Does anybody have the posibility to research the reasons for the removing of the petition? From time to time I had a look at and the interest was very low, just nine people had signed and thousand were needed.

And what about the remove from the Vauxhall Civic Society web page, were they threatened by legal actions? Who knows or who could research?

Would be interesting to check the local politicians involved in the decision.

In Hamburg the Ole Centre was planning to build a stupa in a public park and surprisingly they received the building permission. Apart from the usual criticisms and allegations against Ole Nydahl and his group this was a highly controversial political issue, because firstly by the German constitution state and religion are supposed to be separated, and secondly because it was seen as a completely arbitrary preferential treatment for this religious community which is only one among several hundred religious communities in Hamburg. Lastly the building permission was revoked. Also, interestingly, it came out that one of the decision makers involved in the process was an Ole student.

A bit later I heard they wanted to persuade the city to give them another public area for the stupa project. I don't know what has become out of it. Since the project's website doesn't list a specific location I suppose they have not succeeded (yet).

This is freedom of speech gone through the window in my humble opinion. People can no longer voice their views in British public domain.

It’s very interesting. The petition has been removed but people still keep signing. That’s beautiful. Yesterday that had 93 signatures, today they have 95.

There is a massage on the web page: “Attention: This petition has been removed. Actually we are trying to find out evidences and motivations.”

Firstly: Who are ”we”? Who are “we” who are trying to investigate?

Secondly: Assuming that the noun “we” refers to UK petitions online domain holders; we can ask whether it is their job to investigate evidences and motives. I would say their job is to give an indiscriminating access to the web page to people who wish to express their views in civilized and socially accepted manner.

It is up to UK government to investigate evidences and motives, not up to a message board.

I am of an opinion that the decision of removing the petition undermined the liberty of free speech of petitioners who have posted it.

While it is annoying, the petition could have been removed in accordance with the terms of service:

[www.petitiononline.co.uk]

Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact text of the petition, but I guess that it might be considered to fall under (1).E. of the Terms of Service, which is phrased in a way that's very broad.

(1). User/Member Agreement: In consideration of being allowed to use the website facilities provided by Activism.com, Users/Members agrees that Users/Members will not:
E. Post material that could be construed by a reasonable person as threatening, obscene, defamatory, unreasonable, hurtful, harassing, or hateful to another User/Member or any other person or entity;

@Alexander
It is not public domain, but published on a website belonging to Activism.com. Activism.com, in turn, is a brand of NextOne media (http://www.nextonemedia.com/brands.html).

The articles on the Vauxhall Society website were removed "on legal advice." I don't have any information on the removal of the petition.

I don't live in Lambeth (the London borough which is home to the Beaufoy Institute building,) but I know people who do and am familiar with the two existing Tibetan Buddhist centres nearby (one Gelug & one Karma Kagyu.) Lambeth and the neighbouring borough of Southwark are amongst the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic areas in the whole country. I know that there is concern amongst some local residents who have done a little Internet research. I don't know why Lambeth council didn't do this. It's not difficult.

Now it seems to be clear why the website was removed "on legal advice". Nydahl and his devotees love legal actions like "interim injunctions" and actions for libel to keep the mouth of an opponent shut. In this case, when a judge ordered an interim injunction, Vauxhall Society had no chance to public the website any longer. May be that is what was going on. They seem to the want the building pretty much. Does anybody have contact to journalists who could research the backgrounds?

I think we should start writing to The Guardian. The Guardian has no problem selling Ole Nydahl's books; I would say they may be interested:
[www.guardianbookshop.co.uk]

Any suggestions who we can contact?

Letters to Mary


Mary Finnigan from The Guardian. We should start writing to her.

[www.guardian.co.uk]

[www.guardian.co.uk]

Give me your thoughts.....

Shakyamuni Buddha never, as far as we know, hired a solicitor or barrister.

If that is mentioned in the Pali Sutras, let us know, eh?

Karam Mudra and Corboy you may want to get in touch with Mary Finnigan. It seems she is writing a book about Sogyal.

You can find her comments on these pages:
[dialogueireland.wordpress.com]

[dialogueireland.wordpress.com]

I am going through the British press at the moment trying to find out who else we could contact. But for the moment Mary is the only person that popped out. No other newspaper I have looked at sells Ole Nydahl's books but the Guardian. But I keep searching...

The link to the "Contact us" section of the Guardian below:
[www.guardian.co.uk]