Small Minds Discuss People…

An interesting development has occurred in recent months which is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before and it hasn’t been pretty. For the past several months there has been a campaign waged against the leader of CLEAR, Peter Reynolds. which has taken the form of a “cyber bullying” campaign. What makes this perhaps even more strange is the fact that I have known quite a few of the people involved for a considerable period because they are people who have been involved in the law reform campaign for years.

I’m not new to all this, I first dabbled in the law reform movement in around 1978 with the original Legalise Cannabis Campaign, albeit in a very small way in that I used to put “LCC “stickers on London underground trains, stuff like that, nothing big time. Things changed in about 1992 when the The “Campaign To Legalise Cannabis International Association” (CLCIA) started up here in Norwich and I’ve been running this website, UKCIA, since 1998. I was also there at the start of the old LCA and even stood in an election under the LCA banner in 2005. I parted company with them around 2006 as the outfit seemed to go into terminal decline.

I first came across Peter Reynolds about 18 months ago because of a BBC programme being made about medical cannabis. Peter had somehow arranged for “Pinky” (a well-known person on the cannabis scene) to travel to Holland in order to bring back some medically prescribed cannabis (see here). Peter was starting up the ill-fated medical cannabis register, the BMCR, and it’s fair to say I fell out with him at the time – I made no secret of it and it’s all explained in this blog . It’s true to say I was somewhat wary of Peter originally. However, this was to change.

The other group worth mentioning at this point isn’t a campaign group at all, but a website dedicated to growing cannabis: UK420. Given the nature of the site and it’s – er – ‘main reason for being’ it’s always prefered to keep a low profile but recent events have come close to getting it unwanted attention. At one time UK420 had the best activist forum (members only, you have to subscribe to view it). It was a place where everyone met and discussed things and there are some well-known law reform activists there. Like all forums UK420 has its regulars and some have been posting there just about everyday for years. Over time however it became a place dominated by arguments and insults and bickering. The LCA were the first to feel the wrath of UK420 members and for many years the “old guard” of the LCA were treated with derision on UK420, but perhaps not without good reason.

Anyone considering getting involved in debates on UK420 is best warned that you do need a vogon-thick skin, but again that’s probably true of many forums.

I had split company with the LCA back in 2006. Now I can’t really say this any other way but the LCA were a joke. It was almost as if they had gone out of their way to make the cannabis law reform campaign look daft, presenting the worst image of cannabis users they were the awful “unwashed hippy” stereotype writ large. It had become the the focus of ridicule – not just on UK420 – and it needed to be put out of its misery.

So it was with some interest I noticed that in late 2010 Peter Reynolds pops up in the LCA and is immediately promoted to spokesman. How that came about was down to the “main man” at the LCA, someone who I have known ever since my involvement with the CLCIA. It’s fair to say we have never really hit it off and although we both support cannabis law reform, we seem to do so for totally opposite reasons. Add to this his perhaps unusual characteristic of trusting people he doesn’t know more than those he does made him a difficult person to work with. Again, this all history and for anyone interested in the death throes of the LCA, it’s all here

The really important if very small-town point to all this is that the LCA generated a steady stream of alienated people who often migrated to UK420 where they either became additional objects of ridicule themselves or settled into the community.

Peter Reynolds had already engaged the wrath of UK420 before he appeared on the LCA. All this is really so small-town , given the millions of cannabis users out there, plus the unknown millions of non-users who support some kind of law reform it is little short of stunning how often the same names seem to crop up.

Anyway, Peter had arrived at the LCA like a gale and within a short period of time had stood for election as leader and had taken control. This was possible incidentally because despite existing for over 10 years and claiming to be the main cannabis law reform campaign in the country the LCA only had around 70 members, which perhaps shows how much of a joke it had become.

Peter didn’t waste time, he did what was needed and revamped the LCA into a modern, professional campaign called CLEAR. Frankly, I was impressed and when I was asked to take on the CLEAR website in late summer, I did so willingly. Since then I have got to know Peter as a real person, not as someone on the end of a computer terminal. I do not agree with a lot of Peter’s politics, but then I don’t agree with a lot of people’s politics and that doesn’t stop me working with them in my professional life. We do agree on the sort of law reform campaign that’s needed, the sort of image it needs to convey and the aims and objectives the campaign should have.

For the first time we have, in CLEAR, a cannabis law reform campaign worthy of the name. From the start this seems to have annoyed some people. Very shortly after CLEAR was formed a hate site appeared (Peter Reynolds watch), this was shut down but soon re-appeared. Unknown to the rest of us Peter was getting a constant stream of hate posts for some months. Just before Christmas the ex-main man of the LCA starts a page on Facebook demanding Peter step down from CLEAR.

A strange – and frankly almost suspicious – thing then happened. People who had only months before been at each others throats for years joined forces to dig the dirt on Peter Reynolds. All the usual suspects were there, people well-known from UK420 in particular, but also people who had been ridiculed in tha past on UK420 and even the old guard from the LCA; the very best of enemies united in the single cause of attacking the leader of the most successful cannabis law reform campaign this country had ever seen.

Now it has to be admitted that Peter did give them some free ammunition. Before his involvement in the cannabis law reform movement, he had been a serial blogger and some of his comments were, perhaps, written in a language which some might have considered ill-advised. He discussed thorny issues such as immigration, saying how communities he had known as a kid had changed due to mass immigration, he touched on that hot potato that is the Arab-Israel conflict and more besides. These were his personal blogs and has always claimed they were written to be controversial. They were also known about before he stood for election at the old LCA.

