Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Paedophiles Walk Free. Cannabis Farmers Go To Jail.

with 33 comments

Teesside Crown Court

Hall Of Shame

This is the state of Britain today.

CHILD SEX PERVERT 1 has 80,000 images of children.  See here.

CHILD SEX PERVERT 2 offers £100 for sex with underage child.  See here.

CHILD SEX PERVERT 3 sends obscene texts to child.  See here.

THREE CHILD SEX PERVERTS WALK FREE!

Christopher Olds grows £1,389 worth of cannabis.

He goes to jail for 15 months.  See here.

Every one of us should hang our heads in shame that this is the way justice is served in Britain!

Advertisements

Written by Peter Reynolds

April 14, 2011 at 9:33 pm

33 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. disgusting.

    Jordan

    April 14, 2011 at 10:09 pm

  2. In the judges words (from the article):

    “people who get involved in drugs are committing a very serious offence”

    If that hypocrisy, on several levels, doesn’t enrage any normal person, I don’t know what would.. Maybe we should let rapists go free and jail anyone working for Stella Artois…

    Jake

    April 14, 2011 at 10:39 pm

  3. Hello, Mr Reynolds using Daily Mail type tactics to make his point? What next:-)

    Richard

    April 14, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    • Yes, I know. Maybe they’ll make a complaint!

      Peter Reynolds

      April 14, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    • “1) CHILD SEX PERVERT 1 has 80,000 images of children”

      – Read the story and see how he was abused as a child. Feel empathy for his abusive childhood. Childhood does contribute. His childhood was out of his control, and does not make him a bad person. 79,839 of the ‘child abuse’ photos he had were level one. If you understand the COPINE scale, or even look it up on Wikipedia, you will see that ‘level 1 child pornography’ can include ‘Non-eroctic pictures of children in swimming costumes.’ They can be from FAMILY albums, and even from catalogues. If the SAP scale was used, the photos were still ‘non-erotic’. How can a guy use this as ‘evidence’, when all the guy basically had was photos of children in swimwear (which could include his family?).

      “- CHILD SEX PERVERT 2 offers £100 for sex with underage child”

      – 13 year old girl. There is nothing to suggest that this man was a paedophile, therefore Peter Reynolds used a false title and story to fit his agenda. Paedophilia refers to the attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT children. This means before puberty. Puberty occurring after age 13 is extremely uncommon, therefore he cannot be considered to be a paedophile without reasonable evidence (none shown).

      “-CHILD SEX PERVERT 3 sends obscene texts to child.”

      – Girl was 15. As previously stated, this man cannot be considered to be a paedophile. 15 is close to 16, which is the age of consent. The 15 your old girl had been through puberty. ‘Grooming’ is a buzz word used by the media to instantly stir up hysteria.

      Absolutely disgraceful article that is riddled with inaccuracies, and only exists to prop up the legalise cannabis debate. I am for legalising cannabis too, but you can’t use false arguments to back your claims up.

      Gina

      November 9, 2011 at 1:29 pm

      • are you joking? really? you just excused three people who abused children under the age of 16? why else would he have 8,000 images of children? The man offered £100 to sleep with a thirteen year old girl and you’re defending him? 15 is still under-age, if you are 15 you are still a child, the law is there for a reason. puberty does not end until you are 21 (on average). Our duty is to protect our children not the peadophiles who ruin lives. YOU are disgraceful and clearly have a fucked up state of mind if you think that it’s okay to be a grown adult trying to have sex with a 15 year old because they are “almost legal”. You need to get out in the real world. Maybe if you actually knew someone that had been abused as a child you’d understand and you’d also see that that is not an excuse for abusing children yourself. It really worries me that you seem to think that these guys have done nothing wrong because the children were in the middle of puberty ( let’s just point out right now that these are pubescent children, they have not finished puberty and are not adults). Any sexual attraction to a child is wrong whether they do something or not. your “oh it’s not that bad” attutude has truly sickened me. Anyone who commits any kind of sexual crime should be castrated.

        janet

        November 9, 2011 at 5:22 pm

      • Give me one “inaccuracy” that you say my article is “riddled with”!

        I don’t see anything to regret at all in what I’ve written and some very strange equivocation from you about what are clearly some serious sexual offences involving children. I think you’re making a grave error of judgment in seeking to excuse such behaviour.

        Peter Reynolds

        November 15, 2011 at 6:17 pm

  4. i think the judges in this country have completely lost touch with reality,jailing a man for growing a plant,a harmless beneficial shrub,a victimless crime and then freeing perverts who pray on the innocent,theres no telling how many lives these sick people have destroyed.shameful, totally and utterly shameful

    rhys jones

    April 14, 2011 at 11:16 pm

  5. Personnaly I’d say we’re the few that don’t need to hang our heads, it’s those that don’t see the injustice that need to do that! Starting with that prat that’s in charge.

    Dragon83uk

    April 14, 2011 at 11:31 pm

  6. Very daily mail peter! You’ve got a point though, sickening that cannabis prohibition forces our judges to choose between imprisoning paedophiles and people growing plants.

