Peter Reynolds Watch The Leader of CLEAR | Cannabis Law Reform
Author: James Collins
Peter Reynolds is outraged at the Daily Mail. For the sake of accuracy, Peter is always outraged about something, but in this case it was the one time I’ve seen the Mail actually produce an article that wasn’t insanely biased in some way. All this objectivity has Peter in a ruffle, because it happens to portray his favorite crazy party in a rather negative light.
Peter Reynolds is a UKIP supporter.
What’s wrong with that? To begin with, he’s the leader of a different political party. One might forget that CLEAR is a “party” because they don’t hold meetings, do public events, or much of anything else that isn’t Petercentric in nature. He takes donations from people who want cannabis law reform, and then he turns around and promotes a party that kicks members out for saying they support cannabis law reform.
This man is all over the map, and not in the wealthy gadabout globetrotting kind of way; he just doesn’t know what the hell he thinks. Sadly, his whiskey bottle is all too willing to fill in the gaps where he finds his own opinions lacking.
Perhaps somebody should tell him he ran in an election against the UKIP. Nah, don’t bother; it’s more fun when you just let his fountain of oratory feces to run unchecked. Oh wait, he knows that … in fact, he seems to think that he and the UKIP were the real contenders in the Corby by-election.
Peter takes offense at the idea that people hold politicians to account when they say things that are bigoted. It’s not fair in his reckoning, to judge a man by his own words and actions. Rather I suppose he would like us all to worship politicians on the basis of their own propaganda. That model of public scrutiny would much better suit the nefarious Peter Reynolds, because he wouldn’t have to explain why he says stupid things. He could just pretend they didn’t happen.
The UKIP holds the same position, that holding their own candidates’ statements against them is unfair. In the article linked above, they actually said the following…
“We deem that using our candidates as cannon fodder to undermine a political campaign, morally reprehensible and downright dirty.” – UKIP press statement in response to articles discussing their candidates’ bigotry.
How is that the statements of a political party’s candidates are not fair material for public discussion about that party? It’s childish at best. It is also expert-level hypocrisy, because they do police their own members for embracing ideologies which are too liberal in nature.
The UKIP kicked out Olly Neville, their own Youth Chairman, for supporting gay marriage and cannabis law reform. Equality is not on the agenda for them, they prefer a Britain that is heterosexual, white, and quite completely sloshed on liquor, instead of everyone being high on cannabis and accepting one another without judgements about what might go on in their bedroom. In Peter Reynolds’ eyes you can wave your penis all over the Internet and that’s just fine, if you’re gay then it is a “perversion from the norm”.
peterreynoldsinhisownwords.tumblr.com
On April 29th 2013 MEP Godfrey Bloom appeared on BBC Radio Live Five and stated that no business should employ women of child-bearing age, because maternity laws are “too draconian”. This isn’t a new position for him to adopt, in 2004 he was quoted as saying the following…
“No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age. …I just don’t think they clean behind the fridge enough… …I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men’s rights.”
That statement would have been pretty dated if it were made in 1974, but to say something like that in 2004 is just repugnant. Men’s rights? Since when are men as a group lacking in civil rights? Is dinner on the table when you get home a civil right? What the hell is wrong with this idiot?
This is boilerplate misogynist garbage from the UKIP; they aren’t fond of women as asocial group. Or immigrants, or homosexuals, or pot smokers…they share a lot in common with Peter Reynolds. The idea that you can represent women by standing up for the rights of men, which are not challenged in the first place, is monumental self-delusion. It’s lousy propaganda at best, and makes the inference that the only women who should be stood up for are the ones who fit the June Cleaver ideal and behave in ways which are subservient to the men in their lives.
In fact, taking that agenda and perusing Peter’s history of bigoted statements of various flavors we can see that they are entirely congruent with his positions. Peter Reynolds is pure UKIP all the way. He believes in “Britain for Britons”. He believes in traditional gender roles. He believes that homosexuality is a perversion. When you lump all these together, it becomes harder and harder to believe that he actually believes in cannabis reform. It seems like the whole CLEAR thing is a front because Peter is actually just too drunk and dishevelled to run for the UKIP.
Even they have standards. Those standards aren’t very high, they demand very little in the way of respectability or reason; for Peter J. Reynolds it is still a Farage too far.
Superb commentary.
Reynolds is an authoritarian who hates democracy. That is why he dare not turn up at public events. If he were to appear at a 420 smoke-out, he would be democratically held to account by the people he has betrayed, grassed-up, lied-to, intimidated, sued and tricked. They would express their views about his output, his activities and his behaviour. But Reynolds is scared-stiff of cannabis users.
Peter tries to silence those who contradict him. I am currently the subject of a 24 hour facebook ban for pointing out how he has earned the hostility of the cannabis movement.
This is why he supports a neo-fascist party such as UKIP, and neo-Nazi candidates like Chris Scotton. Reynolds pretends he is ‘Libertarian’, which is absurd given that he reports everyone who disagrees with him to Facebook, and gets them silenced. Heads up: ‘Libertarian’ has become a frequent disguise for ‘fascist’.
Compare: Reynolds, a ‘democratic politician’, runs to the nearest authority figure when he is challenged, and gets the challenge shut down.
On the other hand, Reynolds’ opponents don’t grass. They don’t report Reynolds to anybody, not even his mum. They fight their own battles like grown-ups instead of crying to ‘sir’.
We have learned to do it this way, the honourable way, because we are cannabis users, and WE have learned a sensible, all-pervasive distrust of the authorities.
Peter Reynolds is not one of us.
Honestly, he has been blocked repeatedly for his posts. Who knows what standard Facebook is actually using. I suspect there is a room full of laptops manned by bleary eyed Red Bull addicts who randomly assign outcomes to these complaints until their 120 shift ends.
The fact is though that he is the one who sets the terms of these engagements. He is the one who began redacting his blogs, censoring and banning his critics, and launching unsupportable legal claims against people without even the means to secure appropriate representation. The man is mad with the tiny bit of power he has managed to capture and how he just doesn’t want to give it up. He’s a bit like a demented child in the school yard who finally catches the baseball after a thousand knocks to the face with it and now simply refuses to give it up.
It’s a comically pathetic display of low-brow politics that continues to be an embarrassment to anyone who has ever sparked up a joint. CLEAR has become uniquely self-satirizing though, to a degree far past any believable fiction, and I can’t imagine this will persist much longer.
I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes when he has to explain to a rational, serious member of the judiciary who will think this entire affair is childish and plainly ridiculous. Rightly so as well, because when you’re not the direct victim of his petty censorship it is a wellspring of humor that never stops giving.
Petercentric
hehehe brilliant as usual James.