talkmagic.co.uk

Thought this might be of interest to those who do mentalism, taken from the Observer (our favourite newspaper):

"The evocative question 'Is there anybody there?' conjures up images of mediums summoning spirits in a darkened room. But now psychics must add a few riders before they invoke the voices of the dead, thanks to new consumer laws due to come into force. Breathless audiences are now likely to be asked: 'Is there anybody here... who is vulnerable, of nervous disposition, or likely to sue?'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/06/eu

Genius. I can't wait to see what they come up with. After all, mediumship depends on belief.

As a bit of a Tarot/Rune reader, I can see this causing problems - although given my usual disclaimer I assume I'll be alright (any armchair legal eagles feel free to correct me here):

Number 1, I am not claiming to be psychic in any fashion
Number 2, I will interpret the cards to your situation to the best of my ability, although I may sometimes be wrong
Number 3, All decisions made following this reading are yours and yours alone and I accept no responsibility.

If a sitter agrees to all three then I'll carry on - if they disagree to any then I'll shoo them off and find a slightly more realistic querent...

Tarot looks like it'll be okay if you're simply claiming to interpret the cards.

From the article:

Carole McEntee-Taylor, a spiritualist healer in Essex, said having to stand up and describe the invoking of spirits as an 'experiment' was forcing spiritualists to 'lie and deny our beliefs'.

I can't help noticing that the example disclaimer would also be a lie if said by a sceptic:

Spiritualists say they will be forced to issue disclaimers, such as 'this is a scientific experiment, the results of which cannot be guaranteed'.

No sceptic would ever agree that a typical psychic reading comes even remotely close to being a scientific experiment -- and quite rightly, because it doesn't. There are very few people who could use this disclaimer honestly, and very few situations in which they could use it.

Oh dear,

there will now be nothing between the medium and the trading standards officer - and no need to prove fraud. Instead it will be up to the trader, in this case the medium, to prove they did not mislead, coerce or take advantage of any 'vulnerable' consumers

sounds like 'Gulity until you prove yourself innocent' or an open invitation for anyone who feels, or pretends to be, let down after the event to come back with the threat of legal proceedings unless a refund and, in the current climate, substatial compensation is made.

However

If they are approved by Parliament, as is likely - there are debates in the Lords on 23 April and in the Commons on 6 May - the regulations will come into force on 26 May. They will ban 31 types of unfair sales practice outright, including bogus closing-down sales, prize-draw scams and aggressive doorstep selling, and will for the first time establish a catch-all duty not to trade unfairly, closing loopholes that rogue traders have been able to exploit

sounds like a very good idea.

A legal specialist said: 'Now there is no difference between a psychic and a double-glazing salesman in law.'

Was there ever any difference in practice ?

There was a discussion about it on The Jeremy Vine show today. To me it seems all that will happen is you get your money back.
The thing is...I didnt pay anything to this person I saw and he keeps on sending me strange texts telling me all sorts of things.
Its a shame but he is the reason I have nothing more to do with Psychics.

I gave up doing paid one-to-one readings about a year ago and now I'm glad I did. It's far easier being "a psychic entertainer"!

Entertaining is one thing but giving people false hope is another.

Sophie wrote:giving people false hope is another.

Yeah, how come priests & vicars aren't included?

Im not a believer so.........I have nothing to lose.