Peter Reynolds and His Lawsuits – A Short Statement

April 16, 2013

in Personal

Peter Reynolds campaigning in the Corby by-electionBecause I am not incredibly stupid, I do not intend to comment publicly on the litigation currently being conducted between Peter Reynolds, myself and others. However, as Peter Reynolds’ verbal incontinence is continuing unchecked, I would ask all those who have read his comments about myself and my fellow defendants via CLEAR media channels to bear in mind six simple facts:

1. I have submitted a defence and intend to defend all allegations against me.

2. Chris has submitted a defence and intends to defend all allegations against him.

3. Alun has submitted a defence and intends to defend all allegations against him.

4. Greg hasn’t submitted a defence because he hasn’t even been served with court papers yet.

5. Not one of our claims contains an allegation that any of us have attempted or made contact with Peter Reynolds’ children, his parents, or any other member of his family. For Peter Reynolds to continuously imply that he has commenced civil action because one of us did is without evidence and defamatory.

6. NORML US is taking a very dim view of Peter Reynolds’ unwarranted and repeated attacks on NORML UK and his efforts to claim that by doing so he is not tarnishing the NORML brand.

This is all that I have to say on the matter for now.

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts:

{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }

Charley Downey April 16, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Well said, Sarah. That is a dignified and adult response to what can only be described as you did – verbal incontinence of the highest order. From what I’ve seen, Mr Reynolds seems completely unaware of the concept of a ‘dignified silence’ and seems confused about the judicial process – could someone explain to him that it happens in courts, not on social media?

Reply

Jo M Moss April 16, 2013 at 10:35 pm

Excellent Sarah… but be careful what you say in public, Mr Reynolds might mistake it for capitulation. I cannot believe that he sees the statement from Dr Gary Potter, GCCRC, which he branded a victory today, as a sincere apology, or any other kind of apology. He is not mentioning that he probably put Dr Potter into such a difficult position with his employers, that he had no choice but to issue something, which only to someone with an overinflated ego, would appear to be an apology.

Reply

graham smith May 15, 2013 at 10:39 am

Jo M Moss did you see the financial side of the settlement? or do you in some childish way that such libels can go unpunished? It was their stipulation for confidentiality

Reply

Sarah Martin April 17, 2013 at 9:23 am

You can remove PR’s powers by simply ignoring him from the start. His worth is measured in a similar fashion. He’s built up a kind of celebrity image, in a perverse sort of way. My feeling is that this guy will always be around if attention is constantly paid to him. It’s what he wants. Pete loves a fight but it’s time to bring this to an end and ignore the prat. He’s awfully good at exposing himself for what he is.

Reply

graham smith April 19, 2013 at 9:55 am

This is all a bit confusing. You say ” Because I am not incredibly stupid, I do not intend to comment publicly on the litigation currently being conducted between Peter Reynolds, myself and others.”. And then you go on to do just that. And as if that wasnt incredibly stupid enough for your readership to understand you then go on to give out details of other peoples court cases which are not even correct or factual.
Why on earth should Normlusa give a toss about a few brits litigating about a few slanders.
I note that you have stepped down from NUK.If judgement is entered against yourself and the others will they also step down from NUK in order not to tarnish the good name of NORML?

Reply

sarah April 19, 2013 at 10:06 am

Maharg, do not embarrass yourself speaking of things of which you know not.

And I am currently Political Director of NORML UK.

Reply

graham smith April 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm

Are you sure that you are a part of NUK Sarah because here is a post from the rather grandly entitled executive director who makes the incredible claim that he was appointed to his position without his knowledge and approval and that he was likewise removed from post without being informed

Sanj Chowdhary Hi Jeff, sorry for my omission. I only discovered 2 days ago that I had been removed from the board in my absence back in February! i wasn’t ever informed it was happening, not a single phone call or even a courtesy email but then as I was made Executive Director against my wishes & in my absence so it was only fitting that I would be removed in the same way & glad to say they were professional to the end by completely ignoring the organisation’s procedures but then they would have been used to that as at least two continued to ignore the democratic process through their continued support of him until they themselves felt his wrath & began their own anti clear/PR campaign! Shame they chose to willingly support him for months when they actually had the opportunity to depose him but then their judgement would have been skewed from deluding themselves that their continued support of him was just & morally correct whilst attacking those who opposed PR, labelling them CRAZY!

So what have you been doing politically for NUK since february? You may well have been awarded promotion in your absence.SC is still listed as exec but claims that he isnt.

If you ARE political director give us a comment on the above remark that people at NORMLUK

” began their own anti clear/PR campaign ”

This places NUK at the heart of a campaign against another group of campaigners.

This would be an own goal of staggering proportions and it happened on your political watch

Reply

sarah April 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm

As I wasn’t on the Board at the time, I can’t give you a blow-by-blow account, but I’m told Sanj was voted off because he just stopped showing up. If you don’t turn up to any of the meetings or read any of the minutes, of course you aren’t going to know what happens.

Sanj’s message is obviously about the leadership contest that occurred in March 2012 before NORML UK existed and his resentment that people on the CLEAR Executive at the time did nothing or participated when he was expelled from the party and only did when Peter Reynolds went for them. Maybe you weren’t there for that, here:

http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/opinion/2012/peter-reynolds-clear-rolling-updates-30th-march-2nd-april/

http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/opinion/2012/peter-reynolds-clear-rolling-updates/

And I think he’s right to make that criticism. If all the people who subsequently jumped ship had taken a stand in January, Peter Reynolds would not be leader of CLEAR now and the cannabis movement would not have been subjected all the trouble he’s caused in the last year. Shame on them, and even greater shame on all the people who support him now.

And now, how about a little accountability for CLEAR?

1. Are you, or are you not, a member of the CLEAR Executive? You say you aren’t; Peter Reynolds says you are. If you are, what do you do (and why aren’t you and everyone else Peter Reynolds lists in that article on the Executive page), and if not, why is Peter Reynolds claiming his Executive is a lot bigger than it really is?

2. Last year, CLEAR published its accounts immediately after it submitted them to the Electoral Commission. Why haven’t they been released yet and when will they be?

3. Your AGM is now two years overdue, which blatantly contravenes your party’s Constitution. Have you confirmed dates and a venue for the AGM which was happening last April, last September, this Spring and is now supposedly this September?

Reply

graham smith April 19, 2013 at 2:43 pm

At least one of your co-defs is settling behind your back and yet you tell me “do not embarrass yourself speaking of things of which you know not”
I never knew that you were “currently Political Director of NORML UK”
Why would an organisation less than 300 in number require a Political Director?
If you are disgraced as liars will you all stand down for the good of NORML ?

Reply

graham smith April 28, 2013 at 5:40 am

I stand corrected Alun I meant co conspirators.Fortunately I dont have to “watch my words” because I dont indulge in campaigns of childish lies and hate against successful Cannabis Law Reform activists.

Reply

graham smith April 28, 2013 at 5:52 am

In my limited experience of these matters the ones with the best legal advice settle first so you may have missed the boat there.As you have seen fit to brand me a racist I will be watching the up and coming court proceedings with great interest and should Mr Reynolds be successful in preventing you from repeating these spurious accusations of racism then I may also seek to have you issue an apology and have you silenced by injunctive relief.

Reply

Kevin John Braid April 28, 2013 at 7:59 pm

But nobody has settled a claim … what are you on about?

Reply

graham smith April 28, 2013 at 10:36 pm

Hello Kevvy babe Like I said the people with the best legal advice settle first

http://www.clear-uk.org/dr-gary-potter-of-london-south-bank-university-apologises-to-clear/

Reply

graham smith April 28, 2013 at 10:54 pm

And another CLEAR hater bites the dust
http://politicsuk.eu/puk-its-been-fun/

Reply

Maharg Thims April 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm

No mention of Peter Reynolds in that last link.

Tell me Graham, who is paying Peter’s costs and will he resign when he loses?

Reply

graham smith May 4, 2013 at 1:50 am

I have no idea who or what maharg thims is so alas there is only me. You say alun that “My opposition to reynolds position as so-called leader will continue.” Why on earth would you bother? will you oppose future leaders of clear? Peter IS the current leader of CLEAR there is no “so-called ” about it and will you continue in your futile hate campaign even if a court orders you to ?

Reply

graham smith May 12, 2013 at 11:33 pm

Breaking news from todays Times……….this is my favorite bit………

.A number of blogs about Reynolds wrongly allege that he is homophobic and a paedophile. (He admits to having called a woman who maintains one of the blogs a “genetically confused half-werewolf half-woman”.)

If we could bottle this stuff we wouldnt need any more weed lol

Reply

sarah May 13, 2013 at 6:24 am

Have you, er, actually read that article? Peter Reynolds basically comes across as the Fool King of the Asylum. It implies he’s an alcoholic and a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I presume he just saw the “king” bit and lost all sense of rationality, but I wouldn’t be putting about an article in which he admits to posting “evil Jews” to the internet when he flatly denied such a thing to the Jewish Chronicle. Makes one look somewhat insincere, shall we say.

Reply

Kevin John Braid May 13, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Oy Manrag, can you link me the blogs alleging PR is a paedophile, I’ve not seen them, only seen blogs critical of PR’s defence of Jimmy Savile or the teacher who ran off with the 15 year old pupil to France.

I have seen plenty of blogs that correctly allege he is homophobic on account of things like he called gay people ‘perverted fools’ and said homosexuality was a ‘perversion from the norm’.

Reply

graham smith May 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm

The nukprw efforts have been a dismal failure and I offer my sympathies and pity to those of you who have wasted your rather feeble efforts on this ill thought out and unworthy venture.
Attacking a cannabis campaigner for reasons other than cannabis was always going to be a loser.I dont care if my milkman is a homosexual,votes UKIP or beats his wife.I want me fucking milk.And so it is with we medicinal cannabis users.
Its a good time for Cannabis Law Reform at the moment.Plenty of shouting and arguing with each and every scrap of cannabis news both here and in the states.Pro cannabis groups are forming on an almost daily basis and they are offering better and better evidence based arguments to back up their demands.NUKPRW has failed to capitalise on this resurgence of education and activism choosing instead to attack individuals and the friends,family and colleagues of individuals.Nobody who has observed this childish and nasty campaign against CLEAR and Peter Reynolds could possibly want any of you on their team.
But looking on the bright side.?….At least you have got each other.

Reply

sarah May 14, 2013 at 8:35 pm

A very simple test – which website contains personal and named attacks against another cannabis organisation and it’s board members? Is it a) NORML UK? Or is it b) CLEAR – Cannabis Law Reform?

It’s ridiculous the way you make out that CLEAR is calm and getting on the job when you and Peter Reynolds cannot let a month go by without posting hysterically about how evil NORML UK is (and getting a whole bunch of extremely pissed off comments from your own members that mysteriously vanish) and sending that out to your entire membership. If you truly believe the rubbish you write about how you’re the conciliatory ladies of light and goodness, I suggest take down these articles and note that NORML UK does not have a similar tag:

http://www.clear-uk.org/tag/norml-uk/

Reply

graham smith May 15, 2013 at 1:23 am

Sarah if you feel that you have been wrongly or maliciously targeted for criticism then my advice would be to get some legal advice.I dont have the names of any cheap solicitors to hand but I am sure one of your co-conspirators from NUKPRW will be able to oblige you. Also worth mentioning I dont need lessons in how to behave from somebody facing the accusations that you and other founding members of NUKPRW are facing
PRWNUK contains not one or two but dozens of articles naming me and PR as racists despite my having being involved in the anti apartheid struggle for many years and being arrested for protesting on more than one occasion.
I am very pleased that you have drawn attention to the fact that one of the CLEAR executive was grassed up by NUKPRW for attempting to buy some non existent coke from someone calling itself simplesarah.Emails were sent openly to crimestoppers and the police.And not just any old police but the exact same officers who investigated Reynolds claims against yourself and other NUKPRW founding members.As soon as you started trying to triumphantly boast about your accomplishments and saw the reaction which it provoked you immediately started trying to wash your hands of it.Marks out of ten for spitefulness…10 Marks for cannabis campaigning… fuck all!

