I don't know if anyone caught the Jeremy kyle TV programme which looked at religious cults, focusing particularly on the 'Jesus Christians'.
On a personal level, I have no time for any of these organisations, which appear to be largely led by authoritarian personalities, attracting those who feel the need to follow.
The problem is that many of the so-called anti-cult organisations have their own, inevitably evangelical Christian, agenda.
They are not interested in the real problems of mind-control and authoritarianism, for if so, they would give up their own religion. What really counts as a 'cult'? Seems to me it should be about the way they treat people, not whether they have any kooky beliefs (which could be aimed at any set of beliefs)
I would, this, have great suspicions about anti-cult groups who do not start from a neutral position but believe that the main problem with cults is not the way they operate, but what they believe. I would certainly question people like Graham Baldwin, who appears to start from the position of being 'a Christian'. That makes his entire operation suspect. He merely wants to replace one set of beliefs with another. Which one is the 'cult'? Both propagate supernaturalist fairy-tales which cannot be verified. The question is what methods do they use and how much harm they do.
I would suggest that the anti-contraception position of Vatican plc and the homophobia of evangelifundamentalists does far more harm in terms of actual amount of damage done.
The original cult-busters were not operating from a religionist perspective. Their concern was the activity of particular groups. I remain to be convinced that this is so with regard to those operating from their belief that their sort of cult's beliefs are true, and others not so.