UK BBC ‘Secret Swami’ – The Ethics Of Using Hidden Cameras

On Barry Pittard’s WordPress blog (barrypittard.wordrpess.com, which contains numerous defamations, libels and slurs against Sathya Sai Baba), he wrote an article entitled “BBC Hidden Camera in ‘Secret Swami’. Ethical?”, which said (in part):

“Despite the alarums and excursions of Dr G. Venkataraman (and informally allied Sai Baba proxy defenders on the Internet whose libels and slanders are deemed by top lawyers in three countries to be extreme, widespread and highly actionable), the BBC had every just cause to shoot clandestinely.”

I would ask the reader how “ethical” he/she would consider being secretly filmed with a hidden camera in the privacy of his/her home and then having that film broadcast world-wide?

The Anti-Sai agenda of the UK BBC was clear. All of the negative media against Sathya Sai Baba was the direct result of critic’s behind-the-scenes subterfuge, unremitting propaganda and self-described “e-bombing campaigns”. Critics even boasted on Anti-Sai websites how they were responsible for and involved with various negative media exposures against Sathya Sai Baba. This holds true for The BBC Secret Swami, The Divine Downfall Interview, The Seduced Program, The Unesco Withdrawal, The U.S. State Dept. Warning, The Guardian Article By Paul Lewis, Michelle Goldberg’s Salon.com Article, etc.

Andries Krugers Dagneaux (former webmaster and current “Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact” for the largest Anti-Sai Website on the internet, hetnet.nl/~exbaba: Ref) made several very disturbing claims that Tanya Datta (correspondent for the BBC in the production of the Secret Swami documentary) and the BBC itself accepted and promoted the views of and were sympathetic with Ex-Devotees (Ref).

Furthermore, Barry Pittard purposely misrepresented the facts when he claimed that Dr. G. Venkataraman was allied with “proxy defamers whose libels and slanders are deemed by top lawyers in three countries to be extreme, widespread and highly actionable”. The “proxy defamer” that Barry Pittard mentioned actually refers to Joe Moreno. Although Ex-Devotees ceaselessly rant that Moreno is using proxy IPs, is “anonymous” and is a “proxy defamer”, they are so convinced of Moreno’s identity that they published his full contact details on Conny Larsson’s Anti-Sai domain along with a fraudulent screen-capture of his geocities website.

Regarding Alleged Libels, Slanders And ‘Top Lawyers’:
First and foremost, neither Dr. G. Venkataraman nor any other Sai Devotee or Pro-Sai Activist has been sued, served with a suit or even contacted by any lawyer for alleged “libels and slanders” (despite Barry Pittard’s questionable claims attributed to anonymous “top lawyers”). It is significant that although Barry Pittard claimed (again) he is in contact with anonymous “top lawyers” (from three countries, nonetheless), he has been unable (in the past 9 years since his defection) to assist any alleged victim to obtain legal representation or to assist any alleged victim to file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India despite:

  1. The lucrative prospect of a successful suit by money-hungry laywers (Sathya Sai Baba’s assets are assessed to be worth billions of dollars by ex-devotees).
  2. The offer of free “world-class legal resources” from Barry Pittard (Ref).
  3. Ex-Devotees and Barry Pittard’s constant claims that they are in correspondence with “international lawyers” and “top lawyers”.
  4. The vast publicity a lawsuit against Sathya Sai Baba would generate to their cause.
  5. The opportunity (whether the lawsuit is successful or not) to present to the world the alleged “evidence” they claim they possess.

It is significant, however, that Barry Pittard was threatened with a legal suit by Ramanathan, Robert Priddy was threatened with a million dollar legal suit for defamation by Leo Rebello (Ref) and a legal threat against Anti-Sai Activists (the details of which are fanatically protected and withheld) forced them to put a disclaimer on their Anti-Sai websites stating that the information they provide about Sai Baba may not be entirely true or valid (Ref)!

More anonymous claims and misrepresentations against Sathya Sai Baba by Barry Pittard.

Relevant Links:
Moreno Responds: Who Is Libeling And Slandering Whom?
Alaya Rahm Self-Dismissed His Own Lawsuit Against The SSB Society
Alaya Rahm – A 6-Year-Long Daily User Of Illegal Street Drugs And Alcohol
A Scathing Response To Critics About Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit
The Rahm Family – Allegations Examined
UK BBC ‘Secret Swami’
The Truth About The Alleged Sathya Sai Baba ‘Sex Scandal’

%d bloggers like this: