http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7354089.stm

I am guessing that the genuine psychics will not be worrying about it.

They can televise the first Trials and package it as PHENOMENON UK...

For personal (people I know getting taken advantage of) and professional reasons, I don't generally like "pyschic readers" (there are exceptions which I don't want to go into) but this seems inappropriate. I hesitate to point it out but there is really no difference, in terms of absolute "proof" between who they want to police and every organized religion I can think of.

Either beliefs are protected or they aren't. Enforcing laws only on those beliefs you don't subscribe to is dangerous. As such, even though I appreciate the spirit of what they want to do, I just can't support this approach in any way.

What thinks you all?

Lem

I think god should be proven before donations are allowed in church. Just like spiritual advice should be outlawed until spirituality proved true. who maybe we should remember that we should have free speech. (last time I checked we did have free speech, but I could be wrong)

What has been said here on matters of faith can be said on other areas as well:
Psychiatry, counseling, investment advice, the list can be very long.

As for those who “charge for entertaining” well, that speaks for itself.

I think as entertainers we can use the same arguement video game producers use... what makes the ideas we express in our form of media wrong, compared to that of poetry, or books.

Then why is it different for entertainers who perform readings?

This was my thought exactly,

I think as long as we aren't claiming to be genuine psychics then we are on steady footing. However, this makes things difficult to police because if two mentalists perform the same routine, and one presents it with a psychic theme rather than a psychological theme, then would they be more likely to be prosecuted ?

What if the person performing with the psychic theme was performing at a gathering of magicians and other mentalists, would this change of environment have any effect from a legal standpoint ?


I fully realise that these new laws are unlikely to affect us as performers but from a hypothetical point of view, how do you think context, method, and presentation would impact on the likelihood of prosecution ?

all the best

Vai

Here in the UK? lol

You can have free speech in the UK but it'll cost ya.

Free speech??? That's where my taxes went then.

Lol. yeah, I was been sarcastic about free speech, I don't really believe we have it. I KNOW we are a communist nation that I SUSPECT has totalitarian inclinations.

Context.

- entity

If this law is passed in the U.K., will Uri Geller offer his services as an expert witness at trials?

Maybe but Criss will be the bailiff and threaten to punch out the expert witnesses....

If he can bend a spoon then surely he can sway a jury!

I don't think the law will be enforced it will be too difficult. I think it will probably affect those telephone psychics and other big operations that make a huge amount of money and are obviously a scam. They hire ordinary people and give them scripts.

I think the spooky churches and "real" mediums won't need to worry.

This is pretty much of a non-story (typical of the BBC). A spirtualist would have the same protection as any religious minister. The key quote is:

"Under the new laws, some mediums feel they will be obliged to prove what they do. And when you're in the business of contacting spirits in the afterlife, that's not easy. " (my emphasis)

The only people who would be hard hit would be practioners of dubious therapies. Then they would be able to tailor their sales pitch to get around any laws. Saying you can contact the dead is different to saying that you have the power to cure illness. There are already laws in place but I suppose this act will tighten things up. Which is a good thing.

As a hypnotherapist (which would be under no threat from this because it is a 'proven therapeutic medium' according to the BPS and BMA) there are certain claims I can not make. Illnesses I can not claim to treat (Cancer, Diabetes, Depression) and illnesses/problems I can not give indicators of speed over. However there are many hypnotherapists who claim to 'cure' depression or to help you 'give up smoking fast!'. Additionally, I can't give success rates without having the evidence to back them up. Some people successfully treat 99 clients out of 100 and then misleadingly claim the chances of successful treatment to be 99% and so on. Yet many hypnotherapists make such claims.

Getting someone to 'prove' a spiritual belief is obviously different from getting people to support health claims. If you say you can heal people then this can be easily tested - and should be.

I'd love to know what criteria the law will use to indicate a pass or a fail.

If they get better you pass if they die you fail...