Peter Reynolds Watch The Leader of CLEAR | Cannabis Law Reform
Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) Statutorily Deregistered by the Electoral Commission.
Author: Kevin John Braid
In a week of first class twattery from Peter Reynolds, I thought there would be little more to write about. Sarah McCulloch and James Collins had already superbly documented the loss of his libel action in the Royal Courts of Justice against Sarah.
www.sarahmcculloch.com/drug-policy-2/2013/peter-reynolds-court-libel-peter-reynolds-lost
peter-reynolds-watch.com/2013/12/peter-reynolds-gets-royal-boning-royal-court
That said, the bellendery of Peter Reynolds knows no bounds and it has just came to light that last month CLEAR were ‘Statutorily Deregistered’ as a UK political party. Thanks to Liam for sending us this info:
It says that that they were ‘Statutorily Deregistered’. Hitting the little question mark next to that field says “Deregistered parties will either have a status of Voluntarily Deregistered if they chose to remove themselves from the register or Statutorily Deregistered if they were removed by the Electoral Commission for a compliance breach.”
You get that folks, it says Cannabis Law Reform were ‘Statutorily Deregistered’. Yet no mention of this fact they were no longer a registered political party on the CLEAR web site, that is not until today, when their ‘About Us’ page was coincidentally altered on the same day the story about their Statutory Deregistration as a UK political party broke out on social media.
Unfortunately, for the fraudster Reynolds, Google keeps a cache of pages, which is like a photographic snapshot in time of a web page the last time the site was crawled by Google. The last cache of their ‘About us” page taken on 29th November 2013 clearly states they are a registered political party and this was only changed today after it was brought to light on social media they were Statutorily Deregistered on 5th November 2013.
Is it legal to claim to be a registered political party when you are not? One suspects not. Would CLEAR have come clean had this info not been exposed on Facebook? I doubt it.
Let’s see what Führer Reynolds has to say about this, he was asked on CLEAR’s Facebook page and we took a screen shot.
When asked by Phil Walsh if it is true that CLEAR has been removed as a political party and has not existed for around a month now? CLEAR replies:
“No Phil, that is incorrect. We have not renewed our registration with the Electoral Commission because following extensive discussions during our recent general meeting we have no current plans to stand in elections. This has no effect on our other activities.”
In that case, why is the Electoral Commission stating they were ‘Statutorily Deregistered’?
Unsurprisingly, Phil was fobbed off and the question not answered. So either the Electoral Commission are lying by stating Cannabis Law Reform were ‘Statutorily Deregistered’, or a political party lead by a conman with a track record of proven lies is lying by stating they voluntarily deregistered with the Electoral Commission.
I know whom my money’s on as to who is telling porky pies.
hi can i use ya pics of reynolds for my time to go peter page plze
There is no copyright on any of the material or images on this site.
of course you can Phil Clarke ^^
LETS SEE SOME COMMENTS FOLKS !!!
Hurrah won’t b long till he is gone then 🙂 I love how he continues to deny truth, anyone notice Jan is listed as treasurer on official paperwork but has not been working with clear for a while, maybe they found out they had no nominated treasurer
The treasurer off CLEAR is actually the men behind the bars off the closest pubs to the CLEAR office and PR house / flat /cardboard box under a bridge . Then you have the accounts manager who is probably his coke dealer .
Do you have to pay an annual fee to be registered with the electoral commission? If so,that could be the reason, Clear hadn’t the money to pay the renewal subs due to Peter spunking it all up on legal action so they got delisted…
Just make a request for all related correspondence under the FOI Act. That should put the issue beyond doubt.
You’re temporarily blocked from posting on Facebook for the next 12 hours. Please review our Community Standards so you can understand what’s allowed on Facebook and keep your account in good standing.
that never lasted long i knew it was coming when they slated me for lacking education and my name being mentioned obviously i got nowt to offer the campaigns
Seems like Peter couldn’t even afford the 25 quid annual confirmation fee.
Ho ho ho.
What a bellend.
This happens is you fail to fill in your annual return and the £25 fee. It’s possible that Peter has done this so he doesn’t have to submit accounts for this year, which may reveal that he’s been using party funds to fund his actions for defamation against Sarah, Chris and the others. Is that a legitimate and lawful use of CLEAR party funds?
hllo folks a guy wants your link in oue peter page ,permission to hand it out ty
No permission needed to link to our site (or any site as a matter of fact).
Oh and Peter, if you are reading this, can you please try to restrain from doing something stupid until at least the new year, as it’s time consuming and tedious writing up what a first grade bellend you are, but someone has to do it, while you, a foul, dishonest, repugnant racist is claiming to represent cannabis users in the UK.
The fact you refused to fuck off after actually getting an order from the Royal Courts of Justice in favour of one of the people you were suing (and being ordered to pay costs) speaks volumes about what a narcissistic sociopath you truly are (as well as a massive bellend).
Still at least it will provide more amusement as you seem determined to spend more money to confirm what a bellend you are.
Are all the pro Cannabis groups hierarchy stupid? I notice Colin Davies is at it again. Even after the judge convicted him and said he was the conman of Cannabis he is again putting himself up as a leader of the Cannabis movement. Can we not find some one respectable and intelligent to ‘front’ the movement. Richard Branson would be ideal he is rich enough to employ decent legal advice and knows loads of cleaver influential people. This Davies man is not the kind of person to give a good impression. He is a media hungry profiteer, who just wants to get rich quick on the backs of the Cannabis user. Lets get some one sensible and respectable to do this important job.(that puts me out of the running by the way)