via RSS
by EmailI would like to apologise to all of my readers for prefacing and suffixing my blogpost with so much material, but I hope you will agree it was justified.
Peter Reynolds has now announced an intention to sue both myself and Darryl Bickler of the Drug Equality Alliance regarding statements made around his report, “An Unaffordable Prejudice”. As you may know, I took down this article briefly while I established the legal situation. Having now done this, I am leaving this article up until I receive a take-down notice from a lawyer detailing what is actionable about it.
I would, however, like to make a few clarifications. I stand foremost accused of having claimed that there was no Home Affairs Committee in 1983, and this appears to be the point over which Peter Reynolds has stated he intends to take legal action against me. I would note that I have never said such a thing, and that I did, in fact, include a screencap below from the House of Commons specifically noting that the Committee has been in existence since 1979.
My point has been, all along, that I was sent an email, from the House of Commons itself, that states that there was no committee inquiry into cannabis laws in 1983, as the document appears to state. I think this raises questions, questions which Peter Reynolds did not, for some reason, wish to answer until he started to threaten legal action. Questions are legitimate things to pose.
I have acted in good faith – if the HAC subsequently unearths an inquiry to Peter Reynolds that it previously denied existing to me, then obviously I will update this article. I have NOT accused Peter Reynolds of forging the document in question, I merely reported that I have been sent various messages suggesting this, and specifically adding an addendum that I myself had yet to find any of these messages convincing. I personally find it far more likely that Peter Reynolds did in fact write a 30 page document about cannabis laws in 1983, than that he made the entire thing up over the summer of 2011, when the report first appeared. However, neither supposition is yet demonstrable, and I have made no claim either way.
I will also note that Mr. Reynolds has made a point of linking to this file on the UKCIA website as some kind of rebuttal – a document which was written after 1985, and contains no references to any inquiry in 1983, only mentioning the same 1985 report into the Misuse of Hard Drugs that my email from the Home Affairs Committee mentions in the screencap below. I am not too sure what exactly Mr. Reynolds is seeking to demonstrate to me here.
I have also had my own Freedom of Information Request pending with the House of Commons since early January to determine whether this report was ever submitted to the Home Affairs Committee at any time, and I imagine it will report back sooner than Mr. Reynolds’ FOI – when it does I will course publish the results here, whether it was submitted or whether it was not.
Sarah
UPDATE: Darryl Bickler has also published this statement:
For the record, I have not, and do not accuse Mr Reynolds of forgery. My comments concerned the point that the article by Sarah McCulloch raised questions as to the authenticity of a Report allegedly submitted to an Inquiry in 1983. I noted that Mr Reynolds had not addressed the salient questions, nor has yet to explain why he submitted this report when the closet drug related inquiry was seemingly on hard drugs in 1985. I sought to tease out these questions so that he might answer those directly and settle the matter. At this time I was strongly in favour of fairness in the conduct of Mr Reynolds’ many critics who in my view were ‘over-cooking’ some allegations. I do not extend this criticism to Ms McCulloch who in my view was only asking questions, legitimate questions even if cynically posed. My position was, and still is, wait and see if a definitive answer can be found.
I have in fact referred to the lack of any conclusive evidence for either contention, and insist on fairness of treatment to any person undergoing criticism or allegations. I strongly resist any accusation or inference that I have at any time acted improperly or short of the standards expected from a solicitor. Any legal action against me will be forcefully defended, and any complaint made against me to the professional standards body will also be contested in the strongest terms. Both of these threats are ill-conceived on legal grounds, and are also ill-befitting of an aspiring politician or a campaigner for greater liberty for cannabis users.
Mr Reynolds has in my view demonstrated his unsuitability for public office through his anti-Jewish remarks when he conflated the actions of the state of Israel with those of the Nazis, and cursed the ‘evil Jews’ rather than address the legitimate concern correctly. I endured these remarks as perhaps a mistake in his terminology as I did with his homophobic remarks concerning gay fashion designers perverting normal heterosexual standards. However for me he has ultimately crossed the line with his response to Sarah’s critical investigative journalism (which in itself was doubtless spurned by anger at the article mentioned above in which he inferred that homosexuality was a perversion) by making personal comments that equate homosexuality with genetic ‘confusion’ as this sows the seeds of a very insidious politic, and is in my view entirely inconsistent with the possibility of enrolling the public into a more tolerant view about personal choice to use cannabis, or any claim to greater respect for the individual.
Whilst Peter has brought much energy and creativity into his work, I cannot allow the good points to balance the bad ones as the latter in my view fundamentally interfere with the credibility of Clear. One cannot be a spokesperson for a party or cannabis users whilst concurrently expressing such vehemently held views in my opinion. I have determined to end all communication with Mr Reynolds as a result of his demeanour, threats and offensive communication towards persons who ask critical questions or who find themselves opposed to his views. I consider that he should at the very least stand down from Clear and then put himself forwards for re-election if he is so minded to do so.
I wrote my previous article about Peter Reynolds and homophobia largely because I noticed a link to an article that one of my Facebook friends had posted, and I was shocked that anyone, let alone party political figures could be calling gay people perverts in 2012.
Since then, I have been watching the mounting screencaps piling up about unverifiable claims that Peter has made about himself and the sudden flurry of “Yay Peter’s hed iz exploding yays” articles and reports pouring forth to cover the rising criticism. I am a massive data geek if nothing else, especially about drug policy, and when learning that in July 2011 Peter Reynolds posted on his blog that he had written a 30 page cannabis report for the Home Affairs Committee in 1983 (when he was aged just 26), I thought that was really interesting. Here is the screencap of his blog, saying that he had written it in 1983, not 1978 as he had apparently previously told people.
A very interesting report indeed. Also extremely easy to verify, because Home Affairs Committee Inquiries, unlike a pre-Internet 30 year long journalism career in advertising, are a matter of public record. So I wrote to the Home Affairs Committee and asked them if there had been an inquiry into cannabis legislation in 1983. They got back to me today. Their reply?
“The Committee did not publish a report on drugs during 1983.”
Just to clarify, I then called the Home Affairs Committee and they stated that that definitely, definitely meant there was no Home Affairs Committee inquiry into cannabis laws in 1983.
So Peter Reynolds published this on his personal blog. Ok. Why does this matter to Clear?
Because he published it on the Clear website three days ago in his official capacity as party leader.
I cannot even begin to fathom why Peter Reynolds would tell people he had written and submitted a thirty page report on cannabis legislation in 1983 to a parliamentary inquiry that doesn’t exist. My guess as to why he chose 1983 is Peter had already told someone that he had written such a report in 1978 and hadn’t realised that the committee was created in 1979:
But anyway, I think this is something for Clear members to take up, rather than me. If you feel that I am a “troll” or that I have “forged” the screencaps, both daft accusations being thrown at anyone who questions what is going on, you are welcome to contact the Home Affairs Committee yourself:
February update: In January, I also filed a Freedom Of Information Request with the Home Affairs Committee asking whether they held any records of “An Unaffordable Prejudice” being submitted in 1983, and they have now got back to me. The result?
No, they have no records of Peter Reynolds writing to the Home Affairs Committee in 1983 on cannabis laws.
Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)
Related Posts:
Tags: 1983, cannabis law reform, cannabis laws, clear, committee inquiry, drug law reform, Drugs, home affairs committee, homophobia, homosexuality, parliament, party leader, peter reynolds, politics
Can we see the report anyway?
You could go on his Blog and click on it. I don’t know if that was the whole piece or just the front page though Darryl.
Hi Darryl,
the full thirty page report is available to view here: http://clear-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/An-Unaffordable-Prejudice.pdf
I’ll update the post with that link as well.
Sarah
No, there was no HAC report into drugs in 1983, but there doesn’t need ot have been. Anyone can write a submission the the HAC about anything that comes under their remit (which drugs policy does) any time they like if they feel so inclined.
Actually though, it’s a long time ago but I think you will find that in 1983 there were the beginings of a resurgence in the cannabis law refrom campaign.
Hi Derek,
I believe that a member of the public may only submit evidence to Parliament when invited to, say at an Inquiry, at when a bill is at committee stage. This is certainly what is implied by these links, anyway:
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/submit-evidence-on-a-bill/
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/petitioning/
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/
But I take your point and I will investigate further.
Sarah
This report says at the start that is about the inquiry that the c’tee was undertaking with respect to cannabis laws. Presumably the question is whether the Inquiry was even proposed, and perhaps a mere proposal would justify this report being written at the time. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be botherred to write and type this out as a forgery which couldn’t stack up against scrutiny – it would be a desperate attempt to deceive. I think it’s right people are skeptical, but lets be very clear about facts before any substantial allegations are made, after all, this document reveals how offensive the author finds gay and racial prejudice, it would be terrible to make a misjudgment would it not?
It was about then the police federation first proposed cannabis be reclassified, things were happening on th epolitical front.
What you must also understand is that back then people did unco-ordniated campaining, there was no internet to check up on how to do things like now. Letters (and it was letters back then) were often sent to government departments, reports written and sent off, stuff like that.
These days we’re far better co-ordinated, information is much easier to share and lots of other stuff has changed.
Peter wrote quite a decent report there, for whatever motivation.
I think to be fair Sarah this smacks more than a little of trouble making by you, this whole blog does read really quite hostile to Peter. It’s not as if the report hadn’t been written! So given he did write the thing, why the venom?
Derek, the merits of the report, or the fact that it has obviously been written, clearly isn’t the substance of the complaint at all. The allegation is that it has been trumped up as a forgery to establish PR’s cannabis campaigning credentials, and one might add the point that it conveniently refutes the claim that he disrespects the notion equal rights for gays and other minorities. Right now I see no proof of the forgery allegation, but admit that the finding of this ‘golden ticket’ does seem rather curious! Hostility indeed, but perhaps an expected defence mechanism against a perceived or actual threat against one’s identity.
He called me a pervert! Seriously Derek, do you really believe that any LGBT person who read those articles, or mine, wasn’t actually offended and just said they were to make trouble for Clear? Because Peter’s excuse, that he was trying to provoke, just means that he knew what he was writing would be incredibly offensive to people who care about LGBT rights, and he did it anyway. Be sure I have a hostile attitude to Peter Reynolds, as I do to every unrepentant homophobe and racist.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone would write out what is after all an extremely lengthy and I presume accurately referenced document using only data from 1983. But I also find it very hard to believe that Peter has been telling people that he was made bankrupt in 1992 and I can’t find any evidence of that yet either.
What I am interested in is the truth. I am known online and off, for being obsessed with the truth. If I find evidence that shows Peter Reynolds didn’t make up this report, then I will publish it here. But if I get proof that he’s lying, that’s getting published as well. My intentions are quite transparent here.
I have a theory about that report that explains why its never made an appearance until now and doesn’t make Peter Reynolds look like a diabolical master-mind who spends his spare hours creating fake documents and then saying they were from years easily disproven, but like I said, I have to investigate further.
Sarah, you might do everyone to favour of finding out the truth about this and all the allegations about him from “Peter Reynolds ate my hamster” to “Detective Constable Peter Reynolds framed a black man to spend years in prison” – but my advice is don’t join in the pack with any actual allegation unless you are on v solid ground – you are far too intelligent to aim to shoot yourself in the foot. I do understand you point about being offended, but two wrongs won’t make one right.
I am trying to abide by that principle, Darryl. I assume your comments are about my reference about this bankruptcy – but all bankruptcies are recorded in the London Gazette and have been since the eighteenth century, and my searches of its indexes for 1992 and 1993 have turned up five or so P. Reynolds’, and none of them were called Peter. I’ve been trying to work out if there’s a way you can be declared bankrupt without being in the Gazette or if I’m just not using its complicated and labyrinthian index properly, but so far I haven’t been able to do so. Check out the Gazette here: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/indexes
What I can’t work out is why, why on earth you would leave a comment on someone else’s blog after becoming leader of a political party and say you were made bankrupt in 1992 when you weren’t. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I’m extremely skeptical of my findings, because its seems so ridiculously far fetched to believe that Peter would just add a bankruptcy to his history – it’s not in any way flattering to admit. Hence my saying that I haven’t found evidence for it “yet” – I just can’t believe that he would just make up something like that.
Sarah
Ouch! So all this is because you got offended by something that Peter said about Lesian, gay, Bisexual and transvetite rights? Please, get a grip.
Seriously you are coming across as someone who just wants to attack Peter for any reason you can dig up. Enough, please.
Keep personal stuff out of drug law reform campaigning.
Peter is a person of strong views, not all of which I came close to agreeing with but he is a damn effective campaigner who ahs takent he cananbis campaign from the gutter of ridicule to being a serious campaign. What are you wanting to do? Stop all that?
No, you asked me why my writing betrays a hostile attitude to Peter Reynolds. That is why. Also, no-one has used the term transvestite in, like, 20 years. If you genuinely don’t believe that the fact that Peter has repeatedly called gay people perverts is outrageous, then I don’t know why you bothered to publish Clear’s equal opps policy today.
I have stated why I wrote this article – because I am concerned with knowing what is actually true. You may recall that I wrote exactly the same thing to you in June 2011 when I first became aware that a lot of things about Peter Reynolds didn’t add up. You didn’t consider me a trouble maker then.
And I consider whether Peter has done more harm than good, or more good than harm, to the cannabis campaign to be a matter hotly debated, and certainly not a good reason to start covering up what are very legitimate concerns.
Sarah
Sarah – I think the critique in your previous blog is important and their are clearly serious issues with Peter and his leadership that urgently need to be addressed. Im pleased that despite my post on his blog (copied into comments in your previous post) not being published – indeed met with ill considered vitriol – suggestions I made that the blogs have been removed, an apology issued (albeit defensive and inadequate) and today a equal ops statement issued by the committee. this is all welcome – whether its enough i question, but thats another issue.
on this blog however i sense you are reaching – I dont think you have enough here to base a serious accusation of lying on. There are too many unknowns. Theres no reason why it wouldnt be true and theres no real sense of what a motive might be for such an elaborate fraud. My suggestion would be take this down until you have more (i suspect youd be wasting your energy better directed in more constructive directions).Id also apologise (however hard that may be).
And Peter – if youre reading this – stop making personal negative comments about people. There are no circumstances when that is appropriate, or useful to your cause in the long run. It will only make a bad situation worse.
Hi weedol,
as I said to Derek, “I have a theory about that report that explains why its never made an appearance until now and doesn’t make Peter Reynolds look like a diabolical master-mind who spends his spare hours creating fake documents and then saying they were from years easily disproven, but like I said, I have to investigate further.”
The document says that it was written because Peter had heard there was an inquiry on. So if there wasn’t then I don’t understand what motivated him to send it in.
My primary emotion about the current turmoil that is currently engulfing Clear is really one of confusion. I can’t work out why Peter would say that he submitted evidence to an inquiry that never happened. If he just submitted it anyway, I can’t work out why Peter would suddenly just sit down and laboriously type out a thirty page report on drug policy in his spare time in the almost certain knowledge that it would vanish into the archives and never be seen again. Another question that I find quite puzzling is where a 26 year old copywriter living in Surrey pre-internet even got hold of much of the data to which he refers, like the report of the Technical Sub-committee of the ACMD (though I haven’t checked the dates of the books in the bibliography to the date of that report, it might be in there). That’s by the by though, really.
It’s also been pointed out that the fact that he still has the report to scan would imply that it was never sent off. And maybe he has two copies, but it does not appear that Peter is someone who keeps many records of his past activities, so why would he keep this one? The only response Peter has given anyone publicly is to just tell them to read the report.
But all of this is entirely speculative, which is why I didn’t publish it.
If Peter Reynolds is making stuff up about his past, and the evidence so far suggests that even if there’s a grain of truth, he’s being highly misleading, then I don’t know why. The theories that he’s a cop, or a spy, or has some kind of malicious agenda for the cannabis movement has no evidence to merit them at all. So I remain largely baffled. I think its better to share that bafflement and have more eyeballs checking what I’ve discovered then to just keep it to myself.
I would like to take point out that, while you said that the apology was defensive, I don’t consider it an apology at all. He basically says that he’s writing it to get people bothering him to stop, not that he in any way accepts that his writing was unacceptable to publish. And the equal opportunities policy isn’t a policy, it’s a statement that people shouldn’t be abused. A policy states how the organisation is going to enforce that policy, in recruitment, structure, review procedures, complaints etc. Hopefully by their Conference, that will have been fleshed out into something enforceable.
Sarah
Hmmm, this blog software won’t let me reply anymore to the thread above
I mean transsexual, not tranvestite, sorry.
I know Peter prsonally, I have seen nothing to make me think he is a homophobe – and he certainly isn’t a racist, I know that for a fact.
But becuase you’re hostile to Peter because of his apparent (as far as you percieve) attitudes to LBGT people it is no reason at all to try to mock him for writing a submission to the HAC committee in 1983.
Sometimes we all have to compartmentalise our feelings about people. I pay by results and Peter has been a godsend to the cannabis law reform campaign. He may have other faults, noone is perfect. Are you?
I’m sure I heard Eddie Izzard refer to himself as a transvestite v recently. Whilst I have no truck with people who hate other people for no legitimate reason such as their sexual orientation or preferences, I don’t think it helps that cause to bollock people for not being up to date with the lingo – eg saying ‘trannies’ etc unless that reveals are real prejudice. Yes, language for those in the know moves on, you know, being ‘bad’ means you are good, something ‘sick’ is actually also good and not disgusting as it used to mean – and I say this as the ultimate stickler for language with drugs matters, really there is no point in all this ‘offence’ unless it is meant or actually means anything. The gay peversion remarks from Peter do carry weight, and need sorting. I also agree the appology was crap – it shows no self-awareness, its just a ‘move’. Legitimate questions need to be answerred and not dismissed or result in threats and insults, but both ‘sides’ really ought to cool it as vacuous accusations will have a paradoxical effect wherever they are pointed.
Eddie Izzard may be unique among cross-dressers and other trans people, I don’t know anyone else who uses transvestite these days. Wikipedia has relegated it to a history article. But I’m not offended by Derek’s comments, and I didn’t say I was, I just said it is a very out of date term.
Sarah
Perhaps see it as a generic issue that many causes are often concerned with having exclusive understanding of terms to actually preserve a clique, to differentiate their uniqueness from the rest, it’s a game of catch up for the rest of the world. I sometimes feel sorry for old folk trying their best, referring to ‘coloured friends’ etc. Yes, words have meanings, and these are often as much about what we impute into contemporary cliches and terms as what can actually be objectively defined, or more important, intended by their use. You may have to forgive me as I was brought up with the Rocky Horror Picture Show being the ultimate in liberated expression, like you say, more than 20 years ago – I don’t even know what offends about any of it – I don’t think the sweet transvestite from transexual Transylvania wanted anyone to take themselves too seriously.
Derek,
These aren’t attacks, these are nothing but articles pointing out who and what Peter is. You defending him shows many things, mainly, you are either blind, or stupid and choose to ignore the facts, but also that PR is a liar plain and simple.
He has been caught in yet another lie and has told so many that he can’t keep up with himself. The best thing for him to do is stand down now, he will soon be forgotten, thank goodness!
Alternatively Andy, it could mean I’ve actually met the bloke and had a fair amount of dealings with him, which is actually the case. You, however, have read a few blog entries… Yeah, right.
who would go to the effort of typing something twice? i mean if he sent a copy, how come he still has one and why did he claim on thctalk that he sent it in 1978????????
I agree re his blog posts and apology – Im not defending him on that front. I cant imagine any other political party where someone who had written what he did – and then defended it in the way he did – would still be in post. Claiming it was designed to be controversaial and that he should have chosen he words more carefully doesnt quite capture it does it – nor does the apology for the offence but not the content comments, nor the laughable – ‘Ive got a black friend’ trope. Sadly it now reflects very badly on the rest of the organisation too who are defending it all.
tbh Im not interested in him personally, and the tedious infighting in and around Clear even less so. Its a great shame for Clear that was making progress of sorts, and is now a busted flush. I am interested in drug law reform as evidently are you. Id suggest persuing one individual this way isnt a useful use of your time – Peter’s already blown it, nothing you can turn up could be worse than whats already out there. So Id suggest moving on and directing your energies elsewhere. Hopefully clear will sort itself out but im struggling to see how. Id suggest cannabis campaigners would be better off backing Release or NORML, for the time being anyway.
@Derek Williams
>But becuase you’re hostile to Peter because of his apparent (as far as you percieve) attitudes to LBGT people it is no reason at all to try to mock him for writing a submission to the HAC committee in 1983.
>>Just to clarify, I then called the Home Affairs Committee and they stated that that definitely, definitely meant there was no Home Affairs Committee inquiry into cannabis laws in 1983.
So Peter Reynolds lied on his blog. Ok. Why does this matter to Clear?
Because he published it on the Clear website three days ago in his official capacity as party leader.
==========
As Sarah has already established by her reply from the the Home Affairs Committee …
THERE WAS NO HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO CANNABIS LAWS IN 1983.
That’s why Peter Reynolds still has the original copy of his work – IT WAS NEVER SUBMITTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMMITTEE TO SUBMIT IT TO.
=========SCANDAL!!!============
Peter Reynolds – YOU ARE A LIAR.
Peter Reynolds, the leader of CLEAR, is fighting for his political survival, along with Derek Williams, Janice Wells and Mark Palmer who are all complicit in maintaining the deception that CLEAR has a seven year history, when in fact CLEAR was only formed at the end of March 2011.
This makes four current members of the current CLEAR Executive Committee who need to resign from their posts. An apology will not be enough for this gross deception in attempting to obliterate the history of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance and falsify the foundational history of CLEAR.
Dishonesty in any form is totally unacceptable, but more so especially when it is perpetrated by members of the Executive Committee of a UK registered political party.
It would appear that Mr Williams is also fighting for his political survival, along with Peter Reynolds, Janice Wells and Mark Palmer who were all complicit in the deception that CLEAR has a seven year history, when in fact CLEAR was only formed at the end of March 2011. This makes four current members of the current CLEAR Executive Committee who need to resign from their posts. An apology will not be enough for this gross deception in attempting to obliterate the history of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance and falsify the foundational history of CLEAR.
Dishonesty in any form is totally unacceptable, but more so especially when it is perpetrated by members of the Executive Committee of a UK registered political party.
Lie: “Peter Reynolds was elected leader of CLEAR in February 2011″
Truth: Peter Reynolds was elected as leader of the LCA in February 2011
Lie: “Stuart Warwick was elected deputy leader of CLEAR in February 2011″
Truth: Stuart Warwick was elected deputy leader of the LCA in February 2011
Lie: “Mark Palmer has been a stalwart of the CLEAR administration for seven years”
Truth: CLEAR has only existed since March 2011.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110627074156/http://clear-uk.org/about-us/
If the waybackmachine site is not working, one can try later and read the record in this pdf made from the wayback machine record:
http://mondialvillage.com/clearwaybackmachine.pdf
The public domain record of the history of the LCA leadership election in February 2011 is here:
http://mondialvillage.com/ReynoldsTakesLCA.pdf
In this respect, Mr Williams cannot do any better than to launch Ad Hominem attacks against myself and others instead of replying to the points that are made by other commentators.
It seems quite hard to believe that it was only nine months ago that myself and Mr Williams were investigating the dubious background of Mr Reynolds – a previously unknown person who claims to have been a campaigner for over thirty years.
Mr Williams’s own blog itself has many question marks over the appearance of Mr Reynolds’s entry into the UK cannabis campaign. As Mr Williams said, on his blog (January 16, 2011):
“Peter Reynolds is a new name on the law reform scene; he first came to prominence last September when the confusion over the legality of importing medical cannabis from Holland occurred”
http://web.archive.org/web/20110720110057/http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=607
But there again, it’s not so strange really, when one think about it seeing that the whole foundational history of the UK political party CLEAR is based upon lies and deception.
PETER REYNOLDS – RESIGN FROM THE LEADERSHIP OF CLEAR – AND TAKE YOUR SUPPORTIVE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WITH YOU.
Could you both not insult each other on my blog please.
Jayell, you just like an argument. A year ago you were putting the boot into Alun Buffry, now you’re doing it to Peter.
I have always been upfront about my feelings toward Peter, and it’s true he made a bad start. That blog you quote shows that I was indeed sceptical about Peter a year ago, and I did watch him very closely. As time progressed, my opinion of him and what he was doing changed
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=651
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=715
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=735
Oh, and BTW, I don’t re-write history, everything I wrote originally is still there unedited, I invite you to compare your archive page to what I have online.
I pay by results, he said he wanted to do something and unlike so many people – including you Jeyell – he got off his bum and actually did it. He came up with the goods; a cannabis law reform campaign free of the dreadful image the LCA had created. Hence I am now supporting his efforts and I am willing to speak out on his behalf. He has done far more for the cause of cannabis law reform that people like you Jayell – far, far more.
Watching you guys is like watching a pack of dogs all barking and snarling together.
Could you both not insult each other (or call me a dog) on my blog please.
Sorry Sarah, but this nasty attack on Peter has gone on for too long now. Yes, I agree his blog comments were out of order, blogs are dangerous and unwise things to vent spleens into.
You are fairly new to the scene I think, but a lot of the others aren’t. The mob behind all this have been around for ages and sadly I know most of them from previous experience – some I actually know as people. They have argued with themselves constantly over the years, now they all join together to attack Peter.
This particular blog though – about the HAC report – is unjustified, it does look and read very much like you’re trying to find fault with everything he writes.
I am not denying that there are people who have long-term and bitter grievances against Peter Reynolds. However, this does not mean that it is OK to compare me or people with whom you disagree to dogs. As one of the leadership team of a political party, you must surely realise that writing such things to people does not reflect well on you or Clear. Please do not write such comments on my blog.
Also, Peter Reynolds must write somewhere in the region of 500 words a day, and I am not criticising him for anything he has said about endocannabinoids, or the PCC, or his cannabis tax plan, although I don’t think much of it. So while you may consider that I am trying to find fault with everything he writes, no-one else in these comments appears to agree with you.
Sarah
Sarah, I didn’t compare you to a dog, my analogy was to a pack of dogs – the analogy was to the idea of a pack – or a gang of bullies if you prefere. I think you have twisted my meaning more than a little to be honest, and you repeated it.
Point it this as blog wasn’t based on anything worth while, Peter had written a submission to the HASC, you tried ot build a case out of nothing.
Do shut up Derek, do you still go to Cambodia?
I am intrigued by “Get you Ducky” who asked on Jan 15th do I still go to Cambodia? I wonder what that is supposed to imply? As it happens, the answer is “no”, I don’t. I haven’t been to Cambodia since 1994 when I did a back pack trip there as soon as the place opened up after the Poll Pot nightmare. But that’s another story.
