IAS event, Saint Hill, 17/18 Oct 2014 - some people have too much fun

No. No. I took a survey. People really do love opinions from people who don't know what's going on. I was shocked.

Edit

Silly me.

So am I.
I am going to contemplate this news whilst drinking a cup of coffee and smoking crack.
Brb

That notion is Common Law based in England, Wales and Scotland. As I recall, one can tread upon the land of another as long as one does not cause damage or harm in doing so. The Common Law notion has been modified somewhat by statute, which I do not recall the details of. Some obvious exceptions would be the land surrounding GCHQ and Buckingham Palace.

The brown sign rules only cover the putting up of a brown sign.

Right to Roam was checked into years ago and it doesn't apply to Saint Hill.

Non-posted property with an open invitation for the public to enter the grounds? That doesn't sound like trespass unless they lingered too long after being told to leave, but I am not an English barrister or solicitor.

23rd October 2014, 04:52 PM

#84

Little David

Patron

Join Date

Mar 2014

Posts

82

Re: 2014 IAS Event

James Barbour convicted sex offender was one of the performers:


Broadway Actor Pleads Guilty to Backstage Sex Act With Girl, 15, in 2001

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: January 4, 2008
Correction Appended

A Broadway actor admitted on Thursday that in 2001 he seduced a 15-year-old girl who visited him backstage, and agreed as part of a plea bargain to reveal that admission to anybody he works for in film, television or theater for up to the next three years.

Louis Lanzano/Associated Press

James Barbour, who played the lead role in “Beauty and the Beast.”



The actor, James Barbour, was accused of having criminal sexual contact with a high school student who was an aspiring actress when she attended a performance of “Jane Eyre” in June 2001.

The student’s drama teacher arranged for her to visit the Brooks Atkinson Theater with her parents. Mr. Barbour told Justice Micki A. Scherer of State Supreme Court in Manhattan that the girl visited him in his dressing room before the final curtain call and that he fondled her, knowing that she was only 15 years old.

He also told the judge that he had oral sex with the girl in his apartment the next month. She did not come forward with her account for several years.

Under the negotiated deal, Mr. Barbour, 41, pleaded guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, both misdemeanors, in exchange for a promise that he would be sentenced to 60 days in jail and three years’ probation.

Mr. Barbour’s lawyer, Ronald Fischetti, said his client accepted the deal because if a jury had convicted him of the original felony sex charges against him he would have been forced to register as a sex offender, “which basically would have ended his career.”

His lawyer said that the prosecutor’s agreement to a misdemeanor plea showed the weaknesses of its case. But Mr. Barbour had to agree to a lengthy series of conditions of probation that are very similar to those that apply to convicted sex offenders.

While he is on probation, he must inform the manager, producer or assistant director of any theatrical, film or television project he works in that he has been convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, “having engaged in oral sexual conduct and sexual contact with a 15-year-old child.”

And he has to get permission from the court or his probation officer to participate in shows employing child actors or to give backstage tours to children.

He must also attend sex-offender treatment and cannot visit playgrounds, arcades, amusement parks, school grounds or Internet chat rooms frequented by children without permission from his probation officer.

In a signed statement to the police in April 2006, Mr. Barbour said that he was just acting as a mentor to the girl, that he had done no more than touch her knees and kiss her and that he thought that she was 16.

But in court on Thursday when asked by Justice Scherer, “Were you aware of her exact age?” Mr. Barbour replied, “Yes.”

“What was that age?” Justice Scherer pressed.

“Fifteen,” he replied.

At least one Broadway veteran said on Thursday that Mr. Barbour, who played the Beast in “Beauty and the Beast” for about one year, might find himself less marketable for family-friendly shows for awhile.

“I think if he did a show with adults, he might be entitled to a second chance,” said Emanuel Azenberg, a Broadway producer. “‘Sweeney Todd,’ O.K. But even then I certainly wouldn’t put it in the bio.”

Saying on Thursday that those conditions could turn out to be “a big price to pay,” Mr. Azenberg said producers might be concerned about the moral and legal liability involved in casting an actor convicted of endangering a child.

Producers could be wary of financial and artistic repercussions, he said, because casting directors would feel obliged to reveal Mr. Barbour’s conviction to the parents of any children who might audition for a show, “and then your casting choices would be compromised.”

But Jay Binder, a casting director who said he had begun Mr. Barbour’s career by casting him in “Beauty and the Beast,” said he would make decisions based on talent.

“James Barbour is a first-rate Broadway leading man,” Mr. Binder said. “If he were the actor that the entire creative staff agreed upon, there would be no professional reason not to hire James Barbour.”

Mr. Fischetti said he expected his client, who will be sentenced next month, to be out of jail in time to perform in “A Tale of Two Cities” if it comes to New York. Mr. Barbour played Sidney Carton during a pre-Broadway tryout in Florida last year. The producers of the show declined to comment on Thursday.

He said Mr. Barbour was recently married in a civil ceremony — his wife accompanied him to court on Thursday — and was planning a formal wedding in Hawaii. Mr. Fischetti said the woman Mr. Barbour was convicted of endangering is now an actress.
Campbell Robertson contributed reporting.

Correction: January 10, 2008

An article on Friday about a guilty plea by James Barbour, a Broadway actor, to endangering the welfare of a child for seducing a 15-year-old girl who visited him backstage misstated the length of time he played the Beast in “Beauty and the Beast.” It was about one year, not “about eight.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/ny...ctor.html?_r=0
http://www.eastgrinsteadcourier.co....son/pictures-23344688-detail/pictures.html#16

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?37337-2014-IAS-Event&p=975584#post975584

No doubt all the people that they identified will be receiving a personal un-invitation to the property from Scientology's legal people.

Those that can do. Those that can't carp from the sidelines.

go back to Ortega's, asshole

PS why are we entertaining the antics of a fucking bunch of former kool-aid drinkers? This is WWP a PEACEFUL PROTEST WEBSITE. Stop doing the work of OSA, gais

I'm a member of this forum, you aren't. I don't need any guidance from foul-mouthed guttersnipes about where I should or shouldn't go.

I took part in the protest, but not the dawn raid. I have never been a Scientologist, like quite a number of the other demonstrators.

I think we can all see who is doing the work of OSA here: anonymous trolls like you, "CW Anon".

You and yours seem to say that often, along with that butthurt thing. You really
don't have any confront at all, do you?
.

I took part in the protest. I don't "have any confront", because confront is a verb, not a noun.

You are obviously a lurk more.

Take a look at the shoop project pages. And why not become a member yourself?

Yeah. You need to lurk moar.

You have no idea who you're talking to so you don't know what that person has or has not done. We have a LOT of people here who have done quite a bit against scientology without ever protesting. Many of them don't live anywhere near a sci property where they can protest. Some of them can't protest for various reasons. No one should belittle anyone who is putting effort into stopping this cult as long as they're not breaking the law.

There's no anonymous posting button any longer so people are forced to sock up. It's an anonymous thing and it's accepted here. Stop whining about it.

I saw the 'Xenu' banner outside but didnt see any protestors, I herd there had been a disturbance outside.
It would of been good to see some members of the forum though obviously I couldn't say hi.

It was the same 'boom boom tahhh dahhh' We have solved the Ebola crisis in Africa by setting up an Ideal Org in Joburg.
We solved the war in Ukraine by handing our TWTH in Kiev.

Yet to here if they really have full recognition????

Keep up the good work on trying to get the CoS into the real world.

I'd like to get in contact with any ex members who still believe in Scientology even if its just for anon webchat.

The brown sign rules covers the putting up of the sign and who is eligible. Someone else brought up the brown signs rule and posted that only places that allow complete freedom to roam everywhere on their property would be given a brown sign. That is not true and I posted a link and the information about who all could get a brown sign and the process to get that sign. It was the government website for brown signs.


I researched and brought up the freedom or right to roam act in case the people at this protest were going to use that as an excuse for why they just waltzed up to the front steps of Saint Hill Manor before dawn. Even if they are allowed to walk across the open fields around Saint Hill Manor---it does not give them the right to walk onto landscaped areas or up to buildings on the property. So this group cannot use freedom to roam as an excuse on why they did what they did.

Saint Hill is not a non-posted property with an open invitation to enter the grounds.

I went to the Saint Hill Manor website and posted the information from that page earlier in this thread and it says that Saint Hill requires you to contact them in advance to take a guided tour. The guided tours are from 2 PM to 5 PM.

Hi All, just to clarify (I'm a Solicitor in England), right to roam would not seem apply to much of St Hill's grounds as most of it would not be considered an uncultivated area of heath, mountain or moorland etc. See s.1 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for the full definition of access land. If it could be established St Hill was access land and access was restricted then it could constitute an offence under s.14 of the same act.

I would need to see official copies of the Land Register entry and I wonder if anyone has obtained this document already? I would also be particularly interested to see if there were any old public footpaths across the land.

I agree with amaX, a brown sign in itself does not give anyone a right to just start wandering into and around properties. Brown signs are just brown signs which point out places of interest. Consider a national trust property, many of which have brown signs, you can't just go wandering into Glamis Castle without paying the entrance fee for instance.

Re: Quentinanons post, GCHQ and military establishments are covered under OSA 1911 (The Official Secrets Act -I mention because the accepted abbreviation for said act is OSA coincidentally.) Also under UK law interestingly it is also an offence to trespass on the railway.

Trespass is indeed a slightly more complicated area, but trespass is usually a civil as opposed to a criminal offence (exceptions would be the above situations or if damage was caused on the property amounting to criminal damage), realistically if there is no damage no sensible person is going to sue for trespass as there would be no damage thus no monetary damages. Say one was asked to leave and refused, or caused damage or were abusive or violent matters could turn into other offences (harrasment, criminal damage, assault etc etc). That said you can walk on the grounds of St Hill and it would not necessarily be a trespass (consider a delivery woman is not trespassing when she delivers to your door, even though she has not been invited). I have walked on the grounds of St Hill myself totally unchallenged, though I did take the precautions of not openly recording video, wearing a tucked in t-shirt and chinos, adopting a fake American accent and wearing a vaguly blank expression bidding people hello to not look out of place.Parking close is a bit of a problem but as my car comes back to a rental company I was not too bothered.

The upshot being I think in twos or threes for investigation purposes it should be fine, leave if asked and don't cause a ruckus. Heck you could even do the tour, and I would be quite interested to know what this was like if anyone has done it. For larger protests and raids I feel we should be careful and stick to the rules, footpaths and be polite. Generally making sure we keep the law on our side, after all it is us who are fighting the good fight.

lol u r a waste of space, ex-scientologist.

I don't really know how it works over here and I apologise if I stepped on any toes or upset anyone by posting the videos of the dawn raid.

What I can tell you from the perspective of being English is that we have a centuries-long, very healthy tradition of inventive and humourous protesting. The EG police were great and had a lot of fun with us the previous evening, and the police who came to remove us were professional and respectful of the fact that ours was a peaceful protest as acknowledged by the sergeant at the time.

I would like to add from a personal perspective that I'm finding it difficult to see how posting some videos on WWP could be seen as me trying to be a hero.

Anyway, I hope those who enjoyed the videos really enjoyed them, and those who didn't can understand that our intention was never malicious. I'd say it was a pretty inventive and humourous protest, and I loved it.

Does the Saint Hill property have posted no trespassing signs?

The Saint Hill websites make it clear that visitors are welcomed for other than tours. Fishing for example.

There are no 'No Trespassing' signs

^^ this
If there is reasonable expectation that the trespass might be repeated then I assume the property owner can take out an injunction. The point is that trespass IN ITSELF is not a criminal offence under English law.

Of more importance IMO is the attitude of the police. If this kind of behaviour annoys them then that is a good reason for not engaging in it. Usually the best strategy is to stir the drones up and then sit back and watch as they annoy the authorities by following Tech or as it mostly is these days licking the Great Leader's boots.

I'm kicking myself i missed this now! I do like the chat with the non scilon security guard- he was listening and clearly not a scilon. I notice that few of the "security" had any visible SIA badges- which is dodgy as hell. The one who said "get the dog unit" had what sounded like a South African accent- which made it sound even more sinister..and comical!

Especially now we know the dog unit consisted of one very cheerful Weimaraner

Lulz but you were really pushing your luck with security- Just as well you had mutliple cameras! I do like the reveal of OT 8 and OT3 EPs and Janet wotsit saying your IAS membership is cancelled followed by asking for a refund- glorious!

I've watched it to the end now! I think that when you were talking calmly with genuine concern it was starting to cut through the mind control- there were glimmers of real emotion momentarily showing on the faces of the Ronbots. This is also something backed up by Steve Hassan (if you don't know about Steve Hassan you need to if you want to get people out of a cult).

You!

Now for a bit of creative legal reasoning, what follows is simply my own personal opinion and no warranties or guarantees are implied and any reliance of information given is entirely at your own risk.

An injunction could be sought in the case of a trespass. Whether it would be granted is another matter. Trespass in itself would be a weak ground for an injunction. The Claimant would also need a legal entity to grant an injunction against, I strongly doubt a Claimant could seek an injunction against "Anonymous". Also the matter would have to go to Court and the Defendant would be able to present their case. If such a case were taken before the Court I for one would be attending to ensure that a right to lawful protest against sinister and dangerous organisations is protected.

Would the Courts favour Anonymous activists or scientologists in such an application? The Court must assess amongst other factors whether there is a legal or equitable right for an Anon to be on that land.

There is a strong history in UK law of Scientology being noted as a sinister organisation, "Scientology is corrupt, sinister and dangerous" Re B & G (Custody) (1985) 6 FLR 134, Latey J. Further it would appear that the Courts have in the past accepted that scientology is not a religion, see the comments of Lord Denning in R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal and another [1970] 2 QB 697, [1970] 3 All ER 886.

Compare this to the relatively recent case of Hodkin v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77 where the right to use the chapel at St. Hill for marriages was granted (As Hodkin is a recent Supreme Court judgement the ruling takes precedence). Hodkin however does not to my mind confer the status of a religion on cults, nor condone sinister, illegal, dangerous or corrupt practices .Nor does the case disallow per se anyone from holding or voicing an opinion that Scientology is a cult, (though perhaps Scientology will in future try and use this case to try and claim discrimination on religious grounds). Nor does the case prohibit or qualify a right to lawfully and peacefully protest against illegal activity and sinister organisations. One remains mindful the case for granting a licence to allow marriages needs to be distinguished from the Courts being complicit in avowing illegal activity, sinister practices or practices which are harmful to other others. In the UK a public house or a hotel can apply for a marriage licence so it follows St Hill should be allowed. Hotels however are not given a free reign to mind control customers, adopt pseudo scientific practices in the name of therapy, nor practice medicine without a licence.

Therefore there is no law against peacefully and lawfully protesting sinister organisations and unlawful practices.

(Now here comes the sting!) St Hill has been accepted as a licensed place for marriages; pursuant to the Marriage Act 1949 (as amended) s.46B which states:

(s.46(2)) Without prejudice to the width of section 46A(2)(e) of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequor [Now Secretary of State - as amended by The Transfer of Functions (Registration and Statistics Order 1996)] shall exercise his power to provide for the imposition of conditions as there mentioned so as to secure that members of the public are permitted to attend any marriage solemnized on approved premises in pursuance of section 26(1)(bb) of this Act.

Statute takes precedence over case law.

s.26(1)(bb) looks at the approval of premises by the local authority, so if one wanted to make a representation to the local authority or registrar regarding the approval of a marriage solemnization it follows one may need to visually inspect the approved premises.

It follows Anons must therefore have a legal right to access St Hill Manor, the approved premises for the purposes of inspection of the chapel and making representations to the local authority or registrar and it would seem the Secretary of State (The Home Secretary) must excercise her power in allowing Anons access to St. Hill, because they have been granted approval for marriages! How do you like those onions DM!

Turning to your second point Hartley, I wholeheartedly agree with you, we are on the right side of the law, we have a good history of working with the police and we should continue to do so, the police too must of course uphold and protect the law. Perhaps we should remain mindful however police officers are not lawyers and sometimes they need to be guided on intricate points of law. On a separate point I do hope police officers would not accept gifts from scientology as significant gifts must surely be unlawful pursuant to the Bribery Act.

I think Roland R-B might have scooped you on that one, but yeah, it would be funny as heck if a known SP phoned ahead to let them know that they wished to inspect the wedding facilities.

Wouldn't it just!

and apologies to Roland R-B for any plagiarism, purely unintentional...

Looking at the point regarding gifts by the church to public officials, public bodies have to keep a register of these gifts which are public documents. Has anybody obtained the gift and hospitality registers of the local police?

It that something anyone can request, Anon-6?

Yes - Done by FOIAR. (Freedom of Information Act Request).

For instance here is the one for PSNI....http://www.psni.police.uk/index/abo...gisters/register_of_gifts_and_hospitality.htm

And then there is this article so somebody must have got a copy at some point....

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i.../53382-london-police-link-scientologists.html

Though might be worth seeing an up to date copy. Not that I am accusing anyone of anything, just ensuring a bit of due diligence.

The authority can refuse to provide in certain circumstances prescribed by the act, and you need to be clear what you are asking for and making sure the cost of sending you the file is not unreasonable. Here is what happens when you FOIAR MI6!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/225994/FOI_0301-13_publication_reply.pdf

When L. Ron lived at Saint Hill, and for many years afterward, the property had "No Hunting" signs posted around the perimeter. I do not recall ever seeing a "No Trespassing" sign.

They can hardly try to put on a facade of being community-friendly and then put up No Trespassing - Patrolled by Guard Dogs signs.

Not that they don't try (although that sign at AOSH Canada might have predated them buying the property):