I think a large part of it was frustration on his part: he persistently tried to make his point in the face of a man who was hectoring, lecturing and yeah, bullying him less than 18 inches from his face.

He never got a chance to make his point. That frustration I can identify with. Blogging is sometimes not dissimilar. When a valid point is made, instead of being addressed, the response can often as not, be to attack the writer.

Familiar, non?

Harry
I understand the points you make. Thanks.

Pot is cherno
Kettle is schwarz

is very funny

I’m not a Muslim basher, I love my Muslim wife, friends and neighbours very dearly, but I am not convinced by their religion – as I am not convinced by the Catholic church my mother belongs to but that doesn’t make me a Catholic basher – and I am not convinced by the soft soaping that Islam receives from the BBC and the Guardian (who granted precious column inches today to an out and out Islamic fascist, would they do that for the BNP?).

**Comrade Stalin** for the second time you have misquoted what you originally alleged about me, you can’t even quote yourself correctly so don’t bother asking me for my sources.

You originally asked me why I mention “liberals” in every post (now this is the first time I have used that word in all my many posts since long before you asked your question).

When challenged by me as to why you ask such a fatuous question you said you asked me why I blamed liberals for everything, wrong that is not what you asked and you know it.

Now you state incorrectly that you merely pointed out was that almost all my posts have a dig at the BBC, again not what you originally alleged. True I like to have a go at the sacred cows of the mainstream media, it’s a little bit of fun I like to indulge in but they are not remotely the subject of a majority of my posts unlike your obsessive stalking of my posts which is getting a little creepy, like our Scientology friends.

Stalin old buddy, if you want to criticise me, please do, I’m fair game, but do try to remember the allegations you make against me otherwise you just end up looking a bit silly.

Would you like to provide a link to the comment where I said that ?

I have on the other hand pointed out that almost all of your contributions invariably include a dig at the BBC. It’s not your criticism I’m observing, but your obsession with that organization. For christ’s sake, it’s not like it’s Pravda or Iskra back in the good old days.

Mick, I actually think the Panorama programme was dead on. Sweeney obviously lost control in a bad way at the end, but that is because he fell victim to the very mind manipulation techniques he was investigating. It’s pretty much impossible to do a balanced and impartial bit of reporting on that organization – they just won’t let you.

I watched the documentary and Scientology’s reply which is also on youtube. I also watched http://www.xenutv.com/originals/index.htm via youtube.

Scientology’s bullying tactics are scary. Doing a documentary on them is like doing one on the Provos. What is particularly scary is the cops and others giving them the green light. They are not a religion but a straightforward scam. The best scams get the mugs to play along. And before piping in with “all religions blah blah”, the nearest Irish equivalent are soft focus Provos.

If the BBC are cash strapped, they should have ocncentrated on England and not flown across the pond. The last Panorama thing I watched was on the football bungs. All smoke.

If so, it is empirically falsifiable as there have been numerous documentaries and indeed, series on this subject. These studied the militant violent Islamicist equivalent of the Scientologists, and who, like them, cut off young men from their families and girlfriends and indoctrinated so that they ended up believing they should kill themselves and in so doing destroy the lives of others. Scientology destroys lives as well.

Mick
There is indeed “something in what was said”. It’s naked anti-Muslim prejudice.

There is something in what you say. Stepping aside from the fact that in liberal democracy you expect the media to be founded on liberal principles, the problem I have with the approach taken on this occasion is that it involved using manipulative journalistic techniques to ‘out’ what clearly is a manipulative organisation.

I just wish journalists would have the confidence to tell a straight story and allow the rest of us to make our own minds up. As I’ve said on the CIF thread journalists (and bloggers for that matter) who allow them selves to become tied by the umbilicus to a single political interest or idea, are also the ones who most often have to coast in the face of embarrassing counter revelations.

A half hour slot, short production period and a tiny budget were the so far unspoken about constraints that helped turn this from what was potentially good journalism, into a ‘reality tv’ spectacle.

Pleb, I take your point, but it’s a sociological one. I’m more concerned with, dare I say it, the epistemological. Just because the ‘accepted’ religious structures are better behaved (and the historical good behavious of Islam and Christianity, for example, are very much up for discussion) the entities and cosmological facts they claim to believe in are, as far as I can see, just as bonkers as anything L Ron scribbled.

And respect for our fellow human beings doesn’t require that we suspend judgement on one another’s claims about the world.

The Bridge

Can you imagine Sweeney’s pitch to the commissioning editors at the BBC? (Comrade Stalin can stop reading at this point he hates it when I have a dig at the Beeb – a bloke calling himself Stalin thinks the BBC are an unimpeachable neutral news source, there’s a surprise eh?).

He’d stand up and say he wanted to conduct a no-holds barred investigation of a sinister worldwide religion, a religion which was rapidly converting many disaffected youths in Britain. He wanted to challenge their very belief system and their methods of conversion.

You can imagine a few of the blokes at the table beginning to feel uncomfortable and trying to avoid each other’s eye.

Sweeney goes further and says he’ll actually challenge the religion’s spokespeople on their own turf, heck he’ll even scream at them, he’s so unafraid of them.

By now the editors are blanching visibly, one of them is sweating profusely and barely able to breath.

Sweeney then says he’ll show these Scientologists up for what they really are.

The air of relief across the room is startling “Eh what? The scientologists, those American nutters? Thank fu-, I mean, oh yes John go for it mate, what’s your budget, one million? Hell, double it old chum, get stuck in there, show ‘em the Beeb isn’t afraid of anybody!”

Sweeney leaves the room, “Christ” they mutter, “that was a close one, nearly thought the mad loon was going to get us all killed there. Scientologists eh? Yeah, wow that was a close one!”

They didn’t give him much breathing space, which was their plan, to stifle and harass him.

good point – a lot of the criticism I’ve heard centred on why they didn’t go deeper – look at the money, look at the criminal actions by members etc The thing is this would be another programme entirely, something that isn’t gonna work in a panorama slot. That got me thinking though – when they decided to make this did they decide to go for the ‘Scientologists and Criticism’ angle at the beginning or did they stumbled into it after the Scientologists kept dishing up so much great material?
One good thing though is that, if anyone in the BBC (or elsewhere) has the balls there’s definitely an appetite out there for an in-depth critique of Scientology and its practices OR they could just put a Scientologist in Big Brother this year.

As I understand it, the ‘gonzo’ technique is about going deeper and longer, and coming up with penetrating journalism. Having said that, the time and the budget the Beeb give Panorama, it’s doubtful (as you say) that many could have gone much deeper.

I think you’re right, as I was thinking the exact same thing myself – that this was actually Louis Theroux or maybe John Ronson territory (ie ‘gonzo’ journalism, haha). It’s fine for them, but for a hard news show like Panorama, it really didn’t cut it. It was good, watchable TV, but not great journalism.

I feel that it didn’t really tell me anything other than that Scientology won’t take criticism lying down. The rest was all old news. You feel Sweeney only scratched the surface, and I think he could have followed the money trail a bit more, or used a different interview technique to elicit more information from believers.

A bit like last night’s Insight on UTV; lazy journalism. Nothing new, just taking an old topic and adding a ‘human interest’ angle to push the ratings.

Martin, if you were to go to an imam, a priest, a minister or a rabbi etc. and asked them, “What’s islam/christianity/judaisim all about?” They would tell you and probably at great length. With scientology, you apparently don’t even get to hear about Xenu and all that until you have spent thousands of pounds, you don’t know what you are getting into.

I think that that is one of the main differences between a “religion” and a “cult”.