digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

EpicNoseGuy on BBC News watch!

youtube.com — You know the story about EpicNoseGuy by now. This was on the BBC London News at 6:30pm. Keep checking http://www.wirah.com for updates on the story.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Halfang, on 05/22/2008, -6/+71EPIC NOSE GUY, WE SALUTE YOU.


    also, ***** IT OFF
    • JerodSlay, on 05/22/2008, -1/+22digg me down or whatever, but i must ask: ***** it off??? what does it mean??
      • ufia, on 05/22/2008, -1/+7***** it off is a reserved Scientology term. You must first reach enough thetan levels before you are allowed to know the meaning. Any impure souls discussing about ***** it off here on Digg will be prosecuted to the full extend of the lawz.
      • gr000, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"***** it off" is supposedly something a police officer said at one of these "flash mob" freezes at a train station in London.
    • jkleinfeld, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3Can I just say, I know the guy!
      He's a good friend of mine. When i first heard he was arrested I was laughing my arse off!
      Contact me for more info...
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2why so stingy with the details?
        • jkleinfeld, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3Well, as a British citizen, I can be arrested for giving information about him
          I think all I can say is that he goes to Latymer and Godolphin school
          http://www.godolphinandlatymer.com/
          I'll see if I'm allowed to give any other information about him...
        • glinsvad, on 05/22/2008, -5/+1Eehm "arrested for giving information" was a joke, right? Dude, it's not funny when the joke seems more plausible than the contrary...
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1to you sir, I say... (as an American) ...your laws are needlessly oppressive. I work in law enforcement and can see that very clearly. *personal note; damn* How could any country do that? Especially one that has adopted democratic ideals?

        and to Glinsvad... ever heard of the "PATRIOT" act?
        • nottidredd, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2democracy is a cancer on the republic
  • SpAn12, on 05/22/2008, -6/+47I swear we were just Rick Rolled at the end...by the Police! =o

    Scientology IS a cult!!
    • NikoKun, on 05/22/2008, -0/+21How so? I totally missed it, even after a re-watch.
    • starblink, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3If you are not allowed to call Scientology a Cult just call it a dangerous company.
  • JackBiller, on 05/22/2008, -4/+11http://www.wirah.com for updates!
  • ichbinbored, on 05/22/2008, -4/+17Also, ***** IT OFF!!!
  • jamiehd, on 05/22/2008, -5/+14***** IT OFF
  • ichbinbored, on 05/22/2008, -4/+13***** IT OFF YOU SAY?!!?
  • 1over0, on 05/22/2008, -3/+63Epic Nose Guy is Epic.

    His Nose is Epic.
    His Speech is Free.
  • JackBiller, on 05/22/2008, -4/+10***** IT OFF
  • ichbinbored, on 05/22/2008, -1/+47THE POLICE KNOW THE RULES AND SO DO WE
  • Hoshi101, on 05/22/2008, -5/+44"Epic Nose Man"
  • AnonXXIII, on 05/22/2008, -2/+39subtle rickroll is subtle
  • Rosear, on 05/22/2008, -2/+35 (e) That shortly following Christmas, 1950, said Hubbard
    violently strangled plaintiff and sadistically ruptured the
    eustachian tube of her left ear, resulting in the impairment of
    her hearing. That such strangulation of plaintiff was a frequent
    practice on the part of said Hubbard.

    (...)
    (g) That plaintiff and her medical advisors, following
    the foregoing incidents, concluded that said Hubbard was hopelessly
    insane, and crazy, and that there was no present hope for said
    Hubbard, or any reason for her to indure [sic] further; that competent
    medical advisors recommended that said Hubbard be committed to
    a private sanitarium for psychiatric observation and treatment
    of a mental ailment known as paranoid schizophrenia; that
    plaintiff, on the 23rd day of February, 1951, caused the national
    executive officer of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation at
    Elizabeth, New Jersey, to be advised of said preliminary diagnosis
    and urgent need for treatment; that said national officer immedi-
    ately advised said Hubbard of said diagnosis.


    http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/sara.htm
    Cult.
  • Fireboar, on 05/22/2008, -1/+38This sounds like a Frontpage Foible to me. Incidentally...

    "Anonymous will strike until the nine thousandth nail has been driven into the heart and soul of this evil enterprise."

    Surely the best 9000 reference I've seen so far.
  • Bapho, on 05/22/2008, -9/+38Epic Nose Guy is Epic.

    His Nose is Epic.
    His Speech is Free.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3i think epicnoseguy is a pretty cool guy. eh free speaches and doesn't afraid of anything.
  • FreddyO, on 05/22/2008, -2/+38the Guardian, the BBC, quite a few people would have seen this. Perhaps the CoS and the London police should be thanked for giving Anonymous this publicity, and getting the media to mention that Scientology is a dangerous cult.
  • Anonakitty, on 05/22/2008, -4/+20His Nose is Epic.
    His Speech is Free.

    great to see this making the news.And to have the BBC say the words $cientology and CULT in the same sentence
  • Hnnnnnghhh, on 05/22/2008, -2/+38Epic Nose Guy will totally lose his virginity because of this. Combo Win
    • vuke69, on 05/22/2008, -0/+23..hopefully not while in prison on a hate crimes conviction..
    • Gonasadude, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2With his epic nose ;)GC
  • aseriesoftubes, on 05/22/2008, -1/+17"You have the right to free speech, so long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it." The Clash
  • luke16, on 05/22/2008, -3/+68And this is why BBC > all other news networks
  • winstonpr, on 05/22/2008, -4/+7Can CoS prove they are *NOT* a Cult?
  • lilwizzy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Hats off to you good sir
  • kiderjones, on 05/22/2008, -1/+30I predict a sea of "Scientology = cult" signs on June 14!!
    Go London!
  • PrintScrn12, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11The Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 states:

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

    (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
    (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

    This offence has the following statutory defences:

    (1) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed of distressed by his action.
    (2) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
    (3) The conduct was reasonable.

    Such a law applied in such a way should not just be attacked by Scientology activists. It's a law that is very broadly applied here to the point it can hurt dissent and criticism within other areas of society.
    • smt12, on 05/22/2008, -1/+7"Such a law applied in such a way should not just be attacked by Scientology activists. It's a law that is very broadly applied here to the point it can hurt dissent and criticism within other areas of society."

      Sounds to me like that's a pretty damn good reason to attack that law with full force. Suppress dissent and criticism and soon enough you're living in a dictatorship.
    • DeviantDragon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Wow that clause of "insulting" is quite broad. That means that if I hold up a sign that says "Gamespot is stupid" outside of Gamestop I could be guilty.
    • JerodSlay, on 05/22/2008, -1/+6that sucks. Americans have lost a lot of their freedoms in the past years, but I guess England is 1000 times worse.

      We should all strive for freedom.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Woah. I must admit I didn't know that.
      A 22 year old law that effectively turns one of the world's greatest democratic societies into a kindergarten?
      I thought the current "Back to 1984" trend in the USA was scary, but this boggles the mind.
      What good is protest/debate if I am not allowed to state explicitly what's bothering me?
      Speaking about peak oil might piss off Shell, so better don't do it.
      A protest about child poverty might annoy a government not doing enough against it, so better don't do it.
      And yeah; protesting a ***** cult that turns people into braindead zombies while sucking every cent out of their purses might annoy said cult. Which is the whole point.
      Public Order = You have the right ... to remain quiet and take your Soma.
      Call if what you want, that's the face of fascism. A law like that should have no place in a free society.
    • deanoplex, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2The right to inflammatory and unpopular speech is what must be protected by law. Polite, politically correct speech needs no such protection.
  • johnlm89, on 05/22/2008, -4/+47░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░▄█████████████▄░░░░░
    ░░▄██████████████████▄░░░
    ░░████████████████████▄░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░░█████████▀▀▀█████████░░
    ░░▀█████▀░░░░░░░▀█████░░░
    ░░░▀▀███░░█░░░█░░███▀░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░▀░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░▄██▄░░▀▀░▄█▀▄░░░░░░
    ░░░░▄▀░▀▄▀▀███▀▀▄▀░▀▄░░░░
    ░░░░█░░░░▀▄▀░▀▄▀░▄░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░█░░░█░░█░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░▀▄▀▀▀▀█░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░░▄░░▄██▄▄▀░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░░▄░░████░░░░░░
    ░░░░███▄░░░▄▄▄░░░▄▀░░░░░░
    ░░░░░▀▀█▀▀▀░▄░▀▀▀█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░██████▄▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░
  • bhod, on 05/22/2008, -16/+0Obama!
  • harvinator24, on 05/22/2008, -3/+8Since scientology is a colt, how is it an insult?

