Scientology and TV: not friendly

It's a controversial subject so we'll watch our step, but here's something we're willing to put our names to: maybe Scientology and television just don't mix.

Tonight Panorama is showing an investigation of the Church of Scientology and the programme has attracted some unattractive publicity in the form of the BBC reporter, John Sweeney, completely losing it in the face of a spokesman for the organisation. "No, no, stop there Tommy! You listen to me," he fairly screams. "YOU WERE NOT THERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERVIEW," and so on for really a surprisingly long time.

It's loud, screechy and here. Sweeney has apologised, saying: “It was a stupid thing to do. I apologised almost immediately. It was wrong, and I’m sorry. I’ve been hauled over the coals by the BBC. In mitigation, it was my seventh day with Scientologists and I defy anyone to spend that long with them and not feel brainwashed.”

We're not going to take Sweeney's offer but a bit of casual reminiscing suggests to us that maybe there is an underlying tension between the religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard, "a professional in dozens of fields", in 1950, and the cathode ray tube. We remember Tom Cruise's promotional work for The War of the Worlds and his provocative discussions of scientology: "Look, you know the history of psychiatry, I do". See it here.

We also noticed this recent unfortunate slip by Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate for the US presidency whose Mormon faith was already slightly alarming to some secular voters. Asked what his favourite novel was, Mr Romney didn't win over any doubters by going unerringly for Ron Hubbard's sci-fi epic Battlefield Earth. His favourite novel. Obviously didn't care for Middlemarch.

Which brings us to, well, Battlefield Earth, John Travolta's film of the same name, same story and same Scientology. We've only seen the first half an hour so we couldn't comment on the whole thing but this bit of dialogue (Travolta is Terl. We have no idea what is happening. Everyone has big hair, as above) might help set the scene:

Terl: It is a pleasure to see you, your excellency, and I would be honored to expedite your clearance through security.
Zete: Please, call me Zete. Does all of Earth look like this?
Terl: Oh, I'm afraid so, sir.
Zete: Pathetic. All the green and the blue sky. They told me this planet was ugly, but this has got to be one of the ugliest crap holes in the entire universe.
Terl: I couldn't agree with you more.
Zete: I hate these puny undersized planets. The gravity is so... different.
Terl: Well, one does get used to it.

But here, we like to think is the smoking gun. We nosed around the website of the Church of Scientology, absorbing its teachings — "The reactive mind is of no benefit to the individual and is a source of irrationality, fears and nightmares" — and learned about the Kim Jong-Il-esque life of Ron Hubbard — "Not only could he ride horses at the age of three and a half, but was soon able to rope and break broncos with the best of them" — and came across this page about television.

And here it is, under the heading "A Technology to Increase Comprehension", we see that Ron Hubbard became worried that people were not adequately understanding words, yes words. And part of the problem was TV. Over to the Scientologists: "He noticed that the public was more and more dependent upon radio, motion pictures and television, all of which contain the spoken word, and he considered the possibility that these messages were not being fully received or understood."

His alarming conclusion: "Such a gross level of noncomprehension can generate antipathy and even aggression among viewers." Antipathy and aggression. Maybe he knew us better than we think.

Comments

[eric campbell]

Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Well, I mean, what does anyone want to know about Scientology apart from that.Anything those two brainless, prancing pseuds support must be a joke.

[Jan]

Everyone who's ever had some involvement with them has their own story. Everyone who keeps his sanity and doesn't swallow their line whole screams at them. This guy is only the latest in a long line of them.

Ron Hubbard was a drunk and a drug addict. He liked his bourbon and something he called "pinks and grays." From the way he raves in lectures it sounds like he stayed hopped up on amphetamines.

[Amy]

Yes, Scientology does use a great deal of intimidation. They have to, they have nothing else besides what they glean from not-so-secret e-meter sessions. They save that stuff to use against you if do try to leave them. Yes, they tell members to disconnect from their family if the they are trying to get member out.

They also have a special Scientology buildings, The Manor for one, they show to the rich and famous and a different one they show the average joe. That's why Tom Cruise has another view of it, they're pampering him because he's a star. Get a star sold on Scientology, L Ron once said, and you get free advertising and validation. Tom doesn't see the roaches in the dining room or the horrendous sleeping arrangements for ordinary Scientolgists.

Here's another gem from L. Ron, how to make a lot of money? Become a religion.

