PC
It is a shame about the length; the prog could've easily ran for an hour, I feel.
Enjoyed the 30 minutes worth, though - no wonder John got angry, as Tommy Davis was continually on the offensive; butting in when John was speaking and trying to cut him off like he so did.
Scientology's treatment of critics and 'heretics' seems quite unacceptable, and the hypocrisy that spouted from Davis' mouth was rife!
The worst was seeing the amount of bullying and harrassment in store for the fierce critics - essentially: 'Join us and we'll make your life great - But if you turn against us, we'll make your life hell' .
Pretty darn awful.
Enjoyed the 30 minutes worth, though - no wonder John got angry, as Tommy Davis was continually on the offensive; butting in when John was speaking and trying to cut him off like he so did.
Scientology's treatment of critics and 'heretics' seems quite unacceptable, and the hypocrisy that spouted from Davis' mouth was rife!
The worst was seeing the amount of bullying and harrassment in store for the fierce critics - essentially: 'Join us and we'll make your life great - But if you turn against us, we'll make your life hell' .
Pretty darn awful.
JR
He said that somehow he 'couldn't imaging the Church of England doing that'.
Neither could I.
Paul Clark posted:
Scientology's treatment of critics and 'heretics' seems quite unacceptable, and the hypocrisy that spouted from Davis' mouth was rife!
The worst was seeing the amount of bullying and harrassment in store for fierce critics or 'heretics' - essentially: 'Join us and we'll make your life great - But if you turn against us, we'll make your life hell' .
Pretty darn awful.
The worst was seeing the amount of bullying and harrassment in store for fierce critics or 'heretics' - essentially: 'Join us and we'll make your life great - But if you turn against us, we'll make your life hell' .
Pretty darn awful.
He said that somehow he 'couldn't imaging the Church of England doing that'.
Neither could I.
JO
It was short & the clips on BBC Breakfast News were longer and had more info where John Sweeney replied to the American Constitution bit by saying, more-or-less "...I'm a British Citizen, not American & in our country we believe in freedom of speech"
And they call the USA the land of the free
And they call the USA the land of the free
PC
Strikes me the scientologists shot themselves in the foot, at least in Britain, by making such a fuss about it. I know newspapers which received several copies of a DVD containing an extended version of the YouTube clip. How many people watched Panorama simply because of the fuss, and will have formed their views against the 'cult' because of it?
On the other hand, the Panorama show will have limited viewing in the US, so the Scientologists' version will be the most watched over there.
On the other hand, the Panorama show will have limited viewing in the US, so the Scientologists' version will be the most watched over there.
JO
I'll be honest I did due to the BBC Breakfast News item this morning. Thing is though I had already heard bad things about them prior to this anyway.
However the documentary wasn't biased towards the BBC, the fact that when the John Sweeney was interviewing that man in the car park that the Scientologist leader came up & had a complete file about the blokes past
for me showed to what lenghts they go to stop anyone denying them.
As John Sweeney pointed out "does the Church Of England do this" answer No, but to be fair the Church Of England followers have dwindled
p_c_u_k posted:
Strikes me the scientologists shot themselves in the foot, at least in Britain, by making such a fuss about it. I know newspapers which received several copies of a DVD containing an extended version of the YouTube clip. How many people watched Panorama simply because of the fuss, and will have formed their views against the 'cult' because of it?
On the other hand, the Panorama show will have limited viewing in the US, so the Scientologists' version will be the most watched over there.
On the other hand, the Panorama show will have limited viewing in the US, so the Scientologists' version will be the most watched over there.
I'll be honest I did due to the BBC Breakfast News item this morning. Thing is though I had already heard bad things about them prior to this anyway.
However the documentary wasn't biased towards the BBC, the fact that when the John Sweeney was interviewing that man in the car park that the Scientologist leader came up & had a complete file about the blokes past
for me showed to what lenghts they go to stop anyone denying them.
As John Sweeney pointed out "does the Church Of England do this" answer No, but to be fair the Church Of England followers have dwindled
MA
An absolutely fantastic piece of journalism and, for that, I must express my thanks to the BBC for having the courage to broadcast this.
I am in no doubt they faced a substantial challenge from Davies and his cult . Sweeney, for his one fault, behaved incredibly fairly.
I have taken some time, this evening, to read the approach towards pyschology and I have to say the comments on the Nazi extermination programme is sickening. Regardless of whether we come from volcanoes or not the outlandish and frankly upsetting claims are morally reprehensible - and I can fully understand Sweeney's anger - especially if he'd been subjected to the hours of film he claims he was and frankly if that's the only aspect 'The Church' can cling to then they've a very, very weak argument.
Well done Sweeney!
I am in no doubt they faced a substantial challenge from Davies and his cult . Sweeney, for his one fault, behaved incredibly fairly.
I have taken some time, this evening, to read the approach towards pyschology and I have to say the comments on the Nazi extermination programme is sickening. Regardless of whether we come from volcanoes or not the outlandish and frankly upsetting claims are morally reprehensible - and I can fully understand Sweeney's anger - especially if he'd been subjected to the hours of film he claims he was and frankly if that's the only aspect 'The Church' can cling to then they've a very, very weak argument.
Well done Sweeney!
DA
I didn't see the whole program, but it seemed to me that Sweeney wasn't sufficiently emotionally detached to be an objective reporter (not that I don't think Scientologists are a bunch of loonies following the plot of a half-baked pulp fiction novel as a religion). Of course, being harassed outside of working hours probably skews your perspective a little.
I'd rather have seen something fly-on-the-wall than following John Sweeney on what seemed to be a fairly personal rant against this bunch of cu-ltists.
David
I'd rather have seen something fly-on-the-wall than following John Sweeney on what seemed to be a fairly personal rant against this bunch of cu-ltists.
David
IS
I think he was emotionally detached at the start, but with the techniques employed by those nutters it's very difficult to stay so detached.
I'd rather have seen something fly-on-the-wall than following John Sweeney on what seemed to be a fairly personal rant against this bunch of cu-ltists.
It wasn't a personal rant, he gave the Scientologists plenty of oppertunity to respond
A fly on the wall thing would be difficult, how to you get someone in there without the risk of them being sucked into the organisation. And even if they got an undercover reporter in and back out again, what would they do to that reporter afterwards? Considering what happened to John Sweeney who was just reorting from the outside, someone who assimilated the group and then spilt the beans would probably be in danger of their life
davidhorman posted:
I didn't see the whole program, but it seemed to me that Sweeney wasn't sufficiently emotionally detached to be an objective reporter (not that I don't think Scientologists are a bunch of loonies following the plot of a half-baked pulp fiction novel as a religion). Of course, being harassed outside of working hours probably skews your perspective a little.
I think he was emotionally detached at the start, but with the techniques employed by those nutters it's very difficult to stay so detached.
Quote:
I'd rather have seen something fly-on-the-wall than following John Sweeney on what seemed to be a fairly personal rant against this bunch of cu-ltists.
It wasn't a personal rant, he gave the Scientologists plenty of oppertunity to respond
A fly on the wall thing would be difficult, how to you get someone in there without the risk of them being sucked into the organisation. And even if they got an undercover reporter in and back out again, what would they do to that reporter afterwards? Considering what happened to John Sweeney who was just reorting from the outside, someone who assimilated the group and then spilt the beans would probably be in danger of their life
AL
Although a reporter really shouldn't yell like he did, when he
did
, you have to give it to him that he got his point across in the only way he was able to (the other guy was hardly the epitome of calm; he was the one who raised his voice to begin with!)
I wonder how different the programme and its viewing would have been if this incident didn't take place...
I wonder how different the programme and its viewing would have been if this incident didn't take place...
DB
In case you missed the episode, I've uploaded it on YouTube:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J8-Zfzd55E
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0UZ7xeni28
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnoqGHhmWc
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39mRWMR142U
or...
You could watch BBC Panaroma's stream
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J8-Zfzd55E
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0UZ7xeni28
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnoqGHhmWc
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39mRWMR142U
or...
You could watch BBC Panaroma's stream
ZS
After seeing what Scientologists do to their critics, no wonder why there is a wide range of celebrities as members.