Read on Twitter
The @publicapptscomm has responded to a complaint about ministers barring a candidate from appointment to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs #acmdis2021. …https://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/complaints/ A thread...
The candidate (who is not named) applied twice and was accepted twice as appointable twice by the ACMD selection panel, was recommended by the Home Office both times, but then blocked by No. 10 on both occasions.
On both occasions, this was because No. 10 found things in the candidate's social media with which it disagreed. The same reason that @niamhrelease and Graham Parsons were also barred from joining ACMD. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/drugs-advisory-panel-candidate-was-blocked-after-criticism-of-jeremy-hunt
This was not because they had said anything offensive (as when @toadmeister was barred from @officestudents), but just because they had criticised govt policy.
This was a clear breach of the independence of the ACMD, which is why I resigned from it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/06/expert-quits-home-office-drug-panel-over-political-vetting
The Public Appointments Commissioner, @_peterriddell, has ruled that ministers were within their rights to bar the complainant from the ACMD, within the relevant code.
In my view, this clearly goes against the 'principle of public life' which are supposed to guarantee 'objectivity' and 'impartiality'.
If suitably qualified experts like these can be barred from public appointments just because they have criticised govt, then the selection process is obviously not objective and impartial.
There are also obvious issues of #feeespeech. Although I doubt the fake campaigners @SpeechUnion will pick up on this.
More important, perhaps, are the implications for the quality and range of advice that ministers receive https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0894-x (End thread)
