Thatcherism and Cannabis: WTF?

Author: James Collins

Margret Thatcher and cannabis, they go together like … well they don’t.  Thatcher hated cannabis users.  She hated the “underclass”.  She hated everything which didn’t conform to her somewhat Victorian notions of what Britain should be, racism, sexism, rampantly arrogant imperialism and all. 

Thatcher was just one terrible human being.

What would you expect the leader of Cannabis Law Reform to say about her?  Well, if they were smart, not a damn thing.  Don’t raise the issue.  Don’t speak her name.  Just don’t talk about it.  Why put your name on that train wreck when people are literally celebrating her death in the streets like it was Victory Day or something?

Peter Reynolds isn’t that circumspect.  On one hand, as a topic of discussion, it’s great fun that he isn’t very reserved.  On the other hand it isn’t, because to some people this epic-scale douchebag might be perceived as representing cannabis users.

Here is what Peter Reynolds thinks of Maggie.  Get your airsick bags handy; this one crosses the line from “repugnantly sycophantic” all the way to the realm of “Peter pull your head out of dead Maggie’s ass”.  This might be a fine occasion to test the anti-nausea properties of cannabis, if you’re so inclined.

It’s sickening indeed, but that’s fine, because Peter makes reasonable people feel a bit queasy all the time.  He has strong opinions.  He’s willing to express those opinions.  He’ll use threats, intimidation, specious legal action, police reports, whatever it takes to silence the voices of opposition, but it never stops him from running his mouth.

Here is a now-former member of CLEAR reacting to Peter’s virtual cunnilingus of one dead Margret Thatcher.  Peter puts him right in his place, of course, pouring derision on him while he prattles on about the great Iron Cunt.  I guess that is one less paying member to count when the subscription renewals come up next year and CLEAR is scooping another five-note out of Paypal accounts.  I hope this guy has the good sense to tell the online pay service he doesn’t want to give to CLEAR anymore; we already know how they are about cancelled subscriptions.

It’s easy to pay CLEAR; it is not so easy to stop.  They make you work for it.

As if this wasn’t irritating enough, Peter railing off on those who quite rightly question all the praise for the woman who arguably ruined Great Britain, he went out of his way to attack one Sarah McCulloch over this.  Here Sarah tweets a suggestion that the value of state funerals should be indexed to popular support for politicians.

Isn’t this “vile abuse”?  Isn’t this the sort of harassment and stalking that Peter accuses others of?  Isn’t this precisely the kind of thing that he is suing Sarah herself over?  He is suing the woman for defamation, but he goes out of his way to engage her in this fashion?  Is this guy for real?

Again, Peter is using the CLEAR account here because he is currently banned from Facebook.  His usual fountain of bullshit has been firmly plugged, so he’s finding new outlets for his bottomless supply of verbal manure.  Except in this case he is essentially speaking for the supporters of CLEAR.

I wonder what a referendum about Maggie amongst those members would conclude.

Okay, so he likes a horrible, corporatist politician who openly supported murderous dictator Augusto Pinochet.  So he has spent a few days going after anyone who speaks ill of a person who, frankly, should have lived a more compassionate life if she didn’t want such a deluge of proverbial urine to pour upon her grave.  So what, right?

He likes Paris Brown too and possibly not only because she is a teenage girl who seems emotionally vulnerable.  Granted, her hair isn’t in pigtails, but she appears to have the rest of the image down pat.

This is a story that must hit home for Peter.  Sure, she called gay people “fags”.  She called travellers “pikeys”.  She openly talked about her drug use, which is probably not recommendable for someone who is pursuing involvement in law enforcement so early in life.  She’s now taking a role in public policing, because she is shameless I suppose.  It’s nothing Peter himself hasn’t done, he knows her pain.  Oh but wait, what did she do upon getting caught publishing all this awful crap?

She apologized.  Peter has never done that.  He stands by his rhetoric.  Now, Paris is a 17 year old girl, so maybe she said some very stupid things in the last couple of years.  You can’t envy the adolescent in today’s era, every time they say some incredibly stupid thing it is Tweeted and stored for the ages.  Kids have it tough.  Still, she apologized, and good on her for it – she’s only 17.

I’m glad that Peter brought this up, because it raises a fantastic parallel.  You see in the accompanying piece how little Paris is crying and remorseful?  She knows shame, and has the good sense to admit when she is wrong.  I’m not even sure what it is that Peter thinks is so great; that an ignorant kid said homophobic, bigoted things or that she apologized.  He’s only done one of those himself, so I’m having trouble believing that it is the apology he is so proud of.

Peter is less reasonable, decent, remorseful and human than a bratty teenage girl who has more mouth than sense.  Peter, a middle-aged man presuming to run a political party, is more foolish and arrogant than a damn child.  Paris Brown didn’t try to sue the people who pointed out she said those awful things.  She didn’t pretend they were forgeries, accuse those who exposed her as “liars and charlatans”, or refer to anybody as a “mendacious troll”.  She owned up to what she did.  She fessed up and said she was sorry.

When will Peter grow up that much?

Peter Reynolds calls people names.  He abuses the dwindling members of his own party when they question his position.  When one of the executive of CLEAR got caught trying to obtain free cocaine by mail for all but one member of the executive, Peter threw him under the bus and pretended he knew nothing of such affairs.   When he is caught with his foot in his mouth, he lies, he distracts, and he does anything possible to externalize the blame.

And all it costs to have this man represent you is five pounds.  That’s a pretty great deal.  What will it be Mrs Scum, a poke in the eye or a blow on the head?