It has to be said that Peter had written a lot of blogs, of which only a handful contained these controversial comments, but what we got was a Facebook campaign against him based on them which claimed to show proof that he was a raging homophobic racist, all run and coordinated by the newly united band of previous enemies who have been joined by others in a campaign which can only be described as obsessive.

Over the months Peter Reynolds has been accused of being:

A Police informer A Homophobe A racist A sex pervert In cahoots with big pharma

And probably a whole wedge of other things besides.

Things first came to a bit of a head on Christmas eve, when I was away from home visiting the rellies for at the festive period. I took a break from the enforced festivities and checked the CLEAR site where I saw that Peter posted a very aggressive comment, when I saw it I phoned him and it was then I discovered the extent of the campaign he’d been enduring for months. He was, it transpired, under a hell of a lot of lot of stress because of it.

As it happened and entirely by coincidence after Christmas I had a staff dev day at work where we told about “cyber bullying”, a development which Facebook has made a very real problem with kids. We were told how to spot it and how it affects the victims and it’s fair to say that what was happening to Peter ticked all the boxes. His reaction over the next several weeks was typical of someone under stress and he made some unfortunate mistakes in that time. The rest of the CLEAR exec also came under pressure from this band of people on a mission, however most of us have stuck by Peter, only two have not.

 

The CLEAR Facebook page then started to get spammed by this group of people telling Peter to resign and encouraging members to resign, so yes, there has been filtering of comments on the CLEAR Facebook page and website and comments have been deleted – I’ve been doing a some of it, as have other exec members, although the need to do so seems to have dropped off in recent weeks. It’s probably true that some people were blocked unreasonably, but most were not. CLEAR’s websites are not there for people who want to damage the movement, they exist for CLEAR to promote its campaign and policies and that is what we are doing and will continue to do.
The MP’s Peter had cultivated relations with have withdrawn their Facebook connection after being approached by these people, who then spread the fact around as evidence of a loss of support for Peter.

 

Perhaps worse, and certainly in an unbelievable development, a Sunday Mail reporter was engaged by them to write a shock horror probe style story about Peter. For the record taking a story designed to hurt the cannabis law reform movement to the Mail – of all papers – is about as low as you can go. Whether it would have had the desired effect though is open to debate, somehow I can’t see a dissing by the Mail as really being something that would hurt CLEAR, quite the opposite in fact.

 

This groups of obsessives likes to consider itself representatives of the “cannabis culture”, of course they can seriously claim no such thing as cannabis users come from every walk of life and its a fair bet many – if not most – would want nothing to do with them. But through a hatred of Peter Reynolds they have been drawn together like never before and have dedicated hours and hours of time and effort to the cause, albeit for an entirely destructive reasons.
They are even following CLEAR around the local press when people post comments to local papers under the “comment warrior” campaign, which will have the effect of undermining the message CLEAR is making about bad press reporting of the cannabis issue.

 

There have been other things as well, but enough’s enough.

 

The amount of time and effort this group has put into the anti-Peter Reynolds campaign has been impressive. If they were to put a fraction of this much effort into real law reform campaigning we would be well on the road to success by now, but they don’t and on the whole never have.

 

Now it has to be said that some of them are genuinely ill people, some of them indeed are housebound or at least disabled and so perhaps spend unhealthy amounts of time on internet forums, but not all of them are. The possibly only thing most of them have in common is that they are heavy long-term cannabis users.

 

Much fuss has been made in the media about the prohibitionist claims about cannabis – such as “reefer madness” and other major health risks, most if not all of which have been shown to be over stated at best and totally false at worst. This over hyping of alarmist claims has produced on the other side the “harmless herb” mindset; if cannabis isn’t the killer they claim, it must be totally harmless.

 

Now, let’s be quite clear about this: On the scale of harms cannabis is pretty safe. Being a heavy drinker for example will damage you physically and mentally, indeed it will probably kill you if you hit the bottle really hard. Even at the extremes of heavy cannabis use, nothing like that is going to happen. But to assume from that nothing will happen is a little unwise. Nothing on earth is totally, 100% safe, life just isn’t like that.

 

Perhaps what this campaign against Peter Reynolds seems to demonstrate is that long-term heavy use of cannabis gives people the ability to become obsessive about issues. A recent post to my Facebook page came up with this:

 

Great minds discuss issue
Medium minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people

 

What we have seen is an exaple of very small minds at work. Cannabis has long been associated with creativity and enlightenment and when used to focus energies that is undoubtably true, but it isn’t necessarily true that this will always be a good thing for everyone.

 

Perhaps there is another explaination though because I am, actually, more than a little suspicious of this whole charade. It does seem that the amount of time that’s been put into this whole exercise is the sort of time only an employed person could afford to give. Now, really, who doesn’t want to see an effective cannabis law reform campaign? Answers on a postcard.

160 thoughts on “Small Minds Discuss People…

  1. in my opinion the only people who want to see the CLEAR campaign fall are Police,courts, lawyers,prison workers, and big Pharma They will loose out on all the money that is being spent right now another group is the drinks industry they will loose a lot of drinkers, and the final group are the criminals that will loose the black market. so by declaring the members of clear your target you declare your true intent,
    what must scare you is the fact the cannabis campaign is so much bigger now real ideas about how to supply and regulate have you guys shitting bricks,
    well i will be happy to see those that for years have kept the cannabis campaign in the funny pages leave and do their own thing,

    when the law changes clear will have no more reason to exist and will go into history like every great campaign should,
    when the debate starts Clear will be 1 small voice in a very crowded debate so if you want get your own plan together and join the discussion,
    the CLEAR plan you guys hate is only a plan it is not scripture by the time a real debate starts the CLEAR plan will be given the same attention as every other idea,
    so you dont like P,R your right to chose who you like or dislike is your right. but ask yourself what have you trolled out about the editor of the Daily mail? or any of the other people that would be happy to lock you up for using cannabis? and does it match what you troll about P,R
    how many hours this last few months have you spent trying to change cannabis law and how much time have you spent attacking CLEAR and its members and supporters? so you leave me thinking you must be one of the groups i stated at the start of this comment i do not want to insult any of you guys but you do make it so easy with your pathetic attempt to attack CLEAR and its membership you leave me no choice Clear is our campaign, because cannabis law reform is what WE all want and P,R has made a campaign group that can make it happen. what have you made in this time other than Hate pages?

  2. Don’t take the mick Derek.I’m not bothered about someone who’s been impersonating a Doctor suing me for libel.Is he going to produce Dr.Carla Margam as a character witness?The Carla Margam page was on Facebook from October 2010 to when Peter Reynolds was told on his personal blog that he’d been reported to the Police for impersonating a Doctor.The Carla Margam Facebook page account disappeared from Facebook the very same day-likewise the Carla Margam WordPress article.However copies have been saved for the General Medical Council and the Dorset Police.Impersonating a Doctor is a serious criminal offence.Given Peyter Reynolds’ previous criminal record I seriously wouldn’t bet against him going to jail over that.As for you sunshine I’d call you a muppet but hat would be defamatory to Kermit the Frog.

  3. you really hurt me with that one billy i am almost lost for words, my favorite was always animal the drummer

  4. Please, as a favour to me, you might not think i deserve, see it as an act of kindness, imagine this whole debate played out in front of your mum. What would she say?

  5. To put it another way Derek who’s suing me for libel?Peter Reynolds?Carla Margam?Carla Reynolds?Peter Margam?How about all 4 of them sue me at the same time and testify on each other’s behalf as character witnesses?I’ve never been sued by someone with multiple personality disorder before so that will be a first won’t it.

  6. Weedol – I’ll ry to answer some of your points later, there’s a lot there but you deserve an answer.

    Just a quicky for Billy Gartside, who doesn’t seem to understand how things work out there:

    He wrote “Don’t take the mick Derek.I’m not bothered about someone who’s been impersonating a Doctor suing me for libel”.

    Sure Billy, if you can prove it. The onus of proof is on you though, it wouldn’t be up to Peter to prove anything, it is you making the claim and it would be you that has to sustain it in court, with hard evidence.

    What you’re doing is very unwise to be honest. If you have evidence of a wrong doing, the way to deal with it is to collect all th evidence you can and then launch your action quietly.

    What you’ve done is to tell everyone of your certainty of correctness before you had proven anything.

    Every forum you make these claims on leaves a trail back to you, everything you write on the net can be saved and used against you years later. By behaving as you have done, you have shown yourself to be at best very naive.

    I think it’s already been said, but it’s worth repeating. The group of people you now feel a part of are encouraging you to carry on, but every claim you make is, potentially, another spade of soil from the hole you’re digging. If they were freinds of yours, they would be telling you to keep quiet.

    But hey, you know best.

  7. UKCIA is correct billy if you ask anyone with any legal experience they would tell you the same every time you repeat the things that have brought legal action is a NEW attack as far as the courts care and if people are advising you to keep on they know what they are doing and you are the person that will be screwed, where will they be then? just ask any lawyer for your own benefit if you dont want to listen then you get what you deserve

  8. I stopped reading at the bit where Pete started calling me “gay”. lol

    I’m not as it happens and if I were so what?

    “Hate filled” – oh how the mirror screams.

  9. Billy Gartside – listen to yourself. You do not sound sane. You are coming out with random nonsense.

    We have now found out that Lem is care in the community. Are we to presume that you are the same? It certainly looks that way. Is that how you know each other?

    It really isn’t fair this. It really isn’t your fault though. Are there no constraints on your use of the internet? There really should be. Who are your carers? Are you left on your own often?

    How unlucky is this that the cannabis community happens to have been plagued by a group from the care in the community! The people we need to get hold of are the carers (is it social workers for these people?). I’m sure there must be guidelines in place to stop vulnerable people like this having so much free reign on the internet. There was a case recently where a lad who didn’t know what he was doing was abusing grief stricken victims on line.

    It’s a crying shame. How do we contact the carers?

  10. I didn’t say you were gay Lem, I was genuinely just trying to explain your bitterness.

    I gave a few guesses – gay was just one.

  11. I didn’t say you were gay Lem, I was genuinely just trying to explain your bitterness.

    I gave a few guesses – gay but in denial was just one.

  12. In one of Peter Reynolds’ blogs he called for Britain to invade Israel.Would he like to sue me for libel for describing him as “psychiatrically imbalanced and mentally unwell”?

  13. “I’m sure there must be guidelines in place to stop vulnerable people like this having so much free reign on the internet.”

    aaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaa

    ahahahaaaaaaaaaa

    You just split my sides.

    The irony.

    ohhhhhhhooohhhhhhhhhhooo

    I literally have no words to describe how funny that is.

    Anyway, you enjoy yourself: Keep. On. Digging.

