Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

I Stand With Nigella and Against The Disgusting Fleet Street Mafia And Oppressive British Police.

with 17 comments


Nothing better demonstrates the venal, self-serving and foul behaviour of British newspaper editors than the abuse of Nigella.

Their corrupt, dishonest perversion of journalism and their subversion of the Leveson Inquiry is proven beyond any doubt.

Parliament established a judicial inquiry to investigate the culture and practices of the newspaper industry.  It was found to be engaged in criminal and reprehensible behaviour at every level.  Yet now,  it has used its power to undermine our democratic process and return to the sort of conduct that all decent people find unacceptable.

The slimeballs at Scotland Yard also show their true colours, nothing to do with the law or justice, in a knee jerk response to the shrieking, baying mob of the Fleet Street mafia.

It is not against any UK law to use any drug except opium. You have to prove possession, supply, production or importation. There is no reasonable prospect of any charges against Nigella getting past the most junior court clerk.  That senior police sources should even hint at such a course calls for charges of misconduct in public office.  This is abuse by police officers when what they are supposed to do is protect.

Written by Peter Reynolds

December 22, 2013 at 12:23 pm

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. An attractive woman and a drug user.Imagine my surprise Peter that you should defend her.But on the down side her husband is Jewish.How do you square that circle?


    December 22, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    • I am an admirer of Nigel Lawson who has nothing to do with the Bullingdon Club party. He is a Thatcherite and recently has become a drug law reformer. Whatever religion or nationality someone is has no bearing on my opinion of them.

      Peter Reynolds

      December 22, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    • Ah, once again the trolls pop out their ugly heads. No doubt you are alluding to Peter’s article about Israel, and it’s clear by your comment you’ve missed the point entirely. The state of Israel is morally bankrupt, punishing the Palestinian people with Apartheid-esque policies. THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Now, if you want to confuse the criticism of a racist, nationalist state with Jew-hating then that’s your problem; I love Jews, I hate Zionism(it really is that simple).
      As for suggesting that people might only support Nigella because of her beauty is crass and inaccurate. I suggest you either A: Pull your head out of your arse, or B: Put it back in and don’t come out.


      December 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      • Oh you can be certain that the troll ‘jaded48’ misses the point deliberately. What’s rather more instructive though is his (or her) crass hypocrisy in seeking to imply some prejudice in me whilst demonstrating exactly that in him (or her) self.

        Peter Reynolds

        December 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm

      • Thanks for the heated debate.
        Nigella admitted using cocaine on oath,an illegal act.
        As for Israel,another complicated issue.To me they are “the plucky underdog” surrounded by millions of Arabs who wish their destruction.If there was no oil in that region we wouldn’t ever be getting involved.
        Jaded48-the troll who has the cheek to disagree with you.


        December 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      • Using cocaine is not an illegal act. The only drug which use of is illegal is opium.

        You’re welcome to disagree. It’s the implication in your

        But on the down side her husband is Jewish.How do you square that circle?

        that is offensive.

        It’s the unlawful oppression and genocide of the Palestinian people that concerns me about Israel. That is the reason for the hostility of the rest of the Arab world. Palestine and Israel must both have security.

        Peter Reynolds

        December 22, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    • I would never describe Israel as a “plucky underdog”. That would suggest that Israel is oppressed and stands alone in the world, which it doesn’t. It oppresses the Palestinians, it steals their land(also Syria’s), it threatens surrounding nations(with the blind support of the US/UK etc), it calls for other nations to not have nuclear weapons when clearly it has nukes of its own, it accuses anyone critical of the Zionist regime of being “Anti-Semitic” and guilts the world into allowing it to do what it wants as soon as it mentions the(totally dreadful and abhorrent) holocaust. The very existence of Israel is an affront to Judaism, after all, a Jewish State isn’t supposed to be created until the second coming of Christ, so pre-empting The Lord for the sake of nationalism is pretty awful(considering the supposed piety of the ultra-nationalist Hasidic Jews).


      December 22, 2013 at 6:36 pm

      • And Israel controls its ‘big brother’ the US by infiltration of its ‘agents’; politicians with dual US/Israeli citizenship, but who have allegiance to Israel. Also, through groups such as the ADL and AIPAC who, as you point out, scream ‘anti-semitism’ at anybody who criticises the fatherland. They really should look up the definition of a Semite.

        This is why the US (and Britain) began two illegal wars, with dire consequences: they are Israeli wars, fought by their proxy puppets. And we came close to starting another Israeli war a few months ago: if British politicians hadn’t been frightened of losing their seats at the next election, the same thing would now be happening in Syria. I suppose it made a change, Britain influencing the Poodlemeister, rather than the other way around.


        December 24, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    • Hi, jaded48, you might be interested in looking at this:


      December 24, 2013 at 4:38 pm

  2. I’m sorry how are they undermining the democratic process in this case?


    December 22, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    • Because the establishment of the Leveson Inquiry and, as a result, the agreement between the three party leaders to set up an independent regulator under a Royal charter was achieved through our democratic process.

      The Fleet Street mafia through the improper use of its overbearing power, has subverted this through what seems to me to be sedition. The proprietors and editors are dishonest, self-serving exploiters of human misery and misfortune. They are scum, the lowest form of life in Britain. Well, OK, maybe one notch above murderers, rapists and paedophiles.

      Peter Reynolds

      December 22, 2013 at 2:28 pm

  3. Possession/use of cocaine is not illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 then? Or just on this blog?


    December 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    • Possession is, use isn’t. You haven’t even read the article that you’re commenting on.

      Peter Reynolds

      December 22, 2013 at 6:38 pm

  4. The Nigella case gave us a glimpse of the reality of drug use amongst the rich and famous. As a now-and-then cannabis campaigner (with an interest only in that ‘illegal’ substance) I might be forgiven for thinking that all the hysteria and hype from the government, the police and the media is focused on that alone.

    It exposes the hypocrisy of these prohibitionists, that they target cannabis in this way, but we never hear them shouting about the dangers of cocaine use or addiction. Although I’m sure that the more privileged in society also enjoy smoking weed, it is more the ‘people’s drug’, especially considering it is the most popular ‘illegal’ recreational substance.

    The fact is that those who rule us are more likely to be using cocaine and alcohol than anything else, judging by the number of bars at Westminster, and cocaine residues in the washrooms.

    Having said that, I agree that it is outrageous that Nigella has become the focus of such unwarranted scrutiny. Everybody is entitled to their private life, and that includes whatever they choose to put into their own bodies.


    December 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm

  5. Not sure why you’re annoyed with the Police over this Peter? The Met initially decided not to take any action, and then said they were going to review that decision. I wouldn’t characterise that as oppressive behaviour.
    She has admitted taking a controlled drug in a highly publicised trial and so the very least the Met are required to do is consider if there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has taken place, which they’ve done.
    Seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Cockney Copper

    January 3, 2014 at 11:36 am

  6. Saatchi is the one who should be investigated for many things, see my blog

    ? @ Peter. Peter, i just read your blog about £50000.00 and Chris Bovey. Does it cost this much in all libel and defamation cases to have a case struck out ”

    another ? @ Peter. You state in that same Bovey article that litigants in person cannot bring libel and defamation proceedings ! Is that a fact Peter, for my partner recently had one approved by a Master at the RCJ and my partner is a LIP !


    January 25, 2014 at 11:13 am

    • When you’re a thief, conman, liar and abuser like Bovey with cast iron evidence against you it does cost a great deal to pervert the course of justice. You need to spend tens of thousands on solicitors and barristers to defeat even an untrained person like me doing it in their spare time. It’s not over yet though and as we move onto the appeal it is going to cost him an awful lot more.

      Litigants in person can bring defamation claims but the highly technical pleadings that are required mean that somebody with the means to pay can almost certainly defeat a claim. That’s as things stand at the moment anyway. I intend to try and change this!

      Peter Reynolds

      January 25, 2014 at 11:26 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: