Posts Tagged ‘David Cameron’
My MP, Richard Drax, To Write To David Cameron On Drugs Policy
The Honourable Member For Dorset South
Today I met with my MP, Richard Drax. He was just as sickeningly handsome and charming as I expected him to be! So I showed him no mercy and bombarded him with my opinions for a good half an hour.
I realised afterwards that my favourite maxim “less is more” would have been a better strategy. Nevertheless, he did offer to write to David Cameron on my behalf on drugs policy and seemed genuinely sympathetic to some of the points I made.
I have just sent him a lengthy email in confirmation which I reproduce below. If anyone wishes to use this as a template for a letter or email to their own MP, please feel free to do so.
******
Dear Richard,
Thank you so much for your time today. I very much enjoyed meeting you. As I said, I came with opinions not problems. I am grateful to you for listening to me.
I realise that I made the classic mistake of bombarding you with far too much information and not giving you time to absorb any. I hope I may correct that error by summarising here what we talked about.
1. Gary McKinnon. Thank heavens that progress seems to have been made on this. The idea of an “extradition” treaty that provides for someone to be sent to the USA for trial on an alleged crime committed here is iniquitous. It’s particularly unfair in McKinnon’s case as he suffers from Asperger’s syndrome. You pointed out to me that similar dangers exist with the new European arrest warrant.
I would urge you to do everything possible to ensure that if Gary McKinnon is to be tried, it should take place in the UK.
2. Ian Tomlinson. In my view the failure to prosecute the policeman who assaulted him is an outrage and Keir Starmer’s reasons entirely inadequate. Now that the credibility of the pathologist in the case has been destroyed by a GMC panel, Starmer should at least reconsider and hopefully reverse his decision.
References here:
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/killer-cop-harwood-must-be-charged/
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/keir-starmer-the-next-lord-widgery/
I would urge you to press for a re-consideration of the decision not to bring charges. If no criminal charges are brought, at the very least the disciplinary hearing should be held in public as the rules allow. The Tomlinson family are entitled to justice.
3. Drugs policy. You very kindly agreed to write to David Cameron on my behalf. I am very concerned at the conduct of the Home Office at present and particularly James Brokenshire, the Minister for Crime Prevention who is causing great damage to both the coalition governemnt and the Tory party by promoting ideas and policies that contradict virtually all expert opinion, including the government’s own scientific advisers. He also seems to be completely at odds with the calls for drug law reform which both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have made consistently over the last 10 years.
This is not a peripheral or secondary issue. According to Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords on 15th June 2010, “There is no more obvious waste than the £19 billion annual cost of the UK’s war on drugs”.
There is a huge amount of reference material on this subject on my blog:
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/?s=drugs
I would also refer you to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation which has highly detailed and almost universally acclaimed proposals for drug regulation:
Virtually all experts agree that the “war on drugs” has failed. In exactly the same way as alcohol prohibition in the US led to a massive increase in crime and violence, so drug prohibition has created an illegal market said to be worth £350 billion per year. It has also financed civil war in Latin America for 25 years and is the principal source of finance for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are dying every day because of the illegal trade in opiates. Why don’t we just buy up the whole crop for the next 10 years? It would be much cheaper in both cash and lives than the Afghan war.
Virtually all experts agree that regulation would be a better solution. I have distilled the following five point plan from everything that I have read and learned over more than 30 years:
1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least 10 million UK citizens)
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue
Five years ago, while campaigning for the Tory party leadership, David Cameron called for “fresh thinking and a new approach” towards drugs policy and said that it would be “disappointing if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at”. Nick Clegg has promised to repeal “illiberal, intrusive and unnecessary” laws and to stop “making ordinary people criminals”. There can be no better example of this than the laws against personal use and cultivation of cannabis, particularly for medicinal reasons. The coalition government’s new Your Freedom website has been inundated with proposals to legalise cannabis and to end the futile war on drugs. In July a poll carried out for the LibDems showed 70% of people in favour of legalising cannabis.
The Home Office and James Brokenshire are completely out of touch with expert and public opinion as well as the declared views of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
In my view, regulation means tighter control on the most dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine and alcohol and lighter regulation on relatively harmless substances like cannabis and ecstasy.
There is also the very important question of medicinal cannabis. The discovery of the endocannabinoid system in 1998 has led to an ever-escalating volume of evidence of the medicinal value of cannabis. In June the MHRA approved Sativex as an MS medicine in the UK. It is a whole plant extract yet presently, the Home Office refuses to consider a regulated system of the plant itself for medicinal purposes. This is completely irrational and absurd. The House Of Lords scientific committee recommended such a system should be introduced 12 years ago. Medicinal cannabis is available and regulated throughout almost all of Europe, Israel and 14 states in the USA (with 12 more in the planning stage). The UK stands almost alone in its obstinate refusal even to consider such a system.
Already this is leading to quite obscene injustices where patients have been prescribed Sativex by their doctor but their health authority has refused to fund it and patients are then facing criminal prosecution for cultivating their own plants. There is a case of exactly this going on in the Dorchester Crown Court at present and the CPS insists it is in the public interest to prosecute!
Thank you once again for listening to me Richard. I hope these notes are useful in composing your letter to David Cameron and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind regards,
Peter Reynolds
Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis
A fortnight ago Sir Ian Gilmore, the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, famously denounced drugs prohibition as a failed policy. He said “”Everyone who has looked at this in a serious and sustained way concludes that the present policy of prohibition is not a success.” He then went on to advocate decriminalisation and regulation.
The Home Office immediately issued a statement saying “‘Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” This statement was reproduced on the Home Office website and has sat there for the last two weeks in direct contradiction to the governments own scientific advisers. Anyone who has even the smallest knowledge of the subject knows that the idea that cannabis is “extremely harmful” is absurd and a lie.
Within the last day or two the Home Office website has been quietly edited to remove the word cannabis from the statement. See here.
Charades, Fibs And Porkies
This correction is very welcome. However it calls into question the honesty, competence and intelligence of the Home Office and the government’s drugs policy. James Brokenshire, the Minister for Crime Prevention has been looking increasingly ridiculous in the last few weeks, contradicting his advisers, spouting pre-Reagan “war on drugs” propaganda and conflicting terribly with the wise words of both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, both of whom have called for drug policy reform consistently over the last 10 years. Young James has made himself very unpopular with the country’s six million regular cannabis users and embarrassed the government and the Tory party with his antics.
Whoever was responsible for this smart and very discreet editing, let’s hope they get to have a look at James’ Drugs Strategy consultation document too. It needs some intelligent correction and adjustment as well. See here for more information on what’s really a very silly game of charades, fibs and porkies.
“Outrageous Scaremongering” Over Cannabis
Last October, 36-year old Julie Ryan was found dead in bed by her three children, now aged 14, 13 and 8. At a coroner’s inquest in Oldham last week, pathologist Dr Sami Titi said “The direct cause of her death was cardiac arrest because of a history of smoking cannabis”.
Dr Sami Titi
Julie’s family claims that this is not true, that Julie’s cannabis use has been blamed because the Royal Oldham hospital failed to treat her properly. In Britain, there has only been one previous occasion when a death has been attributed to cannabis. In 2004, Lee Maisey, 36 of Pembrokeshire, who smoked half a dozen “joints” a day, was found dead on his living room floor after complaining of a headache.
At the inquest in Oldham, the coroner, Simon Nelson, was said to be surprised at the pathologist’s story and questioned him closely. Dr Titi insisted that “smoking of cannabis is well known to have a negative impact on the heart and can cause heart attacks in young people”. The coroner said that in 15 years he had never heard a pathologist so confident that cannabis could be fatal. He recorded a narrative verdict of “death from cardiovascular complications induced by cannabis smoking”.
