Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘lawyer

Malcolm Stanley Reynolds. 10th December 1933 – 31st December 2014.

with 5 comments

 

Dad pic 1

A Life Well Lived

Chilterns Crematorium

Amersham

15th January 2015

OOS p2and3

To William and Ethel, a son.

Malcolm.

Husband. Father. Brother. Grandfather. Uncle.  A mentor, benefactor and example to so many.

He has had a wonderful life.

It is a wonderful life, alive in the hearts and memories of all who knew him, especially those of us that love him.

For us it is as a legend, almost a fairy tale of romance, nobility and triumph against all the odds.  That is why, though very emotional, I can feel no sadness at my father’s story; only joy, pride, satisfaction at a life so well lived.  Would that we could all cross the finish line in first place, for my father has the gold medal around his neck and he is our champion.

Until the build-up to war in 1938, William, my grandfather, could not get regular shifts at the steelworks in Newport.  There was no food on the table and my father was severely malnourished. 50 years later after winning a scholarship to Oxford, in union with the woman he adored every minute of his life, he was at the top of his profession: one of the leading commercial lawyers in the UK, an extraordinary achievement, a measure of our time.

Yet nothing mattered to my father except family.  That’s not that it was more important than anything else. It was all that mattered.

So we have had our fair share of petty squabbles and division but never, not once, has he, nor my mother, been diverted from a deep and abiding love for each one of us.  For his five children, he provided the total security, material and emotional, that enabled us to go out into the world and make our own mistakes, achieve our own successes in which he took so much pride.

My earliest memory is of him hopping down the path of our bungalow in Gorleston to a waiting ambulance having put a garden fork through his foot.  Hugh was not yet born, so I was younger than 18 months old but I remember it like yesterday.

We all have special memories.  It is impossible to pick between them. I recall him taking me on my first visit to the cinema, the Acocks Green Odeon, to see Zulu – and the great Welsh pride in that.  Later, I recall seeing James Bond films with him and he introduced me to the books, including the naughty bits, so risqué and daring at the time.

In 1970, I accompanied Dad as a VIP guest to the Alcan Open, a golf tournament in  County Dublin. We were both mischievously plied with drink, me having just passed  13, and we nearly missed our plane home.

In the past year of his life he endured the tragedy of Jonathan’s untimely death. With great dignity he has led this family to where we are today.  Nothing has ever given me more pride than to take him to his last formal occasion in October when he saw my son, Richard, called to the bar.  I know he was equally overjoyed a few weeks later to visit Jacob at his college in Oxford.

What characterises my father’s life throughout is enormous generosity, both of spirit and in material terms.  Even to those who had wronged him or against whom he had just cause for complaint, he has always been there, always a ready hand to those in times of need.

Indivisible from my father’s life is his union with my mother which transcends death as much as any relationship ever can.  I believe his love and legacy will sustain her forever. They deserve each other as much as the night deserves the sunrise.  Nothing will ever extinguish what is between them.

Dad often used to speak in French. I’m not sure why but I fondly remember being called John-Pierre or John-P.  So I will never say goodbye to him.  Instead, the French express it so much better: au revoir mon pere.

Dad

My Father.

with 5 comments

Dad hat crop

My father, Malcolm Stanley Reynolds, died this afternoon at the age of 81.

A life very well lived. Before the war his family was so poor that he was severely malnourished but he won a scholarship to Oxford and rose to become one of the top commercial lawyers in the UK. I am immensely proud to be his eldest son.

Written by Peter Reynolds

December 31, 2014 at 5:02 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

A Shyster Lawyer To Defend A Scumbag Drug Dealer? Call Saul!

leave a comment »

Saul Goodman Channels Essex Used Car Dealer

Saul Goodman Channels Essex Used Car Dealer

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.

better_call_saul-620x350Such 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.

Rupinder

Pinder Reaux’s Senior Partner

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.

John Spyrou

John Spyrou

‘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.

Chris Grayling, The Lord Chancellor, Takes Hard Line On Cannabis.

with 3 comments

I understand why the giant intellects of our legal profession resent this man who is the first non-lawyer in 340 years to be appointed to the exalted role of Lord Chancellor.

It would be fair to say that his record as a shadow minister and then Minister of State for Employment is mediocre at best.  He is not a justice minister in the relatively liberal style of Kenneth Clarke.  A ‘hardliner’ they call him.  He channels the ‘something of the night‘ that defined his former colleague Michael, now Lord Howard.  He certainly fits with the idea of the Tories being the ‘nasty party’.

There are few more unsympathetic, merciless and intolerant members of parliament.  It’s not clear what other qualities he has that have earned his high office. No surprise then that his opinion on cannabis should be as bigoted and vacuuous as he demonstrated this week.

Chris Grayling MP

Chris Grayling MP

“I’ve always taken the view that the medical reasons for not going down that road are pretty compelling. I’ve talked to many doctors over the years who have highlighted the links between cannabis use and mental health problems.”

Source: Wales Online

He’s simply repeating the government’s tired and false propaganda.

The links between cannabis use and mental health problems are tenuous to say the least. Despite a massive worldwide increase in cannabis use since the 1960s, rates of psychosis and schizophrenia are declining.

The scare stories and myths promoted by the tabloid press do not stand up to investigation. The facts  of NHS hospital admissions and the National Drug Treatment Monitoring Service (inconveniently for government propagandists and tabloid editors) show that cannabis is a very small contributor to mental health problems, insignificant in public health terms.

The real reason Grayling and his cabinet colleagues want to continue the ban on cannabis is that they fear the consequences of legalisation on the alcohol industry which, as we know, successive governments just roll over for in dutiful compliance.

The ban on cannabis has never had anything to do with health concerns. It’s about vested interests and corrupt and weak politicians. The truth is people like Grayling don’t give a damn about the terrible toll that alcohol takes on our society.  They care not one jot for the liberty of the  individual or the hundreds of thousands who are criminalised fro using cannabis as medicine.

Grayling has never been the sharpest knife in the kitchen cabinet but at least he can be relied on to toe the party line. This is the true worth of most of our cabinet ministers.

Written by Peter Reynolds

November 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Legal Opportunities For Medicinal Cannabis Users

with 28 comments

Recent developments mean that there are new opportunities to challenge the prohibition of cannabis as medicine.    Now I am not a lawyer, so these ideas should be carefully discussed with your legal advisors before you even consider pursuing any of them.  I may be wrong about the correct procedure, process or terminology.   I am highlighting opportunities that I have identified, based on my personal experience and knowledge.  Qualified legal advice is essential.

Disingenuous

The British government’s current position on medicinal cannabis is absurd and irrational.  As I understand it, those are exactly the criteria for which the process of judicial review is intended.  That is one route.  Another, more risky opportunity arises if you are facing prosecution or have been convicted of an offence of possession, cultivation or production.  There are ideas here which you may want to consider as a defence or an appeal.  However, please be very careful.  If things go wrong, advancing such arguments might result in a heavier sentence, such is the cruel, oppressive and iniquitous intent of current government policy.

Dishonest

The Home Office is simply dishonest in its current stance saying that there “are no medicinal benefits” from cannabis.  James Brokenshire, the drugs minister, cannot hide behind a lack of knowledge so he looks either more stupid or dishonest every day.  David Cameron made the most dreadful, disingenuous comment about medicinal use in his Al Jazeera World View YouTube interview last week.  See here.  He said “That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.” That, of course, is absolute rot and Cameron should be ashamed of himself for such misinformation.

Obtain A Doctor’s Prescription For Medicinal Cannabis

There is nothing to prevent your British doctor from prescribing medicinal cannabis for you if he/she believes it is appropriate.  Bedrocan BV is the official contractor to the Dutch government for the production of medicinal cannabis.  Go to its website here and you will discover it has a range of products offering different proportions of cannabinoids and terpenoids for different conditions.  Prescribing information is available for your doctor in exactly the same way as any other drug.  All he/she has to do is select the product and write out a prescription in the normal way.  Your doctor can’t get in trouble for this.  There is nothing improper or unethical about it, but it is, of course, your doctor’s decision whether to do so or not.

If your doctor isn’t prepared to help, the next best thing is to go to a doctor in Holland, Belgium, Germany, Spain or Italy, all countries where medicinal cannabis is regularly prescribed.  In theory, you should be able to see a doctor in another EU country under reciprocal healthcare arrangements but if you can afford it, it may be simpler to go privately.

Another option is to go to one of the 15 US states that permit medical marijuana and obtain a doctor’s recommendation.

Once you have your prescription, you need to apply to the Home Office for a personal import licence to bring your medicine in from Holland.  The licensing section on the Home Office website is here.  If you obtain a licence you will also need to go through a similar process with the Dutch Bureau voor Medicinale Cannabis to obtain an export licence.  The correct section of its website is here.

Of course, the reality is that the Home Office is not going to grant you a licence.  You can then pursue the matter through your MP who should make representations to the minister on your behalf.  You are then at the point to make an application for judical review of the Home Office’s decision.

Challenge The Government’s Interpretation Of The Schengen Agreement

The Schengen Agreement provides protection for travellers to carry their medicine with them within the EU.  The crucial factor is your country of residence.  See here for detailed information. Although there is no precise definition of residency, if you are resident in an EU country where medicinal cannabis is permitted, then you may bring your medicine into Britain and, believe it or not, there is no restriction on your use of it.  You would be perfectly entitled to sit on the steps of Scotland Yard or even the Home Office’s Marsham Street HQ and smoke a spliff.  However, if you are a UK resident, even if you have obtained your medicine on prescription abroad, you are not protected.  This is clearly discriminatory under EU law and could be challenged in court.  I’m not certain whether you would apply to a British court or to the European court but your solicitor would advise you on this.

Defence Or Appeal On The Grounds Of Medical Necessity

The Appeal Court disallowed a defence of medical necessity back in 2005.  A petition to the House Of Lords Judicial Committee and to the  European Court Of Human Rights was dismissed without any reasons given.  I understand that the Appeal Court’s reasoning was that there were no proven medicinal benefits of cannabis.  However, things have changed enormously since then.  The MHRA approval of Sativex and the Home Office’s issue of a general licence for it are conclusive proof of medicinal value.  Whatever misinformation the Home Office may promote, expert evidence would prove that Sativex is pharmacologically identical to, for instance, one of the Bedrocan products.  There is also now a vast resource of peer-reviewed clinical evidence of medicinal benefits.

There is an horrendously improper judgement (R -v- David King,  St Albans Crown Court), where a medicinal user was not allowed even to mention medicinal reasons to a jury on pain of imprisonment for contempt.  Your lawyers would need to study this carefully.  However, it is so clearly unjust that I do not believe it could be sustained.

Re-Scheduling  Of Sativex

Sativex is currently a schedule 1 controlled drug which means it has no medicinal value. As mentioned earlier, the Home Office has dealt with this temporarily by issuing a general licence for it.  However, it needs to be re-scheduled and the Advisory Council On the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has recommended that it be placed in schedule 4.  See here for the full story.

Sativex cannot be re-scheduled under its brand name and the only pharmacologically accurate way of describing it is cannabis.  The ACMD left a possible escape route for the Home Office by saying that its “active” ingredients  would have to be specified. GW Pharma, the makers of Sativex would say that this means an extract of THC and CBD.  However, this is dishonest.  Sativex contains all the 60-odd cannabinoids that occur naturally in the plant.  There is no other way of describing it accurately than to call it cannabis. If Brokenshire and his cronies try to prolong this deception then they can be challenged by judicial review.  The aim here is to ensure that the re-scheduling is accurate and so cannabis becomes a schedule 4 drug.  This would then open up all opportunities for cannabis as medicine.

I have no doubt now that medicinal cannabis will be permitted in some form or another in Britain within the near future.   We may need to force the government’s hand through litigation or, perhaps Brokenshire will be moved to another department and then the Home Office can “adjust” its position.

At present, it is a monstrous injustice, an evil and obscene scandal, that those who need cannabis as medicine are denied it.  The way of politics is that a few years from now it may well all have changed and Brokenshire will be at the Ministry of Silly Walks or somewhere better suited to his talents. However it works out, what I care about is that those in pain and suffering get the relief they need.  One day soon, Brokenshire will have to answer to his constituents and later to an even higher power.  How he will justify his cruelty and negilgence I don’t really care but I know I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes on judgement day.


Keir Starmer – The Next Lord Widgery?

with 11 comments

No Better Than A Terrorist

The scandalous decision not to prosecute PC Simon Harwood over the death of Ian Tomlinson is reverberating right across the world.

British justice has become a laughing stock and our proud history of freedom, liberty and fairness is heaped with derision – and deservedly so

When the establishment needs to dissemble and misinform it calls on its tame lawyers and paper tiger figureheads.   Keir Starmer, the DPP, is clearly angling for his peerage and his place on the government roster of professional liars, deceivers and propagandists.

In 1972, when British soldiers murdered protestors on the streets of Londonderry, they wheeled out Lord Widgery who produced a report of such crass dishonesty and fundamental deception that it took a further enquiry lasting 12 years and costing £200 million to expose it as nonsense.

When millions across the world have witnessed the unprovoked assault from behind on Ian Tomlinson, they have wheeled out Keir Starmer, another tame QC, to demonstrate a complete absence of integrity and deliver a deeply corrupt, manipulative and unforgivable decision not to prosecute.

In the last 50 years more than 1,000 people have died while in police custody in the UK but not a single policeman has been prosecuted.

Is it any wonder that we have pond life like Raoul Moat feted and worshipped by the underclass when they suffer under the yoke of police oppression, when they see no justice nor fairness nor hope?

The truth is that PC Simon Harwood and Raoul Moat are two peas from the same pod.  Police websites, such as the notorious Inspector Gadget, reveal serving police officers’ attitudes just as perverse as those that supported the Raoul Moat Facebook page.  The police are completely out of control, ineffective, mismanaged and corrupt.

It took 30 years for the Metropolitan Police to admit that one of its officers was responsible for the death of Blair Peach.

The suggestion from the extreme left is that we are being softened up and desensitised against a future where with swingeing public expenditure cuts we can expect to see riots in the streets and more police violence.  I don’t buy this conspiracy theory but I am desperately worried for the future of British justice when men like Keir Starmer are in charge.

It isn’t just incompetence.  It isn’t just misjudgement.  There is clear intent to pervert the course of justice.  He knew that the six month limit on bringing a charge of common assault was passing.   He knew that the conflict between expert evidence was for a jury to determine.  He knew that never was it more essential “in the public interest” for a prosecution to be brought.

Keir Starmer is every bit as dangerous to the fabric of our society as any terrorist or subversive.  Look at how many lives Lord Widgery’s behaviour was responsible for.  Look at how his lies prolonged the violence and fed the divisions within Northern Ireland.  The same thing is happening all over again.

PC Simon Harwood, Raoul Moat, Keir Starmer.  They are all the same.  They are all a danger to society.   They should all be behind bars.

Banker Robbers Bonus Blackmail

leave a comment »

We’re told that the banks have to pay big bonuses in order to retain and attract the right staff.  We’re told that unless we shell out millions to these mysterious unnamed individuals, these “masters of the universe”, that we can kiss goodbye to the money we’ve already put in.  We’ll be damaging our own investment.

Twaddle!  Rubbish!  Bulls**t!  Bollo**s!

These people aren’t doctors or scientists or lawyers or architects – or even plumbers or electricians.  They’re blaggers.  Nothing more, nothing less.  All they’re doing with these ridiculous claims is trying to blag us all over again.  Their job is little different from that of an advertising salesman who sits on the phone all day and maybe makes £1000 or £2000 a week.  In fact, many salesman have much wider knowledge, better people skills and sharper brains than these wide boys in the city that have nerve, greed and little else to offer.

This is just an attempt to blackmail us.  There are tens of thousands of bright, keen, hungry people out there who could do these bankers’ jobs with very little difficulty.  In fact, fresh new blood that hasn’t been corrupted by the past would be a much better idea.  We could recruit from the world of advertising, from market traders flogging fruit, vegetables, meat, fish and “knock off”.  Why not just pick a few MBA graduates at random or take the top banking graduates from last year and give them the big jobs?

Con Man

None of these people could do any worse than the sharks who got us into this trouble in the first place.  Those, like Stephen Hester of RBS, who have taken over recently are no better.  They’re still infected with the same ways as before.  After Chief Thief Goodwin has had his turn in the trough they’re just elbowing through for their own go.

There is no special expertise or skill required to be a banker.  Don’t let these charlatans and sons of charlatans tell you any different.

Don’t wait for the RBS directors’ resignations.  Sack them now for having the audacity to try and pull the wool over our eyes once again.