Phil might well have started out being quite nice. Most Scientologists do.
But to be an OSA-bot, you have to leave your humanity behind on the coat stand next to the doorway hell.
I’ve had some dealings with Phil over the years. First started when he attempted to dissuade me from looking at ‘entheta’ stuff on the internet. He gave me a list of ‘approved’ sites where I could get the ‘truth’.
One of these was the cult’s official home site which had a link to BeliefNet – I visited there and was amazed to see real people discussing Scientology. That really opened my eyes. Another site was Religious Freedom Watch. I was stunned and shocked to read the stuff posted there. It was clearly a CoS-sponsored operation (so much stuff that could only have been gathered within the cult or by investigators working for them) and was all about sliming the people featured. Rather than being factual, the articles just threw vitriol at the targets accusing them of being ‘anti-religious bigots’ and ‘extremists’ when it was clear that most were simply criticising the CoS only. It also conveniently ignored the fact that many of the targets had been long-term Scientologists.
This really brought home to me just how irrational the cult was when it felt that it was being attacked.
So well done, Phil - you really helped to open my eyes to how your ‘church’ really behaves.
Another incident was when he arrived at my house to hand me a PTS declare, and told me that I was no longer eligible to receive Scientology services. Rather stupidly I protested this and eventually got it overturned. I should have seen the light and GTFO’d then and there.
But seriously, what sort of F**ktard turns up at the house of someone who has been the best ever ‘customer’ (in terms of money handed over) of one of the St Hill orgs and tells him this without even bothering to find out the facts first?
But the most egregious thing he did and the one that most aptly demonstrates the hypocrisy and doublethink so prevalent in the cult was when I tried to get a repayment of money that I had on account at St Hill Foundation. At first they tried to ignore me, but eventually I was told to come in and do a routing form. As the OSA rep (DSA) within the service orgs at St Hill, Phil supervised the filling in of this form. So, I went through all the steps and completed the form to his satisfaction. We agreed how much money was in my account and Phil said that the form had to be sent to LA, but that I should get my money within about 2 weeks. Reassured, I went away and waited.
And waited. After about 3 weeks I hadn’t heard anything so I contacted the org. Or at least I tried. They refused to return my calls or speak to me. What sort of slimly little tosser (I talking to you Philip Harbour) says he will do something and then pretends it never happened? Hardly honest behaviour, is it?
So, I then had to ‘up the ethics gradient’ and wrote to the media, my MP, the Charities Commission, and retained a solicitor to send them a letter. Eventually I got a response when I told OSA what I had done and that I was looking forward to seeing them in court.
I got called in to ‘The Hill’ and was met by a person called Massimo Angius, who is the OSA Legal Aide, which seems to be the post responsible for dealing with legal threats. He took me to a small office which I know is used by OSA and asked me some questions about why I was leaving the ‘church’. To his credit, he did apologise for the lack of response to my repayment request, but also did something that betrayed the lack of humanity extant within the cult.
There were three people in the room when he introduced himself. Me, him and Phil. Both I and he were sitting, but Phil was made to stand for the entire meeting (around 1 hour). I got the impression that Phil was being chastised and taught a lesson on how to handle a problem as he was pointedly ignored during the meeting. The way the cult works, is that someone is always to blame and that was almost certainly Phil in this case.
Bizarrely, Angius claimed to have had no previous knowledge of my situation and said that I should have come to him first. My first thought was, “So following your own official policy to the letter wasn’t the correct thing to do?” and my second was, “WTF? The person standing next to you was involved right from the start and you say you didn’t know anything?”
Previously, Phil had delivered a ‘waiver’ to me (just popped it through the letter box when I was in and then retreated quickly). This waiver basically expected me to sign away my rights to free speech. I was to never speak of my repayment, never to assist anyone else asking for money back or taking any other action against the cult, and also demanding that I was never to do anything against the organisation. I refused and instead wrote my own which was a glorified receipt.
Anyway, I got my money back, but the whole episode left a very sour taste in my mouth. It was very difficult for me to leave the cult, but when I did make the decision, I just wanted to get some of my money back and get away from it all. Leave it all behind, for good.
But this convinced me that this was a very dishonest organisation and quite possibly a criminal one as well. Why were they trying to shut me up? I decided then and there that I needed to find out more about the true motives of this cult and eventually realised that they should be opposed.
So Philip Harbour, you helped create Axiom142. But then this is what the CoS is good at – creating enemies. So take a win on that.
I have come across Phil a couple of times in EG since then and both times he has pretended that he didn’t see me and walked quickly away. So much for Scientologist ability to confront, eh?
Axiom142
).
