Revenge Of The Daily Mail Part Two

    Revenge Of The Daily Mail Part One is here

    David Rose, The MOS Journalist Who Wants To Write About Me But Doesn't Want To Mention Cannabis

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Peter Reynolds
    To: David Rose
    Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:47 AM
    Subject: My response to your questions



    Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

    I see that you’ve been the victim of disinformation in the past and that is what you’re being fed now.

    There are sinister forces at work in the cannabis world who resent the success that CLEAR is achieving under my leadership. I have the overwhelming support of my members. Those who agitate and seek to undermine my work are non-members.

    Every single time there is division or conflict in the cannabis campaign, the same old faces are behind it. I am very far from a conspiracy theorist but I do believe that some of these people play both sides of the line of the law – dealers/informers. They do not wish to see reform of the cannabis laws so they seek to discredit me. If there have been undercover operatives in the climate change movement, it is almost certain there are in the cannabis campaign. See the Guardian today:

    I am exactly who I say I am.

    I make no apology for any of the opinions expressed on my personal website in the past. They were intended to be forthright, provocative and controversial. I have apologised for any offence caused to anyone but my opinions are my own and are based on a love of liberty and an abhorrence of prejudice. The suggestions that I am homophobic or racist are absolutely false. Those who seek to distort or misrepresent my words are guilty of worse than they accuse me.

    My 40 and more complaints to the PCC, most concerning the Daily Mail, are in response to inaccurate , misleading and often deliberately distorted reporting. I am pledged to continue to hold the media to account over any misleading coverage of cannabis.

    There are three of my articles from The Independent attached. I do not remember how many I wrote in total and you will see that one was mistakenly credited to “Paul” Reynolds.

    I’ve also attached some other material for you to demonstrate my bona fides:

    1980 – article in Mind Your Own Business magazine

    1986 – Amstrad video cover

    1994 – article in Marketing magazine

    I’ve also attached a brief CV. I worked extensively as a copywriter and creative director in London advertising agencies throughout the 1980s. My client list included IBM, Hewlett Packard, Shell, Schweppes, N&P Building Society, Lloyds Bank, Boots, Pedigree Petfoods and many, many more. Through the 1990s I worked as a communications advisor to many health authorities, NHS Trusts, the British Forces in Germany and Nokia in Finland. I have written for many newspapers and magazines.

    I am happy to answer any further questions but I don’t expect to be able to prove every single detail of my past life. I am who I say I am. Right now and for the past year I am focused on ending the prohibition of cannabis to:

    • recover the £6 billion pa that our government gifts to organised crime
    • protect the millions of people who want to enjoy cannabis peacefully in the privacy of their own home
    • overcome the mendacious and false propaganda published by the Daily Mail and other media outlets
    • rescue the hundreds of thousands of British citizens who need cannabis as medicine and are denied it because of a corrupt and unlawful monopoly granted to GW Pharmaceuticals

    Yes, I was convicted of an offence of dishonesty more than 10 years ago which led to me spending four and half months in prison.

    Yes, I spent three months in prison on remand for a false allegation of common assault, I believe in 2003.

    You know how to reach me. I have contemporaneous notes of all our conversations. Deal with me straight and I will deal you with you straight. Be CLEAR that if you traduce me I shall pursue you by every legitimate means available.

    Kind regards,

    Peter Reynolds

    • Nigel Burke

      May I respectfully ask why you didn’t include details of your extensive experiences campaigning for the legalisation of Cannabis over the past ten or-so years?
      Thank you.

    • Peter Reynolds

      I’ve been campaigning on cannabis for more than 30 years Nigel.  That is all available online either on the CLEAR or my personal website. 

    • Nigel Burke

      Thanks for your quick response Peter. I just wondered why you didn’t mention that campaigning experience in your letter to David Rose.

    • Edwin Stratton

      All that is available about your ’30 years of campaigning on cannabis’ is your assertion that you have. Nowhere on the CLEAR site are there details of your extensive experiences campaigning for the legalisation of cannabis. Where is the evidence of your involvement? Why had no activists heard of you until very recently?

    • Anonymous

      This fall out is all very sad. I must say I have never had a very high opinion of Peter, he alwys struck me as the sort of chap who would write his own Wikepdia entry.

    • Nigel Burke

      Mr Stratton. It is my current understanding that Mr Reynolds has produced the proof you were demanding, with an FOI request – and – proof the HO Committee on Drugs had been formed in 1983? Can you confirm these are, loosely, the facts? I don’t know for certain, but the last I read suggested that was the case. 
      You know, I have no idea where all this viscous and nasty exchange of threat and counter-threat, claim and counter-claim originated, but the damage it is doing is immense. For goodness sakes! Why must this arguing always fuck up any attempt to make progress? 
      As for Peter, I’ll tell you what, his record isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, I don’t condone racism, sexism, or any of that shit, but in comparison to some of the mass-murdering, cheating, greedy lying cunts currently on the political scene, he’s a big softy. All he did was write something to get a reaction, to make himself a name to earn his living. It’s what they do these folks, why is it such a biggie? He even apologised didn’t he? Come on guys, he’s not trying to be the Prime Minister. 
      What’s it to be? Representation from the willing? Or squabble amongst ourselves for another ten years about how righteous we all are?

      Or am I missing something really obvious? 
      I am happy to be corrected if my understanding is wrong, but keep it civil, please.

    • Derek Williams

      Nigel – I edited your post to tone down the language a bit, please, keep it civil. We have established that Peter Reynolds contributed to a Home Affairs Select Committee enquiry in which was held in 1983.

      Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, session 1984-85: Misuse of Hard Drugs: Interim Report (HMSO: London, 1985)

    • Nigel Burke

      Dewek! Every time I run into you you are editing my posts. When we eventually do meet, I hope you’re not going to try to help yourself to my beer as well.

    • Nigel Burke

      The real point I am trying to make is that, in a democracy, you vote the party into office that has a similar political agenda as yours. That’s it.It doesn’t mean that the person running it has to represent all of your own personal views. Or that by voting that party in to that position, that party somehow represent all your views. 
      There is a distinction, an obvious one, but I rather suspect some people are not seeing it. 
      But for a democracy to work, that has to be the case. It’s what we do.Heck, I voted for Tony B’liar’s Liarbour Party once. The first time he ran. That doesn’t mean I condone the slaughter of innocents.

    • Derek Williams

      Depends what you drink Nigel :)

      The points you made in your posts were fine, apart from a total four letters, which I’m sure people can guess.

    • Derek Williams

      Nigel – I think it’s because of this fear of saying something that might picked up by the mob that has led to the insepid colourless politics we have today. We still get people like Bliar in power, people get fooled because they’re clever enough not to tell us what they think.