I think you're right on 2 out of the 3 listed there!

It's very interesting to see how these two spheres (the scientific and the political) are overlapping and causing conflict. The argument that Nutt has overstepped the mark and poked his dirty little fingers into the political pie is very weak, and defeats the fundamental point of appointing scientific advisers in the first place. Not only that, but it makes the government look shady and inadequate.

The appointed scientists, here, are supposed to be making twofold objective statements as to what the scientific facts amount to in terms of harm (i.e., cannabis is less harmful than alcohol) and how they should be classified (as A, B, C). Johnson states that scientists should do this without making political statements such as "taking an E is less dangerous than horse riding". Although I think that statement is a bit loose, the obvious problem here is the transition that the government makes from a scientific conclusion (i.e., the deaths involved between ecstasy v's horse riding) to a political statement via the conclusion: therefore it's fine to take ecstasy, according to Dr. Nutt.

As the government doesn't want these kinds of statements made (because they are potentially harmful in the political sphere, amongst other things), this kind of view should be censored and Dr. Nutt should be sacked. On the one hand the government wants to take scientific advice, but on the other they need to maintain a political stance, which is, unfortunately, behind the times, culturally misinformed, historically biased and scientifically ignorant.

When it comes down to it, the government are the body with the power in this situation (i.e., science gives us its facts and findings, but we, ultimately, have the power to make any final decisions as to what should be done). Like you say, Dayo, this raises an important point: why appoint scientists as government advisers if you are not going to take their views on board? If it were that simple, and the government would act according to scientific knowledge, this situation would not have occurred. From this point of view, there are obviously other factors at play.

I was at the game on Saturday and thoroughly enjoyed !

Have to laugh at Rafas pure arrogance in taking off Torres. Like it was Liverpools god given right to beat Fulham. We have scallped many of the big boys down the cottage. My only worry is keeping Hodgeson whos contract is up at the end of the season.

Come on Dayo, give him a break. We've just beaten Man U, and we've got a massive injury crisis. Admittedly the squad could be stronger and that's his fault, but it doesn't mean he isn't the man to put things right. His team at full-strength can beat any team in the world.

He had to take off Torres: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ool/8336165.stm

And he had to think about the CL. It's not that the Champions League is his priority this season, it's not, but not qualifying for the next stage of it would be a massive financial blow to Liverpool and thus to Benitez's long-term plans for the club.

the carragher dismissal seemed particularly harsh given that the rule states "denying a clear goal-scoring oppportunity".

it was bobby zamora, fercrissakes. 20 yards from goal. no chance.

lightning does not strike twice.

REFEREEEEEEEEE........

Reckon at this stage after 5 seasons, to think that Benitez is still the man to put things right is overly, and in my opinion, blindly optimistic. The squad on the whole is pretty much as average as Ged Houllier's was, even after signing nearly 70 players in 5 years.

We had our best chance to win the League last year which was hamstrung by Benitez's stubborn refusal to play his best 11 against the so-called weaker times and adopt frankly bizarre formations at home against the likes of Wigan and Stoke, ultimately leading to drawn games and dropped points.

Change is required, methinks.

The whole issue of beating Man utd is the problem though isnt it ?

Its a classic lesser team putting in THE performance of the season for what is in effect their 'Cup Final'

yep , I know what you are going to say , its like Everton v Liverpool

and you are probably right

BUT

That doesnt mean that its not the same as Liverpool v United now though.

at the moment , Liverpool cannot compete with United on any level so they big themselves up for 1 game.

You're right to a point, Dave - it's not good enough to be 'up for it' against the wankers from Old Trafford - you only play them twice a season. It's motivation against the so-called lesser teams that has been Liverpool's downfall for yonks.

Jeez, I can comment because I have an opinion on the matter. Like I said I didn't read his paper, just the "News story" about weed being 'less harmful' than alcohol - which is the only thing the public will take from it and probably why he was sacked, - because his public comments could be taken the wrong way and seen as an endorsement for weed - which it isn't.


"He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."

it stands out a mile doesnt it ?

7 games

6 defeats

1 victory

Who was the victory against ? the best of the 7 teams that Liverpool have played.

Theres a motivation problem at the club at the moment.

Its down to the manager to sort out

If he cannot he has to go

Have the players infact become dis-motivated by Benitez and his constant buying and selling / chopping and changing of the team where they can no longer be @rsed to put in the extra work?

four players = massive?
johnson, gerrard, riera and aquilani (who has never played a premiership game)

shows how strong the squad is i suppose..

(oh, and don't tell anyone, but fulham were missing three definite starters - murphy, davies and johnson)

On a football-related note, Mrs Shrek has brought forth the first fruit of the loins of Spudhead - Kai Wayne Rooney

nothing to do with arrogance

the guy is injured and getting injections before every game. if he tears his groin, that's it, we're properly fucked.

not getting into the usual dull Picko-D chip on shoulder football debate vortex

you can't defend the indefensible in terms of performance - we had enough possession and fairplay to fulham for taking their chances. 8 first teamers injured isnt really gonna help things. And before you ask, they were: Agger, Skrtel, Johnson, Aurelio, aquilani, gerrard, riera, ngog... and then players like Kelly and plessis.

from where I was sitting at the game, degens challenge looked legit, but the replays suggest otherwise. Carragher got the ball and zamora backed him - that's not a professional foul and he wasnt tugging zamora's shirt.

but never let truth get in the way of a good argument

*end of comment*

better check your info there Hansen...

hahahahaha

massive injury crisis my arse

try looking at us for the last 12 months

Yakubu out for 9 months only just back now.

Arteta , jagielka and Anichibe still out injured from last season

Osman , Vaughan , Pienaar , neville out injured.

yobo and Baines only returned to the team on Saturday after injury

and weve had about 10 bob to spend on players