    this guy is going to get off scott free I guess.
  • GregFD3S, on 05/22/2008, -0/+15Scientology is not a religion, its a dangerous cult.
  • GoKings, on 05/22/2008, -1/+20So wait... You can get charged with a crime in the UK if your sign is "insulting?" Jesus... What is this world coming to?
    • omenmedia, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Does it extend to shirts? Could you get arrested for wearing an "I'm with stupid ---->" shirt for example?
    • coldfusion1970, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Its called libel.
      • MacintoshSauce, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Boo fricking hoo!
      • parallax7d, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2That is a super broad, and super oppressive interpretation of libel.
      • CptBuck, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Only in the UK could it be called libel. In the US the opinions of individuals (e.g. what individuals put on a sign they are holding) are protected as free speech. Libel requires that it be a broad statement of fact expressed by some authoritative source. That's why the show "Penn and Teller *****" can get away with what it does. Saying that something is full of ***** is more "opinionated" then calling them a liar.

        In the UK of course, this does not apply.
    • cnot3, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6Ben Franklin warned that those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. Soon, we will have neither.
    • Beveridge89, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Thats what makes this case interesting, because of how it is being applied. It's more usually applied to things which are definitely in the public interest to remove; to use an American example, it would certainly be used to get rid of those protesting funerals.

      I don't see this charge sticking, but it makes a mockery out of what is generally a good law when police officers refuse to apply common sense to it.
  • P1um, on 05/22/2008, -0/+10CULT CULT CULT CULT... cult

    lol look what comes up when you google cult. 5th from the top
  • omenmedia, on 05/22/2008, -0/+59Worth a digg just to hear MSM saying "Epic Nose Guy".
  • iamtenninjas, on 05/22/2008, -2/+12Despite the fact that he got charged for displaying a sign, I have to give a lot of credit to the police for actually telling them beforehand that if they don't remove the sign, they will have to be given a summons or arrested. They gave a choice at least. Kudos to the police for that. Kudos to EpicNoseGuy for having the balls to stand up for it too, though.

    It's a nice thought, having the police as referees rather than as the bad guys, as they tend to be in America.
    • aseriesoftubes, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah, we got that one mostly right although that doesn't mean it's perfect. In this case it's definitely the law that is wrong rather than the police. The model in the UK is policing by consent (I'm not kidding) whereas in the US the key word is obviously compliance.
    • Petrushka72, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately, that is *astonishingly* nice behaviour for UK police. The police in larger British cities (esp. London and Manchester) are quite open about the fact that their role is not to protect the public but to control the public. Never make the mistake of thinking they're above harassment, ***** with your mind, or brutality behind closed doors. Outside London and Manchester, the situation may be very different; I don't have enough experience to know (nor am I keen to find out).
      • Beveridge89, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Did you see the riots after in Manchester after the UEFA cup? Sometimes it's neccessary for the police to control.
    • badger500, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah, the cops tend to be bad guys in America...until you need one and then you won't be saying that. Nice painting of many thousands of men and women who risk their lives as public servants with one brush.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Some people fail to realize that police are people too, and act like they are being hassled if a cop as much as talks to them... which usually officers respond to such indignity by just being a jerk in response. Ive been pulled over several times, but never received a ticket. if you genuinely respect an officer, you might just receive some respect.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2I think the cop realized that it was a stupid law in the first place.
    • ascendingPig, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I was at the NYC protests, and they restored my love for the NYPD. At the picnic back in April, they chatted with protesters and accepted anon balloons. In May, they were incredibly friendly and discussed our views on the CoS with us.

      I don't think there's anything wrong with American policemen. It's just that Diggers tend to have an anti-authority bias.
  • aserer511, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8You know something's funny when an officer is regarding a guy as EpicNoseGuy, sans problems
  • shawnanigans, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7What's the definition of a cult? A religion not recognized by the state? Because that is what CoS is.
    How is it that a regimented and well funded organization vs a group of internet users wearing mask ends with the internet users with masks and funny names like "EpicNoseGuy" coming off as the sane and rational people?
  • avonwodahs, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8luckily the police can't find and detain me for saying it,
    Scientology is a dangerous cul
  • Jenadae, on 05/22/2008, -3/+6I like you police over there, wanna trade a few for some nice floridian scum cops?
    • rich2912, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7English police are generally very respectful... probably because few carry guns; thus, lowering their ego.
  • alx1507, on 05/22/2008, -3/+3Scientology saying it's an insult being called a cult is like the pot or kettle being insulted when called black.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2I have a bright steel kettle...

      but seriously, all religions are cults.
  • DigitalHippie73, on 05/22/2008, -17/+3Wtf? Am I the only one who can't understand why Anonymous is spending so much time going after scientology? What if it is a cult, who the hell cares. Its some lame fake religion based on scifi books or something. They aren't going to take over the world or anything. All they really do is take their peoples money, just like any other organized religion does. Everyone knows scientology sucks, get over it. Why not focus all that energy on something that really matters?
    • sevenslashfour, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Because 1. Scientology is, more or less, evil, and 2. free publicity.
    • coldfusion1970, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
    • ho0ber, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6Yeah, pretty much everything about Scientology is bad. Not only do they take (not request donation, but require certain amounts) money from their members, but there are many, MANY alleged abuses of members and those speaking out against the cult. Go do some googling.
    • scum2k, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2To quote Mr klogere - your answer is here....

      http://xenu.nu/wiki/index.php/The_answer
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3because, like many religions, innocent children are caught up in the fray.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3"They aren't going to take over the world or anything."
      Funny you mention that, because if by "the world" you mean "political influence", this is EXACTLY what they are trying.
      In my country (where they currently have a hard time), they are working intensively on infiltrating the political parties, and as a result, a future government. Supposedly they already have a number of politicians in their pockets/ranks.
      For my taste, that's close enough to "taking over".
      These people hate and suppress free speech and independent thought. They are greedy, they manipulate people by grabbing Hollywood VIPs like trophies, knowing how gullible the masses are, and they are known to declare their enemies as "fair game".
      Translation: If you are against them, and you have a little, uhm, accident, that's all fine and dandy for the Co$. If that's not "dangerous" in your book - great. Wait until they come for you.
  • ericd, on 05/22/2008, -1/+7With a little creativity you could just change one letter and you're back in business.
    • boejangles, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Scienstology is a cult. ?
      Firefox is telling me im spelling Scientology wrong.
      Firefox is also telling me i need to spell firefox with a capital F...
  • thecosmicpope, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6A possible fine of £1000 eh? I'm sure many Anon members would be more than happy to chip in and help.
    • PrintScrn12, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8However having such a fine create a strong fear of legal retribution for future criticism. It can set a terrible legal precedent.
      • theright, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1This is not legal retribution on the part of Co$, it is a kid being summonsed for a public order offence. Whether he had a sign up saying "Scientology [...] is a dangerous cult" or a sign saying "Anonymous is a cult", the use of the word "cult" is abusive and insulting, and likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to persons nearby.
        • deanoplex, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Scientology Pwns Metro: http://digg.com/world_news/Scientology_Owns_The_Me ...
        • kieranmaine, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1I posted this in anohter story but you never replied...

          So who decides if the word "cult" is offensive the CPS or the officer involved? And is it just the officer that decides to issue a summons or do they have to if the CPS says the use of the word "cult" is an offense?

          It would have been nice to see a bit of common sense applied (does the law provide for this?) instead of time and money wasted. Still it will be fun seeing my taxes used to debate how offensive the word "cult" is, with a 15 year old.

          I think it be better for the police and CPS look at how this might affect the relationship between the public and the police as well, since trust between the police and public, I assume, makes it easier to investigate crimve in general.
        • kieranmaine, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1On the plus side the prosecution has been dropped and the CPS decided that the use of the word cult is not abusive or insulting, as most sane people think.

          I still don't know who decided it was insulting to start with.
    • ho0ber, on 05/22/2008, -5/+2Yeah, and anon can be kind of cheap. Not having the attention span to paypal some money and such. Anonymous isn't really this exciting super-organized club the media makes it out to be... it's kind of a ***** with a few motivated people managing to herd the newfags.
  • debuffplx, on 05/22/2008, -17/+7When will these brainless weaboo freaks realize that they are just doing the dirty work for a few much larger and even more dangerous cults: Christianity, Catholicism, Islam and Judaism.
    Lets say anon manages to dismantle completely Scientology. Then what? Your whole world will still be controlled by the brutal cults of the abrahamic religions. They will have accomplished nothing but driving those weak people to those who are waiting to prey on them.
    Stick to your lame anime and cosplay until you can take on the real threat.
    • DigitalHippie73, on 05/22/2008, -7/+1Thank you!
      • dcshiderly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+10last time I checked, I won't get harassed, libeled, slandered, gratuitously sued, physically attacked, or murdered for speaking against the Pope.
        The Catholic church won't tell all my neighbors that I'm a dangerous child molester if I (correctly) state they were responsible for the deaths of thousands during the Crusades.
        I can leave a Baptist church of my own volition, and they won't track me down and slash the tires of my family.
    • Renork, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Every revolution needs to start somewhere.
  • 9bpm9, on 05/22/2008, -4/+11Police state much? People always talk about how America is turning into one, you can't even say cult and Scientology in the same damn sentence over there.
  • KingBroseph, on 05/22/2008, -0/+19This is good; when the court looks into it they'll realize it is a cult.
    • JoeRW, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Yes, I hope they allow evidence that it is a cult to be presented,
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4The scary thing is:
      The way I understand this "Public Order" thing, it's not about the *facts* (Co$ = cult) or your opinion - you are simply not allowed to piss someone off by stating he is a cult freak/racist/whatever. The offense is in the eye of the beholder.
      So if you call my hypothetical little church a bunch of paranoid whackos, that's a cool GBP 1,000 for you, my friend, even if we *are* paranoid whackos. You just can't say it in public, because, you know, it hurts our feelings.
      That's political correctness turbocharged with Big Brother Logic.
    • deanoplex, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
  • rich2912, on 05/22/2008, -0/+10Google "dangerous cult" and Scientology steals 5 of the top 10. Good job.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8Steals?? they rightfully earned those!
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2With regards to the recent YouTube/Co$ story (Google obviously needs the cult's advertising money), expect this terrible, terrible offense against the "Church" to be "fixed" in, hmm, I guess, two months.
      It will be portrayed as a Google Bomb and weeded out.
      • kevman459, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Ironically one of the first things Anonymous did before they took the streets was to google bomb "Scientology"and "Dangerous Cult".

        Now the news is doing it for them.
  • axiomo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8I think the actions described in this Scientology Exposed PSA kind of -- DEFINE -- a cult, don't you think?

    Scientology Exposed PSA: 'Hyprocrisy'
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywk2UdsW9I0

    The Racist Legacy of Scientology
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzDqXVLavbU
  • DarkReign16, on 05/22/2008, -1/+17What the *****? You can be fined for calling something a cult in the UK? What the ***** *****? Free speech no longer applies????

    And beside, it IS a cult:

    a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
    2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
    3. the object of such devotion.
    4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
    5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
    6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
    7. the members of such a religion or sect.
    8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Read this Public Order Act as quoted by "PrintScrn12" above.
      Even if it were true (and of course it is; they are a murderous, brainwashing cult), you can't say it if members of said cult are around.
      Because it might *offend* them.
      The truth doesn't matter anymore. You are entitled to free speech, as long as you only have nice things to say and don't get on the nerves of the nice, brainwashing men in that building over there.
      "Nanny state meets 1984" - coming soon to a democracy near you.
    • theright, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2The First Amendment doesn't apply in Britain, if you didn't realise...
      • DarkReign16, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I know that, which is why I said free speech, and not the first amendment. They still have free speech, but apparently, it doesn't protect "offensive" speech, or satire...sadly.
  • portlyfrank, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Oh Did he say Scientology was a CULT, I thought he said Scientology was a CU*T Boy I can see why saying Sceintology was a CULT is offensive but am I allowed to say that?
  • aseriesoftubes, on 05/22/2008, -3/+6This is the kind of thing the Public Order Act was *supposed* to prevent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Islamprotest8.j ...

    The image is from a protest in London against the publication in Danish newspapers of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. That said the prosecutions that have taken place of idiots like the guy in the picture have been, I believe, under other legislation.
  • yoda17, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3That report was too coherent.
    I am confused.
  • daeyeth, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11Good, even report from BBC. And whoever spoke for Anonymous giving that quote at the end, props to him. That was a perfect analogy of the situation
  • itsfunny, on 05/22/2008, -27/+7Dunno about anyone else but I've quite frankly had enough of this crap. Real people protest against the oppression people face in China, or the freedom of Tibet. Then theres Anonymous who pointlessly insult the word "protest" with their masked "raids" against some religion, a religion which has committed half the crimes of the Catholic Church.

    No, I'm not a Scientologist, and I'm not a huge fan of their religion. And I'm also not an Anonymous hater, I'm just sick of these protests. It's all getting a big old now.
    • truspect0r, on 05/22/2008, -2/+9Easy, don't read the story, click the "Bury" button and stop whining.
    • dcshiderly, on 05/22/2008, -1/+6Catholics (an their clergy) don't actively hate on their detractors. I could stand in front of the Pope, scream bloody epithets in his face about how his religion hurts people, and the worst he'd do is say a prayer for me.
      • Gonasadude, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2If he is anything like the popes a couple hundred years ago, he'd have you secretly killed.
    • forceuser, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2uh I accidentally clicked the report button, sorry about that.. there should be a confirmation for it.
    • deanoplex, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Get off the fence and PICK A HOLE!!!
    • myalibi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I agree, if you're looking to effect the most change in this world (and that is what protesters usually are trying to do) then you don't go out and protest scientology, its so small and insignificant, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
    • GlitchKitty, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2I've had enough of people comparing a modern, highly influencial and rich cult to the centuries old actions of religions like Christianity etc. Using their bloody* histories is pointless when arguing against protesting Scientology, since most of what they did happened when the rules and world were different (I'm not saying that makes what they did right, mind). Most of those religions have grown up and are far better now. Any small, nutjob groups you hear about related to them are treated as that - small, nutjob groups. Scientology is a different kettle of fish altogether.

      I do see your frustration though, it would be awesome if Anonymous could band together on other causes too, and maybe it will happen eventually.

      *as in blood, not swearing, thought I ought to make that clear :)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.