The Stirrer

[Edited]

"I've no idea what they did about the Tornado but I was involved with them in Yardley over the building of the Medium Secure Unit there. The lies they told people in the community were reprehensible. "

That's a fairly serious allegation that Ghost_Daz has made and so far hasn't able to support with evidence.

Okay point noted. But I can't just start accusing the CoS of what you saying, when in all reasonableness they may have meant another alleyway in another part of Birmingham. Or, what if they actually did find some syringes dumped there over night.

If they meant another alleyway in another part of Birmingham (which is unlikely) then they should not be sending children to clear it up.

As I said, I walk through the RR/MCR alleyway almost every day and I have never seen any syringes. That type of thing just does not happen there. In this very unlikely scenario, though, the above still applies. Drug paraphernalia would need to be cleared up by people who knew what they were doing.

The Moseley Society pick up syringes whenever they tidy up Moseley car park.

The CoS have assured me that the children only do de-weeding. That's good enough for me.

My concern is that the CoS put any syringes in a safe container - ie not in a black plastic bag - so that the refuse collectors do not get pricked by any syringes.

I have had a scan my e-mails on this issue, I do have a complaint from June 2008 from a local residents association complaining about anti-social behaviour, drinking and drug-taking taking place in this alleyway.

Do you think there is just a chance that we can try and look at an issue in Moseley and not focus on you for a second?

I have a legitimate concern about the way that the scientologists are representing the ward I live in. I thanked Forkmoney for bringing this to my attention. He asked the rest of us whether or not we had any dealings with them in Birmingham. I have. I pointed out where I've come into contact with them. You for no apparent reason then popped up and said you couldn't be bothered to read the site I'd linked to [Edited] This is preposterous behaviour.

I hoped that some of our elected representatives would raise a concern that has been expressed by residents. It is merely a concern and could probably be dealt with by having a polite chat with them.

Instead another issue that has ostensibly nothing to do with you has suddenly escalated into something quite quite ridiculous.

Daz, I am on this messageboard as a private citizen and not as a Councillor in my official capacity.

I wrote an article about the way the Pitmaston site had been split and expressing concern about that.

Readers have raised questions about the alleyways mentioned on the newsletter - I have provided a response, since I have relevant information. Readers have then asked me further questions, including yourself. I have provided responses.

Being on this messageboard is not compulsory and if you don't like my presence here, then there are plenty of other messageboards that I don't post onto which you could use.

It isn't good enough for me if they are telling readers of their newsletter that these children are 'Drug Free Marshals' who are clearing areas used for drug taking.



I did say that there was a littering problem and I emailed the wardens about this in January/February of this year. I strongly doubt there has ever been alcohol consumption (the youths are mostly Asian Muslim and the discarded bottles were for soft drinks) or drug use other than occasional weed smoking. The problem with the CoS newsletter is that it inflates what was essentially a minor problem into something which seems altogether more serious.

There is a certain difficulty in understanding where this distinction between private citizen and Councillor falls. The meetings you are reporting with the Scientologists clearly happened in your capacity as a Councillor. The phone calls you keep telling us about are obviously being made to you as a councillor rather than because you are now really good friends with them. The emails you are reporting relating to anti-social behaviour clearly came to you in your capacity as a councillor.

I know that you have this thing about the standards board which is why you keep going out of your way to claim you're acting as a private citizen. To be honest I doubt there is anyone on here that has got a bloody clue what the standards board says you can and can't do.

I certainly wouldn't say I've been asking you questions. Well apart from the obvious two about whether it would be a good idea to get Emily to do this and if we could get away from talking about you for a change (I can see that plan is going well at the moment). I have suggested that it is poor judgement to give them a programme of works as this is something we could all come to regret.

I have no problems with you being on this messageboard. I doubt very much it would make any difference if I did. It would be handy if you didn't interject quite loopy claims that I have defamed the scientologists. I think we can all agree that they are big enough and ugly enough to fight their own battles and don't really need private citizens/councillors stepping in on their behalf.

In this case I'm addressing you in your role as councillor with responsibility for this area and you appear to be responding on that basis as well.

If you want to formally contact me as a Councillor in my Official Capacity, then I ask that you contact me either via e-mail or in a letter.

As far as I am concerned I am not on here as a Councillor in my Official Capacity and therefore subject to the Members Code of Conduct.

Yes, this has been found to be the case in several recent cases.

If I was subject to the Members Code of Conduct on this forum, I would in theory have to keep disassociating myself from any comments by anyone that could be construed to be disrespectful to anyone.

I apologise, because I was being a little facetious when I made that post, and also a bit unclear. What I was looking for you to do was cite references to substantiate your statement that "The Church of Scientology are well known for these voluntary efforts nationwide." I do not believe this to be the case at all.

I'm quite familiar with the Volunteer Minister setup, which exists to generate good PR, disseminate Scientology information and recruit people. That link will take you to a recording of a BBC Five Live radio show featuring an undercover investigation. At 45 minutes listening to all of it would require an investment in time, but you'll get the gist within a few minutes. (It also includes information on the CCHR, ref other posts in this thread).

Google returns innumerable, seemingly positive references because the cult issues so many press releases. I asked for 'independent references' because you will find that nearly all the sites in any such search are either CoS-related or otherwise uncritical, 'publish anything' PR sites.

Returning to your earlier point about other groups, while I agree that the CoS should be and must be treated 'fairly', they are not just another group. I don't believe that the other organisations in your list (I may be wrong) have ever been referred to as cults, "immoral and socially obnoxious" or "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" as the CoS has (source: Justice Latey, quoted in The Times, 1984.)

I am also aware that there are a hundred things you could be doing other than this, and furthermore I support the work you have done so far in investigating the Pitmaston allegations. However, a certain burden of proof is being required of other posters in this thread and I believe that - even posting as a private citizen as you are - your position means that you have a responsibility not to make unqualified assertions about the good or worth of a group, or that group's activities, unless you have direct knowledge of it, or can point to unbiased sources.

Strangely enough, when I was working around Perrott's folly and finding condoms, wrappers, and syringe parts, there was no special training given. Likewise around the Masshouse car park. One just uses a picking tool, a sharps bin, gloves, and hopes for the best.

OK, I'll rephrase that: drug paraphernalia would need to be cleared up by people who are not 10 year olds being used by a cult for publicity.

Regarding evidence of CoS volunteer work in the aftermath of the tornado, I haven't turned up anything on the internet except a critical (and possibly biased) anecdote and a bemused comment. Quote: "p.s does anybody know why there are "the church of scientology" walking round aimlessly looking at houses? ". (Note: Accessing indymedia.org.uk may generate a browser certificate alert. See their article here for an explanation and instructions if you have concerns. EDIT: same problem with this link.)

With regard to Ghost_Daz's claims, I can't substantiate them because he hasn't given specifics, and in any case I can't and wouldn't want to put words in people's mouths. However, I would like to advance an argument that a reasonable person might, after looking at the claims of this organisation (the CCHR), have reasonable doubts as to their veracity and their intentions in the community.

Firstly, some background on the Yardley Medium Secure Unit and the Scientology/CCHR situation:

A public consultation document dealing with the proposed third Medium Secure Unit in the West Midlands is available online (emphasis added):


In the footnotes:


As noted above, the CCHR has clear links to Scientology (EDIT: Richard Emmitt, referred to in the document above as CCHR Executive Director, is a name on the Birmingham Ideal Org Honour Roll). The CCHR is often referred to by critics as a CoS front group, and further information is easy to find on the web. I would in particular recommend a short Scientology video featuring the CoS leader David Miscavige here. In it, he states that their 2006 campaign was:


Those who saw it and had the time or inclination to listen to the undercover investigation report by Radio Five Live mentioned in a previous post will also be aware of other links between the CCHR and CoS, as well as their aims and practices.

Some online 'press' provides additional local interest: at http://www.ukprwire.com/Detailed/Health_Wellbeing/Protest_against_proposed_psychiatric_unit_632.shtml on 3rd Feb 2006 we learn that "Chris Wrapson" is or was at that time the "spokesperson for CCHR Birmingham", and involved in the protests against the Yardley unit. Chris Wrapson is a name on the Birmingham Ideal Org Honour Roll. He was also the Church of Scientology spokesperson identified on Central News in March 2008 as calling Anonymous protesters a "terrorist group": http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K4BQdr0kHK8.

Going back to the consultation document, it's clear that the CCHR intended to embark on a campaign in the community. So what was done, or said? Perhaps Ghost_Daz can provide more information on this. But see below for the tenor of the information that the CCHR offers.

The CCHR's documentation speaks for itself. Visiting the CCHR website, we can review a selection of booklets freely available for download:

http://www.cchr.org.uk/infobooklets.htm


I have left out three that have non-controversial titles.

There are a number of local news media reports online mentioning CCHR involvement in locals' protests. Here's one , from the Mail in June 2007:


So, what's the point? I would simply ask people with an interest in the CoS and the CCHR in Birmingham and Moseley to look at the points raised, here and elsewhere, at the links to the organisation's own documents, and to draw their own conclusions.

The CCHR very much tried to hijack the opposition to the units development through claiming that what was planned was little more than a torture camp. This was clearly based on their opposition to the concept of mental health rather than the proposals themselves.

The community of Yardley Green appeared to be largely bemused by these claims rather than actually falling for them. Unfortunately whenever the CCHR talked to the press they portrayed the opposition to the unit as evidence that their crazy theories had public support.

Fortunately the local people got organised quite fast and the CCHR were pretty isolated.

I attended every public meeting and was surprised how mob handed the CCHR were at the very beginning. Especially as I hadn't got a clue who they were. After hearing nonsense at the first meeting I did a bit of digging around (typed CCHR in to Google) and realised who they were.

It was purely down to luck that I had enough time to read the words on the web site and didn't discount it out of hand on the grounds that it was a bit long.

forkmonkey

thanks for coming on the Stirrer. I guess that you or someone close has been harmed by the cult, and I for one welcome your contributions, and the measured way in which they are couched. To begin with, I suspected you might be in cahoots with a third party on this thread, but I hope now you feel you can continue to inform us about the cult without the intercession of self-publicists who shoot themselves in the foot every post, and who, despite the tenor of their opening salvo, seem strangely reluctant to criticise the cult in any way.

er.....Neighbour of the Beast I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of your allegation that I broke the law.

Martin, may I ask if you've had any response from the CoS yet?

Meanwhile here's a photo of the previous Birmingham Ideal Org newsletter.