talkmagic.co.uk

In one of the older threads I think it was mentioned that only about 5 people had actually been prosecuted. As soon as the words, 'For entertainment purposes only' are added, they get you away from prosecution under the Act.

As for Geller, his appearance with Johnny Carson is my fave... poor thing just didn't feel "strong" that nite... take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo

But what you don't understand is the fact that "someone" (during the Randi appearance) had glued Uri's film cans to the desk and exchanged the spoons to what's known as "pot iron" which will not bend... it tends to break and even at that, it's very difficult to do.


Then you have the night Carson gave a noted Mentalist (and that's what the man called himself) a hard time by deliberately covering the marks on the cards the man was using just because he wouldn't call himself a Magician... now that's really a professional and mature attitude

themagicwand wrote:I wonder when the last time anyone was actually convicted was? Can you imagine the publicity someone would get these days if they were actually taken to crown court over it? Sky News would be all over it like a rash!

On a more positive note, it's nice to see the Witchcraft Act of 17xx has been repealed. Pity so many lasses (and a few lads) had to die in the process.

I've just had a quick Google, and the whole thing is quite interesting. The Witchcraft act of 1735 seems to have reflected the change in attitudes during the European Enlightenment from accepting religious assertion to an acceptance that belief isn't the same thing as hard evidence. The Act stopped it being illegal to believe that you could consort with spirits and made it illegal to pretend to do so for money as a con. The penalty went from death to the far more sensible fines and prison sentences.

Its one the more interesting laws. I do like the get out clause though "for entertainment purposes only".

So really if i went to see Madame Zarzar handed my money over and she didnt say this is for entertainment only and I told the local plod. She would be hauled up in front of the Beak.

Markdini wrote:So really if I went to see Madame Zarzar handed my money over and she didnt say this is for entertainment only and I told the local plod. She would be hauled up in front of the Beak.

In theory, yes. You'd probably have to be part of a wider pattern of complaints put to Trading Standards. They'd either investigate in a mystery shopper stylee, like they do with under age ciggy and booze sales, or barge in and ask to see the disclaimer.

I'd love to see someone who genuinely believes they have the gift of mediumship and has never even through about fakery brassing it out in court over not having a disclaimer!

I don't think the CPS would go near it with a barge pole to be honest.

Yes but if they have the gift, wouldnt she know that trading standards are after her.

Funny how we asume they are women isnt it? I think this act should be more widley known about it could protect a lot of people.

themagicwand wrote:I don't think the CPS would go near it with a barge pole to be honest.

Enough complaints Mr Bell and they would have to. Or you could have a form of class action brought up and a private law suit.

Markdini wrote:
Enough complaints Mr Bell and they would have to. Or you could have a form of class action brought up and a private law suit.

Well if they haven't gone after Derek Acorah by now, I'd say that Madam ZarZar on Blackpool seafront is fairly safe!

Thats what she thinks Well remember that not alot of people know about this law. So if they did I reckon we would so a whole load of new cases crop up.

Markdini wrote:Thats what she thinks Well remember that not alot of people know about this law. So if they did I reckon we would so a whole load of new cases crop up.

It's actually being repealed at the moment, and is going to be lumped in with a new trading standards thingy-ma-bob.

As a law it's pretty pointless anyway. The only people who go to see mediums are people who tend to believe in it or are at least open to the idea. Therefore they are the least likely to make a complaint. Skeptics by their very nature would tend not to visit a medium, fake or otherwise.

Again, it's my personal belief that anyone making a complaint to the local bill would be met with raised eyebrows, a puffing of the cheeks, and a "Really sir? A fake medium you say?" The CPS would file it under B for bin.

Is that a challange Mr Bell? Quick to the sea front at once. This true what you say about skeptics not going to them.

How do you fare when doing your thing when you meet a skeptic?

I think the con would have to be on the scale of contractors charging little old ladies well over the odds for replaced washers, that sort of thing.

"Uncle Albert says go to the bank and give the nice lady £5000 for contacting him..." etc.

Markdini wrote:
How do you fare when doing your thing when you meet a skeptic?

Well I usually work purely in an "entertainment" setting, ie using palm reading or tarot card reading as part of my close up routine at weddings, corporate events etc. People tend to be very open to it as it's all very upbeat. Any out-and-out skeptics (and I have met a few) tend to be "shushed" by their wives or girlfriends (skeptics are always male, true believers always female - go figure). To be honest I enjoy doing readings for skeptics. I do like a challenge when it comes to readings, and I haven't had a bad experience yet.

I used to do one-to-one tarot readings which are a bit more "full on", ie people who's lives are sh*t wanting to know what the future is going to bring, looking for answers etc. Although I do believe in the tarot and my own intuitive ability, the amount of faith placed in me by my "sitters" always weighed heavy on my shoulders so I now shy away from that kind of work. It doesn't pay that well anyway despite what you might hear about the fees commanded by celebrity mediums. I used to charge £25 for an hour long reading. Not going to get very far doing that for a living.

These days I prefer to be on the sheer entertainment side of things. Keeps things nice and simple. And on the right side of john law

Tomo wrote:I think the con would have to be on the scale of contractors charging little old ladies well over the odds for replaced washers, that sort of thing.

"Uncle Albert says go to the bank and give the nice lady £5000 for contacting him..." etc.

I am pretty sure that goes on. As Mr Wand said thoses who belive go to these types and once you are hooked its easy to get the money out of people. Bit like a drug dealer really.

Now if uncle Burt said "go take the nice lady and get randis 1 mill" then we may be on to something.