Reply

graham smith May 13, 2013 at 10:03 am

There is a lot of nasty bickering going on at NUK so I will forgive you for being so shortsighted.
The jewish chronicle [anti-semitic comment] gave PR a clean bill of health as did the race equality people.
What is so interesting here is that now we have the same people in NUK having exactly the same arguments and differences of opinion that they had when they were with Clear.
Here at Clear things are all harmonious and constructive. Membership is steadily improving and new people who have never heard of buffry bovey hoot and yourself are working away to lobby for change.All the abuse that Clear were being subjected to more or less stopped immediately PR issued proceedings.
Sanj (who may or may not be the current leader of NUK,he seems unsure himself) has come out on his FB page and in so doing has in so doing revealed a paucity of any kind of campaigning ability on behalf of NUKs founding members.Everyone interested in Cannabis Law Reform was dismayed when NUK formed in such bad circumstances and once as you point out above that founding NUK members ” began their own anti clear/PR campaign ” it looked like all was lost.
What in fact actually happened was that this parting of the ways sorted out the wheat (CLEAR) form the chaff (NUK PRWatch).
Clear and Peter Reynolds in particular,despite being under constant attack from founding NUK members,has consistently outpaced and out performed you trolls in every respect.Ther have been so many radio and TV opportunities to tell the truth about cannabis that I have lost count of them.If a newspaper or a radio or TV station need a comment about Cannabis it is to CLEAR that they come.The message that CLEAR and Peter give out is consistent accurate and has been universally well received by the press and the public.
What have you and your fellow NUK founders got to show for your efforts? Apart from a failed dead website, the laughable PRWatch and at least one bill for 10k the answer is fuck all.
My prediction is that NUK wont struggle on much longer People who trusted you are now returning to CLEAR and getting on with the job in hand.
The whole anti Reynolds campaign has been a dismal failure and is more or less a blueprint for how not to campaign.
My inside source at NUK will be keeping me up to date with the up and coming meeting on an as it happens basis and I am sure that it will prove interesting especially financially

Reply

sarah May 13, 2013 at 2:14 pm

As you run such an amazing competent party then, surely you won’t mind answering those accountability questions I asked you last month:

1. Are you, or are you not, a member of the CLEAR Executive? You say you aren’t; Peter Reynolds says you are. If you are, what do you do (and why aren’t you and everyone else Peter Reynolds lists in that article on the Executive page), and if not, why is Peter Reynolds claiming his Executive is a lot bigger than it really is?

2. Last year, CLEAR published its accounts immediately after it submitted them to the Electoral Commission. Why haven’t they been released yet and when will they be?

3. Your AGM is now two years overdue, which blatantly contravenes your party’s Constitution. Have you confirmed dates and a venue for the AGM which was happening last April, last September, this Spring and is now supposedly this September?

Reply

graham smith May 13, 2013 at 7:47 pm

Firstly Sarah I do not ” run such an amazing competent party ” in fact I dont run any party.
Secondly I hold no title in CLEAR my involvement at executive level came about to give me some protection from malicious troll attacks. Probably from you and your friends which were having an effect on my family.
I would reserve any criticism of accountability until after the nuk meeting but nobody at clear has voiced any concerns about finances that I am aware of.
AGMs in any organisation can be moved cancelled or even done away with altogether.

I note that you use these rather random and negative criticisms to avoid discussing the abject failure of the anti Reynolds campaign and the other issues I have tried to helpfully point out.

Reply

sarah May 13, 2013 at 8:27 pm

“I note that you use these rather random and negative criticisms to avoid discussing the abject failure of the anti Reynolds campaign and the other issues I have tried to helpfully point out.”

That’s because disclosing what I think and who I associate with to a random stranger on the internet who bears me nothing but ill-will and expresses nothing but abuse seems remarkably not in my interest, especially someone who’s so desperate to know what we’re doing you can hardly stay away from my blog for more than a second, for all your boasting about how irrelevant I am.

“I would reserve any criticism of accountability until after the nuk meeting”

Sure. But note that we’re actually having a meeting, where every member who wants to is going to turn up in a room together and talk about our organisation. When was the last time CLEAR managed that? Oh, ah, never. Interesting how you seem so much more concerned about our accountability to our members than your own group’s.

“AGMs in any organisation can be moved cancelled or even done away with altogether.”

It’s endlessly interesting how parties constituted under electoral law can just do away with AGMs legally when they feel like it – oh, wait, they can’t.

CLEAR is an ego vehicle for one man and one man alone. I note that no-one else in CLEAR whose name doesn’t start with P and end in eter Reynolds has ever been allowed anywhere near a microphone.

Reply

graham smith May 15, 2013 at 10:45 am

So its “Who gets a turn on the microphone” at NUK.I see your job as political director is being advertised were you aware of this?

Reply

Stuart Wyatt May 15, 2013 at 11:52 am

LOL

Yes, ALL posts are being advertised, allowing for ANYONE to nominate themselves for any of the positions. NORML-UK is an all-inclusive and transparent organisation that sticks to it’s constitution, rather than a psychopath’s ego-fuelling dictatorship.

Reply

Ellen Harrison May 15, 2013 at 10:43 am

Graham,

Are you stating that there was a financial side to a confidential settlement, or are you just implying it?

Reply

graham smith May 15, 2013 at 10:48 am

The full terms of the settlement are confidential as is the case in nearly all civil cases

Reply

Ellen Harrison May 15, 2013 at 11:11 am

Yes Graham. I appreciate that. This is why I am asking why you are implying that there was a financial settlement. You are discussing a confidential settlement in a public forum. I was just curious as to why you would want to do that?

Reply

Kevin John Braid May 15, 2013 at 2:58 pm

I hear lawyers from London Southbank University have been in touch with Peter Reynolds since they are not happy at the way he misrepresented Dr Potter’s statement, which if you read carefully, doesn’t actually say the allegations against Peter Reynolds are untrue.

Reply

Ellen Harrison May 15, 2013 at 11:18 am

This would also suggest that either you’re making wild assumptions about something you do not know anything about, or that Mr Reynolds has discussed the terms of his confidential agreement with you. Which is it?

Reply

graham smith May 15, 2013 at 11:36 am

I am making the wild assumption that solicitors (especially specialist london ones) dont work for fuck all.All this detracts from the fact that all the allegations are and always were mischievous lies.Defending the indefensible

Reply

Stuart Wyatt May 15, 2013 at 11:53 am

“I am making the wild assumption”

I stopped reading there. You make a lot of wild assumptions don’t you?

Reply

Jo M Moss May 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm

I find it blindingly comical that people still believe PRwatch and the board of NORML UK are in some way linked.. But if you want to join the dots up all wrong and continually make white elephants when the pattern was originally a spider, then you go for your life Graham/Joel/DW/PR. Just because people have shared links to the site, does not mean that they are involved. WOW. Big leap from reality.

We have better things to do with our time, such as organise AGMs for our members and supporters. Popping onto Sarahs blog for some comedy relief from Maharg/Graham has been invaluable.

Reply

graham smith May 15, 2013 at 10:07 pm

Jo are you saying that no normluk founders are responsible for the formation of prw ?

Reply

Jo M Moss May 16, 2013 at 8:02 am

I have made my statement and I currently have nothing further to say on the matter as I am extremely busy making the final arrangements for our first AGM this weekend.

Reply

graham smith May 17, 2013 at 2:25 am

Just brush that little question under the carpet and get on with your final AGM arrangements………………???

Reply

Maharg Thims February 12, 2014 at 9:19 am

This thread is too good to be ended.

Graham, is Peter going to resign now he’s been proved to be a legal fantasist, if not a liar?

And who’s going to pay for this massive ego fest?

It’s a bit much to be asking Peter’s dear old mum.

Maybe you could propose that at the next CLEAR AGM.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: