We need the law changed.

[ninman]

I believe that there should be laws in place either banning people from claiming to have mystic powers without proof or charging people for seeing these so cold mystic powers, preferably both though.

How can we as a society accept the morality of people taking money from people to do things such as speak to their dead relative when it's been proven over and over again to be fake. I think this stuff should just be banned outright, from television, public places and also for people who want to make money from it. I'm so sick and tired of these people asking "is it real?", how can people be so stupid?

Unfortunately they can, and the law needs to protect the vulnerable, not allow these frauds to go around unchecked, taking advantage of them. Who is with me?

[fagin]

Presumably that would mean banning all religions. Good idea but good luck with the implementation.

[ninman]

I actually tried to start a petition on the UK governments website having Uri Geller put in prison for fraud, and they wouldn't accept it. I think religion would be ok because they don't charge people, but frankly the world would be a better place without religion too.

[volatile]

The UK already has a "False Mediums" act... it's just never enforced.

[ninman]

I guess you need to ask "how do you prove someone's a false medium?" But seriously isn't it up to the person who says they have "powers" to prove they have them, not up to everyone else to disprove it?

Why don't they inforce it, I mean it's so morally wrong taking advantage of people like that?

[ninman]

btw if you want to see Geller and Sky One's blatant disregard for this law type in Uri Geller braniac to Youtube. You'll see him doing the same little magic tricks he's been doing for 30 years. You'd think he'd have come up with something new by now?

[hipparchia]

The world is in a much worse shape than Ninman imagines. In Bulgaria not only are psychics not illegal, they can set up business after paying a modest fee. Recently, one woman with psychic claims- talking to god, healing, received an award from the president.

I don't like that either...

[H3LL]

The UK already has a "False Mediums" act... it's just never enforced.

Close, but no cigar :D




Fraudulent Mediums



Act, 1951

Chapter 33

An Act to repeal the Witchcraft Act, 1735 and to make, in substitution for certain provisions of section four of the Vagrancy Act 1824, express provision for the punishment of persons who fraudulently purport to act as spiritualistic mediums or to exercise powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers.
[22 June 1951.]
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person


who-(a) with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or

(b) in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise such powers as aforesaid, uses any fraudulent device,shall be guilty of an offence. (2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection unless it is proved that he acted for reward; and for the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to act for reward if any money is paid, or other valuable thing given, in respect of what he does, whether to him or to any other person.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding (the prescribed sum) or to imprisonment for a tern not exceeding four months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, or on conviction on indictment to a fine... or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be, brought in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(5) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment

Repeals.2.- Repeals
The following enactments are hereby repealed, that is to
say-

9 Geo. 2. c.5 . (a) the Witchcraft Act 1735, so far as still in force, and5 Geo. 4. c. 83 (b) section four of the Vagrancy Act 1824 so far as it extends to persons purporting to act as spiritualistic mediums or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or to persons who, in purporting so to act or to exercise such powers, use fraudulent devices. Short title and extent.3.-(1) This Act may be cited as the Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951.(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.


Last successful conviction 1992, I understand.



.

[chillzero]

That law has recently been changed in the UK, and should enable tighter enforcement on people charging for claiming to speak to the dead, etc. However, all it takes is one little disclaimer, that no-one really takes seriously, to get past the legal stuff.

[ninman]

I can't understand why we as a society keep on tolerating and entertaining these people, and allowing them to make a living off of others grieff. I mean con artists go to prison all the time, why does saying "I'm a medium" make it any different?

[Kahalachan]

I agree, but it would be highly difficult to prove intent to deceive.

Some people honestly believe in this stuff and believe they have these powers, so can we hold them guilty of a crime for not really having the intent to lie or cheat?

I think it is the intent that must be punished, not an accidental by product of a woo belief.

[ninman]

I agree, but it would be highly difficult to prove intent to deceive.

Some people honestly believe in this stuff and believe they have these powers, so can we hold them guilty of a crime for not really having the intent to lie or cheat?

I think it is the intent that must be punished, not an accidental by product of a woo belief.

I think any lawyer would tell you that ignorance is no defence. If you create a law that states you cannot practise as a medium without having proven your powers under proper controlled conditions, then that eliminates the problem. You may believe in it, but unless you can prove it you cannot charge money to people.

I guess we could have a test like a driving test. Only it would have a 0% pass rate.

[suicidesamurai]

I mean con artists go to prison all the time, why does saying "I'm a medium" make it any different?Because you can't really prove they don't have psychic powers. It would be like proving a higher power doesn't exist. If you indict someone for fraud, there has to be evidence of that fraud. The only evidence you could use against a psychic is that they really don't have psychic powers. How do you prove that? Maybe you would need them on tape admitting their lack of psychic ability.

[chillzero]

I think any lawyer would tell you that ignorance is no defence. If you create a law that states you cannot practise as a medium without having proven your powers under proper controlled conditions, then that eliminates the problem. You may believe in it, but unless you can prove it you cannot charge money to people.

Then, after you overcome the 'for entertainment purposes' disclaimer, your next battle is that although they could not charge money, there is nothing to prevent them accepting 'gifts' for their services. In fact, that's how a lot already operate, and that includes various forms of new-age therapies, such as reiki, etc.

I have come at this from both sides - when I was a practicing tarot reader and 'healer', I did not accept payment - legally I couldn't with no official business setup. I accepted gifts, however, and I learnt that from those who taught me how to get into it as a business, who were also making a lot of money from people who came to them. Thankfully in my own attempts to determine a way for psychics etc to be tested and 'approved', I learned how these things actually work. I wanted a government-run system whereby an approved list was created, and people had to pass some kind of level of accuracy, or some kind of test in order to prove they were not frauds. As I quickly learned after coming here, such tests only go to show that the ability is not real.

[Loss Leader]

I believe that there should be laws in place either banning people from claiming to have mystic powers without proof or charging people for seeing these so cold mystic powers, preferably both though.

How can we as a society accept the morality of people taking money from people to do things such as speak to their dead relative when it's been proven over and over again to be fake. I think this stuff should just be banned outright, from television, public places and also for people who want to make money from it. I'm so sick and tired of these people asking "is it real?", how can people be so stupid?

Unfortunately they can, and the law needs to protect the vulnerable, not allow these frauds to go around unchecked, taking advantage of them. Who is with me?



I'm sick and tired of people claiming that the sun is the center of the universe when it has been proven over and over again that it is the earth. For hundreds of years, our best scientists and Bible scholors have replicated experiment after experiment showing that the earth is the center of the universe.

How can we as a society accept the morality of people taking money to teach such falsehoods and of jeopardizing the imortal souls of those whom their teachings infect.

The law needs to protect vulnerable college stuents and not allow these frauds to go around the University of Pisa unchecked.

---------

See what I did there? I satarized your post to make the point that whatever you think you know today may not be what you know tomorrow. We have shown many psychics to be frauds and, in fact, no psychic has ever been shown to be genuine. But that doesn't mean that a true psychic won't emerge tomorrow.

[Kahalachan]

I think any lawyer would tell you that ignorance is no defence. If you create a law that states you cannot practise as a medium without having proven your powers under proper controlled conditions, then that eliminates the problem. You may believe in it, but unless you can prove it you cannot charge money to people.

I guess we could have a test like a driving test. Only it would have a 0% pass rate.

I don't think we can go to an all out ban of woo though.

I would argue the product that is truly being sold is happyness, rather than communications. Mediums don't claim to be cell phones to the netherworld, so it's not like we can hold them to those same standards. They claim that they can sense or feel emotions mostly.

"I sense that your husband loves you and wants you to be happy" is going to be difficult to prove fraudulent. All we can say is they are making general claims that aren't backed with evidence.

I would hold them to fraud if they state something like "Your husband was murdered by someone living in Germany" where resources are being wasted for this claim.

If the medium sells a form of happyness, although we would say it is false happyness, it's kind of hard to say that they are cheating the customer who really wants to pay money for this sense of false happyness.

It is the customers that we must reach and convince them to boycott these places.

[ninman]

Because you can't really prove they don't have psychic powers. It would be like proving a higher power doesn't exist. If you indict someone for fraud, there has to be evidence of that fraud. The only evidence you could use against a psychic is that they really don't have psychic powers. How do you prove that? Maybe you would need them on tape admitting their lack of psychic ability.

That's the point, in science if you make a claim you must back it up with evidence. I'm a mathematician, if I make a statement I'm the one who is obliged to prove I am correct, not for other people to come up with counter examples to disprove my claims.

It is the same for everything, you say there is a God then YOU must prove it, not other people disprove it. If you say you have powers then YOU must prove you have powers, not others to show you don't.

[ninman]

I don't think we can go to an all out ban of woo though.

I would argue the product that is truly being sold is happyness, rather than communications. Mediums don't claim to be cell phones to the netherworld, so it's not like we can hold them to those same standards. They claim that they can sense or feel emotions mostly.

"I sense that your husband loves you and wants you to be happy" is going to be difficult to prove fraudulent. All we can say is they are making general claims that aren't backed with evidence.

I would hold them to fraud if they state something like "Your husband was murdered by someone living in Germany" where resources are being wasted for this claim.

If the medium sells a form of happyness, although we would say it is false happyness, it's kind of hard to say that they are cheating the customer who really wants to pay money for this sense of false happyness.

It is the customers that we must reach and convince them to boycott these places.

Guess you don't know what cold reading is.

[chillzero]

It is the customers that we must reach and convince them to boycott these places.

I agree. I think that educating people about cold reading, etc, so that they no longer feel the need to visit psychics, will do a lot more good than turning the psychics into martyrs for their cause.

We've already seen the impact a site like www.stopsylviabrowne.com (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com) can have, so hopefully we can continue that good work with other psychics, or at least point to that site as an indicator of how wrong even the most famous 'psychics' can be.

[suicidesamurai]

That's the point, in science if you make a claim you must back it up with evidence. I'm a mathematician, if I make a statement I'm the one who is obliged to prove I am correct, not for other people to come up with counter examples to disprove my claims.

It is the same for everything, you say there is a God then YOU must prove it, not other people disprove it. If you say you have powers then YOU must prove you have powers, not others to show you don't.But in a court of law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove you did something (fake psychic abilities), not for the defendant to prove they didn't do it.

[chillzero]

Guess you don't know what cold reading is.

I think the point was that the general public tend not to know this.

[ninman]

I'm sick and tired of people claiming that the sun is the center of the universe when it has been proven over and over again that it is the earth. For hundreds of years, our best scientists and Bible scholors have replicated experiment after experiment showing that the earth is the center of the universe.

How can we as a society accept the morality of people taking money to teach such falsehoods and of jeopardizing the imortal souls of those whom their teachings infect.

The law needs to protect vulnerable college stuents and not allow these frauds to go around the University of Pisa unchecked.

---------

See what I did there? I satarized your post to make the point that whatever you think you know today may not be what you know tomorrow. We have shown many psychics to be frauds and, in fact, no psychic has ever been shown to be genuine. But that doesn't mean that a true psychic won't emerge tomorrow.

I think you are sadly deluded. The best we could hope for is warp drive similar to Star Trek.

[ninman]

But in a court of law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove you did something (fake psychic abilities), not for the defendant to prove they didn't do it.

Precisely, which is why the legal system must test these people BEFORE they can call themselves mediums or whatever.

[Cainkane1]

You wouldn't be able to enforce this law. The fakers would do it anyway and the people who believed in this nonsense would view arrests and or fines as harassing free religious speech. Making martyrs of these jerks would be counter productive.

[ninman]

You wouldn't be able to enforce this law. The fakers would do it anyway and the people who believed in this nonsense would view arrests and or fines as harassing free religious speech. Making martyrs of these jerks would be counter productive.

So how do we stamp it out permenantly?

[suicidesamurai]

Precisely, which is why the legal system must test these people BEFORE they can call themselves mediums or whatever.But that would put all of them out of business! :eek:

I like the idea, but I have to think about whether or not it would conflict with my libertarian views.

[chillzero]

I think you are sadly deluded. The best we could hope for is warp drive similar to Star Trek.

I think you have misunderstood another very good point that has been put to you. As skeptics, we should be open to the fact that we may be wrong, and as humanity is always evolving, then at some point a true psychic ability may emerge. We mostly expect this will not happen, but we cannot rely on our own current knowledge based on current scientific data, when something may alter that in future.