As an ex member of CLEAR and being new to the cannabis activist scene, I would like to suggest to you Derek that your loyalty is misplaced.I am no where near as experienced as yourself in activism and have no idea of the internal politics of the CLEAR party.What’s more, I really don’t care.I became a member in order to forward the cause for the regulation or at least decriminalisation of Cannabis in the UK.I did not sign up to get embroiled in a scandal that has no doubt tarnished CLEARS name for now and possibly the future.
I am not and have never been one of those people who have been attacking Peter over the years.I do not have a facebook account and can only get a brief account from here and there of what actually went on.I am however able to read and know an intolerant and bigoted person when I read their blogg.You admit yourself that his bloggs were out of order.How do you think then I feel as the son of immigrant parents reading that kind of vitriolic rubbish?His apology, as it was, was needed.It was however not enough.
I had no intention of sacrificing my position on intolerance and bigotry for the good of the cause, that’s why I left CLEAR last week.Erasing my posts on the CLEAR site was very sinister and insincere.Dictators do that kind of thing.
Can you not understand that his presence at the helm of CLEAR is a disaster waiting to happen, now or in the future.He has become a liability.
As it is I no longer trust him, I no longer have trust in CLEAR and I no longer feel comfortable knowing that CLEAR has my personal details on file including my address.
I am in the position to say to you, without any malice, that Peter Reynolds should resign or hand over leadership of clear to someone less controversial immediately for the good of the cause.
I fear however that it may already be too late.
Nothing is too late, the LCA were not performing and Clear was built upon the same flawed premise. I see Clear promise a lock stock review with everything on the table – if they actually are prepared to rip it up and start again there is hope.
Dirty, One reason I don’t think my loyalty is misplaced is, as I said before, I know the people who were attacking Peter, I know they’ve done it before and will probably do it again.
I also know Peter is no racist, as I say I have had some dealings with him in person now, not just via the web. Knowing people in real life is very different to knowing them from what they write on the web.
His comments about immigrants in this country are shared by a great number of people who aren’t hateful toward people of ethnic origin, it’s a far more complex situation than pure racismt to do with cultural identity.
I know a lot of people who I would consider utterly opposed to racism who have expressed not dislimilalr views to Peter regarding loss of national identity in recent years.
It’s not a good situation we find ourselves in and some dangerous people are already exploiting the situation – look at Holland and Gert Wilders, it’s truely scarey.
But surely we must be allowed to talk about it, or it’ll be like a pressure cooker and eventually explode.
Also, I work in education and I have noticed over the past – what, 10 years or so – how many of the students who work hard, show the most dedication and get the best grades seem to be from abroad. UK educated young people generally seem far less motivated than those from Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa we have and they dont do nearly so well. That’s an oversimplification of course, but something is wrong in our education system and we have failed our young people badly. It’s not racist to observe this and to speak about it.
As I read it,they were the points Peter was making in his blog, although he could have phrased it better.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do about campaining for cannabis law reform, but whatever it is, please do it.
Derek, you seem like a down to earth intelligent guy, which is why I can’t understand why you see no problem in someone posting a Nazi flag on their website with Israel written underneath and suggesting that the UK sorts out the evil Jews?!
Whatever your side on the matter, the fact remains that certain opinions can be put across,,,how could I put it,,,LESS INTOLERANTLY!
How do you think it feels to a Muslim to have Islam called evil?To suggest that we Brits go in and wipe them off the face of the earth?
How many gay people would join CLEAR knowing that the leader considers them perverts? It’s hardly good PR now is it? And you still haven’t commented on why my comments were deleted.
My point is that there are ways to put things across without being an obnoxious character and having to close your blog down afterwards.That itself looks very sus.For someone who isn’t a racist, he surely comes across at the very least as borderline.
As for me campaigning on Cannabis reform I’m afraid this was my first and last foray into Cannabis activism.
We Cannabis users are victimised enough and never taken seriously.CLEAR seemed to be a serious party which could have taken us forward and made our cause more mainstream and less of a joke.
Now I can only imagine that as soon as the press and prohibitionist’s get a hold of this story, they will milk it for all it’s worth in order to discredit the Cannabis community and close down CLEAR.
For all the good that has been achieved by CLEAR, it may now all come to nought.A party which fights for the rights of it’s members and the wider Cannabis community-medical or recreational-and denounces victimisation of users, cannot have a leader who is himself extremely intolerant.
Intolerance begets intolerance.
Darryl, you have made a lot of comments to the CLEAR blog but still haven’t come up with a plan of action. If you do then we can consider it, so far there’s nothing on the table to consider.
The old LCA wasn’t functioning, CLEAR is and will continue to. The more input of real, solid ideas the better it will function. We’re still waiting.
Let’s create a Charter for drug users based upon the reasonable rights we enjoy as citizens already, and what the MDA sets out to achieve in its original sensible mandate of reducing social harm caused by all kinds of drug misuse.
We should set out to describe the circumstances where peaceful persons can be drug tested, searched, arrested etc from the workplace, public places and their homes. We should say what activities are reasonably outside the concern of the state and are private. We should say what access to self-medication is expected. We should say what protections the state should give to curb drug misuse. This could be done by us, it could be started by Clear, but a bit like the Vienna Declaration, it could be for all groups and people to sign. Peter is incorrect to lambast the notion of cannabis users ‘rights’ – these are rights for all people, all people are drug users, and its not just about us, it is about them. Yes, Peter is right we have to appeal to ‘them’, but we can unite people by being reasonable and showing people that its in everyone’s interest to get this right. Firstly the costs of drug misuse impact upon everyone, and secondly we all have an interest in preserving a proper balance of liberty and intervention across the board, and thirdly, as I say, we are all drugs users, and indeed we are all potential drug users. Even an ardent opponent may realise that a controlled medicinal drug might help them one day.
I think we are witnessing a campaigners chasm and divisions for no good purpose – it’s sad to see all these activists spending more time at each other’s throats than at the prohibitionists’ throats – yet there is too much personal dogma going on. I don’t think we need leaders, we need cohesion. Its not as simple as saying it, because there are real disagreements – so, the answer is to find a common path. Peter has said all options are on the table now – the weeks since Xmas have been very ugly. I see no actual movement from him to take on board the complaints I am making about the current Clear mandate. I don’t want this Charter idea dismissing as ‘wishy-washy’ hippy dreamy tosh – actually I am not saying anything that isn’t already an established principle of the law itself and our human rights. Further, it is an
inspirational document aspiring for a better world, you don’t enter the negotiation by aiming low and inviting yet more control. We must establish our demands, our fair and reasonable demands from the off. I think if this is done properly it will link the various factions better than any document done before. It will be correct and contemporary. The skills Peter has brought in marketing and PR will be vital, but we must start from ground zero about who we are as beings, what rights do we expect – it just isn’t right IMO to start with a regulatory proposal concerned with projections about fees, watts, inspections and plant counting. The Charter should not rule anything out, it should actually bring out the main principle of the law, ie the proportionate balance of rights and responsibilities for drug users, ie to curb drug misuse, not all use.
I couldn’t agree more. How can I help?
Derek, I am glad you have nailed your colours to the”Great Leaders” mast as such, As it seems you are content to defend the indefensible,it is only just that you sink with him in this mire of his own making. No matter what you say,Clear is tarnished now by being led by a racist bigot who has lied about his “credentials”, Could this be any worse,any self professed “political party” would have expelled any leader found to be airing these vile views and opinions.
I’m intrigued as to wy you think I would “sink”, given I don’t crave a high profile anyway. I’m not a leader and I don’t ask anyone to follow, neither do I follow anyone else. My support for Peter is based entirely on his work and what he has achieved to date with CLEAR, which is significant.
My position on cannabis law reform is laid out clearly on ukcia and I stand by that. CLEAR reflects the approach I support, therefore I support CLEAR.
All I would add is I dislike bullies.
all i see is peter bullying many medical users, and calling them trolls derek, his washing of hands of the bmcr caused massive worry and in some cases need for more medical help for some of peters “supporters” i have watched him call mature women who just ask a question be labled a troll, its not pretty to watch….
Thank you, Sarah, for your detailed Blog – very illuminating, thank you. Such a shame that DW has seen fit to use your blog space to pour out his hysterical defence of Mr Reynolds. he should understand the significance of the proverb “The lady doth protest too much”.
Give it up, Mr Williams, the game is over, time to move on. So much is clear enough (Sorry for the pun).
Time for a new, more balanced organisation to carry the cause forward. CLEAR is now surely dead in the water..
I don’t think so Martin. Interestingly since all this nastyness happened, CLEAR’s membership has grown by over 100, resignations – which were encouraged, were negligiable.
By all means though do go and form another organisation if you think you can do better. No-one ois stopping you.
The most productive line of enquiry would probably be to look at the font to see if it’s consistent with a document typed in 1983. Another may be to look at the spacing and regularity of the text. I suspect that there are people around who can do this to evidentary standards. The may not even charge that much.
What about carbon dating Mike? My guess is that is was written tommorow, but taken back in a time machine by travelling faster than the speed of light as we now know is theoretically possible (I saw it on the Brian Cox show last night), and hand delivered to the HASC to try and make it look like he was encouraging them to do the review that was mooted as a possibility by someone at the time, thus fooling people today that he has a history of this. Even if it’s a forgery, I say anyone prepared to put that much effort into this desserves voting for!
Keep up the good work P.R. included truth does matter far to short of it as is !!!!
My perception is that I left a comment about looking forward to the court case which would inevitably follow, your reporting these HATE CRIMES to the police. Was it deleted?
No, I’ve never deleted a comment from my blog at all, let alone from here. But you are using a computer, after all, sometimes stuff disappears, the browser crashes etc.
Sarah
I appreciate the open discussion that is going on in this page. I understand why people feel victimized and prejudiced by PR, but I still appreciate his work. I personally do not like the idea of defending something that is branded homophobic, but I don’t find the article in question he wrote to be as offensive as some. I do have an objection to the use of the word perversion in this context however, and think this statement should be retracted as it a very outdated.
In regards to this article, I just don’t see what the issue this? He wrote the report at some point obviously in response to something he might have heard about a Home Affairs Inquiry or simply that they were happy to accept evidence. And god forbid he might have even got the date wrong again. I just think some of the attacks on Peter have been uncalled for, unproductive and many driven by personal hatred. Sarah you have been much more considerate and open-minded from what I can see, but you still fail the see the bigger picture in my eyes, and are only hurting the progress of man whose aim is NOT to spread racism and homophobia. He is trying to help the cannabis movement. If you do not want him representing you as a leader for the regulate Cannabis movement, then that is absolutely fine, but incessant calling for him to stand down would only be useful if you actually think the movement would progress if he did. In reality I don’t think it would, and I simply support a man who is doing good for a cause I believe in, despite his opinions on other matters.
I just do not understand the mindset of people who are willing to concede that Peter Reynolds is both homophobic and racist but do not think that that matters to his leadership of Clear. I have written another blogpost about the political fallout from saying such things here. I haven’t actually called for Peter Reynolds to step down as a leader because I’m not a member of the party and I consider it inappropriate to do so – but I am surprised that people seem so blithely unconcerned about the fact that Clear is run by white heterosexuals who don’t seem to give a damn about gay or black cannabis users, of whom there are hundreds of thousands. It’s 2012! What happens if he goes and talks to a gay minister, or whom there are now three, and gets asked about it? What if he ever ends up on the Politics show with Diane Abbott? Boris Johnson marched at the head of Gay Pride London last year, you think he will be willing to engage with someone who goes around calling gay people perverts?
Seriously, do you know what it means to actually go into mainstream politics and be subjected to “political correctness” that Peter Reynolds keeps going on about? It means that bigotry that your fellow members appear to regard as “quirky” will be dragged out and brought up in every interview, every debate, and condemned by pretty much everyone the news reporters think would be fun to quote him to. And with every single quote, more gay people, more black people, and more right on white heterosexuals with gay and black family members and friends will close their ears to Clear, because so many of the members are convinced that nothing matters more than cannabis law reform. Well, I think you are wrong, and I think that is being amply demonstrated by the deluge of comments appearing (and disappearing) on the Clear website about how they don’t want to be in a party led by a man who will write such things and then STAND BY THEM WHILE LEADER.
In fact, the Mail on Sunday is running a feature on Peter Reynolds this Sunday, and I imagine it will prove the validity of what I just wrote.
Sarah
Sarah
Is anyone keeping count of the number of people Peter has threatened to sue (whilst all the time continuing to post defamatory material about others on his personal, and the CLEAR website? Of course the officers of CLEAR may also be liable in consequence if anyone decides to sue him).
Is Peter mad or bad? That’s the question. IMHO the former is more likely and the Daily Mail will have a field day and blame it on his drug use.
For the record, I have not, and do not accuse Mr Reynolds of forgery. My comments concerned the point that the article by Sarah McCulloch raised questions as to the authenticity of a Report allegedly submitted to an Inquiry in 1983 when the closest drug related inquiry was seemingly on hard drugs in 1985. I sought to tease out these questions so that he might answer those directly and settle the matter. At this time I was strongly in favour of fairness in the conduct of Mr Reynolds’ many critics who in my view (at the time) were ‘over-cooking’ some allegations. I do not extend this criticism to Ms McCulloch who in my view was only asking questions, legitimate questions even if cynically posed. My position was, and still is, wait and see if a definitive answer can be found.
I have in fact referred to the lack of any conclusive evidence for either contention, and insist on fairness of treatment to any person undergoing criticism or allegations. I strongly resist any accusation or inference that I have at any time acted improperly or short of the standards expected from a solicitor. Any legal action against me will be forcefully defended, and any complaint made against me to the professional standards body will also be contested in the strongest terms. Both of these threats are ill-conceived on legal grounds, and are also ill-befitting of an aspiring politician or a campaigner for greater liberty for cannabis users.
Mr Reynolds has in my view demonstrated his unsuitability for public office through his anti-Jewish remarks when he conflated the actions of the state of Israel with those of the Nazis, and cursed the ‘evil Jews’ rather than address the legitimate concern correctly. I endured these remarks as perhaps a mistake in his terminology as I did with his homophobic remarks concerning gay fashion designers perverting normal heterosexual standards. However for me he has ultimately crossed the line with his response to Sarah’s critical investigative journalism (which in itself was doubtless spurned by anger at the article mentioned above in which he inferred that homosexuality was a perversion) by making personal comments that equate homosexuality with genetic ‘confusion’ as this sows the seeds of a very insidious politic, and is in my view entirely inconsistent with the possibility of enrolling the public into a more tolerant view about personal choice to use cannabis, or any claim to greater respect for the individual.
Whilst Peter has brought much energy and creativity into his work, I cannot allow the good points to balance the bad ones as the latter in my view fundamentally interfere with the credibility of Clear. One cannot be a spokesperson for a party or cannabis users whilst concurrently expressing such vehemently held views in my opinion. I have determined to end all communication with Mr Reynolds as a result of his demeanour, threats and offensive communication towards persons who ask critical questions or who find themselves opposed to his views. I consider that he should at the very least stand down from Clear and then put himself forwards for re-election if he is so minded to do so.
Someone sent me this email they received – certainly does nothing to curb the ‘here’s one I prepared earlier’ incredulity.
“The Home Affairs Committee published a report on the Misuse of Hard Drugs in 1985 (First Report of the 1985–86 Session – copy attached) –this includes a list of evidence submitted. We have not been able to locate any information about whether or not Mr Reynolds wrote to the Committee on the subject of drug laws in 1983. Therefore, the information you require is not held. You may, if dissatisfied with the treatment of your request, ask the House of Commons to conduct an internal review of this decision. Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Freedom of Information Officer, Department of HR and Change, House of Commons London SW1 0AA or foicommons@parliament.uk. Please ensure that you specify the nature of your complaint and any arguments or points that you wish to make. If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF. Yours sincerely Bob CastleHead of Information Rights and Information Security From: xxxxxx: 18 January 2012 15:08To: Home Affairs Committee Subject: F.o.I. I apologize in advance for using your time in this enquiry. May I know if your department received any correspondence from Mr. Peter Reynolds, in regard of drug law reform in or about 1983?
[...] we can verify this one” and wrote the the Home Affairs Committee. In my second blogpost, I reported their response – there had been no inquiry into cannabis laws in [...]
Really informative blog article.Really thank you! Will read on…