ethics in mentalism and psychic conmen

A meeting area where members can relax, chill out and talk about anything non magical.


Moderators: nickj, Lady of Mystery, Mandrake, bananafish, support

Postby nickj » Feb 17th, '06, 18:25



As it isn't a long act:

The Law wrote:Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-


1.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person
who-

(a) with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or


(b) in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise such powers as aforesaid, uses any fraudulent device,

shall be guilty of an offence.


(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection unless it is proved that he acted for reward; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to act for reward if any money is paid, or other valuable thing given, in respect of what he does, whether to him or to any other person.



(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding (the prescribed sum) or to imprisonment for a tern not exceeding four months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, or on conviction on indictment to a fine... or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.



(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be, brought in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.



(5) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment


Repeals.
2.- Repeals
The following enactments are hereby repealed, that is to
say-


(a) the Witchcraft Act 1735, so far as still in force, and
(b) section four of the Vagrancy Act 1824 so far as it extends to persons purporting to act as spiritualistic mediums or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or to persons who, in purporting so to act or to exercise such powers, use fraudulent devices.

3.-(1) This Act may be cited as the Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951.

(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.


I was getting quite worried until I read clause 5! This of course leads to the question of how entertainment is defined in this regard. John Edwards has a TV show which supposedly entertains people, however, he takes money from those he reads for whilst claiming geniune contact with the dead. On one hand he appears to be in infringement of the act (assuming that it is similar in the US, and in any case we can take a hypothetical situation) whilst he apparently covers himself with the other.

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby Mandrake » Feb 17th, '06, 18:36

Snap!

PS John's programme credits include a note to the effect that it's for entertainment purposes only.

User avatar
Mandrake
'
 
Posts: 27494
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: UK (74:AH)

Postby nickj » Feb 17th, '06, 18:54

Mandrake wrote:Snap!

PS John's programme credits include a note to the effect that it's for entertainment purposes only.


Damn you and your quick searching!

I have never actually seen this John bloke so I am only going on what has or has not been said here. I suppose that that's his get-out clause, but one wonders if he mentions to those he is supposedly representing on the other side that they are there solely for entertainment purposes?

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby Mandrake » Feb 17th, '06, 20:25

I've only managed to watch parts of the programme on rare occasions as I'm likely to get a wee bit annoyed! I don't recall his making any statements right at the start, it comes in those fairly typical fast moving credits at the end and can be read by freeze framing them if you're lucky and have a good quality VCR!

In the interests of fairness and proper research, I'll try and watch at least one of his programmes in full as soon as possible. Assuming I survive, I'll let you know what's currently being broadcast.

However, clause 5 of The Act above is very significant - does that mean all performers need to make an 'entertainment purposes only' statement somewhere in their act? Do Tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers have to include some sort of get out clause in their readings?

User avatar
Mandrake
'
 
Posts: 27494
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: UK (74:AH)

Postby nickj » Feb 17th, '06, 20:45

Well that would depend on whether there is intent to deceive, if they themselves believe that they have the skills they claim then they are in the clear. It is only if they do not believe that they must make the disclaimer if I am reading that correctly.

In fact, I would think that by stating that you are reading something like cards you would have the perfect get-out in that you are not claiming any kind of psychic powers, just using the system in the same way that a newspaper astrologist does.

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby Mandrake » Feb 17th, '06, 20:47

a newspaper astrologist
Now that opens a whole new can of worms!

User avatar
Mandrake
'
 
Posts: 27494
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: UK (74:AH)

Postby Craig Browning » Feb 18th, '06, 00:39

nickj wrote:Thanks, very illuminating!

These people are clearly a world apart from the psychics and mediums you get at carnivals and tea parties and of course those who genuinely believe in their 'powers' and are trying to help, but somewhere in the middle you get the likes of John Edwards who seems to be using the skills of the entertainer to prey on the same beliefs. In the sense that he is not targetting anyone in particular and it is all down to personal choice for them to get involved he is not doing anything illegal, so where is the line draw between what is acceptable in the eyes of the law and what is not?


Here's the irony around John Edward and his ilk; even the "believers" see them as "frauds" but not in the same way you or I might look at such. In this case the "Fraud" is the act of coming off as being some kind of spiritually blessed individual and using that concept as your vehicle of generating an amazing sense of income via shows, books sales and of course, private sessions. More concisely, this is what most believers would see as a "sell out" in that the individual has chosen to "misuse" his/her "gift" as a means by which to build a personal financial empire... this is something that's seriously looked down upon by a good number of folks involved in this course of thought/spiritual mind-set.

Some of this opinion stems from the rede of poverty i.e. any and all who are truely blessed of "god" will not seek gain by the power laid upon them, nor do they claim the power to be their own, but rather the Divine working through them... (giving all credit to the divine, whatever that may be.)

I find it funny that that particular law went into effect the same year the last of the old Witchcraft laws was repealed in your country (I think that was 51... maybe 53 ???)

Laws of this ilk seem to be everywhere these days, most of which have been usurped, augmented or heavily modified in subsequent years (at least here in the U.S.) creating massive chasm through which a good lawyer can move their client through unscathed... especially if that client is a legally recognized minister with a following.

Long ago I visited a church in my home town that a magic buddy of my had some concerns over. I barely got out of the service without busting up laughing in that the preacher was using the same exact Robert Nelson material I used in my show at the time; he'd merely replaced the crystal ball I was using in the comedy skit with a hallowed out bible (as per Nelson's suggestion in the back of the manuscript). Frighteningly, he did a horrid Q&A routine and was still pulling in thousands of tax free dollars a week and having church members sign over their property and holdings upon death. I busted my butt trying to get the guy shut down but there's those loop holes in the law that REQUIRE church members to file complaints before anything can be done and no one to that point, had ever done such.

In short, the shysters always know how to get around such laws and will bend them to an extreme when and where possible. They have no conscience, morals or shame it's that simple.

I've often joked about not having sufficient larceny in my heart to live down to my family's near perpetual involvement in the classic hustles allied with tent revivals, gospel music, and preaching. But yet, I'm the black sheep of the clan because I turned my back on said path of "righteousness". :roll:

User avatar
Craig Browning
Elite Member
 
Posts: 4426
Joined: Nov 5th, '05, 14:53
Location: Northampton, MA * USA

Postby pdjamez » Feb 18th, '06, 01:34

Craig Browning wrote:I find it funny that that particular law went into effect the same year the last of the old Witchcraft laws was repealed in your country (I think that was 51... maybe 53 ???)


Actually the Witchcraft Act was repealed as part of the 1951 Fraudulant Medium act. Which makes sense if you think about it.

I would like to open up two new related topics if I may. The first strikes me as being fairly obvious. Surely we have to accept that there is some level of personal responsibility with the victim of such crimes. I understand that these people may be vunerable but surely this isn't always the case.

I also think much of the problem here is peoples lack of understanding about their own capabilities. Don't we all think we're too smart to be conned? This is why I think magic is still valuable and relevant to our society as large. It shows us that were not as smart or as observant as we would like to think.

Don't get me wrong, the art of magic is a triviality in the great scheme of things. Once you have a roof over your head, food on your table and your kids are happy, your pretty much done. Everything else is just trivial nonsense we do to pass the time. But magic does have the capacity to engage and teach people that they shouldn't rely on their assumptions or their senses. I think this aspect of the art is often overlooked.

User avatar
pdjamez
Senior Member
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Nov 8th, '05, 19:07
Location: Scotland (40:AH)

Postby Craig Browning » Feb 18th, '06, 03:35

Well, for some of us Magic has been a bit more than a Past time... more along the lines of a full time job :?

Using "magic" as a teaching tool is actually one of the older and better known modes by which it has been practiced. Even in the more ancient temples and "mystery schools" the art of illusion was used as a vehicle by which to convey certain parables or ideas. Sometimes that idea might be just what we've been dancing with here... learning to not believe everything you see and hear. Then too, along that same point of thought, is learning to see the same thing from multiple points of view. Let's face it, one's fascination of the Asrah Levitation shifts dramatically when viewing it from the wings or overhead flies... your sense of amazement comes from an entirely different place and yet, the magic remains "real". Too, we become even more enchanted when a performer employs a variation to the effect that throws us completely off track... :twisted: and you guys thought there was no such thing as "magick"?

Responsibility is a very interesting thing to bring up, including the idea of what "my" responsibility is to my community when I perform things in a certain way. How am I representing my craft? How am I serving as part of that community? What obligations do I have that go beyond my own dreams and ambitions as a performer?

I'll go first... :wink:

Because I consciously choose to work within the older, more established prefexes of Mentalism I do have certain obligations or "responsibilities" to the people that come to me; the biggest of which is to help them in a manner that is the most empowering (for them). To accomplish this, I help the sitter see the various things going on in their life and help them see for themselves (and express it outwardly) what needs to be "corrected" and why. I then give them some options, which frequently include some form of "professional counseling" should the issue(s) warrant such. The "selection of options" will include some light reading of material that will encourage the client to look deeper at his/her self... you see, they can't "heal" their issues until they face those personal demons they strive to avoid and there are many paths that lead to that particular destination... or so the old master's used to say.

In doing this kind of quiet, simple task I am helping improve my community situation, which is another side of my "job". But attached to this is presenting information to the public when and however I can, so that they become a bit more aware of the dangers and pit-falls that really do exist in our world. My more recent chats and even show patter, have made reference to the current investigation of a Psychic facing Larceny charges and why. I want to bring this kind of story out, not because I want to insult my patrons (most of whom believe in such things) but so they can understand how people like this hurt everyone.

I also do talks (absolutely free) to local high schools, college groups and seniors homes about con-games in general as well as how to identify a potential scam or, what most would term to be "potentially dangerous cult situation"... living in a place surrounded by 5 major colleges and a military base makes you fertile territory for such things. But, at the same time, I do no insult people's beliefs nor do I challenge them by stating in a cold and heartless manner "that it's all fake"... such crassness isn't exactly good for public relations and it tends to lead people to believe you don't care about them at all, just their money. Which brings me to another point of responsibility... taking care of me.

The more that I give and share with my community, the more I get in return. I'm not talking about networking or all those buzz terms we hear so much about, I'm talking about how my work and my contributions are a part of my therapy and what keeps me from going completely bonkers.

Because I'm known in town as a Psychic and rather well read student of philosophy many people call upon me for this or that... people that I tend to WITHOUT my hand out seeking payment. But this is part of my "responsibility" in what I do... part of my "job" as it were, when it comes to helping rather than harming and healing those that have come to know harm or loss, be it from a person like that recently defrocked medium (mentioned above) or the lack-luster husband that just got through beating the c*** (not the best) out of your the 100th time.

I am responsible for that handful of young people I work with daily, in the battle against their addictions and I'm responsible for helping discourage their dealers from dealing in my area.

I know this isn't exactly what Paul was driving at, but I wanted to take this "theme" to reveal what all is really involved when someone walks the older, more true paths of Mentalism vs. this recent and rather "American" (and slightly Brit) idea that it all has to be about "Entertainment" or it's "wrong". As I was reminded earlier today, that's strictly a western culture contrivance that's surfaced in recent years, it has nothing to do with the traditions of the craft or how the world views such things -- just the arrogance of westerner's on a new course of conquest. But this brings up the flip side to the question of Responsibility...

Who is responsible for the person that blows their brains out or kills their entired family becasue some jackass convinced them that their guru was a fraud and they were fools?

Yes, it has and does happen. The tail spins created by the less than thoughtful is the side of the story you will rarely hear about. It's intentionally "ignored" and swept under the carpet... kind of like all the pro-life types that don't want someone to have an abortion but yet, they'll bitch about their taxes going up so as to take care of those unwanted kids who become wards of the state and potentially criminals, etc.

The dominos will fall and we are responsible when it comes to when, where and how... or have we forgotten about the most rudimentary law of physics?... something about every action and the reaction?

One of my favorite movies is DOGMA and one of my favorite scenes is where Matt Damen is explaining the gospel based on the Beatles, etc. He destroys the faith of a nun and laughs about it. He does not assume any responsibility for the fact that she has lost her sense of purpose and all understanding of her values, morals, etc. He just got his jollies breaking it all down and shattering her perceptions.

So where does your responsibility fit in, after you've convinced someone to denounce any and all things mystical, spiritual, et al.? Are you responsible for their falling into a darker course in life instead of walking a path that is reasonably moral and up-standing? After all, you've removed from them their supporting reason for living in a "higher mind" kind of way, if we're nothing more than worm food then what the heck, let's become perverts, drunks and theives and enjoy life to the hilt... do as you will!

Sounds extreme, eh?

BUT PEOPLE DO IT...

You say that it's not your fault, it is that person that is enacting their own free will.

But YOU took away that free will.. you removed from their choices, the one they had embraced, supposedly to help them and to protect them. So it is YOU and you alone that are responsible for what each of these people do, that you have helped see "the light" and get away from those pesky ideas found within the whole of religion, mysticism, the paranormal, and philosophy. You took it upon yourself to become their new priests and guru when you robbed from them, the fabric that was holding them together in the first place.

Paul's analogy of eating an elephant is where we find the mid-point around this issue; the act of slowly spoon feeding people concepts and possibilities in a manner that allows them to "discover" things on their own. Trying to force people to see things or believe things in one way or another NEVER works in the long run... just look at those that are forced to live in a staunch religious environment or other forms of suppression; contempt is built and utlimately, revolution. But, when people slowly embrace a concept and that idea is allowed to blend in a natural way with the older ways of seeing and doing things, that is when we find progress and resolution around a given point, regardless of what it may be. It is also in this process that the negative karmic obligations noted above, are removed from the burden of the teacher or acting sage that used the bludgeon and fear tactics for getting their point across. Discovery and justification of an idea within one's own mind makes it a personal "law" and thus, the responsibility of the one that "owns" that decision.

Some of you may not like the idea that the majority of those who have been involved with mentalism for the past 20+ years have and do, do Readings. Some of you want to be part of the current "politically correct" trend of bashing psychics and anything that might even have hint of ectoplasmic smell to it. But what is your responsibility after you've done "your thing"?

I and my fellows embrace responsibility in what we do. We look out for our patrons as well as our fellow citizens. Most of us, in some way, convey suspicions to the right authorities when our hackles are raised or we are asked about certain operators in our area. We do our best to educate the public we serve while preserving their right to their beliefs... after all, we are responsible for any sense of harm or infringement we may impose on those that have entrusted us.

As a person living with a chronic illness who just happens to be a showman of many years, I have other responsibilities as well; like proving to those who feel the world has taken a big dump on them, that life does not end with such a diagnosis and the only limits that exist for us are in our own mind and sense of resource. I am obliged to drop kick these people in the rubber parts and get them to see that their lives mean something and they must learn to rediscover their "faith". Sorry if you think it wrong to do so, but I'll use just about any non-invasive tactic I can to light that fire in that I dont' want to see any of my fellows who are living with a disability to take that darker, more dangerous path.

I am seen by most that know me as being a man of wise character, compassion and actual integrity. I find it hard to believe that someone with such a reputation can be as "in the wrong" as some of you would imply, simply because I do Readings. Ironically, this is the reputation of most of the people I know that walk this tight rope between the shut-eye and show biz arenas e.g. I believe someone needs to be responsible for rethinking what rhetoric they buy into and consider a broader sense of teh over all case. :wink:

User avatar
Craig Browning
Elite Member
 
Posts: 4426
Joined: Nov 5th, '05, 14:53
Location: Northampton, MA * USA

Postby TheMightyNubbin » Feb 18th, '06, 17:58

Craig Browning wrote: I find it hard to believe that someone with such a reputation can be as "in the wrong" as some of you would imply, simply because I do Readings.


If you're just doing readings for entertainment then I see no problem with that. It's the 'speaking to dead people' part that I and many others object to.

The bottom line is I'll wager you're not going to stop doing it and I'm not going to stop objecting to it.

We can talk around the issue but it's a fundamental difference of opinion. I'm happy for people to believe whatever they like - good luck to them - if they get somethng out of it then great.

But I do object to people being negatively impacted by irrational beliefs - be they extreme religious views of any kind, psychic con men or whatever - it's all wrong.

NickJ made a sterling effort to re-focus this thread on wider issues but Craig you've brought it back to what you do and your justification for doing it.

As I've said above - I can't see anybody changing their views on this so I'd ask Craig that you refrain from further justification for psychics who genuinely claim to be speaking to the other side - it's only going to cause problems and none of us want that.

We're all aware of each others opinions so I suggest we drop this aspect as requested by NickJ.

TheMightyNubbin
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Aug 22nd, '05, 03:25

Postby nickj » Feb 18th, '06, 18:41

I only requested that we dropped the personal references to other posters. My impressions of what Craig does are that he does it very responsibly. It might be that there are people that feel that what he is doing it wrong, but who are we to judge absolutely what is right and wrong? If using someones beliefs to help them in some way is wrong then what else can you do? It is fairly well established that a predominant factor if the recovery of any patient taking drugs for a condition is that they believe the drugs will work, surely this is the same and has the same pitfalls in that it encourages the belief in spirits or medicine when there may be better ways of doing things?

In Craigs defence, he is in the minority here and as such is open to some quite ferocious hounding from those who disagree with what he does, on the other hand, we have heard about what you do a number of times now Craig so shall we move along a bit? :)

pdjames wrote:I would like to open up two new related topics if I may. The first strikes me as being fairly obvious. Surely we have to accept that there is some level of personal responsibility with the victim of such crimes. I understand that these people may be vunerable but surely this isn't always the case.

I also think much of the problem here is peoples lack of understanding about their own capabilities. Don't we all think we're too smart to be conned? This is why I think magic is still valuable and relevant to our society as large. It shows us that were not as smart or as observant as we would like to think.


I have to say that there is a very small part of me that whispers "If they believe this carp, why not let them get on with it?" But of course that's not right is it? Good job that there are some people actively trying to help them in whatever way they can and not insensitively quashing their deeply held beliefs in the process.

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby TheMightyNubbin » Feb 18th, '06, 20:13

nickj wrote: If using someones beliefs to help them in some way is wrong then what else can you do? It is fairly well established that a predominant factor if the recovery of any patient taking drugs for a condition is that they believe the drugs will work, surely this is the same and has the same pitfalls in that it encourages the belief in spirits or medicine when there may be better ways of doing things?


I respectfully disagree with the analogy that taking drugs is the same as visiting a psychic.

Would you walk into a pharmacy and buy and take a drug if it wasn't tested? Regardless of if it's been proven to work or not? Unaware of any potential side effects?

Would you take that risk?

Would you walk into a counselor and use their services regardless of whether they are qualified or not? But use them because they are self-appointed?

Yet that's exactly what you're doing when you visit a psychic for 'non-entertainment' reasons.

It's only when you consider using a psychic in the context of how you would approach every other aspect of your life that you see the risks and potential damage.

TheMightyNubbin
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Aug 22nd, '05, 03:25

Postby nickj » Feb 18th, '06, 22:13

I agree, that for the majority of people this would be the case, but we are talking minorities here. There are plenty of people out there who are prepared to take new age medicines and unproven remedies without any guarantee that they will work. I am certain that if you were to identify a particular 'medicine' that should not work and poll it's users then a great number of them would have noticed improvement on taking it simply because they expect to.

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby Craig Browning » Feb 18th, '06, 23:40

I find it funny how my post got turned around to me being "in the wrong" for expressing how I am "Responsible" and yet, no one has responded as to where they are responsible for being overly agressive in demeaning people that claim to be or believe in things Psychic/Spiritual, etc.

Everyone has stepped away from the cynic's responsibility for the emotional distress their actions cause in the world... messes that I and others tend to have to mop up after. So if everyone wants to put me on the spot I'd just like to know that the same 'standards' exists for everyone in the game... or do they?

I will point out that what's been personalized towards me, is not something that I alone do. These are actions and attitudes common to all people that do Reading work... I've yet to see any members of the Randi Foundation contributing to society in like manner. I might be wrong, but somehow I just don't see the position held by JRF being warmly embraced in the middle of America's Bible Belt let alone being featured in the role of actual humanitarian efforts throughout society.

So I just want to know, where do the skeptics place themselves when it comes to being actual contributors to society and supporters of their communities vs. the detractors of what could easily be seen as the mind-set of the status quo?

One thing I will point out that Nubbin seems to have not caught onto... I don't claim that I channel dead people. I've had some very peculiar things happen that would suggest that I've had a "mediumistic" encounter but I do not sell myself as a medium at any level other than theaterically.

Please don't try to direct the focus back onto me until we see some actual acceptance of responsibility for what's said, how it is said and how it affects people and who is directly responsible when the words and ideas of teh cynical bring about exceptionally negative, non-productive end results.

User avatar
Craig Browning
Elite Member
 
Posts: 4426
Joined: Nov 5th, '05, 14:53
Location: Northampton, MA * USA

Postby Johndoe » Feb 19th, '06, 16:20

What is it that you percieve as the negative impact of cynics?

Johndoe
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Dove's Head

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests