The Stirrer

There is no evidence that the sacks are full of drug paraphernalia. They are most likely full of vegetation.

If you want to find out more, you could always visit the Church of Scientology in Birmingham City centre and ask them. Details can be seen here

Let's remember that when the Moseley Society do their monthly clear up of Moseley car park, they regularly find drug paraphernalia in the bushes.

Look, I'm not here to defend anyone. I just want people to keep to the facts.

What about www.cchr.org.uk ? What's that got to do with the Church of Scientology?

As we have all seen, what they have written on the newsletter is:

"And we are already under way with an anti-drug campaign thanks to our Drug Free Marshals clearing away an alleyway formally (sic) used by drug users".

Accompanied by a photo of children who look about 10-11 years old with bin bags, captioned "Drug Free Marshals".

It is clear that the alleyway being referred to is the one between Russell Road and Moorcroft Road because this is the one they apparently cleared first.

The litter in that alleyway was not drug-related but empty soft drink bottles and takeaway wrappers, as well as cigarette ends.

Whether the CoS specifically refer to 'drug paraphernalia' or not the implication is clear that they have stamped out some haven of drugs based activity. This is not what has happened. In fact what they have done is picked up some litter. Of course, as others pointed out if they were indeed clearing the remnants of drug use it would be exceedingly dangerous for children to do it.

I think you, as local councillor, ought to discourage them from presenting their activities in this misleading and unhelpful way.

..... and the point Daz and yourself are trying to make is?

If the CoS come back to me asking for more alleyways to clear, I'll make sure the views expressed on this messageboard are forwarded to them.

I can't control what the CoS say in their newsletters and it is not something I want to get involved with.

No - unless particular members want me to.

In fact I've just spoken to the representative of the Church of Scientology at Pitmaston. He's just telephoned me.

He assures me that the children in the photo did not touch any drug paraphernalia and only did weeding. I mentioned about the wording on the leaflet and if they could just clarify this in future leaflets.

I asked him about the ownership of the building and splitting of the site into four plots. He assured me that he didn't know about this until I sent him my e-mail.

I explained that the residents on Russell Road were clearly concerned about what was going to happen with the site now. I urged him to get his public relations department to maybe do a press release explaining what is going and at least reassure local residents that we are not going to have a housing estate on the site.

That is spectacularly self evident.




If you're giving them a list of places to clean up around the ward then you are involved and have some responsibility for the way in which they are misrepresenting the area.

At the very least ask them to stop claiming they are cleaning areas "formally used by drug users". This is not true and is not fair to the people that live there.



Of course their children didn't handle any drug paraphernalia. There wasn't any there to start with. The whole drug user thing isn't true.

Wouldn't it be a better idea if Emily took over contact with the Scientologists?

Her comments a few pages ago seem very reasonable:-




I would say that putting out leaflets claiming the area was "formally used by drug users" broadly falls under the category of not keeping themselves to themselves and upsetting constituents in anyway.

So when the newsletter labelled the children as 'Drug Free Marshals' and suggested they had cleared an alleyway 'formally (sic) used by drug users' they were essentially making things up.

I think you should take a very hard line against people who make things up in relation to voluntary activities in your ward. At the very least it is dishonest and unhelpful. More seriously it suggests an ulterior agenda in pursuing these activities which is not something that I, as a resident, want any part of.

No it isn't. You have claimed that the Church of Scientology have made falsehoods. i ask for evidence. You give me a website. I don't have all day to wade through this website looking for falsehoods on your behalf.

You've made an allegation. Present the evidence.



I disagree on a number of counts. (1) they don't say where the alleyway is that they cleared (2) I am not responsible for what the CoS say in their newsletters. (3) if I am responsible for the content, because the CoS asked me for alleyways that needed cleaning, then by extrapolation I am responsible for any newspaper article where a journalist contacts me for advice/direction.



Daz, if you are so convinced by what you say, why don't you put your head above the parapet and write an article for the Stirrer - and put your name on it. You are making allegations, for which there is no evidence to support.



Daz, why don't you ask her?

I'm quite happy with my handling of the Church of Scientology in Moseley. Equally, I accept that whatever I do, you will never be happy with it and will always complain.

What action could I take? [Edited]

The leaflet does not make it clear where the alleyway was.

Maybe, I'm a bit thick here. But where is the ulterior agenda?

What I mean is that you should use your authority as the elected local representative to make clear that dishonestly characterising their local activities is not helpful. If they are going to undertake community activities like this they should be open about what they are doing.

The ulterior agenda is to generate stories for their propaganda machine, in this case the suggestion that they are apparently doing community work in relation to drug use, which is far from the truth (and which if it was true they had no authority or expertise to do anyway).