The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You are getting sleepy...very sleepy... » » Hypnosis on ITV (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
catweazle
View Profile
Special user
924 Posts

Profile of catweazle
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?
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
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.



And you do? Is t there a degree of unfounded arrogance in this?


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?
Zerububle
View Profile
Elite user
Poole
430 Posts

Profile of Zerububle
I'm working and not constantly on the Café...
Zerububle
View Profile
Elite user
Poole
430 Posts

Profile of Zerububle
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' Smile
JonChase
View Profile
Loyal user
Exeter, UK
212 Posts

Profile of JonChase
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


Mmmmm maybe the audience doesn't know about sets, and doesn't want to made to think? Interesting yes?
Smiles

Jon Chase



http://jonathanchase.com
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
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.
Axel
View Profile
Elite user
Berlin
440 Posts

Profile of Axel
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
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
That doesn't sound right!
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
Anthony Jacquin
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2220 Posts

Profile of Anthony Jacquin
Thanks Lexa. Cologne will be a great weekend I assure you.

Anthony
Anthony Jacquin

Reality is Plastic! The Art of Impromptu Hypnosis
Updated for 2016

Now on Kindle and Audible!
Axel
View Profile
Elite user
Berlin
440 Posts

Profile of Axel
Quote:
On 2010-10-15 17:34, bobser wrote:
That doesn't sound right!


Sorry for that...
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
That's ok. I'm more worried now about the reply you got!
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
JonChase
View Profile
Loyal user
Exeter, UK
212 Posts

Profile of JonChase
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. Smile 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/alc.......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
Smiles

Jon Chase



http://jonathanchase.com
JonChase
View Profile
Loyal user
Exeter, UK
212 Posts

Profile of JonChase
The word that apparently adults shouldn't use is the 'M' word meaning self gratification of a sexual nature.
Smiles

Jon Chase



http://jonathanchase.com
MatthewH
View Profile
New user
96 Posts

Profile of MatthewH
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
catweazle
View Profile
Special user
924 Posts

Profile of catweazle
Thanks for the info jon, here is a link to the home office circular

http://agendas.luton.gov.uk/cmiswebpubli......nt=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')
JonChase
View Profile
Loyal user
Exeter, UK
212 Posts

Profile of JonChase
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 ;-)
Smiles

Jon Chase



http://jonathanchase.com
JonChase
View Profile
Loyal user
Exeter, UK
212 Posts

Profile of JonChase
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.
Smiles

Jon Chase



http://jonathanchase.com
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
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?
catweazle
View Profile
Special user
924 Posts

Profile of catweazle
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.
catweazle
View Profile
Special user
924 Posts

Profile of catweazle
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.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You are getting sleepy...very sleepy... » » Hypnosis on ITV (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.31 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL