Comments on: Twitter and Scientology: Don’t use the ‘S’-word

By: melika

melika — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:38:36 +0000

lol, what a joke, it’s the internet for goodness sake, they should be allowed to say what they like.

By: @zenpyramid

@zenpyramid — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:09:50 +0000

…may i humbly suggest checking out ‘Jack of Kent’ blog post on this issue for further developments. Full and frank discussion of the legal issues, and the guy who invented the hashtag #stupidscientology to boot:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/07/meaning-of-stupidscientology.html

By: alan

alan — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:24:33 +0000

Pity the Councilor didn’t demand the right to debate the matter, with a representative from the aggrieved organization. Since they would undoubtedly have forfeited the case, by not turning up. Being asked questions is not something, up with which they are prepared to put. Their other favored technique is to attempt to shout the other person down (remember the BBC reporter incident). I once asked one of them, if their belief was one in which query was permitted. His first answer was in the affirmative. But he wouldn’t, or couldn’t seem to, respond after that. It was like asking a ticket machine for the time of day.

By: ReliegiousMarie

ReliegiousMarie — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:38:43 +0000

I think it should not matter either if his statement was in private or proffesional capacity.

If you see why the council’s ethics committee are here for: in this particulair case…it would be to controle this gentlemans statement is counter to maintaining the public’s trust and calls into question whether his vote as a Councillor may be invalidated due to an actual conflict of interest…..erm, in this time-era i think the public really does not need this kind of: ´tut-tut, we will decide what is good for you to hear or not´…it actually borders on patronizing? the public.

Ofcourse in other cases there are gray areas….but in stating an opinion and calling something ´stupid´??

By: AllanW

AllanW — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:42:09 +0000

Bletherskite;

“It shouldn’t matter whether ..”; but it does. It’s an important point; no secular appointees should, from a position that someone could reasonably assume they are speaking officially, be seen to be anything other than impartial. The code of conduct is clear and he has been rightly slapped on the wrist. If you can’t understand why then try to think of this; what if he were walking past a mosque, a cathedral, a pregnancy advice centre, a rape counselling centre or a football stadium and make the same remark on his council account?

“I would rather that those in public office are free to let their personal opinions be known”; they are but they cannot and should not say anything non-partisan in any official capacity.

Not too difficult to understand, is it?

By: Bletherskite

Bletherskite — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:36:14 +0000

It shouldn’t matter whether Cllr Dixon’s twitter was posted on an official position related twitter account or a private one – it was an off the cuff opinion, he obviously wasn’t stating policy!. I would rather that those in public office are free to let their personal opinions be known, that way I know who or what I am voting for rather than everyone hiding behind stupid ultra bland PC wish wash.

The Scientologists are always coming down like a 100 ton weight on things that to them are really of no consequence. The consequences of this reaction is of course that they show themselves up for the ridiculous bullying cult that they are which hopefully only helps to speed their disintigration.

If action is taken over this then the ‘stupid’ really has rubbed off – and not on the Cllr.

By: AllanW

AllanW — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:12:30 +0000

Yes of course Scientology is a scam. Of course we all support Anon. Of course it’s a storm in a teacup. But there is an important point here about secular values that everyone should appreciate; Dixon made the comment from his official twitter account, not a private one (which he has now created). In that respect he is quite rightly reprimanded for demonstrating preference or non-preference in his official capacity. If he had made the comment in a manner that could be construed as private he would not have been in a position to be criticised. As it was, although the complaint was frivolous, it did have merit and was dealt with properly.

By: Mrtotes

Mrtotes — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:53:16 +0000

Hopefully he will simply state [lie] that he was referring to his own stupidity rubbing off on the Scientologists. At which point they fail to have a case.

By: ReliegiousMarie

ReliegiousMarie — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:50:55 +0000

I think they should be prosecuted by wasting public money and time, and for trying to make a case out of something so futile as a (even a public-) persons opinion. Bah, stupid.

By: Ming The Merciless

Ming The Merciless — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:02:32 +0000

Stupid earthlings…