I think you are responding too quickly to read and take in what some of us are saying, actually.

To lay down an all-out ban on anything 'woo-ish' is wrong. We can only act where we have verified scientific evidence against or for something. This isn't the case with psychics or many other new-age beliefs and practices.

[chillzero]

So how do we stamp it out permenantly?

It's already been suggested to you twice now. We educate the public about how the tricks are done, about how they are fooled into believing these people. Education is the key.

[ninman]

I think you have misunderstood another very good point that has been put to you. As skeptics, we should be open to the fact that we may be wrong, and as humanity is always evolving, then at some point a true psychic ability may emerge. We mostly expect this will not happen, but we cannot rely on our own current knowledge based on current scientific data, when something may alter that in future.

I think you are responding too quickly to read and take in what some of us are saying, actually.

To lay down an all-out ban on anything 'woo-ish' is wrong. We can only act where we have verified scientific evidence against or for something. This isn't the case with psychics or many other new-age beliefs and practices.

I'm a scientist, magician and an open minded person, but I also "believe" in evolution. I doubt very much that people will ever be able to see into the future for a good reason. If you can see the future and then you change it, that makes you wrong, because you didn't see that would you change the future.

I also cannot possibly comprehend anyone speaking to a dead person. Thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain, when you die they stop. Simple as that. The reason people hold onto "an afterlife" is because they are too scared to admit their or mortality.

[ninman]

It's already been suggested to you twice now. We educate the public about how the tricks are done, about how they are fooled into believing these people. Education is the key.

I'm well aware of people saying that, however James Randi and others such as Penn and Teller have been doing that for years, hasn't worked has it? Uri Geller can still make appearances on programmes for example. Sylvia Browne still appears on the telly.

If it worked then these people would either be in prison, or not be able to make television appearances ever again.

[suicidesamurai]

It's already been suggested to you twice now. We educate the public about how the tricks are done, about how they are fooled into believing these people. Education is the key.Most people, or actually all of us, are stupid about something.

Being dumb is innate to the human condition.

You aren't going to get rid of stupid thinking in the many forms it takes.

You can present people with information, and there will still be Creationists, paranormal believers, flat-Earthers, liberals (;))etc.

The people I think are stupid make up about 97% of the population.

[ninman]

The thing that annoys me about all of this is I could come up with a whole set of magic tricks say 4 or 5 different from Uri Geller's claim to have psychic powers and make millions. How could that possibly be right?

[H3LL]

That law has recently been changed in the UK, and should enable tighter enforcement on people charging for claiming to speak to the dead, etc. However, all it takes is one little disclaimer, that no-one really takes seriously, to get past the legal stuff.

Damn!

I'm useless at wading through legal stuff.

Best I can do is:

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading 2007 (a consultation)

It specifically suggests repealing the Fraudulent Mediums Act (in April 2008???) but I do not know progress or how the old act is incorporated.

Any takers?

:confused:

.

[kosai]

It should also be mentioned that often times in our political system the woo believers are the ones who end up in positions that would rule over any approval process for such a certification. This sets up a monopoly and dangerous situation in which a few choice "psychics" get to approve or disapprove who is "real" and who is not.

Any ban such as this would be challenged as a violation of free speech as well as freedom of religion. Prayer doesn't work either however many people still do it. Many churches do ask for money in return for their services, would these also be banned if such a law were enacted?

Ninman, for a system like you are suggesting to work we would need to become more of a technocracy in which we are led by scientists rather than politicians. Not a terrible idea by any means but I don't think you will get the population of the U.S. to go for it. Don't forget our current (even re-elected!) leader in the U.S. claims to have been told by the peace loving Jesus Christ to start a war.

[ninman]

It should also be mentioned that often times in our political system the woo believers are the ones who end up in positions that would rule over any approval process for such a certification. This sets up a monopoly and dangerous situation in which a few choice "psychics" get to approve or disapprove who is "real" and who is not.

Any ban such as this would be challenged as a violation of free speech as well as freedom of religion. Prayer doesn't work either however many people still do it. Many churches do ask for money in return for their services, would these also be banned if such a law were enacted?

Ninman, for a system like you are suggesting to work we would need to become more of a technocracy in which we are led by scientists rather than politicians. Not a terrible idea by any means but I don't think you will get the population of the U.S. to go for it. Don't forget our current (even re-elected!) leader in the U.S. claims to have been told by the peace loving Jesus Christ to start a war.

True, the last thought that man had died of lonliness.

[chillzero]

Damn!

I'm useless at wading through legal stuff.

Best I can do is:

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading 2007 (a consultation)

It specifically suggests repealing the Fraudulent Mediums Act (in April 2008???) but I do not know progress or how the old act is incorporated.

Any takers?

:confused:

.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96448

:)

[chillzero]

I'm well aware of people saying that, however James Randi and others such as Penn and Teller have been doing that for years, hasn't worked has it? Uri Geller can still make appearances on programmes for example. Sylvia Browne still appears on the telly.

If it worked then these people would either be in prison, or not be able to make television appearances ever again.

You need to check out the number of people turning away from Sylvia Browne thanks to RSLancaster's website. You need to realise the impact that this one individual site has had on the beliefs of many people, and how deeply it has shaken Sylvia Browne and her church. That's just one site.

James Randi and Penn and Teller have a certain approach that often puts people off, so there need to be additional ways of tackling this. The more articles we can put up about when 'psychics' have lied or made things worse, the more demonstrations of cold reading and so on that we can do - aided by people like Derren Brown, and Ian Rowling, the more chances we can educate more people. What's the alternative? Do nothing and hope it somehow stops? Impliment an unworkable and intrusive system of law such as you suggest, and do nothing but gain sympathy for 'them'?

Seriously, I know people will always have blind spots, and unshakeable beliefs. However, there are also those that can be reached, and all we need to do is raise the number enough.

[ninman]

You need to check out the number of people turning away from Sylvia Browne thanks to RSLancaster's website. You need to realise the impact that this one individual site has had on the beliefs of many people, and how deeply it has shaken Sylvia Browne and her church. That's just one site.

James Randi and Penn and Teller have a certain approach that often puts people off, so there need to be additional ways of tackling this. The more articles we can put up about when 'psychics' have lied or made things worse, the more demonstrations of cold reading and so on that we can do - aided by people like Derren Brown, and Ian Rowling, the more chances we can educate more people. What's the alternative? Do nothing and hope it somehow stops? Impliment an unworkable and intrusive system of law such as you suggest, and do nothing but gain sympathy for 'them'?

Seriously, I know people will always have blind spots, and unshakeable beliefs. However, there are also those that can be reached, and all we need to do is raise the number enough.

I know that the Alpha Project completely destroyed Parapsychology, but somehow exposing Uri Geller means he can still get on braniac. I almost wanted to smash my TV when I saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9FbSAsOZb8

[chillzero]

I know that the Alpha Project completely destroyed Parapsychology, but somehow exposing Uri Geller means he can still get on braniac. I almost wanted to smash my TV when I saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9FbSAsOZb8

I hadn't seen that before, but yer man from Dick and Dom isn't the most critical of thinkers. I would prefer to see him try and do the same thing to Richard Hammond.

Regardless, it does not detract from the good work that is being done, some of which I listed already.

[ninman]

How about this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpB4Ar93xwU&NR=1
Note that at no time do you ever see the center of the spoon.

[ninman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYrYuxAzw4

Don't forget that one too. People think that he had guessed the contents because he said 1 and 19, which obviously mean 119 or the 11th of September. I mean c'mon.

[chillzero]

I'm not going to keep watching a load of YouTube clips. I get enough of that in the CT forum.

Nobody disputes that these things are cons and tricks. You are missing the point that I thought you wanted to discuss here. Changing the law is not the whole answer. Yes we can protect people when fraud is clear and proveable legally. It won't stop others, so the best thing to do is explain critical thinking, logic and cold reading, amongst other things.

Perhaps something we could work for is getting Critical Thinking added as a compulsory course on the school curricula.

[ninman]

I'm not going to keep watching a load of YouTube clips. I get enough of that in the CT forum.

Nobody disputes that these things are cons and tricks. You are missing the point that I thought you wanted to discuss here. Changing the law is not the whole answer. Yes we can protect people when fraud is clear and proveable legally. It won't stop others, so the best thing to do is explain critical thinking, logic and cold reading, amongst other things.

Perhaps something we could work for is getting Critical Thinking added as a compulsory course on the school curricula.

Changing the law will help though because it will prevent people from wasting their money on these people and also stop them getting shoved onto our television screens.

[Cuddles]

Changing the law will help though because it will prevent people from wasting their money on these people and also stop them getting shoved onto our television screens.

An important question here is what are laws for? Laws exist because they are what people agree on. We make it against the law to murder because everyone agrees it is best. We have laws against stealing because everyone agrees that is best. We even have laws about taxes because while no-one like paying them, the vast majority of people can see the need for them. Laws bascially exist to enforce the morals of the majority.

Given this, how can you justify laws against psychics, and especially laws against them being on TV? That is what the people want. What is needed is education. Show people that actually psychics can't do what they claim. Show that they hurt people. Show that the only thing worse than psychics on TV is reality TV. Until you can convince the majority that psychics are frauds, no law can be made against them, because that is not what laws do. The law is not there to tell people what is right, it is there to enforce what has already been decided is right. You need to teach people what is right before you can enforce it.

This is why we have things like the Fraudulent Mediums Act. The important word is not "Mediums", it's "Fraudulent". Until it is generally agreed upon that all mediums are fraudulent, the burden of proof lies with the people accusing fraud.

[kosai]

An important question here is what are laws for? Laws exist because they are what people agree on.

Not to mention... this is a room full of skeptics telling you laws against psychics are a bad idea, imagine what will happen if you were to try and pass it off to the Montel watching masses.

[Rasmus55]

We already have too many laws telling us what we cannot do. Yes, people who visit psychics hoping to discover some great truth or talk to dead people are idiots, desperate, or a combination of the two. And yes, there are so called "fortuner telling" laws on the books. Yet people have the right to spend their money even if to their own detriment; such as gambling, buying cigarettes, or booze for that matter. I disagree with psychics and Alison Dubois types with as much zeal as the rest of you, but I believe the correct place to challenge them is in the court of public opinion and marketplace of idea. More laws just adds to our already over-stocked volumes of endless statutes. We are adults, can think for ourselves, and don't need to be protected against such things; if people want to give away their cash to lunatics or frauds claiming such abilities, so be it. It's the fault of the gullable idiot, don't make it society's responsibility or try and mommy legislate.

[ninman]

We already have too many laws telling us what we cannot do. Yes, people who visit psychics hoping to discover some great truth or talk to dead people are idiots, desperate, or a combination of the two. And yes, there are so called "fortuner telling" laws on the books. Yet people have the right to spend their money even if to their own detriment; such as gambling, buying cigarettes, or booze for that matter. I disagree with psychics and Alison Dubois types with as much zeal as the rest of you, but I believe the correct place to challenge them is in the court of public opinion and marketplace of idea. More laws just adds to our already over-stocked volumes of endless statutes. We are adults, can think for ourselves, and don't need to be protected against such things; if people want to give away their cash to lunatics or frauds claiming such abilities, so be it. It's the fault of the gullable idiot, don't make it society's responsibility or try and mommy legislate.

There have been stories of old people being conned by guys in the building trade out of their homes quite literally. They lost everything, many thousands of pounds, would you say that it was the old guys fault for giving his money away? Do you not think we need to help those who are vulnerable and can easily be conned by simple parlour tricks?

[kosai]

There have been stories of old people being conned by guys in the building trade out of their homes quite literally. They lost everything, many thousands of pounds, would you say that it was the old guys fault for giving his money away? Do you not think we need to help those who are vulnerable and can easily be conned by simple parlour tricks?

But where do you draw the line? Those con-men might have taken $10,000 from some elderly couple while Sylvia Browne might make $100,000 from her next best seller. The con-men took it at once from one or two people. Sylvia did it by conning thousands. Do you really envision yourself in a position telling people what they can and can not buy?

The con-man is already covered by the law, many psychics who go into the full on con games are covered by existing law.