There's been a lot in the news this week about Professor David Nutt.
For anyone who doesn't know he's a Government advisor on drugs who has been asked to stand down (that is "sacked")* after offering the advise that ecstasy is not as dangerous as horse-riding, cannabis should be downgraded and alcohol and tobacco are worse than LSD.
His advice may or may not be good. What's caught my ear about the piece is his reaction and the reaction of those using the incident to criticise the Government. They have constantly implied that there is something wrong with getting advice and not taking it. He, and others, have paraded across the TV screens, saying that there is no point in paying an advisor to advise if you are not going to follow the things he comes up with.
Surely this is nonsense?
Ten different advisers might give ten different answers and you can't follow them all. The purpose of advice to inform you of the range of opinions and options, to give suggestions and guidance. It's up to you whether you take them or not. It's very rare that I agree with anything that comes out of Jacqui Smith's mouth but on Question Time she said "an advisor's job is to advise, a government's job is to decide", and for once she was absolutely right.
To anyone who thinks that advice is somehow binding, I'd advise checking a dictionary.
(*Incidentally, also contrary to his post-sacking remarks and those of his supporters, he wasn't sacked for giving advice that they didn't like, he was sacked for going on television and into the press criticising the Government policy after they had said they wouldn't be taking his advice - in short, for publicly bad-mouthing his employer, something that would get most of us sacked.)
For anyone who doesn't know he's a Government advisor on drugs who has been asked to stand down (that is "sacked")* after offering the advise that ecstasy is not as dangerous as horse-riding, cannabis should be downgraded and alcohol and tobacco are worse than LSD.
His advice may or may not be good. What's caught my ear about the piece is his reaction and the reaction of those using the incident to criticise the Government. They have constantly implied that there is something wrong with getting advice and not taking it. He, and others, have paraded across the TV screens, saying that there is no point in paying an advisor to advise if you are not going to follow the things he comes up with.
Surely this is nonsense?
Ten different advisers might give ten different answers and you can't follow them all. The purpose of advice to inform you of the range of opinions and options, to give suggestions and guidance. It's up to you whether you take them or not. It's very rare that I agree with anything that comes out of Jacqui Smith's mouth but on Question Time she said "an advisor's job is to advise, a government's job is to decide", and for once she was absolutely right.
To anyone who thinks that advice is somehow binding, I'd advise checking a dictionary.
(*Incidentally, also contrary to his post-sacking remarks and those of his supporters, he wasn't sacked for giving advice that they didn't like, he was sacked for going on television and into the press criticising the Government policy after they had said they wouldn't be taking his advice - in short, for publicly bad-mouthing his employer, something that would get most of us sacked.)
No comments:
Post a Comment