  14. where was it ever written that all cannabis users or supporters must follow the same politics? i Hear he also liked Thatcher (sorry if i got that bit wrong peter) now to me she was the Antichrist but i dont persecute people for supporting her, as far as Israel is concerned i do not know any Jewish people at all we dont have a large Jewish community in N.Ireland i dont dislike the Jewish people at all but i do think they have an evil government that has no respect for basic human rights and some of the things they have done has made me quite angry as well,
    Its an opinion it does not affect what peter says about cannabis that is what we are here to support. Remember its cannabis law reform not moral, political or style reform but Cannabis reform , if you are in a law case right now you are aware that every post you have made since the case started will need to be proved in a legal sense, have you never wondered why when a politician has legal problems they always answer with “sorry i can not comment” its because every word will be used against them and they are smart enough to know to shut up until the case is over.
    i am not telling you what to do you are your own man but when i see someone drowning i want to throw a life saver

  15. Lem – are you totally convinced that I am Peter Reynolds? In your head can it literally not be any other way? Do other members of your clique think this? Does this fact justify your hate filled actions?

    What would you do if I could pretty much disprove you irrefutably? Would that make you think that you could be wrong overall?

    Look, I’ll yob you something here therefore. I’m from Blackburn. It’s where I grew up, it’s where I live. Here I am posting on my local site – last year – with something completely unrelated to cannabis. I’m actually extolling the virtues of ecstasy:

    http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/pendle/colne/9399335.Colne_warehouse_rave_plans_rejected_by_Lancashire_Police/

    How would Peter have such intimate knowledge of the Blackburn warehouse scene from 89-90? It was 22 years ago – you’d have thought he would have mentioned it. Why would he post on a Blackburn paper as well, totally unrelated to cannabis? I don’t know where Peter is from but I’m pretty sure it’s not Blackburn. I would have come across him before.

    I can’t have faked this either – those dates are set in stone.

    Does this make you change your mind? If it doesn’t, then could anything? Most importantly, if it doesn’t, could you please not bother us, because you now definitely know I’m not Peter, therefore you now really know you are making real enemies of real people.

  16. As opposed to pretend enemies in Narnia? lol

    If you’d read what I said earlier, you’d have noted that I said I couldn’t care less who you are, it isn’t even remotely important.

    Your hyperbole and ignorantly offensive behaviour all muddles into one unpleasant mess.

    Maybe you should be out fighting the fight on behalf of big pharma and let Pedro defend himself.

  17. OK, I’ll try to answer at least some of the points raised by Weedol. There was quite a lot, but here goes:

    “However, leaving aside the more wild/contentious accusations, Peter is unquestionably guilty of very poor conduct that has to bring his position into question – to deny this is quite extrordinary and doesnt sit easily with you history as one of the more level headed and reasonable cannabis activists”.

    I have said I don’t agree with a lot of Peter’s politics. For the record if you know the “political compass” (google it) I come out near the bottom left – extreme left liberal, on the way toward anarchist but not that far.

    I am old enough to know that my politics are not to everyones taste and I do not impose them on any involvement with the law reform campaign.

    I also have a full time job and work professionally with some people I most certainly do not like or really share anything in common. That is my professional life, it’s entirely seperate from my social life.

    CLEAR I regard as like my professional life, it isn’t a social club, it’s a focused business like involvement.

    It is also a single issue campaign. As such I work with anyone who shares the aims of the campaign. Anyone means anyone just about, as long as they aren’t violent. I’m not actually interested in discussing other political issues with Peter, I know we aren’t gonig to agree on so much it’s not worht it.

    “- he has made comments that most people would consider racist (‘swamped’, ‘to many of them’, ‘I want my country back’ etc)”.

    Actually, I would take issue with you there, in my experience “most” people would not judge comments like that to be racist. Culturalism is not raceism, it’s very different.

    This is a huge issue and not really one for this forum if you don’t mind, but I would argue that screaming “racist” at people who feel a loss of coutlural identity due to the very real changes that have occured is not going to win you too many friends. This is a concern many perfectly decent people feel, it’s a real issue, like it or not.

    I can tell you that Peter is most certainly not a racist though.

    “He has made comments that were *unquestionably* homophobic (no mention from you btw)- and when called on this, defended the comments to the hilt, digging in, even making additional offensive comments”.

    Of all the complaints against him, this one is the most convincing. However, it was a few sentences from one blog. It can be argued words from his gut rather than his head.

    “These comments on race and homosexuals alone would almost certainly have led to dismissal from any major political party, certainly as leader, and most corporate or public employment”.

    Except of course for the fact he was elected with these statements presented almost as his CV to the people who elected him.

    It is indeed a bit much that one of the leaders of this “anti” group was the head of the old LCA, who could and perhaps should have researched the background of a lead candidate more than he seems ot have done, either that or he did read them and didn’t think anything of the comments. Actually I storngly suspect it was the latter.

    Interestingly, this very person was the originator of the Facebook campaign and he started off by complaining about Peter’s rudeness, then picked up onthe racist allegations but didn’t notice the gay comments untill others raised it.

    “His tone was defensive, strident and aggressive. People who made criticisms (lets ignore the illegitimate personal attacks on Peter’s private life for now – its important not to confuse them) were themselves attacked”.

    Now, something else to bare in mind. As I outlined above, long before all this kicked off Peter had been the target of a “hate” website. He had been under a lot of pressure privately because of this but had kept it to himself. Sure, he reacted badly to things in the early part of this year, that’s a fairly typical sign of stress actually.

    “His attack on Sarah McCulloch was disgusting (its important to be clear that what she said about him in this context is irrelevant)”,

    The context isn’t irrelevent at all, especially given everything else that was happening it isn’t. Sure he handled it badly, I don’t dissagree, we told him so as well in no uncertain terms, trust me.

    Peters comments about Levent of SSDP were not totally unreasonable either given what Levent had done to be honest. Student union politics don’t play too well in the real world as he discovered. The comments about Release were fully justified IMO, Release used to be a real law reform campaign, it’s a shadow if its former self now.

    Regards Sarah though, had she kept to the single issue she might have had an effect, but she didn’t. Like the others she waded in with the mob and threw a lot of stupid stuff at Peter in a nasty agressive way. Her writing are pure bile, nasty, nasty.

    “You are quite right that we shouldn’t dwell on people – but no one is to blame for making this about Peter, except Peter himself”

    But he was honest in his expression of opinions – you may not like them but he has never made a secret of them. To misquote a famous saying: “I dissagree with your views, but will defend your right to say them”. Freedom of speech is as, if not more important, than politcal correctness IMO but yes, it gets messy. A blog is a personal rant, no more and as such it comes under this freedom of speech thing.

    “Your contention that there is no such thing as bad publicity is horribly deluded; regardless of whatever progress Peter might have made for LCA/CLEAR, this whole sorry episode has, on balance done the organisation/cause enormous damage – If you cant see that, really, I despair”.

    Actually, it’s true. There is no such thing as bad publicity, all that matters is name recognition. Seriously, that’s how it works.

    Anyway, you seem to be making the assumption that the majority of people share your values, that’s always a dangerous assumption.

    As I say, Peter’s plans for CLEAR are along the correct lines, that’s why I’m involved in the outfit ansit’s the only reason I’m invovled.

    The previous LCA may have fitted the fluffy politics you and I prefere, but the organisation and image it presented was rank.

    As I say, I know a lot of the people running this “anti” campaign and most of them are a total waste of space, nasty, obsessive and frankly rather stupid people. I also dislike bullying and there’s been a lot of that, so I make my own mind up and as usual tip toe across the eggshelss of life.

    If I’m wrong, time will tell.

  18. Lem – it means my original points still stands, where you can’t justify your bizarrely sick actions by claiming I’m Peter Reynolds.

    You now know I’m definitely not Peter Reynolds. How can you therefore justify your actions to me, personally, on a me speaking to you now level? I don’t know you, I’m just a normal bod from the cannabis community. Why would you deliberately be so unpleasant to me therefore?

    A quiet man is telling the truth – listen to him. Those people who are dissenting are all telling you the truth – listen to them. Why would you be so deliberately unpleasant to so many people up and down the country, who you don’t even know, but that your sick actions are affecting?

    Any ill people out there, for instance, who could benefit from the amazing and safe relief which cannabis can bring. What have you got against those people personally? No one is campaigning harder than CLEAR for them. Why would you want to stop that?

    What about old folk with glaucoma, diabetes, or even alzheimer’s? Those people would benefit greatly from the same remedy which gave our forefathers untold relief. What have you got against these people? It’s a bit sick that you would deny the dying the pleasure of much easier last few years that cannabis would bring. No one is campaigning harder than CLEAR for the old un’s. Why would you want to stop us campaigning for granny Edith and Grandpa Joe?

    And what about our young people? Why are you making their future worse than it needs to be by handing hardcore criminals untold power? You are also denying them safer cannabis, regulated, not from criminals who sell other drugs either. I won’t insult those people with silly names. They are the future and they are sound people. What have you got against our young people?

    Look at the current alcohol situation – crazy dangerous drinking – no other legal outlet. If those who want to take it to extremes were to do it with weed, there would be no deaths, not even any hangovers. The young un’s can’t take it to extremes with shit wet expensive weed. Nobody is campaigning harder than CLEAR to get those people the finest dry cured buds of the very finest world class strains. Nobody. Want those dry cured buds sooner – join CLEAR.

    Why do you want to keep these poor folk perpetually in shit wet rip-off weed?

    And what about the vast swathes of normal people, with normal settled lives, who just enjoy cannabis, safe in the knowledge that, whilst having a very pleasant time, it is actually extending also their lives? What have you got against millions of people like that? Normal people minding their own business. They haven’t done you any harm. Why are you harming them?

    The clique isn’t telling you the truth. You really are making enemies of the cannabis community at large. You really are making real enemies of real people. There really are real people who are sat at home reading this Lem, who just want change themselves, and who can’t believe that you are trying your utmost to stop that. Why would you possibly do that?

    This is my last post, it’s half eight. I’m doing something else tonight.

  19. “There really are real people who are sat at home reading this Lem, who just want change themselves, and who can’t believe that you are trying your utmost to stop that. Why would you possibly do that?”

    I’d love to see change.

    Just not the change Peter Reynolds wants to offer, and in fact not any form of change with Peter Reynolds at the helm.

    As I said earlier, campigning for Peter Reynolds to step down and desiring change in the laws regarding cannabis are not mutually exclusive.

    I will continue to do both.

