Hi all thought you all may like to sign this petition to the goverment about Fraudulent Mediums.
http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=355
mark
The Petition...
The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 has rarely been used in the prosecution of mediums and psychics, who claim to contact the dead relatives of people. Yet there are increasingly more TV shows and live acts where people claiming to be mediums and psychics prey on vulnerable people who have lost loved ones, giving them spurious information and taking their money. We call upon the Government to revise the Fraudulent Mediums Act and make it easier to prosecute these people.
Signed...
Degzy Acorah
sylvia Brown The Clown
Coleene Fly
Doris Stokes
The above are actual names on the list
Whilst I agree that people pretending to contact the deceased is deployable, the very fact that there is an act of Parliament that prosecutes fraudulent mediums... by its very definition acknowledges the reality of genuine mediumistic ability.
A fact that perhaps BP might have a problem with.
From experience a considerable number of posters over at Bad Psychics claim that it is all fraudulent.
I applaud them for the work that they have done to expose certain famous so called mediums, however tar and brushes spring to mind here.
I feel that our government has far more important things to do at the moment than changing an act that could be used to much greater effect if it was implemented more.
I can see a problem here however, where do you draw the line between normal and paranormal.
Image if you will, being on the jury
How much evidence is enough?
What a strange thing to say.
Nice to see the act was repealed due in part to our petition
Nope not at all
There is not a single proven piece of mediumship in its short histroy, in fact 100% of mediums have failed scientific tests when teh chance to cheat is removed.
Another strange thing to say.
If you area real medium then you have nothing to fear from us, infact you should be firmly behind us for helping clean up YOUR industry, afterall we know that the likes of the SNU will never expose the frauds as they are run by such people.
Guess the government thought differently since the old law has been repealed and a new consumer law has been put in place.
I can see a problem here however, where do you draw the line between normal and paranormal. Image if you will, being on the jury How much evidence is enough?
You really have no idea do you.
It is simple, if someone claims paranormal powers, all they need to do is prove it in a situation where cheating is eliminated.
Right then off to look at your sites
Jon D
http://www.badpsychics.com
Hello John.
I am interested by some of your comments - and as you seem to purport to dealing in facts and proof, I'm firstly curious about a couple of facts....
How many genuine signatures were there on your petition, when it was submitted?
You state that the '...act was repealed in part due to our petition.' Where is your proof that that is the case? I am referring to something from the Government Department that dealt with the matter - obviously it would need to state categorically that your petition was in part instrumental in the changes that were made, to qualify as unmitigated proof. I'd be interested to see this - particularly when combined with the information about the number of valid signatures you had on the petition. It would be interesting to see how many signatures you need on a petition to have an effect on Government legislation. I have read the piece on your site where you state that the 'Government have replied to your petition...' However in reading said 'reply' it does not state anywhere within its contents that the Government action was specifically in response to your petition. It looks like a standard response to me. Perhaps you have some other proof it was your petition that had a direct effect?
This next query is not so much about a fact - more about your opinion. I have had a look at your site (a quick look I will admit) - at a thread about your petition. I note that one poster on that thread (anonymous naturally) stated that they think 'anyone who is rational would have no problem with outlawing ministers who talk to god as this is clearly a sign of a delusional mind.' Whilst I appreciate that you are not responsible for the views of those who post on your forums, I would be interested in your views on this, as presumably this is someone who signed, or at the very least agreed with your petition. We have clear laws in this country again discrimination on grounds of Religion and Belief - I would have thought suggesting 'outlawing a minister who talks to god' would breach those laws.
And whilst on the subject of Law and 'rules' - your comment about the SNU 'never exposing the frauds as they are run by such people' is also rather inflammatory. I do not know to which people particularly you are referrring - you may well be right in your view in some instances, however you are commenting on a body which is part of a recognised religion in this country. We live in a multi-cultural and multi faith/belief country - which not only includes Spiritualism, but many others usch as: Sikhism, Christianity, Rastafarianism, Catholiscism, Islam, Hinduism, the Baha’i faith, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Greek Orthodox, Wicca, Paganism, or Zoroastrianism. I wonder whether, bearing in mind the Terms and Conditions of posting on this EDP site, that such views would have been accepted and allowed by the Moderators if they had been expressed about members of a Governing or organising body associated with one of those other religions.
Finally in response to your comment about Paul's remark about 'tars and brushes' - that if he is a real Medium then he should have nothing to fear from you. I have read the post, and I cannot see any indication that he feels he has anything to fear from you - perhaps you over-estimate yourself? I believe his comment (and he is not here at the moment, so I cannot ask him yet, but I will) was making the point - to use my own analogy here - that if you give a bigot a broom, they will quite likely sweep away anything of value, along with the dross.
Regards,
Pat
Copyright © 2007 Archant Regional Limited. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions