Friday, May 4, 2012

Why Jason Pegler is a Rapist, and Why it Matters

I have been informed that Jason Pegler is well aware of this site, and I would invite him to offer his side of the story.

I am still of the opinion that Jason Pegler is a rapist. It seems very clear to me that Jason Pegler raped a girl while she was passed out in a locked room.

I do offer the chance for Jason to contact me - to leave a comment - and I will email him and we will have a discussion and I will post the unexpurgated version.

I have been accused of attacking a guy who can't speak back, and while I think this is a little disingenuous, I can see why people might find it easier to try and make those accusations stick.

Jason Pegler is a rapist according to his own biography and according to the law.


Jason - I know you are aware of my assessment of your actions as seen at If you would like to confront the issue instead of making vague legal threats, I would love to enter a dialogue with you, so that you can explain yourself, and to also let me explain to you why I believe you are a rapist.

I think that the longer you continue to let this confusion persist, the more damage you are doing to Chipmunka and the mental health community. Imagine the conflict a rape victim would feel if he/she read your words after trusting you with their most personal revelations.

Imagine their shock as they saw, in his own words, Jason Pegler saying "I forced myself on a girl. She was passed out drunk. I locked the door and then I started fucking her but her friends broke in and rescued her."

Imagine later in that book, as they read your words "don't think I've got it in me to become a rapist."

How the hell can you say that you have the best intentions when you can't even take responsibility for your own actions. It is the disavowal that makes this heinous, because it gives validation to every rapist who uses the excuse that 'it wasn't really rape,' and it takes away the validation of every rape victim's feelings, it tells every rape victim that rape isn't always rape.

If you think that somehow what you described really isn't rape, then come out and say why, Jason.

If you feel that you are not harming anyone with these double-standards, then come out and say why.

If you can somehow defend yourself against your own words that describe how you, Jason Pegler, CEO of Chipmunka Publishing, raped a young girl in a locked room, then I think you should, don't you?

I don't believe you can do either of these things, so I think you should do the only decent thing and admit that yes, you are a rapist.

Rape is a crime, for sure. You were young and you were messed up, and it is possible to rape someone without intending it to be rape, through drunkenness or ignorance. What is appalling in your case is that you rather graphically described how you raped a girl, and in the same book claimed not to be a rapist.

This is why I will continue to tell the world that Jason Pegler is a rapist. Because you have never had to face up to the fact yourself, and because your attitude helps other rapists and harms rape victims.

Admit, and apologize, Jason. Please, admit and apologize.

Update: I'll be including Google Books search results on my pages now to match the screenshots that I originally took. Hopefully this will prove beyond doubt that what I am saying is true:

Jason Pegler describes raping a girl
Jason Pegler claims raping that girl doesn't count as rape

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Chipmunka Solves The Copyright Issue!

We were at an impasse. Chipmunka thought they had a right to publish my letter, out of context and without my permission. I insisted they did not.

A helpful soul (the co-founder of chipmunka) suggested the following as an alternative: he would write a fake letter, which he would then claim was by the author's relative (me)!

He provided me with a sample he had knocked up himself:

"I am just sorry that I acted in a strange way to you. I am sorry that I left you feeling like you, like I disowned you. I had not realised the pain this caused. I am very sorry about my behaviour"

Aside from making it look like I am unable to write coherently, this did not reflect my feelings then or at any time before or since, and I certainly would not have written anything like this.

I tried to explain this, but Chipmunka felt that as my name had been changed, it didn't matter what they said. In fact, I was told that they could publish anything they liked and I would have no way to fight it:

"Basically the character doesnt have your name and as therefore it isn't you we could have this character say whetever we like, legally."

I guess if there were a 'character' rather than a thinly disguised version of me in an autobiography there would be no problem, because I am not a fictional character. Chipmunka's shaky grip on reality seems to extend to the existence of people they correspond with, unfortunately.

I did let them know (in a non-fictional way) that this was not acceptable.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Jason Pegler is a Rapist

UPDATE: Now available through Google Books, you can see the relevant passages for yourself without needing to rely on the screenshots taken here:

Jason Pegler describes raping a girl
Jason Pegler claims raping that girl doesn't count as rape
Thanks to Chipmunka for making Jason Pegler's autobiography, A Can of Madness, available free of charge.

Also, as requested by Chipmunka themselves, this post now comes with page numbers and screenshots of pages in case someone might think I made all this up.

