Dealing with psychic conmen

Until about half an hour ago, when Hugo Rifkind sent me an email, I had no idea that it even existed. But since I found out about the Fraudulent Medium Act 1951 I have had time to form a very definite view of it. Twice.

Version 1.0: It's good news that we have such an act and the BadPsychics website is right to wish to revise it in order to make it more easily useable. Psychics are conmen. If you amended the get-out clause in the Act - which allows psychics to present themselves as mere entertainers - there would be more prosecutions. I'd better sign the Downing Street petition calling for a revised act.

Version 2.0: I'd better not sign it. Yes, psychics are conmen. Yes, there are real victims of their cons. But do we really want more laws restricting people from doing things. We ought to be moving in the opposite direction, with less laws and more cons.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think?

Comments

[Jon Donnis]

Did you know that if I wanted to, I could set myself up as a medium.
I could dish out life changing advice.
I could pass on messages from the dead.
I could do all that and make a hefty profit too.

I have the knowledge, the experience, the charisma to pull it all off.

Hell I even have the contacts to make it in the media as a medium.

There is nothing whatsoever to stop me from doing any of this, except one thing, I have morals, and I am a sceptic.

The FMA act is a joke, no one ever gets prosecuted under it, in fact mediumship is a completely unregulated industry, and without doubt the most fraudulent too.

So what do we do? Do we allow these conment to just carry on? Do we do nothing to stop them?

I say NO.
We MUST fight, believers and sceptics all should have one common goal, and that is to rid this country of fraudulent mediums, and a good start is to revise the Fraudulent Mediums Act so that it is much harder to set yourself up as a medium, and for those who already work as such to face real consequences if fraudulent.

[Mook]

These people should be stopped, taking advantage of grieving people is wrong.

[Brendan Halfweeg]

No new laws please.

[Vince Tartrazine]

"...less laws and more cons"

Stiffer application of the existing laws will lead to more cons!

[Mark Peters]

I am a believer in life after death but I am fed up of these people who claim to be able to contact the dead when it is just cold reading. people who have suffered a recent bereavement are very vulnerable and there are people out there looking to make money out of other people's misery. People should sign the petition and help to clean up this industry.

[bob dezon]

Helen Duncan was the last person to be prosecuted under this act in 1944. The trial was politically motivated during a time of war and in my opinion a farcial conviction.

That being said this act does need revision to be used responsibly for any future convictions. Every day we are innundated with more people professing ability which defy logic, reason and sometimes the laws of physics. They do this for for many reasons but overwhelmingly it is for personal gain.

New ammendments to this existing act could help secure convictions for the most despeciable "psychics" who have used their "ability" to fleece recently bereaved people when they are especially vulnerable.

TV psychics claim quite openly their "ability" is real, yet the act clearly states they cannot claim this, they can however if it is for entertainment purposes only.

This loophole needs closing for the benefit of the general public, it is too undefined and so easily misinterpreted as to make it effectively useless.

[Sarah]

It is clear that there are many so-called mediums who prey on the vulnerability of the bereaved for financial gain.

The "Entertainment" loophole must be plugged.

[Ben]

Until Fraud can be 100 per cent proved then the Act is Pointless.Innocent until proven otherwise.
What next? Hypnotists,Alternative Therapists etc,etc.
We would have the police running around after all these people.
Leave it as it is.You cannot proove or disproove something that is not even fully understood.
And certainly cannot disproove by weight of opinion.

[David Boothroyd]

Helen Duncan was not tried in 1944 under the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, for obvious reasons. The Fraudulent Mediums Act was introduced (by Walter Monslow, Labour MP for Barrow-in-Furness) after a long campaign by Spiritualists who wanted to get rid of the Witchcraft Act 1735. The 1735 Act is often misrepresented as being against Witchcraft: actually it was astonishingly progressive for its time.

Spiritualists would have you believe the 1951 Act was Winston Churchill's doing. Actually Churchill had nothing whatsoever to do with it; it was two Labour MPs with all-party support.

[daz]

Psychics are not so much conmen/women as deluded in the main, although in the odd case that they are charging no monies then fair enough. I think this is unlikely but if someone gives advice for free then so be it..no harm done,

I'm an Astrologer who feels unfairly bracketed in with these people, under some strange umbrella term called 'thee Occult'. Its a very sad state of affairs when the facts are that Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Da Vinci and many others were also Astrologers and far wiser than the likes of the rabid Dickie Dawkins and Co.

Maybe instead of stereotyping everyone as Sunsign nitwits like Russel Grant you can take a look at John Frawleys site and peruse some of his work.

[Hugo]

Version 2.0, of course!

People should be free to consult with whomsoever they want about anything they want. If those people want to accept that those with whom they consult have some kind of spiritual connections (like psychics, fortune tellers and PRIESTS), that's their choice. And theirs alone.

[Psychic]

I absolutely disagree with this line of thinking. I do not believe the government has any right to infringe on our first ammendmant rights.

It is a shame people pine for dictatorship in a country that was formed on freedom of belief and expression. What is next a ban on religion? People really need to think long and hard on what they wish for as our civil rights slowly disappear and give way to incresing government control of what we may say, believe, and think.

I sincerely hope that criminals that take advantage of unwary victims are prosecuted. But, I do not condone infringement on ou civil liberties as a viable way to reach this goal.

[Sue Jewell]

Do people not realise that this is threatening the spiritualist churches up & down the country? These churches have a medium demonstrating during the service. Would people be so quick for other religions to prove the existance of their prophets?

[Roger Clague]

We all have to decide who are frauds. I use evidence. Less laws, a free market for ideas, good and bad.