Psychics to come under Consumer protection laws

[UnquietDad]

story here

"A change in the law could mean mediums, psychics and healers face prosecution if they cannot justify their claims. Spiritualists are delivering a mass petition to Downing Street and complaining that a genuine religion is being discriminated against."

To be fair, they really ought to have seen that one coming.

(I was going to post this in Philosophy, Religion and Woo-Woo, but I imagine it'd get a frosty reception...)

But these people are surely sick?

I can fully understand those who are bereaved wanting to have some sort of closure.
We don't know if they actually contact their relatives or not, a separate issue altogether, but believing you've spoken to Aunt Emily and being told she is reunited with your Grandmother is entirely different from believing you will be struck down at 34.

I can't see how regulation will stop rogue traders at all. If the trading standards/fmb can't sort out builders with legislation I can't see how the government can with Psychics tbh.

Message withdrawn

Ben Goldacre's arguments have persuaded me. Yes, of course some who claim to be psychic prey on the vulnerable. But so do lots of others who claim to take a scientific approach - charlatans like Gillian McKeith who have probably made more money than any spiritualist! It is cynical people like that who should be more closely regulated.

And faith healers, for instance, can sometimes be very comforting. I think it is the placebo effect but my mother has on several occasions been helped by one with very visible effects. Surely there are other laws that could be invoked against truly abusive practitioners?

Gillian Mackeith is not a scientist! She talks a load of utter crap, ie eat lots of great veg, because it helps to oxygenate your blood!
she cons the gullible

For me to agree with StGeorge would require me to make the leap that there are such things as "real" psychics and "fake" psychics. It's a bit like asking me to accept the distinction between "real" fairies and "fake" fairies. So fraid not!...

I was referring to our posts in response to fw re religion and payment.

My comment was tongue in cheek but I shall go back to hitting my head on a brick wall and not bothering to find any sort of level ground between us. Obviously not worth the effort.

Agree Martian Bishop and frauds like her make their money from scare mongering and con artistry more surely than any of the groups targeted by law.

The one thing that psychics, spiritualists and faith healers have in common is that they don't claim to an evidence-based approach. So why insist that they provide evidence?

Clamp down on the charlatans that take a faux-scientific approach instead.

Shouldn't this law apply to Gillian Mackeith and her kind too? If not then it should be reworded so that it does. Individuals don't have time to check the accuracy of every claim so anyone who goes around making deliberately false claims should be stopped as it makes life harder for us all.

My head, too, is pretty bruised from the brick wall...

Oh, but, yes - apply it to "Dr" Mackeith and her ilk, definitely. And all other "alternative" medicine charlatans, from pedlars of dippy-hippy crystal-gazing crap upwards. Or downwards.

Upwind: my concern with that is that it's very easy not to "take an evidence-based approach".

I, for example, can turn my chair into an invisible pink turtle called Keith, on whose back I fly around the world sprinkling magic fairy dust to make people feel better. I don't take an "evidence-based approach" to this. I just expect people to have faith and accept it. You see the problem?

We should surely apply the same criteria to everyone. You say you can do something - fine. I don't disbelieve you. Show me.

And preferably, also show a team of independent experts in a monitored experiment with verifiable criteria for success. And collate data. And publish and analyse the data in a peer-reviewed journal. And we'll take it from there, thanks.

so you don't believe in anything bully for you

Qualifier: I don't believe in anything for which I have no evidence. Nothing wrong with that, surely?

it must be hard being a man, women are more intuned

I didn't know you could spell "gullible" that way.

The Psychics would have known about all that legal stuff for aaaages though wouldn't they

with you 100% UD.

guillible is fun

I'm not entirely sure about this legislation myself. I rather support people's right to be stupid and believe crap as long as they don't expect me to believe it, for one thing.
But I also have a thorough mistrust for the current Goverment's obsession with inventing a new law for every little thing that bugs them, said new laws invariably catching up and criminalising a lot of people who are not actually doing anything wrong. Surely the existing laws on trades descriptions, fraud, extortion etc can be applied to badly behaving superstitous charlatans along with anyone else who doesn;t give a good service, or who charges too much or harasses clients. After all, a lot of these silly sods do actually cheer up the client, and there's nothing particularly bad about paying for a load of old bollocks if it makes you feel better.

I suppose it comes down to a "doing what they say they do" issue.

If people know it's a load of old bollocks and are quite happy to pay for it on that basis - having your palm read at the fairground is a good example - then there's nothing wrong with it. It's entertainment - not that distinct from watching "The X-Files" (and siding with Mulder, and wondering how on earth Scully can be so dim. Which I do.).

The problem comes when it's a load of old bollocks and people are led to believe it can be something more serious.

Message withdrawn

you just have to accept that some people do believe in things that you don't uqd. read the fortean times, it might open your mind a bit

Sigh. I'm sure it's great fiction.

If I'm going to read stuff like that, I rather prefer Terry Pratchett

fortean times is the best sceptic magazine around