Kent Bengtsson – declared by rumour for applying Scientology

Kent Bengston

Editor Comment:

Many thanks to Kent for submitting this data to BIC. Kent is an old-timer Scientologist having served on staff in various orgs (including Joburg) and the Sea Org. Earlier this year he was summoned before a Comm-Ev as a result of having commented openly on the BIC blog among other actions that fall within the ambit of the Creed of the Church.

Interestingly, one of the listed Suppressive Acts is “Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology”. When you read what Kent has written, it’s clear this is exactly what happened to him. He applied Scientology and got hung for it.

Kent wrote two letters to the Committee giving his viewpoint and stance on the current scene in the Church, and we are publishing them here. Due to their comprehensive nature, the letters are rather long, so be prepared for a lengthy and interesting read as you journey with Kent into the murky waters of  the “Justice protocols of RCS”.


By Kent Bengtsson

One nice thing about this Blog is the variety of posts and people contributing with articles. It gives a reader many different viewpoints to consider and be aware of.

I have thought of writing something again, but never got around to it. But then I realized I have something written that might be of interest and that is my two responses to the Committee of Evidence held on me earlier this year.

In January this year I was called into HCO at St. Hill and shown a copy of a Bill of Particulars notifying me that I was to be comm-ev’d.

My Scientology history is not full of outrageous violations or suffering. I actually had a pretty good time as a staff and SO member as well as a public when I was on services.  Maybe this has something to do with my outlook on life and refusal to take it too seriously.  And maybe that is a viewpoint worth sharing here too.

Below are two  things I wrote for the comm-ev when I was asked to come in for an interview.  I have decided not to alter them, as most readers here are scientologists and are familiar with these things.

I do not have my notes from reading the Bill of Particulars, so cannot say what every point referred to with a number below, was saying. But it was pretty much the usual stuff from the Ethics Book. Not important really. This took place at Saint Hill Foundation in the UK.


First letter:

This is my response to the allegations made in the Bill of Particulars for Kent Bengtsson.


Dear Committee members,
I have just been shown the Bill of Particulars by Isabelle in HCO this morning of Sunday 26 Jan 2014.
To save us all some time, and because I think I am more coherent in my writings than in my speech, I am here going to put down what I want to say about this matter.
 About me:
 I came into Scn in the summer 1975 in Gothenburg, Sweden. In the autumn I joined staff and remained on staff until spring 1983 where I with some reluctance followed my then wife to New Era Denmark in the SO. I mainly worked in HCO, Flag Rep network and in the end as Course Admin in Got Org.  I also audited book one on an all hands basis and a fair percentage of my PCs joined staff or continued on major services.
In the SO, after short times as a Sales Manager (which did not suit me at all) and copying reel to reel tapes, I was working with E-meters. Mainly repair, but also a year in manufacturing of the Mk IV. Some at St Hill may remember me as the “Meter Man” in the 80’s. The Azimuth meter in Qual still bears one of my silver certs.
At the end of 1989 I left the SO, having had a son and my wife was fitness-boarded. I was disillusioned with the organization, as the EU meter repair unit had been closed without warning by a Gold ED announcing that all meters would now be done at Gold. No amount of Orders Query, referencing to Policy and LRH advice had any effect.
I then went to Joburg Day and remained on staff there for another year and a half, routing out in 1991.
For the nineties I remained a freeloader and would listen to LRH lectures on my own and go to most events.
In the early 2000’s we used credit to pay the freeloader bill and also made substantial contributions to the IAS, which put us deep in debt. But we did so willingly to assist with the attacks on our religion.
I also redid the Purif and did the TR’s & Objectives Course. I had great wins on the Objectives that were done very thoroughly under great supervision.
When Meryl finished her OT levels she let me use the balance on her account for a NED assist which I also had great wins from.
Toward the end of the Objectives I started the Basics and have remained on them (on and off due to workloads) at least one study period a week, and came close to the end. This gave me a very firm foundation as a Scientologist and a lot of great data from a book auditor viewpoint.
Scientology has made me stronger, happier and most importantly aware that I am my own immortal spirit and cannot die. It also made me less prone to accept other peoples reality as the truth, and more independent in thought and decisions.
I tried to live my life in accordance with my truth and the basic datum that LRH often stresses “If it is not true for you, it is not true”.  The Code of honour and other similar writings became my stable datums.  It was true to me that if I did things that were contrary to my beliefs and reality I would get myself in trouble and pay for it sooner or later.
During my years of staff I have seen all kinds of management methods – from screaming and threatening to hightoned motivation and spirit of play. With the first I noted that stats may have gone up initially, but then after a while tended to level off and then eventually go down, with the latter things were growing on a longer trend and everyone was more happy and willing to pitch in.
I agree with LRH that the world of Scn is built on ARC and I fully subscribe to the “What is Greatness” essay.
Having spent a major part of my life in Scn Orgs or practising the subject, I find it hard not to care what goes on in my religion today.
I feel no hate or anger towards all the dedicated and well intentioned people working on staff and in the SO with the purpose to make a better world for all. I do not even feel anything like that with regard to terminals who do or push things I do not agree with.
 This Comm-Ev: 
I am now accused of a few things.  Lets take a look at these.
The first being “allegedly posted a negative comment on a blog critical to Scientology” (I was never given a copy of the Bill of Particulars, so just took down the key points, pardon me if not quoted exactly).
The blog in question is called “Scientologists back in comm” and is a South African Blog that was started by someone in the wake of 18 long time Scientologist, OT’s, ex-staff members, auditors and big contributors to Scn, were allegedly declared SP’s.
I know some of those people personally and don’t consider them suppressive, so followed the blog to get some of their stories and info I would not be given on church lines.
I did not take an active role, but would read most posts and some comments. At one post the GAT II release event was discussed, and being the “Most important Ever” event, attendance was discussed and speculated about, with attendance figures of earlier milestone events given.
I made a comment on the spur of the moment as I had just been to the Friday Night event. This was my comment:
Kent Bengtsson on November 26, 2013 at 11:29 pm said:
I went to the Friday night Event at St Hill and went straight to the overfill tent. There were no more people there than at a March 13 Event I thought.”
Now tell me is that a negative comment, or is it a fact as seen from my point of observation?
Then we have the second part of the sentence  “a blog critical to Scn”.
Although there are all kinds of people commenting on that blog and many of them are negative in their outlook, I find the general tone not one of criticism of Scientology, but rather one of caring about Scientology and what has happened to our religion and of a positive spirit in practicing the Tech as it was intended by LRH.
The criticism is rather of local and top management terminals for mismanaging the Orgs and altering the true Scientology that was given to us by LRH.
Ask yourself, is “Scientology” the current people managing the Church, or is it the philosophy and tech for the improvement of man, that LRH left behind?
 Second allegation:
“Looked  at websites of declared SP’s and being in agreement with enemy lines promoted on these sites.” or something to that effect.
This is partially true. I have kept an eye now and then on Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinders blogs. I am not an avid reader, as what goes on or not in Scn is not my major interest any more. (My main interest aside from my work is now to understand Man’s systems of law and Natural Law, with the aim to disentangle myself and others who wish to do so, from undue Government control.)
Reading the above second allegation however, one could easily get the impression that I read these blogs and got my ideas from them. This is not the case. I may have picked up some quotes and arguments on these sites, but I had already formed my own conclusions from my own observations as a scientologist, by applying the datums “look don’t listen”.
Let me give a short rundown of that process.
I think it started with the Finance Police in 1983. I had just arrived in the SO and I was at a briefing of all the good things they did and how they weeded out some rotten apples from Orgs and Missions. Part of their method was to take someone in for a sec check and have two big men standing on each side of the “PC” while the sec check was done, sometimes dragging the person in there first. I thought that did not sound right. How can you get a proper result using force and intimidation? I then heard of a German auditor that had been subjected to this who when the check was supposed to begin, dropped the cans and told the Finance Police “auditor” that he will be happy to pick them up once the goons have left the room. I thought “Good for him”.
Then came the closure of the e-meter repair.  I wrote to every Int Exec I could think of being remotely concerned, putting forth the argument that this should not be implemented without a pilot project to assess if it would result in more standard meters being used or not, as per policy. I also had an LRH quote that the meters could be served locally by a competent repairman. They all understood my concern and agreed with my points, but all the same were adamant that the service would now be done at Gold only. This lead me to believe there was someone none of them dared to challenge that was behind the order.
This indicated to me that in the organization, it is not what policy or what LRH says that matters as much as what the top dog(s) dictates.  I made so much noise I had CMO come and inspect my area – someone that knew nothing about meter repair. There and then I decided if it ever came to a choice between my family and this organization, the family would be my priority.
When on staff in Joburg, I saw the Birthday Game being “played” in an insane way. Anything that would give points in the game was done, and anything else was not done. Filing of Treasury records did not happen. Div 6 public who would not or could not buy major services were forgotten about, instead of keeping them in Div 6 until they were more competent and cause, so they could afford it. There were many more outpoints observed at this time.
When viewing events over the years as public, I noticed how more and more of the various Int Execs aside from COB were disappearing from the stage, until he spoke for everyone, except maybe the Biographer/Historian or Guillaume Leserve, (who was dusted off to present the Birthday Game results).
The New Years Eve events used to be presented by the heads of the different sectors, but one year not long ago they were all gone, not to return.
Another thing I noticed at events were that most of the wins were from pioneer areas. I then thought that this was because in pioneer areas there are not a lot of people that interferes with what you do. One just goes ahead and does whatever one wants to do in implementing LRH’s tech in that area, and in areas closer to home there are too many stops put in place by different networks or interests. But now a new thought is coming to my mind. Pioneer area wins are great since few people know first hand what goes on there, so they can be embellished. Just a thought.
I was presented with the Ideal Org concept and one of my first thoughts were “Isn’t that a violation of Be, Do & Have?”.
I was however willing to give the project the benefit of proving itself.
Today I view it as a failed project. The ones I have visited (Joburg, New York and London) were rather empty with few students in the academy, not the bustling hives we are shown at events.
I travelled around many orgs in the mid to late Eighties and orgs like Paris, Hamburg, Munich and Zurich were to me more busy back then then these “Ideal Orgs” I visited. I know this is not a completely fair investigation, as I have not been around myself to all the orgs that are now Ideal.
But when I talk to public or staff of one of them, the general picture I get is that it started off with great fanfare, then staff would drop off or not renew contracts for whatever reasons, leaving empty premises and high utility bills and taxes on the property.
Then we have the IAS.  This was created to safeguard my religion and I was all for it. We had some great victories against all odds. It seemed to be doing what it was supposed to do, although not fully in alignment with membership policy.
Today the IAS seems to have to moved into other areas it was not meant for – like Dissemination campaigns, Real Estate management, etc.
The emphasis seems to me more one of getting public to donate to the IAS, instead of donating for their own Bridge and Training so as to make more auditors needed to clear the planet and more clears and OT’s.
It appears to me as this could be cutting across the expansion of Orgs and Scn as a whole.
It seems almost every staff member is pulled off post to act as a reg for the IAS, when there are already full time IAS regges.  Seems like a violation of the basic principles of the Org Board to me.
Then there is the “Releases” that comes regularly at events.  It was the KTL & LOC. This was the missing piece of the puzzle and now people could really duplicate and live their lives according to their own Org Board and purpose. This would change the face of Scientology. It soon fizzled out and few new public did this. The promised revolutionary changes for Scientology did not materialize.
Then I think it was the golden Age of Tech 1. Now we would produce a volume of auditors that really knew their tech. It seems to me that did not happen, if it did, I would love to see a yearly graph of new auditors made since say 1980 to present time, not including retrained ones or Solo auditors.
Then there was a new PTS/SP Course I think.
Then the Basics, which I really agreed with as I always wanted to study and practice all LRH’s developments in chronological order.  But the doingness part was not there and it was just the theory. I however had very good wins as mentioned above.
But I did not see the changes in the Scientology scene that we were assured this would bring about. And it was not for lack of push and selling, which was quite extreme or intense at times. I think you all have reality on that.
And last but not lease GAT II.  It is of course too early to speak about it. Time will show if it will turn the scene around, but I doubt everyone will welcome the opportunity to retrain from the bottom again and having to buy a new E-meter to do so.
Every release is announced as THE thing that will change Scn and open the floodgates to unlimited expansion, but somehow not much seems to change. Is it only me that notices this?
There is another thing that has changed a lot from the days I came into scientology. In the early days, we did study and all that. We did so as almost a family. People would hang around after course and share wins. We would go out – staff and public together to a movie, a restaurant, or to a beach or lake in the summer and sit around a fire, play guitar, sing and have a great time. We worked hard and we also had some fun in between.
Events were produced locally with a message from LRH and they were good for getting info as well as meeting with friends and party afterwards.
These days it has gone so serious. Every event has to be used to sell something and staff are drilled on selling or surveying.
I get the feeling that happy family spirit has died down and been replaced with a more business like and money oriented atmosphere. The world of scientology has never been perfect. We are building a new world with broken straws, but as far as I am concerned I liked it better when it was a bit more relaxed and things were not so serious or urgent and it seems to me more expansion was occurring back then, than is happening today.
In the seventies, the Orgs did not accept Credit Cards or get involved with arranging loans. Or at least were not supposed to. I believe there was LRH policy forbidding it.  Today sScientologists are pressurized to go into personal debt (a violation of finance policy) in order to donate money to IAS or Ideal Org buildings or their own training or bridge. If an FBO acted as recklessly with an orgs money, as individual Scientologists are being pushed to do with their own finances, he would be RPFed or declared in no time.
These things have all been things I could observe without help of any “enemies”.
Then we have the matter of the “forwarding of an enemy e-mail to several scientologists in good standing”.  This was the Debbie Cook email.  Enclosed herewith for reference in case someone is unfamiliar with it.
I must say that I agree with this message and that I fail to see the enemy part of it. She insists on standard tech and the adherence to the management structures LRH created for us. She encourages people to get trained, audited and to disseminate to raw public.  Where in this is the enemy part? That she is critical of COB and what he has accomplished? Is there anything she says about him that is not true?
I forwarded it to maybe 5 – 7 people as I did not have emails for many Scientologists and I sent it to those I thought might agree with it.  Not all did.

There is also the allegation that I “refused a standard ethics handling for the above”.

Isabelle offered me a program that had my name on it. I suspect this had just been slightly altered from being offered or done on others in my situation. Never mind.

What I remember of it there was a lot of references to be studied on Enemy Lines and one more subject that escapes my mind. I could clearly see how this was meant to make me see that I had accepted enemy lines etc. that that this was why I was thinking and doing what I was doing.

It ended with doing a doubt formula and decide what group I was going to remain in.
I had a good look at the program. I could see how studying these references would most likely just cement my conclusion that the outnesses I observed in the Church were not OK and off policy. As for the doubt formula, I could see that I was more leaning toward not be part of the Church in it’s current state.
If I decided to leave the Church I would most likely be declared, which in turn would mean that some of my friends would disconnect. And this was not exactly an outcome I wanted, so I suggested that for now I will not carry on in the Church as I cannot promise not to look at comm and materials from people declared or who have left the Church. I would guess that letter is in your possession. I never got a response – except for the bill of particulars.
If this is refusal to apply any tech to the situation, that would be for you to decide I suppose.
I did not ask for this comm-ev. I just wanted to be left alone, and in turn I would keep my thoughts to myself.
Maybe I was naïve. Maybe I was sitting on the fence, and needed to be pushed in some direction. Most likely I pulled this in.
Anyway, here we are. Lets do what needs to be done.
 Now for the charges. I will just refer to them by number as they are already in the Bill of Particulars.
  1.  I guess this refers to forwarding Debbie’s email. It is a fact I did forward this to a few. If this was forwarding of destructive rumours, – or the telling of the truth and encouraging scientologist to safeguard the tech, spending their money on the bridge and training and to disseminate to raw public rather than regging each other for donations to the IAS, is for the beholder to decide.
    In law in general, a judge or a court is supposed to look at the intent behind the action, as part of the  consideration. I did not send that email forth with the intent to cause harm to anyone. I wanted my religion back on the track set by LRH.
  2.  See 1. above
  3.  I do not know what this refers to.
  4.  Again what does this refer to? Seems like a good thing to accuse anyone of, as who has not committed a problem to someone at some time? Since listed as a Crime one would think it would have to be a pretty serious problem, and not “Kent came to Course without his dictionary today”. 
    Maybe it is that some of the people affected by me forwarding Debbie’s email, had to be “handled”.
  1. Well, don’t really know what to say about that. I am not aware of having violated these points.
  2. I guess this refers to keeping an eye on what some people who has left the official Church of Scientology (or been booted out) have said about what they have witnessed or come to believe.
 Does making a comment like above constitute “Continued adherence to”?
Does reading what critiques of the current leadership say constitute such adherence?  In that case the OSA spies must be adhering to these groups too.
If what I have done in looking into what I suspect are gross violations of LRH tech within the Church, is not my right as a scientologist, please show me how it is not.
When my personal experiences have shown me that I cannot fully trust the internal lines to give the truth, I have resorted to hearing what those say that decided to leave.
Lastly, when this High Crime was put in the policy, we had a different situation. LRH was still around and things were running according to his directions (more or less) now we have a different Church where management structures LRH put in place are pretty much gone, and with RTC who was put there to safeguard the Tech is now doing managing or the Orgs. So if today in the altered Church the HCO declares people or groups suppressive, not for perverting the tech or spreading lies about Scientology, but for insisting that things are done as per LRH policy and tech, are those persons or groups suppressive by the standards that reigned at the time of that policy?
That is all I have to say about that.
I would like to end off with a few personal comments, if I may.
You now have to decide what to recommend in this matter. I do not envy you your task.
Whatever you decide, you have to make it in accordance with policy and it should be fair.
I hope you will take into account the good I may have done in Scn as well as the bad.
I have tried to live my life with my eyes open. That is what made me stay with Scn when family and friends thought I was mad and were begging me to not join staff. I could see the miracles and the great benefits to myself and others. And in the same way I can see the departures from what LRH created and intended in the current scene.
Have you ever asked yourself why LRH did not come back?
I can not with my integrity intact justify, explain away or condone the changes I have seen in the management, what it pushes and I cannot support the Church as it stands today.   The choice is not to go and join the independents, but to not be part of the Church as is stands today. Not for the technical results still achieved, but for the things listed above that I consider non LRH and a hazard to the future of my religion.
I would prefer to just see if change will happen and if the Church will start produce a volume of auditors and winning PCs again from new people coming in, or if it will rely on the old public going up and down the bridge as the latest release dictates.
I do not particularly think the independents are going to get the job done either.
If you feel I deserve an SP declare – go ahead and recommend it. But I hope you do so because you honestly believe I am an SP, not because you feel that is the only verdict that will be acceptable by IJC or management, in this matter.  “Your self-determinism and your honour are more important than your immediate life”
Also, consider how the arrival of the Internet has changed things. Gone are the times where an organisation could keep secrets.  Today almost any information is a question and a click away. People from all walks of life are speaking up about what goes on behind the doors of Governments, large Corporations, Banks, Intelligence Agencies, Military, Pharmaceutical Companies, Energy Cartels, etc. etc.
It is all very well that the official body releases a statement that “these rumours are all lies” but in the end the truth will prevail. I think LRH said that too.
If I had bumped into Scn today. I might have bought a basic course and a book, or I would first have gone home and spent an evening looking on the internet on both good and bad people say about it. In any case I would soon have looked into it on the net.  If I had encountered the comments made about Debbie Cook on a news station website in relation to a video clip where she tells the Court how she was threatened and beaten at Int, I would have decided I want nothing to do with a group who talks in that manner about one of its former dedicated members. If members of a church are capable of producing such venom (true or not) I would steer well clear of it.
The footage of the “Squirrel Busters” accosting Marty Rathbun and his non scientologist wife, on TV last year made me cringe as a scientologist. And the issue here is not whether I looked at entheta or not. The issue is that things are going on in the name of scientology that are portraying a very bad image of how staff are treated, public are treated and dissidents are treated. The church do not need Government agencies, Psychiatry or mass media to spread lies about it, to get a bad name. We are doing a great job of getting a bad name for ourselves just by the way staff are treated, public are pressured into violating scn finance policy in their own lives, and how dissidents are harassed and subjected to character assassinations.
You are working in a service org, and you see lots of wins on a daily basis from your public. You work in a very theta place – St. Hill.  You mostly see the good side of the Church. I say that it also has a dark side that can not stand up to the light of scrutiny – you are probably aware of this to some degree too. This as well as alteration of LRH tech and policy is in my eyes the problem with the current poor expansion and decline since the 80’s.
I think you all have read “The Why is God”, making it clear that the problem is never over there or outside influences. If an Org is not expanding or solvent, it is not the SP’s out there or the press or the Government causing it. Read KSW again if you do not know what the answer is.
I could have said a lot more here. I could have quoted a lot of LRH.  I neither have the time or inclination to spend more of my energy on this.
Do what you feel you must do, and I hope you do so with full integrity and being sure you are doing the right thing for the greatest good.
Thank You
Kent Bengtsson