    I have no idea who the clique are, I am more than capable of making my own mind up.

    http://thurmanhubbard.com/?p=7975

  20. I’m thoroughly confused by this thread.Am I getting sued by Dr.Carla Margam on behalf of her good friend Peter Reynolds or is Peter Reynolds suing me on behalf of his good friend Dr.Carla Margam?Is Derek Williams Forrest Gump after a frontal lobotomy?This whole situation is really giving me sleepless nights.The prospect of a writ for libel from a convicted fraudster like Peter Reynolds oh dear me I am quaking in my boots.I’m involved in the campaign to legalise cannabis.Given Derek Williams’ current relationship to Peter Reynolds he appears to be involved in a campaign to legalise fraud.Have you thought about changing the name of Clear to the Legalise Fraud Party?Given the nature of your current activities that would be a somewhat more accurate and somewhat less misleading description.

  21. and in fact not any form of change with Peter Reynolds at the helm.
    says it all your a troll with no interest in the cannabis debate and only interested in trolling you are deluded goodbye and billy we all know you are confused so go and figure it all out before you start trolling again as we now know you dont want change in cannabis law and clear are your target of hate not just P,R no point talking to either of you because you do not listen but its nice to meet some pro ho troll warriors now i know what kind of sad idiots we are up against i will sleep much better cause as i told you before We will win this debate because we are right you go and fight your little troll war and like jack i have had enough of your stink i got a life to get on with goodnight

  22. The dam walls are creaking: let it flow.

    The mirror can’t take much more, and the pot and kettle don’t know what to do.

    Step outside of the bunker.

  23. What is in this for you Derek?, must be something
    serious to gain considering you are now siding and behaving like the people that arrived here and called you a paedophile while you opposed
    Peter Reynolds, what changed your mind Derek, Peters eloquence and charm or the prospect of taking over his position when he inevitably falls?.

  24. The ‘Peter Reynolds in his own words’ link just about sums it up.He could start an argument in an empty phonebox which is why he’s a total liability.The sooner he’s banished from the UK legalisation movement the better.

  25. Something Derek Williams needs to know.

    I wouldn’t be making an allegation as serious as “Peter Reynolds has been impersonating a Doctor-Doctor Carla Margam” unless I’d seen sufficient proof to satisfy the requirements of a Criminal Court.Libel cases are heard in Civil Courts where the standard of proof is somewhat lower-the balance of probabilities.Since you know Peter Reynolds/Carla Margam better than me give me some insight into the mind of someone who fraudulently impersonates a Doctor online.

  26. @ Billy Gartside – Ah, seems someone has had words with you, that last post was in a very different tone to your previous statements. But it’s not me that needs to know all that.

    If you have the proof, go ahead and take your action, I’ll watch it unfold with great interest. The ball, as they say, is in your court now, it’s time to play it if you can.

    @ lem

    That page you posted is a wonderful illustration of the point I’m making about the obsessive and bullying nature of your group. Just look at the site you posted, is it the work of a rational person? So much time and effort into following and attacking one person is really sad.

    Lastly @ Hughie Hugh McHugh

    What can I say about Hugh? Once one of the most rational, intellectually thorough members of the law reform community, now one of the biggest idiots posting on UK420 and more besides. When I discovered who you really are Hugh I admit to feeling close to violated. I would have trusted you, it’s a good job I never had cause to.

    I guess Hugh sums up how I feel about the people involved in this “anti” campaign, I know I can’t trust them or believe what they say now. I’ve learned that the hard way and it does hurt, believe me.

  27. “So much time and effort into following and attacking one person is really sad.”

    How is that site an attack Derek?

    It is a cache of Peter’s finest hits.

    He could have either not written it, or made a proper sincere apology.

    The words and opinions contained within that site are not rational: they belong to Peter.

    The desire to expose those words to as wide a public as possible, in oreder to show people what kind of man little petey is, is entirely rational: I would say it was, in fact, a noble act.

    Step outside the bunker Derek. See what the public really think. Stop listening to a convicted fraudster Derek.

    The truth hurts Del.

  28. I’m going to be listening at half past 10.

    I do hope they use some of my questions.

    Enjoy.

  29. Dear Derek,

    I hope you are listening to the radio.

    Peter is a moron.

    I’ll step back, there is no need for me to say any more.

  30. Lastly @ Hughie Hugh McHugh

    What can I say about Hugh? Once one of the most rational, intellectually thorough members of the law reform community, now one of the biggest idiots posting on UK420 and more besides. When I discovered who you really are Hugh I admit to feeling close to violated. I would have trusted you, it’s a good job I never had cause to.

    I guess Hugh sums up how I feel about the people involved in this “anti” campaign, I know I can’t trust them or believe what they say now. I’ve learned that the hard way and it does hurt, believe me.

    Hi Derek, I am not who you think I am, I’m not Hugh Robertson I am Hughie Green, Hughie Hugh McHugh has always been Hughie Green despite Peters paranoid delusions, no need to feel violated dude unless you count your association with Reynolds, no answer to the question Derek, are you not even going to pretend it’s all about cannabis campaigning when it is and has always been about middle aged nobodies jumping on bandwagons to pretend
    they are activists to bring some delusion of
    adequacy and worth into their sad empty lives,
    I dont know why I even bother being civil to you considering you ave always been a snivelling little rat with fuck all to say,
    nailed your colours to Reynolds mast now thought how does it feel to be among people whom despise you and plot behind your back,
    people that called you a paedophile for doing what I am doing now and asking relevant questions, I was “Once one of the most rational, intellectually thorough members of the law reform community” but as soon as I challenge PR I(or rather H Robertson) become an “idiot”, how absolutely childish and pathetic of you Derek
    anyone can see the petulant mindset you and Reynolds operate under, abuse and accuse to
    deflect attention from relevant questions which none of you can answer honestly or at all in most cases, I have never had any respect for you Derek so you have lost nothing
    in my book merely confirmed what a two faced
    little hypocrite and pathetic sidekick to a
    deeply unpleasant and utterly dishonest abusive coke addled con man, I hope you never dare to show your face on UK420 again Derek
    people gave you the benefit of the doubt before but no more, you have made your bed now you must lay in it, good luck with ever being taken seriously in the future you pathetic little excuse for a man.

