I wonder why there seems to have been hardly any attention given to ‘Scientology’ on this scientific network. A quick search brings up this forum piece from late last year, concerning that typical fascistic resort – book banning. Otherwise we seem to ignore it in the hope it will go away. Odd, when we are, quite rightly, quick to react to populist anti-science politicising, litigious anti-science bullying (you know what I’m talking about), homeopathy, and other such quackery. It is, is it not, part of the point of sounding off blogging; part of our role? Some of us like to have a poke at discuss religion’s occasional incongruence or otherwise with certain aspects of science (although a few of the atheists here are seemingly somewhat shy). But when a ‘religion’ adopts the name ‘Scientology’, shouldn’t we all – religious or not – be more quizzical?

Last week, the French seemingly got them sussed, (well, almost, in that they fell short in merely suspending sentences for fraud). What is it with cults? What do they offer that is seemingly so lacking in some people’s lives? Whatever it is here, it’s certainly very, err, persuasive. Celebrity endorsement always helps, most famously through the ego of an actor whom, since Jerry Maguire, I’ve actually long admired (well, if he was good enough for Kubrick…). “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance” (obviously never had a hangover, then).

There will likely be an appeal. And if you never hear from me again, consider the possibility that large men wearing dark suits and dark glasses have covertly whisked me away in a black van with darkened windows…

(Whaddaya mean “Here’s hoping”?)