Author: James Collins
Peter Reynolds wants to be a Member of Parliament. That’s a tall order to fill, considering his relative obscurity and the fact he is running against almost a dozen other candidates in the Corby by-election. Still he’s applying for the job, so in the interest of disclosure, shouldn’t he come clean about how he makes his living?
First of all we must address the fact that key elements of his posted C.V. have been debunked as a complete falsehood. Saatchi and Saatchi have never heard of the man, despite the fact he claims to have been a “Creative Director”. That’s a fairly important position in such a large firm, so one would think there would be records of such. S&S have refuted that claim when inquiries are made, so we know it just simply isn’t true. Peter later on amended that claim to say he consulted for them, a far cry from holding the Creative Director position. That means an important part Peter’s life did not transpire the way he claims it did.
That’s a bad start. This man wants to represent the people, but he can’t even honestly represent himself. On those grounds alone he shouldn’t be holding public office, with the accompanying privileges and responsibilities so open to abuse. We know what he wasn’t doing those years he supposedly held this prestigious and powerful position, and it raises serious questions about what he was doing that he felt the need to cover up with such a grandiose lie.
We also have his own admission that he has a conviction for “dishonesty”, as he put it. That sounds like a conviction for fraud to me. Naturally, like all the other things that would be a wild embarrassment for a man trying to enter public life, he avoids revealing the details of this conviction. He calls a lot of people “liars”, but he is the one who was found to be a liar by a court of law. Whose credibility should be drawn into question here? What precisely was so dishonest that it called for criminal action against Peter Reynolds that resulted in him getting 18 months? Perhaps he’ll be kind enough to answer that question before he steps up to run for office. It would be the honest thing to do.
Since we know that his C.V. is unreliable, and we know he carries a criminal conviction for fraud, it raises important questions. The most serious of these questions would be how he makes his living. How does Peter make a living? He isn’t clear about that either. He claims that he has a consultancy business, but if his C.V. is false, doesn’t that mean he isn’t really qualified to consult? If he is lying to his clients about his qualifications, it could well lead to another conviction for his dishonesty. If I were Peter, I would make a point to clear that up before it comes back to bite him.
At one point, during one of his more litigious outbursts, Peter claimed his parents had given him the money to consult legal professionals about the “attack” on his credibility. Why would a man with his own consultancy business, who claims to be floating the CLEAR UK cause out of his own pocket at times, be running to his parents for money? The only conclusion one could draw on that front is that his financial success has been somewhat exaggerated by the man himself. Perhaps he isn’t a consultant. Perhaps he is, as he likes to call others, a “benefits scrounger”. Again, we can’t really know, because so far Peter has been vague and avoidant about his own work history.
This is a man who wants to be an MP. He can’t even be honest about his own work history, financial situation, or criminal history. That’s a terribly grim state of affairs for a man who wants to be the voice of the people. The complete lack of honesty amongst politicians is a serious issue facing todays voters. It would genuinely behoove Peter to prove that he is trustworthy and honest. It would help CLEAR UK and the people who donate their hard-earned money to that cause if he were to make a serious run at public office by disclosing the missing information. Perhaps he could prove he worked for Saatchi and Saatchi at some point by producing documentation of this. Perhaps he could clarify how such a beacon of honesty managed to find himself convicted for “dishonesty”. Perhaps he could clear up once and for all how it is he makes his living.