  31. i listened to the radio broadcast. i don’t think peter sounded like a ‘moron’ slightly frustrated at one point but that’s about it, could you give me your reasons for his ‘moron’ tag so i can understand your argument better …..the presenter on the other hand!

  32. oh, can everyone just please stop the abuse, bad language, accusations its really depressing i thought we where all adults. No one wants to answer my question about what their mums would think about all this because deep down you know the answer. If you don’t like someone or what their doing leave them alone, get on with your your life, do your own thing. PLEASE. Thank you.

  33. those crazy neighbors still playing the same song over and over at the top volume you answer them and they pop up again like a stuck record. They are “anti cannabis activists” so why do we bother with them ? they will not change their activity because trolls gotta troll

  34. @ Andrew James Cox – this sort of comment you see above is fairly typical of the stuff you’ll see on UK420, which is where this is orginating from. Hughe’s remarks above are very typical of him sadly.

    The thing you have to bear in mind is that they are enjoying it all, simple as.

    My loyalty is to CLEAR as a campaign mostly, but that is re-enforced by a desire not to be associated with people like these. I think it’s pretty obvious why by now.

  35. Andrew i agree with you it is something that does not need to be happening
    but the clear campaign is moving up a gear with all the new members
    and it is not surprising to see some people who used to support the campaign for cannabis law reform become frightened by the fact they are not controlling the direction the campaign has taken, as we get closer to the end of this campaign a lot of vested interests will come out of the woodwork and declare their true intentions.these guys have declared CLEAR their primary enemy . so they have nailed their colours up for all to see . the type of attacks they make on individuals is disgusting and they need to grow up and we need to recognize they are not out to change cannabis law, they are only interested in damaging clear

  36. Hughie Hugh McHugh – my goodness you sound bitter. Even a lemon would say you were too bitter.

    Are you all one and the same person who keeps up with this shameful hate, changing names as things progress, or are you a tag team of some type? Do you call yourselves the “haters”? You don’t wear silly outfits do you?

    No-body is despising and plotting behind anyone’s back any more at CLEAR. You must have missed the memo that everyone else got – it’s now pretty much been accepted that it was you lot plotting behind Peter’s back, to the most remarkably low degree as well. Proper snake belly shameful low. Sleeping with the enemy, stuff that’s really almost unforgivable.

    CLEAR is onwards and upwards now literally – no plotting no scheming, shoulder to shoulder, not toe to toe – you cut one, we all bleed – and it’s members are immensely proud of it’s executives, people who’ve been brave enough to stand up and be counted. Everyone involved in it all, doing their bit – little cogs in the big wheel of positive change.

    Within CLEAR, and therefore away from quite remarkably bitter sounding and hate filled people like you, Derek can probably breath a huge sigh of relief now that nobody is plotting behind his back within the organisation he is working hard for. Everyone just really appreciates the hard work he is doing here.

    What about if Derek was actually just a decent person? What about if Peter was just a decent person? Would you feel ashamed acting the way you were if they were decent people?

    They are decent people Hughie Hugh McHugh. Why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant to them therefore? Why do you not feel ashamed?

  37. Good gods. 140 odd comments. Possibly the most discussed article ever on this blog.

    The volume of leading questions, loaded statements and outright refutation of facts is incredible.

    Like the vast majority of cannabis users, I am not a member of any websites or groups. I have no interest in any particular person being in what limited degree of power all those discuss represent.

    What does amaze me, is that if this level of vitriol and effort was put into the “movement” or starting up your own if you take this level of umbrage with existing groups, we would have an actual chance at change. Instead what I see seems to be a large group of people who want to keep medicine illegal.

    If 1% of the time spent on this went towards letters of protest to MP’s, something might change.

    Screw it though, it’s more important to have pissing matches and personality contests. Guess you all like the risks that come with growing or picking up.

    This is so depressing on so many levels. Support people who are working for your interests. Two people need not agree to desire the same end goal. Two people working together gets you there faster. Two people fighting here is the political equivalent of kicking yourself in the testicles.

  38. Wow what a mountain of stuff to finally get to the comment bo.
    Uk420 is what it is and Mr Reynolds is also.Clear is a political reform party without any political backers.the MP’s that supported the campaign have now dissosociated themselves frm CLEARS aims because f Peter Reynolds. If this was mainstream politics Mr Reynolds would have fallen on his sword to, maybe fight another day.That he still clings to power is very disquieting.Come on Peter put your self up forreelectipn as soon as you can only then will you have any credibibility

  39. I am a fully paid-up member of CLEAR. I have read all the links in the comments (and more), and I have come to the conclusion that Peter Reynolds is a serious liability.

    I tried to debate some of the major points with him in a calm, rational and adult manner. He responded with abuse, and banned me from the CLEAR facebook group. My account was also deactivated on the forum.

    While CLEAR has taken my money and locked me out of any kind of democratic debate or discussion within the party, would I still be allowed to vote should Peter stand for re-election? If so, could you please tell him to hurry up and announce the date as I would like to be allowed to take part in the legalisation movement once again.

    If you could pass this message onto Peter, I would be grateful Derek.

    Thank you.

  40. “CLEAR member” – if you are indeed a CLEAR member then simply contact the party and resign if you’re not happy, a tiny number of people have. Alternatively, contact me via the feedback form with your membership name and I’ll look into it for you.

    https://www.ukcia.org/new_feedback_form/fb.php

    To be honest anyone can post to a forum claiming to be a CLEAR member, I won’t do anything on behalf of an anonymous poster.

    Edited to add if you were banned from the forum, it wasn’t done by Peter.

  41. Yes, I am a CLEAR member.
    No I do not wish to resign
    Neither do I wish to give you my name.

    My question was if Peter would call an election, and would I still be able to vote even if I am banned on the forum? I have no interest in helping CLEAR any more until there is a new democratic leader.

  42. a quiet man, AKA Peter Reynolds.

    Derek, you deleted my posts over at the clear site, even though they contained no abusive terms, I thought I was being constructive and not falling into the negativity.
    Reynolds is a homophobic racist and by association, so are you.

    One thing I look forward to is the march in Cardiff, Peter has said he will be there, I look forward to that as do many many many others but somehow doubt he will show, even though, apparently, it is him that is organising it, [another lie].

  43. Tom, I have no idea which post you mean but if I deleted one of yours it would have been because you were offensive or disruptive in some way. The CLEAR website and facebook pages are not there for anyone to use to disrupt the campaign.

    Your assertion that I am a homphobic racist “by association” is as stupid as it is offensive.

    I think your post here gives a clue to why I would have deleted your post to CLEAR.

  44. i found a very interesting comment on the CLEAR page that should be viewed when looking at this campaign against CLEAR and its Members..

    Hi, I don’t know if you are all aware but it seems that Merseyside police have commissioned Origin to create a campaign against cannabis farms:
    http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-…..3081009567
    Worryingly it states that; “The campaign, will incorporate online, viral and ‘guerrilla’ tactics”.
    I’ve posted the following comment on that article but it requires moderation so I’m not entirely sure it will get posted;

    So we need tax payer funded spin now to justify our war against cannabis? Amazing. Although another word for it would be scandalous.
    Do the police teams that investigate grooming need similar expensive spin to justify what they do? The whole area of policing paedophiles – do they need to employ expensive outside marketing companies to look at any ways that the public can understand why we need to stop monsters raping children? What about the rape teams? Violent offenders? Metal theft?
    Those teams don’t need spin because those crimes have real victims. We need spin for cannabis because it’s users have no victims, therefore we have to create problems. What an amazing waste of tax payers money eh?
    Morally though, how can the police justify wasting money looking at ways to demonise cannabis, when it means real crimes with real victims will lose out? All those teams I’ve mentioned above, who are helping real victims, would undoubtedly just the love the money that has been spent alone on this campaign by Origin, let alone the huge resources the cannabis team have anyway.
    Why aren’t the police spending money to just see what the truth is, rather than looking at ways to spin an already ignorant viewpoint?
    Ultimately how can this campaign ever succeed if it needs a paid company to justify it? The people you are against are just trying to make the world a better place. What’s more they clearly have the truth on their side – otherwise why would the police need to pay an outside company to create spin? You can’t ever beat the truth surely – that’s just a fact of life.
    Ironically, just to highlight that point, the best that this expensive marketing campaign can up with is problems regarding cannabis prohibition not cannabis itself. Therefore the only logical conclusion from this campaign is that we need to legalise because that’s the only way to stop those problems that Origin have mentioned.
    Why are you fighting the truth? When did that become morally justifiable to society? What has society done so wrong to you that you would be prepared to harm it by lying to the people? Do you need to drink heavily to live with your conscience?

    The reason I’ve posted it here, beyond getting my thoughts on it out, is twofold. First, be wary of people posting. The police are now paying people to campaign against us.
    Secondly – don’t forget you can use this as a weapon. That link is evidence – it can be used against those pushing lies. The whole Origin campaign itself is wonderful because it is untold ammunition for our cause. They need to pay people to push spin.
    Never forget that we are on the right side here – no question. All we have is the truth, and all we are are nice people trying to do the right thing. That may not sound much, but it means we are unstoppable, however many marketing companies they get involved.

  45. i have never campaigned for anything or anyone but three years on every kind of painkiller has got me off my arse….. ive paid me pound and joined clear…..if the party achieves anything at all i will be delighted….ive smoked more grass and for a lot longer than most of the experts on here and if anyone can hear some sense then here it is… peter reynolds (whoever pulls his strings) is achieving something good with clear this seems to provoke a bit of jealousy amongst others who have achieved less
    while he continues to do so i will support him the minute someone else does any better i will drop him like a hot potato and support them and i dont care if peter reynolds or whoever succeeds him is vlad the fucking impaler in drag….i only want to smoke cannabis whenever i wish or need to… i have no religion i dont vote and im not too keen on them that do graham smith

  46. Derek, I was always respectful, I was even thinking of joining. I didn’t believe people that told me you deleted posts that didn’t agree with your point of view, now I know you do.

    One word describes you two, pathetic.

    Never mind, looking forward to meeting you both in Cardiff, if you have the balls to turn up, which I doubt very much….

  47. I think Druidude puts it perfectly, if Reynolds is so confidant and he puts the party first he should do the decent thing and go for an election, if only to quell any more problems.

    The fact is that he thinks he is the party, when in actual fact the members are the party.

    And the comment I made regarding association is true, you align yourself to a homophobic racist and you will be tarred with the same brush….

Comments are closed.