Coroner Simon Nelson
Julie’s brother, Kevin Ryan, says that the pathologist’s remarks are “outrageous scaremongering”. Her mother, Linda, is bewildered by events. As planned, Julie’s children had stayed with her while the inquest was taking place. Now they have returned home to the furore of this extraordinary verdict and are extremely distressed.
Julie had visited the Royal Oldham hospital several times complaining of chest pains but been sent away with a diagnosis of heartburn. The post mortem examination revealed she had a severely enlarged heart and had suffered a previous heart attack which had not been diagnosed. Family sources said “It’s a cover up. Cannabis doesn’t kill. They made a big mistake.” Mary Burrows, Julie’s cousin, who was very close to her, said she preferred to smoke cannabis rather than have a drink and that “she was a wonderful mother and her kids miss her so much”.
Dr Mark Eckersley, a local Manchester doctor, said “More and more pressure is being piled on medical professionals to propagate this type of untruth by the powers that be.” He said doctors need to maintain credibility with the community and that “this type of nonsense makes my blood boil”.
A spokesman for the Royal Oldham hospital said “Miss Ryan died from a heart attack and cardiovascular problems. Our thoughts and sympathy go to her family.”
On 2nd November in California, Proposition 19 is expected to permit the personal use of cannabis for the state’s 28 million adults. As a result, new tax revenues of $1.4 billion are anticipated, up to 110,000 new jobs and a boost of up to $18 billion to the state’s economy from spin-offs such as coffee shops and tourism.
In America, any health concerns about the plant are far outweighed by health benefits. Medical cannabis is already regulated in 14 states with another 12 in the planning stage. In Britain, Sativex, a whole plant extract of cannabis, was recently authorised as a treatment for MS. It costs about eight times what medical cannabis costs in America, Holland, Spain, Israel and very shortly Germany, where there is a fully regulated supply chain. In Britain, despite a House Of Lords Scientific Committee recommendation, the government refuses to consider such a move. Many patients whose doctors have prescribed Sativex have been denied funding from their health authority. In some of these cases, criminal prosecutions have been brought against them for cultivating their own plants.
A spokesman for GW Pharmaceuticals, developers of Sativex, said “The therapeutic ratio for cannabis is so high that it is virtually impossible to ingest a fatal dose”.
Prof. David Nutt
Professor David Nutt was sacked as chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last year after claiming that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. His successor, Professor Les Iversen, also maintains that cannabis has been “incorrectly” called dangerous and says it is one of the “safer recreational drugs”.
On Friday, Professor Nutt said cannabis “seems to cause much less harm than alcohol and that banning the plant is “unjust and therefore undemocratic”. He added: “The previous government’s policy to deter cannabis use by forceful policing increased convictions for cannabis possession from 88,000 in 2004 to 160,000 in 2008. As well as ruining many lives through getting a criminal record, this added massive costs to taxpayers in extra policing and prison costs.”
Prof. Les Iversen
Dr Sami Titi, the pathologist, was unavailable for comment and did not respond to emails. It has not been possible to identify any scientific support for his conclusions.
Julie Ryan’s family is left bemused and uncertain by this verdict. Three children are without a mother and confused about contradictory messages. The 13 year old has been posting on websites about her concerns. Meanwhile, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have criticised the government for basing drugs policy on opinion rather than evidence. James Brokenshire, the Home Office Minister, in direct contradiction to his own advisers, continues with the story that cannabis is “extremely harmful”.
James Brokenshire
Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg are on record over the last 10 years as consistently calling for reform in drug policy. The Your Freedom website has been overwhelmed with requests for evidence based regulation of drugs and the legalisation of cannabis but the government is riding roughshod over this public outcry. A consultation document on a new drugs strategy was issued just over a week ago but it seems meaningless and dishonest as all the big decisions have already been taken. Cannabis campaigners, working on behalf of six million regular users in the UK, are outraged at what they see as hypocrisy, misinformation and regressive government action.
Dr Mark Eckersley, exasperated and concerned at the pathologist’s evidence said “This is simply not true. Hearing this story is more likely to cause a heart attack than the ingestion of any cannabinoid”.
A BBC Preservation Order
TAKE NOTICE
This noble institution should be preserved.
It is not perfect but it is better than any alternative.
It contributes enormously to the culture of the nation.
It is our BBC
This notice should be nailed to the door of Broadcasting House and all BBC premises. Damaging or cutting off parts or branches of the institution is not allowed. Adequate space must be given to the institution’s roots which must not be interfered with. Severe penalties will be applied to anyone who knowingly or recklessly damages the institution in any way.
Then David Cameron, Nick Clegg and a heavyweight team need to take Mark Thompson aside and give him a good talking to. We want to preserve the BBC and its unique qualities but we need a hard pruning of dead wood and unproductive growth. Preserving the roots and fundamental strength are the most important objectives. Cutbacks in the right places will stimulate stronger new growth elsewhere.
I agree that Sky should contribute towards those commercial channels that it broadcasts free-to-air. It ties viewers into its subscription packages because they are comprehensive. This is gives it an unfair advantage throughout the market, as does its coverage and bandwidth.
Sky is a parasite on traditional TV companies. Its unfair advantages have enabled it to develop the best user interface and experience in the market. Even so, it is expensive and has a reputation for appalling customer service. Its relationship with Newscorp means it is part of a monstrous media empire which requires much more regulation in the interests of consumers and the community at large. It should be required to invest more in original programming and production. If necessary, a new media tax should be introduced to enforce appropriate investment and safeguards.
The BBC’s biggest mistake is the level of executive pay. There is no justification at all for anyone in the BBC to earn more than the Prime Minister. It is public money. Anyone unhappy with this should resign today. No one is indispensable. The BBC has always been the best in its business at bringing on new talent.
The Licence Fee should remain unchanged. It is fantastic value for money and shows just how expensive Sky is. The BBC Trust should be strengthened in its primary role as regulator and it should enforce cost savings, efficiencies and executive pay. It should also ensure that the BBC becomes more responsive and closer to its audience. Its complaints and feedback system is fundamental to this. It needs to be brought back in house and given real priority. See here.
Britain adores its BBC. Let’s ensure we preserve it and allow it to flourish.
The Third Milliband Brother?
James Brokenshire
I have very mixed feelings about young James Brokenshire. He’s a Tory and so am I, so I don’t really want to be too derogatory about him. It’s very difficult though, just keeping a straight face, let alone seeing anything positive. Most difficult of all to ignore is the Milliband in him. I mean, come on, tell me I’m wrong!
One of my more erudite commenters mentioned the phenomenon of Nominative Determinism. According to Wikipedia:
Nominative determinism refers to the theory that a person’s name is given an influential role in reflecting key attributes of his job, profession, or general life. It was a commonly held philosophy in the ancient world.
It’s not just that he looks like a Milliband. It goes much deeper than that. Alright, so George Osborne is right in there as well and I just know I’ve seen at least a dozen other clones. I just can’t quite remember their names or distinguish them. They’re the generation that’s heir to Cameron and Clegg. They’ve gone from graduate to researcher, never had a real job, eternally trapped within the political bubble. You know the type. And yes, our politics and our society are broken, broken because of the sort of policies, attitudes and behaviour that James exhibits.
Of course, I’m on the libertarian side of the party and James is way, way opposite. He comes across as not just a hanger and flogger but a hanger, drawer and quarterer – and that’s just for parking tickets. The trouble is, I fear he’s making such an twit of himself that he’s doing my party a grave disservice. For such a young and youngish man he is a very old, very old reactionary Tory.
James is the new Minister of State for Crime Prevention. Congratulations to him on his appointment at such an early stage in his career. What an important job! He does rather bring to mind all those old jokes about policemen looking like they should still be in short trousers. Does anyone take him seriously?
He’s the government’s front man for the drugs issue. That’s right, it’s not a minister from the Department of Health who deals with drugs. It’s the Home Office! Anyway, even before the current furore, I’d seen James in action in reply to a question about drugs policy. He’s authoritarian, repressive, intransigent and far, far too sure of himself even when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is not someone who believes in “small” government. Like the Millibands and other illiberal socialists he wants close control of our lives. I’m sorry but the boy looks silly and he behaves like an idiot. He’s being taken to pieces all over the internet – ridiculed, abused and condemned. David Cameron, please get rid of him now!
The trouble is that James is trying to come over all tough and spunky but he doesn’t realise that even men of my sons’ ages have seen it all before. Eager young politicians who think they know best when they know nothing have been making similar fools of themselves since time began. To coin a counterfeit phrase, I’d smoked more joints than he’s had hot dinners before there was even a twinkle in his daddy’s eye! So many of us had thought through and argued out the drugs issue a hundred times before James even left nursery school.
I can’t really expect a replacement who agrees with me 100% on drugs policy. What I do expect is someone who is credible, sensible, well informed and committed to evidence-based policy and truth. James is none of these. He is making a fool of the government.
What’s really serious is that the man is misguided. He’s flying in the face of the facts and all the experts. Drugs policy has huge impact on our society and we need to move away from our present disastrous and oppressive course. James Brokenshire is the wrong man for the job.
The Drugs Debate
It won’t go away will it? It seems like at least once a month now some new high profile figure comes out against prohibition. The latest, Sir Ian Gilmore, outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, is hot on the heels of Nicholas Green QC, chairman of the Bar Council in July and three eminent co-authors in The Lancet in May. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have also criticised government for failing to implement an evidence-based drugs policy and instead giving more weight to opinion.
Meanwhile the Humpty Dumpties at the Home Office keep on building their big walls, refusing to listen, refusing to think, refusing to care. Their response is no, no, no, out of the question, no and no again. In fact, I don’t think the ministers even think about it at all. They just replay the same old no, no and no again as written by some civil servant, probably in the days of the golf ball typewriter. Remember those?
It won’t go away though. I first submitted a report to the Home Affairs Committee on the cannabis laws in 1978. It was called “An Unaffordable Prejudice”. I’ve been giving them the facts and the evidence ever since and so have hundreds of other individuals and organisations. I’m in direct correspondence with the Home Office at the moment. I’ve received one three page response and replied with four. That’s how long it takes to get a dialogue going with our “responsive” government. I started in May, immediately after my new MP was elected, and it takes a good three months to get anywhere – or perhaps I mean nowhere. Still, I expect it was worse in the USSR.
It won’t go away. Aside from the Home Office the only people in favour of our current drugs policy are the drug dealers and the Taliban. They certainly don’t want things to change.
The Home Office can’t even get its story straight. Today its latest pearls are: “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” This is nothing short of crass stupidity and irresponsible misinformation. Lumping in cannabis with heroin and cocaine is simply ridiculous. Describing cannabis as “extremely harmful” is in direct contradiction to every one of the Home Office’s own scientific experts. These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our children, the vulnerable and the uneducated. They should be ashamed of themselves.
When Proposition 19 passes on 2nd November (see here), the world will sit up and take notice. Even Humpty Dumpty will have to engage his brain then because when 37 million Californians get the right to enjoy God’s herb without interference, well it ain’t gonna stop there. If for no other reason than that our avaricious politicians will soon put aside their “principles” when they realise the oodles of cash and brownie points they’re missing out on. California reckons it will create up to 110,000 new jobs, £1.4 billion in new tax revenue and a saving of $200 million in law enforcement costs. When Humpty Dumpty takes off his blindfold of prejudice, ignorance and propaganda he’ll soon be gagging for the cash.
There are a million quotes from world leaders, politicians, doctors, scientists and “experts” of all sorts stating how ridiculous and self-defeating current drugs policy is. It never seems to make any difference though. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both called for change many times but once they get into power what happens? However, just to get right up the nose of Humpty Dumpty (that’s right, snort it up there), here’s what one very, very senior civil servant said just two years ago:
“I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew the government’s policy was actually causing harm.”
Julian Critchley, Director, Cabinet Office UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit. 13-08-08
It won’t go away. Just Say No has become Just Say Now and the slimy dissembling oiks who insist on running our lives (and ruining many) will soon be in retreat. It won’t go away.
The Centre For Social Cohesion – A Zionist Deception
On the BBC’s “Sunday Morning Live”, the director of “The Centre For Social Cohesion”, Douglas Murray, was wheeled out as an apologist for Israel.
The question was “David Cameron causes a stir by calling Gaza a “prison camp”. So is it time for a franker dialogue with the Jewish state? Or are we already too critical of Israel?”
Mad, Bad And Dangerous
Murray tried to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza, in particular coming out with the latest Zioinst propaganda about shopping malls and the “luxury” that Gaza’s inhabitants enjoy.
I agree with David Cameron’s words entirely. I would make just one slight correction. I would call Gaza a “concentration camp” just to make the similarity with the Nazis absolutely clear.
I can only assume that “The Centre For Social Cohesion” is Murray’s personal plaything. It surely cannot be a serious organisation. It is difficult to imagine anyone giving this joker any sort of responsible job. What more pompous and inaccurate title could there be for an organisation that he has anything to do with? He must have made it up himself.
Drivel
It styles itself as “a non-partisan think-tank that studies issues related to community cohesion in the UK. Committed to the promotion of human rights, it is the first think-tank in the UK to specialise in studying radicalisation and extremism within Britain”.
What, with Douglas Murray as its director? How utterly, excruciatingly absurd. His attitudes are as far away from socially cohesive, non-partisan and promoting human rights as it is possible to imagine.
Can the name of this organisation or what it says about itself be covered by the Trades Descriptions Act?
What can right-thinking, honourable and truthful people do to defeat such deception?
Expose him and his organisation for the pariahs that they are. Complain to the BBC here and tell them that we are looking for truth on our televisions, not deception, propaganda and lies.
Cameron Takes Charge
Once More Unto The Breach Dear Friends!
I am tremendously impressed with David Cameron. His light has been hidden under the bushel of the coalition for too long. His courageous words in Turkey and India have reminded me that he is a true leader. Tonight’s excellent BBC documentary, Five Days That Changed Britain, reminds me that it was his bold leadership that initiated the coalition, an idea that is proving stronger and cleverer than anyone can have thought.
He has said precisely the right thing about Turkey, Israel, Gaza, India and Pakistan. He has spoken the truths that so many others have been afraid to. I am proud that he is our prime minister. He fills me with confidence that he knows his direction and will stick firmly to it. He is nobody’s fool and everybody’s champion. He is a man who I am very prepared to trust, to give him the time he needs to achieve the big ambitions.
David Cameron is the right man at the right time. We should all give him our support.
Cameron Calls For An End To Prison Camp Gaza
A Worthy Leader
I am proud to see our Prime Minister speaking out unequivocally against the Israeli blockade and oppression of Gaza. See here.
As for Turkey, I agree that they should be welcomed as EU members. Perhaps the resistance from other parts of Europe is because they see the EU as a social union whereas even the europhiles in the UK still see it primarily as a trading partnership. There are social benefits to be gained though. Bringing an Islamic nation, just about the only Islamic democracy, into the EU could do wonders for mutual understanding and peace.
Turkey has been a staunch ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, something that must have been very difficult at times for its people to accept. It also looks likely to enjoy explosive economic growth in the next few years. We should welcome Turkey with open arms although there must be appropriate controls on immigration. Any good would be undone if we were to be inundated with Turkish immigrants.
Gary McKinnon
Leaders We Can Believe In
I am intensely moved by Barack Obama and David Cameron taking the time to discuss Gary McKinnon’s case yesterday. See here for the story. Also by his mother Janis’ gratitude and gracious behaviour in response. As she so eloquently put it, these two men represent a new beginning in our world. I am full of admiration for them both.
What Gary is alleged to have done was wrong. He now needs to be tried by a British court. If he is found guilty then the punishment must suit the crime taking into account his mental capability.
Peter Reynolds 