Peter Reynolds and the Rampant Sexism (Aimed at Me)

January 22, 2012

in Opinion, Personal

Peter Reynolds campaigning in the Corby by-electionThere’s nothing quite like being personally and viciously attacked by the leader of a political party to ruin my really nice nap. This week, Peter Reynolds, presumably awaiting the Mail on Sunday expose that has now been written on him, decided that while waiting for that to come out, he’d take a crack at me.

The original article, originally entitled, “Sarah McCulloch”, has now been edited several times to remove some of the more hysterical content (though the spirit remains). Fortunately, I have a screencap of what it used to look like.

 

Peter Reynolds article redacted

(The comments blacked out are in reference to a specific drug policy organisation and a specific person, who immediately apologised to me and requested that they be removed from the post (and also asked for the post to be taken down). Neither they, nor I, would like to comment further.)

Wow. Wow. Did that just come from the keyboard of the leader of a political party? Like, an actual party, registered with the Electoral Commission? The leader of a political party, in the UK, in 2012, thought it would be a good idea to put little question marks after references to someone’s gender? On his blog? Where everyone in the world can see it? Has that actually just happened?

Wow.

So, the content. Hmm. Obviously, it’s not very nice. Obviously, I dislike having such comments posted about me on the world wide web. And obviously, if Peter Reynolds genuinely had such contempt for my writing, he wouldn’t have bothered to tell the world that I’m not worth listening to, in extensively sexist, homophobic, and transphobic terms that he’s already had to tone down twice.

I think one might largely sum up our respective posts as:

Sarah McCulloch: “Peter Reynolds is a homophobe and a racist, and probably a liar, who has been deleted by several politicians from Facebook when made aware of his published views. Here are referenced screencaps of all the relevant comments, posts and emails to support what I am saying”

Peter Reynolds: “Sarah McCulloch is a genetically confused half-werewolf who has flung lots of abuse at me, the monstrous woman, and so I think everyone should just stop thinking about the points she’s made, because she’s just bitter and twisted, and absorb mine about the fact that I find her unattractive. Evidence? Who needs evidence?”

Regarding these aspersions on my gender and my gender presentation, I do not get up in the morning and think, “Gosh, I wonder what 54 year old men would like to see me wear today?”, and I do not intend to start. I have little to say other than that I stand in total solidarity with all trans people everywhere – I shall dress as I like, present as I please, and identify as I want. And that’s just fine.

I also take issue with Peter Reynolds’ comments that I am “mysandrist”, when the most cursory inspections of my blog would reveal that I am a known and publicly declared supporter of the men’s rights movement, and was even the Treasurer for a Men’s Society two years ago. Please also note that, unlike Peter Reynolds, I have documented on this website most things I have ever written, even prior to my entry to the internet. My earliest publication is from when I was 11 (in a book that you can actually get in print), and I’m only 22 now. One must ask how someone with a 30 year career in journalism that’s older than I am has just a handful of press clippings to show for it.

The most bizarre comment that Peter Reynolds made was that he is a “kind, gentle, and sincere man”:

Peter Reynolds comment about being nice
Yeah, he’s just a really kind guy, just pushed over the edge by my vindictive abusiveness in publishing some screencaps of his own writings. Not to, you know, respond in any kind of considered manner but to state that he thinks I’m sad. Powerful comeback, right there. And there’s no personal insults in that post at alllllll… Well, I think we can add sexist and transphobic to that list. I will of course, be writing an official complaint to the Clear Executive Committee and I will post that letter here. Time to try out their new equal opportunities policy. Did I mention he’s the leader of a political party?

I will say that its not like I haven’t been attacked on the internet before, but this is the first time it has come from the leader of an active political party. The mind boggles to try to comprehend why an aspiring national political figure would choose to make the most petty and vindictive comments about a 22 year old third year theology student in an amazingly public forum, when he’s already had to take his blog down for making such attacks, right when the Mail on Sunday is busy producing a full on “hatchet job” of everything he’s ever done and written. The mind boggles, truly. I’m not even sure what to italicise.

The one upside of this somewhat sordid situation is reading through the unexpectedly complimentary messages being sent to and about me. People I have never heard of or met have said they like my writing and they think I made my arguments well and without rancour. By contrast, most detractors have contented themselves with discussing whether they would like to have sex with me or not (although I must disappoint them by stating they have no chance). So I think I’d rather have my supporters than those of Peter Reynolds. Did I mention he’s the leader of a political party?

The point of my posts has been to demonstrate that trying to prove Peter Reynolds’ own assertions about his past in good faith still uncovers highly misleading statements, or worse, outright lies. For example, I called the Independent to verify Peter Reynolds statement that he was a “regular columnist” for them. They have two articles written by him, dating from 1997, about cycling. Peter Reynolds himself confirmed this and stated in his letter to the Mail on Sunday that there is a third, mistakenly attributed to Paul Reynolds. Ok. But that’s not a “regular column”, is it? George Monbiot has a regular column. Peter Hitchens has a regular column. Three articles about your bike is a regular column? And three blog posts from me about Peter Reynolds is “bickering, abuse, divisiveness and misandry”.

Please, my dear reader, make your own inquiries and make up your own mind. Because personally, I would die. Did I mention he’s the leader of a political party?

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts:

{ 105 comments… read them below or add one }

Hypnoswan January 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Dear Sarah, I’m glad you’re not one for intimidating and Im glad that you are equipped to respond in such an intelligent, measured and well researched manner. Good on you

Reply

Cure Ukay January 22, 2012 at 1:16 pm

You brought it on yourself with your unwarranted attack on Peter Reynolds

You should be thanking him for amending it and not be attacking him further

You obviously support prohibition Sarah

Reply

RogerWhite January 22, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Cure, you used to have the respect of the community. Then you created a fake facebook group pretending to be the conscience of Alun Buffry, and now you are defending Peter Reynolds? You seriously believe that Sarah ‘brought it on herself’?

And as for the strawman argument that Sarah supports prohibition… Seriously?

Your reputation is shot Cure. The question many are asking is why you are supporting a homophobic sexist racist?

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 22, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Thank you to a few for pointing this link out to me. I did not write this I have far busier and have been working on a magazine, a blog in response to my reply from minister Earl Howe and writing an official response to him. I have edited a bit of video while my mouse and keyboard batteries charged up on the only computer I have internet access on. I watched the first half of the Arsenal Vs Man U game with my brother, not something I’d normally do but hes been feeling shit since he was also diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease recently. Quite frankly I haven’t been giving this that much attention or interest and I’ve been getting along fine that way. Whoever has used Cure Ukay has used it without me knowing. I stopped using that name “officially” the other day when Facebook told me I was not allowed to represent an idea without a real name or being a business. Tonight I have had Jeff Ditchfield accusing me of leaving comments on a video of his that quite clearly show another YouTubers account name. He wont say sorry for threatening me because he made a mistake but I really don’t care. I really enjoyed that gram of Casey Jones. It was worth cleaning the bong out.

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 22, 2012 at 9:40 pm

OK, I have just seen that there are lots of comments in the name of Cure Ukay. This seriously was not me. This is damn right out of order…quite right. Sorry! Wow. What/who the Funk. Totally not cool.

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm

The IP addresses for the two sets of comments are from different ISPs, and Greg has messaged me as well, so I am quite confident that he has indeed been impersonated. Thanks for letting us know!

Sarah

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm

Jeff has appologised.

Reply

Darryl Bickler January 23, 2012 at 6:51 pm

Impersonated by whom Greg? I hear Peter will not stand for any vote of confidence as leader of Clear. If he cares about the cause he will step down before this Sunday’s article. The shit has well and truly hit the fan with these comments about people having confused genetics – we are in the most taboo of territory here. When he complained of the evil Jews being like Nazis I was alarmed, but put it down to as stupid response brought about by concern for the mistreatment of the Palestinians by the state of Israel (not the Jewish race as such). Not that anyone who is a serious writer or politician would make such an error – evil jews + swastika = massive faux pas.

Now I feel very uncomfortable that anyone in 2012 would make a personal comment burning a cancer right to the core of every contemporary civilised value, and even dare to repeat the basis for some despicable theory of eugenics as a response to being questioned about their integrity. No politician can open that can of worms and survive IMO. I heard he was sorry for his reaction, but then emailed Sarah and me for personal details and addresses for service for a proposed court action against us. This man is no friend of the activist movement, he reports people who upset him, it’s all about him, not a cause.

Reply

Mike January 22, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Sarah,

Have a look at Peter’s last post in the comments after his rant about you.

http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/sarah-mcculloch/#comments

“I shall ensure she pays very dearly for the abuse and false allegations she has made against me.”

I would interpret this as extremely threatening. I really think you should ask the police for their advice.

Reply

Cure Ukay January 22, 2012 at 1:37 pm

If you issue a full apology Sarah then I’m sure I can persuade Peter to drop any legal action, but it will have to be a very public and complete apology

Reply

RogerWhite January 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Sarah has nothing to apologise for, unlike your Dear Leader. People used to respect you Cure. Not any more mate. Get well soon.

Reply

Darryl Bickler January 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm

I’m informed re Cure Ukay its an imposter, cheap tricks indeed.

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:13 pm

Again, nothing to do with me someone has been using my name. Sorry for the lack of truth from some people.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Bullshit Greg. I don’t trust anything you say any more. You’re Cure Ukay, Greg. You’re responsible for any words under that name. Your good name is shit, your reputation is finished.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:54 pm

I am a liar – just testing, seems like I could be anyone on this system. Hmm, I think Ed owes Greg an appology. Darryl

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm

The real Edwin here – and I say Greg owes ME an apology for smearing my name and lying about me. Greg knows this too, but evidently his integrity doesn’t stretch as far as doing what is right.

Reply

Katherine January 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm

I am really shocked that this guy is treating you this way. I am appalled. I would be appalled at anyone hurling such sexist, homophobic abuse around. (I suppose the only tiny plus side is that he clearly knows it’s wrong or he wouldn’t have edited it down…)

And another thing. If he really is a journalist, and indeed a politician, he should surely be a bit more comfortable with the idea of healthy debate? And, you know, evidence and little things like that.

I actually cannot stop repeating how shocked I am.

Good luck with this – although I really hope someone just tells him to give up, because he’s looking pretty ridiculous right now.

Reply

Cure Ukay January 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Sarah started it Katherine, she’s a troll like the rest of them and they will not stop Peter or CLEAR

If she apologises to Peter and all the MP’s shes turned against Peter then this can all be resolved amicably

CLEAR is an inclusive democratic party

Reply

RogerWhite January 22, 2012 at 2:34 pm

CLEAR is not an inclusive party, nor is it democratic. It is full of trolls, liars and bullies, as you Cure are clearly displaying.

Congratulations for choosing defending a homophobic, sexist and racist bully. The question many are asking is why you are defending Peter Reynolds? Is he blackmailing you? Or is it that you are too blinded by the single issue of legalisation?

You used to have the respect of the community Cure. Now you are an embarrassing laughing stock.

Reply

Katherine January 22, 2012 at 6:41 pm

From what I can see, she politely pointed out some discrepancies. She did not attack his appearance, gender or sexual orientation.

That’s the difference between a journalist and a “troll” (charming term, by the way). So I really think it’s Sarah that comes off as the professional one here.

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:15 pm

Sorry these posts were nothing to do with me. Someone has used my alias without my knowing, not that I would ever let anyone speak on behalf of me. I have not been following these arguments and it appears that someone is trying to drag me along with it against my will.

Reply

Mike January 22, 2012 at 2:26 pm

Cure Ukay you are an idiot. No doubt one of the brave (and usually anonymous) comment warriors who specialise in insulting other people on the web.

Peter isn’t going to sue anybody. Most likely he’ll end up in court himself for homophobic abuse and threatening behaviour if Sarah goes to the police. And I think she should do exactly that.

Reply

Cure Ukay January 22, 2012 at 2:32 pm

I am far from anonymous and if you knew anything you’d know that all the CLEAR Executive Committee members stand shoulder to shoulder with Peter on this and everything else

We will not be divided

I may not agree with everything Peter says but his words have been twisted by the liars and the haters who are jealous of peter’s success

Reply

RogerWhite January 22, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Cure said: “all the CLEAR Executive Committee members stand shoulder to shoulder with Peter on this and everything else”

How many CLEAR Executive members are left? 4 isn’t it? All the others who have challenged Peter have either been sacked or have resigned.

Why are you defending the indefensible Greg?

Reply

Mike January 22, 2012 at 3:23 pm

I can only repeat that you’re an idiot. How can ‘pervert’ and ‘half woman, half werewolf’ be twisted into anything else? At least he hasn’t tried to claim that his ‘best friend’ is a homosexual as well as black I suppose.

Coming onto this thread and trying to intimidate Sarah is beneath contempt. She has produced a measured and well argued critique and as usual Peter has responded with vicious personal abuse. He (and it seems you also) does seem to make a habit of this. Anybody who doesn’t agree with him is routinely branded a liar, fraud, troll etc , at least on the internet and especially if they’re a woman it seems. Just check out hos rant on Amanda Platell. You may not like her, or agree with her, but is that sort of language appropriate or justified?

He doesn’t have the funding, or the bottle, for an action for defamation and most importantly he doesn’t have a case. In the unlikely event that the court accepted the affidavit about the ‘1983’ report from his dear old mum, without asking more detailed questions, Sarah would have a public interest defence as Peter is the leader of a politic party.

IMHO Sarah should report this to the police and have done with it.

Reply

Darryl Bickler January 23, 2012 at 7:12 pm

But you are anonymous as you are not Greg aka Cure Ukay – so pretending to be him is already a serious misrepresentation; one that reveals that you have no integrity whatsoever.

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm

This is not a comment left by me, someone has been posting as me.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:43 pm

You wish. Thugs, all of you – and you’re worse Greg, because you had the choice. Peter can’t help being a thug, you chose it. Scum.

Reply

Darryl Bickler January 23, 2012 at 10:01 pm

Seemingly anyone can post under any name here – a recipe for disaster, Chill Ed. Greg is not scum.

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm

It’s standard practice not to require people to verify their email addresses before posting a comment, and it usually works out fine. Obviously there’s different factors involved here…

Reply

Bertie Griffen January 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Sarah started nothing Cure,lets get that straight.It was your beloved “Great Leaders'”racist,homophobic writings/views/opinions that has brought all this upon him and rightly so imo. I count it has a civic duty to expose racists/bigots of any shape and form. Furthermore,frankly I feel those types of views to be so far apart from what is a compassionate cause that in view of what has come to light he should have been booted out like any self respecting political party would do if their leader had expressed such vile views/opinions.Surely you are trying to defend the indefensible by your obvious support for your “Great Leader”.

Reply

Cure Ukay January 22, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Bertie you are obviously one of the trolls and liars

What’s your problem?

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:17 pm

This was not me someone used my name.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Yes it was. Liar.

Reply

Brian C January 22, 2012 at 2:41 pm

In reply to Cure, I think your the troll and yes we will stop Peter turning cannabis activism into a recruiting ground for homophobic, racist anti semitic Nazi’s!

You only have to read the replys to Peters drunken outburst last night, I say “drunken” because surely a rational sober human being just wouldn’t respond in that manor.

Your days in cannabis activism Cure are not unlike Peters in that they are coming to an end! When they do and they will just remember you supported a racist homphobic Nazi nobody will forget that Cure!

Reply

Cure Ukay January 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm

If you are not interested in democratic debate then I will leave you all to it

Reply

RogerWhite January 22, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Thats right Greg. Run away back to the arms of your Dear Leader. You have failed to defend Herr Reynolds, and all you have done is shatter what little respect the community had remaining for you.

Reply

Brian C January 22, 2012 at 2:55 pm

You’ve been hanging about your Fuhrer too much you even sound like him now!

Reply

RogerWhite January 22, 2012 at 2:57 pm

I’m actually wondering if it is Peter Reynolds pretending to be Cure.

