Posts Tagged ‘MP’
The Bean Counter And The Ponce. A Pair Of Hypocrites.
There is no more integrity.
This government is even more corrupt than the last. Not just widespread financial corruption amongst MPs, now ministers have abandoned all pretence at listening or consulting. Britain has become an oligarchy and both politicians and the media are complicit.
I and many other Tories were prepared to accept and defend the financial squeeze but I can no longer support this government. I could not vote Tory again given the level of betrayal and arrogance from David Cameron. As for the LibDems, they have sacrificed their integrity completely. I see nothing unfair with the present proposals for tuition fees but deplore and condemn the LibDem’s broken promises. They are ruined. Clegg is beyond, in fact, beneath redemption.
Ministers in this government have become more remote than ever before. They sit in their feather-bedded ivory towers and just ignore correspondence. This is now par for the course in the respect and courtesy that our government pays us. One can write again and again, send email reminders and never get even an acknowledgement. This is disregard so serious that it is corruption.
Clegg’s “Your Freedom” website was canned as quickly as it started. No, no, no, that gave the people far too loud a voice.
And the press are involved too. They protect and serve only their own comfort in the politics bubble. The editors of the national newspapers follow their own agenda with no regard for their readers. Normal rules of supply and demand do not apply. They have so much power that most only know what they are given. They distort the truth as it suits them. Only what serves them gets published.
We have some recourse with the BBC. It is obliged to provide balance but the complaints system is worse than useless and the director-general receives a ludicrous bribe of £838,000 per annum.
Over just the last 12 months there have been massive demonstrations in London where tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets but we do not hear of them. It is entirely true that were it not for the violence we would never have heard of the 52,000 students that marched on Millbank earlier this month. The blood spilled and the damage caused is on the hands of the media. They are a corrupt and pernicious influence on our society. Much as I believe in smaller government, the media now have too much power. Effective regulation is needed.
The Tory promise never to allow more power to slip to Brussels has also been broken and Cameron is exposed as nothing more than a procedural clerk. All his bold, inspirational philosophy of freedom and fairness is gone. I have never seen such hostility from those who were previously firm Tory supporters.
This corrupt and self-serving government is going down the pan.
British Medicinal Cannabis Register
In California there are more than 500,000 medical marijuana card holders. How many people use cannabis as medicine in Britain?
The British Medicinal Cannabis Register aims to find out and provide a database of facts and evidence for doctors, scientists, researchers, campaigners, government and anyone with a bona fide interest. Users register via the BMCR website, providing details of their method of use and the conditions treated. While patient confidentiality is guaranteed and records held on the database will have the same legal status as any other medical record, users do not have to provide their full address. They can register with the first part of their postcode and a verifiable email address.
Of course, according to the British government, “cannabis is dangerous and has no medicinal benefits”. However, Sativex, a cannabis tincture, has been approved by the MHRA as a treatment for MS spasticity. Sativex is pharmacologically identical to cannabis. It is cannabis – with the addition of ethanol and a little peppermint oil. (A tincture is an alcoholic extract.)
There is no more common sense in US federal law where cannabis is a schedule 1 drug with “no medicinal uses”, yet the US government has held a patent (no. 6630507) since 2003 for “cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants, for example, in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”
If you can make any sense of either the British or US governments’ position then please educate me? I think they are irrational and cruel. They actively deny people in pain and suffering the relief they need which is comprehensively proven both by science and experience. On both sides of the Atlantic this amounts to nothing less than an evil injustice and oppression of vulnerable people.
Thank God and the US constitution that in America 14 states have introduced a regulated system of medical marijuana. Two-thirds of Europe permits medicinal cannabis and Israel has just introduced a major programme including new growing facilities and dispensaries. In Britain there is no such compassion and the Home Office ducks and dives and manipulates and dissembles to evade EU law that would permit cannabis as medicine. In the UK there is appalling wickedness and cruelty perpetrated on the back of political cowardice.
Baroness Meacher
The BMCR was launched this week and received an immediate boost with the announcement of Baroness Molly Meacher, Paul Flynn MP, Matthew Atha and Dr Michael Vandenburg as members of its governing council. Baroness Meacher has a distinguished career in health and social care. Paul Flynn has long campaigned for drug law reform. Matthew Atha is the director of the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit and Dr Michael Vandenburg is the pre-eminent expert witness in the courts on pharmaceuticals and drugs.
Whether the BMCR succeeds in its aims depends entirely on whether those who use cannabis as medicine have the courage to register. Only then will sufficent evidence be available to embarrass the government into essential and overdue reform. The danger is that those who find relief will prefer to keep quiet and say nothing. No one could blame them if they do.