    Sometimes I think the world is broken! The enlightenment has been hijacked.

    Sam

    April 15, 2011 at 12:03 am

  7. For some reason, this story tripped of a chain of thoughts, which led to me wondering if, when cannabis prohibition is overturned, all the criminal records for something which is no longer a crime will remain in place. So I googled up on the last major imaginary crime to be repealed, namely ‘buggery’. And it turns out there are still people with pre-1967 criminal records for consensual gay sex.

    See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/15/buggery-criminal-record for instance.

    So can I make a suggestion that in the fight to repeal the laws that criminalise the use and production of cannabis, we have as an explicit demand that such repeal should be retrospective – i.e. all criminal records for consensual, non-violent cannabis offences be erased?

    David

    April 15, 2011 at 12:42 am

  8. This makes me so very angry.

    Many of the victims of those perverts will go on, in later life, to have enduring mental problems caused by the abuse. Many of them will choose to use cannabis to aleviate those problems, it is most effective in these situations.
    And then they are locked up for doing it.

    You call this justice David Cameron???????

    Dan

    April 15, 2011 at 5:42 am

  9. the drug war does not make this country a safe place to raise our children

    Rory

    April 15, 2011 at 8:14 am

    • The developments in Canada are looking very promising. If this goes the right way it will be a HUGE step in the right direction. I am now wondering that when more countries allow personal and medical use of cannabis than prohibit it, those of us living in the more backward nations will have a very good case to apply for government funding to emigrate to countries with a more enlightened outlook. Whilst I have no wish to emigrate, maybe the government would really have to look again at this matter if enough of us were demanding money so that we could re-settle and escape persecution?

      Dan

      April 15, 2011 at 11:57 am

  10. Says it all about the law in this bloody country today.

    Lee Gramson

    April 15, 2011 at 10:32 am

  11. this is disgusting , they should kill the man for his crime ……. as for the poor man growing i feel for this man ….

    HYPOCRITICAL BRITAIN FOR YOU

    the exploited

    April 15, 2011 at 10:50 am

  12. an other case of BACKWARD BRITAIN…and its not going to get any better under the torys.

    dave

    April 15, 2011 at 12:03 pm

  13. Justice is inJustice – there is JUST US!

    Dolores

    April 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm

  14. You really DO see ‘survival of the fittest’ (meaning ‘and f**k the rest’) when it comes to mental illness, don’t you? Those who have NEVER had any major challenge to their mental health often think because they haven’t had a privileged life, that they have managed to overcome obstacles, so why can’t those who get mentally ill, on their own? Then there’s the ones who will ‘help’, for a fee, a HIGH fee, not a minimum wage one. Then there’s those who point the finger at ALL criminals without seeing what right and wrong truly is (certainly not the law for sure). Instead if we all just gave a shit about each other and helped when we could, without any agendas, without having to be thanked, without doing it because the person is sexy, without doing it only because the person is a friend, without doing it because it’s cool to do it – but because it is RIGHT to do it and it is RIGHT to help society around you become and stay healthier. Since 1979 it seems we’re against all of that on a national level. F**CK THAT, F**K THATCHER, ********** and I’ll still help your doddery old arse across the road, but only because it helps the drivers not hit anything (wider society).

    I think therefore I am - mentally ill that is (hehe)

    April 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm

  15. A friend of mine was in this very courtroom for growing, and he received a two year suspended sentence, the judge waxing lyrical about cannabis induced violence!!! A few months later he got caught again (a long story involving his friend’s girlfriend spilling the beans after a fallout) and a different judge declined to invoke the sentence and gave him community service.

    Justice is a lottery.

    Nardo

    April 15, 2011 at 3:53 pm

  16. The main reason a cannabis grower gets a worse penalty than some paedophiles (see above) is that some courts have believed that making it easier (through production or whatever means) for children to get access to cannabis is a similar crime to paedophilia but even worse.

    Conflict of interest: even the courts receive their funding from a government which in turn receives $igarette tax money and is in bed with the tobacckgo “Industry” in innumerable ways (especially worldwide suppression of cannabis).

    One of the best possible Uses of cannabis could indeed be to give teenagers, who need to smoke something to be “cool” and immune to teasing and hazing in their tough urban school or neighborhood, SOMETHING ELSE to smoke instead of addictive nicotine tobacckgo.

    (Teenage addiction to nicotine can result in a lifelong pack-a-day habit costing the individual (and h/h family) GBP-100,000, not including another GBP-100,000 in the last decade or two for Lipitor $igarette Blood Pressure management and other heroic high-profit pHARMaceuticals. Today’s politicians have a stake in keeping that bizne$$ going.)

    So what do they do about cannabis, the ultimate nemesis which can exterminate the hot burning nicotine $igarette industry? Demonize it as DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN– like paedophilia but more so. Thus Protecting Children (PC) is promoted to ultimate “if all else fails” excuse for prohibiting cannabis (pc).