Reply

ClareCares January 22, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Cure, You really should not be doing this, Peter has upset many people, he was niave in the begining thinking he could brush a few hard working campaigners under the Clear Carpet, and deleting them from the WWW, Peter has not be entirely truthful about Clear nor the LCA, infact before 2010 he had nothing to do with LCA or any other canna campaign within the UK – i know you are desperate for a law change for your own reasons but i can promise you that Peter will not be as loyal to you as you are to him when push comes to shove, infact i am willing to bet that the majority of Clears work?? has been created by yourself, Clarke and others who have real reasons for wanting a change in the law, however by getting involved in trying to “protect” peter and stand his corner, you have become involved in a situation that will only become worse before it gets better, and where as Peter may find it appropriate to speak the way he has, in time you will see the TRUTH of the situation, do you not find it odd that the only people supporting clear other than derek williams have only been campaigning in the last couple of years, that none of them are known at all to many of the established, and some demolished canna groups in the UK, are you NIAVE enough to not see a bigger picture? WHY would so many people who worked hard endlessly for over 12 years be against anyone working for the good of the campaign, maybe because he isnt working for the good of the campaign? I ask you this Cure, if Peter is such a GOOD, HONEST MAN, why has your Bro Sanj been outed from Clear for speaking to members, when its a remit of political parties to speak to potential voters? why has Clear got not enough money to stand in election when LCA funding handed over was in excess of four thousand pounds? Why did Peter state he sent the report in 1978, and then say 1983? Why did Peter state the LCA had over 5300 PAYING members in one of his response in his blogs (now deleted) Why is anyone who critisizes him deleted and not answered and then pubically announced as trolls? Does Peter and clear accept that they have alienated EVERYONE who made sucessful steps towards law changes in the past? Does Clear accept Peter making remarks about minority groups, past or present are acceptable as a political leader? why has Peter broken his promise that he would stand in every election? What was Peter doing as a job prior to his involvement in LCA? How does Peter Reynolds fund his lifestyle, does he work, claim benifits or was he granted compensation or inheritance? what has Peter been doing in the last 20 years, a CV and references would be fantastic? How come Peter doesnt have a reciept from his report to the home comittee? How long have you personally known peter, and in what circumstances have you met him, for instance have you been a guest at his or his families homes? do you know his ex girlfriend, wife or kids? thankyou for your time.

Reply

ClurlyNutUkay January 22, 2012 at 3:20 pm

@Cure Ukay

>I am far from anonymous and if you knew anything you’d know that all the CLEAR Executive Committee members stand shoulder to shoulder with Peter on this and everything else

>We will not be divided”

Good to hear it, because you’re all going down the pan together.

Peter Reynolds is finished. CLEAR is now a toxic brand.

Reynolds has started the legal talk, he’s gone public and he can’t back down now.

So he sends his weasel and fellow CLEAR UK political party Executive Committee member Greg de Hoedt, AKA CureUkay to try and secure an apology.

http://clear-uk.org/about-us/

All we need now is an appearance for Dewek “Traitor” Williams.

Peter Reynolds: “There will be two principal defendants: the mendacious Sarah McCulloch and the solicitor, Darryl Bickler. Aside from the lies she has published about my report, McCulloch has set out systematically to defame me to a number of MPs . The damages I shall seek to recover in this respect will be very substantial. As for Darryl Bickler, who I had counted as a friend, he has publicly accused me of forgery. He is a practising solicitor and an officer of the court. As such he has a duty to uphold the highest standards of probity and honour. Unless he settles with me appropriately, in addition to legal action I shall also be pursuing a complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.”

http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/foi-request-concerning-home-affairs-select-committee-records-from-1983/

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm

Sarah,

Your writing is measured and accurate. It is journalistically excellent. Your commitment to substantiating your work is beyond question. Your ethics are sound.

When you asked legitimate questions about Peter’s rather unsatisfactory provenance, he launched into the most unpleasant, politically-suicidal assault.

Then, with breathtaking chutzpah, Greg de Hoedt asserted:

“If you issue a full apology Sarah then I’m sure I can persuade Peter to drop any legal action, but it will have to be a very public and complete apology.”

Greg: you are finished. You threw your hand in with a thug. Your reputation is dirt. Your future is obscurity.

Thank you Sarah, keep putting in the truth; Peter’s nearly flushed away – just a bit more toilet duck and he’s gone.

Ed. :)

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Haven’t read your words Ed – just saw your name. None of these posts were me and I hope you will go and correct the people that you have been spreading lies about me. Several FB messages have confirmed this is the case so I hope you get to it quick.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:36 pm

Greg de Hoedt, your name is dirt, your ‘activism’ a joke. Enjoy your obscurity, you friend of grasses.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 11:00 pm

By the way I feel I am entirely justified in using such harsh language, because Greg said “Haven’t read your words Ed, just your name.”

How disrespectful – this is why I use terms like ‘scum’. I feel they are merited.

Reply

Bertie Griffen January 22, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Bertie you are obviously one of the trolls and liars

What’s your problem? I shall tell you my problem,Cure. I was a paying member of Clear before being blocked banned and deleted all for answering to a post from Sanj who was asking people who had been banned etc to message him any queries/questions and he would do his best in bringing them up at the EGM,that was prior to Peter “ousting” Sanj. which you went along with…obviously Why does this make me a troll Cure? for daring to question your “Great Leaders” motives, vile views etc. Or are you content with these actions of insult block, ban and also threaten people and publicly implicate certain people for growing and you defend this,set aside his racist bigoted views…the mind truly boggles.You are defending a man that has chosen the path of deceit,I guess he and you will reap what ye sow

Reply

Stuart Wyatt January 22, 2012 at 3:45 pm

I’d like to echo what Ed said Sarah. Your blog posts have been well researched, well written and you carefully research the facts and evidence prior to publishing. I also hold you in great respect for not rising up to Peter Reynolds’ attacks and baiting.

To Greg: You used to have a good reputation. People used to think highly of you. However, all of that reputation has been destroyed by you defending a racist, homophobic, woman-hating bully.

Why did you come here and try to defend Peter? Why didn’t Peter come here in person to defend himself? Why won’t your Dear Leader discuss any issues outside of a forum that he controls?

He won’t defend himself on a forum that he cannot control because he knows that his actions are indefensible.

It is a shame that you cannot see what most other people see. It is a shame that you destroyed a good reputation by trying to defend him. It is a shame that you are becoming a mini version of him.

And to Peter: Tick tock tick tock tick tock. It can’t be long now.

Reply

Comment warrior puppy January 22, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Well done Sarah, i`m just going to say i agree with Eddie, you have acted with the utmost respect only to be treated worse than scum by Peter, i hope you don`t let his idle threats get to you,he`s been trying this everywhere even with me on a couple of occasions, even publishing private info on a a public forum, the guy is finished. I think you are doing a very important service on behalf of us all, thank you.x

Reply

Ellen Harrison January 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Sarah,

I’ve not really had anything to do with the pro-Cannabis movement, despite supporting legalisation entirely. However, I’ve often enjoyed reading your blog. I don’t know Peter Reynolds but, looking at everything that has been said, I’m disgusted. I wouldn’t expect the kind of bile in Mr Reynold’s blog post from an educationally-challenged teenager, let alone someone who is not only an individual who is old enough to vote, but has chosen to seek the votes of others.

I am a former military police officer, and so I have a bit of an understanding of UK law. I cannot see anything you have written which is anything other than well researched, professional and backed by independent evidence. Mr Reynold’s ‘reponse’, however (which provides no evidence to counter your assertions, only to abuse you on grounds of your gender and sexuality) is another matter, and should really be referred to the police if that’s what you decide to do, and I can’t think of any sensible adult that would blame you if you did.

Mr Reynolds needs to look at the UK media, and the kind of flak thrown at every politician since the dawn of modern journalism and understand that this is nothing compared to what he can expect in the future. It’s part of the job just as getting abused in the street while you’re trying to do CPR was part of mine and, if he feels he can’t deal with that, he probably needs to have a think about whether he’s in the right role.

I know that I’d like to support the legalisation movement, but I couldn’t bring myself to support an organisation with someone who thinks that kind of hate speech is appropriate.

Reply

The_Wizard January 22, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Peter has brought all of this on himself, Sarah your writing is impeccable and is constructed in a none insultive manner with evidence to back up every claim you’ve made.

Why can’t Peter do this? Instead of resorting to petty insults and more.

More importantly: Greg, what are you playing at? You’ve hold a very influential position in the cannabis community and by defending peters immature actions you’re on due course to dismantling the entire UKCSC – because if you haven’t noticed a large majority of the UKCSC are very much against Peters insultive, and hurtful, rants. A part of me wants to believe it is Peter himself writing under your name, and not yourself. Buck your ideas up lad, that goes for peter himself.

Keep up the good work, Sarah, you haven’t done anything wrong here apart from point out the holes in Peters words.

Reply

Stuart Wyatt January 22, 2012 at 4:32 pm

I was in PM contact with Cure via Facebook, and sadly, it was the real Greg who was writing the comments on this blog post. He is sounding so much like Peter Reynolds these days.

Greg is young and naive. I’m sure that in a year or two, he will realise that he made a big mistake in defending Peter Reynolds. At a later date, he may be able to regain some semblance of respect from the community.

As it stands, I think Greg has helped nail some of the final death nails into the Clear coffin.

Reply

Lake Palmer January 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm

Hi Sarah

Just wanted to say you write some great stuff and I’m sure you won’t let the personal comments from Peter Reynolds and his small handful of supporters get you down. Keep on keeping on :D

XXX

Reply

Lem January 22, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Please keep up the good work, Sarah.

Your articles were informed and objective, the personal abuse you got in return pretty much says it all. The man is a nasty bully.

Peter, if you’re reading this, I have some Toblerone and an A-Z of Dundee, just put a post up when you want them and I’ll make sure they find there way to the CLEAR UK group command HQ. Pretty sure you’ll be needing them soon.

Reply

Nik Morris January 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm

CLEARS dead in the water. There’s no way any political party could survive with a leader like Peter. This saga will just go on and on until, 1. Peter resigns, or, 2. CLEAR folds completely. As anyone who’s reading this must be aware, Peters comments on his Blog have come under such public scrutiny that his position is untenable, yet he still fights on. Which brings the question, what are people supporting? Are they supporting a man who use of the internet has become his downfall, or, a political party with aspirations of one day getting a member into parliament so as to debate drug laws. Bringing me to comment…who the fuck would vote for PR with his record of trashing anything against his writings on the web? Crazy people, that’s who. And before anyone wants to start having a go at me for what I’m saying here, just remember. PR’s not the only activist in the world. Although he could very well be a top notch manipulator of the few.

Reply

Dirtysquirty January 22, 2012 at 5:54 pm

@Sarah.
Good article Sarah.
My advice to you would be to report Peter Reynolds to a relevant authority.Remember that the moment someone starts to make personal,derogatory insults, usually indicates that a raw nerve has been hit.It’s almost a reflex action.
But you’re a big girl and have probably heard it all before.Such is life.

@CureUK
‘…I am far from anonymous…’
You have just made yourself exactly that, to a very diverse community, who used to highly respect you.
I myself used to have a great deal of respect for you and imagined that you understood exactly what it meant to be victimised by bigoted people.
Once again it would seem I’ve made an error of judgement.I also unhappily agree that your reputation may already be damaged beyond repair.

One of my favourite books of all time is Moby Dick,you may have read it,if not I suggest you do.The whale itself is a good representation of the beast which is prohibition.Can you guess who Captain Ahab is…?

“Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!”

CLEAR will soon be sunk, along with all who follow this modern day Ahab.
Such a shame.Rest in peace CLEAR…

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Hey there, these postings have nothing to do with me and I am sorry you have been lead to believe I have been following this drama. Sarah does not and did not deserve to have these things said about her. I have made my feelings about this clear now I hope. Whoever has used my name should be damn ashamed of themselves and must have a very childish and boring life.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm

Rubbish Greg. You’re the scumbag doing the talking. Cure Ukay is your name, and they are your comments until YOU prove otherwise. You dirty little man.

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 9:43 pm

Ed, please don’t be mean to other people on my blog.

Sarah

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 9:48 pm

Ed, I appreciate your passion, but anyone can put in a name and an address in my comments box, so it’s not really Greg’s fault if someone chose to put in his name and address. Maybe you disbelieve him, but please don’t be mean here.

Sarah

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 11:05 pm

I apologise to you Sarah, for my language. It is Greg’s fault that he is not limiting his leader’s behaviour, and it is Greg’s fault that he chose to side with a racist thug. It is also Greg’s duty to show that it wasn’t him writing these comments in his name – he has done spiteful things on Facebook, and so suspicion naturally falls on him.

He supports Peter and all his excesses. We have given Greg every opportunity to choose, but every step of the way he has gone with Peter. At one stage he even mocked up a FB page bullying Alan Buffry – an unconscionable disrespect. And then he attacked me. *Nobody* attacks me unless they are prepared for the long-haul.

The language I prefer is far less measured.

Reply

dirtysquirty January 23, 2012 at 9:48 pm

If that is the case then Greg I sincerely apologise for thinking it was you.I’m glad you understand that Sarah did not deserve such abuse from Peter.I still however stand by the other things I wrote.
If you do not distance yourself from Peter Reynolds then your reputation will be damaged beyond repair, as is happening to CLEARS reputation as we speak.

I am a medical and recreational user myself and know how frustrating and infuriating the current laws are regarding Cannabis.They are nothing more than victimisation of a section of society which are no more criminal than coffee drinkers.I cannot however simply cast aside my beliefs and convictions in order to follow Ahab and CLEAR on their journey to the bottom, no matter how noble the cause.

I am not afraid to speak up as I am not a grower or dealer and rarely have any Cannabis in the house anyway.I am still uneasy however that CLEAR has my details on file and have as yet not replied to my two emails politely requesting my details be erased from their database.This is wholly unprofessional and just goes to show the kind of organisation (oxymoron) that they are.

Once again Greg I apologise and will also do so on twitter and follow you again.
I sincerely hope that you heed my warning and get out while you can.
You are in a position where you can do more good for the cause than Peter Reynolds or CLEAR can now do.

Reply

bert January 22, 2012 at 6:17 pm

i love you
sincerely

and you’re beautiful too.
lots of love from all here

(what a horrible man he is)

Reply

Hypnoswan January 22, 2012 at 6:19 pm

I find it extraordinary that executive committee members of ANY political party would support any member , never mind a leader (who should surely be setting an example on the party’s behalf), who makes comments that, even were they not not homophobic and racist, are still in most people’s book, unacceptably offensive and uncooth.

The leader of any political party needs to have some perception of how their comments will be received and whilst I realise people do like a strong leader, frankly PR’s lack of PR* acumen looks more of a liability than an asset.

*PR:Public Relations

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 22, 2012 at 6:20 pm

As Nik SAID “Clear is dead in the water” along with the ridiculous licence policy(one hopes).More on topic though, Sarah, ye have done a splendid article and should hold no reservations on it.Reynolds is finished, as is fitting for a man of his”charm”and character.He brought this on all by himself,yet at a cost of 2 very dedicated exec/activists.It is a shame the others in the exec have chosen to support racism and bigotry,but at the same time speaks volumes of the dignity and principles of Des and Sanj,who either resigned(Des)suspended(Sanj).Peter,if you are reading this..I can only hope you are hanging your head in shame,you also Cure.

Reply

Moneybags January 22, 2012 at 11:03 pm

Great job Sarah, we have been trying to shut down clear for months and you, through written manipulation have done a great job.
Bottom line is, if weed goes legal then we are set to lose alot of money.

Keep up the good work, if you finish off this potheads illusion that weed is ever going to be legal once and or all then you can expect a nice wad of cash in the post.

Thanks again!

Reply

Lem January 22, 2012 at 11:34 pm

‘Written manipulation’

What’s that then?

All she did was draw attention to what PR had himself written.

Off you trot little comment warrior.

Reply

Moneybags January 23, 2012 at 12:15 am

You cannot possibly disagree that Sarah has expertly dissected the words of this clear leader and turned them around to represent their alternative meanings.
You cannot deny that Sarah is a genius.

She will be truly rewarded for her efforts in the deliberate halting of a campaign that must not succeed.

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 23, 2012 at 1:16 am

G

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 23, 2012 at 1:34 am

@ Moneybags,It would seem Lern is right in saying “trot off little comment warrior”,The “great leader” doesn’t need anybody to “twist” his words as they are twisted enough,but you sound awfully akin to Peter himself ,who it seems is content to blame other people for his own “misgivings”,How long do ye think ye can keep screaming “trolls” and its all the doings of “prohibitionists”. WRONG,Only one person to blame and that is Peter Reynolds and his racist/bigoted views.Defending the indefensible

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 23, 2012 at 1:36 am

@ Moneybags,It would seem Lern is right in saying “trot off little comment warrior”,The “great leader” doesn’t need anybody to “twist” his words as they are twisted enough,but you sound awfully akin to Peter himself ,who it seems is content to blame other people for his own “misgivings”,How long do ye think ye can keep screaming “trolls” and its all the doings of “prohibitionists”. WRONG,Only one person to blame and that is Peter Reynolds and his racist/bigoted views.When you Defend the indefensible,don’t be surprised when you yourself are tarred with the self same brush.

Reply

Moneybags January 23, 2012 at 7:30 am

Yes I’m really the clear leader in disguise… Wooooo it’s a conspiracy man, everyone on the Internet is the same person.

We’ve been milking this “weed makes you paranoid” thing for decades, turns out its true.

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Hit a nerve did I ? moneybags/peter?

Reply

Moneybags January 23, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Oh you certainly have! I’m incredibly hurt. You have inadvertedly stumbled across my master plan to turn everybody into zombie clones.

While you’re reading this text I’m using a government microdot to implant suggestions into your brain. I WILL take over the world.

Reply

BlackMagicArmy January 23, 2012 at 10:42 am

We have been aware of Mr Reynolds for a long time but today’s revelations expose him at his most seediest level.

Your writing Sarah is nothing but professional and intelligent which is so much more than can be said of every one of PR’s personal attacks on various individuals and groups.
Keep your head held high and watch him disappear very soon.
peace love and light

Reply

Greg de Hoedt January 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Sorry for any inconveniences caused, I have spoken with Sarah and let her know that this was not me (Greg/Cure) that was commenting on this blog.
SOmeone has been using Cure Ukay without me knowing to try and make me look bad.
Thankyou to the few friends that have come and asked me if it really was me that posted before i was aware and before I was attacked like other posters have felt the need to do so.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:44 pm

Not accepted. You are culpable. Greg de Hoedt: get out of activism, we don’t want you involved because you support racists and homophobes.

Reply

Mike January 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm

http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=284529&st=540

Having just seen this, I’m sure the best is yet to come!

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 23, 2012 at 9:24 pm

MAGNIFICENT HAHAHA. Ye couldn’t make this shit up lol :)

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 23, 2012 at 9:29 pm

I’m guessing this is the “toilet duck” that Edwin refers to above that will “flush” Peter out :)

Reply

Mike January 24, 2012 at 7:42 am

His birth date is given as 1967 and not 1957. Obviously confused about dates again.

Reply

Philip Walsh January 23, 2012 at 9:34 pm

I believe Greg is being impersonated to deliberately smear his name, He announced some days back that he was discontinuing the alias of Cure UK. I also do not believe he would write in defence of Peter. I think it is telling that someone has to pretend to be a member of the committee to post in favour of Peter, if who is left of the committee really stood shoulder to shoulder then a real member of the committee would post Pete and Clear are dead in the water and Peter killed it. I resigned from the party some weeks back as I realised Peters aims are not intended to benefit all cannabis users just those in a position to ‘provide’ medical cannabis. If peter will not resign Clears membership should!

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:39 pm

I don’t care whether he is impersonating Peter or not. His support for that extremist thug is enough to damn him. His pathetic denials won’t save his reputation either, he is dead in the water, because he chose his side.

Greg, you’re an opportunistic little scumbag, and a shit judge of character. Don’t ever mention cannabis to me or I’ll carpet bomb the fuck out of you.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:40 pm

(Verbally speaking of course, I’m not actually a B52.) You’re so over, Greg, you nasty little shit.

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm

The 9.39 post should have read: “I don’t care if Peter is impersonating him or not…”

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 11:10 pm

Apologies for language – he attacked me first, and I am justly and furiously angry with the boy.

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 11:22 pm

That’s ok. Criticism and arguments are both fine in a free society. :)

Reply

El_Gato_Fortunado January 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm

*lots of criticism of Ed Stratton for being egotistical and dictatorial and things*

[Edited to remove excessive language and personal attacks.

– Sarah]

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Please do not swear on my blog.

Sarah

Reply

El_Gato_Fortunado January 23, 2012 at 10:10 pm

So it is true what I have read today about you sara, until today I never heard of you … big ed can swear but I cant…. old boy network is it? funny handshake brigade…

stratton you have no right whatsoever to say who can or cannot campaign against prohibition. or is that too much for your ego.

Reply

sarah January 23, 2012 at 10:13 pm

I can make out what Ed was saying, whereas your criticism, which you have now repeated without being edited, was difficult to read because of the excessive swearing. Come on, you can say things without needing to go there.

