(Close Window)
Topic: Hypnosis on ITV
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Jul 21, 2010 11:56AM)
Hi,

catch my TV Debut in the UK this Saturday on Odd One In at 19.15 on ITV1.

Odd One In is a new cheesy Saturday night gameshow. I am not sure if they got more they bargained for ;p

No mind reading I am afraid just mind control. I hypnotised four people to believe they were hypnotists with fully programmed back stories. Two celeb panels have to ask questions and identify the real one.

It is already making a few headlines!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3063125/Peter-Andre-to-wipe-Jordan-from-mind.html

Best regards,

Anthony
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 21, 2010 12:06PM)
Peter Andre can't be hypnotised surely? You need a brain for that...

Typical though....those attention seeking brats get their names and photos in the article Ant doesn't.

Good luck with the show. I assume its already been recorded?
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 21, 2010 12:17PM)
Hey, that's fantastic. Made me feel all warm inside. I'm gonna but lots of ice cream and booze and get all my family round the telly. Well done Anthony!!!
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Jul 21, 2010 01:31PM)
Is that on any satellite channels ???
Message: Posted by: robaiken (Jul 21, 2010 07:39PM)
That is really cool. I will deviantly tune in!
Message: Posted by: MatthewH (Jul 21, 2010 10:09PM)
Hey nice one Ant. I'll get the parents in the UK to dust off their betamax machine, adjust the tracking and work out how to set the timer to record it, then post it off via long distance carrier pigeon. (or I'll see if it turns up on youtube)
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 22, 2010 03:21AM)
Hey Mathew, I was one of the very first people in the UK to have a betamax (Sales award). I took it home (This was just prior to them being sold publicly)and told the family what it was supposed to be able to do. They all went into fits of laughter and we put it away in its box for several weeks before we realised that it really could record TV programmes and play DVD's.
I feel sooooo old telling this story!
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 22, 2010 05:09AM)
I still have two machines...working order
Message: Posted by: dylan magic (Jul 22, 2010 05:20AM)
Congrats ant!
looking forward to it.
Message: Posted by: Shrubsole (Jul 22, 2010 06:12PM)
Thanks for the heads up on the show Ant.

It's now locked into my Sky+ planner. Will make a change to have something worth watching on Saturday Night TV!
Message: Posted by: Muzz (Jul 24, 2010 01:41PM)
Congratulations on the TV spot Anthony! Loved it. Number 5 was terrifying! How much pre show did you have to do with that group of people?

Congrats again
Message: Posted by: KyleMacNeill (Jul 24, 2010 01:41PM)
That was brilliant Anthony!

Kyle
Message: Posted by: robaiken (Jul 24, 2010 01:41PM)
Anthony, that was so funny. I just finished watching it and it made me laugh out loud! I loved how number 5 jumped on the host. how long where you allowed for you pre show work?

Good Job :D
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 24, 2010 02:40PM)
Nice one Ant it worked really well within the context of the show.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Jul 24, 2010 04:05PM)
MP and bobser - stop gushing over Ant will you?!
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 24, 2010 04:33PM)
"Nice One" is hardly gushing Iain. And I don't see any pimping of products so I can get favours in return.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Jul 24, 2010 05:16PM)
Yeah - but we all know you want to turn up as an easter egg on one of Ant's dvds in the future...c'mon...admit it!

it was only a mild joke...
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 24, 2010 06:59PM)
Yeah a mild one.....

But that's very good for a mentalist.
Message: Posted by: bluedragon (Jul 25, 2010 01:07AM)
I'm rather gutted, I didn't see it, I didn't set my recorder :(

Neil.
Message: Posted by: Muzz (Jul 25, 2010 03:32AM)
Bluedragon, if you are in the UK you can catch the programme on ITV Player!
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 25, 2010 05:18AM)
I didn't think Iains joke was mild. I thought it was in context with a thread on 'penny' and very very clever. He also has nice eyes and everything he does is both funny and cool. Indidentally I thought ants tv debut was excellent. I'd write moe but I'm using mye I-phone and it's just too hard.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Jul 25, 2010 05:20AM)
I believe you told me my eyes were "dreamy", Bobser...
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 25, 2010 05:32AM)
Bob = gushing b-stard

I'm sorry but unlike bob I refuse to gush unless you have a free product to give me..


Whose Idea was it to hypnotise the other three "stooges"? Was it Ants or was it the producers? It was a great idea and probably the highlight of the series.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 25, 2010 11:04AM)
It was an idea I gave him. He thanked me and told me he'd come on here on here later to give me full credit for it. That and the suit I loaned him.
And Iain the word I used was not 'dreamy', it was actually 'glazy'. Then you said: "don't you mean dreamy?" And I said: "Oh all right then."
There are thousands of 'views' of posts just like this one (although they're nearly all Mindpunisher) so let's get it right, ok?
Message: Posted by: Anansi (Jul 25, 2010 03:57PM)
"Is that legal?"

"...It is the way I do it, yes"

Priceless!

Great show Anthony.
I enjoyed that.
After you talked him out, was no.1 shocked to find out he wasn't a hypnotist (and did he get to keep the waistcoat).
Message: Posted by: craig34 (Jul 25, 2010 04:27PM)
Hey Ant.

Nice one it was absolutely brilliant, and could not stop laughing at your suggestion for the guy to be bradley walshes number 1 fan. Absolutely brilliant.

Well done mate

Craig
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 25, 2010 05:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-25 16:57, Anansi wrote:
"Is that legal?"

"...It is the way I do it, yes"

Priceless!

Great show Anthony.
I enjoyed that.
After you talked him out, was no.1 shocked to find out he wasn't a hypnotist (and did he get to keep the waistcoat).
[/quote]

Im not so sure that answer washed with the judge that asked it. I bet she wasn't the only one that asked it either. "what is it that he does that makes it legal?" is probably the question on their minds. Something that will only grow as the popularity of hypnosis grows like a black cloud.
Message: Posted by: Anansi (Jul 25, 2010 06:20PM)
That's more like it MP!
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Jul 26, 2010 02:15AM)
Mindpunisher is Marvin from the Hitchhikers guide only less perky!
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 26, 2010 03:10AM)
Simply stating a fact. TV debut FIRST WORDS- legality of street hypnosis is questioned. Its not going to go away. Anybody who says otherwise is burying their heads in the sand. May as well face it now.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 26, 2010 10:37AM)
... or maybe if we don't face it (and get people to stop reminding us) it'll go away.
The thing is there's lots of things that are technically illegal but nobody gives a toss.
I'd place serious money on the fact that there's hardly a police officer or a solicitor or even a judge who has the remotest idea of whether street hypnosis is legal or not. I think if you went to them to make a complaint they'd hold their head in their hands and think: "What the hell do I do now? I'm busy dealing with real crooks for Chisakes!!!"
It's illegal to play football on the grass in front of my house.
It's illegal to unwrap chewing gum when driving a car.
It's illegal NOT to pay full taxes on all earnings.
But if I'm wrong we'll see, will we not? Anthony Jacquin has gone on national television, in front of 5 - 7 million law abiding citizens, and said "I'm a street hypnotist!" He seems to understand that if you can't hide it you might as well paint it red, and I think he should receive a standing ovation from every hypnotist in the land for saying: "This is who I am and this is what I do" instead of sneaking about in the dark embarrassed of his skill and the excellent use of it.
I also think if someone tried to take him to court he'd actually RUN to court in the knowledge it would be one of the most fantastic days of his life. He'd probably get a £100 fine followed very quickly by fees of a coupe hundred grand in publicity! (assuming he should get found guilty).
And if he did go to court he might want to invite the jury to see what he does in this outrageous act of his: making someone's arm stiff, missing out the number 4 in a count to ten and smiling as their hand raises into the air (we seriously need to stop that don't we?). And then of course, in his defence I think he'd be perfectly entitled to invite his jurors to go watch a stage hypnosis show (perfectly legal of course). Then after the jury see people having sex with chairs, blown up dolls and plactic sheep (and maybe each other) he can then ask them the question: "Please be entirely honest, which in your mind is the most serious here?"
So, ok, if some strange people out there want to cause trouble for street hypnotists (and I personally have honestly never met one, not one, ever!) surely hypnotists themselves might want to steer away from this argument. Lets face it, it's now totally and completely unstopable so let it go huh?
In closing, I mean no disrespect to any reputable stage hypnotists in this post.
I like stage hypnosis and stage hypnotists. I just believe we should never EVER allow 'The Man' (who doesn't know diddly squat) to screw us whilst considering different genres related to this wonderful art.

bobser
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Jul 26, 2010 10:50AM)
Cheers grandad!
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Jul 26, 2010 10:50AM)
Hi,

thanks for all the kind words and feedback.

The show was great fun to make and came off great in the cut I thought.

And for the record the producers made me do the chicken. We wrangled for two hours explaining it was beyond cliche, to the point the job was in the balance. Oh well, it got the biggest laugh on the night after the superfan.

Anthony
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 26, 2010 10:58AM)
Bobser,

Calm down take a few deep breaths. I only stated the truth. If no action is taken against street hypnotists its because its not a big enough problem yet. I say yet. And problems come in all shapes and sizes. The police and the council want an easy life. At the moment it isn't high profile enough for them to have to do anything about it. Once it does become high profile they will HAVE to do something about it. Or their buts may be the ones getting kicked.

The fact is according to a long list of councils contacted - street hypnosis with no license or insurance IS illegal.

I remember years ago it was the same with stage hypnosis it wasn't high profile enough for anything to be done. You could get away with no license even the police didn't care or seem to know about the law. Now adays that's totally changed. One report and pub hypnotists with no license are closed down immediately.(and its a good thing for the art) Why? Simple because if the authorities don't act and it is documented that there was a report their asses would be in trouble. If there was an accident they would be in deep trouble. So now they MUST act even if they don't want to. And of course the bad press and "accidents" were a major justification.

It will be the same with street hypnosis. Give it time. I know you don't like it but in a phrase you use a lot "its simply the truth".

The fact that somebody asks that question within seconds of the statement tells you that if/or as street hypnosis gains in exposure trouble lies ahead if it gains more exposure. And especially if there is an accident or complaint that makes the press. The media in this country love building up then knocking down its a tradition.
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Jul 26, 2010 10:59AM)
Bobster is right. Magicians are the only people who bleat on about exposure and draw attention to it when it comes up in the media. If we all shut up about it there would be little to no reason to go to print. Similarly, MP and JR seem to be the only ones bleating on about street hypnosis. But then again maybe they have some vested interested in drawing attention to it?
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 26, 2010 11:04AM)
Well I think that Zerububle (and I'm not saying this because he's my grandson ) is spot on. And... 'it's simply the truth'.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Jul 26, 2010 11:04AM)
Sorry Ze that's not true. The media love negative stories about hypnosis. it sells papers. Of course I have vested interest I don't want to see hypnosis pulled through the **** again.

You can all stick your heads in the sand. But trust me if it suits the media to rip into street or stage hypnosis they will.

And I am not a magician perhaps that's why I talk sense. Exposure I am talking about has nothing to do with revealing tricks its about high profile in the media. Just goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about.

that's the biggest problen in this forum the blind are leading the blind. Despite the recent appearance Ant is still unknown. If he were to become more well known hes is wide open to the kind of attention you don't want from the press.

I thought the show appearance was really good. But you can't ignore the reaction to street hypnosis.

My last word on this.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Jul 26, 2010 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-26 12:04, mindpunisher wrote:
"... you can't ignore the reaction to street hypnosis".
[/quote]

...and there lies my argument. A confession, on live mainstream national television. And the reaction? Not a jot. Not a whisper. Not one single phone call of complaint. I checked through my contacts this morning with ITV and not even Jonathan Royle (Anthony's very own 'Professor Moriarty')phoned in. He just seemed to shrug his shoulders.
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Jul 26, 2010 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-26 12:04, mindpunisher wrote:

Just goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about.

[/quote]

And you do? Is t there a degree of unfounded arrogance in this?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 27, 2010 12:29AM)
For what it's worth, I think any exposure is great for hypnosis.

Even if it becomes an issue, it's just a chance to explain to the masses what hypnosis is and what it is not...

Back to the topic...

Congrats ANT! :wavey:
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Oct 2, 2010 11:27AM)
Hi Ant,

congrats on the show
could you tell us...did you have more than the four people to work with to find the best subjects or did the four on the show just respond well?
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 6, 2010 05:14AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-26 13:33, Zerububle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-26 12:04, mindpunisher wrote:

Just goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about.

[/quote]

And you do? Is t there a degree of unfounded arrogance in this?
[/quote]

Having worked through the high profile attack on hypnosis by the media in the 90s yes I think I do know what I am talking about.

Tell me can you give me a few reasons why you are qialified to call me arrogant and why I might be wrong for thinking you to be totally ignorant? Can you give just one reason to take you seriously?
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Oct 6, 2010 06:54PM)
I'm working and not constantly on the Café...
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Oct 7, 2010 02:38AM)
Why don't we ask everyone else if they think you're arrogant MP?

Btw. I'm not asking to be taken seriously. Neither am I professing to 'know it all' ;)
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Oct 13, 2010 02:17PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-26 11:50, Anthony Jacquin wrote:

And for the record the producers made me do the chicken. We wrangled for two hours explaining it was beyond cliche, to the point the job was in the balance. Oh well, it got the biggest laugh on the night after the superfan.

Anthony
[/quote]

Mmmmm maybe the audience doesn't know about sets, and doesn't want to made to think? Interesting yes?
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 15, 2010 05:27AM)
I think the producers know what the audience wants. Or at least what they want. And that show isn't about thinking. Candy floss tv.

They had it all planned from controlling the hypnotist to controlling the paid volunteers.
Message: Posted by: Axel (Oct 15, 2010 01:29PM)
Here it is:

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

Anthony, you are my hero...

;-)

I'll try to catch you in cologne in November.

Best,

Lexa
Message: Posted by: bobser (Oct 15, 2010 04:34PM)
That doesn't sound right!
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Oct 15, 2010 07:29PM)
Thanks Lexa. Cologne will be a great weekend I assure you.

Anthony
Message: Posted by: Axel (Oct 16, 2010 02:31AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-15 17:34, bobser wrote:
That doesn't sound right!
[/quote]

Sorry for that...
Message: Posted by: bobser (Oct 16, 2010 06:54PM)
That's ok. I'm more worried now about the reply you got!
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Oct 16, 2010 07:34PM)
I'm no propagandist of street hypnosis being illegal, in fact I didn't think it was so I wrote to my MP and got a comment from parliament which I have posted in full below and which seems to agree that it's either busking or a private affair between two people. Pretty much anyway.

What gets me is why, unless you are promoting a show, or running a course on it, why on earth would anyone not being paid Want to go out in the street and hypnotise anyone? Just what is the point? Looks a bit like !@#$%^&*()_+ from where I sit. :) In saying that of course I was the first in the 90's to write about doing Impromptu hypnosis at parties to build a client list, and just to practice. But that's inside not streetwise so I guess that doesn't count.

Here's the letter from my MP;-

To Paul Harvey [pp] Richard Younger-Ross MP.
From Philip Ward
Home Affairs Section
House of Commons Library
[re: the Hypnotist under the name Jonathan Chase ]

“A constituent, a practising hypnotist, has written to you seeking an interpretation of the Hypnotism Act 1952. I understand that his concern springs from the activities of “street hypnotist” who may fall outside any licensing regime.

This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. Is should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.

The Hypnotism Act 1952 makes it a criminal offence to conduct hypnotism for public entertainment unless an appropriate license has been issued. Section 2 of the Act, as amended, states:

No person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on an living person at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, at any place, unless

(a) The controlling authority have authorised that exhibition, demonstration or performance under this section (…)

“Controlling authority” is defined to mean the local authority in its role as “licensing authority”, following the meaning given to that phrase by the Licensing Act 2003.1 The 1952 Act further prescribes that no act of hypnotism of the kind covered by the Act shall be performed on anyone under the age of 18 (s3). Scientific or medical users are outside the scope of the Act (s5):

Nothing in this Act shall prevent the exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism (otherwise than at or in connection with an entertainment) for scientific or research purposes or for the treatment of mental or physical disease.

It is open for the licensing authority to impose such conditions as it may see fit on any hypnotism license. The licensing authority must decide, in each case, whether an act of hypnotism requires licensing under the 1952 Act. As you appreciate, the House of Commons Library cannot provide an interpretation of the law; that is a matter for the courts.

Displays of public hypnotism are not “regulated entertainment” for the purposes of the Licensing Act 2003. However, in the absence of case law2 on street hypnotism, it maybe helpful to compare the treatment of entertainment under the 2003 Act. The 1952 Act is concerned with “entertainment to which the public are admitted (…) at any place”. The status of “street hypnotists” calls to mind the debates about “busking” which arise from the Licensing Act 2003. Under the 2003 Act, regulated entertainment is licensable when it takes place on “premises”. “Premises” are defined to include “any place”3, and this is generally understood to include places outdoors. Thus commercial open air music concerts fall to be licensed. It is less clear whether busking is licensable. A legal textbook devotes several paragraphs to this problem and concludes that it is “unlikely” that busking requires authorisation under a premises license or temporary event notice.4

The book cites a Court of Appeal ruling from 1996 which held that a busker who habitually played his guitar in one spot in Leicester Square was not providing music at a “place” and therefore did not require a license.5 The court adopted a “purposive” approach in respect of the word “place” and concluded that the entertainment licensing regime is not designed to deal with situations where what is going on is in a street to which every music-maker or other member of the public has access.

