Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘inaccurate

The Guardian Dances To The Home Office Tune

with 16 comments

An astonishing article in The Guardian today on the Home Office’s attempts to prevent UK patients gaining access to medicinal cannabis.  See here.

The Home Office’s position is no surprise.  What is astonishing is The Guardian’s inaccurate and poodle-like treatment of the story.  The article is little more than an obedient reproduction of a Home Office press release.  It takes no account of the gross injustice and cruelty perpetrated by Home Office ministers.  Neither does it challenge a position that is cleary unsustainable under EU law.

No one can have expected the Home Office to give in on this issue without a fight.  I think we would all have expected far more courage and support from The Guardian.

The Guardian’s editor is Alan Rusbridger.  His email address is: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk.  I would urge everyone to write to him now to protest at this weak and rather pathetic coverage of an important story.

This is my email.  Feel free to copy, edit or use it as you will.

 

 

 

 

Written by Peter Reynolds

October 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm

Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis – Part 2

with 12 comments

See the original article here.

The Home Office has been denying to me all week that it had changed its story.  It claimed that it had said “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.”  It claimed that cannabis was never included in this statement.

Today it finally owned up.  It issued this statement at 5.18pm this evening:

A Home Office spokesperson said:

“There is clear evidence that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are extremely harmful substances.

“There is also clear evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can cause both physical and psychological problems. Even the occasional use of cannabis can be dangerous for people with diseases of the circulatory system, and it can contribute to heart disease and lung cancer.

“In this instance there was a drafting error with the original version of this statement, which was subsequently rectified.”

Does It Look Dangerous To You?

Now, I understand and respect the professional efforts of the Home Office PRs to damp down this story.  It just doesn’t wash though does it?

Why did it take nearly two weeks to correct this error?

Why did they try to cover up the error in the first place?

All this from a government department that emphasises how important are its “health and education messages” and that it must not send “the wrong message – to young people in particular.”

Of course, the truth is that the Home Office sends inaccurate and misleading messages about drugs all the time.  Everyone, except the Home Office ministers and mandarins, agrees that the present drug classification system is nonsense, that it amounts to nothing less than misinformation.  In fact, the Home Office is currently less than seven days away from a judicial review of its political manipulation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  The Drug Equality Alliance co-founder, Casey Hardison, has taken it upon himself to challenge the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the Administrative Court for its irrational, unfair, and possibly illegal exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from control under the Act.

Even David Cameron agrees that ecstasy should not be a class A drug – see here.  The debacle and embarrassing nonsense about the ever-changing classification of cannabis destroyed Alan Johnson’s integrity for good.  Young people have been watching the government’s “messages” for years, comparing them to their own experiences and realising  that the government talks rot when it comes to drugs.  The Home Office is inconsistent, unreliable, contradictory and nothing short of dangerous when it comes to messages about drugs – as they’ve just proved, yet again.

As for the revised statement, there is evidence to show that smoking cannabis can cause the same damage to the cardiovascular system as smoking tobacco, but no one smokes anywhere near the same amount of cannabis as they do tobacco – they’d be asleep!  In fact, the very latest research shows that cannabis has an extraordinary protective effect for tobacco smokers and may actually reduce the likelihood of lung cancer.   Other recent research has also shown cannabinoids to have remarkable effects in shrinking brain, head, neck and breast cancers.

The Home Office is so far out of date it’s difficult to believe.   It still talks sensationally about the dangers of “new stronger strains of cannabis known as skunk”.   The truth is that skunk has been the predominant type of cannabis available in the UK for more than 20 years.  That’s how up to date the Home Office is.   Finally, the “psychological problems” story.  Sure, any psychoactive substance has the potential for harm but increasingly there’s evidence to show cannabinoids actually have an anti-psychotic effect.  One of the most useful applications of medicinal cannabis is in the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

To those who don’t already know the facts, I say simply google your questions.  Even the Home Office, much as it might try, has not yet found a way of silencing the truth.

The Centre For Social Cohesion – A Zionist Deception

with 103 comments

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.

Experian And Equifax – Tyrants And Oppressors

with 2 comments

Recently I have been the victim of false and inaccurate information published on my credit file.  I am certain that there are hundreds of thousands of other people in the same position.  Experian and Equifax, the two key offenders in this, seem to be above the law, certainly above justice.  They can say what they want with impunity and if you want to do anything about it you are faced with convoluted, complicated and lengthy processes that are clearly designed to grind you down and deter any correction of the nonsense that these modern day robber barons want to publish.

The Data Protection Act, which is supposed to protect us from such iniquitous conduct and the Information Commissioner, who is supposed to be our guardian in such matters, are both toothless, useless and all part of the self-sustaining system promulgated by the banks which is a matter of national scandal.

Of course, a large part of their power comes from the fact that nobody wants to put their head above the parapet for fear of making their own position worse.  This is the real iniquity which makes their oppression self-sustaining, in fact, makes it stronger and stronger the longer it is allowed to continue.

At the most basic level you are entitled under law to get a copy of your own credit file within seven days for a fee of £2.00.  I wonder if anyone has ever actually achieved this?  It took me something in excess of six weeks to get mine after I’d been told that my requests hadn’t been received, that my identity needed to be verified, that they had a large backlog of requests.  They use the Data Protection Act as a reason they cannot  comply with the Data Protection Act and if you make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, as I have, well you might as well p**s in the wind because it just gets lost in a morass of queues, delays, bureaucracy and I expect I’ll be lucky to hear anything a year from now.

There are many, many more impenetrable layers to this.  Experian and Equifax both operate some of the worst designed, most difficult websites I have ever come across.  They provide you with reference numbers that when you enter them precisely as given to you in writing you are told that they are in an “incorrect format”.  They promise to acknowledge queries but do not do so.  They provide hundreds and hundreds of pages of useless, confusing, mind-numbing “information” which you have to wade through before you can make a specific enquiry.

There is only one conclusion that any reasonable person can make and that it that these websites are deliberately designed to obfuscate, to confuse and to deter the man in the street from proceeding any further.

I discovered a County Court Judgment registered against me in a case where I am suing a local authority (yes, I am suing them!) and in which I have a document in front of me with a Court stamp stating that no such judgment exists.  I discovered another entirely fictitious judgment which was shown on my credit file this month (August), supposedly made in 2006, which did not show on my own copy of my credit file in June.

The buck really does stop with the Information Commissioner but he, Richard Thomas, appointed by the Queen, as I have already demonstrated, is worse than useless and is merely a sop to deflect any concern about this dastardly conduct that the banks and financial tyrants are engaged in.