[Mcqueen_]

Anybody see it? An interesting watch.

Can watch it online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm

Been a lot of talk about it all over the interweb. The Scientology guy turning up everywhere was a bit creepy. Didn't make them look good, by the same means the reporter clearly wasn't out to make them look good either.

The Scientology guys following the panorama reporter also made their own little film http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org

[Console]

I think it was a great interview and while it didn't make Scientology look great, I don't think it was particularly biased.

[Ballbag]

I have to agree with Console there, the scientology dude did his cult no favours at all. He looked dead like Tom Cruise too. The interviewer losing his rag like that was ace.

Way off topic here, Console, what do all the numbers and letters mean in your signature........ is it a song that can be played on a 1980s casio keyboard, the one where the keys were numbered and lettered?

[Console]

It's a hexadecimal representation of the 16 byte processing key used to encrypt HD-DVD's that the MPAA is trying (and failing) to censor. Happy?

[Yudster]

But of course we aren't geeks here at all.

[DemonHorse]

I have to agree with Console there, the scientology dude did his cult no favours at all. He looked dead like Tom Cruise too. The interviewer losing his rag like that was ace.

I was enjoying that bit, half expected him to do a John Prescott and just lamp him. That guy DID look like Tom Cruise until he took off the shades though...

As with almost every other religion ever devised, there are extremists, and I think that the idiots portrayed in that film were a good example, and hope they are not the typical Scientologists.

The film was not biased as such, but 'Tom' (I forget the guy's real name) only made it worse for himself by following the guy around and pestering him etc. Especially the speech about freedom of expression, which he was himself stifling in the presenter.

[MK Chris]

I've not seen it (I wanted to watch it but I was out, might watch it later, cheers McQueen) but weren't the guys they interviewed some of the leaders of Scientology? My point is if extremism is being exercised in the top ranks of it all, surely that makes the whole movement extreme. I could be wrong, like I said I've not watched it yet.

[DemonHorse]

I've not seen it (I wanted to watch it but I was out, might watch it later, cheers McQueen) but weren't the guys they interviewed some of the leaders of Scientology? My point is if extremism is being exercised in the top ranks of it all, surely that makes the whole movement extreme.

Good point. Not sure whether they were higher ups within the whole 'religion' (i use the term very loosely), or whether they were just leaders within their area/community and not truly representative of the whole religion (ala Abu Hanza).

[Mcqueen_]

I think the guy was high up. He seemed to have to power to grant access anywhere and get access to the celebrities.

The Scientology guy tried to say it was biased, which is ironic seeing as on their terms the BBC couldn't say cult or talk to any critics. I think he knew from the start how it was going to go and steered it in a direction which they could interpret their own way, hence why the filmed it from the beginning.

Scientology will never be take seriously unless they become transparent. But then it they do that no one will pay to join. Catch-22.

In comparison the 'fags family' look quite harmless now? Maybe Louis Theroux should have been the journalist here.

[MK Chris]

I think Louis Theroux would have been an ideal choice for a program on Scientology actually.

[The Dude]

Oooo, be careful what you say guys. They might consider you 'fair-game'

For the record, it seemed to me from watching this that Tommy Davis was liking the sound of his own voice far too much. Sweeney couldn't get a word in edgeways, and when he was eventually allowed to, Tommy Davis took his ball home like a spoiled brat.

Not the most endearing advertisement for Scientology, but then again it was extremely unprofessional for Mr Sweeney to lose his rag like that. Still, I have to say I'd have probably done the same thing.

[DemonHorse]

I just watched this again, and here are some more thoughts.

IF this was a bad representation of Scientology, it's only because Tommy Davis MADE it that. John Sweeney never actually says its a cult, he says SOME VIEW IT AS A CULT.
Tommy Davis made this a bad representation of Scientology with his actions and reactions, and then wonders why the reporter goes off for other sources?

and Dude, i definately agree that against that guy, I would also have lost my rag too... difference is I wouldda planned ahead having had the warning and taken a gun.

[Johnny 1989]

Did anyone else noticed that the celebs gave a worried look over to Tommy Davis if a question asked by John Sweeney was deemed by him as "anti-scientologist", as if he has a great power over them.

He is the leader of this "religion" afterall

[fish heads]

That documentary the scientologists have done in reply is very laughable. They complain of a bias documenatary that doesn't show both sides, yet so does theirs. The talking heads on the reply is the best - they never once mention Sweeny, Panorama, Scientology, or the programme specifically, which makes you wonder what they have been asked to talk about and if they realise what it has been used for

[DemonHorse]

That documentary the scientologists have done in reply is very laughable. They complain of a bias documenatary that doesn't show both sides, yet so does theirs. The talking heads on the reply is the best - they never once mention Sweeny, Panorama, Scientology, or the programme specifically, which makes you wonder what they have been asked to talk about and if they realise what it has been used for

Yeah.... convenient how EVERY reply video from Scientologists about this has had comments disabled too... some people obviously can't handle opinions that aren't their own

[kendra k]

you guys should watch out. the church of scientology is very protective about stuff. i blogged about them once two years ago, and they still keep tabs on my blog. they love to sue for libel.

[Yudster]

Its a cult. Sue me.

[Console]

Just make sure to say 'In my opinion' or 'alledgidly', you should be fine then.

[Yudster]

No, its a cult. Sue me.

[DemonHorse]

The Tom-Cruise-wannabe can try, lol. I think most statements here can be proven to NOT be libelous.

[Yudster]

Don't care if they can or can't. Its a cult. Sue me.

[Johnny 1989]

They get so over protective (allegedly) , doesn't matter what people say about the C of E or Catholics though does it!

Actually I'm not religious so I couldn't give a toss to be honest

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

I quite like the thought of some Scientologists coming on here and joining in conversations about poo and curry.

Just make sure to say 'In my opinion' or 'alledgidly', you should be fine then.

even if you spell it wrong?

[Console]

Yes, the stupid this about that is that I checked the spelling twice, I must have messed something up, still if you spell stuff incorrectly you can claim to were trying to write something else and that it isn't libelous.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

the stupid this about that?

word have with a yourself.