This is consistent with advice from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which invokes the “incidental music” exemption under the 2003 Act:

Is busking licensable?

In most circumstances busking, in the sense that the word is normally used, will not be licensable.

Busking is usually “incidental” to other activities – such as shopping – or the premises where the music is played will not have been provided for busking to take place. There may however be instances that fall outside this, and other laws and by-laws may apply. Licensing authorities will be able to tell individual performers whether or not they need permission to perform in any given circumstances.6

When parliament debated stage hypnotism in 1994 in the wake of several cases of mental harm caused to subjects, the then Minister expressed concern that the “research” exemption was open to misuse:

Michael Forsyth: My hon. Friend the member of Taunton (Mr Nicholson) has been in touch with me about an unauthorised display of hypnotism in a public house in his constituency. It seems that the hypnotist concerned claimed that the performance was being conducted for research, and argued the he needed no licence or other authorisation because of the exemption that I mentioned earlier.

It is not for me to interpret the law in that or any other particular case, but it seems questionable whether a performance of hypnotism in a public house can genuinely be described for research. However, the local licensing authority, on which responsibility for enforcing the requirements of the Hypnotism Act 1952 rests, did not feel able to initiate a prosecution.

Further concerns over enforcement were raised by an article published in October in Stage and Television Today, which the hon. Gentleman drew to my attention. It suggests that the other stage hypnotists were to conduct demonstrations for research purposes, so avoiding the licensing requirements of the Hypnotism Act. Clearly if it were possible to circumvent the controls of the Act on entertainments involving hypnotism simply by labelling the performance “research”, the purpose of the Act would be undermined. In fact, the issues arising out of stage hypnotism and the legislation controlling it have never been clear-cut.7

The Home Office issued guidance to licensing authorities in 1953, at about the time when the Act came into force. That guidance was revised in 1989, and issued as a Home Office circular to local authorities.8 In 1994 the Government announced a review of the workings of the Hypnotism Act 1952 by a panel of experts.9 The review examined evidence of possible harm to people taking part in entertainment involving hypnotism and considered the appropriateness of the present regime of control. The results were set out in a new Home Office circular.10 The 1996 circular includes enhanced “model conditions” that local authorities might consider attaching to an authorisation but makes no mention of street entertainers or the research exemption. ”

________________________
1 Licensing Act 2003 s3
2 The only case law I have been able to find on hypnotism concerns allegations that the subject suffered mental harm as a result of a stage act.
3 Licensing Act 2003 s193
4 Colin Manchester et al, Alcohol and entertainment licensing law, 2nd edn, 2008, pp 162-163
5 R v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, ex p McDonald [1996] 15 LS Gaz R 30
6 http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/alcohol_and_entertainment/4060.aspx#27
7 HC Deb 14th December 1994 cc749-750
8 Home Office Circular 42/1989
9 “Ministers to review hypnotic stage acts”, Independent, 14th December 1994
10 Home Office Circular 39/1996, Stage hypnotism: review of the Hypnotism Act 1952
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Oct 16, 2010 07:36PM)
The word that apparently adults shouldn't use is the 'M' word meaning self gratification of a sexual nature.
Message: Posted by: MatthewH (Oct 17, 2010 05:46AM)
Hey Jonathan - thanks for posting the parliament comment. Puts a lot of recent discussions here in a bit more perspective.

As for "why on earth would anyone not being paid Want to go out in the street and hypnotise anyone? Just what is the point? "

...it's fun. For those hypnotising, and for those being hypnotised. In fact especially for those being hypnotised, as in 95% of the time (not official figures!!!), they've never met a hypnotist or even seen hypnosis live...let alone experience it.

I don't like golf - "why on earth would anyone want to chase a little ball etc. etc. etc...."
Different people like different things.
Sometimes we like the same things.
I really like your "Deeper and Deeper" book, and I'm pretty sure you do too!

Now, let's all have a group hug!
Cheers....
Matt
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Oct 17, 2010 08:42AM)
Thanks for the info jon, here is a link to the home office circular

http://agendas.luton.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=18251

could anyone explain how derren b got permission to do the needle through hand effect a few years ago?- is it just the fact he didn't state Hypnosis was the reason the volunteer could feel no pain? (there was no suggestion of sleep etc.)

(yes I know its a hypno 'trick')
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Oct 17, 2010 04:43PM)
Hi Matt,

Sorry but messing around with the psyche is hardly the same as hitting a ball around. I'm not fond of MP but I do see his point. Hypnosis isn't strictly magic where if something goes wrong you just fail. With hypnosis you are accessing in a profound way the same mental process that causes phobia's and psychosis. That comes with a degree of responsibility me thinks.

Now you say the people doing and participating in the hypnosis enjoy it , fair enough, I've enjoyed doing it for 30 years. But supposing that everyone hypnotised enjoys it is an frigging unbelievable generalisation. What if they don't and the hypnotist doesn't notice or is just too naive to deal with it when the people they are 'with' take exception to the act? I see MPs point there. The more doing it as 'practice' the higher the chance of the inevitable ambulance chaser.

Unlike MP however I am not concerned it would injure 'hypnosis' or me, but it will put the bloody insurance sky high again and that is a bit of a sod. I have nothing against amateur hypnotists. Hypnosis is full of amateurish 'professionals' lets face it. However like bullet catching and making Tigers appear from thin air, I think it should happen in a suitable place and controlled environment with much more than complete neglect of it's underlying psychology.

And to be honest I think it should be done for a good-for-the-roses load of money as well? But then it isn't my hobby or sideline ;-)
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Oct 17, 2010 04:55PM)
Hi Cat,

He didn't. The guy was psychologically 'tested' back stage. Last I heard this done by seeing if their hands 'lock' together with suggestion, which if you read my book you'll know is actually an induction of itself.

I don't know what Derren did but I would then bang them under and tell them everything I was going to do would work the way I wanted it too and then tell them to forget what I had just done. They won't feel or even suspect they have been hypnotised because there will have been no actual trance.

By saying no Hypnosis will be used the subconscious has to access their pattern for hypnosis to understand what isn't being used. Which has little or no effect on most people. However some people are very easily hypnotised, influenced and directed, we call them Somnambulists, so for them accessing the word hypnosis puts them so close to being hypnotised, they are.

Derren denies hypnosis in exactly the same way as Kreskin and Banchek does, and they all get it because of the "Somnambulist Syndrome™©®℗" No one is going to sue or bring in the 1952 act because no one, not even a hypnotist, can prove hypnosis happened.

And to be honest it's like making a building disappear, no one really cares ;-)

Hope this helps. If you need any more info start a topic though.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 17, 2010 05:21PM)
I'm glad you agree with me on some points Jon with regards to responsability. Finally we are starting to talk some sense on here. And its good to see your letter from your MP. But there are also other documents and letters that conflict with what your MP says. But lets put that aside. Anyone who is genuinely interested in finding them can on other threads.

But one thing I can't see is thay by saying no hypnosis will be used then hypnotising someone how that would change anything legally? Or in any other form lets not even talk about legal matters for now. Its a bit like saying Im going to kick your head in but there will be no violence or brute force used. Then you kick their head in. Ok perhaps not the nicest comparison but you get my point.

Saying your not going to do something doesn't make it so. I really don't understand the logic? Unless of course you believe this is some loophole in the law. is that the case?

I can't recall the details and Im not going to spend hours trying to find it. But in the States there was once a case where a "counsellor" acting for the courts "interviewd" a young boy being accused of murdering one of his school friends. She relaxed him and took him through a process and ended up implanting false memories to the point where he actually believed he had murdered this girl when in fact he was innocent.

It was either during or after the case experts on hypnosis were brought in and it was ruled that the counsellor had indeed used hypnosis even although she hadn't been trained in hypnosis or was aware that what she was doing was indeed hypnosis. The boy was found innocent and the use of hypnosis as a way to extract evidence was outlawed in that state if not the whole of the US. Not only did she claim she didn't use hypnosis she denied any skills or knowledge of hypnsosis but it WAS still ruled that in fact what she done WAS hypnosis.

So the problem I have with "I don't do hypnosis" when in fact you are doing what is commonly thought of as hypnosis would be deemed to be the case. Again this is just speculation but so is the point of view that you would get away with it.

And again there are threads with posts to links that clearly show the UK 1952 act indeed covers other similar processes not exactly the same as hypnosis.

Im just curious as to why you and many believe denying something would make it so? Are you all hypnotising yourselves?
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Oct 17, 2010 06:12PM)
Thanks for both replies, since reading the 'conditions' it appears more and more of Derren's routines clash with the guidance, though he never states the term 'hypnosis'
his recent 'hero @2000 feet' certainly seemed to put the guy in a state of distress a number of times.
I totally see your point Jon re:- proving hypnosis exists as an argument, I can also see MP's point though.
for the record I have never done 'street' and I am a safety concious sort of guy.
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Oct 17, 2010 06:18PM)
BTW I have watched a lot of your on-line video's Jon and love them- 'lucy' is a brilliant example , I'm very tied up this year, but would love to attend your seminars next year.
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Oct 17, 2010 06:23PM)
Mp do you actually read these posts?

The letter I put up was TOO my Member of parliament FROM the governments legal advisory and research department called the Library of parliament.

The thing is a law is tested in court and the 52 act has NEVER been tested and never will be because no one would risk it with even a cursory look at hypnosis, so the only similar case is for busking.

I don't care about conflicting ideas about the law because the majority of them are from hypnotists with NO frigging idea of what they are talking about. And one or two from councils who all say they would have to ask their legal department who, believe it or not, would contact the Library of parliament for interpretation and would get exactly the same letter as the one I got.

Not doing 'hypnosis'. . .

Well number 1 I'm not American and neither is the law in question so I really don't care about that. Number 2 it would have to be proven in court that hypnosis was used after the fact. Now if there is no trance - and that is what the law suggests is hypnosis, or sleep like state then there is no hypnosis.

Or if the hypnosis is self induced, again the law does not stop that being publicly displayed.

Anyone who understands the underlying psychology with hypnosis would easily be able to both produce it's effects and to convince a court that hypnosis doesn't happen. Mainly because in legal terms it doesn't. However it will never come to that because no one will bother. Hypnosis isn't that important anywhere too bother.

My concern is A: for some poor bloke who knows how to hypnotise but who doesn't understand it and so when the ambulance chaser comes after their house and home they can't talk their way out of it. And B: For the poor sod who gets told to do something and the post hypnotic isn't removed properly and although they have a great time at the time 3 hours later they experience a less than fantastic effect. it's that I worry about. Not the media or the councils or police who have got better things to do than chase some entertainer.
Message: Posted by: MatthewH (Oct 17, 2010 08:39PM)
"Sorry but messing around with the psyche is hardly the same as hitting a ball around"
Hey Jon - I certainly wasn't comparing golf to hypnosis! I was just making a point that different people find things enjoyable that others don't. I don't like golf, but others do. I like street hypnotism, others (including yourself) don't.

Of course I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a degree of responsibility.

"But supposing that everyone hypnotised enjoys it is an frigging unbelievable generalisation. What if they don't and the hypnotist doesn't notice or is just too naive to deal with it when the people they are 'with' take exception to the act?"

Well, when I said "...it's fun. For those hypnotising, and for those being hypnotised," of course it's a generalisation. If the majority didn't appear to enjoy it, I'd probably say the opposite. However the "what ifs" are just that, and if my aunt had b****cks she'd be my uncle etc!


"And to be honest I think it should be done for a good-for-the-roses load of money as well? But then it isn't my hobby or sideline ;-) "
Nor mine ;-)

All that aside, it's great to see you posting here and to get your insights and vast knowledge of the hypno business, and nice to hear that you still really enjoy what you do after 30 years. There's probably not a lot of professions where you can say that. Good luck with the new show.
Cheers...
Matt
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 18, 2010 07:40AM)
Well I am pleased you are concerned about

>>>>
My concern is A: for some poor bloke who knows how to hypnotise but who doesn't understand it and so when the ambulance chaser comes after their house and home they can't talk their way out of it. And B: For the poor sod who gets told to do something and the post hypnotic isn't removed properly and although they have a great time at the time 3 hours later they experience a less than fantastic effect. it's that I worry about. Not the media or the councils or police who have got better things to do than chase some entertainer.<<<<

At least we agree on that. Which seems to be a change of direction from one of your earlier posts saying that you should just go out and give it ago with references to hypnosis being a trick found in a car boot sale. At least now on the forum we are starting talk about real dangers that can and will happen eventually if there are enough people trying to hypnotise with no training etc.

