Should making a living as a Woo be a criminal offence?

[Jack of Kent]

Hi all,

As many of you know, the new Unfair Commercial Practices regulations prohibit certain sales practices.

In particular, it is prohibted to say something about your product, its attributes and/or its effects which are untrue and would lead someone to purchase them when they otherwise would not.

One effect of this prohibition is that the trader can be prosecuted. In real terms that means that they get a fine and a criminal record.

I am not sentimental when it comes to law and order - I vote Tory - but I wonder if there is an issue in using criminal law in this way, especially against individuals rather than companies.

My view is that Woos should be treated like double-glazing sales people. They should not be prosecuted according to the gravity of their Wooness but the manner of their sales practices.

Any thoughts?

[brodski]

"living as a woo" should not be a criminal al offence at all, making a living as a woo may be.

Fraud should, illegal trading should and unfair business practises should be, practising medicine without proper trading should be. In short dishonest and negligence in commercial trading should be illegal.

If someone wants to offer a service to the public or make claims about a good they sell they should be able to offer evidence that the product or service which they charge money for will achieve the results which they claim or imply- and they should be sure that their product or service is (reasonably) safe. This is no different whether they are selling used cars or healing crystals- I have yet to her an argument (form either side) about why a distinction should be drawn for “woo”.

[brodski]

Having re-read your OP, I’m not quite sure what your point about using this against individuals rather than companies is about. Do you believe that sole-traders (or for the real woos soul-traders) should have more leeway when it comes to misleading the public?
I don’t see why the size of a commercial undertaking should determine their responsibility towards their customers- I can see a case for lower administrative standards for very small businesses and sole-traders (WRT record keeping etc.), but they will still have the same obligations towards their customers (and the public a large).

[Tim the Mage]

Surely the difficulty lies with belief - would I be breaking the law if I believed what I was saying was true? Some folk peddling woo know exactly what they're doing and that it's rubbish (I think of many astrologers, for example). Others however really believe in mediums, psychic healing and the infinite power of the lord.

In the first case little harm is done yet we could do them, in the latter much badness is done but the law will struggle. Or have I misread what Jack said?

[brodski]

Surely the difficulty lies with belief - would I be breaking the law if I believed what I was saying was true? Some folk peddling woo know exactly what they're doing and that it's rubbish (I think of many astrologers, for example). Others however really believe in mediums, psychic healing and the infinite power of the lord.

In the first case little harm is done yet we could do them, in the latter much badness is done but the law will struggle. Or have I misread what Jack said?

I don't see how the belief of the operator of the commercial undertaking is relevant, either they are committing knowing fraud or they are operating in a reckless manner- I don’t see how operating your business in a reckless manner which means that you will likely to be able to provide the goods or services which you are charging people for is any more acceptable than outright fraud.

[Jack of Kent]

Having re-read your OP, I’m not quite sure what your point about using this against individuals rather than companies is about. Do you believe that sole-traders (or for the real woos soul-traders) should have more leeway when it comes to misleading the public?
I don’t see why the size of a commercial undertaking should determine their responsibility towards their customers- I can see a case for lower administrative standards for very small businesses and sole-traders (WRT record keeping etc.), but they will still have the same obligations towards their customers (and the public a large).

My point is slightly different. In human terms, a criminal conviction is more consequential than a conviction incurred by a company (which is a legal fiction in any case). It isn't a question of size - some sole traders are more successful commercially than some companies - merely a note that there is a human context when one starts bandying around the criminal law.

However, I agree with your substantive points.

[Matt]

I think the law will run into problems when it encouters largfe organised religion (and all the votes that they represent). As I see it the selling of plenary indulgances (which is a practice the catholic church still entertains even in this enlightened age) could lead a court to demand that the catholic church proves that such a practice absolves sin in the eyes of an absentee deity.

[SimonC]

My view is that Woos should be treated like double-glazing sales people. They should not be prosecuted according to the gravity of their Wooness but the manner of their sales practices.

Any thoughts?

Wouldn't the difficulty with this be that the courts could find themselves in the position of trying to evaluate the truth of paranormal claims? Surely it's more practical to prosecute people, if appropriate, on the consequences of their actions, rather than the way they promote their 'services'?

For example - a person claims to be a faith healer, and advertises their ability to cure various ills. I can't see how a court could realistically assess that claim at face value.

If however, the faith healer has acted and caused harm, isn't that something tangible that a court can consider? I realise that this scenario will also require a certain amount of discussion about the supposed abilities, but at least there is something tangible for the prosecution to get its teeth into.

Should I be a lawyer, or am I talking nonsense? Probably the latter, I expect! ;D:-[

[Abdul Alhazred]

While we're dreaming, why not propose that churches and such be taxed like any other corporation, and subject to the same consumer fraud statutes?

[Pebble]

Given the nature of supply and demand, criminalizing 'woos' would be no more effective than laws against prostitution.
As for simple fraud laws, there are so many ways of describing what wonderful benefits are associated with anything one wishes to sell, that a general anti-woo law would affect others reasonable claims made about the obvious but unproven benefits of this years 'in' toys.
So unless you create specific legal meanings for words/phrases like 'treat' 'beneficial effects' 'vitalizing' 'detoxifying' etc etc, I cannot see how this is possible.

[Matt]

Given the nature of supply and demand, criminalizing 'woos' would be no more effective than laws against prostitution.
As for simple fraud laws, there are so many ways of describing what wonderful benefits are associated with anything one wishes to sell, that a general anti-woo law would affect others reasonable claims made about the obvious but unproven benefits of this years 'in' toys.
So unless you create specific legal meanings for words/phrases like 'treat' 'beneficial effects' 'vitalizing' 'detoxifying' etc etc, I cannot see how this is possible.

The recent commercial practices law seems to make a pretty good fist of it. Instead of focussing solely on what the prmotional material literally says, it makes reference to what the average potential consumer would be lead to belive by it. If that understanding rests upon a false claim that would lead your customers to enter into a transaction with you that they wouldn't otherwise engage in if they knew that the claim was false then a court may ask the claimant to prove that the claim is true.

Thus "I have to read the contents of this piece of paper by law" wink wink. Is no defence. If you've targetted people who believe and are asking them for money they wouldn't otherwise give you if they knew you were a fake, even though you might claim that you explicitly stated that you were a fake, if you didn't do enought to convince your audience of that fact then hard cheese.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Given the nature of supply and demand, criminalizing 'woos' would be no more effective than laws against prostitution.

This is the key insight. And of course it applies to religion as well.

Thanks.

[Floppit]

I'm inclined to agree re supply and demand, not to mention the relish with which some practictioners would embrace martyrdom.

I do think that medical doctors should be required to justify to the GMC the practice of any 'woo' (ooo I love that word!) as medicine. (Don't some hospitals offer woo??).

[Pebble]

I do think that medical doctors should be required to justify to the GMC the practice of any 'woo' (ooo I love that word!) as medicine. (Don't some hospitals offer woo??).

Agreed, the problem is much greater in general practice. While there are Osteopathic and Homeopathic Hospitals (Royal Patronage protects) and some pain specialists use acupuncture, most 'alternative' practice in hospitals is at least audited and to some extent part of studies. Outside the hospital setting many GPs also offer alternative 'treatments' in a completely unregulated and unaudited fashion.
It would be very reasonable for the Royal Colleges to demand that such practices are standardized and confined to use as part of clinical studies, unfortunately much of what is still done in 'medicine' has not been formally studied. The situation is improving but many would strongly resist abandoning eminence based approach altogether, so would be difficult to get the grandees completely on board just yet.

[Mongrel]

Outside the hospital setting many GPs also offer alternative 'treatments' in a completely unregulated and unaudited fashion.

The last I saw, too drunk too get cites, it equated to "Many GPs had got 'alternative' treatments under their belts as part of the Continued Professional Development (CPD) for easy credits" the majority of the referrals were patient initiated.

[Pebble]

The last I saw, too drunk too get cites, it equated to "Many GPs had got 'alternative' treatments under their belts as part of the Continued Professional Development (CPD) for easy credits" the majority of the referrals were patient initiated.


CPD simply requires evidence that you attended an 'educational session' or indeed privately studied an aspect of care, nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of information provided, understood or about how you intend to practice.

[Floppit]

Seems like long before the law of the land is tackled the governing body of medicine should step up to the plate and tackle this - perhaps stop trying to be everyone's buddy and do what our taxes pay them to do, research and base conclusions on that research, read it, understand it and know that without it it's all bloody woo! >:-)

Ok - rant over. :-X

[Mongrel]

CPD simply requires evidence that you attended an 'educational session' or indeed privately studied an aspect of care, nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of information provided, understood or about how you intend to practice.

Absolutely, some practitioners may have tried the Alt-med study blocks to see what the fuss was and I'm sure some did it to get a quick "4 hour" block under their belt before golf (they are after all only human), either way I'd like to think that the majority of the practitioners can see it for the nonsense it is

[brodski]

My point is slightly different. In human terms, a criminal conviction is more consequential than a conviction incurred by a company (which is a legal fiction in any case). It isn't a question of size - some sole traders are more successful commercially than some companies - merely a note that there is a human context when one starts bandying around the criminal law.

However, I agree with your substantive points.

Personally, I don't think that civil law is an adequate response to fraud (in its wider meaning, not a strict legal meaning), and civil penalties are rarely an adequate deterrence to fraud. In many cases civil fines are more often seen as a business expense rather than real deterrent (there is an interesting thread over at the JREF where people are arguing, pretty well, that the corporate duty to maximise shareholder profit overrides consideration of legal niceties, if breaking the law and paying the fine would leave a company in a more profitable situation that obeying the law, the directors have a duty to shareholders to see that the law is broken).
If we as a society are serious about trying to tackle unfair business practises, I feel that criminal law is the only viable option, further more tackling the people who break the law, rather than their “legal fiction” seems a much more sensible option than eth alternative. Companies don’t break the law, people kill people, or something like that…

[hilary shinclair]

I don't think the government would ever prosecute a medium because it would be open to allegations it was wasting public moneyetc, so that means any legal action against a medium would have to be undertaken by a private individual. That would be extremely costly, and in my experience most sceptics are stone cold broke certainly this one is. I'm afraid they've got us by the you-know-what.

[Mojo]

I don't think the government would ever prosecute a medium because it would be open to allegations it was wasting public moneyetc, so that means any legal action against a medium would have to be undertaken by a private individual. That would be extremely costly, and in my experience most sceptics are stone cold broke certainly this one is. I'm afraid they've got us by the you-know-what.


The authorities don't seem to have had any problem with the idea of prosecuting psychics and mediums in the past. If you think all that finished with Helen Duncan, you would be mistaken.

Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1523674/%27Psychic%27-who-said-she-could-remove-curses-is-given-jail.html) is a recent case; when a question about prosecutions under the Fraudulent Mediums Act was last asked in Parliament it turned out that there had been six prosecutions under that specific act between 1984 and 1992. This act was not invoked in the case I've linked to, where it appears that the psychic was prosecuted for theft.

The recently introduced Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 makes it an offence for anyone to make any false claim in the course of any commercial transaction involving the supply of goods or services to a consumer. This would certainly apply to claims of psychic ability.

[Jack of Kent]

I don't think the government would ever prosecute a medium because it would be open to allegations it was wasting public moneyetc, so that means any legal action against a medium would have to be undertaken by a private individual. That would be extremely costly, and in my experience most sceptics are stone cold broke certainly this one is. I'm afraid they've got us by the you-know-what.

Local Trading Standards or the OFT will take action against a Medium who is using "unfair commercial practices", not because they are a Medium, but because...they are a trader using unfair commercial practices.

Only in serious cases will that action be a prosecution - there are other potential legal and non-legal remedies to try before that stage is reached.

So your concern here is perhaps misplaced.

The new Regulations are not intended to be enforced directly by private individuals, so your final point doesn't really apply.

I think you may be giving in too easily. The Regulations will prevent unfair commercial practices by Mediums chargng money for their "services".

[Admin]

Just a quick question if I may Jack...

What about the likes of psychics/mediums/psychic surgeons who take money for a healing session or whatever but instead of charging for their 'psychic service' they claim only to charge for their 'time'.

Does this make sense in law?

I would have thought that charging for a service is no different from charging for time when the same service is being carried out - or would the contract legally be seen as different in each case?

I'm just wondering what sort of defence charging only for time would be if something went wrong or a client wanted to bring a charge of fraudulence (being ripped off) compared to someone charging for services.

[Jack of Kent]

Always happy to help, John.

The Regulations, being EU legislation, are "purposive".

In other words, and do excuse the pun, if it quacks like a duck...

Therefore, if someone really is a "trader" no clever-clever wording is going to get them outside the scope of the Regulations.

From a Trading Standards perspective, it would be just like a Double Glazing salesman charging for his/her "time" and not the windows.

[bindeweede]

Always happy to help, John.

The Regulations, being EU legislation, are "purposive".

In other words, and do excuse the pun, if it quacks like a duck...

Therefore, if someone really is a "trader" no clever-clever wording is going to get them outside the scope of the Regulations.

From a Trading Standards perspective, it would be just like a Double Glazing salesman charging for his/her "time" and not the windows.

Jack,

I'm sure you know, but these sorts of claims do exist.....


The procedure can take between 20 minutes and 1 hour depending upon the healing that is required.

My fee for Psychic Surgery is £30, this is for my time, no charge is made for the surgery.

I am not medically trained, and do not perform the Psychic Surgery, this is performed by Spirit, although I am the physical channel that enables the healing to take place.
http://www.andy-porter.co.uk/surgery.htm

Fortunately, he has removed the claim to "resolve" schizophrenia in less than an hour.

Yes, I have been in touch with TS!

[farmersboy]

"I am not medically trained, and do not perform the Psychic Surgery, this is performed by Spirit, although I am the physical channel that enables the healing to take place. "

Look, he's admitting he's not actually doing anything - how could he be prosecuted? ;)

[Jack of Kent]

Adopting what I shall now call the "Everest" or "Double glazing" test to Woo literature:


"The installation can take between 20 minutes and 4 hours depending upon the double glazing that is required.

My fee for double glazing is £3000, this is for my time, no charge is made for the double glazing.

I am not trained in double glazing, and do not perform the double glazing, this is performed by Spirit, although I am the physical channel that enables the double glazing to take place."

Such a clever-clever approach wouldn't stand up in any other context, and there is no reason to think it would stand up in this one...

[Dubious Dick]

We have been round this one before in other threads and it seems that the reason that TS/OFT are not implementing the CPRs in relation to so called psychics/mediums/faith healers/astrologers etc is largely, sadly, down to resources.

I also strongly suspect that there is a wariness in Government to challenging 'faith' on the basis of where do you stop.

As I have stated before, superficially at least it would be easy for TS/OFT to bring a case based on lack of evidence/proof that these charlatans can do what they say they can, and that the target market is very largely, if not exclusively, vulnerable people.

It seems the best we can hope for for now is some concerted effort to impose strong, meaningful, prominent disclaimers on practitioners of this sort of baloney. I am pursuing this via my M.P. and would urge ass many of you as possible to do the same.

This should also apply to homeopatheticy etc , so get emailing your democratically elected representatives, and urge your mates to do so as well.

[Jack of Kent]

Good points, Dubious Dick.

It is important that those of us who are skeptical of Woos do not try to have it both ways.

On one hand, we are rightly against the BCA or Rath or whoever using the law to close down criticism.

On the other hand, we are aware that there are legal means which can be used against the abuses of CAM and psychic practitioners.

As a libertarian, I am firmly of the view that law should not be used for an ulterior purpose by either side of the Woo/skeptic debate.

In my opinion, a fraudulent medium should be prosecuted, not because they are a medium, but because they are fraudulent.

[dalriada]

It would help if journalistic standards were higher. Generally any story regarding extraordinary claims and high woo-ness is reported in terms of breathless approval and uncritical acceptance in the Health and Women's sections of national newspapers- such as this story in The Times today (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5467926.ece)

Glossy magazines are even worse. Woo is promoted as a fashion accessory.

[Tim the Mage]

It would help if journalistic standards were higher.

This is, I think, a universal truth. I was taught that journalists are lazy, double-dealing, ill-educated charlatans.

More seriously, advertising (for all its many failings) is subject to a test of veracity. If I make a claim in advertising, I have to be able to substantiate that claim. This may not be a perfect system but compared to journalism it's a straightjacket. Journalists can make whatever statement or claim whets the readers appetite without having to worry about its veracity - unless it's about whether you slept with a goat last night, of course (assuming the goat has a good lawyer)! It isn't about standards but whether its Ok (see front page of the 'Sun' today) for journalists to lie so as to flog a few extra newspapers.

[Sarama]

We have been round this one before in other threads and it seems that the reason that TS/OFT are not implementing the CPRs in relation to so called psychics/mediums/faith healers/astrologers etc is largely, sadly, down to resources.

I also strongly suspect that there is a wariness in Government to challenging 'faith' on the basis of where do you stop.

As I have stated before, superficially at least it would be easy for TS/OFT to bring a case based on lack of evidence/proof that these charlatans can do what they say they can, and that the target market is very largely, if not exclusively, vulnerable people.

It seems the best we can hope for for now is some concerted effort to impose strong, meaningful, prominent disclaimers on practitioners of this sort of baloney. I am pursuing this via my M.P. and would urge ass many of you as possible to do the same.

This should also apply to homeopatheticy etc , so get emailing your democratically elected representatives, and urge your mates to do so as well.

This is sticky sticky sticky. I have written the TS some months ago now about a gent claiming to have been trained in Tibetan Medicine, and there are a smattering of ads, or endorsements around the web claiming he is psychic but not in those exact terms. The endorsements or various ads claim that he was handed down a lineage or teachings from a Tibetan Monk. It's a long story, if you want to read more, go to Art of Deception (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3077) in Alternative Medicine, I posted some articles up there as well. Anyway, the TS has been informed, Environmental Health has been informed and even the Police have been informed as he was roping clients in on one pretext and then having sex with them using quite another.
TS & EH have done nothing to date, though I am not the only to have written them with concerns, again see Art of Deception (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3077) where a blogger wrote in to the TS and has posted it.

I can only assume because the fraud in question has not advertised openly per se. He has written 3 books however in which he makes most of his claims, such as predicting clients deaths, past lives, foreseen illnesses etc, all based on these Traditional Teachings he claimed to have received.
In short he is advertising himself as one thing,
Master Physician of Tibetan Bön Medicine. Author, educator on ancient Tibetan lifestyle, health, and spirituality based in London, UK. luring in clients and then selling them quite another thing altogether, if you know what I mean.

Yet he is practicing, apparently, "legally" as anyone can set themselves up as a counsellor or healer. Under those titles one is not expected to be part of any registered or regulating body, nor do you have to have any credentials. He is even practicing acupuncture with neither registered body or any evidence of training and credentials, and no one can take him out of circulation because it is legal thus far. At least that is what we have been told. Some people have been working on this for many many years. I just recently joined the foray myself.


It is important that those of us who are skeptical of Woos do not try to have it both ways.

On one hand, we are rightly against the BCA or Rath or whoever using the law to close down criticism.

On the other hand, we are aware that there are legal means which can be used against the abuses of CAM and psychic practitioners.

As a libertarian, I am firmly of the view that law should not be used for an ulterior purpose by either side of the Woo/skeptic debate.

In my opinion, a fraudulent medium should be prosecuted, not because they are a medium, but because they are fraudulent.

I can see both DD's points as well as Jack's, but that of course leaves us in a bit of a quandary still, so I will continue to research and to read on! Many Thanks again to all for their advice.