Tackling the psychic trade

[Muse]

Recent allegations levelled at ‘psychic to the stars’ Paul De’Aaran (Paul Williams) featured here (http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaymercury/news/tm_objectid=16725045%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.h%20tml) and here (http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaymercury/news/tm_objectid=16754235%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.h%20tml) are only one example of how psychics can cause real harm to others.

Around the various forums there is a detectable level of frustration as to what (if anything) can be done to clean up the medium/psychic trade. After all why should a medium/psychic be able to charge for services, for example, when;

- The existence of these abilities has yet to be satisfactorily established
- There are no standardised qualifications or levels of experience required
- Practitioners have no governing body therefore no accountability
- The trade offers a service to which there is no effective redress in law unless conventional fraud/deception can be proven
- Said services can potentially cause physical, financial and or psychological harm

It appears that psychics/mediums verge on being above the law. In the UK prosecutions under the Fraudulent Mediums Act are extremely rare – not surprising as it’s easily dodged. It seems no one is interested in cleaning up the trade not even most of those involved in it.

So it comes as little surprise that from time to time there are calls for government to do more. Some have even called for the formation of a pressure group from existing skeptical websites/forums where members co-operate in organized lobbying of the decision makers.

Looking at this purely as an academic exercise, what is the body of opinion on this I wonder? How could a government realistically clean up the trade and protect the public? While the potential is there for a pressure group to be formed (in theory) what measures could that group sensibly advocate in its attempt to make a difference? Could this be a way forward or is some other approach in order?

Any suggestions?

[John Jackson]

I think the idea of an organised pressure group is a good one; however, we'd have to do things properly. A few initial ideas include:


Identifying what the problem actually is. What is it that needs changing?
Quantifying the problem. What is the actual extent of the harm being done?
Other problem areas such as illegal trading. How many psychics keep financial records and pay income tax and NI?
What are we aiming for, a ban, regulation (which could make things worse), or another alternative?
A tightening of the law? Where psychics can be prosecuted for any harm they do.


They're just a few quick ideas, but it's a complicated issue that would require an organised approach to tackle. It would need to be treated something like a business venture with the whole issue being clearly defined, researched, and planned in advance.

I have stated on several occasions that I'm no fan of the Fraudulent Mediums Act (1951). It's very title supposes that there may be non-fraudulent mediums operating, but the legislation itself contains glaring get-out clauses for mediums. The act actually helps mediums to operate - even those who are intentionally fraudulent.

[Eddiesilence]

As I see it, the demand should be a simple one: under controlled conditions, does it do what it says on the tin?

With this in mind, do we know what the most effective regulatory body is, and for which profession? Whatever this body may be, it might be the system we could learn the most from, in order to impose our demand: which should be that any professional, in whatever field, must demonstrate his or her expertise or face expulsion from the trade.

For argument's sake, we might find that the most effective regulatory system is found in, say, the field of neurosurgery, where cowboy neurosurgeons were detected swiftly and disbarred effectively. If this were the case, we'd need to discover what requirements such a body demands from practising neurosurgeons to demonstrate their professional expertise in order to separate fraudsters from real neurosurgeons. We could then emulate their methods to separate frauds from 'real psychics', or separate fraudulent interventions from 'real' alternative medical practitioners.

Now, I am no lawyer, but perhaps sales legislation could apply to the problem: we have the Sale of Goods Act which states that an item sold must be effective for the purposes it was bought, and with minimal adjustment, could this then be applied to services? Or does such a law concerning services already exist, and has yet to be applied in a quackery/psychic test case?

Could fraud laws already be appropriate? Or could it be an expansion of existing fraud legislation we need, which could apply to areas where quacks and professional psychics abound? Is it an expanded solution we need requiring *any* trader or service provider to state their professional claim, and demonstrate that they fulfil it, before being allowed to hang out a shingle?

Does anyone know a decent lawyer we could ask?

[John Jackson]

I’ve had a little think on this issue and one thing that could be done is to classify psychics’ claims. Some things they do, like mediumship, are open to interpretation and are unverifiable, so would be hard to regulate; some of their other claims however, are empirically testable.

The fact that some of their claims are actually testable means that meaningful legislation and regulation could be in place.

Things like: providing information on missing people, or murderers; psychic healing; etc, could be tested for accuracy. If they can’t pass the tests then they should not be allowed to make their claims or practise their trade.

This could potentially protect some people, and professional bodies like the police, from some of psychics’ predatory advances.

Step1 is to classify psychics’ claims and then work out what harm/benefit they are to people. Spiritualist churches may prove to be beneficial overall for those who believe but psychic surgeons will undoubtedly prove to be very harmful.

I think it's obvious that one piece of legislation cannot adequately cover the complete range of psychics' claims.

[chillzero]

John,
I absolutely agree. What I don't understand is this: back in the days when I was giving tarot readings, etc, I got qualifications for massage and reflexology. I was proud of my certificates and the work I put into getting them. I was pleased to have something that proved to people I had gone to the trouble of getting trained, and tested in the field, and that I knew what I was doing.

I would gladly have done the exact same thing for my other abilities. In fact, that's how I came across the JREF site. I was looking for a way to prove my abilities.

So, as well as placing regulations to protect grieving familes, there is the added bonus that some people may learn something on the way, and realise what is actually happening. Then they can put their skills to better and more ethical use.

[Oleron]

I wonder how religion would fit into the 'accuracy' tests?

Certainly spiritualist churches would claim exemption from licensing/testing on the basis of freedom of religion. Could new agers do the same? Probably. So tarot readers, psychics, crystal healers etc could all hide under the umbrella of religious freedom.

[doubting thomas]

Why not make all psychics register with their local county council (like taxi drivers for instance) so they can be issued with a license. Then if people have a complaint they can take it up with the council who could then revoke said licence.
The councils could then publish a list of the registered psychics on their web site.

[Muse]

Why not make all psychics register with their local county council (like taxi drivers for instance) so they can be issued with a license. Then if people have a complaint they can take it up with the council who could then revoke said licence.
The councils could then publish a list of the registered psychics on their web site.


In that situation I can't see many licenses staying in force. But more to the point on what grounds would you issue such a license? Unless each psychic undergoes testing with appropriate rigour and protocols to prove their authenticity I can't see the justification for any license being issued at all.

[vbloke]

In that situation I can't see many licenses staying in force. But more to the point on what grounds would you issue such a license? Unless each psychic undergoes testing with appropriate rigour and protocols to prove their authenticity I can't see the justification for any license being issued at all.


Surely that's the ideal

[doubting thomas]

The main point is to keep things simple, some other skeptics on the forum have suggested using government legislation but i think thats like trying to crack a nut with a sledge hammer. After all its US that will pay for it in the end.

[John Jackson]

The problem with licensing or self-regulation is that it does nothing to address whether what they do is real.

There's official regulation for chiropractors in the UK which gives the profession an air of authenticity. At no time has the principles of chiropractic ever been shown to be of benefit and indeed many of their practises are dangerous. We have government regulation for a system of healthcare that doesn't work. Pathetic. >:(

Some claims that psychics make, such as the ability to find bodies or other items using psychometry are empirically testable. The problem though is that psychics cannot pass these tests so again, issuing a licence based on their ability would be problematic as they don't actually possess the abilities they think they do.

[Muse]

The problem with licensing or self-regulation is that it does nothing to address whether what they do is real.



My point exactly. I know what I'd like to see - that's for every psychic to undergo testing by a reputable outfit such as ASKE who can relied upon to perform tailored testing with appropriate rigour to determine whether any ability exists. But that's never going to happen. It's just not practical.

Issuing a licence actually lends credibility to their claims of psychic ability rather than acting as a measure to control it. I can imagine how they would use the notion of being approved and licensed by the local authority as a quality guarantee indicator to punters when it fact it means nothing.

[Jocky]

It would indeed be bad news if any kind of regulation ended up giving them the appearance of added credibility.

What if the condition for getting approval to operate (or hold a licence or whatever) was that a notice with certain formal wording must be prominently displayed at point of sale, saying something like "This service is offered for entertainment purposes only" - a bit like the cigarette health warning.

[vbloke]

It would indeed be bad news if any kind of regulation ended up giving them the appearance of added credibility.

What if the condition for getting approval to operate (or hold a licence or whatever) was that a notice with certain formal wording must be prominently displayed at point of sale, saying something like "This service is offered for entertainment purposes only" - a bit like the cigarette health warning.


I'd say that the wording had to be more severe:

"This license gives the holder permission to hold readings, seances, etc. It in no way confers any legal recognition of psychic ability, or that such abilities exist. Customers are advised that any information given during a reading should not be construed as being from a psychic source and should regard it only as opinion."

[Jocky]

I doubt we'd ever get anything that unequivocally skeptical through a process of law, much though we might like to. Woos have votes too, and politicians know it.

The trouble is that in a free society people have the right to waste their money on total rubbish if they want. There is no real proof for the efficacy of plenty of products and services, but that is not regarded as a reason to lumber them with legal rebuttals. Flawed pseudoscience or phoney testing used to persuade people to buy products is a standard and pretty much unstoppable part of capitalism: witness washing powders which put shiny blue bits in and then tell people that it's a "new active ingredient", or tests which conclude that "8 out of 10 owners said their cats preferred it".

The only reason the smoking warning got as unequivocal as it did is because science could prove a positive link to serious disease. Similar proof about psychics is virtually impossible because (1) every one of them claims some slightly different woo power and (2) it is incredibly hard to prove a negative, especially when those you are testing will not play ball.

The advantage of the "entertainment" clause is that it is already in law. We might get away with something like "This service is offered strictly for entertainment purposes only. Xxxxshire county council have no liability whatsoever for the content of this performance."

[righter]

i think the way to tackle psychics,is to be on their case more.

more skeptics going to their "shows" , making transcripts or following up things said if possible.

If those about to go to a psychic, search online for info on that person and they come across transcripts of shows, with comments,notes etc re cold reading,generalities etc its likely to sow seeds of doubt.

i have read comments from people that have researched psychics more by coming across negative comments in forums,articles etc.

Plus if psychics know that EVERTHING they say is going to be scrutinised they might (though i doubt it) think twice about opening their mouths

[John Jackson]

I think we'll be giving them a little more stick in the coming months with both general and specific articles.

I agree that it's a good idea to put articles on-line as they do get picked up by search engines and, unlike newspaper articles, they are persistent.

There's load of great articles over at The Skeptic Express too: http://www.theskepticexpress.com/psychics.php

[Oleron]

We have to be careful here people - what do we want to achieve by tackling psychics?

Do we want to lobby the govt to ban them or regulate them out of existence? What if we were successful? Is more regulation and curbs on freedom of expression really what skeptics are all about? Isn't that what the fundies do?
Besides, would that really stop them doing damage to peoples lives?

IMO the goal has to be a long term one - the improvement of educational standards and critical thinking faculties. That way we starve the psychics of their customers. No demand, no danger.

How do we achieve this goal? That's a bit trickier! Let's publicise the weaknesses of the psychics, how they swindle the public by offering rubbish info at an exhorbitant cost. People see psychics as a 'bit of fun', by and large, but they don't like feeling they are being conned.

Let's make the pursuit of knowledge a fashionable and necessary thing. It seems to me that in the UK people value stupidity, celebrity and shallow thinking above all. We live in a country where half the youth are yobs who roam the streets in hoodies causing mayhem wherever they go. They look up to morons as role models and become morons themselves. Is it any wonder psychics and charlatans have more influence on the public than our scientists and politicians?

We need to work to turn that around.

[John Jackson]

I think it's worth challenging psychics' claims and publishing information, such as police denials that they use psychics, on the website.

Our long-term aim, however, is to act as an educational resource. We can't tell people not to use psychics, and other forms of nonsense, we can only provide educational material for use by those who wish to read it.

I don't think it's a battle we'll ever win, but we can make a difference.

[tkingdoll]

I completely agree. There's no point in pitching ourselves 'against' psychics, if only because we will not win. We don't have enemies, and the public are free to believe what they want.

I think a more achieveable objective would be to ensure that everyone can get access to both sides of the argument - to help the public understand how and why psychics work (or don't work). If they then choose to go to the psychic anyway (which many people will), well, we've done our best to educate and that's all we can do.

For example, we should be trying to persuade the media to present balanced arguments and be more factual. The more information we make available to them (i.e. the easier we make their job), the more likely they are to do this. The media really is the key here because the public, generally, will not go and do their own research, will not seek out a balanced view before making a decision. The media have a huge influence that we can affect.

No, I don't mean the tabloids, they make too much money from woo and don't care about facts. :D

[doubting thomas]

Here's an update to the very first item of this thread which appears in this weeks local free paper "Stourbridge NEWS".

Quote:-
Shamed Stourton psychic Paul Williams (aka Paul De'Aaran) is to be featured in a prime time TV documentary about Britains biggest conmen".

TV company Turn On Television is to make the 90 minuet program scheduled to air this summer.

The program also features interviews with psychic Sabina Heywood and Sgt John Cottrill who worked on the case.

[John Jackson]

I've only just caught up with this thread - keep us informed DT O0

We could use this at some point.