[dlofnep]

Originally Posted by easychair

You are quite right, although fraud is already illegal in Ireland. Although you may consider it fraud, the legal system does not define fraud as a private transaction between two individuals, of sound mind, where one seeks a service from another.

It is if they do not provide the service offered.

[easychair]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

It is if they do not provide the service offered.

It's an unusual interpretation of fraud to claim that a prediction does not come true.

Certainly, many of the people involved in the grubby business of fortune telling are charlatans in that they know they are not psychic, and are just using age old tricks of the trade, but no one forces someone seeking their "services" to do so, and the poor unfortunates who think they need these services are will buyers.

While I am certain that 100% of those telling fortunes are charlatans, I would rather live in a society which allows idiots to pay charlatans to tell fortunes, rather than in a society which bans that by law, and bans two people over the age of consent to decide for themselves how they want to spend their money.

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by easychair

It's an unusual interpretation of fraud to claim that a prediction does not come true. .

Predictions? We're talking about running conversations with dead relatives.

[dlofnep]

Originally Posted by easychair

It's an unusual interpretation of fraud to claim that a prediction does not come true.

Certainly, many of the people involved in the grubby business of fortune telling are charlatans in that they know they are not psychic, and are just using age old tricks of the trade, but no one forces someone seeking their "services" to do so, and the poor unfortunates who think they need these services are will buyers.

While I am certain that 100% of those telling fortunes are charlatans, I would rather live in a society which allows idiots to pay charlatans to tell fortunes, rather than in a society which bans that by law, and bans two people over the age of consent to decide for themselves how they want to spend their money.

If their predictions are not valid, then they are not offering the service described. Therefore, it is fraud.

[easychair]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

Predictions? We're talking about running conversations with dead relatives.

Whatever they want to talk about is their business. Even if they want to have what many would regard as bogus conversations with dead relatives. Would you really want to legislate to ban idiots, or the grieving, from freely seeking such bogus opinions? I wouldn’t, even though I think some offering the “service” are charlatans and disgraceful.

Originally Posted by dlofnep

If their predictions are not valid, then they are not offering the service described. Therefore, it is fraud.

My prediction is that no court would agree that, if a prediction doesn’t come “true”, then it’s been fraudulently offered in the first place.

The predictions offered by these people are never definite – they never tell who will win the 3.30 on Thursday at Kempton Park, for example, but are usually much more general, and say things like “you are going to meet a tall dark stranger on 2012 and it’s possible romance will be in the offing”. If you don’t meet the tall dark stranger, or if romance doesn’t happen in 2012, it’s unlikely that any court will agree than the lack of meeting a tall dark stranger in 2012, or the lack of romance in 2012, is actionable as fraud.

Homoeopathy has, in the UK, offered their “remedies” as able to prevent Malaria. Which is (a) not true and (b) a disgrace. When they don’t, and the individual who relies on their remedy to prevent malaria contracts malaria, as far as I am aware that’s not actionable. That’s a lot more serious than, for example, telling someone their dead mother “loves” them and wants them to know she is happy.

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by easychair

Whatever they want to talk about is their business. Even if they want to have what many would regard as bogus conversations with dead relatives. Would you really want to legislate to ban idiots, or the grieving, from freely seeking such bogus opinions? I wouldn’t, even though I think some offering the “service” are charlatans and disgraceful.

You're not understanding what I am saying. I've made it clear time and time again.

I at no point have said we should ban "idiots". I said we shouldn't allow these people, the mediums, to use the methods they are to defraud people.

The predictions offered by these people are never definite – they never tell who will win the 3.30 on Thursday at Kempton Park, for example, but are usually much more general, and say things like “you are going to meet a tall dark stranger on 2012 and it’s possible romance will be in the offing”. If you don’t meet the tall dark stranger, or if romance doesn’t happen in 2012, it’s unlikely that any court will agree than the lack of meeting a tall dark stranger in 2012, or the lack of romance in 2012, is actionable as fraud.

Guess why?

Homoeopathy has, in the UK, offered their “remedies” as able to prevent Malaria. Which is (a) not true and (b) a disgrace. When they don’t, and the individual who relies on their remedy to prevent malaria contracts malaria, as far as I am aware that’s not actionable. That’s a lot more serious than, for example, telling someone their dead mother “loves” them and wants them to know she is happy.

"Murder is worse than rape, so we can't ban rape".

2 wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe you feel it's ok for these slimeballs to prey on the grief of others and part them with their money.

[easychair]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

2 wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe you feel it's ok for these slimeballs to prey on the grief of others and part them with their money.

You are right not to believe it because I don't think it's ok either. No one holds a gun to their head and makes then hand over their money, They do it voluntarily, and I just don't think we should ban them from doing it, just because we don't like it.

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by easychair

You are right not to believe it because I don't think it's ok either. No one holds a gun to their head and makes then hand over their money, They do it voluntarily, and I just don't think we should ban them from doing it, just because we don't like it.

But don't you realise they do it viluntarily because they are being told what they want to hear.

I mean, look at fraud. If I tell someone to give me €1000 and i guarentee that the devil will never come into their house and kill them, does it make it ok because they gave me the money voluntarily? Of course not! I've preyed on their fears and veliefs to part them with their money.

It's not right!

[KeithAFC]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

No, that's not how it works.

Sally Morgan is offering a service (a psychic reading) which she does not live up to. Like any other service, it should be scrutinized. If she cannot prove that her offerings are valid and scientifically verified, then she should be sued for fraud.

All these psychics should be outlawed, and placed in prison for fraud unless they can scientifically validate their claims.

There is thousands of these people all over the UK and Ireland. Not one has given a good performance in any test. She is high profile but really, it is at the point now of taking about making it illegal to earn money from this sort of thing.

[Duddy]

Who the hell goes to a psychic show and writes messages to the deceased and puts it in a bowl in the lobby?

Does nobody think "HANG ON A MINUTE!" ?!?

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by Duddy

Who the hell goes to a psychic show and writes messages to the deceased and puts it in a bowl in the lobby?

Does nobody think "HANG ON A MINUTE!" ?!?

Well no because in a way they want to be decieved.

I mean, even though they probably know deep down it's bull, they WANT to believe they will contact their dead relatives.

[maccored]

she was offered a test to be done yesterday but she refused.

[kylith]

Originally Posted by easychair

Homoeopathy has, in the UK, offered their “remedies” as able to prevent Malaria. Which is (a) not true and (b) a disgrace. When they don’t, and the individual who relies on their remedy to prevent malaria contracts malaria, as far as I am aware that’s not actionable. That’s a lot more serious than, for example, telling someone their dead mother “loves” them and wants them to know she is happy.

If only they stuck to telling people that their dead relatives were happy. I was reading Singh's blog yesterday and he tells of being at one of Sally's shows where a woman was told that her deceased relative, who had committed suicide, 1) was still angry that he 'had' to kill himself and 2) that he'd tried three times previously. Do you think that that woman was much comforted by the idea that her relative not only wasn't at rest, but that she and the rest of the family had missed suicide attempts? Sally's reading was complete BS, we know that, but presumably this woman didn't.

Not to mention all the 'psychics' who prey on the families of missing children. One woman told a grieving family that their missing daughter had been sold into slavery in Japan, when in fact the little girl had been murdered and was buried less than 20 miles from her home. Check out whatstheharm.org to see more of what these people do to families that some try to brush under the rug by saying 'they're not hurting anyone'.

[easychair]

Originally Posted by KeithAFC

There is thousands of these people all over the UK and Ireland. Not one has given a good performance in any test. She is high profile but really, it is at the point now of taking about making it illegal to earn money from this sort of thing.

The issue is that it's nigh on impossible to frame a law which bans one person paying for the opinion of another person.

[gbee]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

She'll sue and she'll win

After all, she can see the future. So if she wasnt gonna win she wouldn't bother!

I'd not be so sure, suing is more like a weather forecast, know what's coming but it can still overwhelm us.