It is time for all those concerned to grasp this nettle and make a stand. Are we seriously going to continue to imprison sick and disabled people for using a medicine that is proven to be effective and far less costly, dangerous and harmful than pharmaceutical alternatives?
I urge all those concerned to register at the BMCR website: www.bmcr.org.uk.
SECOND UPDATE On Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain
This is the third instalment in this story.
1. Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain
2. Update On Legal Medicinal Cannabis In Britain
Eventually The Guardian took some notice. See here.
Despite the pleas of those in pain and suffering, the Home Office was talking to Mary O’Hara of The Guardian but not to them. Dozens if not hundreds of medicinal cannabis users had written to the Home Office asking for confirmation that they could go to Holland for a prescription. Not a word was heard.
Jim Starr, the subject of this story, wrote to his MP, and then he wrote again. He heard nothing. He wrote to the Home Office, chasing up his application for a personal import licence. He heard nothing. He wrote again.
Dilatory
Richard Drax, the first timer, newly elected Tory MP for Dorset South just happens to be my MP too, so I wrote to him on Jim’s behalf.
Jim has heard nothing. Richard Drax asked me not to mention his name in any article about Jim. Jim wrote again. I wrote again. We have heard nothing.
Jim’s medicine has run out. We told the Home Office and Richard Drax that it was an urgent medical emergency. We have heard nothing.
I spent the last week on the telephone and exchanging emails with the Home Office. This is the result:
A Home Office spokesperson said:
The UK’s position is clear – cannabis is dangerous and has no medicinal benefits in herbal form. It remains illegal for UK residents to possess cannabis in any form.
Britons benefit from reciprocal laws which allow EU nationals, in limited circumstances, to travel with controlled medicines. We are working with European authorities to ensure the system is robust and not open to abuse.
The Home Office says you can import cannabis to the UK and use it without restriction provided you “are resident in a country where that drug is legally prescribed”. So it’s OK for the Dutch and the Belgians and the Spanish and the Italians and the Czechs and the Poles (and many others) to smoke weed in Britain but not if you’re British.
We Won't Give Up
This is clearly unequal, discriminatory, unjust and unsustainable in law but the Home Office is not about to give in. The only way to resolve this is that either someone must appeal a conviction all the way to the Supreme Court or there must be an application for judicial review.
Stay tuned for the next exciting instalment.
In the meantime, Jim and thousands like him will manage as best as they can.
He’s still heard nothing from either the Home Office or Richard Drax.
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
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.
Why Are Withheld Numbers Allowed?
It's Me!
Recently I started to receive a series of silent telephone calls. Sometimes the caller would ring off as soon as I answered. On other occasions it would be some time before my line cleared. It’s happened to me before as it has to most of us. What makes me angry though is when you dial 1471 and find out that the caller was from a withheld number.
At one time I’d have assumed – no, correction – I’d have known that it was a deranged ex-girlfriend but not any more. I’ve cleared all that sort of dross out of my life. Now it could be one of those dreadful automated telemarketing computers which all sorts of otherwise reputable companies seem to think are an acceptable business tool. I don’t. I think they’re pretty much akin to an offensive weapon.
But why, oh why are withheld numbers allowed at all?
What possible reason or excuse can there be for allowing anyone to make anonymous telephone calls? We have the technology. Caller ID is now virtually universal. What possible justification can there be for anyone to hide the number they’re calling from? If they’re initiating the communication, whoever they are, why should they be able to hide their identity?
So I thought I’d take advantage of BT’s “Anonymous Caller Rejection” service. Now, I’m probably going to have to cancel it because so many people are having difficulty getting through to me.
First it was my electricity supplier. Then it was a government department that I was doing some writing for. Then it was my MP’s secretary who comes from the doctors’ receptionists charm school and was quite affronted, told me off even, that my phone won’t accept anonymous calls.
Sorry, Wrong Number!
Just what is it that makes these (mostly) rational people and organisations think it is acceptable to contact me anonymously? Would they send me anonymous letters or emails or arrive at my door and refuse to identify themselves?
No, of course they wouldn’t. It would be entirely wrong and it is entirely wrong to use anonymous or withheld telephone numbers too.
Generally I’m opposed to laws. We have far too many already but in this instance we should legislate. It’s ridiculous, deceptive, dishonest and unnecessary yet many of our biggest organisations and institutions do it as matter of course.
It’s unacceptable and it should be stopped. Ban withheld numbers now!
OFT – Incompetence, Conspiracy, Paper Tiger Or All Three?
I’m one of the lucky ones. I recovered over £2000 of illegal penalty charges from the Nationwide and HSBC a couple of years back before the High Court stayed all the claims. I had the great pleasure of walking into HSBC’s Kilburn branch with a judgment stamped by the Bow County Court (local to its Canary Wharf headquarters). I demanded my money there and then and created a right hiatus in the branch! I didn’t get it then but I did the following day in crisp £50 notes.
Den Of Thieves
It goes without saying that the banks are all, without exception, cheats, thieves, liars and lowlife scoundrels. That’s why millions of people were relying on the Office Of Fair Trading to stand up for them. The OFT’s decision now to drop their action against the banks is a national disgrace of monstrous proportions. Although we cannot be sure of exactly who is behind this scandal, the fact that dishonesty, corruption and theft are at the root of it is manifest and crystal clear.
The banks were making around £7 billion a year in charges, most of which were for unauthorised overdrafts. Claimants would have been able to claim for six years of charges so the banks have been let off a £40 billion hook. Never have the British people been so let down by those who are supposed to protect them.
The High Court first made the extraordinary decision that these charges were not penalty charges. This is nonsense. HSBC actually described many of their charges to me as “card misuse” – so is that a penalty or not?. Of course they were and as such were illegal and unenforceable at law. When the banks debited your account like this they were committing theft and they’ve got away with it scot free.
It has now been well established that the actual cost to the banks of these transactions were less than £2 each when they were charging their customers up to £40 a time.
It must be truly astonishing to any right minded person that the OFT has backed down. Even in the last Supreme Court judgement the OFT was given a clear hint, more like an invitation, that it should revert to the Court on a different basis. So what possible reason can there be for abandoning the claim?
There can be no doubt that this decision is improper. I wonder why it was announced on 22nd December when the entire country was at the peak of its pre-Christmas mass hysteria?
Two Faced Coward
John Fingleton, the OFT’s chief executive, should resign immediately. He is either corrupt or weak. He certainly has no integrity because whatever pressure or bribery has been put upon him he should have fought to his last breath to stop this massive crime by the banker robbers.
We cannot rely on these paper tigers of consumer protection. We certainly cannot rely on government. It is doubtful that our self-serving, whipped and bullied MPs will do anything meaningful. It seems the only option now may be molotov cocktails through the door of every bank premises throughout the country. How else are we supposed to protect ourselves when we are so badly let down?
We live in an entirely monetised society. It is impossible to function without a bank account. Therefore, the banker robbers must be regulated virtually to death. Their policies and profits must be ruthlessly controlled. Their crimes must not be overlooked but punished severely with massive multi-billion pound fines for the institutions and long prison sentences for the responsible executives.
The Man On The Clapham Omnibus Is Watching…
…and he says “If you walk out of the supermarket with a bag of sugar it’s no good saying you’ll pay the money back. It’s too late”.
Why Are We Waiting?
What are they up to? The robbery has taken place, much of it caught on CCTV. They were called weeks ago. Are they just sitting on their backsides finishing their tea? Maybe their sluggish response is due to flat feet or learning difficulties? We, the victims, are still waiting. Meanwhile the crooks are desperately trying to cover up the evidence, even returning some of what they have stolen, cooking their books, arm twisting the judges, launching PR and propaganda campaigns to distort the truth.
Where Is He Hiding?
Where are the police? Are we back in the day when the village bobby cowtows to the local squire, tugs his forelock and turns a blind eye?
Perhaps they’re being held back by corrupt senior officers, or their lawyers are fiddling while Rome burns and they’re too scared to uphold the law?
Who Else Will Stand Up For Justice?
Each and every Chief Constable in the country should by now have launched an investigation into his or her local MPs. Sir Paul Stephenson of the Met, supposedly went into a meeting with the CPS about a fortnight ago. What the hell are they up to? There’s much more urgency when a hungry single mother steals food for her children from Sainsburys. The sirens blare out quickly enough then!
This is a disgraceful state of affairs and the police are letting us down. This must be more work for the Independent Police Complaints Commission or are we left with no option but to turn to Batman and Robin? Who else will stand up for justice?
Meanwhile, Mrs Patel is up before the beak in Harrow today under The Fraud Act 2006 for telling fibs about her address to get her child into a better school. See the story here
This is the state of justice in Britain today.
Jim Knight – The Scumbag Thief Of Dorset
So I learned today that my own MP, Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, has his snout in the trough too.
He is one of several MPs who have claimed and been paid for tax advice from Dennis Bates, ex-Inland Revenue employee and wife of Labour MP, Meg Munn. Mr Bates’ bill to Jim Knight explicitly stated “professional services in connection with your personal tax affairs”.
Scumbag Thief
No reasonable person can believe that claiming such an expense is legitimate. I have therefore written today to the Chief Constable of Dorset, Martin Baker, making a complaint of dishonesty. I take no pleasure in this. I regard it as my duty.
Jim Knight states on his own website on the subject of MPs expenses: “…more serious abuses must be referred to the police and action taken that matches any other employment and any other citizen…”
Let us see what happens.
Peter Reynolds 