They seem to be ommited and denied by most if not all of the vendors on here.

Thing about all this being tested in court etc. What I don't understand is why did Paul Mckenna find himself in court if what you say is true? Or Robert Halpern who was sued for £20k and the Venue 90k? It seems to me your talking about technicalities that most competent lawyers can get around. and would most likely go another route anyway.

Im no legal expert but its pretty clear to me in the two cases mentioned plus there are others that indeed the hypnotists did find themselves in a compromised position. Mckenna being the smarter of the two by covering his ass. And following the law to the letter. Still he claimed it cost him millions in lost contracts and was a major reason he lost his relationship. The argument you put forward doesn't change the fact if a lawyer wants to come after you they will hit you another way. But there is a whole thread on that no po int repeating here.

As for the media perhaps it won't affect you Jon. Perhaps it won't affect me I might not even be performing hypno shows in the future. But I was affected very deeply during the 90s when I was high profile up here in Scotland. I was affected both professionally and socially. I just don't want to see hypnosis tainted again.

My recent return doing a few shows show that while its fresh and new again there are still plenty members of the public concerned about hypnosis being dangerous. I heard stories true or false of people they supposedly know who had changed after being on stage.

Only a few hours ago I got a call from a cabaret bar asking if I do hypnosis. And was asking if its "legal once again". Many agents up here won't touch hypnotists because of the last bad media attack.

Perhaps it won't affect you or anyone but chances are it will. So there you are. Perception of many is that its dangerous and "illegal". Now that a peception but it affects those that do hypnosis for a living.

Should we get another wave of media attacks due to a few accidents then it will affect most people in some way.

The current street trend is a xmas present at any time of the year to the media.
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Oct 18, 2010 07:53AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-18 08:40, mindpunisher wrote:

The current street trend is a xmas present at any time of the year to the media.
[/quote]

It certainly was for Endemol and ITV. They being 'the media' wanted a 'Street Hypnotist'.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 18, 2010 08:04AM)
Ant media being the news. And how you can compare a TV production that has huge funds and legal department with the typical hobbiest who buys products that tell him its safe just go out and do it I don't know. Someone with no idea of what can go wrong no training etc that's the kind of stuff the media will ove to sensationalise should anything happen.

There are school kids for christ sake doing it. Even Jon has his concerns.

Are you honestly telling me you don't see it?

Peter Powers has been doing hypnosis in the street for TV for years. its nothing
new.

So tell me Ant when you go for these gigs do you tell the producer you don't need insurance everything is totally safe and to just ignore the 1952 Act?
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Oct 18, 2010 08:11AM)
I was just sticking to the topic, Hypnosis on ITV :)
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 18, 2010 08:16AM)
And no actually you were responding to my post. But perhaps you didn't quite think it through.

So those producers don't buy into what you sell your followers? Don't you think you should share it with them? Or are you just concerned about sales?
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Oct 18, 2010 08:26AM)
???
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 18, 2010 08:45AM)
Confused Ant?
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Oct 18, 2010 09:02AM)
The three question marks were a clear indication that Ant required more elaboration on your post, MP.

Try to answer a few posts without being an ar$e :)
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 18, 2010 09:18AM)
The question was simple - do you tell producers when you go for tv gigs that no insurance is needed or that the 1952 act should be ignored the same way you tell those that buy your products? Or of if you haven't attended these gigs do you honestly think they would agree with what you usually claim?

I will also elaborate - if the way Ant does street hypnosis IS legal as he said on the recent TV programme can he tell us how he does that? And claiming his way is legal does that mean he agrees there is an illegal way? Because I would be interested to know. And it is in topic with hypnosis on TV.

Is that clear enough for you Zeruble?

Forgive me for being such an ass.... You obviously know the answer to the above but I don't. I don't have your ability to read question marks. You should put out an ebook on that.Its very impressive!
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Oct 18, 2010 12:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-17 17:55, JonChase wrote:

By saying no Hypnosis will be used the subconscious has to access their pattern for hypnosis to understand what isn't being used. Which has little or no effect on most people. However some people are very easily hypnotised, influenced and directed, we call them Somnambulists, so for them accessing the word hypnosis puts them so close to being hypnotised, they are.

[/quote]

That is genius!
Its like the 'dont think of a pink elephant' nlp thing, very clever.