What on earth are you talking about? I did not see any arrogance and i didn't see him talk of being a 'british subject' not in the panorama episode. I did see it in the obviously edited youtube clip however which makes me suspect you haven't even watched the episode.

Nor did the episode show anything being shouted at John Travolta he wasn't even in it.

All John Sweeney did is ask legitimate questions ie: 'some people say you are a cult how do you respond to this?'. Whats wrong with that? do you think its wrong for journalists to ask legitimate questions?

Sweeney last his rag fair enough but i have to say if i had been in his position having to ask questions of people with a similar mentality of North Koreans i think i would of probably head butted the guy rather than just lost my rag.

From the tone of your extremely biased BBC bashing article it seems to me your far more interested in slagging off the BBC than any legitimate journalism.

Sam, Worcester,

Personally, I find 'Panorama' a damn sight more creepy than an ineffectual weirdo 'cult' like scientology. 'Panorama' is a really bland pro-status quo, pro-establishment and nauseatingly sanctimonious programme. As a strand it tries to project the BBC as a worthy and ethical institution without the slightest sense of irony that it might actually be the maintenance of an unfair status quo that leads to social problems, and, perhaps, draws a few people to join new age cults like scientology. It was nice to see that worthless programme 'Panorama' get hoist by its own petard and sent packing even by a bunch of weirdos.

Andrew Cox, London, UK

I have just watched the Scientology documentary and have to say that, if what the Scientologists say about John Sweeney's work is even half-true, they are simply as bad as he is.

For instance, they have selected "the worst bits" from his interviews with Scientologist celebrities and clipped them together to show him repeatedly asking the celebrities about brainwashing. Sweeney himself has said that the interviews produced mainly positive interpretations of scientology... yet this has not been seen on either presentation.

Anyone can take raw unedited footage and make it say what they like. Getting the whole unbiased truth from raw material is a juggling act that neither side involved has managed to pull off.

Dominic, Thurso,

Christianity, a "mainstream religion", is not irrational? Let me see... I didn't quite understand the bit about ritual symbolic cannibalism?

As for Sweeney, I think he should consider going into a completely different line of work. Something not involving the media.

Thomas Goodey, Cuxton-upon-Medway, UK

I agree with Rachel. Undoubtedly there was an element of negative bias towards Scientology even before John Sweeney went into the investigation, but then if any fool is stupid enought to think there is actually such a thing as totally unbias journalism then they are very misguided.

However, I do believe he is the sort of guy who would have been prepared to admit if the 'cult' wasn't as bad as he thought, had he actually have been allowed to properly investigate both sides of the argument. Given the totally bizarre handling of the whole debacle by the Scientologists themselves, frankly they only have themselves to blame for forcing the program to become a very negative piece on this frankly ludicrous 'cult'. As for Sweeney's confrontational outburst, I think he did very well to keep his cool for as long as he did, especially in light of Davis's frequent threatening behaviour.

Mike Spall, Southampton, UK

If you have to pay to be accepted inside then this is no religion.

I have little time for the established religions, believing all religion is about control, but Scientology is L Ron Hubbard's joke. If there is life after death he must be laughing himself silly over the idiots that cannot see that. (Mind you, the sort of money the senior controllers have, no wonder they are keeping it going!)

Mrs S J Wislon, Peterborough, UK

Good on you Mick. But what happened to the rest of the chatterers who used to quote Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." If one were to submit any religion's beliefs to critical scrutiny they would all appear bizzare. And all religions have their nutters from creationists to suicide bombers. But there again secular ideologies have little to be proud of - fascism and communism far outstripped religions in terms of weird beliefs and premature deaths. What ever happened to liberal England with its traditional tolerance of a multitude of strange sects and cults from the Quakers to the Closed Brethren without whom our country would be immeasurably poorer spiritual, culturally and economically.

william haines, Northwood, UK

I think Allenby should clarify why Christianity is rational. You're the one who makes "leaps of faith" which oppose common sense i.e. virgin birth, resurrection...... It should be your task to qualify your beliefs rather than just saying "I'm right and he's wrong". If I told you that I could see through brick walls you wouldn't believe me unless I gave you proof.

Charlie, Edinburgh, Scotland

How wrong can you be about this program? Did you watch the same program as me? The origianl concept was to have an open investigation of whether Scientology uses cult practices.

It turned into farce when they refused to allow open dscent and balanced opionion during the program, and the 'rant' was wholely justified - the point where it occured came after a sickening juxstoposition of the holocaust and psychiatry.

The fact that scientology uses blatent sales techniques to recruite new members, then attacks all discent medieval style makes it fair game for investigation. If any of your loved ones were caught up in its web, wouldn't you want to know they were in a safe environment?

Unlike 'mainstream' faith they do not allow outside scrutiny, and it is a hallmark of the modern generation of faiths (Mormons & JW's included) to segregate, bully, hide behind closed doors, and manipulate. We have the right to know if harm is being done. Long may the BBC investigate.

Rachel, York,

Hear, hear. The self-regarding arrogance and smug pomposity of BBC television and radio reporters is long overdue for being given a dose of its own medicine. The bias shown in particular by the soft left Celtic caucus that dominates Radio 4's news output usually leads me to switch station within seconds of a Humphrey's "interview" starting, as he invariably uses it as a platform to display his own prejudices. Nor is he alone in this trait.

As many of us who have witnessed at first hand journalistic excesses know only too well the news media thrive on the basis that, "A lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on". As for retractions, even if you have a bottomless source of funds to pursue and win redress, the smear remains in the public's memory. With luck Scientologists have started a trend.

Peter, Woking, UK

I'm all for crusading journalism. The emotional core of the Scientology issue would have been lost in an objective account and we wouldn't be here mulling it over now. A "journalism of attachment" is much more engaging on television, even if Sweeney lacks the charm or grace to carry it off. He's no Theroux, but I imagine the documentary's 'Tommy' would have tested even his mettle.

David, Cardiff,

I couldn't agree more with Mick's view on the hooraying of 'crusading' journalists. Maybe the link is a little tenuous but didn't I spy on the TV news a Mirror journalist taking it upon herself to finger a 'suspicious' Madelaine hunting Brit in Portugal, who was subsequently investigated by the police. Some crusading we could do without.

Andrew Hirst, London, UK

But surely if you're a journalist doing an exposé, inherent in that is the assumption that your subjects are dishonestly hiding something which you wish to expose. You cannot therefore be objective in your approach. This is not in itself a bad thing, as long as everyone knows where you're coming from.

When the story starts to be about you - and I've seen no evidence that this was Sweeney's intent, although the Scientologists have made it so - then you've lost the journalistic moral high ground. Sweeney's rant was an understandable lapse but it has undermined his story. Better luck next time,

John R, London,

Christianity, a "mainstream religion", is not irrational - though Mick Hume, irrationally, seems to assume it is.

Allenby, Manchester,

John Sweeney's shouting was not the most worrying thing to me either - he is human after all. What was more sinister was the footage I saw of him trying to fabricate scenarios to look like he was being refused access and co-operation. I saw this footage in the documentary that was put together by the Church. It's at http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watch-the-video-documentary.php

Roz, London,

It is easy to say that one has to check ones facts before writing something, I suggest that one checks both sides. Hartley Patterson assumes that Mick Hume did not. Well I don not know, but I do know that there are some "everyone knows that Scientology is ..." to the negative extent that have been "made true" by the media and their slanted reporting by repeating lies over and over again. Watch the documentary by the Scientologists about the documentary Panorama and you cannot say that Panorama was fair in their interview style or way of portraying the attitude of the church.
I have been a member of the Church of Scientology since my mid twenties and the claims made about the church then and now are practically the same. I have never claimed that being part of group does not change your attitude towards life. But when it comes to being "brainwashed" the critics are closer to being in that group than any Scientologist, after all they believe they are spiritual beings.

Matthias Fosse, Oslo, Norway

I prefer crusading journalists to banal commentators any day. I suppose as Mr Hume abandoned everything he believed in a few years back he finds it difficult to understand why someone would lose their temper on having their integrity repeatedly criticised. That says much more about Mr Hume than Mr Sweeney.

T Davies, London, UK

I am a Scientologist and have found it very, very helpfull in my life. I am also a catholic. Apparently Panoram did a hatchet job on the catholic church in the past.

Roderick O'Mullane, Beverley, East Yorkshire

You have been brainwashed. bell is correct. There is nothing wrong with a little ango see the BBC getting angry in this antisceptic age. Good to see the BBC getting angry at something other than global warming.

oldasiahand, Guildford, UK

Sweeney fell into the Scientology trap!

Michael, Bridgwater, UK

I'm an activist opposed to the Church of Scientology. I appeared on Panorama briefly, waving a placard in Tottenham Court Road.
Some of my friends are scientologists - they left the Church in disgust and are harassed by it. Their beliefs don't bother me, the fanatic intolerance of their former Church does. Most scientologists even inside the Church are decent, well meaning people. So I believe are most Catholics, so I guess crusading journalists shouldn't be investigating child abusing priests.

All I ask of journalists is that before writing about Scientology they check their facts. You didn't. Type 'scientology' into Google, or have a chat with the Panorama team.

hartley patterson, High Wycombe, Bucks

It has been said before in this matter but it needs saying again.
"Forget the messenger: it's the message thats important!"
Scientology should be exposed: a nasty, creepy, stupid creed. So a journalist lost it for a couple of minutes! So what? Get on with the story.

Ed Moran, London,

Their power lies in their policies that abuse people and the law, and put their own law above that created by the state, preferring the idea that they offer the only solution to human problems.

I do not forget what happened to Gabriel Cazares, who was mayor of Clearwater when Scientology moved in under an assumed name and started buying property in the 1970s. Scientology's operations against him, author Paulette Cooper, and others who would raise their voices against injustice were uncovered at the end of that decade by an FBI raid that sent 11 top Scn officials to jail. It was the largest infiltration of the US government in US history.

I think if you understood what happened to these people, and what is happening to Keith Henson as I type this, perhaps you would understand the support of Sweeney.

banchukita, clearwater, florida