"Psychic" Sally Morgan sues over fraud allegations

bnt

The story was in the Daily Mail and the Independent a couple of weeks ago, but the latest is that she's suing "the media", which in this case was RTE's Liveline show. From her Facebook page:

On behalf of Sally Morgan we would like to confirm that Sally Morgan has instructed Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson to commence libel action in relation to press allegations that she is a cheat, following her show in Dublin. Thank you for your support and patience in this matter. Sally Morgan Management Team.

In short: during Morgan's recent Dublin show, a member of the audience overheard technicians apparently feeding information to Morgan from a room at the back. The lady, Sue, called in to Joe Duffy's Liveline show the next day: "Everything he said, she would say ten seconds later."

From a Guardian piece:

Sue speculated, again not unreasonably given the history of psychic frauds, that the man was feeding Sally information that had been gathered by engaging members of the audience in conversation in the foyer before the show began. This is a technique widely used by psychic fraudsters, as audience members will naturally discuss with each other who they are hoping to hear from "on the other side", how their loved one died, and so on.

If the Daily Mail writer is correct, even that isn't the whole story.

Having been to one of Sally’s shows earlier this year, I know that there is no need for her to resort to such electronic subterfuge. For before each show starts, the audience are invited to write messages and leave details of their bereaved relatives in a giant bowl left in the foyer of each venue.

I didn't know that - and if true, it makes it all the more amazing that anyone falls for this stuff at all.

So now I read (from Jack of Kent) that Morgan is suing. It's not entirely clear who Morgan is suing, or what she would hope to get out of it. London is famous for libel tourism, but I find it hard to imagine that even they would find that a caller in to a radio show, reporting what she saw and speculating a bit, was committing libel. If it does come to court, however, I think we need to keep an eye on this one. It would be suing the kid who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes on.

OakeyDokey

She gets the audience to write information on the deceased person! Well that doesn't sound right at all, I don't think she'll get anywhere with this case.

ITS_A_BADGER

ha ha ha let her prove her psychic abilities so on a judge

RMD

How she plans to prove to a court of law she has functioning physic powers is beyond me.

kylith

The spirits say she'll be laughed out of court.

amacachi

One reason the UK is used for libel tourism is that winning is irrelevant, they can destroy someone with legal fees.

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!

easychair

bnt wrote: »

I find it hard to imagine that even they would find that a caller in to a radio show, reporting what she saw and speculating a bit, was committing libel.

You are right as libel only applies to the written word. If they intended to sue someone who was a caller to a radio show, that would be a charge of slander and not libel.

bnt

easychair wrote: »

You are right as libel only applies to the written word. If they intended to sue someone who was a caller to a radio show, that would be a charge of slander and not libel.

That too. It will also depend on exactly what was said: criticising a person's actions is not the same as criticism of the person themselves. I haven't yet listened to exactly what was said on the radio, whether it was worse than the linked articles - which would have been carefully written to avoid such potential problems.

Genghiz Cohen

MrStuffins wrote: »

She'll sue and she'll win

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

The only question is how she didn't foretell that window would be open..
Maybe a Quantum Magnetic flux in the Ether Stream created a Tachyon bubble that stopped her from seeing...

MrStuffins

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

The only question is how she didn't foretell that window would be open..
Maybe a Quantum Magnetic flux in the Ether Stream created a Tachyon bubble that stopped her from seeing...

If she used this excuse in court i'd lose my sh*t!

easychair

bnt wrote: »

That too. It will also depend on exactly what was said: criticising a person's actions is not the same as criticism of the person themselves. I haven't yet listened to exactly what was said on the radio, whether it was worse than the linked articles - which would have been carefully written to avoid such potential problems.

Of course the truth is a perfect defense to either slander or libel. I myself wonder why she wears an earpiece on stage, and wonder what it is she wants to hear in her ear when doing a live psychic show. On this documentary, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5imTBK-OY she can be seen clearly taking an earpiece out of her left ear immediately on leaving the stage at around 5.30.

meryem

Now that's a question we might find answer to in the legal proceedings. It's pretty interesting question.

Akrasia

She hasn't got a leg to stand on. That said, RTE will probably settle out of court ....

ANSI

Akrasia wrote: »

She hasn't got a leg to stand on. That said, RTE will probably settle out of court ....

hasn't got an aura to stand on

_Beau_

I ain't psychic, but, I do foresee a supernaturally high legal bill in her future.

28064212

easychair wrote: »

Of course the truth is a perfect defense to either slander or libel

The problem is proving the truth. In a defamation case, (AFAIK) the person who wrote the piece is the one that needs to prove what they said is true. All the burden of proof is on them*

*IANAL

easychair

28064212 wrote: »

easychair wrote: »

Of course the truth is a perfect defense to either slander or libel

The problem is proving the truth. In a defamation case, (AFAIK) the person who wrote the piece is the one that needs to prove what they said is true. All the burden of proof is on them*

*IANAL

I don't see that will be much of a problem for many of the fine members of the legal profession who will be only too glad to take on the case and argue it. No court case is ever certain, especially a libel suit, and the prospect of an order for costs made against a losing plaintiff should help focus the mind, more especially when both sides disclose their evidence to each other before any trial.

irishjig69b

look guys, if idiots want to spend der cash on this dribble and make her a fortune i say goodluck to her.................i would and so would u do the same

MrStuffins

irishjig69b wrote: »

look guys, if idiots want to spend der cash on this dribble and make her a fortune i say goodluck to her.................i would and so would u do the same

Disgraceful attitude TBH!

irishjig69b

no it aint, what we do with our own money is our own buisness.....i dont believe in this antmore than u do, but alot of people find alot of comfort in it...........so if, as i said want to spend THEIR cash, its up to them

MrStuffins

irishjig69b wrote: »

no it aint, what we do with our own money is our own buisness.....i dont believe in this antmore than u do, but alot of people find alot of comfort in it...........so if, as i said want to spend THEIR cash, its up to them

So you think it's ok for these people to exploit peoples' grief in order to take their money?

Do you think it would be ok for me to say to all of the old people on my road "There's a dinosaur loose in the neighbourhood. Give me €200 and i'll dinosaur-proof yhour house with a magic dance"? Do you think that's ok for me to do? You think it's their money and they can do what they want?

Grand, but it still makes me scum! And these "psychics" are scum! They prey on the weak and the vulnerable and they prey on grief and loss. It's disgusting!

Kadongy

28064212 wrote: »

The problem is proving the truth. In a defamation case, (AFAIK) the person who wrote the piece is the one that needs to prove what they said is true. All the burden of proof is on them*

*IANAL

They could dismiss the case and then charge her with bringing a frivolous lawsuit or something like that. That would prove she's not psychic :pac:

dlofnep

I hope she ends up bankrupt and homeless. She's a thief of the highest order and should be treated with contempt.

irishjig69b

as i said i dont believe in this rubbish either but as i said if people are silly enuf to pay up well thats der look out

MrStuffins

irishjig69b wrote: »

as i said i dont believe in this rubbish either but as i said if people are silly enuf to pay up well thats der look out

Just because people are silly, does not give people the right to exploit their sillyness in order to part them with their money. It's immoral.

irishjig69b

people have the right to do what the hell they want with der own cash, if they believe this dribble thats up to them u and i can moan bout it all we want but my first 15 words is A FACT, failing that, why dont u just pray for their souls.......

dlofnep

irishjig69b wrote: »

people have the right to do what the hell they want with der own cash, if they believe this dribble thats up to them u and i can moan bout it all we want but my first 15 words is A FACT, failing that, why dont u just pray for their souls.......

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.

MrStuffins

irishjig69b wrote: »

people have the right to do what the hell they want with der own cash, if they believe this dribble thats up to them u and i can moan bout it all we want but my first 15 words is A FACT, failing that, why dont u just pray for their souls.......

Well people have a right to do with they want, but others haven't got the right to use fraudulent methods in order to take their money from them.

My issue is not with what people are doing with their money. it is with the people who will lie to them and prey on their weaknesses to take their money from them. I thought i'd made that pretty clear.

And why would I pray? What are you on about?

easychair

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well people have a right to do with they want, but others haven't got the right to use fraudulent methods in order to take their money from them.

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.

dlofnep

easychair wrote: »

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

dlofnep wrote: »

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

easychair wrote: »

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

easychair wrote: »

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

MrStuffins wrote: »

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.

dlofnep wrote: »

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

easychair wrote: »

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? :rolleyes:

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

MrStuffins wrote: »

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

easychair wrote: »

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

dlofnep wrote: »

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

Duddy wrote: »

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

easychair wrote: »

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

KeithAFC wrote: »

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

MrStuffins wrote: »

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.

lee_baby_simms

The net is starting to close around Sally Morgan now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/06/sally-morgan-best-loved-psychic?newsfeed=true

Trampling over the memories of vulnerable people whilst taking their money is morally abhorrent not to mention fraudulent. A vile practice altogether.

deelite

Many years ago I went to a similar show not Morgan's though and all the people who had the dead come to them were seated in the front row of the audience!!!

berrypendel

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

The net is starting to close around Sally Morgan now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/06/sally-morgan-best-loved-psychic?newsfeed=true

Trampling over the memories of vulnerable people whilst taking their money is morally abhorrent not to mention fraudulent. A vile practice altogether.

they are scum who do that