Brown v Nutt
Oct. 31st, 2009 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Just watching the Prof. Nutt thing re cannabis etc. on the news; Gordon Brown really is staggeringly inept, isn't he...
All he really needed to do was say "thanks, we'll consider it the next time we look at this legislation" then forget about it for a few months. Or better yet, do something about it. But no, not a chance.
Roll on the next election...
All he really needed to do was say "thanks, we'll consider it the next time we look at this legislation" then forget about it for a few months. Or better yet, do something about it. But no, not a chance.
Roll on the next election...
no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 10:36 am (UTC)I suspect it might be a symptom of somebody trying to control everything, leading to losing a grip on it all.
Sad thing is I think if he could just be less of a control-freak, he'd probably be a very good prime minister.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 02:58 pm (UTC)And then every week it seems they send Mandelsohn out to annoy some other group. Last week it was the post office workers. This week it was all internet users.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 12:22 pm (UTC)And, of course, when using terms like 'lethal' around doctors and scientists, who actually know what it means (although surely this should also be true of a PM?), they will point out to you when you get it wrong!
Prof Nutt really can run rings around Gordon Brown, can't he?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 01:10 pm (UTC)Especially loved the bit where Nutt was explaining exactly why riding a horse was actually more dangerous than drugs. Some people really don't understand the idea of "risk" at all.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 06:43 pm (UTC)The only alternatives are more of the same or worse. Brown ignored scientific evidence to prove he was tough on drugs. There is nothing in the history of Conservative policies post-Thatcher that indicates their stance is any different.
One might as well say roll on the eleven-mile asteroid.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 08:19 pm (UTC)Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 07:15 pm (UTC)Re: Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 08:17 pm (UTC)BTW, my job is in science - you won't get far here by disliking scientific evidence.
Re: Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 08:23 pm (UTC)Re: Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 08:58 pm (UTC)I don't have any faith in the British Parliamentary system as it stands.
Would be interested to hear your views on Obama though.
Bye the way, from you photo I can see we both belong to the league of gentlemen whose head hair has migrated to their chins, in abundance. I'm still looking for some one who can give mine a decent trim.
Re: Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 10:51 pm (UTC)Re: Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 08:53 pm (UTC)I strive to be scientific, but I'm not very mathematical, so it's hard to understand a lot of the hard and fast 'principles' involved.
There is an innate understanding of what is 'silly' as you put it, but where does that 'understanding' come from ?
Re: Scientific Classification
Date: 2009-10-31 10:53 pm (UTC)