Selfridges to offer psychic services! [Archive]

Muse

4th April 2006, 05:45 PM

Selfridges to offer psychic services

By Katie Kilgallen
04/04/2006

Upmarket department store group Selfridges has employed two psychics to work in its Oxford Street branch.

Selfridges claims it is a first in retail. A spokesman said that the store was well on its way to becoming a “one-stop shop for all your needs, including spiritual”.

Selfridges head of home Dawn Rose said: “The arrival of the Psychic Sisters in Selfridges will be especially welcome by people who have always wanted to try psychic services but were bewildered by the choice available and unsure of the quality on offer.”

The “Psychic Sisters”, Jayne Wallace and Christine Murray, started in the store on Monday. Both have experience as television clairvoyants.

A session with the psychics will cost £40 and last 40 minutes and can include tarot and crystal ball readings and help with any issues you may have, including shopping addiction.

http://www.retail-week.com/nav?page=retailweek.news.detail&resource=4622497

I don't know what I find the most shocking about this..Could it be;

That this can be interpreted as a mainstream endorsement of the psychic industry and demonstrates a certain level of irresponsibility on the part of Selfridges.
How can one determine the 'quality' of a psychic who's talents cannot be proven?
How can a psychic help with one addiction (shopping) at the risk of creating another (psychic junkie)
How can these or any other psychics help with 'issues' when both apparently have no training in counselling/ addication etc.
On that basis alone how can they justify a charge?

:(

Admin

4th April 2006, 07:25 PM

It looks like a cynical money-making scheme to me. ;)

This is the sort of thing we'll probably see more of. ::)

At the end of the day they're a business and if there's a market there then they'll cash in.

I had a rant about this issue here: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=11-05#whats_the_harm2

The crazy thing is, there'll probably be a queue of people waiting to get in. :-\

chillzero

5th April 2006, 08:25 AM

OK Guys - let's do something about it.

http://www.selfridges.com/index.cfm?page=1039

connect@selfridges.co.uk

By Post
Customer Relations
Selfridges Retail Ltd
PO Box 5157
Leicester LE3 1ZW

I'm going to spend some time thinking of the best wording for an email/letter to them, and ensure I include the best links. I think a good way to start is with quality guarantee issues, and perhaps a nod to the fraudulent psychics act.

chillzero

5th April 2006, 08:31 AM

Also:

A session with the psychics will cost £40 and last 40 minutes and can include tarot and crystal ball readings and help with any issues you may have, including shopping addiction.

Are they seriously suggesting that a retail outlet will endorse 2 employees discouraging shoppers from spending their cash there?

???

Somehow, I doubt it.

Mojo

5th April 2006, 12:04 PM

...and perhaps a nod to the fraudulent psychics act.

definitely worth mentioning the Fraudulent Mediums Act (http://www.tonyyouens.com/fma.htm)
... any person who ... with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers ... shall be guilty of an offence.

A person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection unless it is proved that he acted for reward; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to act for reward if any money is paid, or other valuable thing given, in respect of what he does, whether to him or to any other person.

There is a get-out clause covering "anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment" which stage mediums generally rely on, but I would have thought their claim to offer "help with any issues you may have, including shopping addiction" would take them outside "solely for the purposes of entertainment".

The "intent to deceive" bit might be difficult to prove, but they do seem to be claiming to offer an actual service rather than something that could be regarded as purely entertainment. There are still occasional prosecutions under this act. Should we alert the authorities?

Mojo

5th April 2006, 12:07 PM

Are they seriously suggesting that a retail outlet will endorse 2 employees discouraging shoppers from spending their cash there?

At £40 a pop without having to invest in any stock, I don't see why not.

Muse

5th April 2006, 02:18 PM

Jocky

6th April 2006, 12:03 PM

Great stuff, Muse and chillzero 8)

I've emailed them as well, quoting chunks of the 1951 act and constructing a case for a prima facie breach. The clincher is their claim to

help with any issues you may have, including shopping addiction

This not only undoes the 'entertainment' defence, but also helps to establish an "intent to deceive" which is required by the act. If they're giving counselling to people with serious behavioural problems on the basis of tarot cards and crystal balls, when such methods have (to put it mildly) no proven efficacy in such matters, then they are skating on thin ice indeed.

At this rate, Selfridge's might start to sense a bit of a conspiracy - and they might even decide that the 'Psychic Sisters' are not worth the bother ...

chillzero

6th April 2006, 01:25 PM

Admin

6th April 2006, 02:04 PM

I stuck a little rant up on the commentary yesterday: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=04-06#selfridges

Unless they place a 'for entertainment purposes only' disclaimer clearly on display, they're in breach of the fraudulent mediums act.

Unless of course their psychics are genuine.

I can't believe that a company that prides itself on its image has got involved with this. It really discredits them.

Jocky

6th April 2006, 02:56 PM

Nicely ranted, John.

The thing that really gets my goat is the claim that these charlatans will be able to counsel people who might actually have a significant problem. 'Shopping addiction' is not a recognised condition as such, but the behaviour it describes can really mess up people's lives (for example, see http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2003wk2/news/shoe-dunnit)

How dare they claim that some self-proclaimed psychic can help someone who might be messed up in this sort of way >:( If ever there was a job for a qualified counsellor or psychotherapist then surely this is it. It is not hard to see the potential harm in this.

But then again, maybe Selfridge's don't want them to be helped to shake off the addiction - that would no doubt be bad for profit margins.

Admin

6th April 2006, 03:09 PM

I find it hard to understand just how willing some people are to place their complete trust in people who claim this unverified ability. As psychic ability has never been proven, it simply means that they are allowing complete strangers to make often life-changing decisions for them. Decisions that they are not qualified to make.

"One of the most alarming things about the mediumistic racket is how completely some people put their lives into the hands of ill-educated, emotionally unbalanced individuals who claim a hotline to heaven...That people who ask such questions of a medium are risking their mental, moral, and monetary health is a shocking but quite accurate description of the matter."
M. Lamar Keene - The Psychic Mafia.

Mojo

6th April 2006, 03:59 PM

chillzero

6th April 2006, 04:04 PM

Item 2 of the act:
(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection unless it is proved that he acted for reward; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to act for reward if any money is paid, or other valuable thing given, in respect of what he does, whether to him or to any other person.

£40 per person taken by Selfridges - no doubt the sisters get paid wages... therefore - reward.

Whether or not the "sisters" get paid is immaterial. The "any other person" bit at the end of that section means that as long as the marks hand over money to somebody the "sisters" would be considered to be acting for reward.

Incidentally, I assume that if anyone was to be prosecuted under this act it would be the "sisters" themselves rather than Selfridges. I wonder if Selfridges could be charged as an accomplice.

Good catch!
I will be raising that, if I get a response to my email. I asked for a contact to discuss my concerns with, and gave a few questions. If I get a response I will follow up with a few more.

Unless of course the article is incorrect, as I can't find any information anywhere else about it. I am sure they will let us know if that's the case.

No one here living in/near London who could do a little recognisance mission?

Admin

6th April 2006, 04:08 PM

Incidentally, I assume that if anyone was to be prosecuted under this act it would be the "sisters" themselves rather than Selfridges. I wonder if Selfridges could be charged as an accomplice.

I think the article said that Selfridges employed the psychic sisters. So I think that they could be prosecuted too.

Jocky

6th April 2006, 05:20 PM

STOP PRESS!!! I got a reply from Selfridges :D

Surprise, surprise - they claim it is in fact all "for entertainment"

To put this in context, here's the text of my email (long and pedantic, but that's me), followed by the text of their reply (short and evasive - but then maybe that's them).

I decided to try and pin them down very precisely with the 1951 act, and therefore I echewed generalised skeptical critiques of psychics, instead sticking to making a case for possible illegality. I wrote:

Dear sir / madam,

As a customer, I am writing to express my profound concern at Selfridge's decision to provide a platform in-store for the so-called "Psychic Sisters" - two persons who purport to posess 'clairvoyant' powers. This email is based on a report in Online Retail Week [snip link]. I believe that the service described in this article may be unlawful, and I would be most interested in your view of this possibility.

I wish to draw to your attention the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, which states that: [snip quotes which mostly already appear in this thread]

The activities of the Psychic Sisters in your stores appear potentially to be in breach of this legislation, and therefore could become a criminal matter. This is because:
* Clearly the Psychic Sisters do 'purport to exercise powers of clairvoyance' , so their activities are regulated by the terms of the act;
* A charge of £40 per session is being levied for their services, so 'money is paid in respect of what they do';
* The article states that the Psychic Sisters can "help with any issues you may have, including shopping addiction", so they seem to be offering a counselling service which is manifestly not 'solely for the purposes of entertainment'.

The only remaining question is whether the Psychic Sisters have an "intent to deceive". This is a matter which would have to be tested in court, but you should bear in mind that there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that these individuals posess any supernatural abilities at all; and furthermore the techniques which they are using ("tarot and crystal ball readings") have no verifiable function of any kind, and in particular have never been shown to have any value in the matter of assisting individuals who exhibit symptoms of shopping addiction.

No doubt the Psychic Sisters would be able to advance personal endorsements in support of the value of their methods. However, such testimonies have no evidential value whatever as independant proof of their efficacy, and cannot be used to demonstrate that they are proven to work.

It follows that, unless these two individuals hold professional counselling qualifications which have not been disclosed, they are not in a position to offer any form of valid assistance with personal "issues", either in relation to shopping addiction or to anything else. Since they are accepting money on the basis that they can provide such assistance, there seems to be prima facie reason to believe that an "intent to deceive" exists.

I am considering drawing this matter to the attention of the Police, but I thought it would only be fair to seek your views, and to check with yourselves that the information in the Online Retail Week article is accurate, before I proceed.

They replied:

Dear [blank - he forgot to enter my name, although I had supplied it]

Thank you for your email about the Psychic Sisters.

We are confident that this service, which is an entertainment, complies with all UK legislation. The Psychic Sisters do not offer a counselling service and they do not advertise themselves as a counselling service. None of the Psychic Sister's literature available in our store claims to be assisting individuals who exhibit symptoms of shopping addiction.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards

Nick
Selfridges Connect

Selfridges Switchboard 08708 377 377
Selfridges Customer Relations 08708 370 470 Visit us at www.selfridges.com

Jocky

6th April 2006, 05:27 PM

Now that I'm in correspondence with an individual, I'm on a roll! >:D

I've replied as follows:

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

So, it would seem that your in-store information totally contradicts the article in Retail Week. That article clearly indicates that one purpose of the Psychic Sisters was to help customers address personal "issues" in general, and "shopping addiction" in particular. If this is not in fact the case, I trust you will take steps to ensure that this extremely important oversight is publicly corrected. If you fail to do so, you could be in danger of appearing to transgress the law.

How could a journalist working for a reputable and widely-read trade journal have misunderstood your intentions so completely? Perhaps it is possible that your press briefing materials created this impression in some way. By way of example, I can suggest one thing which may have contributed to such a catastrophic misunderstanding.

Retail Week quoted your head of home (Dawn Rose) as saying: “The arrival of the Psychic Sisters in Selfridges will be especially welcome by people who have always wanted to try psychic services but were bewildered by the choice available and unsure of the quality on offer.”

There are two clear implications of this statement:

1. The psychics offer a "service", meaning 'Work done for others as an occupation or business' (Source: Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). This choice of words does not connote a performance intended for entertainment, but rather some kind of serious, professional endeavour. The kudos of the Selfridge's name, which is not associated with entertainment but rather with retailing of quality merchandise, reinforces this misleading impression.

2. This quote may encourage Selfridges customers, who could be "unsure of the quality" of other psychics, to believe that the quality of the "psychic service" available instore will be more reliable. The Selfridges name is of course rightly esteemed as a stamp of quality, and I am sure that you have rigorous quality assurance procedures in place to ensure high standards of the goods you retail. Have you have applied similar standards to checking that the Psychic Sisters are a 'better class' of psychic? I would be intrigued to know exactly how this could have been achieved.

I trust that all future public pronouncements and all in-store literature will clearly and explicitly state that the Psychic Sisters "services" are strictly for entertainment only, and that Selfridges does not promote them for any other purpose whatsoever.

In addition, if Selfridges make claims for the high quality of the Psychic Sisters' work, this connotes that Selfridges is every bit as responsible for the merchantability of their pronouncements as they are for all other goods and services sold instore. Dissatisfied customers could then reasonably expect recompense for any failure of the service to perform as promised. On the other hand, a disclaimer at point of sale indicating that Selfridges do not offer any warranty for the quality, content or accuracy of the Psychic Sisters' entertainment would preclude any such claim. This may perhaps be a prudent step to take.

I will follow the content of all instore materials and all further public statements on this issue with great interest. Again, if you feel that I have misunderstood or misrepresented Selfridges in any way in the foregoing I would welcome your observations and corrections.

We shall see if he wants to carry on playing ...

Admin

6th April 2006, 05:57 PM

Excellent work Jocky - you certainly can write. O0

I think that Selfridges are on very rocky ground here; both with the psychic services (entertainment?) and their credibility as an upmarket company.

It will be interesting to see whether they continue shooting themselves in the foot or if common sense will prevail.

It's also interesting that they are using the old 'entertainment' get-out clause. This shows that their 'psychic service' is effectively worthless and that the 'service' is there purely to take money from the more gullible amongst their customers.

Of course the 'for entertainment purposes only' disclaimer should be clearly displayed.

I'm in Newcastle so going to check them out is a bit awkward for me. It would be nice if someone could see how they're going about the business though - digital camera in hand.

Muse

6th April 2006, 07:16 PM

I see that Selfridges' reply courtesy of Nick is identical to the one I received.

Like you Jocky - I'm not one to let them off the hook. There's certain areas being avoided in that response. :D

Keep up the good work. O0

Mojo

6th April 2006, 10:04 PM

I'm in Newcastle so going to check them out is a bit awkward for me. It would be nice if someone could see how they're going about the business though - digital camera in hand.

I'll see what I can do, but I'm probably going to be too busy this weekend.

chillzero

6th April 2006, 10:54 PM

Yeah,
I got the same reply too, and have duly responded with somemore questions.
I'm a little worried, because I picked out the same 2 lines of the article to highlight as Mojo did, so I hope he will continue to respond.

Well, we shall see.

Jocky

7th April 2006, 09:28 AM

Excellent - let's all keep at them. O0

Nick hasn't replied to my second email either - presumably his bosses only gave him one thing he was allowed to say! Maybe one of us will evoke a further response.

If we compare notes and try to pursue somewhat different lines of attack, sooner or later someone might find the fault line which will cause them to think "Stuff this, these psychics aren't worth the bother". Hopefully they'd then put up good strong 'entertainment and no liability' disclaimers which will make the psychics look a lot more like the frauds they are.

I live in North Oxfordshire and have young children, so I very rarely get the chance go into central London. I am unlikely to get the chance to check what they've done instore in person in the near future.

Hopefully someone will though :ponder:

I love the idea of proactive skepticism - thanks for starting it off chillzero !

Muse

7th April 2006, 11:18 AM

In addition to having another go at Nick Vowles I've also emailed journalist Katie Kilgallen who did the original piece. Hopefully she may be able to confirm and clarify what Selfridges originally said.

Fingers crossed. ;)

Jocky

7th April 2006, 11:25 AM

Good move Muse - I was thinking of doing that too.

Perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere ;)

Muse

7th April 2006, 12:31 PM

Well Selfridges clearly don't want to play. Here's the latest....

Dear ********

I am sorry, Selfridges has made its stance clear on this matter and does
not wish to be drawn into further correspondence. Your comments have been
noted and will be included in our monthly reporting to the business.

Thank you for taking the time to correspond.

Regards

*******

Cowards!

Jocky feel free to drop me a PM if you like :)

chillzero

7th April 2006, 05:51 PM

Exactly the same note I got back. What a load of rubbish.

Very disappointed - and also somewhat angry at the dismissive tone taken.

>:(

Anyway, got a better response for one of my emails about Dianne Lazarus. I'll post about it on the proper thread, and am waiting for confirmation that I can share the letter I was also sent a copy of from the Midlands Head of Major Investigations.

Zendal Darkman

8th April 2006, 11:54 PM

hi guys,
My first proper post on this forum.

I posted on the jref forum about what happened when I took the same photographs of the "psychic area". I have to admit that on the bus back I was feeling pretty pleased with myself, however the more I thought about it the less happy I was.

For a start why the hell was I nervous about taking pictures when asked to stop. These people are taking £40 from there customers and lying straight into their faces and yet I was fealing as if i was in the wrong.

The nerves cost me/us. I should have listened for a lot longer than I did. I should have made (mental) notes about which psychics were there and how many customers they had. I should have looked more closely at what they were selling. Truth be told I didn't even have a good luck around the area they were working in, I just went straight for the leaflets and waited. having said that I think I was rumbled as soon as I got there (which makes me think if other people have done the same as I did)

Basically I sort of messed up. Still I'll put it down as a learning experience, next time I am in similar position, I shall be a little bit more level headed :-\

here is the last picture I took. By this stage I was already walking away and decided to turn around to take just one more

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/vaillant/100_0061.jpg
..by the way is that a dream catcher I see?

Muse

9th April 2006, 12:08 AM

Don't worry you did a great job. The main point is that you picked up material advertising these services within Selfridges that made no mention of their 'entertainment' label. So are we to assume that Selfridges have located two genuine psychics????

That's fine Selfridges. Now please may we have the evidence.

:D

Admin

9th April 2006, 12:20 AM

Zendal,

The pictures and information are valuable evidence. They prove that Selfridges' claim to be employing psychics for entertainment is clearly false.

It's no longer claim versus counter claim. We have what skeptics need: evidence.

Thank you so much for going out of your way to get this information. O0

Zendal Darkman

10th April 2006, 11:12 PM

Just to let everyone know
I am going down the line of making a complaint to the ASA regarding Selfridge's going against the advice offered by CAP in:-

http://www.cap.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8CA7341D-0381-47C4-AFB3-1EE13ACE434E/0/spriritulists_psychics.pdf

There may be issues with the definition of "marketing material" and "point of sale". As mentioned here (http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA_2004_Rebuild/Templates/Forms/tmp_Common/tmp_Codes/ShowCode.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fasa%2fcodes%2fcap_code%2fShowCode %2ehtm%3fclause_id%3d1430&NRNODEGUID=%7b1FC1450C-3B89-493E-8368-38BD9444F82A%7d&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest&clause_id=1430)

While I have not yet made a complaint I have e-mailed the ASA asking for clarification on a couple of points.

I have not yet contacted Trading Standards although I plan to do do so tomorrow.

chillzero

10th April 2006, 11:15 PM

I emailed trading standards - via consumer complaints, and I also tried OFT.

Mojo

11th April 2006, 09:50 AM

It looks as if Selfridges' customers are mathematically challenged as well as gullible:
The women stopped, gaped, peered more closely to make sure they hadn't missed a decimal point, and then laughed. The fat sandwich, under a glass dome on the Selfridge's deli counter, was indeed labelled £85.
"I couldn't pay that for a sandwich, even if I had the money," Carrie Boswell, an office administrator, said. "I'd spend £3 on a sandwich, and £80 on a pair of shoes." She promptly went a pound over budget on a crayfish baguette at £3.95. "Oh well, only a £79 pair of shoes then."

Source (http://shopping.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1751269,00.html)Hmm. £79 + £3.95 = £85?

And they expect some of their customers to be prepared to pay £85 for a sandwich! :o

Zendal Darkman

11th April 2006, 09:52 AM

I received a reply from the ASA regarding the leaflet.

I asked

Please could you advise if a pile of leaflets on a display area approximately 1m away from a "till"/sales counter, comes under the ASA remit.

and ASA replied

Leaflets that are available to pick up and take away from a store do fall within the ASA’s remit.

I have therefore initiated the complaint to ASA. I have copied Selfridges into this.

Mojo

11th April 2006, 09:59 AM

ASA replied

Leaflets that are available to pick up and take away from a store do fall within the ASA’s remit.That's useful. I'll have to see if Boots have any leaflets about their homoeopathic remedies! ;)

I was under the impression that they came under "point of sale".

Zendal Darkman

11th April 2006, 11:15 AM

I was under the impression that they came under "point of sale".

So was I.

I won’t be surprised if the complaint is still kicked out on it being point of sale (despite the e-mail to the contrary). We shall see :)

Zendal Darkman

12th April 2006, 04:44 PM

We have now monitored several people enquiring about the psychic services, and each time everything is presented to Selfridge’s customers as factual with no mention of entertainment. I can now “reveal” that we have this on audio tape (or hard disk to be precise), and it is quite clear. As this is a public forum I will not give exact details on what we have. (While we previously had lots of evidence to support the claim that “entertainment” excuse is bogus, we can now demonstrate to Selfridges that at no stage is entertainment mentioned to their customers.)

After spending a few years observing psychics I thought there would be little left to shock me. What we have observed certainly does. One of the techniques the psychics use is spiritual channelling (nothing particular new there). However this service is done in the middle of the shop floor! We have observed families doing their shopping while to the side of them, in full view, tarot cards are being read while the psychics is being “possessed” by her ‘spirit guide’. What a graphical demonstration of how “normal” and “accepted” these powers are, when Selfridges consider they should be put on show next to the lampshades. Dark ages here we come!

We have observed the usual psychic stuff that they use to get the punters cash on the table, each one playing to the fears and hopes of the vulnerable. Some of it has been extremely sick to watch, people who enquire about contacting the dead are subject to psychic telling them that they have a “presence” with them wanting to speak to them, (We have this on tape.) Selfridges are happy to dismiss this as “entertainment”.

As background I should point out that each day a different psychic is in the store, so depending on the day you might see “palmistry”, “Runes”, “tarot”, “angles” …. and lots of other crap.

chillzero

12th April 2006, 07:10 PM

Zendal Darkman

12th April 2006, 07:22 PM

Now, how shall we utilise this, I wonder?

Exactly" no good us gathering evidence if we do nothing with it. (That said I am about to post more evidence)

As things stand we have contacted ASA and trading standards, as well as writing to Selfridges.

Selfridges need to be held to account for their ongoing and blatant disregard for the law.

Muse

12th April 2006, 08:49 PM

Why not try Watchdog? Its worth a try especially if you have lots of evidence ;)

Admin

12th April 2006, 09:04 PM

That's a good idea Phaedra. O0

What we have could be used by them. It's a good idea to keep in mind for other things too.

Zendal Darkman

12th April 2006, 11:56 PM

Some people may be interested in this:-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/vaillant/front.jpg

try to spot the mention of "entertainment".

(The display in the background is a long shot of what was posted in Johns article)

..anyway I am now focusing on the legal aspect of things , we have the evidence lets act.

doubting thomas

13th April 2006, 08:08 AM

Has anyone tried contacting the top management of selfriges? below i have listed the top of the tree.

The owner of Selfridges is billionaire Galen Weston. He is also the owner of Brown Thomas which has various stores located in Ireland, and is Chairman of Holt Renfrew.

Chairman
Galen Weston

Deputy Chairman
Allan Leighton

Chief Executive
Paul Kelly

Admin

13th April 2006, 10:53 AM

Good photo Zendal O0

..anyway I am now focusing on the legal aspect of things , we have the evidence lets act.

I agree, we've got enough solid evidence to take this forward now.

Has anyone tried contacting the top management of selfriges?

I believe that someone has contacted Paul Kelly to let him know that we are on the case. They've taken the stance of simply ignoring anyone who contacts them however.

Welcome to the board DT O0

Mojo

13th April 2006, 11:10 AM

chillzero

13th April 2006, 11:35 AM

From the front page of the website noted on that flyer:
http://www.psychicsisters.co.uk

We are offering a unique service to all of our clients within Selfridges Oxford Street, London.
We are located on the Lower ground floor opposite the main escalators.

Come and consult with the UK’S top Psychics and Mediums.
They have all appeared within TV, Magazines, International Newspapers and are all well known within the media. Appearing on Graham Norton C4, Richard & Judy C4, This Morning ITV, Big Brother C4, Pop Idols ITV, The Wright Stuff C5 ECT…

So find out what the future holds for you!

All of our readers are of the highest quality and their reputations are unbeatable within their own specialist fields.

One to one readings are here to help you navigate your life!!!

No disclaimers there.... but on the 'services' page there is almost a disclaimer:

We will touch the other side, bringing you peace of mind whilst entertaining you and your friends ……
but I wouldn't feel that this qualifies - it is not purely entertainment - but rather entertaining as an accompaniment to contact with the dead.

I'm very disappointed to see people like Kilroy and Jeremy Wright buying into this - I thought they were more sceptical - and Ruby Wax!!!

Mojo

13th April 2006, 12:01 PM

Come and consult with the UK’S top Psychics and Mediums.
They have all appeared within TV, Magazines, International Newspapers and are all well known within the media. Appearing on Graham Norton C4, Richard & Judy C4, This Morning ITV, Big Brother C4, Pop Idols ITV, The Wright Stuff C5 ECT…

Electroconvulsive therapy? :o

Zendal Darkman

13th April 2006, 12:05 PM

Has anyone tried contacting the top management of selfriges? below i have listed the top of the tree.

I belive some have, but more importantly .. "welcome to the forum". :)

Zendal Darkman

13th April 2006, 12:45 PM

try to spot the mention of "entertainment".

I'm wondering about the "purely for entertainment" loophole.

Even if they were to have a disclaimer up saying it's purely for entertainment, if the "sisters" were offering advice or some other actual service, wouldn't this negate the disclaimer?

Good point. In the past I have heard psychics dismiss disclaimers as "just a legal thing we have to do deary, we really can speak to your granny". A disclaimer on a disclaimer!!

However most of the time disclaimers are ignored by the both the public and psychics, and both groups carry on as if the disclaimer was not there.

Although we are not at that stage yet, we need to be pretty clear to Selfridges that having some small print on a leaflet about "entertainment purposes only", does not allow the psychics to act, claim or imply their powers are true when they are face to face with their customers. In fact I am of the opinion that disclaimers are not as good a method in getting round the law as people think they are. I think the law/trading standards are capable of seeing that despite a disclaimer, Selfridges psychics are still offering a "legitimate" psychic service.

Mojo

13th April 2006, 12:55 PM

I think the law/trading standards are capable of seeing that despite a disclaimer, Selfridges psychics are still offering a "legitimate" psychic service.

You need bigger quotation marks around the word "legitimate"!

Admin

13th April 2006, 01:03 PM

Reading between the lines, should anything come of this I think that Selfridges would use the 'entertainment purposes only' get-out clause in the FMA as a defence.

They seem to think that they can do as they please and if challenged then say that it's an entertainment service.

chillzero

13th April 2006, 01:15 PM

The only mention of entertainment I have found anywhere so far is on the website of the sisters involved. But - it is not as a discalimer - it is telling you that your event that you book with them will be entertaining - while they speak to 'the other side'.

None at Selfridges from what I can see

Muse

15th April 2006, 05:37 PM

Holy Moly!!

Anyone seen today's double page spread in the Daily Express on this??

Entitled "My day with the psychic shopper" "skeptical' (yep don't laugh!) journalist Lizzie Catt spends a day with Jayne Wallace one of the Psychic Sisters at the Oxford Street branch of Selfridges.

Selfridges were quick to deny any link between customer choice and the psychic's influence the link is unequivocally made loud and clear in this journalist's piece.

"Britain's first in store clairvoyant promises to match your wardrobe to your personal 'aura'" the piece claims and goes on to describe how the reporter was given a personal reading in store which funnily enough sounded like the usual catalogue of disasters which befall all of us sooner or later,

eg. "Jayne nailed my past in a matter of minutes - happy childhood, one brother one sister, a close bond with my parents who have supported me above and beyond the call of duty.....precocious as a child, abortive career attempts, disastrous exes and career changes...."

"My present was secure and my future, it seemed rosy enough, but she could tell from my aura and the cards that I'm scatty lack focus and need to pull myself together......And what better way to do that than a new handbag? ..."

"Psychic shopping may be frivolous and ridiculous, but it did get me thinking about why I choose the clothes I do and what they say about me. The psychic shopping experience worked in much the same way that a tarot, crystal ball or palm reading does. Having a complete stranger pick over the thoughts , feelings and habits that usually happen on auto pilot was a wake up call."

Doesn't this silly woman know that a ordinary in store shopper will do exactly the same job without all the mumbo jumbo that goes with this?? Either that or a good friend.

This merely confirms what I suspected all the long. That this whole venture is nothing more than a cynical marketing gimmick designed to entice the gullible and suggestible among us into spending perhaps a little more than they should on items they would never normally consider. Looks like Viewlondon's pithy comments were bang on all the time!!

Let's hope highly suggestible reporter Lizzie Catt doesn't live to regret her psychic aided shopping decisions when the credit card bill rolls in.

Another piece of silly pro psychic reporting and another PR coup for Selfridges.

>:(

chillzero

15th April 2006, 10:14 PM

Well, is this something that can be used to identify that Selfridges are not doing this for entertainment, and are encouraging people to make purchases bases on stupid unproven things like aura matching?

vbloke

18th April 2006, 06:40 AM

Well, according to my experience in Selfridges, this puff piece is totally inaccurate.

She didn't offer any shopping advice at all.

All I got was advice that I'd be selling my house (I live in a flat), riding my bike (the one I don't own), spending more time with my father (who died five years ago) and getting married and having kids within 3 years.

All in all, not a very good reading - I'm thinking of getting a refund since the money is paid directly to Selfridges, not the psychic and it's covered by their "If you are not entirely satisfied with your purchase..." guarantee.

Surely, if the money is being paid to Selfridges, there should be a guarantee of quality in the services they sell - this fell far short of anything decent, we could use this to put pressure on them.

jayne

19th April 2006, 10:26 PM

[color=blue]Hello every one my name is jayne wallace I understand you have a complaint regarding my company (psychic sisters) I can not understand why you are attacking us as we are not out to harm any one, we offer a professional service and we are not out to rip any one off. I feel hurt by your comments and if you have a problem then come in and see myself. I don’t believe in hiding behind email and I quite frankly don’t care in becoming involved in your vendetta. If you have something to say then I am based in Selfridges and we welcome you to talk to us rather than you victimise my stand. God bless jayne wallace Psychic Sisters.

jayne

19th April 2006, 10:27 PM

Admin

19th April 2006, 10:34 PM

Hi, Jayne.

We have no problem with anyone providing a genuine service to customers.

As you are claiming the best of intentions, would you be prepared to prove that your psychic abilities are indeed genuine?

We are aware that no matter how well intentioned psychic claimants may be, no psychic has ever proved their ability. If you cannot show that your ability is real, it means that you are selling a service that is not genuine - the psychic equivalent of selling faulty goods.

Why don't we work together and test the claims that you make so that you can prove to your clients that what you are offering is indeed genuine?

jayne

19th April 2006, 10:39 PM

hi john thank you for emailing me, i have no problem with any tests, feel free to visit my self and we can talk about what it is you want all the best Jayne

Admin

19th April 2006, 10:43 PM

Jayne,

I will email you in due course with details of what undergoing testing entails. It is not just a case of popping into the store for a demonstration.

John

jayne

19th April 2006, 10:45 PM

i never said that, i said speak to me. i am in on friday from 11am all the best

Admin

19th April 2006, 10:49 PM

i never said that, i said speak to me. i am in on friday from 11am all the best

You said, "i have no problem with any tests" - which I took to mean that you are prepared to prove your claimed psychic ability.

I don't see what popping into the store for a chat is going to do to make any difference.

Zendal Darkman

20th April 2006, 01:06 AM

Hello every one my name is jayne wallace I understand you have a complaint regarding my company (psychic sisters) I can not understand why you are attacking us as we are not out to harm any one, we offer a professional service and we are not out to rip any one off. I feel hurt by your comments and if you have a problem then come in and see myself. I don’t believe in hiding behind email and I quite frankly don’t care in becoming involved in your vendetta. If you have something to say then I am based in Selfridges and we welcome you to talk to us rather than you victimise my stand. God bless jayne wallace Psychic Sisters

Hello Jayne,

I am writing in a personal capacity and I do not claim to be speaking on behalf of any group or movement.

I object to all psychics in (not just you) for the following reason:-

I have spent the last two years investigating psychics and their claims, and in that time I have not come across one piece of credible evidence to suggest there is any "supernatural" power. What I have come across are frauds, liars and cheats claiming psychic powers.

I hold the view that IF there was any truth in psychic powers then there would be lots of evidence to prove it. While that reasoning could be questioned from a scientific viewpoint, it holds well in the real world. The onus is on you to prove your claims.

I am sorry you may feel 'hurt' my the above, but there is nothing to be gained by me withholding my views about psychics for the sake of being nice.

Mojo

20th April 2006, 11:43 AM

i never said that, i said speak to me. i am in on friday from 11am all the best
The only thing that is likely to convince most of the people on this board that your claimed abilities are genuine is evidence from tests carried out under properly controlled conditions. They are not going to just take your word for it.

Blue Bubble

20th April 2006, 12:14 PM

Welcome, Jayne.

Just to make sure we're all using the same language, could you please tell us exactly what it is you claim to be able to do ?

Many thanks in advance, Blue Bubble.

Malamute

20th April 2006, 04:50 PM

Jocky

20th April 2006, 05:16 PM

Jayne,

I am glad to see that you have joined us here - you are most welcome.

I am sorry that you find the tone of some of the posts insulting, but please understand that this is a reflection with our profound concerns about what you do - it is not intended to constitute a personal attack. We are concerned with scrupulous truth and accuracy, not with any kind of vendetta.

You know that we are skeptical of the truth of many claims made by psychics, but I and many others here would be very pleased to be proved wrong. [Note: I use the word "proved" in a specific sense, referring to results of controlled, blinded, repeatable tests with a measurable outcome.]

The truth is more important than pride. If you can demonstrate that you really do have psychic powers, I will be the first to apologise for any offence you may have felt, and to rejoice in the new possibilities opened up to science by such a discovery 8)

I look forward very much to hearing more discussion from your point of view, both on this matter and in other parts of this forum.

Jocky

Blue Bubble

15th May 2006, 01:06 PM

:bump:

Anything happening ?

Admin

15th May 2006, 04:54 PM

I have written to Selfridges offering them free testing of their 'psychics'.

It is now a matter of waiting for them to respond.

Admin

17th July 2006, 01:46 AM

Selfridges never responded by the way - and I'd forgotten that I'd even written until I was prompted to look for this thread by reading this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=396038&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source=

It ends: "If you're not happy with your 'purchase', Selfridges' policy is to offer a discretionary refund on purchases within 28 days."

Erm... yes, we know. See: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Selfridges_a_psychic_sisters_reading.php

We even did a press release at the time: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/documents/press_release_UKS_260406.htm

vbloke

17th July 2006, 08:45 AM

Have you added a comment to it yet?

I'll throw in my tuppenceworth as well, since it was me :D

Admin

17th July 2006, 10:22 AM

Yes I left a comment but it doesn't seem to have made it onto the page.

tkingdoll

17th July 2006, 02:37 PM

I added a comment.

The Daily Mail was one of the recipients of the press release, John, and I can see some similarities in their story and ours - not least the refund angle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if our release inspired the story but I'm going to email Jane Fryer today anyway, maybe we can get a follow-up story out of them.

Admin

17th July 2006, 02:43 PM

Yes I thought the mention of the refund policy was unusual considering they didn't ask for and get a refund themselves.

tkingdoll

17th July 2006, 03:04 PM

Agreed.

I shall email Jane this afternoon, I have her email addy. I think I will focus on our invitation to test them and Selfridge's refusal to participate.

vbloke

17th July 2006, 03:34 PM

I thought the "father" thing was a bit uncanny too.

Still, I like the fact that all the comments so far have been negative.

doubting thomas

17th July 2006, 08:59 PM

Bad news everybody, Radio 2 at about 4.50pm today gave Selfridges and the psychic services a free plug on the Steve Wright show. (Mark Radcliffe is standing in while Steve's on hols).

They also mentioned that the psychic sisters were members of the "Psychic Association of Great Britain" (not 100% sure about exact title).

I thought the BBC didn't take adverts.

This very popular show and time of day must have been heard by millions unfortunately.

I'm not sure what prompted the mention but they have this feature where someone comes on and reads out stuff of interest.

Admin

17th July 2006, 09:07 PM

We're always going to be faced with uncritical promotion of psychics etc. in the media.

All we can do is our job and provide honest and accurate information as to how these people operate.

If people wish to pay huge amounts of money for these 'services' then it's up to them. However, it's basically deception so we are definitely badly needed.

The psychic sisters are still getting a lot of hits on the website, so we'll be making a difference to some people. O0

Believer

25th May 2007, 02:34 PM

I do find it quite distasteful that a religion is hounded the way you choose to do so. I have read comments on here about Atheists being allowed their beliefs and yet you hound others for having beliefs. This smacks of Nazi Germany, where no one was allowed to do anything unless Hitler approved it. What a horrid world we would live in if people took you seriously. Spirituality (my phrasing) is a belief system. Religion is defined as a belief system in the dictionary.

You have to accept that there are a large number of people who are turning to spirituality and are going to see Psychics, Mediums and Clairvoyants. Some are disappointed. Some are very happy. That is true about every aspect of life. I do feel that the rubbish readers will not get referrals and their business will eventually decline. However, there are some very good readers and it is down to you to find them. Rather than stereotyping all readers from one or two bad experiences.

I could refer you to a very good reader who would shock you all. However, as she is a very good friend I will not turn into a freak show with you lot. She is training me to be a good reader. Once I am trained then I will willingly take your tests, with my provisos to prove to you 'there is something out there'. I would not use the word supernatural. That is a sceptic word, not a spiritual word.

The reason I would insist on provisos is that there was a program on C4/5 to find a psychic and they had the same tired, miserable, blinkered sceptics who usually turn out to mock a religion. They set the parameters for the tests and then complained about them after the psychics had started to get information. Sceptics will moan and whinge and change their minds to suit their purposes. If the test is set by sceptics how could they moan when the psychics started to prove them wrong? Sceptics don't like to be proved wrong.

I am glad there are so many open minded people in the world. I would hate to live in a box. It is a big beautiful world out there. Take a walk and open your eyes.

Araneus

25th May 2007, 02:52 PM

Believer

25th May 2007, 03:17 PM

Unable to respond. Interesting. Not unexpected though.

Jocky

25th May 2007, 03:26 PM

Hello Believer, and welcome to UKS.

I do find it quite distasteful that a religion is hounded the way you choose to do so. I have read comments on here about Atheists being allowed their beliefs and yet you hound others for having beliefs

Perhaps you could provide a specific example of this? You should bear it in mind that disagreeing with somebody's arguments is not the same thing as attacking them personally. Folks here will disagree forcefully with what they see as false arguments, but this should not be confused with personal attack.

This smacks of Nazi Germany, where no one was allowed to do anything unless Hitler approved it

This comparison is innacurate, ridiculous and offensive. Skeptics are very strong supporters of freedom of speech. I suggest you try to deploy better arguments than comparing those with whom you disagree to Hitler.

Spirituality (my phrasing) is a belief system. Religion is defined as a belief system in the dictionary.

OK, I agree there. However, systems of belief are not immune from valid criticism.

You have to accept that there are a large number of people who are turning to spirituality and are going to see Psychics, Mediums and Clairvoyants.

Whether or not something is real is not determined by the number of people who profess to believe in it. The only yardstick of reality is evidence, which is independent of subjective opinion.

Rather than stereotyping all readers from one or two bad experiences.

If you think that Mark's experience with the Psychic Sisters is an isolated example of a "reading" being exposed as nothing more than simple tricks, then you are very much mistaken.

Once I am trained then I will willingly take your tests, with my provisos to prove to you 'there is something out there'

Excellent O0 we respect anybody who is willing to provide evidence to support claims. I for one would be happy to work with you here to develop a protocol for testing your claimed ability, whenever you feel ready to do so.

I would not use the word supernatural. That is a sceptic word, not a spiritual word.

Fine, call it what you like. The important thing at this stage is not what you call a phenomenon or what explanation you may posit for it: the important thing is to establish that it exists.

The reason I would insist on provisos is that there was a program on C4/5 to find a psychic and they had the same tired, miserable, blinkered sceptics who usually turn out to mock a religion. They set the parameters for the tests and then complained about them after the psychics had started to get information.

If you're referring to the Psychic Challenge series from last year, your information is not correct. Those tests were not devised by skeptics, they were engineered to create good TV.

A well-designed, robust protocol agreed in advance by all parties would not be disputed.

Sceptics will moan and whinge and change their minds to suit their purposes. If the test is set by sceptics how could they moan when the psychics started to prove them wrong? Sceptics don't like to be proved wrong

As Araneus observed, you are deploying straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) arguments. I suggest you avoid this line of argument, as it will get you nowhere here.

In any case, Your assertion is false. Real skeptics are happy to change their views in the face of robust evidence, just like science does.

I am glad there are so many open minded people in the world. I would hate to live in a box. It is a big beautiful world out there. Take a walk and open your eyes.

This is an extremely tired argument. Please read this article (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php), which explores the offensive fallacy that skeptics are "closed-minded".

Araneus

25th May 2007, 03:26 PM

Unable to respond. Interesting. Not unexpected though.

In case there is any confusion (since this is not an computer-related forum as such):

Godwin’s Law is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s Law.

Essentially, when you start comparing your opponents to Nazis, you display a childish, emotionalist and hyperbolic attitude which is a strong indicator that intelligent debate is unlikely to be forthcoming.

Matt

25th May 2007, 03:32 PM

Unable to respond. Interesting. Not unexpected though.

Not unable just unwilling out of respect for... well I'll let you do the research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

When you've figured out your mistake, appologised for the crass insensitivity and reformulated your argument you can come back.

Then we can discuss whether it is people's beliefs we are objecting to or the cynical exploitation, for financial gain, of people with beliefs by people who, if you know what to look for, are pretty much certainly faking it and in all probability aware of this fact.

Believer

25th May 2007, 04:41 PM

I stand by my comparison to Nazis. I do not view this as crass or insensitive. I declare it my opinion. Don't agree? I do not care. Some of the comments on here are insensitive about my religion.

The following of spirituality (this is a label I use to clarify my beliefs) is a way of life. This is a belief system that I have been drawn to. I have not been indoctrinated into it by anyone. It is my religion. It is the only religion that has an act against it (as far as I am aware) and I object to the use of 'for entertainment purposes' on every programme that features Psychics, Mediums, Clairvoyants, etc. Why? Why should my religion be subjected to this persecution? Do we have the same comment after 'Songs of Praise' or any other religious programme? No! So the fact that only one belief system is subject to these restrictions smacks of persecution.

Your actions would not seem so dictatorial if you were attacking all faiths. However, I have not read of any campaigns against the Catholic Church, Church of Scientology, Hindus, Jews or Muslims. The Church of Scientology takes far more money off people for its 'service' than a psychic does. So you would rather save people £40 than the £000s Scientology would charge? Psychic Sisters appearing at Selfridges was announced and then all of a sudden you launch a campaign against them. One person having a bad reading does not seem appropriate. Jayne invited you there and yet no one took up that offer. Why? Surely, if you are trying to prove your point a face-to-face with your 'target' would be a great opportunity. I can see no valid reason that did not happen.

"The Psychic Challenge" programme had parameters for the challenges set before it started and the sceptics all agreed on them. They only started to disagree with the boundaries after the psychics started to get results. From recollection, it was the third or fourth programme before they started saying they would have done things different.

I object to the fact that every time a Psychic/Medium, etc. appears on television they HAVE to have a sceptic sitting alongside them. Why? What other religion has an opponent sitting next to them debunking them? None! Only spirituality is treated with the contempt that it is. I accept that ANY belief system should be called into question and should be able to stand up and declare itself true. However, no other belief system is called into question the way Spirituality is. The treatment of my belief system is appalling. If I was a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, etc. then I could claim religious hatred. I cannot because I follow spirituality.

One poster stated 'financial gain' as a factor. So do you leave readers who do not charge alone then? Surely if you wish decry Jayne for her 'service' then you would wish to do so with any reader.

Jocky, when I am trained I will be tested within certain parameters. There are various forms of psychic ability (in my opinion) and until I am using mine I will not know the restrictions it will place on me or how far I can utilise them. As long as the tester approaches the testing with an open mind then we shall see what happens.

Araneus

25th May 2007, 04:59 PM

I stand by my comparison to Nazis. I do not view this as crass or insensitive. I declare it my opinion. Don't agree? I do not care. Some of the comments on here are insensitive about my religion.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you go around making juvenile comparisons with "Teh Nazis lol!!!!" you can expect to be dismissed and ignored as a troll. It is entirely your decision, of course.

It is the only religion that has an act against it (as far as I am aware) and I object to the use of 'for entertainment purposes' on every programme that features Psychics, Mediums, Clairvoyants, etc. Why? Why should my religion be subjected to this persecution?

Psychics are taking money from people on the basis of performing a service using powers that they have not demonstrated to be real. This is therefore considered a form of fraud, hence the "entertainment" disclaimer.

Religion has nothing to do with it, there is no such religion as "Spirituality". The fact that you may have defined this as your religion does not make it an actual organised religion like Christianity or Islam.

However, I have not read of any campaigns against the Catholic Church, Church of Scientology, Hindus, Jews or Muslims. The Church of Scientology takes far more money off people for its 'service' than a psychic does. So you would rather save people £40 than the £000s Scientology would charge?

There are plenty of campaigns against those organisations, particularly the Church of Scientology and its financial practices. Apparently your ability to do simple research is no better than your ability to produce a coherent argument.

However, no other belief system is called into question the way Spirituality is. The treatment of my belief system is appalling. If I was a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, etc. then I could claim religious hatred. I cannot because I follow spirituality.

Tough. Any belief system is open to question, and does not become "hatred" just because you don't like it. It seems that is is you that wishes to censor other people, which is ironic given your assertions of persecution and Hitler-like behaviour.

Jocky

25th May 2007, 05:07 PM

Why should my religion be subjected to this persecution?

Disagreement and persecution are two totally different things. Somebody who disagrees with your claims about psychic powers is exercising their right of speech to disagree with you - they are not persecuting you. If you were being persecuted, you'd be in jail - or worse.

The Church of Scientology takes far more money off people for its 'service' than a psychic does

False analogy. Psychics claim that they are providing a service in exchange for money, in this case marketing the service through mainstream retail. There is no evidence whatever that the service actually exists.

"The Psychic Challenge" programme had parameters for the challenges set before it started and the sceptics all agreed on them. They only started to disagree with the boundaries after the psychics started to get results. From recollection, it was the third or fourth programme before they started saying they would have done things different.

No, the tests were invented by telly, for telly. The standards of blinding and many other aspects of the protocols were inadequate. I do not have time to go into detail on this right now, but I will get back to you with evidence. Anybody else in the meantime?

Jocky, when I am trained I will be tested within certain parameters. There are various forms of psychic ability (in my opinion) and until I am using mine I will not know the restrictions it will place on me or how far I can utilise them. As long as the tester approaches the testing with an open mind then we shall see what happens.

That's fine. I have an open mind, as defined in the link I posted previously.

I suspect you are bound to take a lot of flak for some of the contents of your posts, but please stay in touch (you may discuss testing protocol with me via PM if you wish). We at UKS are genuinely willing to organise properly-conducted experiments to test claims.

If I may say so, your apparent persecution complex about your beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not psychic ability is genuine, and (to me) the latter question is a great deal more interesting.

How about we pursue a civilised discussion about that? Let's not get derailed into arguments about religion (at least not here - if you really must, that's what the Religion section if the forum is for).

vbloke

25th May 2007, 05:54 PM

Believer,

Firstly, let me welcome you to UKS. It's always nice to have someone here who isn't afraid to state their opinion openly and honestly.

However, your analogy to Nazism is both crass and offensive - in much the same way as if I were to compare people who believed in spirituality as Nazis. Opening your post with a blatant attack, rather than discourse, is only going to rile those on here and open you up to counter-attack.

Now, I have been and seen a great many psychics in my time - from friends of friends who claim this ability, to the ones in Selfridges and even a very high profile (with his own TV series) psychic. None of them demonstrated any ability whatsoever when I was present.

You claim that this is your religion - how does it fit the criteria of a religion? You also claim that we are oppressing you - by defining, discussing and critiquing the methods used by psychics, we can in no way be accused of oppression, merely discourse and analysis.

Nothing is immune to analysis and questioning.

If someone claims to have divine powers that enables them to pull silk handkerchiefs out of an empty hat miraculously, and a skilled magician can do the same thing but claims no such power, it is only natural to examine the claim of the person who says it is supernatural in origin. This is not oppression or harrasment, it is enquiry.

I would strongly suggest you take Jocky up on his suggestion for a protocol that we can work on to test your claims. Let me be the first to say that if you really do have these abilities and can pass any test we can devise, we will be the first to sing your praises.

The whole purpose of science is to hold an idea up to the light and test it to destruction - if it breaks, the idea wasn't a good one, if it survives, then it is a good idea and worthy of further investigation. If everyone merely accepted what someone said at face value and did not examine deeper, we would have never progressed to the point where we can be typing these words into a computer.

To be a skeptic (or sceptic) is to have an enquiring mind - to seek out things that challenge your worldview and put them to the test and to be prepared that your notions of how the world works may very well be wrong. That is open minded. To merely believe what others tell you, to not test an idea to destruction and try and find flaws in your reasoning is closed minded and that is what we come across every day here.

We actively go out of our way to find things that seem impossible to us and try to find if they could be true or not. Sadly, prior experience may weary us into ridicule and sleight against those who make claims as we have seen it so many times before, but we are always still willing to be proved wrong.

now I ask you - I am perfectly willing to change my position if I am shown evidence that what you claim may be true. What evidence would you accept in order to change your mind that what you believe may be false?

Believer

25th May 2007, 08:21 PM

I apologise for my Nazis comment. I still feel that some of your methods resemble their milder acts but the resemblance is a tenuous one. I am passionate about my belief system and disagree with the wanton attacks on it. Other religions would not accept the same consistent barrage.

I do not differentiate religion and this thread, as the two are interlinked. My views on the universe, life, existence and all relating topics stem from spirituality. I have never claimed it to be an organised religion.

Please may I open the debate and ask some questions:

Has everyone on here been to a Psychic, Medium or some kind of reader?
If not, is it appropriate for them to partake in your activities without them having knowledge of the subject they are opposing?
Did you all have bad experiences?
Did any of them provide information they should not know?
Do you feel it is appropriate to accept one person's review of a reading and then start encouraging people to complain to Selfridges?
Did the person who went to have a reading at Selfridges have an open mind?
Why did no one go to meet Jayne?
Would any of you consider going back and having a reading from Jayne?
How many readers have you investigated?
What types of readers have you investigated?
If a reader does not charge would they be subjected to the same 'publicity' from yourselves?
Does it matter that money changes hands?
What criteria would you accept to know that Psychics have abilities?
What changes in criteria would you have for the different types of ability?
If one person proves themself would you leave other readers alone?
Have you spoken to any one of the thousands who have had great readings?

Loads of questions I know but I feel so passionately about this subject. Without Spirituality I would have killed myself.

Admin

25th May 2007, 08:34 PM

Without Spirituality I would have killed myself.

So what would be the consequences for you should your beliefs turn out to be false?

That's a serious question.

Believer

25th May 2007, 09:27 PM

They won't turn out to be false. For the sake of the argument though - I am a much stronger person mentally from my beliefs and I will continue to use my new strength to improve my life. Spirituality has helped me understand myself as a person. That would not go if my beliefs were found to be untrue. My focus is on myself but with a view to helping others. I can do that via spirituality or many other methods.

Jocky

26th May 2007, 12:58 AM

I apologise for my Nazis comment.

Thank you.

I will give answers to some of your questions:

Has everyone on here been to a Psychic, Medium or some kind of reader?

Most people here (including myself) are not from that background as far as I am aware, but there are posters here who do fall into that category.

If not, is it appropriate for them to partake in your activities without them having knowledge of the subject they are opposing?

Yes, it is entirely appropriate. It is perfectly possible to have some knowledge about how psychic readings are performed without ever having performed one personally.

Do you feel it is appropriate to accept one person's review of a reading and then start encouraging people to complain to Selfridges?

Yes. I complained to Selfridges. The services of the Psychic sisters are fraudulent in my view, and therefore the complaint is justified.

Did the person who went to have a reading at Selfridges have an open mind?

Hmmm ... you might find it useful to read the link I posted earlier on the subject of "open mindedness" before pursuing this question further.

Would any of you consider going back and having a reading from Jayne?

Yes, I would.

If a reader does not charge would they be subjected to the same 'publicity' from yourselves?
Does it matter that money changes hands?

In my personal opinion, if you don't charge for a reading it lessens the potential for harm and is therefore less of a problem. That is not to say that I am a fan of free psychic readings, but I am more sanguine about them than when money is paid under false pretences.

What criteria would you accept to know that Psychics have abilities?

A clear falsifiable claim, which can be backed up by a body of positive evidence produced following a robust and reproducible protocol under controlled circumstances (in particular with respect to proper blinding). As I've said, if you would like to know more about what this might involve in detail, I am willing to discuss it with you.

Have you spoken to any one of the thousands who have had great readings?

Yes I have. It is truly remarkable the lengths some people will go to in the pursuit of self-delusion. This is not intended as a personal remark directed at you, Believer: I just tell it as I see it.

This pains me particularly in the case of bereaved people who have been the marks of so-called "mediums", although I recognise that communicating with dead people is not always a power claimed by those who call themselves "psychic".

Spirituality has helped me understand myself as a person. That would not go if my beliefs were found to be untrue.

I am very glad to hear that.

Believer

26th May 2007, 09:01 AM

My reason for asking about open mindedness for the person who went for the readings at Selfridges is that I have been told that it is possible for people to block readings. This means that IF the investigator went in with the principle in mind that nothing would come of it that could have impaired the reading. I am not sure if this is something I believe myself, as I have given very few readings so have not experienced it myself. However, I have been told this by several different people.

I would also like to say that unless one has been for a reading it is not appropriate to state you know how it is done. Although I have had readings over the last few years I have a basic view of how readings are achieved but until my training is complete I will not fully understand it. There are differing opinions of how readings are imparted and I feel that the reader has to sit comfortably with how it works for them. So how each reader does it is irrelevant as long as it works for them.

I have been working with the same Clairvoyant for two and a half years now. My destiny is coming forward. Now due to the nature of what is coming my way I would not be happy to discuss this on an open forum. However, I would be willing to dicsuss it with certain members of the site, 'off camera' so to speak. On two conditions - one that my identity is never revealed and two, that my Clairvoyant is not involved. The details of the predictions I have been told can be printed on this site and I would be willing to provide documentary evidence of what unfolds for me, as long as my identity is never revealed. The members of the site who are selected, if you wish to pursue this, would have to be people that others would listen to.

If you wish to explore this angle please let me know.

Admin

26th May 2007, 10:46 AM

My reason for asking about open mindedness for the person who went for the readings at Selfridges is that I have been told that it is possible for people to block readings.

That's just a standard get-out clause for failure. It such an obvious ruse that anyone should be able to see through it.

If the reading goes well then the psychic is great - if it goes badly the client had a closed mind. See: self-serving bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias).

I would also like to say that unless one has been for a reading it is not appropriate to state you know how it is done.

No, that's wrong. Would a person have to have joined a pyramid scheme before they could say how the scam works?

Having said that, many of us on here have not only been to psychics for readings but we've studied how it's done and even posed as psychics ourselves.

We also have a member or two who used to believe they were psychic (giving Tarot readings etc.) until they realised what was really going on. See: This Article (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=A_personal_journey_from_mysticism_to_clari ty.php) for an example.

So don't fall the impression that we don't know what we're talking about or that we lack experience. In fact, it's been my experience that skeptics tend to know a lot more about psychics and their claims than the psychics do themselves (!)

I have been working with the same Clairvoyant for two and a half years now. My destiny is coming forward. Now due to the nature of what is coming my way I would not be happy to discuss this on an open forum. However, I would be willing to dicsuss it with certain members of the site, 'off camera' so to speak. On two conditions - one that my identity is never revealed and two, that my Clairvoyant is not involved. The details of the predictions I have been told can be printed on this site and I would be willing to provide documentary evidence of what unfolds for me, as long as my identity is never revealed. The members of the site who are selected, if you wish to pursue this, would have to be people that others would listen to.

If you wish to explore this angle please let me know.

Feel free to contact anyone by private message and state your proposal and I will set up a private (non-public) board to explore your claims.

If they are precise then we'll certainly publish them. O0

vbloke

26th May 2007, 11:07 AM

My reason for asking about open mindedness for the person who went for the readings at Selfridges is that I have been told that it is possible for people to block readings. This means that IF the investigator went in with the principle in mind that nothing would come of it that could have impaired the reading. I am not sure if this is something I believe myself, as I have given very few readings so have not experienced it myself. However, I have been told this by several different people.
I was the one who went for the reading. If it is possible to "block" a psychic, then it means that either I am a good "anti-psychic" with supernatural abilities that I'm not aware of myself, or I understand the modus operandi of a psychic reading. One, I can vouch for, the other I cannot.

I went into the reading with an open mind and was willing to give her a fair chance to prove herself in a non-controlled environment. If you read this article (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Selfridges_a_psychic_sisters_reading.php) about the reading, you can see that I did not try to block her - I answered her questions openly and honestly, but I did not give her any information that could later be used to "reveal" things that she could not have known about me.

In light of me answering questions without giving anything away, she relied on several old canards - money, travel, love and family - all standard tricks used to give the impression that she knew things about me. She told me my father, who passed away six years ago, was still alive. Not a very good demonstration of psychic ability, I must say. She was wrong on a number of other matters as well - you can read the full transcript at the link above to judge for yourself. I have yet to meet a Jackie or Sheryl, have something designed for me, or buy a house - yet these were all things that were going to happen to me within a year, according to her.

You can certainly get in contact with me regarding anything you want - my off-site email address is vbloke (at) gmail (dot) com and we can discuss matters further. I will not share anything we talk about with anyone else here (unless you give me permission to) and we can arrange demonstrations, tests, or anything you desire.

Believer

26th May 2007, 08:23 PM

I have emailed Vbloke.

The article that is stated could be a complete work of fiction. You seem to want proof in your investigantions but have offered no evidence that this a genuine document. So I will have to dismiss it for not providing proof, as you dismiss psychics who do the same. Body language is not an answer to everything. I have been given very accurate information about family members who were not with me at the time of the reading. Body language did not give the answers there. To be clear when I have reading I give yes and no answers so that I don't get sucked into fishing exercises. I am not gullible.

I don't accept the Pyramid scheme analogy. I have never been involved in one but know people who have. These schemes are now well documented and their format changes little so when a new one pops up it is easily idetifiable. However, what about the readers who have given good readings? What about those that have been accurate? What about those that have given predictions that have come true? I accept that people's reactions can be used to provide answers regarding past or present. I do not agree that it can be used for ALL future predictions. A reader saying "You will buy a house on the coast" or "You will leave your job" or such simlar statements can be auto-suggesting and therefore lead the person towards the suggested outcome. There are however, many predictions that cannot be auto-suggested because the 'client' has no power over the outcome. The case in point being the prediction I have been given that I emailed VBloke about. He should concur that the prediction in question is one that I cannot control whatsoever.

Could I ask what reserach you have done into those who have had readings? The focus of our discussions have been about the readers. There is another side to this as well. Those who have had readings can give additional information to the debate.

Admin

26th May 2007, 08:56 PM

The article that is stated could be a complete work of fiction. You seem to want proof in your investigantions but have offered no evidence that this a genuine document. So I will have to dismiss it for not providing proof, as you dismiss psychics who do the same.

We've got it on tape. ;)

To be clear when I have reading I give yes and no answers so that I don't get sucked into fishing exercises. I am not gullible.

Well perhaps naïve is a better description. Answering yes or no implies that questions are being asked, and your answers, even when restricted to a yes or no, provide vital feedback.

However, what about the readers who have given good readings? What about those that have been accurate? What about those that have given predictions that have come true?

No-one denies that good and accurate readings can be done; after all, skeptics can pose as psychics and get results just as good as or even better than those of the 'real' psychics.

No, what is in question is whether the reading's accuracy comes from some psychic ability or via psychological factors.

If psychics have some 'power' that normal people don't have then they should be able to do something that a non-psychic can't replicate. And that's not the case.

Could I ask what reserach you have done into those who have had readings? The focus of our discussions have been about the readers. There is another side to this as well. Those who have had readings can give additional information to the debate.

To be frank with you, I think that we know a lot more about psychic readings than you do. You're stating things that we're well aware of. Readings are an interactive process (think about it) and the client plays a vital role in the reading's success. This is why those clients who don't interact get poor readings and are classed as closed-minded or blockers. Again, the client's compliance having a bearing on the reading's success or failure tells us a lot about what is really going on.

The key point though, is that a reading that was accepted by the client as being very accurate does not lead to the logical conclusion that it was therefore done by psychic means (!)

It's the claim of psychic ability that is the key question, not whether good readings can be done.

vbloke

26th May 2007, 09:05 PM

Thanks, believer, I have received your email and am typing a reply now.

Jocky

27th May 2007, 12:13 AM

I have emailed Vbloke

Good for you, Believer - putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak O0
I look forward to hearing about how this may develop.

As John says, the key question is whether the phenomenon of apparently accurate readings can only be explained by psychic ability, rather than by more mundane techniques such as cold reading. If you are genuinely interested in exploring this question in a rational manner, then we certainly have a common interest here :smiley:

Sadly, it has often happened in the past that people have backed away from perticipating in objective experiments when they realise that proper controls result in no wriggle room. I sincerely hope that you will have the integrity not to resort to this - your recent responses have served to give me some hope in this regard.

Believer

27th May 2007, 08:35 AM

Until I am doing readings I will not know what I am capable of. I have lacked confidence in the past to give complete readings and have given basic short readings. Body language was not a factor. The information I gleaned was accurate.

I will certainly do what I can to agree to the parameters of any tests you set. As I will not be undertaking normal every day readings in the manner in which VBloke and I have discussed me being tested it will be a case of the testing on the day being new to everyone concerned.

The article mentioned above being recorded is not proof. There is no evidence that it is genuine. The person in question could be an ex-psychic, a UK Skeptics member, a next door neighbour or a paid actress. I cannot take this as a genuine article without proof.

I am hoping that I can prove there is something out there. Whether your parameters and testing allows me to do that will depend on the day. I KNOW that I am being trained to use my gift and that no matter what happens I will be helping people.

Jocky

27th May 2007, 10:33 AM

the manner in which VBloke and I have discussed me being tested it will be a case of the testing on the day being new to everyone concerned ...I am hoping that I can prove there is something out there. Whether your parameters and testing allows me to do that will depend on the day.

Ooooh, I'm intruiged now!

When you say "will depend on the day", do you mean that your abilites don't always work, or that you are not certain they will work under the proposed circumstances - or have I misunderstood you?

The article mentioned above being recorded is not proof. There is no evidence that it is genuine. The person in question could be an ex-psychic, a UK Skeptics member, a next door neighbour or a paid actress. I cannot take this as a genuine article without proof.

I believe vbloke has other evidence: his receipt, the paperwork for the refund he received etc. Neither Selfridges nor the Psychic Sisters deny that the recording is genuine.

vbloke

27th May 2007, 11:38 AM

I can say that we're working towards getting a claim that can be tested organised.

It's looking promising so far. We have a couple of possible avenues to explore.

As for the reading being a fake, I have the receipt, original recording and the Psychic Sisters keep a record of everyone who has been for a reading at their stall, so looking up the date when I was there should be fairly simple.

They record each reading as part of the service (or at least they did when I went), so having the recording is not necessarily proof that it is faked. However, the only way to be 100% sure that it is not faked would be to have filmed the entire reading, however, the balance of probabilities lies with it being genuine.

As for the testing, as I have said in my email, you specify the parameters of the test, we only organise it so that there is no possibility of non-supernatural methods being used.

Admin

27th May 2007, 11:49 AM

I will certainly do what I can to agree to the parameters of any tests you set.

NOTE: we don't set "a test" for you to pass (!)

We will require you to make a claim stating what you can do, under which conditions, to what level of accuracy, etc. Then we will work with you to develop a test protocol to test your specific claim.

That's an important point to understand. You make a claim and we test your claim.

After all, there's little point in testing anyone for an ability they don't claim to possess.

I posted over vbloke - obviously this will be explained to Believer by vbloke but it should be made publicly clear that we will test Believer's claim - we don't have pre-set "tests" for claimants to pass.

vbloke

27th May 2007, 11:57 AM

NOTE: we don't set "a test" for you to pass (!)

We will require you to make a claim stating what you can do, under which conditions, to what level of accuracy, etc. Then we will work with you to develop a test protocol to test your specific claim.

That's an important point to understand. You make a claim and we test your claim.

After all, there's little point in testing anyone for an ability they don't claim to possess.

I posted over vbloke - obviously this will be explained to Believer by vbloke but it should be made publicly clear that we will test Believer's claim - we don't have pre-set "tests" for claimants to pass.
Thanks John

I have mentioned this in my emails to believer, but it's worth mentioning here in public.

Jocky

27th May 2007, 05:36 PM

we don't have pre-set "tests" for claimants to pass

Thanks John

I have mentioned this in my emails to believer, but it's worth mentioning here in public

Perhaps another thing worth emphasising is that a test protocol would not invole skeptics (or anyone else) 'judging' psychics. It is important that results are expressed in objective, self-evident and unambiguous terms - and are not reliant on anybody's opinion or subjective judgement.

vbloke

27th May 2007, 05:49 PM

Perhaps another thing worth emphasising is that a test protocol would not invole skeptics (or anyone else) 'judging' psychics. It is important that results are expressed in objective, self-evident and unambiguous terms - and are not reliant on anybody's opinion or subjective judgement.
I think I've also tried to make that clear in my emails.

Jocky

27th May 2007, 05:56 PM

I think I've also tried to make that clear in my emails.

I'm sure you have. I was speaking for the benefit of any bystanders who might have been tempted to wonder if we were setting ourselves up as Judge and Jury - actually, we just want the evidence to speak for itself.

Mojo

28th May 2007, 01:38 PM

I could refer you to a very good reader who would shock you all. However, as she is a very good friend I will not turn into a freak show with you lot.

I don't believe you. I suspect that either you are not confident in this person's "abilities" standing up under scrutiny, this person has already been discredited, or this person simply doesn't exist.

It's not as if we haven't seen this excuse before (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=11722&postcount=33).

chillzero

28th May 2007, 06:16 PM

The article mentioned above being recorded is not proof. There is no evidence that it is genuine. The person in question could be an ex-psychic, a UK Skeptics member, a next door neighbour or a paid actress. I cannot take this as a genuine article without proof.

hmm.. there has been a misunderstanding here. John is referring to the Selfridge's reading having been taped.

The article he pointed you to - I wrote that.
I wrote it before I became a member of the UK-Skeptics, and in fact their interest in it brought me here, if I remember correctly.

I am an ex-psychic, and am now a UK Skeptics member. I am also a next door neighbour - aren't most of us? I am not a paid actress. I don't know what proof you would feel to be relevant as to being "evidence that it is genuine". It is genuine, because I wrote it about my past experiences, and my feelings about psychics based on those experiences.

What proof do you need?

I can tell you that the article was very carefully put together, and much emotion was removed from it, because it was designed for the website of an American lady - Kelly Jalkowski - who has my utmost respect, and does much work in the field of missing persons - that's why there is such a focus on missing people within the article.
(http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/ - if you go back to Feb/March time 2006, you will see a series on psychics and missing people)

I was embarrassed to confess to her that I used to be among the people she speaks so well against. I still find it quite embarrassing that I was able to fool myself in such a manner, and also that I presumed to give other people information based on my mis-perception of my 'ability'. I am grateful that I understood my error and made the choice to be able to live with myself, and stop what I was doing as soon as I realised the truth. Now I am committed to ensuring that others also understand this truth, and to protect anyone if I can from the unscrupulous psychics and healers that ply a trade.

So, I can understand where you are coming from. I can help explain to you where I made my mistakes, and perhaps relate to any experiences that you feel are proof of the supernatural.

I look forward to conversations with you.

Believer

29th May 2007, 09:39 AM

To be clear. The article I referred to was the one John had directed me to. I am not claiming that the reading with Jayne was faked. I am saying the article by the lady claiming to be a former Psychic could have been faked. You require irrefutable proof from readers. I would require the same from yourselves.

With regards to the testing. I understand the basic principles. The bottom line is that your testing is not proving there is not supernatural ability just that the individual in question has not displayed any.

Regarding my comment of 'on the day' I mean that any test that is devised may not be a normal way I would work. For example - VBloke and I have considered the possibility of one person in one room and I in another. The other person looks at a word and I have to state what the word is. So me doing that is not normally what I would use Psychic abilities for. So would that work. I don't know. My abilities would be connecting with the past and present and then assisting the person towards their destiny. How accurate will I be. I don't know. From what I have been told I should have all 5 'clairs'.

It is all academic until my training is complete.

Mojo - The lady in question does exist. I am working with her now. I will be speaking to her tomorrow night to see if she would be willing to be tested. She may, she may not. Her abilities are to be used for helping people not for converting sceptics. She has already been interviewed by journos and the police have approached her about two recent criminal cases. I cannot provide her details without her permission.

vbloke

29th May 2007, 10:17 AM

Regarding my comment of 'on the day' I mean that any test that is devised may not be a normal way I would work. For example - VBloke and I have considered the possibility of one person in one room and I in another. The other person looks at a word and I have to state what the word is. So me doing that is not normally what I would use Psychic abilities for. So would that work. I don't know. My abilities would be connecting with the past and present and then assisting the person towards their destiny. How accurate will I be. I don't know. From what I have been told I should have all 5 'clairs'.

This is why I have tried to impress the importance that it has to be YOUR claim - I only gave those examples in order to show you the type of thing that can be tested.

Once you have a better idea of what you can do, then we can proceed with the protocol negotiations.

The problem with testing for paranormal abilities is that you cannot prove that nobody has ever had these abilities - that is like trying to prove there are no green giraffes in Africa. You could count all of them, but you can't be in all places at all times, as one could very well slip past your count.

chillzero

29th May 2007, 10:43 AM

Cuddles

29th May 2007, 10:49 AM

I am glad there are so many open minded people in the world. I would hate to live in a box.

They won't turn out to be false.

i·ro·nyplay_w("I0236100")(http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" Richard Kain.

Believer

29th May 2007, 11:08 AM

Chillzero - I saw your answer after I had posted. I seek no evidence from you. As Uk Skeptics requires irrefutable proof of a Psychic's claims, before accepting the truth. I would require the same. You saying you were a Psychic proves nothing.

VBloke - I know we will agree protocols. The point I was trying to make is that when I am giving readings I will be dealing with the past, present and future of the subject. That is where my abilities will be utilised. So for me to undertake a test that does not involve the above may prove inconclusive. I am not saying it cannot happen but your test may be something that I have never done before.

chillzero

29th May 2007, 10:06 PM

Jocky

30th May 2007, 10:04 AM

Chillzero - I saw your answer after I had posted. I seek no evidence from you. As Uk Skeptics requires irrefutable proof of a Psychic's claims, before accepting the truth. I would require the same. You saying you were a Psychic proves nothing.

Believer - remember you asked earlier in this thread whether there were skeptics here who used to think they were psychics? I answered in the affirmative, and I had Chilly in mind when I did so. She is not a fake - and she can tell you a great deal about why people think they have psychic powers when in fact they do not. While you are within your rights to be sceptical about claims, you may find it very interesting to talk with her.

when I am giving readings I will be dealing with the past, present and future of the subject. That is where my abilities will be utilised. So for me to undertake a test that does not involve the above may prove inconclusive. I am not saying it cannot happen but your test may be something that I have never done before.

As I'm sure vbloke has said to you, it would be a very good plan for you to try out any possible protocols on your own (or with friends, or your mentor) before attempting a more formal test. There is only any point in testing something which you think you can do reliably - and the best way to find that out is by trying. You are right not to test anything until you are ready.

With regards to the testing. I understand the basic principles. The bottom line is that your testing is not proving there is not supernatural ability just that the individual in question has not displayed any

At present, it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that psychic powers do not exist, because they have never been conclusively shown to work. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim that they do exist. It would only take one individual to test positively (over a substantial number of trials under controlled conditions, of course) to change that assumption, but it has not happened yet. If any one individual tests negatively, it does not 'prove' that psychic powers don't exist, but it does add another datum to the big pile of evidence which points in that direction - compared to the total lack of evidence pointing in the other direction.