Gerry,

             You are entitled to draw whetever conclusions you like - but, IMO the greatest asset that Rawat has had in being able to obscure the truth is the capcity for premies AND ex premies to create myths that actually misdirect attention from what is real.

To cast (in this case) Tom Gubler as the bad guy and John MacGregor as the good guy is simply absurd. Even if Tom's intentions were dishonest - and I don't believe they were, John as a prefessional journalist should have taken far greater care not only to protect himself but to protect his 'source'.  I have no doubt that what Tom did in releasing the documents was morally defensible and certainly was not illegal under Queensland law, nor was John doing anything wrong in recieving the documents. 

John's failure (not Tom Gubler's) was in neither preparing the documents as part of a journalistic treatment, nor in providing the material to the relevant authorities without delay. Had John acted with professional diligence he would not have opened up the opportunity for Tom Gubler to be 'shanghiad' and would have had far greater strength for his own Court defence.

What happened to John in the Queensland Courts is atrocious - but John chose to use his professionlism to challenge Rawat and it was professional neglect on John's part that left him open to attack - albeit within a judicial system of very dubious values.

To set John up as an heroic victim is to simply add another myth to a myth ladden cult history. John is like the rest of us - part good guy, part bad guy, part indifferent human struggling to deal with existence.  In dealing with the cult John was cavalier with his own safety  that was his choice; however he has also been cavalier with the safety of others from whom he sought support and in my view that is not excusable. Indeed it is a very 'premie' trait and as such something that should not IMO be tolerated by anyone who claims to be an 'ex'.

nik