Don't think they're a cult, then you join and try to leave. Go ahead. Good luck keeping your money too. That's all they really want anyways.

[Alex H]

The Panorama documentary was certainly thought provoking. On first appearances, John Sweeney's outburst would appear perfectly justified. The representative from the Church of Scientology expressed behaviour which could be viewed as harrassment, and his intention of slandering the name of any interviewees against scientology was suspicious...
However upon viewing the above posted link, John Sweeney's conduct appears somewhat less professional than the BBC would have us believe. He did indeed break the code of conduct regarding interviews and fair journalism, and the result I fear is that the Panorama documentary is to some degree, discredited.
However, the afore mentioned video was made by and published by scientologists... how trustworthy is it. I believe John Sweeney began the investigation with his opinions already set - the program was more about confirming his opinions than forming them. And so we are left with two pieces of propaganda, of which the reliability of either can is questionable, and we arrive back where we started, with no new, conclusive evidence supporting either side of the argument.
I will say, however, that had the investigation been regarding another, more "major" religion, i.e. Judaism or Catholicism, I doubt the reporter would have been subjected to the tactics, for want of a better word, employed the the Scientology representative. I furthermore do not believe that either of the aforementioned religions would have set about discrediting the name of an opposer in the process of him being interviewed...
On that basis, the Church of Scientology acted very suspiciously - what are they hiding?
At the end of the day, reporters are as human as the rest of us - perhaps Sweeney's outburst was staged in an attempt to demonstrate what the Scientology representative had driven him to. Or maybe he simply lost his temper. Who are we to blame?

[F. Brewster]

It's a pity Sweeney lost his composure, he was winning. We could see the fraudulent way this scientologist was reacting, he demeanour was extremely aggressive. Barely allowing any reasoned counter argument. He even encouraged his own cameramen to film in a very provocative manner, almost pushing the lenses into people faces.

BBC's ‘Panorama’ team need to be assertive, when reporting these sorts of exposes, but over and time they’ve so far been judged as fair and ultimately always behaved even handily in their reporting.

Maybe psychiatry and the fact that it all too often allows the use of certain drugs to be prescribed, is an issue for which it will undoubtedly have to answer in the fullness of time.

But I’m sure this cult should not be allowed to become the all seeing and all hearing voice of assumed authority, to be allowed to sit in judgement against the ethics of the psychiatric profession.

Scientology, its celebrity sponsors and it’s abhorrence to being called a cult weakened their case by the suspicious methods they adopted to fend off open reporting; such threatening behaviour does not win over public opinion, especially where it divides and separates families in such an apparent vitriolic manner.

[Dave]

If Scientology had anything to fear, why were they constantly following the journalist? It was scary... Not the sort of thing you would associate with a "religion".
To be honest it all looked rather sad, and does look like a cult. It was interesting viewing, and frankly the fact the BBC guy did not spark the guy from Scientology out, shows restraint.
Wont be signing up anytime soon and I don't think many Brits will be either. Looks like me to be an expensive club for celebs and the wealthy.

[Trav]

I am astounded at the number of scientologists posting comments in an attempted continuation of their fair game policy. Your comments are so pathetically transparent I cannot belive anyone takes you seriously. All this negative propaganda you are espousing in these comments, just proves the point the documentry was making. I am appauled by your behaviour. All the halmarks of cultist brainwashing.

[WillyT]

The behaviour of the Scientologists probably echo the behaviour of the Christian cult developing some 2000 years ago. Look what we have now? Perhaps in the next 2000 years Scientology with look something like the Christian modern cult we are burdened with now.

[Duncan]

I for one can see nothing wrong with what Sweeney did. The shouting that he did was distinctly non-aggressive (as can be confirmed by anyone with ears to hear who views the footage) but was simply the raising of his voice to an absurd degree to avoid being spoken over by the scientology-PR man. There's nothing for John to be ashamed for; if anything it is the BBC who ought to be ashamed for reprimanding him.

As for Hubbard's concerns about comprehension; his knowledge of psycholinguistics is a match for his knowledge of modern abnormal psychology. Here's a tip folks; if something uses scientific terminology outside its natural context - 'technology', 'fields', 'magnetic', 'quantum physics', 'force' - it's humbug.

[Alistair]

Full marks to John Sweeney. What a creepy bunch he had to investigate. Scientology can not be called a religion.....

[Laurence]

I was shocked by the apparent intransigence of some of the comments to this blog entry.

I would suggest that some of those responding perhaps try some independent research of what Scientology is before spouting their ill-informed opinions.

Any cult, and yes it is a cult, that feels justified to starve its members to death for wanting to leave is not a mere curiosity but a serious issue that the public needs to be aware of - save more people will be lost to this mindless cause.

I suggest starting with the "Operation Clambake" site, which can be found with a simple web search.

In regards to the documentary, I think Sweeney did an admirable job and I dare any of those criticising him to "walk a mile in his shoes". I tell you, if they started talking about the holocaust like that you can be sure I'd be angry, damn angry, too.

[andy]

the only people who found this documentary objectionable are the brainwashed scientologists.only they would be blind enough to faal for that stupid propaganda video that the 'church' has released to counter the bbc documentary.most people who received the scientology video find it laughable.unfortunately,people who are indoctrinated into the cult lose sight of the real world(the 'wog' world as they call it).and im sorry they don't like the word 'cult',but that's what it is.
they had a great opportunity to contribute to a balanced view of their 'church' but they blew it.send tommy davis to the RPF immediately!!

[Allan]

Bush should have a shock and awe campaign against the scientology terrorists in his midst.

[Allan]

If a USA court says Scientology is a religion then it is clearly a cult.

[Jay]

1. No one in Scientology actually believes in Xenu, at least not in the higher or 'clearer' ranks. Back in the day it was one of the criteria required for the establishment/granting of 'religion/religious' tax-break status. A creation story. Every religion has one. (See Joseph Campbell perhaps.) Hubbard is a fiction writer, so he came up with one. Check this next sentence carefully, anyone who believes that anyone believes in the Xenu story is laughed at. (sic) Inside and out. That'll cost you 300,000 pounds. (It's for the plebs so to speak.)

2. The yelling/screaming/antagonizing button-pushing behaviour is a well-documented *technique* in dianetic/scientological (and other) circles. Part of the 'clearing' process. People usually have to pay for that (which may be hard to believe for some). It's how auditors uncover your hotspots so you can address them (and they no longer have power over you). Most people in the org are probably waiting for a Thank You, and here most people are thinking they should be offering an apology. Too funny.

3. But if you really want to talk about cults... How many deaths is Scientology related to or responsible for? (Let that be x.) Okay, now how many deaths is the British empire responsible for? How about slavery? What about brainwashing, thought-control, propaganda, land, property, movement, and economic/currency control? It's two-thousand and seven (2007) and the UK still has a queen. A QUEEN! It also has a huge military, police force/'service', information dissemination/broadcasting divisions (radio, film, television), et cetera. Talk to some of the *billions* of human beings who have been negatively impacted and influenced by the Brits and find out what their definition of 'cult' is. When you're on the wrong side of all those guns, it tends to be a little different. All families are cults, all countries are cults, all religions are cults too. Heck, all companies and organizations have cultish leanings as well. The righteousness doesn't quite work without a huge hand washing. The beauty of business and the 'pay-as-you-go' model is... if you don't want it, don't buy it. I believe Branson is using the same model for Virgin mobile, no? They're not hurting for cash and you're under no obligations.

P.S. though, you're as creepy to them as they are to you. They consider most governmental arms and elements (like the MIs and the BBC) enormously funded and very invasive spy organizations just like the BBC considers them. One writ small, one writ large. The BBC is just better at it and flys the banner of 'journalism' hurling the labels of 'fanaticism' but bearing the backlash of 'sensationalism'. Shakespeare, Orwell, Blake, and many many others all had similar things to say about words and the power of them. Some pretty heavy-hitters to be thumbing ones nose at I'd say. (If anything, Hubbard was a consummate rip-off artist, and by that I mean he took much of the best of his predecessors and wrapped it in his own cloth. Synthesis... Science. Scientology.) Standing on the shoulders of giants. Some good, some sane, some, well, whatever you want to call it. Interesting nonetheless though right? We did pay for it by way of BBC and tax dollars after all...

[rah]

I can fully understand John S.'s standpoint, i mean the poor guy was stalked every day!
Like every other cult, it preys on the weak-minded, the fun part about this one is how, by focusing on stars, it got all this publicity...
There is only one way to prove the mathematical infinite: Human stupidy.

And by god, scientology has to be a prime example, no wonder room temperature IQ Tom Cruise is a member...

[Desmond Persaud]

What never ceases to amaze me is that, even in this sceptical and scientific age, there are still some credulous fools who maintain - despite all evidence to the contrary - the pious fairy-tale of the impartiality of the BBC. In the face of such bizarre credulity, even the wackiest of scientology's doctrines seem quite sensible.

[darren gill]

Why are we so facinated by scientology its just simply one group of people exploiting another group of people.As is the unfortunate way of the world. However, the the people doing the exploiting cannot imagine themselves in another life. Tom Cruise may be using Scientology to promote himself or in the case of Tommy to find gainful employment but they are also trapped in a story that they support because they can't find a way out themselves. Scientology is a self perpetuating load of rubbish like many cults and religions (which in fact are the same thing)

[FreshAir]

As an editor and journalist, I am beyond thrilled that a dishonest reporter like Sweeney has been exposed. It should happen more often.

To see film of the unprofessional tricks that BBC and Sweeney pulled during the making of the BBC coverage, go here:

http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/

He discolors the reputation of true reporters everywhere.

[Elizabeth]

My mother, my self, my family, my children have been Scientologists all our lives. I've helped friends and many others to get over the various barriers that life presents to be more successful, have a better relationship, and understand spirituality. Scientology religious technology WORKS and that's why Scientologists fight hard to protect their religion. Always have, always will. Don't make decisions based on RUMOR, just READ the books of L. Ron Hubbard and make up your own mind.

[Jonathan Anthony]

What was particularly sad about this programme was how it underlined the depths to which Panorama has sunk since it tried to turn itself into Tonight with Trevor McDonald.

The subject matter so clearly lent itself to the Louis Theroux school of 'give 'em enough rope' reportage, rather than that of the buccaneering Sweeney.

Footage of the 'Church's' Tommy Davis barging into an interview with a rap sheet rubbishing the interviewee was all one needed to see. Credible, benign, responsible organisations just do not behave like this. And the rest of us know that.

We all know Scientology is a creepy cult, but is it dangerous? Clearly it has the potential of being so, what with schemes like Narcon, aggressive celebrity endorsement, its views on psychiatry, its effects on families, and the likes of Tommy Davis.

[Chris Forbes]

I have nothing but the upmost respect for John Sweeny, and the BBC on how they handled that documentry.

It was fair and biased however the actions of scientology portrayed themselves in a very bad light.

Mr Sweeny was well withing his right for what he did, the "religion" had been following him for days, spying, and inturupting his interviews any other man would have lost it long before.

I belive that people have every right to belive in what the want to, whether that is God, Mohammed, Budda, Vampires, The Devil or Xenu, however when a "religion" goes to brainwashing, extorting money, and doing many things that are immoral and wrong, somthing needs to be done.

In the words on L Ron Hubbard "If you want to make money, start a religion"

[James Cook]

The BBC would have been much wiser to have approached the scientologists slyly.

Step forward: Louis Theroux.

[DCoates]

LRHubbard himself said that to get rich start a religion.
All religions are manipulative and devisive to control the many by a few at the top for money and power.
History proves it look how many have died in the name of religion.
The Catholic church is a good example and the Church of England the Hindus Moslems etc long before Mormons and Scientologists.
Tax free charity status is one reason to start a religion. All religions are to be investigated or ignored just do not waste my license fee on idiots!

[Michael Grimshaw]

Can you please forward this to Mohamed Al Fayed as my attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful. I have information that will move you closer to solving the murder of your kind son and our beautiful lady. Please dont treat this as ahoax as i am also muslim and would not deceive you especially with matters so close to your heart. I dont expect to receive a reply by E-mail so include contact details. Appreciate that i am tking great personal risk contacting you electronically.
Ph# (09)8173454 Auckland. NZ.
Mob# 0275817345

[SC]

Who knows what really happened however I sided more for John Sweeney than Scientology. But I couldn't help thinking what would happen if you weren't a journalist from the BBC, just a individual in conflict with scientology. That is one scary organisation. I wouldn't want to be in conflict with them. Even looking at the some of the comments posted on this site (and at the New York Times site concerning this incident) suggests they got a great PR department too!

[fintan]

if you want to see a truly biased documentary check out scientology's response to the panorama show- ://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watch-the-video-documentary.php
it's actually quite funny at how blatant their fiddling with footage is.

[Steve]

Just read the book (freely-available online) "Bare-faced Messiah" if you need a deeper look into the origins of this, um, "religion."

[MH]

Thanks to Panorama for this programme. Scientology and other cultlike organisations rely heavily on never having a strong light shone on them and never being actively questioned by people cynical of their ideas. After leaving such groups it can be difficult for survivors to speak safely about their experiences, so we the public do not hear their stories. The fact that the crew were not even left alone in the toilet without being harangued says a lot.

[Arthur Ponsonby]

The fact that Tom Cruise is a member of this cult is enough to turn me off it.

[Pearl B]

Try living near to the Scientology headquarters at Saint Hill near East Grinstead, thats where the BBC should poke their camera's, over the wall. But I guess the POLICE WOULD SOON BE CALLED,to move people on.Ask them whats inside their large airmail bags arriving at airports from the USA...Cheques, donations large and small from crazy Amaricans who don't know better......Why these celebs get involved, why they have lots of money to donate..what fools

[Frank]

I think John Sweeney deserves a Knighthood for Patience.

His documentary was well put together, not biased and well grounded in terms of investigation. It exposed Scientology as a masonic and sinister cult that has some of the most objectionable views and moral stances I have ever come across.

To even begin to think of Scientology as a religion would be an utter disgrace to true religions such as the Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other faiths.

Well done to the BBC - don't blame yourselves if a bit of emotion became woven in to the reporting.

[Katie]

2 contacts for me with Scientology - 1 when they continued to take money for the "improvement of his mind" over a long period from a young homeless guy I worked with as i watched him go down into drink and drugs without lifting an actual finger to help him. 2 when they sued a student friend of mine for "revealing their secrets" on the internet. This documentary hasn't done anything to improve my opinion of them.

[Xenu]

Watch out Sweeney, or I'll have to travel millions of light years to come to Earth and explode you in a volcano with a hydrogen bomb. Rah!

[EM]

The response video put up by the Scientologists is very slick. It just seems like a place were a person's piety is directly proportional to their Hollywood appeal. I only see them brain washed in the same way Wall Street workers are brain washed by money. The reporting does SEEM appalling if you beleive Scientologists do no evil, but the question in the end is, do they do evil, even just a smidgeon? Who is to say? Could we get an impartial audit on the matter? Are the Scientologists, like any company, trying to grow, trying to assert themselves, but are they taking advantage of people's desire to belong to a sexy group of Holywood stars simply make the leaders, including those stars, richer? Do they get audited for their methods in an impartial way? No, they get public audit, by an angry man at the BBC who wants to say "we all want to be happpy, but not under soma, thank you very much." Would the FSAs of the world take over the reigns please, and find out if the Scienlogist have some objective worth as a religion, and if not make it clear why and let it become a line in the sand?

[C. O. Blau]

This is a specific example of a more general question:

Just how much can the mainstream accommodate groups that are opposed to the mainstream --eg various religious groups, Islamists, homosexuals, and so on; it's a very long list.

Point is, quite a few of these groups that make big demands are quite parasitic on the mainstream.

Or at least, these "specials" will not acknowledge the truth of the sources of the abundance of their existence.

Let us fairly and empirically remember:

-no heterosexuals, no homosexuals;

-no non-Muslims, no science, no technology, no freedom for the individual in democratic forms, etc.

As more and more parasitic and/or non-grateful "specials" make demands for their rights to be different, and live their lives counter to wealth-creating norms and systems, those of us who produce the goodies, and consent to the restrictions necessarily imposed by abundant tribal life, will get more and more resentful, and maybe do something about the silliness of it all.

It has happened before, and quite a few people got killed, if you know what I mean.

[wilma]

Not surprised that John Sweeney had an outburst. The "church of scientology" moved into the building that housed my piano school during the 1970s, and the teachers warned us to stay away from them offering "personality assessments" to children. After a while, all of the teachers were convinced that the scientologists, who now owned the building, were trying to mess with their heads, so to speak. And, they often found themselves extremely short-tempered after even brief encounters with the scientologists.

[Sarbo Sen]

As an Indian, I live in a country with all manner of religions. But what the eff is Scientology? As Hindu-born, I admire Buddhism. Walk the middle path, man, fuggedabout reading God's mind and get on with your life.

[Lee]

If one watched the programme from the start then John Sweeney's outburst seems frankly reasonable. 99% of the population of this isle would have reacted with violence if subjected to the kind of harrassment he and his colleagues had to put up with. It's also good to note that the comments on the original YouTube footage, posted before the programme had aired, have swung from majority criticism of John Sweeney and the BBC to majority support since the programme aired. As for the Scientologists... silly cults.