Sarah

Reply

El_Gato_Fortunado January 23, 2012 at 10:20 pm

Okay Sarah it is I feel extremely let down by Edwin, couple of years ago he was a hero in our household, had an intelligent argument and made many of us think WAY TO GO EDWIN but his behaviour of late has taken him from HERO to Zero, all this petty this, blah blah that, it really is off putting.

Why we all just cant get on with the job in hand and put all differences aside I don’t know, haven’t read PR for some time, I was told to look at the uk420 site and I am simply outraged at the lack of ethics, morals and it realy does look like an attempt to stop any progress, because it not certain people in charge, if peter went and derek? was to take over, it would be him, or whoever replaced him. Have seen too much of this over the years and it is sickening so MY PLEA IS … PLEASE STOP THIS…

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm

You again. I thought I recognised that particular incoherence.

Reply

El_Gato_Fortunado January 23, 2012 at 10:23 pm

Sorry I was not clear, I mean whoever takes over is not going to get an easy ride unless they meet the exact requirements of certain people.. how is that fair? and what objections would there be if derek was to take over?

Whoever takes over, if they are not approved by the few, then they will get the same treatment at PR.. that is the jist of my angst.

Now I will go read your blog sarah so I can find out more about you, no ill feelings on my part, its just this nonesense has gotten so ugly.

Reply

El_Gato_Fortunado January 23, 2012 at 10:37 pm

The very little I have read so far sarah tells me that we have a lot in common so soz for my outburst, come home today after a well earned break and 2+2 =8.. I shall now go to Mr Reynolds blog too and give him the same as I have given edwin..

Ed.. your interview on the drugs equality link, I played that to every friend I have and to friends of their friends, some got lost, but many got turned on by it and it is so sad to see this behaviour, it really is.

Right so… of to visit mr reynolds and I agree to an extent about the sexism, but there is provaction from all sides.. there must be a middle way out of this.

:)

Reply

Edwin Stratton January 23, 2012 at 11:09 pm

So what did I do wrong? What did I say that was racist, homophobic, bigotted, violent, or sectarian?

Oh – wait – that was it, I remember: I complained about racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry and violent hate-speech.

Then I was attacked and vilified.

Sorry you didn’t like me doing that, perhaps we should tolerate thugs in peace.

Reply

John January 24, 2012 at 12:40 am

@Edwin well you had a go at Greg who as far as I can gather has stated quite categorically several times that he did not make any of the posts here by Cure Ukay. Other people have also stated that on here Cure Ukay is not Greg.

Philip Walsh posted right above your post that “He announced some days back that he was discontinuing the alias of Cure UK.” and “I also do not believe he would write in defence of Peter.”

So calling him a nasty little **** (Better not swear like you did in case Sarah gets offended.) might have been a bit out of order since according to his REAL posts the poor guy was diagnosed with chrone’s disease recently

Reply

sarah January 24, 2012 at 12:49 am

That was not Greg, that was his brother.

I don’t get offended by people using words like shit, fuck, etc, if that is just part of the way you write to put emphasis on things, I’ll just ask you to stop (as I did ask Ed, and he did stop).

But if your use of profanity and/or abuse of other people obscures what you are actually trying to convey, I will edit your posts. But note I edit them, I don’t delete them altogether.

Sarah

Reply

El_Gato_Fortunado January 24, 2012 at 12:49 am

Edwin I am bewildered and in a state of shock to find this mess.. I am saying sorry to both you and sarah for charging in like a bull on viagra and I havent a clue who is right or wrong anymore, I have said the same to PR on his blog and from here on in I wish to stay out of all this, I am not going to side with anyone from now on and will just pray everything works out and we get the right to grow our plant, everyone has their own ethical code I don’t believe what has been written about PR is true, as it is dead easy to take something out of context and make it into something it isn’t, I could be wrong, I could be right only time will tell.. but I am staying well out of it from here on in and let you guys knock ten bells out of each other if thats the way it has to be.. I have said my bit and once again I am sorry for my anger and my outburst to both you and sarah… has been an emotional day LOL.

Reply

John January 24, 2012 at 12:57 am

Or at least his brother was. Now I need to pay closer attention. Doh!

Reply

Glyn Wiliams January 24, 2012 at 1:27 pm

I personally agree with everything Edwin has stated in his own unique way.We have already fathomed that PR is a nasty piece of work whose view/opinions are vile racist and homophobic.But for people like Greg or his brother? to defend this is appalling at the very least.I believe Greg was behind the group that called itself “The conscience of Alun Buffry”. which again was attacking Alun Buffry amongst others.This sort of behavior shows exactly what side of the fence he is on. As far as I am concerned, he has lost whatever credibility he once may have had.I have said it before, If you defend the indefensible, then it follows that you will be tarred with the same brush.I also think it is too late for Clear to “clear” its name(pun intended) as it is now a toxic brand associated with its “leaders” views imho

Reply

sarah January 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Test.

Reply

sarah January 24, 2012 at 7:10 pm

more testing

Reply

Darryl Bickler January 24, 2012 at 8:37 pm

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.

Reply

Mike February 6, 2012 at 8:44 pm

Here’s a funny thing; two weeks later and no sign of any legal action by Peter Reynolds aka lovepeaceguru.

Perhaps his dear old mum has been too busy to sign the affidavit.

Reply

santa teresa costa rica October 23, 2012 at 8:52 am

Remarkable! Its actually remarkable piece of
writing, I have got much clear idea regarding from this
piece of writing.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: