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.

"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

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.

It certainly was for Endemol and ITV. They being 'the media' wanted a 'Street Hypnotist'.

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?

I was just sticking to the topic, Hypnosis on ITV

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?

???

Confused Ant?

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

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!

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