    Meanwhile, who is held to account for “mentoring” 200,000 British youngsters a year into getting addicted to nicotine $igarettes?

    tokedesigner

    April 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    • Why don’t we just try and stop kids smoking instead of giving them cannabis?

      Cockney Copper

      April 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm

      • It’s a valid point CC but not wholly realistic.

        I can still remember when I was a kid (just). My own are now two strapping lads of 24 and 21. When you tell a child not to do something, what’s its natural reaction?

        I don’t think you and I have to labour this point. What is needed is pragmatism. A regulated system that minimises harms. The most difficult point to get across to many people is that I seek MORE control than we have now. Prohibition is a big dumb fist. It means everything runs away and hides. It creates a situation in which prices rise, criminal markets emerge, they begin to use violence and human trafficking to seize and control their share. Product quality goes down, adulterants are used to maximise profit. Sometimes they are much more dangerous than the product itself. Anyone who gets into trouble can’t get help because they can’t admit what they’re doing. The more law enforcement resources are allocated, the more the price goes up, the more violence, the more adulteration, the more corruption …..look at Mexico.

        It’s a terrible spiral of destruction. That’s what prohibition creates.

        Peter Reynolds

        April 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm

      • This is a very well thought out reply, it shocks me to see people thinking that ending prohibition would encourage or increase drug use.

        Prohibition is the adult equivalent to your parents telling you “Don’t look in this cupboard” as a child, or more appropriately “This cupboard is bad, danger and death awaits he who opens it!”, despite the harsh imagery of the second comment, most kids would be too curious to resist and open it anyway. The same is true for drugs, simply being told they’re bad, forbidden and dangerous, leads people to try them. As you rightfully said they then have to hide this use, meaning if they move on to harder drugs, become addicted, or find themselves in a bad situation they have no-one to turn to but other drug users, possibly worsening their situation.

        If you look at the statistics, numbers of drug users (soft and hard) and numbers of hospitalisations and deaths relating to their use have dropped significantly in the countries where drug use has been decriminalised in one way or another. The fact is, if like me, you don’t want to see a country full of people abusing drugs left right and centre, decriminalisation is a must, and legalising and regulating drugs would serve as an even greater step to help curb addiction and overdoses, since addicts would not have to turn to the black market and could have access to safe measured doses in a clean medical environment.

        As far as the drugs themselves, I’ve seen alcohol do far more damage than even some of the most demonised drugs such as heroin or methamphetamine. I’m so very glad prohibition for alcohol ended a long time ago, or the statistics would be horrifying…

        Other musts:
        – Driving under the influence of any drug should be illegal (aside from prescribed stimulants, coffee, nicotine maybe?)
        – No drugs (including coffee!) for anyone under 18/21

        Learn from the past, we need to end prohibition, provide education and rehabilitation, and practise harm reduction so that those who’ll use drugs regardless can minimise the risks to themselves and others.

        Matt

        November 10, 2011 at 12:03 am

    • Why can’t you spell tobacco properly?

      Tom Taylor

      April 16, 2011 at 2:14 am

  17. I always enjoy your posts Peter.

    Lynn

    April 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm

  18. Bloody sham!

    Nick

    April 17, 2011 at 9:43 am

  19. wasnt it god himself who said”behold i have given you every herb bearing seed that is apon the face of this earth. a healing plant on both side of the river, which will bare friuts and leaves for healing the nations. i will take my rest and consider my dwelling place lika clear heat upon herbs. for when the bud is perfect and the sour ripening in the flower ,he shall cut with pruning hooks and cut down the branches” (Isaiah 18:4-5)

    weed wacker

    April 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm

  20. The judges let them go because most of the judges are pedophiles. What do expect in a private just-us system run by a private corporation called the BAR Association. Bring back the common law courts and see who goes to jail. No victim no crime. Our present day courts are run like the old churches. If you have enough money you can buy your way into heaven.

    Joe

    April 20, 2011 at 3:58 pm

  21. http://ts23.gazettelive.co.uk/local-news/former-teacher-of-billingham-s.html

    Heres another, Peter.Seems to be a reccuring thing. Annoying when these are the real criminals in our society, its just a shame they are targeting people who like plants instead. Mr Cameron however does not see things in the same light as us which we are all laughin at him for. The way our country is ran is perverse and with our efforts shal soon be corrected. They can’t hide the truth forever.

    Plant Man

    April 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm

  22. They are just protecting themselves, mps and judges are the sort that do that n abuse their authority. I get a sudden feeling of rage when i think about this subject. So much anger it scares me to think what i would do to people like that. And they are the ones that have a say on decent good peoples lives and how we live it. The uk government and justice system are basically no blatantly saying they would rather a paedophile than a person that has a puff on a joint.

    ricky

    November 9, 2011 at 1:33 pm

  23. its unbelievable.. i grew 30 plants and only got 6 weeks in jail. whats it all coming to……

    David Butterworth

    November 9, 2011 at 1:39 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: