Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
The Fleet Street Mafia Needs To Wake Up To The Fact That We Won’t Be Misled On Cannabis Any More.
Rebecca Smith, health editor and Martha Gill, blogger, both of the Daily Telegraph have been getting a hard time in the comment threads of the pieces they published on cannabis yesterday and deservedly so.
Even casual use of cannabis alters brain, warn scientists. By Rebecca Smith.
Smoking cannabis will change you. That’s not a ‘risk’, it’s a certainty. By Martha Gill.
Rebecca Smith is by far the worst offender, publishing such gross distortions of the study she was reporting on that I have submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. It’s dreadful that someone granted the title of health editor can be so casually ignorant of science, evidence and ready to mix up her opinion and wild speculation with just a smidgin of fact here and there. Incidentally, I expect no satisfaction from the PCC. Three years and nearly 100 complaints show that it is a deeply corrupt organisation that acts only in the interests of the press to find excuses for breaches of the Editors’ Code. Its nothing to do with protecting readers from inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting.
Martha Gill does a bit better because she points out what a vacuous and meaningless piece of research Rebecca Smith has made such a fuss about. But Martha, apparently, writes for the New Statesman on ‘neuroscience and politics’. She’s entitled to her political views, which are self-evident given the publication concerned but on neuroscience, the clue is in the third and fourth syllables. It’s science, not opinion and Martha is woefully out touch with the evidence. If she’s not careful she”ll grow up into a mumsy moraliser like Libby Purves or Lowri Turner. She should try reading Professor Gary Wenk, Professor David Nutt, Professor Les Iversen, Professor Peter Jones, Professor Terrie Moffitt or Professor Roger Pertwee. They and many others could give her a grounding in the neuroscience of cannabis: it’s almost undetectable toxicity, its powerful antioxidant and neuroprotective qualities, its anxiolytic and antipsychotic effects. Her sweeping statement that “cannabis bad for you” is simply wrong. For most adults, in moderation, it’s beneficial.
Martha is also detached from reality and distant from the evidence, as is all of Fleet Street, when it comes to the risks of cannabis. The endless screeds that are written about the risks of cannabis use correlating with schizophrenia or psychosis are ridiculous when you consider the evidence. Hickman et al, 2009, a review of all published research so, by definition, not cherry picked, shows the risk of lifetime cannabis use correlating with a single diagnosis is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%. By contrast, correlation between cigarette smoking and schizophrenia is 80% – 90% (Zammit et al, 2003) but when do you ever read that in a newspaper?
I’m sorry you’re getting a hard time Rebecca and Martha but you and the ‘capos’ of the Fleet Street Mafia need to realise that people have had enough of your bad science, sensationalism and scaremongering about cannabis. The internet means we can’t be bullied and misinformed by newspapers anymore which is why your circulation is plummeting and journalists are held in ever lower esteem. We know you’ve spent years supporting Big Booze with its £800 million pa advertising budget. Obviously it’s desperate to hang on to its monopoly of recreational drugs but if you want to stay in business you’re going to have to start treating readers with respect and with facts and evidence, not baloney.
The Daily Telegraph has become a broadsheet-sized tabloid since it broke the MPs expenses scandal and it is genuinely difficult to distinguish its headlines, writing and content from The Daily Mail these days.
Of course, there’s a lot of rubbish in comment threads but there’s also a lot that’s better informed and considered than in the articles themselves.
People like cannabis, they find it effective, they know it’s safe. 5% of the population uses it regularly. That’s three times as many people as go to Catholic Church regularly.
Expect to be pulled to bits if you try to go back to bad science and reefer madness hysteria. The world has moved on.
Justice Prevails. De Hoedt And McCulloch Defeated In The High Court.
At 10.30am this morning there was a case management conference before Master Eastman concerning my claim against Greg De Hoedt. I was awarded judgement against him in February and the next stage is for a High Court Judge to assess the damages and costs he must pay me.
It is only now, after more than a year trying to avoid my claim, that De Hoedt has faced up to it and appointed solicitors. They represented him today. He was not present. His solicitors applied to have the judgement set aside. Master Eastman refused. They then applied for the proceedings to be stayed pending my appeal against the striking out of my claim against Chris Bovey. Again, Master Eastman refused. It is now up to me to propose the next steps and how exactly a Judge can assess the damages I am due.
At 11.00am there was a hearing before Master Eastman concerning my claim against Sarah McCulloch. She had obtained judgement against me by deception. She had made false statements to the Court and pursued an application without giving me notice, so I that had no idea that it was taking place. Today was my application to have her judgement set aside. I was successful and Master Eastman ordered that my claim should be reinstated.
Master Eastman also considered McCulloch’s claims that I was harassing her by writing to her about the case. She had made a further false statement to the Court that I had been given an ‘Harassment Warning’ by the police. In fact a police officer from Harlow in Essex had telephoned me a few months ago to say that McCulloch had made a complaint. We ended up laughing together at how ridiculous her allegation was when I was writing to her about a High Court case at the address she had filed with the Court.
I explained to Master Eastman that ever since I had discovered that McCulloch is diagnosed with two mental health conditions I had made generous offers to try and settle with her. He was gentle with her but very firm and told her however hard she found it, she had to communicate with me about the case.
Afterwards, McCulloch and I had a five minute discussion outside the Court and I made a further offer to settle. She explained that she had now edited one of her articles to remove the false allegation that I had lied about submitting a report to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1983.
My offer to McCulloch is very generous, far more so than it would be were it not for her health problems. It was sad that as I walked away she shrieked “You’re a bigot!” Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that she will see sense and we can both put this unhappy episode behind us.
A Shyster Lawyer To Defend A Scumbag Drug Dealer? Call Saul!
When Chris Bovey, Europe’s biggest dealer in highly toxic synthetic cannabinoids, needs a lawyer, who does he turn to?
The sartorial style is almost an exact match. It takes considerable skill to wear an expensive suit so it looks cheap. An oversized shirt collar and a polyester tie is an excellent start.
Such are the dubious talents of Pinder Reaux, Essex-based solicitors more used to prosecuting internet trolls like Bovey than defending them. Now specialising in representing porn stars, knock down prices are offered for legal services with puff pieces on daytime television in true white stilletto style.
In an astonishing display of unprofessional conduct and laughable self-congratulation, John ‘Saul’ Spyrou, a partner in Pinder Reaux, wrote about my action against Bovey on his firms’s website.
“… in certain cases, an uber-aggressive application can be made to strike the case out, often on procedural grounds.”
This blathering about his heroics in succeeding (for now) in his strike out application against a litigant in person says a lot about Spyrou. The only person who can claim credit for enabling Bovey (so far) to evade the consequences of his abuse is his delightful and dazzlingly sharp counsel, Yuli Takatsuki.
‘Call Saul’ is the necessary interloper between a villain and the skill necessary to delay and procrastinate over the truth. “Uber aggressive” is a phrase that reveals everything about its author and the veracity of the defence he pleads.
Nigel Farage On Cannabis.
I stood as a candidate for CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform in the 2012 Corby by-election. At the count I had the pleasure of speaking to Nigel on a number of occasions. He was nipping out to the car park for a cigarette and I was letting my dogs out of my car for a wee.
We got on very well and I found him truly charming and genuine. We talked about many things but of course I asked him about his views on cannabis. He agreed that present policy is “Barmy!” and that “Of course we should!” adopt a legalise, tax and regulate policy.
The really extraordinary thing about Nigel expressing these views is that they are unpopular with most UKIP supporters. That marks him out as a very rare thing in UK politics – a man of true integrity.
The Daily Telegraph, 4th April 2014. Read the article here.
Extraordinary Change Of Tone On Cannabis By The NHS.
NHS Choices published an article today that represents a sea change in attitudes towards cannabis.
Headlined ‘No proof that high dose cannabis is more addictive’, it pulled apart the Daily Mail article on the study published this week in ‘Addiction’.
Finally, it seems, the facts and evidence seem to be getting through, even in Britain. Cannabis is close to a miracle plant, closely intertwined with our body’s natural endocannabinoid system, providing nurture, therapy and healing for many illnesses and promoting good health and wellbeing.
Of course, like anything, even water, it is not without the potential for harm. It is habit forming, about as much as coffee. Children shouldn’t be using it, just as they shouldn’t be drinking double espressos. The madness that is current policy causes far more harm than it prevents. We need to get the dealers off the streets, regulate and control the market properly and start allowing the people of Britain to benefit from the plant they have been denied for too long.
This Is Real Journalism. Honest And Heroic.
Russia Today presenter Abby Martin speaks out about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A brave woman, probably now unemployed.
High Court Orders Judgement Against Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt.
The High Court has granted judgement in my favour in my Claim for defamation against Greg De Hoedt.
A hearing will take place on 11th April 2014 to determine the amount of damages and costs he must pay me. Supported by this judgement I will now apply for an injunction preventing him from any further defamation or harassment.
Only The Disgusting Daily Mail Could Make Me Sympathise With Harriet Harman.
Harriet Harman and her colleagues have been traduced and defamed by the Daily Mail in the most appalling, malicious and disgusting fashion.
There is probably no politician with whom I more profoundly disagree and who irritates me more than Ms Harman. In this instance though, having been smeared myself in similar fashion, I give her my unqualified support. It is a timely coincidence that the vile Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was used in the latest smear attack on me by Chris Bovey and his gang of Twitter trolls.
Snide, cheap, so-called journalists like Andrew Pierce are beneath contempt. People like him (and there are many more amidst the semi-literate underclass of bloggers) resort to such tactics because they are incapable of decent criticism of those they oppose. Instead they seek to repress free speech and argue for guilt by association. It is what the Daily Mail thrives on. It is what demeans British politics, perhaps more than anything else.
The result is that everyone; journalist, blogger, Daily Mail hack, even the chap leaning against the bar in his local, is cautious of expressing views on controversial subjects, just in case the thought police pounce on them. It is the curse of political correctness and one thing is certain – it is wrong!
Quite clearly, to any decent, reasonably knowledgeable person, in the 1970s the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) was fighting against the censorship and repression personified in Mary Whitehouse. It is no surprise to me that PIE should have sought to associate itself with the campaign for liberty. It is absolutely right that the NCCL and Ms Harman, however much they rightly condemn PIE’s aims, should defend its right to argue its case.
Those who use smear and innuendo in an effort to implicate others in such vile behaviour are as are as guilty as the abusers they complain of. I wish that the Daily Mail should be made to pay very dearly for its abuse. Andrew Pierce should retreat to the gutter where he belongs alongside the paedophiles whose morality he matches.