Reading the book, painful as it may be, reveals some interesting things about the CEO of Chipmunka Publishing.

Let's start at page 21:

I also remember having an aching hard-on with several naked girls when I was 14 but they wouldn’t let me have sex with them – either because they didn’t want to get pregnant or because they didn’t want to be called slags. There again, I did manage to push it in to one of them but she wriggled off. In the event, I started fucking one who had passed out but she woke up barfing on my shoe.

Note: "they wouldn’t let me have sex with them," "I did manage to push it in to one of them but she wriggled off," and "I started fucking one who had passed out but she woke up."

UPDATE: In reviewing the text for Chipmunka, I found something I overlooked the first time, immediately following the text quoted above. "Her friends broke in and gave
her a bath to sober her up." Her friends broke in, past the door that Jason Pegler locked in order to rape a girl who was passed out drunk*.

Don't let this make you think that Jason Pegler is a bad person. He offers plenty of evidence to the contrary (Page 89):

I was not racist though. I was into rap and had a massive poster of Snoop Doggy Dogg holding a gun in my room.

This explains why he was involved in a fight that began after his friend shouted at a black girl, calling her an "afro," but not a racist. Jason Pegler had Snoop in his room, and even let him hold a gun while he posed for a promotional poster. He's clearly not racist. I bet some of his friends are even *gasp* black.

He has an excellent level of respect for women (Page 58):

I went to have a bath and, passing the unlocked door, saw a girl called Karen lying in it. She was demented and cried out my name so I left the room worried that the staff would come in and put me on a six month section. I didn’t want to be trapped for longer because of one incident and I was too shy and considerate to make a move on her.

Aww <3. He didn't "make a move" on a woman with sever mental problems because he was too shy and considerate. Also because he didn't want to get caught. From Page 179:

I would never hit a woman so I just walked off in a rage.

I expect he was waiting until the woman in question fell asleep. It's a lot easier then. Right, Jason?

Let's look at Page 85:

A few days later I started fucking this girl called Harriet. She was fat and, although her face was reasonable, I only went anywhere near her because I wanted to sleep with her friend, Shelly.

Some people would consider this appalling, but really, look again. Jason Pegler loves Shelly so goddamned much that he would sleep with someone he is not attracted to just to give himself the chance of sleeping with the girl he loves. That is textbook romance.

Some (unenlightened) women might be uncomfortable at spending time with Mr. Pegler, but he has a solution for that (Page 127):

I think I scared her a bit. I mean, she started shaking when I put my arm round her in the cinema. Anyway, I didn’t give a fuck really.

See, ladies? If Jason doesn't give a fuck, you can do what you like! He doesn't care. Awesome.

So what kind of person has all these qualities? Let's see what Jason thinks about himself (Page 41):

Was it that I cared too much about the human race and took it upon myself to endure the suffering of others? Was I hyperintelligent? Was I genetically inferior to others? The answer was probably a combination of all three.

I'd have to agree, based on the evidence. Jason Pegler cares too much about the human race. He is clearly hyperintelligent, and also genetically inferior to others. That makes sense.

Jason overcomes his genetic inferiority with martial arts training, and sighing (Page 128):

I remember the head of department, after I had told him that most of my script was autobiographical, saying: “I hope your life really wasn’t like that.” I brushed his remark off with a deep sigh and some extra tae kwon do training.

Hard. Core.

Jason also, probably through his hyperintelligence and deep love of humanity, is able to understand the suffering of others, as he demonstrates in this almost poetic phrase (Page 225):

I was as weak and as fragile as a little baby being raped by a paedophile.


So, how is Jason doing now? Let's see what he has to say (Page 109) :

Don’t think I’ve got the potential to become a rapist or a paedophile, but who knows?

Who knows?

"they wouldn’t let me have sex with them,"
"I did manage to push it in to one of them but she wriggled off,"
"I started fucking one who had passed out but she woke up."

You know, Jason. You don't have the potential to become a rapist. You already are a rapist*. And a terrible, terrible writer (Page 16) :

My mum was living round my Nan’s and they were going to get a divorce.

But mainly, you're a rapist*.

UPDATE: Apparently Jason Pegler has rape on the brain, according to this find where he asks for "talented rapers."

Thanks to Anonymous Submitter.

*According to Jason Pegler's Autobiography, a Can of Madness, where he describes how he raped a young girl in a locked bathroom.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Chipmunka :: Attitudes to Copyright #2 - All Your Copyright Are Belong To Us

I joined forces with another party who also had problems with the content of the book.

Ignoring for the moment the various untrue statements within the book, our problems were:

  1. The book contained scanned images of letters that each of us had written. We had not given permission for these letters to be used - we had not even been asked for permission, even though we were both easily contactable up to, and after, the book's publication.
  2. The book contained a number of photographs that I had taken, some of my fellow complainant. Apparently, the author had contacted my fellow complainant, who refused permission for the images to appear in the book. The person who should have been contacted in each case was the person who took the photographs, as the copyright owner of an image is the image creator - in the case of photographs, it is the person who took the photograph. In these cases, it was me.
It appeared that Chipmunka had no such mechanism in place for ensuring their publications did not fall foul of copyright law. Surely, if they had, they would have obtained a copyright release for each image and letter that appeared in the book. In fact, the only copyright mentioned in the book was that of the author.

Some of the images were of the author, taken from such an angle that it was extremely unlikely that the author took them, yet there were no image credits for any content in the whole book.

By publishing the book in this manner, Chipmunka were representing all content in the book as being the copyright of the author.

While I can perhaps understand that finding the copyright holder for an image might be hard, I still fail to see how something that has been written by someone else, and is clearly presented in context as being written by someone else, could be published by anybody with any understanding of copyright law without first obtaining permission for publication. That a company in the business of publishing books could do this is beyond belief.

Perhaps not so much beyond belief after I received this:
"Please find attached a very amended ebook. The names of all but
one person - the author. There is a disclaimer on page two

Once you have read it I hope your approve it for publication"
Chipmunka's solution to the copyright problem was to offer to change names in the book. This was staggering. Their solution to publishing a letter written by me was to claim that the letter was written by another, fictional person.

I had suggested earlier that if all material that I owned the copyright to was removed from the book, and the book was published under a pseudonym, that I would most likely be happy for the book to be published, as I would not be identifiable, and therefore the question of libel would not need to be brought up.

It seemed as though Chipmunka were hoping that I would feel that I could no longer be identified, because my name had been changed (even though the author's had not - and being mentioned as the author's relative in numerous places made the changing of my name a moot point), and that I would therefore not be concerned about either the representation of me in the book, or the use of my copyrighted material. This made me feel that I was dealing with a company who were not particularly used to dealing with issues of copyright, or libel, and it was going to be an uphill struggle to even make them understand what the problem was with what they were doing.

I was right.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Chipmunka :: Attitudes to Copyright #1 - How Do I Understood Copyright Law?

Following my initial complaint to Chipmunka, I received a message that the book had been withdrawn pending an investigation. The results of this investigation were slightly strange.

Chipmunka claimed in extremely garbled language that they had taken legal 'advise' and that there was no need to remove my letter from the book as apparently letters are 'technically published' as soon as they are sent, according to Chipmunka.

I say strange because a cursory search of the Internet cleared this up for me before I sent my first complaint - I wanted to be sure I was in the right here. I found this:

"The distinction between the owner and the copyright holder

"Especially with manuscripts and other unpublished sources, it is important to distinguish between the owner of the document and its copyright holder. The owner may be the copyright-holder, but very often is not. Ownership confers the right to remove, sell or even destroy unpublished materials, but it does not confer the rights covered by copyright law. A letter from Thomas Hardy to Queen Victoria, for example, may be in the ownership of the present Queen of England, but the Queen cannot publish the letter or even reproduce it on her Christmas cards, without the permission of the Hardy estate."
(Squirrel's emphasis)

I was told that even though Chipmunka did not need to remove the letter (as far as they were concerned), they would do me a huge favor by removing it anyway, provided I agreed not to complain about any other content in the book, ever, and that I agreed to do this within 24 hours.

I stalled, in order to review the book more completely. I didn't feel comfortable signing away my rights, especially as at this point I knew they were wrong. They might have happily placed another letter I had written in place of the one I asked to be removed, for example, and there would have been nothing I could do about it. I was not happy with this aggressive protection of Chipmunka's interests at the expense of my own. I sent a response explaining this, and was given 2 weeks to address my issues, which I did.

I found that there were also photographs in the book that I and others had taken (copyright of an image belongs to the image creator - the photographer in this case), and a number of untrue statements about myself and others. I put a full list together, and sent it back to Chipmunka.

During this time, the eBook had been withdrawn from sale. By 16th June, 2008 I had informed Chipmunka that the letter and photographs were infringing my copyright, and I let them know the full list of complaints would be with them by the end of that week. On 17th June, 2008, the book was back on sale again.

I asked why:
Is there any particular reason why the ebook is back on sale despite infringing on my copyright?"

And received the following excuse: the eBook department 'did not read their email.'

On 23rd June, I was told that Chipmunka would have a response to the issues with the book within a week. The response was... interesting. And the responses would continue to get more and more interesting as time went on.


Footnote: fans of Kay Jamison's Touched With Fire; Manic-Depressive Ilness and the Artistic Temperament may find the following page interesting: Chipmunka Foundation website (Google Cache) particularly the "Copyright 2008 Chipmunka Foundation" at the foot of the page. I have found the same list on the web in a number of places, most of which include a credit similar to this:

This list is taken from Kay Jamison's Touched With Fire; Manic-Depressive Ilness and the Artistic Temperament
In Appendix B: Writers, Artists, and Composers with Probable Cyclothymia, Major Depression, or Manic-Depressive Illness. "This is meant to be an illustrative rather than a comprehensive list; for systematic studies, see text. Most of the writers, composers, and artists are American, British, European, Irish, or Russian; all are deceased . . . Many if not most of these writers, artists, and composers had other major problems as well, such as medical illnesses, alcoholism or drug addiction, or exceptionally difficult life circumstances. They are listed here as having suffered from a mood disorder because their mood symptoms redated their other conditions, because the nature and course of their mood and behavior symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of an independently existing affective illness, and/or because their family histories of depression, manic-depressive illness, and suicide--coupled with their own symptoms--were sufficiently strong to warrant their inclusion.
In the Chipmunka page they give the following:

"Many of the greatest minds in history and many of the most successful people alive today have had depression and "mental health issues". You are not alone anymore. Read the list of people below. We would like to thank KPMG for doing this research for us."
(Squirrel's emphasis)

Apparently, KPMG neglected to mention their 'research' came from another source. Interestingly, the Chairman of the Board at Chipmunka is Paul Brandwood - 'Chief Operating Officer, Financial Sector Advisory, KPMG'.

The Chipmunka Foundation website now shows only a blank page. I guess they are watching. Hi, folks! Maybe they are updating the page to remove the uncredited material, or are adding the appropriate credits. We'll see. The page can still be viewed as it was in the Google cache link above.

The website is now displaying the uncredited material again.

Friday, October 17, 2008

First Post :: Back Story

In 2008, Chipmunka Publishing released an autobiography that contained copyright violations, and untrue and defamatory statements about a number of the people mentioned in its pages.

I contacted Chipmunka to tell them about these violations, and their initial response was good - the book was withdrawn from sale pending an investigation. From there, however, things got very strange indeed.

Chipmunka told me that they had consulted with a lawyer, and that my claims to copyright of something I had written were not valid. They insisted that by changing the names of people defamed in the book, there was no longer a need for accuracy in the descriptions of these people. This was untrue, as rudimentary research showed me.

Their responses became increasingly bizarre - at one point they suggested that a faked letter could be used in place of a copyrighted one, neatly substituting a copyright issue to one in which the book now claimed people had written things they had not, with the full knowledge (and more, as I found out) of the publishers.

We painfully thrashed out a solution that would allow the book to be published without copyright infringement or defamation, and were nearing a solution when the emails stopped coming. I had insisted that Chipmunka provide me with a copy of the book before it went on sale again, as the original content and subsequent effort to correct the text and protect my rights was distressing to me, and, I felt, best respected and avoided by Chipmunka. I don't think this was an unreasonable request, especially given the amount of work I put in to achieving a solution that would not involve lawyers.

In October 2008, I received an anonymous email from someone who identified themself as working for Chipmunka, with the news that the book was to be published again. This email contained a number of exchanges between the directors of Chipmunka and the author of the autobiography. These emails revealed that Chipmunka had a very different attitude to the one they displayed in their dealings with me. They also revealed that Chipmunka have, or have had, the same kinds of problems with at least five other books they either have published, or are attempting to publish. It is my hope that people involved with these other books will find this journal and share their stories.

Chipmunka claim to support those who suffer from mental health problems. In fact, as we shall see through an examination of their behaviour and behind-the-scenes exchanges, their attitude does more to reinforce delusional behaviour than provide a healthy forum and outlet for those who need that help.