[mike b]

freaks 5
bbc nil

Oh dear, looks like our chap was successfully programmed to screw up
by the weirdos in shades. Wasn't much of a documentary anyway.

[Carter]

All you people decrying cults. I think you should shut the hell up. There is freedom of thought, association and whatever. When you get rid of it, and then evangelism, and then Mormonism, where will it end? Will it end when the whole world is reduced to a mono-system of belief?

[Charlie Fish]

The behaviour of the Scientologists in last night's documentary was utterly terrifying.

Although the poor TV presenter's outburst was entirely understandable given the circumstances, there's no denying that it damaged the reputability of the entire documentary - the Scientologists, sadly, won.

I'm sure there are many people who feel that their life is positively influenced by subscribing to Scientology, but their open intimidation tactics shown in last night's documentary were clearly wrong and unacceptable. Let alone the stories about "disconnecting" family members - a hugely immoral practice if it's true.

In summary, although the documentary was rubbish (too-successfully hampered by the Scientologists' manipulations), it showed me enough for me to decide that Scientology is a monumentally selfish and dangerous cause.

[DS]

Full marks John Sweeney for not punching the Scientology freak out altogether, I saw the whole program and was amazed at the self restraint he and his crew showed. These Scientology wallahs must be scared stiff of something, popping up all over the place and very confrontational towards the BBC crew. It is a real shame that so many talented people have been taken over by this CULT.. yes CULT.
Great stuff John, you really put the wind up them for some reason.

[Ellen]

Sweeney cannot be excused by his subject matter. I've never seen anyone, let alone a BBC "journalist", scream and shout at another person in the way Sweeney did - makes him look like a complete idiot and calls the professionalism of BBC journalists [further] into question.

[Philip]

Did any of the people attacking John Sweeney actually watch the show? He was subject to constant harrassment and badgering by Scientology members culminating in a concerted psychological barragement lasting over an hour. He lost his temper as a reaction to obvious attempts to break his mind. Scientology is a pathetic, evil cult and I am proud that Britain refused to indulge it by calling it a religion.

[JH]

Whilst the BBC is often biased in it's reporting I think any sane person has to side with them this time - scientology is a cult - there said it! I now expect to be hunted down and exposed as a Nazi, baby-eating transexual with antlers by Tom Cruise followers carrying bottles of ketchup.

These nutters should be exposed for what they are, just like evangellical's should - completely insane and dangerous to society.

[John]

I’ll be honest enough to say I don’t know enough about Scientology to give an honest opinion but I did find this BBC programme extremely biased-one sided and I wasn’t surprised because it’s the BBC. They know they can do whatever they like and have the TV Licence to back themselves up each time. I suggest those reading this check out the Scientology video which will show you the dirty tricks used by the BBC in the making of that programme (that includes the editors)

http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watch-the-video-documentary.php

[Richard]

A BBC journalist loses it while a Scientologist maintains his dignity and you somehow think this proves that the latter has issues. You then completely miss the irony of quoting, "The reactive mind is of no benefit to the individual ..." as if it had no relevance to the previous situation.

[Michele]

I have watched the film Battlefield Earth and I rather enjoyed it. It was fun and rather reminiscent of Buck Rogers type films.

I also watched the Panorama program. Six of one and 3 dozen of the other I would say.

The tv presenter was doing a great deal of poking a tiger with a stick. The tiger in question was a particularly large sleek vicious one with long claws and sharp teeth and no sign of the sleepy cuddly furry friend that somethimes lulls people into a false sense of security.

The level of surveillance the BBC team had to cope with and the extremely unpleasant attitude of the scientology guy who appeared to pop up to smear their interviewees reputations at every opportunity was extremely annoying and must have been very frightening.

I don't blame the presenter at all for his behaviour. He was provoked past the patience of a saint.

The scientologists would have come off much worse if they had tried that with a John Prescott type personality.

It was interesting tv. I am not convinced that the scientologists are all bad however, but they certainly have no idea how to come across as sympathetic to a British audience.

It seems as though it is the sort of religion that might emerge if it were set up by estate agents, with all the fly posting and swanky cars and slimy blokes in suits talking and not listening.

[Redders]

Scientology is not a religion. It's a sinister cult based on the ramblings of a writer of second rate pulp science fiction. To think otherwise, makes you an idiot.