[Merged]Council pays for ghost removal

[Rrose Selavy]

I really don't know where to start with this one....I fell despair that no exorcism can relieve...



She claims the banging was followed by a series of strange happenings, including doors slamming shut, the ghost of a little girl appearing on the landing and, bizarrely, even her own dressing gown floating down the stairs.
And the council's solution to her months of torment? To pay for an exorcism, of course!
Now, through the power of prayer, holy water and protective salt circles, Mrs Fallon says she and her family have finally been left in peace



Miss Hadwin offered to carry out an exorcism for £120.
Unable to afford the fee Mrs Fallon, whose elder daughter Shannon is nine, went to the council, which agreed to pay half.
The exorcism was carried out on December 27 and the Fallons say they have since been left in peace.
Miss Hadwin, 35, of Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, said: "I realised there was a very bad spirit in the house and there had been a murder there.






She added: "I got rid of the poltergeist by laying salt circles in the house as areas of protection for the family.
"I then used the power of prayer, sprinkled holy water and called in some angels to take the spirit to the place he needed to be taken."
A spokesman for Easington District Council said it agreed to pay half of the exorcism because the family were "extremely distressed" and the alternative was £40-per-night emergency accommodation.
She added that the council is committed to preventing homelessness by a number of measures, "albeit none of them quite as unusual as this".



full report here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436988-details/Hello%2C+is+that+the+council+ghostbuster+Taxpayers %27+money+spent+on+tenant%27s+exorcism/article.do

[Gib]

Yep, I saw it in the Metro paper this morning. Amazing.

At least at this link there's a quote from somebody sane :

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Council-paid-for-ghostbuster.3766882.jp
Mark Wallace, campaign director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, described the move to use public cash as a "ridiculous waste of money".He added: "People don't pay their council tax for it to be spent on psychic mumbo-jumbo.

[rissablue]

I like how they pay her exorcism costs but not for psychological treatment of what seems to be abnormal paranoia and maybe some delusional problems as well. Not that they should pay for either, but why jump automatically to the conclusion that an exorcism is the final answer?

[Rrose Selavy]

I think it's disgraceful they paid £120 to exorcise an evil spirit.







I know someone who can do it for half that.










We can only perhaps be thankful the legendary David Farrant or Bishop Manchester weren't called in to do the dirty work.
-
-

[tkingdoll]

Actually exorcism was the answer, and in that regard it was money well spent. The problem has gone. (That's my 'taking the story on face value' response).

Imaginary cures for imaginary diseases (or in this case, imaginary hauntings) are often not only the most cost-effective solution, but the most satisfactory for the 'victim'.

To put it another way, her beliefs and hysteria had invented a haunting, and the fastest, cheapest, quickest solution was to get her beliefs and hysteria to cure themselves with their own medicine.

Caveat: that's only the case if the tenants themselves believed it was a haunting and that an exorcism would fix it. If Miss Hadwin solicited for money, or otherwise persuaded the family that it was a ghost where before they didn't believe it, then she's guilty of fraud and this was a grave (ho ho) error.

I would, though, rather this cheap solution that has worked, than £40 a night emergency housing indefinitely. No-one wins that one.

ETA: what I don't understand is why the local clergy weren't called in to do it for free. Could there be a whiff of conspiracy here? Perhaps the hard-up tenants and Miss Hadwin finding a sure way to make some quick cash? I do wonder why only Miss Hadwin's exorcism was acceptable.

[Soapy Sam]

Where do spirits actually go when exorcised?
I'd be pretty upset if I lived next door and my cupboard doors started slamming.

[LTC8K6]

If I were a neighbor I'd claim the ghosts are bothering me now and sue.

[Blondin]

Psychic paid to evict council house ghost (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1257560820080212)

Easington Council in County Durham said the family could not be persuaded to stay in the house, and that through paying half the psychic ghosthunter's 120 pound ($235) fee they were saving money as otherwise they would have had to pay for emergency housing.

Humph! I would have done it for half that price.;)

[Gravy]

It was actually northeast England. See this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106159

[Phil]

I would've done it for half that.

[Gravy]

Humph! I would have done it for half that price.;)
I would've done it for half that.I would have done it for free, for the chance to exercise my exorcising Angels and Russian spirit guides.

[rissablue]

Actually exorcism was the answer, and in that regard it was money well spent. The problem has gone. (That's my 'taking the story on face value' response).

Imaginary cures for imaginary diseases (or in this case, imaginary hauntings) are often not only the most cost-effective solution, but the most satisfactory for the 'victim'.


I hadn't thought about it like that and it does make sense. At least until other people follow her example and become frightened at the prospect of their own haunted abodes. Especially since it was backed by the council's decision to perform a "successful" exorcism. That or another ghost/spirit comes along to the same house again.

[Rrose Selavy]

If it's all in the mind, they should have paid her with imaginary money as well then.....

[devnull]

If I were a neighbor I'd claim the ghosts are bothering me now and sue.

Indeed, the council has probably left themselves open to this.

[Miss Whiplash]

We can only perhaps be thankful the legendary David Farrant or Bishop Manchester weren't called in to do the dirty work.
-
-

Now you've done it, Rose...you know they are still reading. :popcorn1

Those two do come cheap. Farrant would do it for a pint. Manchester would do it for free, so long as someone published an old picture of him in a poof shirt.
:dl:

[blauregen]

I like how they pay her exorcism costs but not for psychological treatment of what seems to be abnormal paranoia and maybe some delusional problems as well. Not that they should pay for either, but why jump automatically to the conclusion that an exorcism is the final answer?

Likely because it was the most cost effective psychological intervention at hand. I agree though that if there are belligerent skeptics of the paranormal in the area, they are likely to claim ghosts now too, just to set a clear sign of their disagreement.

Let us just hope for the sake of the community that they are able to restrain their righteous indignation.

[DeVega]

An English County Council pays to have a ghost removed from one of their properties...

I'm guessing we'll see this couple again, on Most Haunted, or one of those programs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7240405.stm


So glad I'm not an English tax-payer - I might have had to get righteously indignant! ;-)

[blauregen]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106159

It could be argued that official entities shouldn't pay for solutions like this, even if they seem to be effective and inexpensive on the same ground that you rather let an abducted official die than to bargain with the abductors. Because it sets a precedence.

The correct measure would of course have been to support the family with a temporary housing for an extensive period of time while they undergo a lenghty psychotherapeutical treatment that frees them from their delusional beliefs and possibly their need for attention.

The correct cause and our principles are simply worth this kind of money. :D

[Soapy Sam]

There's a thread on this already http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106159

That East Coast ISP running slow today, DV?;)

[Rrose Selavy]

Now you've done it, Rose...you know they are still reading. :popcorn1

Those two do come cheap. Farrant would do it for a pint. Manchester would do it for free, so long as someone published an old picture of him in a poof shirt.
:dl:

I hereby declare this thread is haunted and I claim my £120 - Randi can foot the bill lest the Dark Forces of the Interweb infest us for eternity...

[DeVega]

Oopsy!
{blushing}

[mobius]

Well I'm claiming my £120 because I used to live in County Durham and I reckon it's followed me home. Probably hid under the car like in Cape Fear.

[blauregen]

You do realise that they only paid half the psychics fee?

This would mean that each of you would get 60 commited to hiring a psychic with 60 of your own money, who would -among other things - spill large amounts of salt on your living room floor.

[monoman]

Where do spirits actually go when exorcised?
I'd be pretty upset if I lived next door and my cupboard doors started slamming.

As far as I know, a GASBO order is placed on them. Like an ASBO, this doesn't really deal with the problem, It just shifts it on for the next unfortunates to deal with.

[tkingdoll]

Indeed, the council has probably left themselves open to this.

They've certainly left themselves open to more requests of this nature, but they're under no obligation to respond to them in the same way. Local councils often take discretionary actions, but it doesn't meant they're now obliged to offer the same service to anyone else.

I do agree that this wasn't a perfect solution, but it's not the end of the world. If publicly-funded exorcisms became the norm, then it would be a problem, but no-one is proposing that. Plus, we really don't have all the facts here. This family may have been suicidal for all we know.

If I go to get exorcised or baptised at a cathedral which was renovated using English Heritage grants, will there be a similar worry about public funds being used for superstitious cures?

I think what it comes down to is a much larger question than we can address with just this once case. Something akin to "does placebo have a genuine place as a solution?". That's not very well phrased but I'm in a rush.

Oh, it should be noted that the UK police budget loses tens of thousands of pounds investigating alleged poltergeist activity. There's one currently open case which has so far cost £30,000 to investigate, and escalating.

[rissablue]

Think of me as naively unaware but how do the police investigate poltergeists? Do they have special tools like Paranormal State or their own department for it?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I do agree that this wasn't a perfect solution, but it's not the end of the world. If publicly-funded exorcisms became the norm, then it would be a problem, but no-one is proposing that. Plus, we really don't have all the facts here. This family may have been suicidal for all we know.

If so, is it wise to act in such a way as to support the delusions that are leading them to be suicidial?

Is this not a bit like treating weeds by cutting off the top few leaves rather than removing the root - i.e. a very short term "solution"?

[tkingdoll]

Think of me as naively unaware but how do the police investigate poltergeists? Do they have special tools like Paranormal State or their own department for it?

They work with social services. Poltergeist activity is usually a member of the household throwing stuff. Sometimes people get hurt, hence, the police are obliged to investigate.


If so, is it wise to act in such a way as to support the delusions that are leading them to be suicidial?

Is this not a bit like treating weeds by cutting off the top few leaves rather than removing the root - i.e. a very short term "solution"?

Quite possibly, but the local housing department doesn't fund psychological care. The woman needs to get to her local NHS doctor. The council's priority, in this case, was to keep the family housed, ideally in their own home. Job done.

Let me put it another way: the family were so distressed, they wouldn't stay there. They arguably need psychological help, which is a matter for Social Services and the NHS. It takes weeks for referrals. The family may not want the help in any case. They probably don't believe they have a problem. But let's say they are awaiting a psych evaluation. In the meantime, the local council have to keep the family housed.

Now, which is better? Taking the family away from their own home and putting them into £40 a night emergency accommodation (those places are grim, too), or a £60 exorcism which worked and means that the family don't have to go anywhere? Have you ever felt like you can't live in your own home? That'll cause more psychological damage than any number of ghosts, frankly. The council's priority is ALWAYS to keep people housed, and if they're already in a house, it's stupid to let it sit empty whilst paying for a hostel.

If the ghosts come back, you can absolutely guarantee that the council won't fund any further exorcisms.

[blauregen]

ETA: what I don't understand is why the local clergy weren't called in to do it for free.

Possibly because the process would have taken too long. I imagine that most bishops wouldn't be very eager to have their diocese associated with driving evil spirits out. It conveys a rather medieval and sensationalistic image to the public and according to wikipedia anglican priests may not perform an exorcism without permission from the Diocesan (regional) bishop. Its is not usually performed unless the bishop and his team of specialists (including a psychiatrist and physician) has approved it.

Your average street psychic can do it on beck and call.

[Big Les]

Whilst I see the logic behind tkingdoll's argument, I find it hard to resist the "old school" solution: that they should simply be told to pull themselves together, and no taxpayer's money should be spent to ease their imaginary problems, not an exorcist's fees, and not rehousing. Offer NHS mental health assistance by all means, but this is a problem entirely of their own making and throwing £120 at it as a quick fix, whilst at the same time perpetuating woolly and supertitious thinking seems like a pretty poor solution to me. There are plenty of genuine hardship cases in council housing that could put that money to good use, rather than cossetting these flakes.

ETA - getting the church to do it makes sense - it's not impacting tight resources and it's internally consistent. Let the loons take care of each other. The problem with that as blauregen notes is that most Christians today aren't loons - they've moved past this kind of superstitious nonsense. So you'd have to call in a Spiritualist. What are the chances that they would do it for free?!

[Blondin]

If I was a council member or a tax payer I'd be concerned about setting a precedent. What if the same family says the ghost has come back? Will the council refuse to fund a second exorcism? If so why did they fund the first? Why shouldn't everybody who thinks they have a poltergeist (including maybe some aquaintenances of a certain psychic) be entitled to exorcism services at the local council's expense?

[tkingdoll]

Whilst I see the logic behind tkingdoll's argument, I find it hard to resist the "old school" solution: that they should simply be told to pull themselves together, and no taxpayer's money should be spent to ease their imaginary problems, not an exorcist's fees, and not rehousing. Offer NHS mental health assistance by all means, but this is a problem entirely of their own making and throwing £120 at it as a quick fix, whilst at the same time perpetuating woolly and supertitious thinking seems like a pretty poor solution to me. There are plenty of genuine hardship cases in council housing that could put that money to good use, rather than cossetting these flakes.

ETA - getting the church to do it makes sense - it's not impacting tight resources and it's internally consistent. Let the loons take care of each other. The problem with that as blauregen notes is that most Christians today aren't loons - they've moved past this kind of superstitious nonsense. So you'd have to call in a Spiritualist. What are the chances that they would do it for free?!

I do agree with you, there are much, much better (and more expensive and slower) solutions. But while the council is obliged to help people facing homelessness, it is also entitled to use its discretion, and I think that's what happened here. £60 out of a budget of several million is really not a major amount of money, and it shut up what were probably extremely resource-intensive problem tenants. It just so happens that this story made the news, but hundreds and hundreds of small grants are given out for various things that you or I might consider unnecessary. Plus the tens of thousands wasted by councils on utter bureaucracy. A council recently spent something like £30,000 on an investigation into £150 of staff expenses fraud. I don't much begrudge a £60 sticking plaster.

As for encouraging superstitious thinking, yes it does, and that's a pity, but the council is neither qualified, equipped, nor allowed to judge based on belief. They could hardly say "we don't believe in ghosts so you can't either. Sorry you will be sleeping rough tonight".

There would be less superstitious thinking encouraged if this story wasn't in the damn papers.

We'll see how this story plays out, though. The ghosts may come back, the family may try and demand more money (they won't get any), or some other piece of information about the case will come out that changes things, or nothing further will happen. This will very likely encourage copycat requests, but any financial handout of this sort is entirely discretionary. No legal precedent has been set. Councils can simply tell future hauntees where to get off.

Or, it's a slippery slope and exorcisms will become standard policy for anyone who wants one, and Council Tax will rise and then we'll only have our rubbish collected once a year! Oh noes!

[Soapy Sam]

What if the ghost shows up at Social Services, demanding rehousing.
Do ghosts have "human rights"?

[Rrose Selavy]

I suppose the council felt they were following the spirit if not the letter of the law.




Rrose picks up coat.....leaves thread quietly...:mad:

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As for encouraging superstitious thinking, yes it does, and that's a pity, but the council is neither qualified, equipped, nor allowed to judge based on belief. They could hardly say "we don't believe in ghosts so you can't either. Sorry you will be sleeping rough tonight".

The bit I don't believe is that they would not have stayed in the house if they had been refused the cash. I don't believe for a moment that they applied to the council, got approval, got the cash, found the exorcist and had the exorcism carried out all on the same day. So where did they stay while this was happening? My guess is in the house.

The "refusal" to go back was simply blackmail to get the council to do what they wanted and should have been treated as such.

This will very likely encourage copycat requests, but any financial handout of this sort is entirely discretionary. No legal precedent has been set. Councils can simply tell future hauntees where to get off.

Or, it's a slippery slope and exorcisms will become standard policy for anyone who wants one, and Council Tax will rise and then we'll only have our rubbish collected once a year! Oh noes!

Or it is somewhere inbetween. No legal precedent has been set, but lets not pretend that no precedent has been set. Councils are required to exercise their discretion in a non-discriminatory manner - therefore they are under pressure when a similar issue arises with a family of a different colour / different religion. If they say "no" to them, they open themselves up to a discrimination claim.

What happens when they say the ghost has come back and they want rehoused? Does there refusal to return mean they have chosen to make themselves homeless (and therefore go to the bottom of the list) or are they an emergency case and go to the top? Does the council having played along with their delusions give them a right to expect they will continue to do so?

[brodski]

no taxpayer's money should be spent to ease their imaginary problems,

I'm still looking into how this was funded, but its possible, even probable, that it wasn't through taxpayers money.

[Gravy]

Here's an interview (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/There39s-a-ghost-in-my.3861578.jp) with the spooked housewife. It's a sad example of the power of suggestion on a naive and susceptible person. The result? It's cemented in her mind that poltergeists are real and exorcisms work. I'd like to slap all involved.