34 responses

  1. Stuart Wyatt
    January 26, 2014

    Congratulations on your long-expected victory Chris!

    It can’t have been nice having the alcoholic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic & anti-semitic fraudster take up a year of your life in the way that he managed to. In his own words, he admits that he had no case, and that the only goal in all of this was to cost you a small fortune in legal fees.

    Watching Reynolds try and spin and lie his way out of admitting defeat on his blog and facebook is, er, quite incredible to witness. The man is a deluded fool.

    Reply

    • Chris
      January 27, 2014

      Thanks Stuart and in particular for your support over the last year. I knew the second I opened the envelope PR’s writ was stupid and wasn’t going anywhere, however, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been an annoying, stressful and expensive experience.

      I’ve already been in touch today with my legal team who are in the process of sorting out the necessary paperwork RE costs. PR can write on the Internet that I won’t get a penny out of him, we’ll have to see about that. I seem to remember the Master in the Court last week telling him that he’d lost and had to pay my costs.

      Reply

  2. Pete
    January 26, 2014

    Good article, thanks for that. As for Reynolds, he is toast. I find it difficult to understand how any human being can be so stupid. He’ll end up pennyless.

    “It can’t have been nice having the alcoholic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic & anti-semitic fraudster take up a year of your life in the way that he managed to.”

    I agree although I don’t think the term alcoholic should be used in such a derogatory way.

    Reply

    • Stuart Wyatt
      January 26, 2014

      ” I don’t think the term alcoholic should be used in such a derogatory way.”

      I agree, and I apologise for using it in the way that I did.

      Reply

  3. Kevin John Braid
    January 26, 2014

    hehehei want a chapter to myself for PRW meh

    Reply

  4. Lee
    January 26, 2014

    Not quite clear on something here. I gather from what I have read that the doomed libel action by Reynolds began early in 2013. The new defamation law only passed into law on the 1st January 2014. It is the new law that puts the onus on the Defendant to prove they have been libelled and defamed and suffered loss. Chris refers to having to prove the libel, defamation and loss in his case, therefore as the previous libel and defamation law was still effective at the time of this action, under that previous law Chris would not have to prove the libel and defamation nor prove any loss, under that previous law the onus was on the Claimant to prove their claims.

    Reply

    • sarah
      January 26, 2014

      The problem with Peter Reynolds’ claim was that there was nothing for either the claimant or the defendant to debate. So one of the issues with libel is you can argue over exactly how many people saw the particular material complained, because that will affect the extent to which your reputation has been harmed; but he said that one of Chris’ comments, posted to Facebook, had been seen by 23 million people, because that’s how many Facebook users there are in Britain. It’s a patently stupid thing to say, and really, what can you do with that sort of claim at trial? It’s not a reasonable point to even try to engage with.

      It was stuff like that that basically made his claim essentially impossible to reply to because it was ridiculous to begin with.

      Reply

    • Darryl Bickler
      January 27, 2014

      Its is the claimant who alleges libel not the defendant!

      Reply

  5. stevester
    January 26, 2014

    Lol, what a knob ! We all know he wont pay and you will have to get a writ from the court ordering possessions be removed . If that happens please contact the sheriff programme on BBC 1 . Id love to see him squirm on national tv .

    Reply

  6. Darryl Bickler
    January 27, 2014

    I see PR intends to appeal on a human rights ticket concerning the rights of litigants in person (LIP) I am all for the rights of the LIP who defends against any accusation, but as far as a LIP bringing actions is concerned, I would have to be convinced that the LIP claimant had been actually harmed by events, as opposed to trying to cause as much cost as possible. So now the human rights issue that is supposed to be the focus, ie the rights of people who use drugs, is being sidelined in favour of the entitlements of those who choose to spend thousands litigating over insults. If this does go on, then try and demand he has legal insurance or make an application for security for costs.

    Reply

  7. Chris
    January 27, 2014

    I’m pleased Facebook removed the defamatory post Mr Reynolds made about my person following the Court striking out his defective and poorly pleaded claim. I wonder how long his ban will be for?

    Reply

    • Darryl Bickler
      January 27, 2014

      Yep, but censorship and complaining to FB isn’t going to help anyone – we have to refute lies not ban them.

      Reply

      • Chris
        January 27, 2014

        I refuted his lies on this blog, however, it is against Facebook’s T&C to defame and abuse someone, as he did me, so I’m glad they deleted the defamatory words and have given him another ban from posting.

        Reply

      • lem
        January 29, 2014

        I thought we were supposed to ignore them, Darryl.

        Reply

      • Darryl Bickler
        January 29, 2014

        Lem, I have been possibly libelled by PR numerous times – I choose to ignore his outbursts saying that I am a disgrace to the legal profession. If anyone who knows me thinks I am a disgrace I would listen, but given it’s someones little rant about something I said that has no bearing on my worthiness in that regard I will ignore it, doubtless it will have been that I disagreed with some scheme he has by pointing out the stupidity of having a ‘cannabis-based’ movement at all, given that the government are misusing their duties with regard to the protection from drug related harms by focussing on substances rather than substance related outcomes and how to improve those outcomes neutrally. This means the threshold for interference into personal liberty is HIGH.

        Reply

  8. fuckaroo
    January 28, 2014

    twat lol

    Reply

  9. sarah
    January 29, 2014

    Maharg is banned from this blog for making anti-semitic analogy involving Hitler and the Israeli Army. The rest of what he wrote makes him look stupid, so I have left that up.

    I refer all other commenters to my firmer stance in moderating comments to my recent article and my current moderation policy:

    http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/personal/2013/compare-blog-holocaust-banned/

    http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/moderation-policy/

    Reply

    • Darryl Bickler
      January 29, 2014

      There is nothing wrong with banning idiots from a blog, it’s not true censorship, it’s management. I didn’t see the Maharg posts and I am sure they were rubbish, but banning people for criticising the Israeli army? [Hitler comparison]

      Reply

      • sarah
        January 29, 2014

        He wasn’t criticising the Israeli Army, he was invoking a specific battle the Israeli Army was involved in just to be absolutely sure that his Hitler reference was linked to Jews and wasn’t just incidental. Of course you can criticise the Israeli army if you want to.

        If I wanted to act like a censor, I could have deleted his entire message without comment. Instead I left the non-bigoted bits up, even though they are critical of me and Chris, and I explained that Maharg had been banned and why.

        I will not have people making Nazi comparisons and anti-semitic comments on my blog. They will be edited. If people persist, they will be banned.

        Reply

      • Darryl Bickler
        January 29, 2014

        Yep, I think its fine to run your blog in the way you see fit on this sensitivity; yet if people want to make offensive remarks, whilst there is no duty to publish them, there should not be an actual ban. I was mocked for suggesting ignorring people, but if controversial or political people in the public domain spent their time responding to every insult then they would do little else.

        Reply

      • lem
        January 29, 2014

        But, if we have to refute lies, how do we ignore them, Darryl?

        Reply

      • Darryl Bickler
        January 29, 2014

        Lem, legislation is already in process to limit what campaigners can do. Free speech is under attack from may quarters. I am not sure where you are quoting me from. When I say ‘have’, in ‘have to refute lies’ then that is my personal choice wherever I feel there is an imperative to do so. Ignorring people is always an option, that’s all.

        I’ve often suggested that we are as a society becomming ‘harassment hyper-sensitive’ whilst concurrently not respecting difference at all with so many personal traits and habits. I have also argued for the rescuing the fortitude of the so-called victims of verbal abuse, because of basing their perceived harms on notional standards of what is actually so offensive, that it cannot be said without consequence. Anyway now we have a prize example of this endless cycle of legal obligation to adjudicate what you can say online if PR appeals.

        Reply

      • sarah
        January 29, 2014

        “I’ve often suggested that we are as a society becomming ‘harassment hyper-sensitive’ whilst concurrently not respecting difference at all with so many personal traits and habits.”

        I respect the differences of others. People who don’t respect my difference can fuck off. If they don’t, that’s harrassment. Not hard.

        “Anyway now we have a prize example of this endless cycle of legal obligation to adjudicate what you can say online if PR appeals.”

        We do not, because Peter Reynolds has no basis on which to appeal. He put forward a case that was impossible to rebut because it was totally non-specific, and he had 11 months from the filing of the defence to fix his case and chose not to until half an hour before his case was struck out in its entirety. What’s his appeal argument going to be? “Uh, sorry, didn’t realise that if I sue someone for damaging my reputation I actually need to outline what damage was done instead of vaguely whinging about it, give me another chance”?

        Reply

      • Darryl Bickler
        January 29, 2014

        Sorry Sarah, you say it’s easy to get but I am not sure. Harassment is someone saying that someone’s ‘difference’, as say regards their religious beliefs, is bullshit or that they resemble some evil character from history?

        As regards the case, I did say “if”.

        Reply

      • Darryl Bickler
        January 29, 2014
  10. Darryl Bickler
    April 8, 2014

    Hi Sarah

    I see P Reynolds is saying there is a hearing on Friday 11 April at the High Ct where he seeks to re-open the case. Have you any comment that you are able to make about the grounds claimed for this?

    Reply

    • Chris
      April 8, 2014

      I don’t believe anything the clown does can be taken seriously.

      For obvious reasons, I doubt Sarah will make any comment until after the hearing, however, I wish her the best of luck and I’m sure PR’s attempts to play lawyers and barristers will be as disastrous as his previous attempts.

      Being sued by a looney is a right pain, even when you have specialist legal representation, so I have nothing but respect for Sarah who has had to deal with this idiot for the last year without the assistance of a law firm.

      Reply

  11. Lem
    April 13, 2014

    I’m assuming the lack of comment on Friday’s hearing is due to Sarah having some common sense?

    PR doesn’t seem to blessed with any whatsoever and is up to his usual trick of typing whatever bollocks first enters his drink addled ‘brain’.

    I’m really not sure that describing one of the directors of a law firm as a “shyster”, is a particularly wise move.

    PR never ceases to deliver.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top
mobile desktop