political or emotional influences.
O/T, but a political betting question for the PB.com Betting Ethics committee to ponder…
On the train home from another dreadful day at the football on Saturday, I bet my friend £50 that the Tories win the next Election. I helpfully clarified this to him meant a majority, meaning he could have a hung Parliament, and made sure he knew we were betting at evens.
My query is whether it’s fair to actually make him pay up. He freely shook hands, with lots of witnesses, and he’s a seasoned gambler on football and cricket…but it’s fair to say a few drinks had been partaken of.
I’d probably settle for him buying me a pint if (okay, when) I win - though as he’s a trouble-causing union rep at the Royal Mail, there’s a naughty temptation to insist on it all in full, even though that’s maybe a little unfair. Any thoughts?
132: Coldstone…you’re operating in ‘low’ politics, and committing the sin which labour politicans do.
You want Cameron to take a position not becuase its the right or wrong thing to do. But what political damage that position will cause.
Low tribalism at its worst…and it’s damaging the whole debate.
134
Give it to charity!
on topic there was an interview of him in the guardian the saturday before the labour party conference which i thought finished him.
o/t seanT what is the source for the Roman animal stuff (because i’d like to know more not because i dont believe you)?
134 - Just how drunk was he? Was he so drunk that you could not fairly say that he knew what he was doing? Or was he just exuberant and careless about whether he could get better odds elsewhere?
If the latter, you could hold him to it. It’s an uncertain event and you are not obliged to quote the same odds as a bookie - and indeed, that was probably not why he struck the bet in the first place anyway. After all, part of the pleasure for him in striking the bet might have been the possibility of making specifically you pay up if you lose.
But if I were you, if you win, I would simply make him buy a round of drinks for all who had been present at the bet.
136
I thought be had agreed you’d post all your stuff/bile at 9.30am, then we can all move on.
Al Johnson always said he wasn’t up to being PM and he was quite clearly right. Its a mystery to me why he was ever talked up when he was quite clear that he didn’t have the skills needed to lead a nation.
140: White Knight syndrome.
132. “So put this in the manifesto.”
I wish the Tories would do what you suggest. But what would Labour do in response? They’d almost certainly run endless drug smears about the Tories. And so we’ll be sticking with the same useless and damaging drugs policy. Great!
6. That’s a very good point actually Mr Jones. I’d include Purnell in it as well.
He and Cruddas alike seem to have worked out that a surefire way to get yourself hated is to be introduced on TV as “a Labour government minister”.
Both Microband brothers now appear pygmies simply because they are ministers, we’ve all had a good look at them, and they’re as c@ck as the rest.
Even Callaghan’s government had figures like Healey and Owen in it. If Callaghan had fallen under a bus, you could easily imagine either of them stepping up to the PM role. These days, no Labouroid has the stature to be PM, and that includes the PM.
Purnell is, I think, the new David Owen. He’ll be around for a while, but he has held his last-ever position of power. He will probably end up as a writer and talking head, who gets a hearing and attention beyond what his actual achievements merit. This will happen because, compared to the rest of them, he looks and sounds relatively normal.
134 Andy D. Very simple. REMIND him of the bet in front of witnesses and ask him if it still stands(give him a chance to withdraw).
According to the Sharp Minds he will win the bet seven times in twenty seven and I have seen worse in my time.
13. I have just had a moment of clarity. We should start a weekly political interview show called ‘Electrical Bullshit Bingo’…Please could the producers put Yvette Cooper on first.
Excellent idea, Patrick, but there’s a problem. For optimum effect, the electrodes would really need to be attached to the subject’s t1ts.
This would present almost insuperable problems in the case of Yvette Cooper.
Morning all.
I agree with various posters above: I think Mike is exaggerating when he says that Johnson ‘totally lost it’. His performance wasn’t particularly good, but it wasn’t a disaster. (I also happen to agree that Professor Nutt overstepped the line, but that is another matter, and largely irrelevant to the perceptions that voters will form.)
Nonetheless I think Mike is right on the central issue, I’ve never been very impressed by Johnson; it was clear all along that his only merit in the eyes of those promoting AJ4PM was that he’s not Gordon Brown. It is very hard to see him being chosen as Labour leader post-GE; pre-GE it wouldn’t buy them much and would be a huge risk.
135
Low tribalism at its worst…and it’s damaging the whole debate.
Well I’m in good company, you for a start.
AJ could cut Nutt’s, ‘nuts off’ and ‘ang ‘em off Westminster Bridge, and Dave would be cheering him on, ‘cos there is no way would he support Nutt’s point of view. Cameron wouldn’t have the nerve, even if he agreed with it, which he probably does.
Professor Nutt’s toys-out-of-the-pram moment is quite odd. It’s hard to believe he can be naive enough to not know that the vast majority of the public’s view on drugs is rightly or wrongly very much against all illegal drug-taking.
So flouncing off when his “most drugs are fairly harmless” message didn’t go down well with politicians who are elected by the same public is just bizarre. He seemed to think his advice would be slavishly followed based on the evidence, ignoring the Realpolitik of the public’s views.
Having said that, Alan Johnson was unhelpfully dismissive of the advice given, and his strop on the news was weak.
From a personal viewpoint I am aware of one occasion in my entire life when I was present when drugs were being taken, and I know no-one at all who uses drugs. Like much of the news, its seems to happen in another world to my little sheltered one. (E.g. if asked to estimate the divorce rate based only on friends family and acquaintances I would have said about 10% as a maximum). Not sure if that’s good or not…
On topic - I thought AJ had lost it. Very unlike his usual self. Another poster thought he sounded like he was defending a policy he didn’t agreed with hence the bluster.
Sounds plausible to me. And who didn’t want it to happen - step forward Gordon.
I didn’t think it was possible to get on the wrong end of the political debate when being ‘tough on drugs’ - Labour have managed it in spades over the last few days. Good.
Re the Tories on policy - I sincerely hope that they say that they will make fully support an open discussion *based on the facts* so that the social harm/public concern can be balanced with the *actual relative risks*.
Nutt made an excellent point about harm incidents - 1:350 000 for Es, 1:350 Eventing.
- Anyone who knows anything about eventing, knows it’s a really dangerous sport and not for the faint-hearted.
- Anyone who socialises with E takers, knows that it’s not really dangerous - in fact not considered at all risky.
People in their 30/40s know that their soft drug taking didn’t do them any noticeable harm, their children are experiencing the same.
At some point, like with immigration - what the public really thinks compared to what politicians wants them to think will collide.
The public are keen to be treated like adults over ‘cuts’, maybe we’re at a moment when the relationship between politicians and the electorate starts to shift. Perhaps, Prf Nutt’s sacking has made a little whole in the dam.
Simple test for PM.
Put them in a picture next to Obama, Sarky and Merkel.
Do they fit in or not.
Johnson fails that test. Cameron passes it.
Whoops
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763295-pound-100000-expenses-mp-now-ordered-to-say-sorry-for-holocaust-jibe.do
*** BETTING CHALLENGE ***
I will take Alan Johnson for Next PM against anyone called Milliband. Stake £50 price EVENS.
Obviously if Dave Cameron is Next PM then there is no bet.
First come,first served.Only The Usual Suspects may apply.Offer expires at the end of this thread unless I renew it on the next.
150
You left out Silvio?
152: Silvio at least has charisma and can deal with people with force of character….he fits in as everyone expects nutters from the italians anyway.
147. “Cameron wouldn’t have the nerve, even if he agreed with it, which he probably does.”
Why wouldn’t he have the nerve? Because the party you support would pour a bucket of ordure over the head of any politician that talked about ending the drugs prohibition.
There is a parliament full of people, of all parties, who are utter hypocrites when regarding drugs; given their own use of drugs, or wanting leniency and compassion for friends and relatives, or supporting policy they disagree with.
You are right to criticise Dave, but do not ignore Labour’s willingness to use the issue of drugs to attack their opponents.
57. The Romans also had death matches featuring dwarves versus children; women versus dwarves, etc.
>i>A propos of gladiators there is a very funny line in Howard Fast’s Spartacus. Lentulus Batiatus, the gladiator school proprietor played in the movie by Peter Ustinov, is returning home from a business trip.
Approaching town, he passes in succession a slave barracks, a gladiator school, whipping posts, and a series of crosses along the road’s edge with shrieking victims nailed to each of them. He turns appreciatively to his companion and, without irony, says “Aaaah! Isn’t it great to be back in Roman civilisation?”
154: Someone needs to watch The wire. Series 3 I beleive, when the police guy actually attempts something new and sets up a legalised drug zone.
157
Hmmm I’m called a tribalist by someone whose endorsment of Dave, is down to, ‘he looks better in the pics’
Johnson was unusual in that interview, so different from his colleagues, in seeming to be passionate, committed and genuine.
About time politicians showed real anger.
And he has every right to be angry.
Angry at Nutt who was faithless and treacherous. Nutt knew the rules, indeed he would have been provided with a briefing when he took the post. So no excuse for him to criticise government policy while still the chief advisor.
He should have resigned and then made the criticisms. I suspect he wanted to be sacked.
Johnson was right to be angry at Boulton for being in monotonous prat journalist mode, repeating the same mantra because if the sacking was not because of a dislike of the advice then everyone dealing with Westminster would have to admit the sacking was right. Far too quickly done, but right.
145. John R.
That’s really not called for.
Sorry if this is a repost, bit busy 2day, v. good article.
How Labour has stopped caring what voters think
Matthew D’Ancona
http://tinyurl.com/yjqbbwx
Like all parties destined to lose, it has lost the taste for the unpalatable truth and prefers to please itself, to defend its privileges and to insulate itself from public anger.
155
The party I support! I think the Labour Party has been far to soft on drugs and drug abusers.
It isn’t the Labour Party that Dave is afraid of, its the massed ranks of the Mail and most Tory voters.
157: Underestimate the power of image at your peril. People which witter on about substance over style don’t understand that image can be vital and important.
Kennedy vs Nixon
Blair vs Brown
Obama vs McCann
Being PM or President or whatever means you enbody the energy and focus of the nation on the world stage. A empty-headed postie who can’t speak properly? Mind you we’ve got a mad angry sour scowling scot at the moment, so it might at least be an improvement.
3 - My impression is that he clearly lost it.
wasn’t pretty.
162: And who do you think AJ is pandering to? The Mail and most labour voters!!!
77. That will make no impact on the result, just the usual Labour dirty tricks. Considering the labour candidate claims he lives in the constituency when he in fact lives and works in London, this is small beer.
However as you say probably still an easy Labour hold , as they have had it for 74 years and it is one of the poorest areas in the world you can only imagine that the people like their policies.
57 Sean T - thinking about his companions, do you think tat could have any bearing on AJ Gill’s recent behaviour?
coldstone the list of people you disapprove of could usefully be described as
“anybody that isn’t me”
Sean T,
The Romans did like to re-enact famous scenes of b*stiality in Classical literature in their games; a big favourite was Pasiphae, the wife of Minos, mating with a bull. Quite often, the Gods took on animal forms, in order to mate with mortal women, and these too would often feature.
The prisoners were expected to enter into the spirit of the thing, before being killed.
Augustus thought it particularly amusing to have a replica of Mount Etna created, on top of which one notorious bandit was tied, before the whole structure went up in flames. The crowd enjoyed it tremendously.
85. Antifrank , there is not a lot of noise on it up here either , usually labour are trumpeting everywhere. So it might be that they are not as confident as one might assume.
162. “The party I support! I think the Labour Party has been far to soft on drugs and drug abusers.”
Ah, when you said you were a hardliner up thread I assumed that was a joke. So you agree with prohibition? You think we could crack the drugs menace by being tougher?
169: Whereas today, we have the X-factor and strictly come dancing…
Not much has changed come to think of it.
A quick scan of comments in the Sun on Nutt shows more people disgusted with lying politicians refusing to listen to the truth than anything else. No sign of any support for Johnson, altho’ some think Nutt is ‘nutty’ most commentators are cynical about motives for sacking him. There’s also a few who think the harmful effects of alcohol are played down in comparison to illegal drugs. Interesting.
165
Of course he is, AJ knows as any sensible politician knows, that the libertarian view of drugs, is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters.
If Dave who has expressed support for the, ‘libertarian’ point of view on drugs, really believes it, he should come out and say so.
144 - sounds a fair compromise. A bet is still a bet and I’ll remind him of it, then allow him to buy himself out of it at the cost of 1 x pint - that should protect the integrity of a wager and also be a reasonable approach to one’s friend.
Cheers.
JARHEAD - Day Twenty Seven
Timeline : Monday 3rd May 2010 10.23am
Location : Bedford England.
Dramatis Personnae : Mike Smithson
……………………………………….
The Editor Of Britain’s most successful political blog came off the telephone. What a strange fellow this Smithson chap was thought Tim Montgomerie. Strange indeed. Mr Smithson put the ear piece of his candlestick telephone down and shuffled back to his library along a thread bare carpet that almost lifted plumes of historic dust into the gloomy half light. Mr Smithson blew the candle out and open the heavy mahogany door. He took a match from his vesta case and lit the gas light just enough to lift the darkness of the huge room.
Mr Smithson cast away sheets of paper from the large partners desk and sat in the shabby captains chair. A half eaten bowl of mueseli shared space with a well preserved slice of brocoli quiche. They were quickly pushed aside. Mr Smithson took off his finely self embroidered smoking hat and pushed a hand over the ever growing and shinning bald patch. Mr Smithson smiled as he cast an eye over the large blue bottle at the far end of the desk. He patted his head again.
Mr Smithson touched his finger tips together and reviewed the latest polling :
ICM .. Con 37% .. Lab 28% .. Lib Dem 24%
Populus .. Con 36% .. Lab 29% .. Lib Dem 23%
Mori .. Con 39% .. Lab 27% .. Lib Dem 23%
A Reid .. Con 40% .. Lab 25% .. Lib Dem 25%
The Lib Dems had edged back a few points since the heady days of Clegg’s well received first debate performance and the Tories had in most polls appeared to have solidified their vote. However it was the marginals polls that Mr Smithson had commissioned with Angus Reid and The Observer that was still causing ripples. Ten constituences had been chosen with 1200 respondents in each and some had certainly raised eyebrows yesterday :
Broxtowe .. Con 40% .. Lab 41% .. Lib Dem 13%
Crawley .. Con 47% .. Lab 35% .. Lib Dem 12%
Bedford .. Con 34% .. Lab 23% .. Lib Dem 32%
Burnley .. Con 15% .. Lab 37% .. Lib Dem 38%
Watford .. Con 29% .. Lab 22% .. Lib Dem 39%
It certainly looked as if the Tories were winning well in the south but struggling the farther north they went. The Lib Dems also seemed to be targetting well although there was concern about several seats in the south west. Mr Smithson took a slurp of moderately price claret and knarled on some well aged cheese. A small amount of wine dribbled down his cheek but was swiftly wiped away by the cuff of the old velvet jacket.
Mr Smithson smiled again broadly, the stained toothy grin filled his face. What a few days lay ahead, the defered second debate now only two days from polling. Would Cameron’s temporary loss of voice, that caused the debate delay, do for one of the candidates so close as it was to polling. There would be so little time for recovery. The anticipation was palpable. Electric even. The first debate had drawn almost 20 million viewers and the second debate was expected to pull in even more.
The small hunched figure rose from the chair and picked up the blue bottle. He had been recommended the tonic and in some ways the treatment had been a partial success. Two tea-spoons of the restorative four times a day. Mr Smithson looked at the label - Auchentennach Hair Tonic - Gentlemans Folicular Application. Yes it had been a partial success, Mr Smithson now had the hairiest feet in Bedford. He now hoped that by increasing the measure four fold the effects would work to the other end of his body !!
The telephone rang. It was Mr Smithson son, Robert :
“Dad, dad …. have you heard ?? The local news reckon some Mr Hyde like character is loose in Bedford.”
Mr Smithson put the tea-spoon down. He smiled again.
174. I think this is classic nu Labour/Daily Mail - patronising the voters thinking they are too stupid to understand non-simplistic arguments and hiding the facts behind bluster.
Will probably take another 10 years but one day we might have a sensible drugs policy.
I saw this interview yesterday morning and I’ve never seen Alan Johnson so animated or angry. He had bright pink anger spots on his cheeks while he tried so hard to substantiate his complete discourtesy to Prof Nutt (by sacking him via email).
It’s not only Alan Johnson who is a disgrace. The Scottish Parliament has decided MSPs can claim for Remembrance Day wreathes on expenses. http://tiny.cc/Ww25Z
168
Errr no I don’t like you either.
174. Thing is Coldstone people might not be libertarian about drugs but they do want democracy. The Sun comments overwhelmingly show people are bothered about lying poiticians who censor dissenters.
174: Not really. It’s acceptable for Cameron to have a personal private opinion, but for that not to be reflected in offical policy. He is there to represent the views of his voters after all.
After all Cameron is just doing the same as AJ.
Very interesting that there’s a wide spread of opinion on Johnson’s hissyfit.
Errr no I don’t like you either.
by coldstone November 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
I will change my opinion of you coldstone. It is clear that you do not even like yourself. You are a man who is clearly uncomfortable in his own skin. Your loathing for all sections of society is very sad. You are more to be pitied than laughed at.
Last comment of the day to you, from me. Bye, bye.
What AJ should have done was said… ‘I value the input of scientific evidence into the drug debate discussion. However I also have to consider the social impact, along with other issues of any changes to drug legisation.’
Simples.
176 - What an outlandish fantasy! 20 million viewers to watch Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg indeed! Now, where do I get one of those blue bottles?
‘You are a man who is clearly uncomfortable in his own skin’
Indeed, as his comments on more than one topic suggest…
178 subrosa: The Scottish Parliament has decided MSPs can claim for Remembrance Day wreathes on expenses.
Oh, dear god. So much for the songs of praise for the Holyrood expense system.
156 In Colleen McCullogh’s Masters of Rome series, Batiatus is dissected alive, by Spartacus’s girlfriend, and the other women of the gladiators.
Tom Knox:
I read recently that gladiators were vegetarians, as determined by measurements on their bone composition and maybe other information. If so I wonder why. Did they consider meat eating effeminate or something? Could be: judging by the our history, the human brain seems to be very malleable.
182 I am in two minds about it. I have watched it twice. Not sure its quite as bad as Mike suggests, but it wasnt good either.
152. URW. Make it next Labour leader and you’re on with me. You can have any Johnson and I will have any Miliband.
189: As most gladiators were of lower classes..wouldn’t they have little access to meat anyway.
Did slaves in Rome eat much meat? I would expect not.
“Of course he is, AJ knows as any sensible politician knows, that the libertarian view of drugs, is not acceptable to the vast majority of voters.
If Dave who has expressed support for the, ‘libertarian’ point of view on drugs, really believes it, he should come out and say so.”
So, it’s acceptable for AJ, but not for Cameron?
On topic:
This whole AJ/Nutt affair just underlines for me that our society considerably, and many politicians in particular, really regard Scientists as trained monkeys to approve their preconceived notions and cant.
“…….Contemporary accounts of gladiator life sometimes refer to the warriors as hordearii–literally, “barley men.” Grossschmidt and collaborator Fabian Kanz subjected bits of the bone to isotopic analysis, a technique that measures trace chemical elements such as calcium, strontium, and zinc, to see if they could find out why. They turned up some surprising results. Compared to the average inhabitant of Ephesus, gladiators ate more plants and very little animal protein. The vegetarian diet had nothing to do with poverty or animal rights. Gladiators, it seems, were fat. Consuming a lot of simple carbohydrates, such as barley, and legumes, like beans, was designed for survival in the arena. Packing in the carbs also packed on the pounds. “Gladiators needed subcutaneous fat,” Grossschmidt explains. “A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight.” Not only would a lean gladiator have been dead meat, he would have made for a bad show. Surface wounds “look more spectacular,” says Grossschmidt. “If I get wounded but just in the fatty layer, I can fight on,” he adds. “It doesn’t hurt much, and it looks great for the spectators.”……….”
http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html
194, it is fun to see Labour disagree with the scientists on the lethality of cannabis, but eagerly washing the feet of the climate change promoters.
191 stjohn. I made my terms perfickly clear. My bet is for Next PM only, not Next Labour Leader.
196. Climate change scaremonger in chief Baron Stern of Brentford is an economist - perhaps he could do the next drugs policy review ?
Remember this stunt from Brown’s cabinet back in July 07?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469445/Now-TEN-cabinet-ministers-admit-We-smoked-cannabis.html
198, Lord of Brentford? Sounds similar to being Duke of Milton Keynes.
200. Either way he’s no scientist - doesn’t stop him being in charge of the great carbon swindle for the Uk.
195 There must have been many variations. A meat diet can be rather good for athletes, and the same must have been true for gladiators.
Gladiators were always of low social status (even those who volunteered) but the Romans did consider their willingness to fight was in some measure, courageous, and ennobling.
They were different from the criminals who were sent into the arena to be mauled and raped by animals.
seant Your research is for ideas rather than factual data?
If it is for facts then it is worth being careful to identify Christian propaganda against the pagan Rome and later pagan Romans and the reality in the arena.
There is a book on this, a rather dusty and turgid tome by some worthy historian but I can’t remember the name, rank or number. There are probably others.
It seems possible that a number of the horror stories which have been accepted as truth in the past may be either untrue or exaggerations.
NuRoman Christian spinners against the evil empire. Is there nothing really new?
O/T. I thought the Tories were being a bit naughty deselecting Liz Truss in South West Norfolk. Then I saw this photo in the Daily Mail. THAT top with THAT skirt???? The woman obviously has no judgement at all! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224404-0705A97A000005DC-672_224×423.jpg
Cameron has just basically said the classification should stand as is and it’s up to politicians to make policy using the advice and other things.
Non-statement fudge, probably safest.
The Ghost of Harry Flashman, Wikipedia has Stern’s role as being authoring a report on the Economics Of Climate Change - in other words, if based on what the climatologists say is likely to happen to the climate, how much is it all going to cost everyone, compared to what it would cost everyone to stop it.
You think they should have a climatologist doing that?
Galen (the most famous and most boring doctor of the ancient world) was physician to the gladiators in Pergamum AD 157-61 and brags continually about it - i.e. it was a classy job and he was very proud to have got it “at the young age of 28″. So it seems gladiators then were like racehorses now, better looked after than most of the poulation.
206. That doesn’t mean there isn’t scope for Nick Stern et al to have used their own judgement to create certain kinds of results, were they minded to do so. The scope for using creative assumptions in this kind of study is enormous.
207, indeed, he observed that the head is where the mind is located, after seeing the affects of head/brain injuries.
203 You don’t need to rely on Christian writers to see that the Roman State was capable of extreme cruelty towards those it considered criminals. Crassus’ crucifixion of 6,000 slaves, for example, is attested to by contemporaries.
O/T, but I think this proposal is a bit excessive.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6898663.ece
Some interesting views this morning, wide-ranging and mostly well considered.
My own take, fwiw, is that AJ didn’t ‘lose it’ and to the extent he showed anger, it was justified by the questioning. He was, in principle, correct to sack an advisor who had strayed into the political arena.
Where he failed was in not putting the anger aside for a moment while he explained the reasons for the Government dismissing its advisor’s advice. That leaves us to conclude that it didn’t have very good reasons.
On balance, AJ4PM is no less or more likely now than it was before the interview.
If URW is still offering, I’ll have that £50 on either Miliband beating him to it. (Draw no bet.)
206. I wouldn’t pay a climatologist to look out the window and tell me what the weather is - they’d tell me it was +40 degrees C and rising with the last polar bear surfing past on a tsunami bringing a rising sea of melted artic ice and hurricanes (if I don’t change my evil ways and re-use a poly bag).
210, not the Roman state, but I recall reading in TA Dodge’s military biography of Caesar that he (Caesar, not Dodge
) once massacred over 400,000 Germanic civilians for no apparent reason.
I have to say I haven’t read all the comments here BUT I thought that Alan Johnson was very good in the clip I just saw. I think that he is right that advisers are not there to set policy and I think that Alan Johnson has a right to be angry about what has happened. Won’t necessarily make me vote Labour (Very unlikely to) but it gives you pause to think.
213 MD. I think the Romans lost the penalty shoot-out against the Germans !!
199. Reading that Daily Mail article from July 07 I notice that Chris Grayling is on the list of Tories who admitted smoking the weed in his youth.
211 Peter the Punter.You got the gig ! I have AJ and you have David and Ed for Next PM.
Even £50.
Good luck !
Do I need to confirm ? Would rather not.You don’t need to confirm.
137. There’s some mention of it in Suetonius, Lives of the twelve Caesars IIRC. Nero i think.
Er, I seem to have kicked off a typically lively pb debate about Roman excesses in the circus.
For Constan T at 57, I picked up the info about gladiatorial bestiality here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia
All very fascinating, but these are the crucial paras [brace yourselves, pb-ers):
"The most explicit recorded incidents of public sex involving humans and animals activity are associated with the murderous sadism, torture and rape of the Roman games and circus, in which it is estimated that several hundreds of thousands died.
"Masters reports: "Beasts were specially trained to copulate with women: if the girls or women were unwilling then the animal would attempt rape.
"A surprising range of creatures was used for such purposes - bulls, giraffes, leopards, cheetahs, wild boar, zebras, stallions, jackasses, huge dogs, apes, etc. The beasts were taught how to copulate with a human being [whether male or female] either via the vagina or via the anus.”
“Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as Pasiphaë and the Bull, were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their victims afterwards.
“Chimpanzees and mandrills, both in fact ferocious and very powerful species of primate: “made drunk by wine and inflamed by the odor of females of their kind, were loosed upon girls whose genitals had been drenched with the urine of female chimps and mandrills.”
“The victims were often virgins and not infrequently young children. One spectacle is said to have included “a hundred tiny blonde girls being raped simultaneously by a horde of baboons.”"
*coughs politely to break silence*
Yes I am using this for material - the plot of my next thriller revolves (initially) around human/ape hybridisation and zoophilia - then it goes on to something EVEN WEIRDER. Aha.
By the way if anyone knows any good sourcebooks on mad Soviet/communist science - or any mad science on the above subjects - I’d be very grateful for the pointers. Ta.
Catching up late, saw the video, can’t see what the fuss is about. Comes across as being human and having a pulse rather than angry. If this anger, we should have more of it.
218 IIRC, Martial and Juvenal both refer to it.
WRT Suetonius, I think that you’re thinking of Nero’s habit of dressing himself up in wild animal skins and sexually assaulting men and women who were tied to stakes. Nero also murdered his mother, with whom he committed incest, and castrated one of his slaves, before going through a ceremony of marriage with him.
It takes a special kind of talent to completely bugger up taking a popular stance on Drugs policy. Johnstones slapping down of Nutt is in tune with most of the publics views on drugs and crucially very in touch with the kind of appiring WWC communities that are in danger of splintering to the BNP. This should have been a small but bankable oppertunity to stroke Labours core vote and Johnstone to put him self on ther side of the “silent” majority.
No one likes the clverest kid in the class and the Postie could have vanquished the egg head.
However all thats happened is 2 news cycles have gone down the pan, Nutt is canonised as a free speech martyr, for ever BNP switcher reassured another Guardian reader has gone Lib Dem/Green and a pontial successor to Brown has his credibility shredded by the commentating class but its a process story fiasco.
There is no greater sign of a dead government that Unpopular Populism which is what this is.
The name Lysenko springs to mind for bad Soviet Science.
219. The level of depravity really is remarkable.
219 SeanT. Where was the Romans “Back To Basics” John Major figure when you wanted one !!
221. Could be. Fair while since i read it.
URW
I’ll drop you an email. It helps my ailing memory.
Atb
PtP
This AJ vs Nutt debacle was (IMO) started in 2007 when Gordo stated that cannabis would be reclassified.
The question was later put to the panel of scientific experts, who disagreed, but the gov was determined to do it anyway. Makes a mockery of having expert advisors, and of course there’s the possibility that the gov will once again piss our tax money against the wall trying to implement a social policy that has little or no factual basis.
Did the gov expect the experts to fall in behind the gov no matter what their evidence said?
Who chose the experts on that panel? Were they chosen because of expertise or because they were thought to lean the way the gov approved of? If the later then it might be an own goal - the panel has been around for some time, possibly back to the days when the policy was to be more liberal about cannibis use.
So it’s possible that a panel was appointed whose tendency towards some drugs leaned the way the gov wanted at that time and it all back-fired when the gov decided to change policy.
210. Get rid of the savage dogs and there’ll be more knives. Get rid of the knife culture and people won’t feel the need for the dogs.
224.
“What have the Romans ever done for us?
“Taken our little daughters and had them publicly raped to death in the circus by hordes of drunken, urine-crazed baboons?”
“Oh yes.”
Sean Fear there were lots of cruel acts in Rome and all well documented. But the ”games” were originally funeral rites and there were strict rules about them.
These became less and less rigid with time but were still fairly strict, for example, at the time Nero had his gargantuan garden party lit entirely by torches made out of live victims on crosses.
Because of the religious, that is pagan, origin of the games the Christian propagandist saw them as a particular target for their skills.
222. Why is that Guardianista voters are so keen on legalising drugs? They have never shown much interest in the past in the welfare of those at the margins of society, who are most damaged by the current drug supply/demand environment.
224 The Ancient World was a cruel place, by our standards, but the Romans shocked even other peoples with their ruthlessness in war, and their love of cruelty for its own sake.
231. It has to be said the Christian propagandists had something of a point. The Romans did provide plenty of material.
Ditto the Aztecs. I remember being taught as a kid (no doubt by some lefty jerks) how awful Cortes was and how the nasty Spanish imperialists brutally destroyed a wonderful nation of gentle flower-pickers.
Then I actually READ, as an adult, about Aztec civilisation.
The “Classical World”
It was a hard place and a rock, wrapped up as one. But fair’s fair: it underlines the Christian idea of forgiveness and turning the other cheek as absolutely revolutionary.
222. Completely disagree.
Public perception of drugs policy has shifted greatly in the last decade. Polls now show about 50/50 splits on cannabis legalisation, which is not really that surprising as vast numbers of people have used illegal drugs recreationally.
Read any local newspaper & it’s the binge-drinking mayhem in town centres from that legal drug alcohol that people want tackled.
As for the ‘WWC’, well do you really believe that recreational use of illegal drugs is at a lower rate than that of the middle classes? Tiny bit patronising perhaps?
176. Most entertaining read on PB for a long time
SeanT re. Your Tom Knox research - have you read Apulieus’s Golden Ass? Terrific read - and the climax of the plot comes when the protagonist Lucius who has been transformed into an ass is scheduled to perform bestiality in public on a notorious murderess.
I see the comments about Nutt on HYS are about 98% against HMG for ignoring the advice and sacking him.
Oh dear
232. I’m not exactly a Guardianista, as you might have noticed, but I can see the very powerful logic behind Legalisation.
Indeed I swing between believing it is the only solution, and believing we should struggle on as we do, as the risks of liberalisation are too high.
It’s not a left/right issue.
210 Sean Fear
You probably don’t stroll around Bethnal Green too much but if you did you would have more than a little sympathy for the proposal.
I can recall more than one occsion recently when I have felt distinctly uncomfortable in the company of one of these animals and the regular sight of them in the street always makes me look at the owner with suspicion and concern.
I fail to see what positive purpose these breeds serve and would happily have them phased out.
None more scary than The Werewolf of Bedford.
Couldn’t you have found a part for Jenny Agutter,JackW ?
Will reply to your email next time I reboot,PtP.
239. I agree. But I think it is an issue where people’s own self-interests have a tendency to crowd out considerations of the wider public interest.
233 The modern world has proven to been pretty cruel too if you are born on the wrong side of the tracks, the wrong colour skin, the wrong shaped nose etc. e.g. The Battle of the Somme stands out as a pretty barbaric way to treat our young men.
242. Problem with legalisation is that Tesco’s would sell it as a loss leader and make the profits back on the munchie snacks.
210. But while welcome and vital, this would still miss an important point: certain types of dogs are inherently more aggressive than others.
Whoa, steady there. This amounts to arguing that you can tell by appearance how the creature will behave.
We can’t allow this kind of racist thinking to prevail.
There are no dog breeds or dog “races” and certainly none that can be distinguished from any other breed simply by looking at them. The differences within “breeds” are greater than the differences between them. There is only one dog race, Canis canis, etc etc etc….
The drug issue is a difficult one.
I tend toward the idea of legalisation. However, my niece being a victim of a bad reaction to ecstasy, I understand the sensitivity of the issue. (She suffered from fits for a while afterwards)
That said I can potentially support two positions.
1) Legalisation
2) Total prohibition
The current wishy washy approach achieves nothing.
The normal approach to drugs is to target the supply, demonising the “pushers”. Yet every success makes the profits of the sector increase, by reducing supply without changing demand. Meanwhile, the supply operation resembles Avon or Amway, much more than it does the pastiche as published by the mail.
If ever there were a time to launch a real discussion on any sensitive subject, it would be when one side in the argument is holed below the waterline and listing prior to sinking. Labour could shout impotently whilst the rest of us talked about the pros and cons of various options.
I thought Johnson completely lost it and I can’t work out why - was this the first time he has actually been up against some pressure.
I thought Cameron showed his class when he agreed with AJ but said his behaviour on television was unseemly.
233, 243, et cetera:
Isn’t it ironic that we call ourselves homo sapiens.
240. Totally agree, PtP. I never liked big/aggressive dogs anyway, but since having a daughter I positively loathe them.
The park where I take Lucy is fairly bourgeois so there aren’t many, but there are a few - pit bulls and Rottys etc, always snarling at each other, desperate to attack something. And my 3 year old is within a hundred yards.
Makes me very angry. You wouldn’t let people walk around with swords or let them set off fireworks in a playground. What’s the diff?
Dogs should be banned from cities anyway. They just crap everywhere and they’re not meant to be cooped up in concrete. If you want to keep large animals, go live in the country.
245, I wonder what the author would make of my own dog: partly/mostly border collie. We suspect he’s part bull terrier (he can dismember even hard plastic toys made for chewing damned quickly) and possibly part akita. Small-medium size, but strong.
The owner makes a bigger difference than breed
Would legalised pot not go down the same road as cigarettes - taxed so highly that the poor end up going illegal (see “tab houses”) and you are back to square one ?
245. Don’t forget all dogs came from Africa as well…
245 - the inevitable, facile “it’s the owner not the dog” commentary on this issue inexplicably overlooks the blindingly obvious fact that some breeds can readily tear your arm off (or worse) and others cannot. Don’t you think that is a salient matter?
Labour always gets itself into trouble when it seeks to second guess Daily Mail editorials.
253. Er, I think post 245 is a rather deft satire of bien pensant attitudes to human *breeds* - or races.
251. Yes this is one of the big problems I have with the idea of legalisation. Unless you start giving the stuff away it seems to me the risk you outline is a very real one. And if you are giving it away, why not give away booze and fags as well?
I have some sympathy with the ‘medical’ model of decriminalisation sometimes proposed for harder drugs but the commercial models often touted for various substances are very dubious in my view.
255/245 - oops sorry!
246. The flaw in the argument for legalising drugs is that it often assumes that those who are currently criminally involved in drug distribution would cease to be criminals if it were made legal.
The Mafia didn’t go straight when Prohibition was ended, however.
256. Drugs schmugs dogs schmogs - £30Bn being spent…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/6481291/Alistair-Darling-to-outline-plans-to-spend-30-billion-buying-bank-shares.html
240 Staffordshires are largely harmless, though.
Sorry am with the authoritarians on the dangerous breeds issue. No legitimate need for them outside policing and licensed security. Get rid starting with public places. Full discretion and the power to act delegated to local communities.
The dangerous owner argument is bogus. Should people be allowed to keep tigers or lions and be able to walk them in the park? No.
haven’t seen this site linked anywhere on here. Looks as if it would be of interest to the majority of people that post here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi
JohnR @ 258
Sure, but would it not reduce the areas of business for said criminal gangs and therefore make them smaller.
To illustrate:
New dumping regulations that massively increased the cost of waste disposal created a business development opportunity for criminals.
250 Absolutely right. Bad owners encourage poor behaviour - either by failing to control a dominant dog or playing up to their bad behaviour as it makes them feel big.
Sure, some dogs are *smarter* than others, and some have certain characteristics such as herding [collies] and territory protection [GSDs/Dobermans]. However, none of these breeds are inherently more aggressive than others.
Look at the owners of problem dogs - these don’t tend to be little old ladies with Westies, Cavalier spaniels or Labradors. Staffies are a wonderful breed but many are bought specifically because they *look* hard.
Rotties are usually bought for the same reason and become thugs by virtue of their size.
One of the saddest things is to look at the dogs available from Battersea - the vast majority are collies, GSDs and Staffies. Collies and GSDs are completely unsuited to cramped living conditions, and Staffies dumped when their owner can’t be fagged with looking hard.
256/258
Yep.
261. Agreed. No one’s saying you can’t have a dog, you just can’t have a dog that has been bred over centuries to kill bulls, savage bears, fight other dogs, and attack people. Get Rid.
I suspect a government that brought this in would find the proposal unexpectedly popular. No one likes these dogs but a few breeders - and criminals.
Alternatively muzzle all dogs in most public areas.
I wonder if Romans would pass a law putting down the owners of dangerously misbehaving dogs. Just joking. I think.
263. I imagine it would stimulate investment in the production of new and even more addictive (and dangerous)drugs that could be sold for high prices. Indeed this is already happening as a result of the sharp drop in street prices of ‘traditional’ substances…
261 Lions and tigers haven’t been domesticated - if I wanted a Asian Leopard cat, I’d need a Wild Animal Licence from Defra.
However, once they’ve been crossed with domesticated breeds like Siamese a few times - they become housepets known as Bengals. They retain their wild characteristics such as being noisy/love climbing/too clever by half - but they won’t attempt to assault you.
234 I remember reading one recent article comparing the Conquistores to soldiers liberating Belsen.
243 I’ve often wondered how many takers there’d be if our rulers were to put on the same spectacles to the public that Roman rulers put on.
248 I think that the ability to think gives some people the ability to enjoy cruelty. They can really imagine what it’s like to be on the receiving end of it. Some primates take real pleasure in cruelty, too.
264. To broaden the argument a little (before I go back to thriller research) one of the goals of the incoming Tory government must be to de-nastify British public spaces.
From drunkenness to oikishness to knife crime to insolent kids to, yes, dangerous dogs, British cities - their squares, parks, pavements, etc - often have this faintly edgy or nasty quality which is lacking in continental cities.
I don’t know how you solve this problem. It’s been around for generations. Labour have made it worse by importing millions of migrants for whom the UK is just a place to make money before they go, therefore they don’t care about the quality of life (and that’s fair enough, it’s human nature to treat a hotel room worse than your own house).
But Tories need to get to grips with it. Electing police chiefs and mayors and the rest is a start. Also education is crucial. And Muzzling the Dogs will help.
Sermon over. Back to the History of Angkor. SawadeeK.
268. “I imagine it would stimulate investment in the production of new and even more addictive (and dangerous)drugs that could be sold for high prices”
The danger from drugs has little to do with how addictive or potent they are. There are three problems — 1) drug production is not sterile, 2) the drugs are cut with toxic substances, and 3) the drugs are of an unknown strength. Prohibition inhibits tackling these three problems. Worrying that legalisation might lead to new dangerous drugs being produced misses the point that prohibition makes current drugs far more dangerous than they would be if produced commercially under license for legal supply.
249-There was a fellow who thought all languages came from three primeval grunts.
Stalin was also obsessed by Georgian scientists who prolonged life, or something like that…
As for dogs, quite happy to have them poisoned if they are bigger than a dachshund.
269,266 Just leave it to democracy and local by-laws.
A local referendum.
Do you want to ban these breeds from parks? Yes/No?
Do you want to grant the police/rangers the power to control dogs that enter the parks? Yes/No
This could be stretched to other anti social stuff.
If they pass these powers, whack a big sign up at the park entrance. Job done. If don’t agree, campaign against it.
IMO there is a greater loss of liberty for those with kids wanting to use public spaces at the moment.
273. I think you are confusing two things - the danger to individuals from toxicity etc. and the risks to wider society from the problems associated with addiction.
While you may be able to reduce the former risks in the way you suggest, you will not reduce the latter under a commercial supply model.
260 I’ll take your word for it, SeanF. All I’m asking is that we accept some breeds are a real danger to others and ban them.
There will always be problems of definition and I am very happy to leave such issues to others better informed than myself, but I would suggest that it’s an area where it is much better to err on the side of safety. I mean, it’s not as if there isn’t enough choice without the survival of breeds which characterised by aggression and fighting skills.
275. Again, agreed. This could be Tory localism at work.
I am sure that in my daughter’s London neighbourhood the number of parents totally outweighs the number of owners of big dogs. Such a council referendum would be passed immediately, and the dogs would be banned at once.
Good. Cities are for people, not for animals.
In the real world most people know the Good professor is right in saying that E’s and especially cannabis is less harm full then Alcohol. Coming from the Netherlands Cannabis was a right of passage .. I smoked it for couple of years and then got bored with it like most of my contemporaries and quit. This is how it should be no hang ups no dogmas ..
Now alcohol is a completely different beast all together and the nr of people I know that are teetotal is very low and most are looked at with suspicion when they say they don’t drink in the UK. On mainland Europe the attitude is different going out for a good booze up like how is done in the UK is not some thing you admit to. In the UK however this behavior is completely acceptable and every one including the government seems quite happy to bear the fall out of all of this.( go to your local A&E or high street on the week-end ) We even indulge by having special programs on telly ( booz Britain etc)so suburbia can watch what their kids get up to on the week-end then shake their heads and shout at the telly how awful these people are to subsequently start on their 3rd bottle of Merlot … Hypocrites the lot …..
274 Just as well that you are taller than 1ft then.
275 Like it. I used to take my greyhounds to a public space where all dogs ran free and had a great time sniffing and chasing about.
Then a Rotty thug dog was introduced that body-charged the rest and was clearly still a puppy although more than 60kgs. The owner thought it was *funny*, many of us didn’t and I stopped going.
I’d be happy for a parky to hand out a notice to someone with an unruly dog if they got enough complaints about it.
253, 255. If you want to watch a lefty’s head explode, try this fun thought experiment. It works best on lefties who have just become parents for the first time, and whose darling Rollo in his Moses basket is in their every thought.
OK, so here’s the thought experiment. For reasons that needn’t concern us - you’ve fallen into the clutches of Lentulus B@stardus, a Roman arena events co-ordinator, perhaps - your new-born child is going to be locked for 24 hours into a cage containing six dogs. The dogs haven’t been fed for a week, they’ve all been given a really good kicking to wind them up, and for added entertainment value, ickle bubba is going to be smeared with blood before the dogs are let in.
Now the fun is - you get to choose which six dogs! Choose wrong and bubba is literally dog food. Choose right and - well, I don’t know, is it even possible to choose right?
Here are the dog options.
Dog type number one is the golden retriever. Bright, generally docile, and used to retrieve bloodied dead animals which, contrary to canine instinct, it carries undamaged to its master and then hands over.
Type number two is St Bernards. Huge, but famously unaggressive, and wholly capable of carrying a small child to safety from off a mountain. So we have six dauntingly vast hungry St Bernards available to be cloistered with junior.
Type number three: American pit bull terriers. Bred to be strong, fierce, and aggressive, they have featured in all too many ghastly stories in which, left unsupervised, they attacked and killed unattended children. Six of the bugg3rs are already foaming at the mouth in cage three.
Which six dogs do you put in with your kid?
Now the fun is as follows. First of all, most players wrongly assume it has to be all six of one type. But nobody said that, they just assume this based on there being six of each dog.
Second, most lefties accept the potted description of how the dogs will behave at face value, because let’s face it, they’re not wrong.
Third, most lefties assume that they’ll be able to tell the dogs apart by looking at them. So they know this dog or that dog is likely to attack the infant, because it looks like a pit bull.
The fun really starts when they choose six retrievers and assumption that all retrievers look and act roughly the same. You can then wonder aloud why, as lefties, they have a problem with the police using the same logic to target muggers, terrorist police using it to target Islamofascists, etc.
You may not keep your lefty friends, but who’d want to?
Bring back the Dog License - at a commensurate rate - include an insurance aspect.
And enforce it.
278 Doesn’t have to be Tory!
Some boroughs could try to carve out a “Dog friendly” niche if they liked. Places where the dogs outnumber the kids for example.
Real tangible Democracy, it’s the only way to go on this.
Your park, your choice. But we will need real power delegated to local authorities on this.
276. What is the main problem for wider society from drug addiction? It’s not the physical effects of addiction it’s the crime committed to pay the inflated prices of the illegal drugs.
Many aggressive breeds dogs are prone to ‘rage’ syndrome. They simply are more dangerous than other dogs.
Owners CAN make a difference, but it is really a nature/nuture type of debate.
Even ‘nice’ guadianista hippies can’t make an agressive dog behave, they just get put down when they bite little amy out of the blue.
279 - The British drink alcohol heavily, and get aggressive and unpleasant. The Spanish, Italians and French probably drink more but tend not to get aggressive and unpleasant. What they do do, however, much more than us, is drink, then get in their cars and kill people.
285: How would you solve the movement of society against the effects of alcohol, and desire to increase prices, against the proposal to make drugs legal…and to reduce the price of them?
273. I’ve often thought that a good way of reducing the demand for drugs would be for the authorities to cut them with cyanide, or arsenic, or something instantly fatal, and put them back into circulation with an appropriate level of warning that this had been done.
It could never be done legally of course but I imagine it would halt use in its tracks.
Or maybe not. ISTR some survey years ago to the effect that, if there were an undetectable drug that guaranteed victory but would also definitely kill you within 10 years, something like 90% of Olympic athletes would take it.
282 LOL JohnR!
That has to be the most contrived reason for disliking ‘Lefties’ ever posted on PB. Some sort of award should be forthcoming.
285 - It’s not just the stealing to get the drugs that is the problem, though. People out of their brain on something are also very unpredictable from a behaviourial perspective and have the potential to harm both themselves and other people. Indeed, they often do just that.
285. That’s certainly a big part of the problem but I would suggest there are other issues such as the disintegration of personal relationships, mental illness, impact on ability to work etc as well.
But to return to my initial point, how do you ’solve’ the crime problem without essentially giving the stuff away? And how could you do that while maintaining the highly inflated (by tax) prices we currently have for alcohol and fags?
The legalise-tax etc. version of the argument falls down for me at this point.
Going back to the Times piece, linked by Sean Fear, which kicked off the dog argument, I see it is by Kit Malthouse, the Tory deputy mayor.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6898663.ece
According to Wiki this guy was born in Toxteth, so perhaps here is one Tory who knows exactly whereof he speaks.
286 I would have thought a ‘nice’ Guardianista type would be a very poor dog trainer by treating it as a small furry person.
All my dog training friends [who specialise in obedience/agility] are very no-nonsense Barbara Woodhouse types who understand that they aren’t human
Thanks Peter
The argument from one end of the spectrum, that race tells you everything about someone you don’t know, is clearly fallacious, but so too IMHO is the opposite view that it tells you nothing.
What is fun about the dog experiment is that it exposes how much of the former argument lefties are actually subconsciously bought into.
With the result that in certain circumstances their heads can be made to explode.
Has Toilets been flushed away?
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/11/missing-kevin-maguire-already.html
282 A clever thought experiment.
Also interesting to note he is on “holiday” at the moment and he seems to have an obsession with a relatively unimportant Tory MP, sounds very much like a regular on here…
http://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/5341052631
Heard on R5 that Karzi has been handed the Presidency due to lack of opposition. Not going to go down well methinks. But at least no more troops will be required to die to enable a corrupt election process.
284 the problem with simple democracy is protecting the rights of minorities. In many areas all parks and green spaces would be barred to dogs as the majority wants that.
299 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8337832.stm
299, sorry that should read Karzai, not a cockney toilet.
My other half announced over the weekend that he wants two dogs: a Komondor called Yoda and an Irish Wolfhound called Paddy.
Afternoon all
Re: 272 - I always thought the decline of civil society began with the end of the park-keepers. When I was a wee Stodge, growing up in affluent middle-class suburbia, the local park was where we played as kids and the park keeper was a figure of authority.
We had beautifully-kept flower beds and grass tennis courts, marked out areas for football pitches and (in the summer) a couple of cricket pitches. The park keeper would open the park in the morning and close the park at night and woe betide any dog walkers who didn’t behave (or their dogs for that matter).
BUT..people wanted to pay less rates so the park keepers went and the flower beds went and the tennis court was made a hard court with a net but that of course got vandalised and so the tennis courts went (which is why we never win Wimbledon). The park was left open at night so anyone could loiter and so on…
Could we re-employ an army of park keepers ? Could we give them some serious powers and status to restore our public parks ? Why couldn’t Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan have said, “we’re not paying bonuses, we’re going to fund a renewal scheme for parks”. THAT would have been popular…
the thing that gets me about the legalisation of drugs argument that many put forward is that they cite alcohol and tobacco as legal drugs that are harmful.
essentially what they are saying is that we have legalised some drugs which are harmful and that because of that we should legalise some more because that would make things somehow better.
most of the legalisation arguments imho work from a position of logic which is fallible. Having seen many people take drugs with varying effects I can say drugs can have a seriously damaging effect on people’s mental health and general wellbeing. Cannabis has made a number of people I know go doo-lally for varying length’s of time. Ecstasy users have suffered serious bouts of depression/anxiety in the days after using and cokeheads are just tw@ts. fundamentally, I like a pint and feel that it is a good fun thing for an adult to have a drink or two at times. I wouldn’t advocate making a whole host of drugs which have much more unpredictable side effects than alcohol legal because i don’t think that would be responsible or lead to the kind of behaviour which many of the pro-legalisers say it might or would.
300. And?
Why should children be terrorised to protect the *rights* of w@nkers to own pitbulls? Theoretically I have a right to walk down the street shouting murderous threats at grannies. But the law prevents me. Ditto dogs.
This is one area where cultural change is in advance of legal evolution. People didn’t use to keep big nasty dogs in cities, in fact they didn’t keep dogs in cities at all, but now they do. So the law must adapt.
re 34 speaking of Miliband, as Boy Blunder is in Russia at the moment and his reputation for winding up the foreigners I hope we’ve all checked that out emergency fall out shelters are well stocked and up-to-date.
On thread, I’ve never understood why people thought Johnson would go for the PM job. I understand that many political commentators have a sort of sex offenders logic about politicians denying they want to be PM “she said no but she meant yes”. However, I’ve always been inclined to believe AJ when he said didn’t want to be PM. Whatever else he is he does seem to be honest.
288. “285: How would you solve the movement of society against the effects of alcohol, and desire to increase prices, against the proposal to make drugs legal…and to reduce the price of them?”
I don’t think those proposals make much sense. Making alcohol more expensive will not stop addicts drinking, but may create an opportunity for criminals. We don’t seem to be able to stop booze cruises so how will we enforce high price for alcohol?
291. “285 - It’s not just the stealing to get the drugs that is the problem, though. People out of their brain on something are also very unpredictable from a behaviourial perspective and have the potential to harm both themselves and other people. Indeed, they often do just that.”
Yes that is a problem but it’s not the major one, and is utterly dwarfed by the effects of alcohol. Who would you rather confront, drunks coming out of a pub or stoners?
292. “But to return to my initial point, how do you ’solve’ the crime problem without essentially giving the stuff away? And how could you do that while maintaining the highly inflated (by tax) prices we currently have for alcohol and fags?”
You don’t have to give it away. You set the prices at a level where most users would rather pay out of their own pocket than take risks to pay for drugs through crime. The pricing of alcohol and cigarettes by and large does not promote much crime, though higher prices might. If drugs were priced similarly it seems reasonable to believe that most users will take the path of least resistance.
Currently drug users have no option for legally continuing their habit, and in many cases can’t fund it legally. We’d like them to stop, but if the won’t stop wouldn’t it be better if they continued legally? Many of them surely would do so if given the choice.
I’m not saying that legalisation is a complete solution to all the problems of drug addiction, but I can not see why we continue with a policy that has failed.
Slightly more on-topic, the post of Home Secretary is in my view the most difficult in Government. There’s little or no thanks for getting something right but so much that often starts trivial ends up asw a full-blown crisis for the unfortunate post-holder to manage.
The political graveyard is full of Home Secretaries whose careers were ruined by the job.
304. On a happier note, my daughter’s local authority - Barnet (Conservative) - has followed your advice: and taken steps to recivilise the neighbourhood park.
A cafe has reopened, new flower beds have been planted, the playground is safe and popular, it is all kept spick and span, the tennis courts are used - and, as a result, the number of nasty dogs and drunks etc etc is miraculously lowered.
If you keep the civic space pleasant, it denastifies the people, or at least makes the thugs more conspicuous and less welcome.
I appreciate the hypocrisy in my own position. I used to be a drug-taking tearaway. But at least I wasn’t a communist.
I think Tom Knox should be muzzled until he stops using the everso Guadianista phrase ‘bien pensant’ and finds a good English phrase instead and in so doing demonstrates his wordsmith skills.
252: not with cannabis - most users are very occasional, thus a heavily taxed and expensive product by volume isn’t an issue. It’s essentially a luxury, whereas most tobacco users are 20 a day, 40 a day or whatever. Or, in Daily Mail terms, morally disreputable addicts.
300 Again democracy has the answer to this. If the council tax payer wants to provide an additional public dog park, I don’t see a reason why not.
Parks aren’t free you know.
304 stodge
A lovely idea but I’m afraid the world has moved to a different place now. Any new Parkie would be harrassed by gangs of youfs, inciting him/her to some sort of reaction when they could then be charged with assault. In addition, said youfs would find out where this poor person lived and terrorise them.
Welcome to New Labour Britain
305 So lets reverse it… as you say Alcohol( and tobacco) is harmful as we all know its a very dangerous drug causing 1000’s of deaths annually. So lets make it illegal do you agree ? if not why not … and I will point my finger and say hypocrite.
bono publico @ 283
Forcing third party insurance on dog owners makes a hell of a lot of sense. It internalises the cost of the dog’s level of aggression. Certain dog breeds would be impossible to insure, and the decisions would be made by experts, not by lay people in the park.
No doubt my Labrador would be relatively cheap to insure, as long as the cover didn’t have to include stolen food.
307 I don’t think he wants it either but i’d imagine other people keep pushing him.
310. Is that Victoria Park - North Finchley?
309- transport is another dangerous post, no government ever gives transport the funding it needs, so the minister gets blamed for every traffic jam but has nothing to take the credit for.
311. Haven’t you heard? Tom Knox is a good little European these days.
306 SeanT - quite agree, there are a number of dog breeds that are too aggressive for urban life and a small number too aggressive for a country like the UK with pretty open countryside & rights of way. When we left Africa I left my german shepherd with friends (even now I feel guilty) but he was far too aggressive, having been bred as a farm guard dog, to have been taken to a country where he wasn’t kept in by 9 foot fences, double gates. He was a soft, gentle creature with family, but he was also an aggressive guard dog to strangers.
What I was pointing to was that simple majorities can easily close off the rights of others - banning all dogs from parks, open spaces would be all too easy to get through when actually a compromise could work.
304
The Genie and the Bottle.
People have grown up without automatic respect for others so why should they accord respect to a freshly imposed bunch of officials?
Those growing up now are not alone. I find that I regard the collection of newly empowered, uniformed busybodies that now stalk our streets with a similar jaundiced eye.
Seems that if your job doesn’t have a uniform to go with it, the state regards you as a criminal.
304
Stodge, I agree with all of that, save that low taxes/rate caps do not have to mean the loss of front line services. Council spending allocations/priorities are primarily responsible.
In every council the length of the land (and indeed in most private enterprises) you will find no shortage of well-paid marketing bods, communications officers, corporate responsibility officers etc. Naturally some of these prople are very good at that job and others very bad, most somewhere in between (the same is true of lawyers, sportsmen, brickies and - gosh - doctors and nurses) so this is not a right-wing “sack the diversity officers” rant, but I do think councils have serious questions to answer as to why they prefer to spend £28k on an internal communications specialist rather than £14k on a park warden.
I fear the answer is that councils have become so beholden to the aspirant would-be professional classes that they only see merit in jobs of a certain nature. The fact everyone these days seems to aspire to a comfortably paid office job should not blind councils (or corporates) to the fact that the work that needs to be done is often different from the work which is done.
315. If you make it illegal you will lose the election. and the subsequent Government will re-legalise.
Alchol is legal cos it has been legal for a very long time and is part of our culture. Just because it is legal does not mean we should legalise more drugs.
The fact that we barely have a grip on the problems that alcohol causes should mean that we should think carefully before legalising other substances. One of the reasons we have so many problems with alcohol is perhaps because it is legal and so readily available?
call me a hypocrite maybe, but I think it is more being pragmatic and practical rather than assuming that legalising a lot of drugs will make things better.
315: Real politic….the imapct of the banning of tobacco and alchol on our country would be immense.
Repost from libdemvoice:
It’s worth comparing the practical qualifications of Prof Nutt and Alan Johnson.
Prof Nutt is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Academy of Medical Sciences. He holds visiting professorships in Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands. He is president of British Association of Psychopharmacology and the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. He has been a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and is on the Council and is President of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
He established the Department of Neuropsychopharmacology and Molecular Imaging at Imperial College where as chair of the department he is actively involved in research into the role of neuroreceptors in sleep, anxiety and addiction.
Alan Johnson is a former postman.
And from his remarks on the issue, David Cameron is a hypocrite.
So its ok to ban one mans drug criminalizing him and chasing after him with the full might of state ruining his life when he is caught. But not going after the other one just because its “Cultural”. Nonsense in some countries being allowed to hit your wife is cultural but it doesn’t make it right though. I am not saying legalizing drugs would solve all of the worlds problems but at least we would remove a large part of the funding to the criminal underworld and make sure we can take care of people that do develop dependencies beyond their control. If we do not then any other stance is hypocritical to say the least..
318. Cherry Tree Woods - East Finchley. It’s nice. Not Hyde Park, but nice.
The overwhelming number of parents-with-young-kids in the area is the crucial civilising influence, I suspect.
The most successful anti-drug policy of recent years has been that against the totally legal drug nicotine. These has been done through the complete reversal of the ‘War on Drugs’ pattern of targetting dealers and being vaguely sympathetic to the ‘victims’.
The ‘War on Tobacco’ has been pusued by targetting the end user - criminalising them - whilst almost ignoring the dealers and supply chains. Would this work for other drugs; dropping the idea of decriminalising “small amounts for personal use”, and hammering on any level of possession rather than trying to clamp down on the supply end. Sounds better economics to me.
262. “The dangerous owner argument is bogus. Should people be allowed to keep tigers or lions and be able to walk them in the park? No.”
Lol. For once I agree with you Jonathan!
And all dogs should be kept on leads at all times in public places.
267. “Alternatively muzzle all dogs in most public areas.”
Agree.
The difference between booze and drugs is that getting bladdered is not the whole and sole point of drinking. It is possible and indeed usual to drink in moderation because drink and food improve one another.
With drugs, in contrast, the only point is to get intoxicated. You don’t hear of heroin users only injecting 10% of the required dose because they’re driving or whatever.
So drugs are always fundamentally anti-social when used, whereas booze is only so when abused.
324 One of the reasons we have so many problems with alcohol is perhaps because it is legal and so readily available?
GPWM.
271. “248 I think that the ability to think gives some people the ability to enjoy cruelty.”
One has to ask: WHY?
‘You set the prices at a level where most users would rather pay out of their own pocket than take risks to pay for drugs through crime’
Sounds fine but in the context of very highly addictive substances would this really work?
In practice you might have to set the price very low indeed as the absolute spend on drugs required by the addict would remain high and in some cases well in excess of their income. What happens in the case of those on benefits, for example?
If you didn’t, illegal suppliers would be back in the market very quickly and would force the powers that be to cut the controlled price further and further. So again we end up back at square one.
326: One can’t go through life without a certain amount of hypocrisy
304. “BUT..people wanted to pay less rates so the park keepers went”
And we didn’t get the low rates either.
I think most people would be delighted if the diversity coordinators and stakeholder engagement managers on £30k plus were canned for a couple of parkkeepers instead.
327. Good stuff, I like East finchley….the Old White Lion pub opposite the Cherry Tree woods serves good beer and alright food if i remember.
331. Well put.
The joy of pb com, from public Roman pedophiliac baboon rape to the reinstitution of park keepers, in about an hour.
lol. OK I’m off to buy highly taxed wine. Anon.
324. “The fact that we barely have a grip on the problems that alcohol causes should mean that we should think carefully before legalising other substances.”
Yes we should think very carefully. Unfortunately there’s little sign of careful thinking amongst our politicians. I suspect that many politicians would like to try an new approach but fear speaking up and been attacked by the hardliners.
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that the drugs menace has three main problems for society which in order from most to least problematic are:
1) The criminal activity supplying drugs and to pay for illegal drugs.
2) The health effects of illegal drugs, those effects that are not intrinsic to the drug itself.
3) The effects of drugs that would occur whether they were legal or not, primarily addiction, but also the psychotic and toxic effects.
Prohibition does little to deal with the first two problems. Legalisation may reduce the scale of the first two problems.
If prohibition appeared to be working I’d be in favour of it.
333
Taking the example of tobacco and alcohol.
These are legal in the UK, yet smuggling still takes place.
Where there is a product there is the opportunity for crime.
Legalisation, taxation, regulation and education all need to go hand in hand. They are mutually reinforcing strategies against both crime and drug abuse.
Drug education is almost impossible - as the whole debate around Nutt shows - because as soon as someone points out the actual risks of using certain illegal drugs, it looks as if they’re semi-condoning illegal behaviour. It’s nigh-on impossible to run a credible anti-drugs campaign and effective education at the same time. Consequently, one or both are disbelieved by the public.
Legalisation and regulation would cut the risks involved in supply and education, funded by taxation, would enable better understanding of the true risks. Education can be effective when properly targetted as has been proven in cutting smoking and the social acceptability of drink-driving.
On a similar theme, and if for no better reason than to really wind up Harriet Harman (though there are many better reasons as well), I’d abolish the majority of the restrictions on prostitution between consenting adults as well.
336. Yes, it is surprisingly pleasant for a boring and derided suburb. The White Lion is airy and plez and does OK food and has a great beer garden. The pub up the road - the Bald Faced Stag - which once used to be known for its stabbings, is now a very acceptable gastropub with excellent tucker.
The whole area is gentrifying very very quickly, and with its speedy direct Northern Line connection to the West End - about 18 minutes - is seriously underpriced, propertywise, I reckon. Nearby Muswell Hill is much pricier but has NO Underground link. Crouch End ditto.
Any pb-ers wanting to move to an agreeable part of London for a (relatively) bargain price - try N2.
OK Now I really am out.
341 I’d be all in favour of some pilot schemes on the lines you lay out. The vast majority of low level theft etc is due to drug dependency - and many of these people [women] are also involved in prostitution.
I really don’t see why someone can’t sell secks services if that suits them - I sell my brain power for business purposes
In my life as a magistrate I have muzzled two dogs, namely a cocker spaniel pup and a chihuahua.
335. Parkkeepers: that becomes part of the wider narrative of modern Britain where the authority figures (uniformed or otherwise) of civil society have been removed from most of our everyday lives.
Policeman don’t patrol
Parkkeepers don’t exist
Teachers do not discipline
Fathers are absent
Bus/Train Conductors do not exist/enforce
None of the above trust/support each other
Instead we have over zealous traffic wardens, belligerent traffic enforcement officers, disinterested police, snooping council officers, endemic rudeness and a complete breakdown of trust between adults who are strangers to each other.
In order to have a truly free society with the liberal laws and “hands-off” government that entails, you must have a stable civil society which is capable of self-policing itself.
Otherwise the government will do it for you - craply and ineffectively.
326. i wouldn’t compare having a pint to hitting one’s wife but on second thoughts Stella does have a rather unfortunate nickname!
in reality I don’t really think that making cocaine, ecstasy and other drugs legally available would be a particularly useful thing to do.
Alcohol is not the problem, it is the inability to enforce the laws which use to suffice, in ‘gentler times’.
Lying drunk in a gutter would normally mean a night in the cells and a subsequent appearance before a magistrate, followed by a fine.
Now landlords and the police have to weigh up the possibilities of knife or gun attacks for disrespecting the clientel.
Back to people who want to own big, strong, fierce dogs for purposes of intimidation
OT This is brilliant
“As the plane rolled into another stomach-churning manoeuvre, the passenger was probably wishing that he was somewhere else.
Then, just like that, he was.
The man, a civilian joyriding with his air force pilot friend, accidentally grabbed the eject lever while trying to brace himself.
He was instantly fired through the aircraft’s perspex canopy and blasted 320ft (100m) into the sky by the rocket-powered chair.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1224494/Oops-Civilian-joyride-fighter-jet-pulls-ejection-switch-mistake-lands-scratch.html#ixzz0Vi1EyyXP
48,52 As I suggested yesterday, Johnson was a great SELL on Sporting at 4 points on their 25 points Index, equivalent therefore to 21/4 or 5.25/1. He’s now priced at 2.5 to SELL or 9/1 and the value’s gone.
On the BUY side of the equation, both Miliband brothers are 5.5 on Sporting’s 25 Index, equivalent to odds of 3.5/1 and therefore lousy value compared with bookies’ best odds of 5/1 or 6/1 in each case.
Personally I’d prefer to look further afield. Jon Cruddas looks great value to BUY at 1.5 with Sporting, equivalent to 15.7/1. I feel certain he’ll run for the leadership, allowing for the small matter of him successfully holding Dagenham & Rainham. He’s certain to be the left’s leading candidate and I’d make him a 5/1-6/1 shot to win. The Tories went right after their heavy defeat; there must be a good chance that the remaining core of around 200 MPs and the party as a whole will shift to the left.
Those smarty-pants amongst you may prefer to slam your money down in the early hours of Friday 6 June, as soon as his constituency result is declared ….. the problem is that his price by then may be considerably shorter and/or Sporting may decide to take this market down until the GE dust has settled.
304: Of course you can bring back park keepers. Putting my councillor hat on, we have
http://www.dartford.gov.uk/news/index.php/2008/07/14/first-of-leaders-new-parkys-gets-to-work-in-central-park/
The thing I don’t understand is and that is irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it what made people decide in the 20’s and 30’s to make drugs illegal ? I mean we humans have found a way to get out of our nut ( pardon the pun ) for thousands of years with out any problems… and that includes alcohol even though the drinks lobby has convinced people of the idea that alcohol is drunk for some other higher loftier idea of suaveness and being cultured ( wine snobs anyone ) As for hypocrisy it might be part of live and we see plenty of it in politics to the detriment to man kind unfortunately but lets avoid it when its completely unnecessary and in this case I believe this to be the case.
I find Brown and Obama leaping in to congratulate Karzai on his ‘re-election’ fairly distasteful - I guess for tweedle twit and tweedle twitter any old version of democracy will do.
306 The majority of dogs are nicer and better behaved than the majority of small children.
I accept, there will be exceptions.
I was listening to Up All Night this morning and there was a very interesting little bit on the Carter/Reagan Presidential debate.
The commentators said that Carter was a policy wonk who blamed the electorate for what was going wrong with the economy - Reagan on the other hand said the reasons the economy was a mess, were because ‘government had been over indulging’ IIRC.
It really made me think of Gordon/Labour.
342. If you live west of the high street and south of East End Road you are also in the catchment area of either Brookland or Garden Suburb primary schools (which depends how far south of said road). Either is very good, essentially because of the demographics - there is no scrote housing in their catchment areas and consequently there are no scrote parents or offspring.
The secondary situation is much dicier, and if you want to stay local and can’t afford school fees, you’re kind of forced into three streets in Muswell Hill.
Nutt’s old team have thrown a grenade at AJ over the point of their role.
355. I am an Old boy of Christ’s College, Finchley….a fine school in it’s day
351 Good question for which I don’t have an answer. It must be observed though that those societies with the most relaxed attitudes don’t exactly set an example you’d want to follow. In Yemen they have a drug called khat, qat or qhat which if chewed sends you catatonic. It’s 40% of their GDP and look at the state of the place.
The Netherlands’ experience of drug tolerance has turned their cities into magnets for every weirdo in Europe. I found Amsterdam thoroughly unpleasant when I lived in Holland and even in the much more boring Hague the only reason I felt safe was because my flat was next to the dauntingly-well-guarded US embassy.
Coming to this rather late, but three brief points:
1. AJ would not be the first senior politician of late to lose their rag with Boulton.
2. I think Dave would be well-advised to steer clear of the “drugs issue” as his main topic for PMQs.
3. The main reason AJ’s star has waned is nought to do with drugs or Prof Nutt, it’s because he’s said so many times that he’s not up to the job of PM that most of the party now agrees with him.
357 When was that, JJ? When it was a grammar?
It is right behind the one my kids go to and every day I pass, en route to East Finchley tube, CC kids on their way to school - usually fighting, smoking, and using foul language. When I was at school, kids were expelled because they’d behaved like that in public and passers by had identified them by their uniform and phoned the school to complain.
357
But not fine enough to teach its alumni the correct use of apostrophes, evidently……
I agree with David Herdson @ 341 on the oldest of professions.
Legalise it, create chains of branded offerings. The problems connected with it would reduce.
Also if hotels could offer such extras to their customers officially, it might reduce hotel bills.
NEW THREAD **** NEW THREAD **** NEW THREAD **** NEW THREAD ****
Shady’s New Odds On Mike Smithson’s Syrup.
350
Good for you!
349 Of course, there are two sides to every bet and for those who still fancy Johnson to be Labour’s next Permanent Leader, Sporting’s BUY price on their 25 index is 3.5, equivalent to odds of 21.5/3.5 or 6.1/1.
This is more than DOUBLE the best odds of 3/1 offered by any bookie (in this instance Ladbrokes).
WOW!!
How in God’s name did Johnson get himself into this mess?
Labour really are ****.
360. I left just over 10 years ago. It was a very good comp school, but I don’t think we were particularly well behaved. Have a feeling it has gone downhill since I left!
361. It is a comp nowadays so they didn’t teach me grammar and fancy things like that.
Well some of us have said for a while now that there is no obvious replacement for Brown and its too late for a switch to have a positive process. Those that have been mentioned don’t hack it. Johnson doesn’t fit as we have seen and Milliband isn’t the answer as we have also seen. A change of leader would also point to total collapse and underline that Brown didn’t have the economic answers after all. Brown will I think take the fall and Labour will have to re-build afresh after the election.
301
‘A spokesman said the PM had “spoken to President Karzai to congratulate him on his re-election”‘
That’s surely a first,a British prime minister congratulating the winner of a universally acknowleded rigged election.
I am unconvinced of the notion of legalising drugs which seems to me to be a poor idea in real life but appeals to those that are so logical they are illogical. They say that this would de-criminalise drugs and imply therefore that users would stop committing crime to pay for their addiction. We already have a serious drink problem in the UK and some would wish to add drugs legally into this mix. A market in drugs would lead to lower prices and more variants with better penetration of consumer markets. More people would become addicted. Truly “Nutts”.
‘Legalisation’ only means that there jail/criminal record is no longer the price that is paid if one gets unlucky, and that a huge industry continues to
fleece the taxpayer.
As for the idea that forbidding drugs, which are the only viable cottage industry going, will eradicate them and that people stop doing something because it’s illegal…, have a look at Iran and notice that not even the mullahs and their sharia punishment put people off drugs.
As for AJ — Labour is going out and so, it doesn’t matter if it’s the end of AJ for PM. And it’s not as if they have anyone better than him either, at this time, no sane person would want the job anyway.
*shrug*