Jonathan,

                If we are talking you and me - then fine I'll go along with your fiery radicalism, but when it comes to encouraging others, I have a proviso - and that is,  is the person I'm going to encourage to pursue some hazardous course ' strong enough' ? If I can't be sure of a definite yes then I must keep my mouth shut.

For some of us, radical action may be something that we can genuinely consider, however many, many of Rawat's followers, both current and ex are very fragile people. Twenty plus years of cult thinking has done enormous harm to many psyches and taking on the cult in legal battles is simply beyond most of us.

I also want to clear up this stuff about John breaking the law. John was found in contempt of court in very unfair circumstances. The judge also found against John in the Civil case that IRCC brought against him - the same judge also declared that under Queensland law - digital files could not be 'stolen' because they did not have physical substance.

The issue against John ultimately fell to what his intention was in seeking to gain access to IRCC files. John sought to defend himself as a journalist - something to which the judge gave little weight. John and his lawyers certainly made a tactical error in the Court case and arguably, John's primary fault was not passing the IRCC documents - which seemed clearly to demonstrate very questionable procedures within IRCC - directly to the relevant authorities - as happened for instance in the UK when the documents became available online.

Receiving documents - whatever their origin is not 'wrong' if the purpose of receiving them is to pass the documents to a relevent legal authority. Where no legal authority exists or where that authority is demonstrably untrustworthy - the recipient of the documents may have to take a decision which places them in conflict with the law, and that can only be a matter of personal concience. For my part I salute all whistle blowers - they keep the rest of us honest.