Second letter

(I was asked to come in to answer some additional questions, and then submitted this):

 To the Comm-ev

Dear all,
Since I am coming to see you again, I thought I put a few more things I have been thinking of on paper.
There was one more thing I wanted to add to the list of things that made me question the way the Church has been changing over the years.
It has to do with the F/N.
When I have had Course Completions, Objectives and auditing in later years, I have noticed how I have had a hard time to F/N at exam – compared to earlier in my Scn history.  I put that down to my body getting older, and tried to arrange things so that I would not need to go to exam in the evening (which seemed to be the worst time for me).
Then more recently I came across the claim somewhere that the definition of an F/N had been changed by COB in later years and that one had to get 3 swings for it to count as an F/N.  I did not think much of it when I read it, and kind of forgot about it as “Oh well, just another little alteration of LRH’s tech”.
But when I went to attest to my last Basics Course, it was really busy with PCs at the Examiner and being a Course Grad I waited for a while for the PC line to clear. And I stood there and lookad at one PC after another coming there. Sitting down. Taking off their shoes, taking off their socks and sitting down in front of an electric heater warming their feet and hands, before they would proceed into the Examiner boot – and I thought to myself “Something is wrong with this picture. It did not use to be like this. PCs used to just come out of session, sit down, pick up the cans and be done”.
Then I remembered about the three swing FN. Now when I look in my Tech Dic I do not see this definition there. If this is an LRH definition, does it say that it cancels all other F/N definitions? If this was LRH, why was it not implemented when he was still alive? Or was it a definition applicable to some very specific auditing action, that has been taken out of context and been applied to anything?
I feel that when I go to exam now I have to do the emeter drill where one tries to produce an F/N – thinking and talking about wins and happy things. Where in the past I would just go to exam and have my attention on the session and what I got out of it and I usually had an F/N indicated to me.
Then I want to make some comments about Communication. When I look at what I am being Comm-eved for it appears in my universe that it is for “Thinking for myself” which has been a major button promoting Scientology to raw public, and “Being there and Communicating” which according to LRH is the only crime in this universe. So I guess I am guilty of that. I just did not think that was a crime in Scientology. Add “Look don’t listen” to that list too.
The subject of communication in Scientology is a bit of a contradiction I think.
On the one hand we have things like:
“We of the Church believe that all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter and utter or write upon the opinions of others”
“Communication is the universal solvent”
Gr 0 End Phenomena:  “Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject” “Willing for others to communicate to one on any subject”  “No longer resisting communication to oneself on unpleasant and unwanted subjects”  “Willing for others to communicate freely to others about anything”.
And we do TR’s over and over to perfect our Communication.
I would go as far as saying Communication is a major part of the fundamentals of Scientology, as being the most important part of the triangle of ARC.
Then on the other hand we have lots of things we are not allowed or supposed to communicate about or to.
Talking about ones case or own track, is not really on – except to auditors and C/Ses.
Talking to non-scientologists about what goes on in scientology is not OK, at least if it is in any way negative or that may seem out “R”.
Talking to people that have been deemed Suppressive by some other people holding office within the Church, is not OK. Even if the person deemed suppressive is not an SP in ones own evaluation and even if that person is a wife, husband, child or parent – someone loved and close to ones heart that one knows for sure is not a 2.5% SP/Anti Social Personality.
Talking to other scientologists about observed outpoints or bad experiences within the Church.
We may not communicate anything about confidential EP’s of rundowns or grade chart actions.
Some of these are understandable especially the last, as that would mess up the auditing of those who have not done these actions yet. But none the less these things are all qualifications and restrictions on what is said in the Creed and the EP’s of Gr 0.
The disconnection thing is very real – although officially denied to take place. It is also the one that non-scientologists find it the hardest to understand or comprehend and most detestable. This is the opposite of using communication to solve matters. And it appears to be used as a threat or blackmail to silence anyone who does not agree with the current managements actions.
My life is my life. Scientology and especially listening to a lot of LRH over the years have cemented in me the idea that I am the authority over my life. I am the one who looks, evaluates and decides what is true for me. I am truth. I have always been a bit like that, and think that is why Scientology appealed to me so much at first. Scientology reinforced and strengthened this a lot in me, and today I take that conviction with me, as I start to question governmental power and any man or group of men’s presumed right to dictate what I (or anyone) say, do or think.
You as representatives of the Church can recommend that I get declared, or whatever you believe you must do.
I proposed to Isabelle that we just keep the distance for now and she takes me off the call-in list so I do not have to lie to call-inners. The response I got was a Bill of Particulars and this Comm-ev.
You can deny me access to the Church and you can cut some of my comm-lines, but you cannot take scientology, my wins and my integrity from me.
Bear in mind what LRH says about Cause and Effect.
You can not cause something without at the same time becoming the effect of it.
If you as representatives of the Church have me declared a Suppressive Person, you are by that action causing harm to me by slandering me to other scientologists and you will be cutting some of my (fairly sporadic) comm-lines to some of my friends.
If you declare me an enemy, you will by that action have made the Church an enemy of me.
I am at the moment quite happy to step away from the Church and see where things are going and leave it at that. You leave me alone, and I leave you alone. A kind of “agree to disagree” arrangement.  Harm me, and I may not be as quiet as I am now.
Is that a threat?
I prefer to call it ‘friendly advice’.
Kent Bengtsson

1 February 2014

In the second interview I was asked it I would consider doing an ethics handling on this matter, to get back in good standing again. I said that I would be happy to do so when I see that the Church changes back to something I can agree with or want to be part of. But as things stand I am not willing to get handled. I suggest we just go our separate ways for now, and see what the future will bring.

I did not hear anything on this matter for months, and started thinking that maybe they have taken my ‘friendly advice’ and just left me alone. I did not ask for any results.

But in May I think it was, a former twin and friend messaged me telling me he heard I had been declared.  At least he had the decency to let me know, before he disconnected.

I contacted the MAA so I could see the Findings And Recommendations of the Comm-ev, but was told she was no longer my terminal and I had to turn to IJC via the Continental Justice Chief UK.

I have written twice to the CJC with no reply.

Until I have seen the Findings and Recommendations issue, I consider the declare to be a rumour – not fact.

This is not a big deal. I do not have big family uphevals or a Scn business. I have non-scientology friends and interests. The greatest thing is that the phone rings a lot less these days, and I do not mind answering it.

Love you all…


42 thoughts on “Kent Bengtsson – declared by rumour for applying Scientology

  1. Thanks for sharing this Kent. It is good to know there are still people in (and now out – thank God for your sake) that have a clue and are aware. Very nice write up and SPOT ON calling a spade a spade on the outpoints you see in the Church of Scientology! Love you too Kent – your life will be better now that you are away of that suppressive Organization disguising itself as something other than a cult.

    • As far as I am concerned – being suppressed or not by a certain person or group is a personal choice, not something beyond ones control.

      If one compromises his / her own reality and integrity by doing things one should not, or accepting things one should not, then maybe one can become effect of a situation as one has overts in the area now.

      My mind is not easily swayed. Ask anyone who knows me well 🙂

      When I came into Scn I thought everyone else had all the answers and knew what was best for me. That did not last long.

  2. Kent –

    Very well done on standing up to them with your integrity intact. That is the one thing from my own experience of leaving the Church in my rearview 14 years ago that I am most proud of today.

    And I still have it with me.

    I’ll bet that you will look forward to still having yours from here on out, as well.



  3. Wow, if Kent can de ‘declared’ for posting an fairly innocuous comment I’d hate to imagine what they’ll do to me – if I was ever silly enough to arrive in an org. Nothing less than standing me against a wall and shooting me, I guess. What grabbed my interest (among many other things) was this: “In the seventies, the Orgs did not accept Credit Cards or get involved with arranging loans. Or at least were not supposed to. I believe there was LRH policy forbidding it. Today Scientologists are pressurized to go into personal debt (a violation of finance policy) in order to donate money to IAS or Ideal Org buildings or their own training or bridge. If an FBO acted as recklessly with an orgs money, as individual Scientologists are being pushed to do with their own finances, he would be RPFed or declared in no time.”
    On my last trip to Flag I had no money left to buy another intensive. That’s because even though I was assured one intensive would do for a full year, each refresher consumed in fact about three intensives. I was routed to Qual and given a programme of all the references where LRH says don’t use credit, don’t borrow and keep financially solvent.
    It was with a feeling of deep relief I read all this, thinking ‘THIS is sanity. Now I have ammunition to get the regges of my back.” No such thing. As soon as I returned from Qual, the regge simply nodded to the phone as if to say, now you’re ready to borrow the money.
    This was another step in my disaffection – the dramatic 180 degree variance in application of the tech. They really didn’t give a shit about the tech – just get in the money.

  4. Very good write-up Kent and actually funny in a lot of ways.
    You wrote:
    “Every release is announced as THE thing that will change Scn and open the floodgates to unlimited expansion, but somehow not much seems to change. Is it only me that notices this?”

    I had to Lol on this one.

    I think you did an excellent job of communicating what most people who have left the “church” have noticed and you communicated it to them in a very sane manner. The problem is that they are not sane enough to understand how sane YOU are. They are not sane. If they were, they wouldn’t be doing this and they would have the intestinal fortitude to do something effective about the situation like you and others are.
    I only disagreed with a couple of things that you said. You said something like you weren’t sure that the Indie field could handle things either (as compared to the “church”) or something to that effect.
    First off, I don’t know what you expect any group using Scientology to handle or create. I do not think that full OT has been attained and possibly will never be attained. I do think that Scientology in the hands of well intentioned people can make people saner and happier in a lot of cases and raise their awareness and bring people into a higher state. That being said, I think that Independent Scientologists will do better at helping make people better than what we now call Radical Corporate Scientology will. RCS can use some of the tech and give some wins undoubtedly but they also have a structure that validates robotism and group think and other things that counter create the idea of creating free beings and people that think and act on their own good ability and judgement.
    You are an impressive thetan and I admire your integrity and wit. Thanks for standing up and being counted.

      • MODERATOR COMMENT: Hi Alanzo – this is an acronym for “Radical Corporate Scientology”. It is used by Indy’s, exes and other ex-SCN’s to describe the seismic shift that occurred in what was formerly known as the “Church of Scientology”.

    • Thanks Tony,

      I guess I meant the general goal of Sch “A world without insanity etc…”

      I am with you on the idea that more wins are to be had in the indie field, but I get the impression it mainly consists of the fall outs of RCS, not new public introduced to the subject. But I could be wrong.

      As I said before, Scn is not my main interest at the moment.

      • Got it Kent. Have fun. 🙂
        The funny thing is that I think Scientology would make it’s goals of a saner planet and all that if they just took a deep breath and chilled out a little. Wasn’t it LRH who talked about getting auditing and then “coming back when you want more”?
        The “church’s” insane push on everything must happen now just turns people off. I think once RCS is out of the way or a bit more tame or sane then you could see a major improvement on getting people wins without all the madness connected to it. I think it is the suppression from within (spelled dm) which is the stumbling block for people inside and out

  5. Wow! I was thrown out of the “Church” in 1983, survived quite well (practicing Scientology 🙂 ), and have got very tired of this Blogs accounts of current atrocities of the “Church”. I just could not be bothered to read them (while having sympathy or empathy for the victims).
    But this! I just could not stop reading. Thank you Kent.

  6. Well Done Kent and for trying to make known the observations we all
    have woken up to!

    The truth is the Robots have not been programmed to spot outpoints!
    The Robots have no real training as they cannot assimilate data they
    just work off A =A=A!
    They have NO duplication of the Ethics Tech and really do dismiss any
    observations of policy not being applied.

    Your SP declare was already being prepared before your Comm Ev!
    What ever you had communicated would very conveniently be dismissed!

    You had the integrity to confront and at least
    try to handle the insanity but you cannot reason with the INSANE!

    I Salute you!

  7. Hi Kent – thanks very much for sharing your story with us. As stated at the beginning of the article, you were found guilty of standardly applying Scientology – “look don’t listen” “what is true for you” “the right to communicate” etc etc. No crimes whatsoever.

    I have scoured every ethics and justice policy and I cannot find ANYTHING written by LRH where it says that one is not allowed to look at or respond to “entheta” about Scientology – quite the converse. Why do Scientologists have to do the PTS/SP course if the EP is the ability to confront and shatter suppression? What if they look around them and find that the suppression is in their OWN group”? Surely they should act accordingly?

    As Goldie said, your declare was probably a fait accompli and they were just “going through the motions”. Certainly they did this with me – I could see it a mile away. They had absolutely ZERO evidence against me (3 KR’s which did not even contain a misdemeanour). I just got the jump on them because I know the way they roll – always be one step ahead of the enemy 🙂 I did some shattering of my own – to the point where one of the Committee was literally tearfully begging me “not to go that way and could we please work something out” – “Nope”, I said – “I am done. When you actually start applying LRH again I might come back but until then I am not interested because what you’re doing is not Scientology – it’s something else, and not what I signed up for”..

    I suppose the one comfort we can take is that at least they put up a dog and pony show of holding some semblance of a comm-ev for us.

    This wasn’t even afforded to the Joburg 18. Their declares were done, dusted and issued by the time the OSA blitzkrieg landed on our shores in October last year. No B of I, no investigation, no KR’s and certainly no comm-ev held. None of them were ever contacted or approached and asked to answer up to their alleged “crimes”, nor were any of them even informed that they had been declared! From hero to SP in one foul swoop.

    Same happened to Ryan Hogarth, He attended a meeting, had a couple of back and forth telephone conversations and then finally after he hadn’t heard anything for a while, phoned OSA, spoke to his own mother and asked he if he was declared. Her response? “What do you think”?

    • Shelly wrote:

      “I have scoured every ethics and justice policy and I cannot find ANYTHING written by LRH where it says that one is not allowed to look at or respond to “entheta” about Scientology – quite the converse. “

      You are quite right, Shelly.

      The Code of a Scientologist states: “As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:…”17. To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.”

      In order to take responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world, a Scientologist must very thoroughly KNOW about the impact upon the world that Scientology has made.

      This includes knowing about both sides of the full legal history of the Church in court cases around the world, the stories of abuse of former Scientologists, L Ron Hubbard’s true biography, instances where the application of Scientology harmed people, and ALL the rest of it.

      A person can make up their own minds about all this information – that is all part of taking responsibility for it – but a person can not apply the Code of a Scientologist for the good of all and not know about Scientology’s full impact upon the world.


  8. Hi Kent,
    The “3 swings” definition appears to have been derived from an interpretation of HCOB 21 July 1978, where it states, “Floating needle is a *rhythmic* sweep of the dial at a slow even pace of the needle. That’s what an FN is. No other definition is correct.”
    This can be found in the HCOB or in the 1978 edition of the Technical Dictionary.

      • I was on Solo Nots when the “three swing” f/n was introduced. Boggle is right about the rhythmic definition being used to justify the three swings. Per the supervisors “guidance” rhythmic means a motion has to repeat so if the f/n only swung twice there would be no repetition of any one motion. The third swing is the key to having a repetition of the first swing and now it would be considered rhythmic.

        There has to be another definition of rhythmic that applies otherwise you wouldn’t have these ridiculous situations of people waiting at exams apparently not f/ning and people having to think “nice thoughts” in order to “f/n”.

        Personally I have always had some trouble spotting f/n’s. If it was a two swinger it can look a lot like a fall and the needle returning to set position. The bottom line is that if you aren’t getting good results then whatever you are using may as well be thrown out since it isn’t creating good effects.

        I also thought that since these reads can be simulated artificially then an f/n would have a certain electronic characteristic that when it occurred an LED light on the meter could light up so the auditor wouldn’t miss the f/n or be confused by body motion or whatever. I think this could be done.

      • Hi Tony,
        The 1978 rhythmic definition was a bad definition. There were plenty of earlier definitions which were just fine, and did not create confusion.
        Miscavige should have ignored the 1978 rhythmic definition but, being “On Source” (in his own high school drop out way) he accepted it.
        It’s an example of where “altering” (or ignoring) LRH instructions is a good idea.
        Anyone who’s audited knows what an FN is. IMO, the best definition is , “It floats.” Once you’ve seen one, you will know. The key is not to overcomplicate it. Let the person have his win. Pre Clear indicators trump all else. If there are problems they’ll show up in his next session and can be reviewed and corrected.

        The rhythmic definition did nothing but cause mischief.

    • What they have failed to recognize is that their definition of rhythmic is a specialized Musical definition which is not applicable to the subject of e-meters.

  9. I admire your personal integrity and standing up for the truth. I was ‘facebook police’ declared in May 2012 for friending old friends who I loved dearly. Typical of the Co$ we now know so well.
    It seems that when one takes a bite of the truth one gets kicked out of ‘Co$ Paradise’.

  10. Lots of support, love and appreciation for telling it like it is. You will have good Karma Kent.
    ********huggggggggggggs********** from California.

  11. Thank you all for you kind comments.

    Lets not be too hard on the nice ladies assigned to hold the comm-ev on me or on anyone still on staff, in the SO or the field. Most of them do what they do because they are good people who what to help make the World a better place.

    I am sure many of them see the outpoints, but feel they cannot change things. Or they think the Church is better than nothing, unaware of alternatives. Maybe they are PTS to the scientology “Middle Class”. Maybe they are hoping for the day DM will be too old or sick to run the show. Maybe they have burned their bridges with their families, or have no one outside to go to, and feel they are stuck in the SO. Or they are youngsters of a Scn family and feel they may risk family relations if they blew. It is not easy to go to HCO and ask for a leaving routing form, and when you do, they will drag their feet forever to do the steps. When I left I did not feel I betrayed the Church or the Execs, but I felt a loyalty and camaraderie with some of my fellow staff members and the public to whom I had become a stable terminal. That was the hardest part of it.

    They are no worse than all of us who pay the Government to rob us of our labour, of our freedom, of justice, of our health and of healthy food, etc.
    In the US and UK we pay the Government to go to far off countries and kill millions of innocent women, children and men, in the Middle East, who never posed a threat to our countries. Libya was about to launch a gold based currency for Africa, it’s people were sharing the profits of the oil through benefits unheard of anywhere else – so “of course it had to be destroyed”, and many a scientologist paid “their taxes” and kept quiet in support of this and other wrongs. So again, do not judge too hard. Many of us were where they are, not long ago.

    “You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying it’s orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.”
    – Mahatma Gandhi

    “The world is too dangerous for anything but truth
    and too small for anything but love” – William Sloan Coffin

    Whatever you are into, is what is most real to you. When in the SO (especially today) you are isolated from the outside world, yet you feel you are in the middle of the action, and that you have your finger on the pulse and know it all (from constant briefings, etc.). You see and hear of lots of wins (real or imagined). You work hard. You feel you are on the winning team and although not perfect, the job is getting done. You are tougher and bigger than letting yourself be broken by some shouting or lack of sleep or crappy food.

    It is all a matter of viewpoints. A thetan can be anything.

    Most people are followers and there are few visionaries and true leaders among us. But by applying the proven processes LRH left us, we can make some more aware and more able. That is a good start.

    • Love your viewpoint, Kent. In spite of all you still grant beingness, ARC and What is Greatness. So glad to see this cycle did not turn you into a cynic or SCN hater – so many went that route and it’s a shame.

      • Oh, I can be quite cynic if I like, especially when I had someone at the other end of a phone line telling me that the event they want me to confirm for “Will be the best and most important event ever” or that it “will be suitable for raw public”.

      • But didn’t you know that ALL events are the “biggest bestest ever”??? And of course TOTALLY suitable for Div6 public – especially when they’re talking about “clearing the planet” and the SP Psychs and such. My son took a girlfriend to one of these “suitable” events and she honest-to-God thought they were talking warfare when she heard the words “clearing the planet”. She was even further freaked out because she had a brother with severe mental & physical disabilities who needed light tranquilizers otherwise his fits would literally fry his brain and break bones. Talk about banning this “therapy” outright and the vitriol spewed about the “mental health” field were very upsetting for her. She got up and blew the event in disgust and told my son we were a zealous cult run by someone with a God complex. Pretty well spotted, I thought 🙂

    • “They are no worse than all of us who pay the Government to rob us of our labour, of our freedom, of justice, of our health and of healthy food, etc.
      In the US and UK we pay the Government to go to far off countries and kill millions of innocent women, children and men, in the Middle East, who never posed a threat to our countries.”

      So true Kent, now the US is reportedly heading up an embargo against Russia, just as Russia, China, India and Brazil are starting up a competitive world bank and to get off the US dollar as the standard. The US and other governments following them dont even try to hide their crimes against humanity anymore.

      Interesting times, meanwhile dave has been wasting 30yrs with his b/s!

  12. Kent, your experiences were very similar to mine, except I wasn’t on staff and as far as I know, haven’t been declared. But over the past few years I had become increasingly skeptical of the statements made by DM at events, the way expansion was always taking place where I couldn’t verify it, and that we had to have these super-expensive ideal orgs before we could proceed to clear the planet, etc. etc. The way DM was always claiming that the tech when LRH was alive wasn’t the true tech and had to be corrected. I was getting an intensive to help with the loss of my husband when my doubts all came out and then the rest of the intensive was a sec check. I ended up in the MAA’s office at AOLA and in the spirit of trying to bend over backwards agreed to do an ethics cycle (at the KC org, I was living in MO at the time) which included Method 9 on KSW, an action which convinced me even more of DM’s perfidy. I had hoped the Ideal Org strategy would work but the evidence is that it isn’t working. What really came home to me was how sincerely the MAA, Theresa, believed that they had the “true” Scientology and any questioning of DM’s changes were evidence of O/Ws and listening to those bad people on the internet. The idea that one could observe and see the contradictions for oneself was quite beyond her. I certainly felt betrayed in that I came to AO for help and got a sec check instead, but I do understand that to her and the C/S, this was what I needed. I think it just shows how blind people can become to what they are supposed to be doing with the parishioners entrusted to their care, when they follow a false leader like DM. So finally I had to tell Theresa that I still could not support DM. I too found great camaraderie in Scientology in the beginning. Also, you could communicate to LRH. Now all comm is from the top down and the only acceptable comm going the other way is “yes, sir.” I’m not bitter but I am saddened about what the C of S has become.

    • Thanks Jenni.

      As I mentioned above, most people tend to just follow whatever the group does.

      When shortly after joining the SO I was put as a Sales Manager calling orgs to push booksales, the fashion was (and might still be) to scream and yell and threaten the Bookstore Officers and Registrars of the orgs, in order to get more sales. I could not bring myself to do this and rather tired to appeal to their good sense and willingness.
      Once a Bookstore Officer wrote a commendation on me and sent it to my senior.

      This was read out in front of the whole group as if it was a damning report, where phrases such as “Kent is so nice”, “Kent has a lot of ARC” or “Kent is so Understanding” was read out, as if it said I did unspeakable things to little children, accompanied by the scorn and ridiculing laughter of the other Sales Managers.

      In my mind I just shook my head and thought “I’m in Wonderland”.

      Later when travelling around EU repairing E-meters, I sometimes got comments like “Oh yeah, I remember you. You were the only Sales Manager with ARC!”

      It is sad though. If a group of people who are supposedly more aware of their true nature and of the laws of life and who knows they are an immortal spirit, can be led into and accept the current mess that is the CofS today, what hope is there for man in general?

      • Kent wrote:

        “It is sad though. If a group of people who are supposedly more aware of their true nature and of the laws of life and who knows they are an immortal spirit, can be led into and accept the current mess that is the CofS today, what hope is there for man in general?

        People who do not let an ideology do their thinking for them are rarely, if ever, led into messes like the CofS is today.

        Thinking with an ideology – any ideology – leads to these exact kinds of problems.

        I think it might be possible to be a non-ideological Scientologist, but I don’t know. I think that’s what indie Scientologists are trying to achieve, but again, I don’t know.


  13. By the way Kent, I meant to tell you that you are very tolerant for an SP. Lol. Someone with your tolerance must pose a real threat to the “Church” of Scientology…

      • For sure. Hard to believe that the “church” of Scientology went from what we thought was a group that was going to create a sane planet to an organization that attacks and suppresses it’s best people and vilifies those who tell the truth. Wow!!

  14. Kent you of all people are anything but an SP. I met you when I was 16, I am now 44… are the gentlest, kindest warm hearted man I know. Its a sad day that a person of your stature has been labelled. Just highlights the insanity within the hallowed walls of the cult.

  15. Update on this story:

    Today 26 March 2015, Hodkin & Company who are the lawyers for the Church of Scientology (England & Wales) sent a fob off answer to my “Subject Access Request” in accordance with the Data Protection Act.. But more importantly, they sent me a copy of the Ethichs Order announcing my declare as an Ess Pee.

    I have promised not to publish it, so you cannot see it. Pretty boring reading anyway. Does not say much of what I said or did (I guess that would make it seem a bit silly).

    Here is the letter I sent to the official Church address (The lawyers Office):

    The man, Graeme Reid Wilson
    doing business as Secretary & Director for
    Church of Scientology (England & Wales) 09 February 2015
    42-44 Copthorne Road
    East Grinstead
    West Sussex, RH19 2NS


    Dear Graeme (or Peter Hodkins),

    Due to a refusal by Isabelle Kubus and whoever holds the post of Continental Justice Chief UK within your organization, to provide a copy of the alleged Findings and Recommendations Ethics Order with regard to the Committee of Evidence, I had about a year ago, as your own policy dictates, I see no other solution than to take this matter into the public arena of the United Kingdom.

    After being told by a friend in May last year that I had been declared a Suppressive Person, I contacted the Public MAA of St. Hill Foundation, Isabelle about seeing the issue. She told me she was no longer my terminal and that my terminal was International Justice Chief via Continental Justice Chief UK. See enclosed copies of letters to the Continental Justice Chief, which both remain unanswered.

    Part of the issue here is that since I appear to not be a member of your Church any more, I am not bound by your policy or decrees. But you should be bound by your own policy, which have clearly been violated here. Such as distribution of Findings and Recommendations after a Committee of Evidence or the old policy “If it is not written, it is not true”.

    Since the C of S is registered company within the United Kingdom, it’s laws and rules apply to you.

    So, I am hereby making a Subject Access Request for not only the Findings and Recommendations Ethics Order with regard to my Committee of Evidence of a year ago, but also of all:

    Notes, reports and other documents that was part of that Committee of Evidence.

    All contents of my Ethics Folder.

    All data held on me by the Office of Special Affairs, whether in physical form or on computer (and do not try to claim that OSA holds no such data on me. They were behind what eventually resulted in the SP declare).

    I have enclose the maximum chargeable fee for such a request £10.00. Please notify concerned personnel of the data requested so that it can be collated within the 40 day time limit, and delivery of it can be agreed upon.

    The mailing and enclosure of payment will be filmed at the post office as evidence of delivery aside from the “Signed For” mail service.

    Failure to perform this duty, may result in further steps. All which would be totally unnecessary had Isabelle complied with the policy governing her post.

    Furthermore, should you or anyone else acting on behalf of the Church of Scientology, refuse to provide what is required of you, I will charge the Church £30.00 per hour spent dealing with further actions to get the information you by UK law are obliged to provide. This may include:

    Studying what I need to know to take the matter to a Court of Law.
    Any time spent preparing for such a Court Case.
    Actual time spent in Court or waiting for the hearing or travelling there and back.
    Any time spent on collecting any money rewarded in the matter.
    Any outlays I have to make for this, such as filing fees.
    Same amount for any time spent dealing with any inconvenience caused me by reason of actions taken from the Church or it’s agents, in trying to discredit me or disrupt my life or business as part of any revenge or “Fair Game” action – for me asking for what I rightfully should have access to.

    The sums will be invoiced and payment expected within 30 days. Unpaid invoices will accrue a compound interest of 10% annually as long as the debt remains unpaid.

    If you do not want to fill this request, simply return the payment with a copy of the Ethics Order (or even an arranged meeting to read it – if you are afraid I will post it online. I promise however not to publish it anywhere ) and I will cancel this request and take no further action in the matter of this Ethics Order. I just object to being “Declared by Rumour”.

    I can be contacted other than by mail by: (withheld)


    Kent Bengtsson

  16. Just another observation when I read the Ethics Order announcing the declare;

    It is not the findings and recommendations of the Comm-ev and it does not say the comm-ev recommended I be declared.

    So it may very well be that the nice ladies of that committee did not recommend the declare, and that the MAA Isabelle Kubillus had to do it herself (probably as demanded by someone somewhere, as I find Isabelle, normally quite sensible and motivated by helping people instead of punishing them).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s