Alex resists: Regional council tempers proposal for Scientology protests

Alex Barnes-Ross has an exciting update for us regarding the ongoing controversy over his protests of Scientology at its UK headquarters in East Grinstead…

Last week, I asked community members at The Undergroud Bunker for their thoughts on Mid-Sussex District Council’s proposals for a ‘Voluntary Code of Conduct’ that would apply to both protestors and the Church of Scientology during their big IAS gala weekend at their UK headquarters, Saint Hill.

Firstly, I wanted to thank everybody who provided comments and feedback, and although I’m not able to share my response publicly until after the PSPO process is over, I wanted to assure everybody that I took every comment into account in my reply.

For context, last year Scientology applied for a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), which would ban protesting along Saint Hill Road — the road on which their UK headquarters is located.

Mid-Sussex District Council sent observers and have been painstakingly reviewing hundreds of hours of Police body cam footage, live streams and statements in order to assess whether a ban is necessary. To meet the criteria laid out in the government’s statutory guidelines, there needs to be clear evidence of “persistent, ongoing disruption” that affects the quality of life of those in the locality. Our position remains that there have only been two protests in the last six years and at neither event have the Police found it necessary to arrest, caution, or warn any protestors.

Contrary to what Scientology claim, there is no evidence of any antisocial behaviour, hate speech or harassment, and our case argues that any disruption to the local community is caused by Scientology’s poor traffic management and planning around their large-scale event that sees thousands off Scientologists travel from across Europe and attempt to access the Saint Hill compound at the same time.

Yesterday, I heard from Lucy Corrie, the Mid-Sussex District Council (MSDC) Assistant Director who has been overseeing the PSPO process and she has proposed some amendments to the ‘voluntary code of conduct’ after taking our views into consideration.

In her letter, she clarifies:

The purpose of the proposed Codes of Conduct is to facilitate a degree of communication and compromise between the Church and protesters. This is an attempt to identify an informal means of facilitating and balancing all stakeholders’ rights and interests in relation to activities at Saint Hill Road, in a manner which is less restrictive than making a PSPO. For the avoidance of doubt, if both stakeholders were willing to agree to a voluntary Code of Conduct and the Council assessed it was (for the most part) working well, the Council’s position is that it would not likely be necessary or proportionate to make a PSPO.

The Codes of Conduct are not legally binding documents. They cannot be enforced as a contract, nor any breaches prosecuted as if they were a PSPO or bylaw. If any alleged breaches of the Codes were observed by Council officers or the police (e.g. during a protest) they would have no specific power to take any enforcement action or to remedy the breach. Their powers would remain limited to those which they already enjoy in any event, e.g. under criminal law, anti-social behaviour powers etc. The Codes would thus be an informal and entirely voluntary set of agreed rules, similar to the guidelines which have already been self-adopted by protesters and publicised on your website. In essence therefore, the propose Code can be considered a voluntary amendment (or addition) to the existing guidelines already displayed on the website.

The Council recognises and accepts that on the one hand the Church cannot control the actions of all its members and event attendees, and on the other that the protesters with whom the Council has engaged during this consultation process cannot control the actions of other persons who may wish to attend protests or who do not form part of their community. If such persons (on either side) engaged in unacceptable behaviour of any kind, that might need to be examined as part of a broader reconsideration of whether a PSPO had become necessary or justified. However the Council hopes that the existence of voluntary Codes of Conduct – which had been agreed by the principal stakeholders – would act as a persuasive deterrent to such behaviour. It has also asked that the Codes of Conduct be displayed at the protest site at Saint Hill Road and on the protesters’ website so that any newcomers become aware of them.

And now for the nitty gritty.

The Council have agreed to make a concession on their proposed point around designated protest areas, the wording of which is still being negotiated.

With regard to signage and the “effigy” (elf doll) Scientology claim was offensive to their Dear Leader Captain Miscavige, I argued that our freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives us the right to “communicate in any medium, including through words, pictures and actions” and that should any signage or imagery displayed be deemed offensive, the Police have adequate powers with which to request (or require) their removal. I noted that there were no objections from Scientology to the elf doll appearing at the protest in 2023, and it is only in light of their PSPO application that it was suddenly considered offensive in 2024. The Council yesterday noted “absence of prosecution does not necessarily confirm that the police were satisfied those items were not offensive; rather, it is possible that the police felt no further action was justified in circumstances where protestors promptly complied with police requests to remove those items from display”. However, they have agreed to remove the reference to signage and elf dolls if protestors agree to the “broad outlines of the proposed Code of Conduct.”

I also pushed back hard on the Council’s proposed restriction on our right to film and photograph at the gates of Saint Hill. The original wording simply stated “Protesters will not film or photograph any persons entering or exiting Church premises,” and I argued that we could not agree to this.

Although Scientology’s corresponding Code of Conduct placed restrictions on Scientology’s right to film or photograph us, I argued that it would be difficult to monitor such a condition. For a start, there are dozens of CCTV cameras pointing directly at the public highway and protest areas — would these need to be removed or covered up prior to the IAS event?

At the same time, recording our activity — and Scientology’s response to it — is necessary for our own safety and security. In 2023, a confrontation occurred in which an OSA agent pushed a protestor into the road with oncoming traffic, and the footage we captured in both years proved a valuable resource for the Council to review our behaviours in order to decide whether a PSPO is even necessary. We have no objection to Scientology filming us, and any agreement not to record our activities in a public space would be an unfair restriction on our fundamental human rights.

The Council have heard our concerns and proposed an amendment which specifies “protestors are permitted to film or photograph their own activities on the public highway. However, when doing so protestors agree they shall refrain from training, focusing or ‘zooming in’ their cameras on (i) the interior of the Church premises; and (ii) the faces of persons entering or exiting the Church premises”

In principle, I have agreed this sounds reasonable but have asked for some further tweaks to the wording so as to ensure any instances of passers by incidentally being captured on camera cannot be used as fodder for future complaints from Scientology.

The Council has also asked the Church to refrain from filming or photographing protestors.

There was also a concession on the point of handing out leaflets. In their original draft, MSDC wrote “Protesters will not approach persons entering or exiting Church premises with leaflets or similar,” which I pushed back on as detrimental to both our freedom of expression, and reason for protesting.

“Scientology retain tight control over the lives of its members, particularly those who work at Saint Hill. These staff members in particular are part of the ‘Sea Organisation’ and they have signed one billion year contracts dedicating their lives (and all future lives) to working for the Church. They are provided communal accommodation in Crowborough and are often expected to work 14-18 hour days, 7 days a week with no time off in return for a weekly stipend of just £50,” I argued. “With the exception of a limited number of public-facing executives, for the most part Sea org staff are not permitted to own mobile phones and any access to the internet is closely monitored and heavily censored” For this reason, handing out cards and flyers that promote mental health services and community resources such as the Michael J. Rinder Aftermath Foundation is often the only way of reaching people who may not otherwise be aware of their existence.

MSDC have provided clarity on the difference between “offering, providing or distributing leaflets” and “approaching persons with leaflets” and noted that, without suggesting this has happened in the past, people should not be “followed or obstructed or pestered to accept leaflets if they do not wish to do so.”

They have also proposed a carefully worded disclaimer that spells out exactly how these Codes of Conduct would be enforced, which reinforces the Council’s ability to “reconsider taking enforcement action to ensure public safety at the protest site (such as a PSPO)” based on the behaviour it observes on both sides, as compared to the agreed Codes.

MSDC also note that Scientology have agreed to paragraphs 1-5 and 7 of their corresponding code of conduct without further amendments, including the commitment not to enter or interfere with any designated protest areas and not to obstruct protestors.

The Church asked for the removal of point 8 of their code, which was originally worded as: “The Church (including but not limited to its staff, volunteers, agents and/or contractors) shall comply with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003 and the premises licence issued by MSDC namely, you are required to notify the relevant health and safety enforcing authority of all upcoming events to be held within the grounds of Saint Hill Manor, 6 weeks prior to the actual event occurring detailing the nature of the event and any activities carried out on site.”

Their argument is that these matters can be dealt with separately using mechanisms available under the Licensing Act 2003 and that their event planning itself does not have any bearing on protests. However, I have pushed back on this, arguing that Scientology have failed to meet their basic obligations and the requirements of their Premises Licence in both years and that by providing both the Council and protestors with 6-8 weeks’ notice of their event, we are able to plan our demonstration accordingly, so as to minimise any potential disruption.

Discussions are still ongoing between the Council and the Church around their use of amplified bagpipe music and MSDC have confirmed they “will address any logistical concerns” around the Church’s requirement to display laminated copies of both Codes of Conduct at Saint Hill.

So, there’s still a bit of work to be done, but it feels like we are nearing an agreement that would satisfy the Council’s concerns around our protest and Scientology’s behaviour and would avoid the implementation of a PSPO.

As I’m sure you can appreciate, there are a lot of details I have purposefully left out so as not to compromise our position — unlike a court case, both parties are not privy to the other side’s arguments. But it does seem that the Council are listening to our concerns and are willing to work with us to find a solution that works for all.

And yes, I have hammered home the point that Scientology have a track record of not keeping up their end of the bargain — and referenced their numerous infringements in planning rules, highways obstructions and Fair Game tactics.

But overall, these codes of conduct work both ways and the Council have provided a satisfactory response to my concerns around the repercussions for Scientology should they infringe any part of their side of the agreement — which I will share in due course.

For now, I will continue to work with MSDC to iron out the final few details but I expect an agreement will be made in the coming days, which will then need to be ratified by a Cabinet vote shortly afterwards. The next Cabinet meeting is scheduled for 30th June, with another taking place two weeks later on 14th July and I suspect we may see the Council’s full report on the matter presented for Councillors to vote on during one of these sessions.

What will be particularly interesting to see is the Council’s report on how much this PSPO process has cost the taxpayer, considering they have sought legal advice from an expensive barrister at every stage.

— Alex Barnes-Ross

---

Want to help?

Please consider joining the Underground Bunker as a paid subscriber. Your $7 a month will go a long way to helping this news project stay independent, and you’ll get access to our special material for subscribers. Or, you can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail). E-mail tips to tonyo94@gmail.com. Find us at Threads: tony.ortega.1044 and Bluesky: @tonyortega.bsky.social

For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link for today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.

Paid subscribers get access to a special podcast series…

Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news