There's one of them there internet petitions doing the rounds again. It asks why the UK has the fraudulent mediums Act 1951 if it's never exercised. People are conned daily out of money on the promise of hearing from dead relatives or gaining a useful glimpse of their futures by people who have no greater talent than the ability to subtly determine what others want to hear and telling it to them.
Now I have nothing against an illusionist performing a mentalist act which is clearly for entertainment purposes only but see world of difference between that and Psychic Hotlines charging a premium rate and hiding "for entertainment purposes only" in some small print. I see a further world of difference between those with such legal disclaimers and practitioners such as Sally Morgan and Derek Acorah who claim without reservation to have genuine powers. Again I’ve got nothing against them making that claim – I just think l that if they are to charge people money for services based on that claim then given that steps should be taken to ensure that they are not fraudulent.
The way I see it, to practise as a Doctor you must prove yourself capable, people make life and death decisions based upon your advice. Likewise a financial adviser or any other number of professions.
Similarly if people are making important decisions based upon the advice of psychics then it is important that they determine that there are not charlatans. We all know that there are charlatans in this field, they have been comprehensively debunked by sceptics from Harry Houdini to James Randi.
If their claims are true they should be easily proven.
It appears that the UK legislation makes the presumption that anybody accepting money for such services is a charlatan. This is a presumption that I feel is overwhelmingly likely to be true. nonetheless I feel that a proper demonstration of psychic abilities in a scientifically controlled environment administered by experienced sceptics in the field should be adequate defence to such an accusation.
If you think that the law should be updated and applied then the petition is here.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mediums/
Fraud is an equivocal term. It can mean anything from a ‘purposeful and deliberate intention to deceive another for gain’ to ‘something that appears to be something it’s not’. This makes it a little awkward in interpreting exactly what the FMA is aiming at.
I suspect, and we went into this last year when investigating the ‘psychic sisters’ operating in Selfridges’ store in London, that the only time the act would be used is when someone deliberately targets someone and uses the pretence of psychic ability to obtain their money/property/etc.
Even then, I think the prosecutions which do take place do so under different, and much better legislation than the FMA.
I’m generally not in favour of intervention and regulation unless it is clearly needed to avoid people and/or society being harmed (i.e. drug laws).
The problem with psychics is that none of them are authentic (in the sense of really doing what they claim) so do we introduce legislation that penalises them all? Remember, and skeptics aren’t always comfortable admitting this, that most psychics, most of the time, are providing a service that people want, without doing any harm; and may even do a lot of people a lot of good.
Perhaps certain sectors of organised scams like the psychic phone-lines and TV channels should be clamped down on as it’s quite clear that if it wasn’t for the ‘entertainment purposes only’ disclaimer they couldn’t get away with what they do. They are set up to cynically exploit people who are often at a low ebb in life – and that includes the ‘psychic readers’ themselves; people who are often poor and doing this out of desperation.
So it would be difficult to come up with meaningful legislation that hits the exploiters hard without affecting the run of the mill types. Then again, how would we deal with the ‘psychic detectives’? There would have to be (IMO) more legislation to deal with this sort of psychic parasite.
It’s not straightforward.
We started that petition in the hope that the Government would at least look at the act.
The problem is when Tony Blairs own wife believes in this nonsense.
Originally Posted by John Jackson
John, I enjoyed this post which I felt was balanced and carefully thought out. I am still trying to get my thinking sorted out on “Psychic” things and absolutely agree that the commercial aspect of it is not on. However, some people do seem to have the knack of guiding others through some process that happens to them – a “knowing” – that might appear “paranormal”, but I don’t think is. This skill seems more “accurate” when there is a link of liking, being comfortable with, enjoying? the company of the other person. It doesn’t matter how it happens – but it does. That’s the reason it continues to be practiced….
In an artificial “testing” situation, this can’t happen – nor to psychics who do mass readings in big halls and groups. But I will bet there are thousands of “home” psychics who never crave the limelight, nor ask for much significantly in money – or who just do it for free - who are operating in the UK. I would think a lot of “untrained” healers work this way too under the 1951 law that actually protects them. In my opinion these members of the community have their place. If they are legislated against – we are back to the middle ages where skepticism becomes the "dogma" and is the only one allowed.
M
I don't really care what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes, the issue is the charging of money for services which cannot be proven to exist. Or more accuractly, those which claim to rely on a physical effect when in fact they rely on a psychological one.
However, that goes for sooooo many other things too, and if we are going to make mediumship illegal, we must also make homeopathy illegal, and hypnotherapy, firewalking, graphology, ghost tours, dreamcatchers, horoscopes, lucky charms, and so on for an almost endless list.
I don't want to live in a society that controls my personal choice with layers and layers of legislation. Rather, I want to live in a society which educates its members on what is or isn't possible, on the potential motivation of people selling placebos, and so on.
The key is always education. Making something illegal just makes it more alluring when the harm is not apparent and the benefits appear obvious. Alcohol is a good example of that. If you take something away that people enjoy, it does not stop them pursuing it.
HOWEVER, I do agree that all mediums who advertise (and anyone in the above list, really), even if they are not charging for their service, should have to have the 'entertainment' disclaimer on their materials, because a disclaimer does have an educative effect. And to enforce that, you would have to fine those who are non-compliant, and if they don't pay the fine then of course you'd have to take them to court.
So,
My old pal has revamped her website again:
http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
There's no disclaimer on there that I can see.
Who do we contact?
Trading Standards?
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13563.asp
The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 will be repealed from April 2008 by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007 (CPRs) which implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).
The CPRs include rules prohibiting conduct which misleads the average consumer and thereby causes, or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, such conduct would still be unfair under the CPRs if it deceives the average member of (i) the group to which it is directed, or (ii) a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to this type of practice.
Unlike the Act, there is no requirement in the CPRs to prove an "intent to deceive". This means that where practices are aimed at vulnerable consumers or average members of particular groups, it should be easier to take action against fraudulent mediums than under the Act.
The CPRs will be enforced by both civil (injunctive) action and criminal sanctions.
Further information on the UCPD and the CPRs is available on BERR's website
8)
*does a happy dance*
its almost worth a road trip isnt it 20 of us skeptics all going round the country on a bus individually making trips to see these clowns and then grassing them up LOL
There's a team of guys that do that in India. They tour around, spot street side 'healers', and then go and repeat the same tricks for the crowd, to show them it's a trick. They are pretty cool.
I vote for a UK debunkybus.
i like that the debunkybus LMAO we could call ourselves the debunkinators
The petition received 365 signatures, if I have looked at the poll correctly. Surely the Govt. must already have been thinking of doing something - I cannot believe they would be pressurised by such a tiny number of sigs.
And one of the sigs was by "Sylvia Brown the Clown", so quite genuine.
Last edited by bindeweede; 19th October 2007 at 09:39 PM.
Yes, it seems unlikely that a tiny voice was heard. I thought it might have been on the agenda anyway.
OR - they have a public face to maintain. Which means that they have to be seen to respond positively to at least some of the petitions, otherwise their figures would be awful and the site would look like lip service. Maybe they look for easy wins so they can say "yes, we changed policy based on 14 petitions this year, let no-one say we don't listen to the public!". I mean, it's hard to think of excuses to NOT implement this one, and it covers a trendy topic. I'd say it's an easy win.
We'll never know, I guess.
Blimey, and I thought I ???was cynical. Did you notice it was signed by "Doris Stokes" - am I geting mixed up with someone else?
I suppose it might need a lawyer to work out if there will be any difference from the existing legislation.
It was also signed by Degzy Acorah. Hmmmmm. Is this a suggestion that these petitions are open to dodginess
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks