Psychic Sally morgan caught cheating? [Archive] - Page 2

underboyleheating

30th October 2011, 02:39 PM

Derren Brown pens a few words about Sally Morgan in his recent blog.

Source: http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/10/testing-psychics/#more-17288

I thought I would pen a few words about the high-profile test offered to Sally Morgan by Simon Singh, Chris French and the Merseyside Skeptics tomorrow Monday. It looks like Sally has declined to take part, but their offer is open to conduct a fair test or at least discuss the test with her to make sure both they and her are happy with it.

Simon Singh, along with other sceptics, has had concerns about Sally and published them here on his blog. I add, as does he, that I am not saying that Sally is a fake or a fraud. I’d really like to think that she’s not, but reserve all judgement. I don’t know her and have never seen her show, on TV or on stage. Even if I had, my opinion about her would mean very little, and I’m sure she could give a flying doughnut about what I had to say. Really the only worthwhile point is whether claims such as Sally’s stand up to testing, not what I or any other individual with our own inevitable prejudices happens to think.

<SNIP>

Or maybe she’ll have better things to do.
D.
Edited, breach of rule 4.

Azrael 5

30th October 2011, 03:34 PM

I don’t know her and have never seen her show, on TV or on stage. Even if I had, my opinion about her would mean very little,
Yet according to Sally's camp he has tested her for his television show. Ok he doesnt say he hasn't met her but curious still no reply on the matter.

tuoni

30th October 2011, 04:05 PM

Yet according to Sally's camp he has tested her for his television show. Ok he doesnt say he hasn't met her but curious still no reply on the matter.

From Derren's blog post (http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/10/testing-psychics/#more-17288) (in fact, the very paragraph after that one!)

Until recently, I thought I had never met her, but I have since heard rather excitingly that I may have filmed an unused sequence with Sally once at her home. If I did, it would have been for one of those old Mind Control specials ten or so years ago. I have my team looking into that to see if we ever did and if they can dig it out. Certainly we filmed with one lady psychic at her house, where we each gave each other a reading, so perhaps that was it.

snuffkin

30th October 2011, 04:11 PM

Now that you've pointed this out. It does seem very very odd. Surely, he's heard of her? Or seen her on tv, or in the papers in the past. Haven't we all, even though we are not fans.

I'm thinking maybe it's definitely not true then, what her son-in-law/Tour Manager said. (That she'd been tested by Derren Brown and passed the tests). If Derren had filmed her years ago, he would surely remember that, or have at least a vague recollection of her? Surprised that he's asked his team to even bother looking through old footage.

kerikiwi

30th October 2011, 04:24 PM

If Derren had filmed her years ago, he would surely remember that, or have at least a vague recollection of her

The vague recollection is there : one lady psychic

snuffkin

30th October 2011, 05:10 PM

Pixel42

31st October 2011, 12:23 AM

I'm thinking maybe it's definitely not true then, what her son-in-law/Tour Manager said. (That she'd been tested by Derren Brown and passed the tests).
If they "gave each other readings" she may have considered the fact that hers was as accurate as you'd expect it to be even if she didn't have any paranormal powers as "passing the test". Few psychics have any notion of what's actually required to test their abilities in a way that produces meaningful results.

Blue Wode

31st October 2011, 05:02 AM

Just in via Merseyside Skeptics on Twitter:

Sad to say that Sally didn't come along, but the challenge remains open to her. Our challenge will be an annual affair though. Details soon

http://twitter.com/#!/merseyskeptics

dlorde

31st October 2011, 05:12 AM

Derren Brown pens a few words about Sally Morgan in his recent blog.
I thought his (tongue-in-cheek) alternative explanation for the overheard prompting was amusing:.. I have heard from in-house theatre crews who have hosted big-name psychic shows that they were surprised to see the shows follow a fairly tight structure and an oddly similar script every night: therefore another possible explanation could be that the whispering was indeed cheekiness from the lighting technicians who were just pre-empting what they knew was coming next, having seen the show so many times.

Reno

31st October 2011, 05:18 AM

Might be an appropriate time to contact Good Morning TV (or whatever it's called these days) hosted by Philip Schofield and Holly Willouboobie.

Maybe Paul Zenon could do ask to have a follow up interview, reporting back the failure of both Psychic Psally and the other psychic woman who have both declined to be tested, but still continue to take money for their claimed, but unproven abilities.

Sideroxylon

31st October 2011, 05:18 AM

I thought his (tongue-in-cheek) alternative explanation for the overheard prompting was amusing:

I took that at face value. From what I have read here and elsewhere she gives a very poor performance and likely relies on a number of stock cold reading lines when she goes fishing in the audience.

Darat

31st October 2011, 05:20 AM

I took that at face value. From what I have read here and elsewhere she gives a very poor performance and likely relies on a number of stock cold reading lines when she goes fishing in the audience.

As did I. I do think it is a very plausible explanation that doesn't require active cheating.

Reno

31st October 2011, 05:23 AM

I took that at face value. From what I have read here and elsewhere she gives a very poor performance and likely relies on a number of stock cold reading lines when she goes fishing in the audience.

I also took this to be meant as not tongue-in-cheek. Derren is not the first person to publish this possibility. Pity the 'technicians' won't come forward. That would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.

zooterkin

31st October 2011, 05:38 AM

I also took this to be meant as not tongue-in-cheek. Derren is not the first person to publish this possibility.

Yes, I think Simon Singh also suggested it. Even if it's not right (though it certainly seems plausible), it's a warning that we shouldn't get hung up on the idea that Sally is using a headset. That has not been proven to be the case, and there may be other mundane explanations; it could be playing into her hands to focus on one idea which could be wrong, and give her the opportunity to win a libel case. Instead, we should, as Simon says, look at what we do and do not know.

Pity the 'technicians' won't come forward. That would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.

I imagine they value their employment. Speaking out would mean that future performers would not be guaranteed confidentiality, and so the theatre may see a drop in bookings. That would apply equally to magicians as psychics.

dlorde

31st October 2011, 05:41 AM

I thought it was probably tongue-in-cheek because it seemed unlikely to be that tightly scripted if Sally was routinely using an earpiece. On reflection, it seems possible that the bulk of the show could be scripted cold-reading with set gaps for the convincing 'nuggets' of warm feed. Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks all :)

mmm, warm feed....

Azrael 5

31st October 2011, 12:57 PM

Blue Wode

1st November 2011, 03:47 AM

Part 2 of Simon Singh's exchange with Psychic Sally's lawyer...
http://slsingh.posterous.com/part-2-my-open-reply-to-my-legal-pen-pal-psyc

Reno

1st November 2011, 07:27 AM

Publicity is the key.

Rrose Selavy

1st November 2011, 09:19 AM

Yes, I think Simon Singh also suggested it. Even if it's not right (though it certainly seems plausible), it's a warning that we shouldn't get hung up on the idea that Sally is using a headset. That has not been proven to be the case, and there may be other mundane explanations; it could be playing into her hands to focus on one idea which could be wrong, and give her the opportunity to win a libel case. Instead, we should, as Simon says, look at what we do and do not know.
.

Richard Wiseman also suggested it in the video posted earlier.

Azrael 5

1st November 2011, 12:20 PM

I really doubt she is using an earpiece for any nefarious means.Form what Ive seen(albeit edited)of her act it's just cold reading with the odd bit of hot thrown in.

mummymonkey

2nd November 2011, 02:07 AM

Scientist proves that mediums aren't stupid (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/scientist-proves-that-mediums-aren%27t-stupid-201111014489/)

monoman

2nd November 2011, 06:26 AM

Scientist proves that mediums aren't stupid (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/scientist-proves-that-mediums-aren%27t-stupid-201111014489/)

Terrible. Is that the usual standard of biting satire from the daily mash?

Reno

2nd November 2011, 06:39 AM

Terrible? How so? I found it to be realistic.

Lamuella

2nd November 2011, 07:28 AM

apparently some pillock on Twitter is spreading Sally Morgan's phone number and email address. Kind of classless as a way to act if you ask me.

Reno

2nd November 2011, 07:39 AM

And fleecing vulnerable people is not being a classless pillock?

Lamuella

2nd November 2011, 07:50 AM

And fleecing vulnerable people is not being a classless pillock?

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. Sally Morgan being an unpleasant person who exploits the vulnerable doesn't excuse actions taken against her.

What's more, resorting to things like spreading her phone number and email address across Twitter gives Morgan the chance to play the victim card, and that's not a smart PR move. Quite apart from being a crappy thing for someone to do, it's also a dumb thing for someone to do. Let's try not to act how our opponents depict us.

Reno

2nd November 2011, 07:58 AM

Lamuella

2nd November 2011, 08:29 AM

While I agree that Sally Morgan being an unpleasant person who exploits the vulnerable doesn't excuse actions taken against her, I have zero sympathy for her and I believe that spreading her telphone number and emaill addy across the internet is a lot less harmful to her than the harm she does to her victims.

Yes, spreading this information is less harmful than her actions.

I fail to see how that's an excuse for spreading this information. It's not like her phone number being online will stop her doing what she does. If anything it will just give her a new pack of victim cards to play.

If she continues to exploit, she can't complain about consequences amounting to no more than a minor annoyance.

She's not complaining. I am. I think that this is a mean thing to do and it makes us look bad. It's also counterproductive to the campaigns against people like her. Project Barnum have already announced that they will be standing down their outreach activities for the moment (they had previously been giving out information about how "psychic" powers can be faked, outside Sally Morgan's shows) so they don't end up being associated with this.

If it starts to harm her purse, then I'm all for it.

So would you cheer if someone smashed the windows of her car?

If she tries to play the victim card, it only adds to the publicity. The longer this is kept in the media, the more people will come to question whether she is a fraud or not.

I don't think the narrative that will emerge is that simple. If skeptics come across as acting like jerks towards her, the narrative changes from "fake psychic cons people" to "mean people bully an old lady".

Reno

2nd November 2011, 09:06 AM

Yes, spreading this information is less harmful than her actions.

I fail to see how that's an excuse for spreading this information. It's not like her phone number being online will stop her doing what she does. If anything it will just give her a new pack of victim cards to play.

It's not an excuse. It's just a statement. It may give her more victims to play with, but the continuing publicity garnered from activities such as this may reduce her current victimbase more than it may increase it.

She's not complaining. I am. I think that this is a mean thing to do and it makes us look bad. It's also counterproductive to the campaigns against people like her.

Continue to complain about this woman being unfairly treated if you wish. It won't make me and many others felel any sympathy for her. I'm not convinced that this action will be counter-productive.

So would you cheer if someone smashed the windows of her car? Actually, I would. You may call it mean-spirited, I call it satisfaction that she is getting a little taste of her own medicine.

I don't think the narrative that will emerge is that simple. If skeptics come across as acting like jerks towards her, the narrative changes from "fake psychic cons people" to "mean people bully an old lady".

Like I've said before, the more publicity, the better.

Lamuella

2nd November 2011, 09:10 AM

Actually, I would. You may call it mean-spirited, I call it satisfaction that she is getting a little taste of her own medicine.

Then there's no point in talking to you about... anything, really.

GT/CS

2nd November 2011, 09:42 AM

Agreed

Reno

2nd November 2011, 09:54 AM

Fair enough.

I'd also cheer if someone put in all the windows of one of Sylvia Browne's mansions.

commandlinegamer

2nd November 2011, 11:21 AM

She's not complaining. I am. I think that this is a mean thing to do and it makes us look bad. It's also counterproductive to the campaigns against people like her.

Well, if it were people who identified as card-carrying, paid-up members of the sceptic community, perhaps. They might be just nihilists.

Lamuella

2nd November 2011, 11:38 AM

Well, if it were people who identified as card-carrying, paid-up members of the sceptic community, perhaps. They might be just nihilists.

The accounts on twitter have been posting the information have made claims of being skeptical and pro-libel-reform.

Even if they hadn't, do you think that would make the slightest bit of difference in whether Morgan's defenders would claim the people doing this were skeptics, or whether people would believe them?

snuffkin

2nd November 2011, 03:56 PM

Jr1985

2nd November 2011, 04:48 PM

Indeed. The vile parasitic wench deserves to be punished.

welshdean

2nd November 2011, 05:14 PM

Oh Dear!

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 02:44 AM

100% In agreement with what Reno has said on this. I also have zero sympathy for Morgan. Many people like to beat about the bush, and tip toe around these psychics, and I really don't know why. You might see me as being 'mean' too, but that's how I feel.

She puts herself out there, enjoys the fame, wealth, and chooses to 'run the gauntlet of cynics and skeptics on a daily basis by the work that I do' :rolleyes: (Lol). Yet she refuses to engage with non-believers, she refuses to be tested and she lets loose the lawyers instead to try and intimidate people. She bans people from her public facebook page who dare to question her and she obviously thinks that she is untouchable.

So what if someone has published her email, it's already public information anyway. If it means the press will pester her more now, then GOOD! It's about time! The only thing that will have an effect is more publicity.

The alternative is to have this fade off the radar again and have her (and Sylvia Browne) carry on earning millions and suckering more people, without proving what they say they can do. It's wrong.

The main point isn't that this is mean.

The main point is that this allows her to play the victim. It also interferes hugely with the behind the scenes activities relating to those who are opposing her in constructive ways. People like Hayley Stephens (who has done massively more on the front line against people like Sally Morgan than most people here have) are furious about this because it messes with the things they were doing.

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/2011/11/02/sally-morgans-phone-number/

The person who put these details out there has just handed Sally an excuse not to participate in things like the Merseyside Skeptics tests. Now, when she refuses to take part she looks less like a fraud running for cover and more like a victim of harrassment not wanting to face her tormenters.

Whoever put the numbers up has given a fraud and a charlatan cover to run for the hills. Well done.

snuffkin

3rd November 2011, 02:54 AM

No, she still looks like a fraud running for cover.

And she doesn't care about tormentors at all. No amount of handing out leaflets to believers is going to change her going out on stage every night. That's one way to inform a few people, sure. But It needs something much bigger to expose the lot of them.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 03:10 AM

No, she still looks like a fraud running for cover.

To you she looks like a fraud running for cover. The public don't always see things as you do. If they did, we wouldn't need to complain about psychics as they'd be out of business anyway.

The people actually taking front line action to combat people like Sally Morgan think this was a horrible idea and a setback for their plans. I agree with them.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 03:27 AM

Let me try and explain a little more why I think publicizing information like this is a bad idea:

The battle against people like Sally Morgan is a PR battle. In a PR battle, you have two aims:

1) Lower people's opinion of your opponent
2) raise people's opinion of yourselves

The most effective PR battles are where you can use someone's own words and actions to discredit them. One of the most successful PR coups against a psychic was Randi's effort against Peter Popoff. He used Popoff's own words (or rather his wife's) to demonstrate that he was a fraud. Randi himself came out smelling like s rose because he wasn't seen as attacking Popoff but rather exposing him. Popoff had no cover, as he was indicted by himself.

The current efforts against Sally Morgan do a lot to lower people's opinion of her. The Merseyside Skeptics test creates an image of someone given a chance to demonstrate her powers and refusing to take it. While some might see putting the challenge as "bullying" sally (I've seen that opinion online from a couple of people), it certainly lowers opinion of Sally more than it does of the Merseyside Skeptics, or skepticism in general.

Publishing Sally Morgan's contact details online does absolutely nothing to lower people's opinion of her. You might think she deserve it, just as Reno thinks she would deserve having her car windows smashed in. However, it doesn't do anything to make someone look at Sally Morgan and think less of them. On the other hand, it does a hell of a lot to make people think less of skeptics. It also goes against the aims of things like the Merseyside Skeptics test. There, the two outcomes were either Morgan turning up to get tested and failing, or Morgan not turning up. Until now, Morgan not turning up was a major negative for her but not really any kind of negative for skeptics. Now, a neutral observer is less likely to be asking "Why won't Sally take the test?" and more likely to be asking "Why would someone take a test from people who spread their personal info online?"

Apart from a measure of schadenfreude, there is no upside to this, and plenty of downside. This is a PR own goal.

snuffkin

3rd November 2011, 04:27 AM

The people offering the test had nothing to do with publishing information about her company contact details (which are already available online anway). Those people are keen to promote libel reform, Sally just seems to be one of the kinds of people who are rich enough to use these kind of bully boy tactics.

And Sally at first denied wearing an earpiece after the voice was heard, allegedly feeding her information. Then when footage appeared of her wearing an earpiece she backtracked and changed her story. She exposed herself, but the story just hasn't had enough publicity. Possibly something to do with her lawyer attempting to stifle journalism by telling radio and tv stations not to mention her, when people like Paul Zenon and Simon Singh have been on talking about psychics.

Anything which brings her more into focus is a good thing. The MorganLibel person has simply published a page detailing her company info and contact details. Where you can also see she lists herself as other things she is not - a physiotherapist.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 04:32 AM

The people offering the test had nothing to do with publishing information about her company contact details (which are already available online anway).

I know that. You know that. Are you trusting the public to make that distinction?

Anything which brings her more into focus is a good thing.

Could you explain what you mean by bringing her into focus, and how spreading her personal information does this?

bluesjnr

3rd November 2011, 04:47 AM

I know that. You know that. Are you trusting the public to make that distinction?

Well if you can, then why not the majority of "the public", or are you suggesting that somehow you are smarter than the average person in the street?

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 04:56 AM

Well if you can, then why not the majority of "the public", or are you suggesting that somehow you are smarter than the average person in the street?

I'm suggesting that I know a lot more about Sally Morgan and the people critical of her than "the average person in the street" does. It's not a matter of being smarter, it's a matter of having known about the story longer and being relatively well informed about it.

Someone who is giving a story about this a cursory glance in (for example) the Daily Mail isn't going to know the nuances of the people involved, and we can't rely on the newspapers bothering to explain these nuances.

snuffkin

3rd November 2011, 05:22 AM

I very much doubt the readers of the Daily Mail in general, even saw the tweet from MorganLibel. It's a only few people (like yourself) who are getting their knickers in a twist about it. Why not just get over it and carry on with your own methods. Other people will have their own views on the best way to make people like Morgan accountable for what they do. So what if more journalists will bother her or her lawyers as a result of her company details being out there. Publicity is what is needed. Hopefully it will eventually bring about a change in the law to regulate all self-proclaimed 'psychics'.

thenigotoffthebus

3rd November 2011, 05:43 AM

Have to agree with Lamuella.

I despise Sally Morgan but actions such as publishing her private information isn't doing "our side" any favours & frankly it seems a somewhat pathetic & juvenile thing to do.

We are the good guys in this situation, lets act like it.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 06:04 AM

I very much doubt the readers of the Daily Mail in general, even saw the tweet from MorganLibel.

How about reporters for the Daily Mail? Think any of them saw it?

It would be childishly simple to write a piece based on this about wicked skeptics and innocent psychics and it would have the same air of truthiness as half the stories on the newsstands each day.

It's a only few people (like yourself) who are getting their knickers in a twist about it.

My knickers are profoundly untwisted. I made one comment about it and then people started asking me questions. I'd prefer it if you stopped implying an emotional reaction to this, as there isn't one.

Why not just get over it and carry on with your own methods.

Because I view this as unhelpful to the end goal and I have the right to say so. Plus, several of the people who are using thir own methods have said that their actions have been hampered by morganlibel's actions.

Reno

3rd November 2011, 09:58 AM

Because I view this as unhelpful to the end goal and I have the right to say so. Plus, several of the people who are using thir own methods have said that their actions have been hampered by morganlibel's actions.

I view it as helpful to the end goal and I have every right to say so too.

The several people who you say are claiming that their own methods have been hampered may well be using less effective methods than continuing the publicity and attempting to keep the spotlight on Psychic Psally, so my support at this time will be to do whatever it takes (within the law) to keep that spotlight on her.

If any hack journalist is mad enough to write a piece supporting Sally, then that leaves room for a rebuttal. No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest because she is a fraud and a con-merchant. That's a plain fact that will remain so until there's proper evidence to support her claim that she talks to invisible, incorporeal beings that normal human beings cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell.

Who cares about her feelings or if she's being bullieed or mistreated by the big bad skeptics? Not me. Let her supporters claim that she's being harassed while she earns the huge amount from people who actually ARE traumatised from hearing her lies.

She's a smug, self-righteous, condescending, evil charlatan and she needs to be stopped. She's not being harassed at all - she's only claiming that (through her lawyer) to try to stop the spotlight being shone on her which could lead to her income being reduced.

Give me a hundred thousand a year and you can publish nude pics of me on the net and I won't feel harassed.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 10:08 AM

If any hack journalist is mad enough to write a piece supporting Sally, then that leaves room for a rebuttal. No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest because she is a fraud and a con-merchant.

If you honestly think that "No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest" then your view of publishing is so naive as to be adorable.

What exactly do you think would stop a newspaper like The Daily Mirror (who Sally writes a column for) from publishing an article where they defended her from nasty skeptic bullies?

Considering that the twin sewage outflow pipes of lies and utter nonsense that are the Mail and the Express publish complete falsehoods daily on every subject from medicine to global warming, what makes you think that they wouldn't come out in favour of Sally as a sop to those of their readership who believe in this kind of woo?

EDIT: Plus, what in the world makes you think that the efforts of Project Barnum and Merseyside Skeptics are "less effective" than publishing her personal details on Twitter?

Reno

3rd November 2011, 10:17 AM

If you honestly think that "No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest" then your view of publishing is so naive as to be adorable.

Thankyou, I am adorable!

What exactly do you think would stop a newspaper like The Daily Mirror (who Sally writes a column for) from publishing an article where they defended her from nasty skeptic bullies?

The likelihood of them having to print a retraction and apology if they print any lies in their piece supporting her. You think a rag like the Mirror can't be sued?

Considering that the twin sewage outflow pipes of lies and utter nonsense that are the Mirror and the Express publish complete falsehoods daily on every subject from medicine to global warming, what makes you think that they wouldn't come out in favour of Sally as a sop to those of their readership who believe in this kind of woo?

They won't because they're not stupid. They know that there are reputable journalists and intelligent people who could pull a story supporting sally to pieces, then the paper would not only look stupid, but leave themselves open to legal action. Remember the News of the World? No paper is to big too be ripped down.

EDIT: Plus, what in the world makes you think that the efforts of Project Barnum and Merseyside Skeptics are "less effective" than publishing her personal details on Twitter?

I didn't say they are, I sad they may be.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 10:34 AM

The likelihood of them having to print a retraction and apology if they print any lies in their piece supporting her. You think a rag like the Mirror can't be sued?

As I said, so naive as to be adorable. You don't have to tell outright lies to twist something like this to make the skeptic side look bad.

They won't because they're not stupid. They know that there are reputable journalists and intelligent people who could pull a story supporting sally to pieces, then the paper would not only look stupid, but leave themselves open to legal action. Remember the News of the World? No paper is to big too be ripped down.

If they didn't print retractions or face legal action from their huge and systematic campaigns against the University of East Anglia after Climategate, what in the world makes you think they'd have to apologize for an op-ed painting the country's most popular psychic as a victim?

Also, the News Of The World didn't get "ripped down" because of lying in print. They got "ripped down" for hacking the phones of dead children and becoming too much of a liability to Rupert.

Reno

3rd November 2011, 10:54 AM

Yep, I'm still adorable. Thank you :)

You seem to be so concerned that the newspapers will make skeptics look bad, that you'd rather stand outside one of sally's shows handing out leaflets than take the hit of bad publicity against skeptics to keep Sally in the spotlight. The longer she's there, the more people are going to start to ask themselves questions about her.

Don't you realise that skeptics have always looked bad and always will? It's the nature of skepticism - going against the majority of people's beliefs. This isn't about trying to clean up the name skeptics have, or trying to make skeptics look like we are the nice guys, cuz buddy, that is never gunna happen! This is about reducing Sally's audiences, hopefully to the point where her current con is less profitable to her than if she did what she is best-suited for, which is being a lollipop lady at a pedestrian crossing.

Lamuella

3rd November 2011, 10:56 AM

You seem to be so concerned that the newspapers will make skeptics look bad, that you'd rather stand outside one of sally's shows handing out leaflets than take the hit of bad publicity against skeptics to keep Sally in the spotlight.

I'm still unsure as to how this keeps her in the spotlight or is in any way beneficial.

Filippo Lippi

3rd November 2011, 11:16 AM

Woo always screams "persecution" when it's on the run. If it were down to me Morgan would be doing time for fraud.

Reno

3rd November 2011, 11:33 AM

I'm still unsure as to how this keeps her in the spotlight or is in any way beneficial.

Your naiveness is adorable ;)

lucan

3rd November 2011, 11:40 AM

There is a memorial to the 11 innocent persons who met their doom at Crook of Devon after 5 Witch trials in 1662 and it has a poster of Sally and Carol Everett (The Jo Yeats medium)on its board of shame.

snuffkin

4th November 2011, 04:20 AM

Lamuella, It's not surprising that that you are inclined to sympathise with Sally Morgan and stick up for her, the other person you mention, Hayley Stevens/Project Barnum, almost looks like a believer too.

Hayley on Twitter: "I think a lot of people think its proof she is fake now. All it is, is proof she didn't take a test."

ProjectBarnum on Twitter: "however, we don't intend to harass & always clearly state that. We love psychics (just not fake ones)."

Some people will see that attitude is too wishy washy. If the alternative is the 'nasty' skeptic methods, more bad publicity and more hounding for Sally Morgan, I say, bring it on. The fact is Morgan and others like her need to be stopped, by hook or by crook.

I prefer to think of Sally Morgan in the same way Randi does:

Randi described professional psychics as "vultures", who "sit in a tree and… wait for the grieving to come by".

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 05:27 AM

The fact is Morgan and others like her need to be stopped, by hook or by crook.

What "need" have you identified?

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this if you'd be so kind.

I prefer to think of Sally Morgan in the same way Randi does:

Randi described professional psychics as "vultures", who "sit in a tree and… wait for the grieving to come by".

To be honest, if I were involved with the JREF (an organization that has the word 'educational' in its title) I'd be deeply concerned that the words of the leader are attracting people with attitudes like yours.

An attitude that encompasses views such as "I'd also cheer if someone put in all the windows of one of Sylvia Browne's mansions" is not a one that will ever achieve anything other than to make 'skeptics' look infantile. It's certainly not 'educational'.

Resume

4th November 2011, 05:32 AM

To be honest, if I were involved with the JREF (an organization that has the word 'educational' in its title) I'd be deeply concerned that the words of the leader are attracting people with attitudes like yours.

What part of psychics are vultures troubles you?

Sorry, not what you asked.

I joined JREF in part because I liked references from Randi like psychics are vultures because that's what they are.

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 05:36 AM

What part of psychics are vultures troubles you?

Mainly the fact that it's a very ineffective way to go about 'educating' people. It's not just that it won't work; it's actually quite likely to be counter-productive.

Lamuella

4th November 2011, 05:37 AM

Lamuella, It's not surprising that that you are inclined to sympathise with Sally Morgan and stick up for her

At no point in this entire thread have I sympathized with Sally Morgan or stuck up with her. That is a direct lie.

Resume

4th November 2011, 05:43 AM

Mainly the fact that it's a very ineffective way to go about 'educating' people. It's not just that it won't work; it's actually quite likely to be counter-productive.

How do you know it's not effective? I don't think you're relating facts, I think you've made a bare assertion. Further, it is exactly the truth.

Sideroxylon

4th November 2011, 05:46 AM

To be honest, if I were involved with the JREF (an organization that has the word 'educational' in its title) I'd be deeply concerned that the words of the leader are attracting people with attitudes like yours.

An attitude that encompasses views such as "I'd also cheer if someone put in all the windows of one of Sylvia Browne's mansions" is not a one that will ever achieve anything other than to make 'skeptics' look infantile. It's certainly not 'educational'.

This thread has taken an interesting turn, hasn't it. I would also to add my voice to those against condoning harassment or property damage against psychics. It is illegal, dickish, unnecessary and counter productive.

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 05:50 AM

How do you know it's not effective?

Evidence! There's plenty of it in the psychological literature.

Have you read the first piece in the current edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine? It's a nice piece on a conference regarding communicating science to the public and it touches on research that shows that using things like confrontation (and even hitting people with facts!) usually only serves to strengthen belief rather than weaken it.

Resume

4th November 2011, 07:11 AM

Evidence! There's plenty of it in the psychological literature.

Have you read the first piece in the current edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine? It's a nice piece on a conference regarding communicating science to the public and it touches on research that shows that using things like confrontation (and even hitting people with facts!) usually only serves to strengthen belief rather than weaken it.

Color me skeptical.

And the truth is the truth; the fact is in this case is that clearly psychics who prey on the bereaved are vultures and worse. If saying that makes me a dick I'll own that.

commandlinegamer

4th November 2011, 07:15 AM

Lamuella, It's not surprising that that you are inclined to sympathise with Sally Morgan and stick up for her, the other person you mention, Hayley Stevens/Project Barnum, almost looks like a believer too.

Hayley on Twitter: "I think a lot of people think its proof she is fake now. All it is, is proof she didn't take a test."

That makes perfect sense to me. While I don't believe SM is psychic I don't see that she has been proved not to be either.

I looked at Hayley Stevens' blog. She describes herself as a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt ghosts. In other words, tries to find a rational explanation for that which others would say is supernatural. Doesn't sound like a believer in the paranormal to me, but to be fair I only skimmed her site.

Pixel42

4th November 2011, 07:22 AM

Have you read the first piece in the current edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine? It's a nice piece on a conference regarding communicating science to the public and it touches on research that shows that using things like confrontation (and even hitting people with facts!) usually only serves to strengthen belief rather than weaken it.
As you say, the evidence is that neither pointing and laughing nor rational factual argument is effective on those who are emotionally invested in a belief.

A more interesting question is therefore which, if either, is more effective on the undecided.

Lamuella

4th November 2011, 07:31 AM

That makes perfect sense to me. While I don't believe SM is psychic I don't see that she has been proved not to be either.

I looked at Hayley Stevens' blog. She describes herself as a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt ghosts. In other words, tries to find a rational explanation for that which others would say is supernatural. Doesn't sound like a believer in the paranormal to me, but to be fair I only skimmed her site.

she's definitely not a believer. She's a skeptic who frequently speaks at skeptics events and conferences including QEDCon, organized Bath Skeptics In The Pub, and does a podcast on the paranormal with Merseyside Skeptics.

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 07:38 AM

Color me skeptical.

So you're not open to argument or evidence regarding something that contradicts your conclusion?

See how it all works - or doesn't? :D

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 07:57 AM

As you say, the evidence is that neither pointing and laughing nor rational factual argument is effective on those who are emotionally invested in a belief.

A more interesting question is therefore which, if either, is more effective on the undecided.

Well this is the key issue: how can skeptics communicate information in an educational manner effectively?

This would be a good debate and it would be nice to see the 'big guns' (the well-funded skeptics' organizations) spending a bit of money on it and giving some guidance.

Unfortunately, some of the methods that work don't lead to any recognition or publicity so may not be good as fund raising activities.

pakeha

4th November 2011, 07:58 AM

Thanks for that KeriKiwi. Also, it's just occurred to me, if it was as long as ten years ago, perhaps she was then known as Michelle West (her real name). So he wouldn't perhaps recall Sally Morgan as we know her now. Oooh! So maybe there could be some footage...

Hard to know why the woman changed her name. Numerology or some other woo-based consideration?

I thought his (tongue-in-cheek) alternative explanation for the overheard prompting was amusing:
Quote:
.. I have heard from in-house theatre crews who have hosted big-name psychic shows that they were surprised to see the shows follow a fairly tight structure and an oddly similar script every night: therefore another possible explanation could be that the whispering was indeed cheekiness from the lighting technicians who were just pre-empting what they knew was coming next, having seen the show so many times.

It sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, actually. And it's probably an explanation Michelle/Sally would be loathe to admit.

Anyway- what's to be done with this woman and her ilk?
How far can or should public shame go?
I'm not comfortable with that twitter campaign involving the exposure of her phone number and address. Sally/Michelle could have family members or employees who might be affected by such a disclosure.

Resume

4th November 2011, 08:00 AM

So you're not open to argument or evidence regarding something that contradicts your conclusion?

See how it all works - or doesn't? :D

I'm open to argument; I'm not convinced by the one you're making. I have come to no conclusion yet as to the efficacy of a reasoned argument "turning" a true believer in and of that argument itself. But that's not my whole point either.

See how that works?

Plus, my problem with pointing out that psychics who prey on bereaved are like vultures is that it's insulting to vultures.

zooterkin

4th November 2011, 08:07 AM

Hard to know why the woman changed her name. Numerology or some other woo-based consideration?

From the Express (http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/273392/THE-TRUTH-ABOUT-DIANA-S-PSYCHICThe-truth-about-Diana-s-psychicThe-truth-about-Diana-s-psychic):
Born Michelle West in 1951 to a stern mother and a violent father (replaced early on with a similarly fierce stepfather) she says she did not have a particularly happy childhood.

She left school without any qualifications, married too early and was barely out of her teens when she gave birth to her first daughter.

She decided to become Sally because she liked the name and life took a turn for the better when she met John Morgan at 22.

So, she's been Sally Morgan since about 1973.

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 08:16 AM

Plus, my problem with pointing out that psychics who prey on bereaved are like vultures is that it's insulting to vultures.

The problem with coming out with stuff like that is that it makes you look like a narrow-minded fanatic who's making a very emotionally-charged point rather than a rational one. You'll never persuade anyone of anything if you approach the issue like that.

Lamuella

4th November 2011, 08:26 AM

Hard to know why the woman changed her name. Numerology or some other woo-based consideration?

I'm hesitant to post this for fear that someone will interpret me as defending Sally Morgan, but people change their names all the time for all sorts of reasons. This isn't the Randall Zwinge Educational Foundation, after all.

pakeha

4th November 2011, 08:44 AM

From the Express (http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/273392/THE-TRUTH-ABOUT-DIANA-S-PSYCHICThe-truth-about-Diana-s-psychicThe-truth-about-Diana-s-psychic):

So, she's been Sally Morgan since about 1973.

Thanks for the info!

I'm hesitant to post this for fear that someone will interpret me as defending Sally Morgan, but people change their names all the time for all sorts of reasons. This isn't the Randall Zwinge Educational Foundation, after all.

Indeed it isn't, Lamuella!
And the truth is that Sally Morgan by any other name would still be an entertainer posing as someone who communicates with the dead.

Resume

4th November 2011, 09:11 AM

The problem with coming out with stuff like that is that it makes you look like a narrow-minded fanatic who's making a very emotionally-charged point rather than a rational one. You'll never persuade anyone of anything if you approach the issue like that.

Lighten up Francis. Got 40 years into this whole skeptical whohaw, might have some insights you haven't discovered yet. In fact, I'm certain I do.

John Jackson

4th November 2011, 10:36 AM

Lighten up Francis. Got 40 years into this whole skeptical whohaw, might have some insights you haven't discovered yet. In fact, I'm certain I do.

Hmmmm......

I laughed at that but I'm not quite sure whether it's because you're being serious or because you're not.

It was funny all the same!

Resume

4th November 2011, 10:40 AM

Hmmmm......

I laughed at that but I'm not quite sure whether it's because you're being serious or because you're not.

It was funny all the same!

Glad I could amuse you.

Reno

4th November 2011, 11:47 AM

hey Resume, I reckon I beat you in the Ad Hom contest. You're only amusing, while I am adorable!

Resume

4th November 2011, 11:57 AM

hey Resume, I reckon I beat you in the Ad Hom contest. You're only amusing, while I am adorable!
I submit to your adorability.

Hayley

4th November 2011, 12:27 PM

Hayley Stevens/Project Barnum, almost looks like a believer too.

If I were a 'believer' would that make me a bad person? If not, why is it even a discussion point? If so, that's a pretty crap way to view other people.

Hayley on Twitter: "I think a lot of people think its proof she is fake now. All it is, is proof she didn't take a test."

Yes I said that. I was stating a fact. That makes me a believer?

ProjectBarnum on Twitter: "however, we don't intend to harass & always clearly state that. We love psychics (just not fake ones)."

sense of humour fail much? I don't know if you've noticed, but Project Barnum is a bit tongue-in-cheek in the way it communicates on twitter etc.

Some people will see that attitude is too wishy washy.

Good for them. At Project Barnum we're quite happy with how we're doing things, and if others think 'the nasty skeptic' method is better, good for them. However, a lot of people have been telling me how I'm doing things wrong while doing nothing themselves. Says a lot, I believe.

By the way, I'm not a 'believer', and a quick look on my website would have showed you that, especially the bit where I write:

"I’m an atheist, a humanist, a skeptic and a ghost hunter who doesn’t hunt for ghosts. By that, I mean I am skeptical of paranormal claims and search for more plausible causes for strange things people witness."

commandlinegamer

5th November 2011, 02:22 AM

Welcome to the forum. :)

akama1

5th November 2011, 11:14 PM

We all seem to be on the same side, just with different methods of confronting her. Personally I agree with lamuella , the general public will not see the fraud angle, just nasty people harassing an old lady trying to make a buck. Most people will read the byline in the daily mail, make a quick judgement and carry on. This is what hurts us, PR, we want it on our side, not hers.

Targeting people going to her show with info works much better for our goals, as it sows seeds of doubt in her money base, if her fans become doubtful and pass that message on, it hurts her more than we can directly. Just look at the fans who first brought this to light. Like they have not told there friends about the fraud and passed on the message.

lucan

7th November 2011, 12:47 AM

We all seem to be on the same side, just with different methods of confronting her. Personally I agree with lamuella , the general public will not see the fraud angle, just nasty people harassing an old lady trying to make a buck. Most people will read the byline in the daily mail, make a quick judgement and carry on. This is what hurts us, PR, we want it on our side, not hers.

The problem is we think Logical and we cannot understand why Logic fails to work.
the answer is to think like a Public Relations person.

This is one thing used.
1. REPEAT WORD ASSOCIATION with something bad. In every statement about Sally say the word Poppoff again and again. "Sally Morgan has been Poppoff". "Sally Morgan has a Poppoff in her ear"

It is all here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

monoman

15th November 2011, 12:23 PM

Thanks for that KeriKiwi. Also, it's just occurred to me, if it was as long as ten years ago, perhaps she was then known as Michelle West (her real name). So he wouldn't perhaps recall Sally Morgan as we know her now. Oooh! So maybe there could be some footage...

I've just seen Derren Brown's latest program, the experiments, featuring the lucky dog. It features a small segment with Sally Morgan. Derren's either got a bad memory or didn't want to say anything until the programme had aired.

tuoni

15th November 2011, 02:57 PM

I've just seen Derren Brown's latest program, the experiments, featuring the lucky dog. It features a small segment with Sally Morgan. Derren's either got a bad memory or didn't want to say anything until the programme had aired.Having just seen it myself, I'd err on the side that he didn't want to say anything which would ruin the experiment before it aired, especially since she was giving credence to an invention of his (including asserting that the "dog's spirit" was in a "vortex" with his "owner's spirit" near the statue). Especially since it also isn't the same segment as she was alleging, she (or her son-in-law, if memory serves) was claiming that she'd given him a reading in person that was too good or... something.

Azrael 5

15th November 2011, 03:25 PM

*snip* Especially since it also isn't the same segment as she was alleging, she (or her son-in-law, if memory serves) was claiming that she'd given him a reading in person that was too good or... something.

Not sure that is to what she was referring.I could be wrong but I dont think Sally knew Derren was involved,as everyone thought it it was a documentary by a random TV crew.

cj.23

18th November 2011, 07:20 AM

I know Hayley, and if you listen to her podcasts (Righetous Indignation, the Ghost Field Guide) they are well worth checking out. She is (was?) the organizer of Bath Skeptics in the Pub and is a well known skeptic speaker, and is far from being a "believer" (unlike me). Great lass, intelligent, hard working, dedicated, and uberskeptic.

cj x

pakeha

26th November 2011, 02:40 AM

Just seen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e6fQ5MCpwlc

dlorde

26th November 2011, 11:43 AM

Just seen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e6fQ5MCpwlc

:D:D:D

sadhatter

26th November 2011, 01:06 PM

The problem with coming out with stuff like that is that it makes you look like a narrow-minded fanatic who's making a very emotionally-charged point rather than a rational one. You'll never persuade anyone of anything if you approach the issue like that.

Tell that to Alex Jones/Glenn Beck/John Edwards/Sylvia Browne/Simon Cowell ( the list could go on and on.) and their legions of fans. Big personalities, with strong views attract followers. The guy saying " Well maybe she could possibly not be using the methods she says.", gets ignored.

Sure, in debate world, it is great to say " If we are just nice enough people will listen.", but in the real world, people are looking for faith in your idea, they arn't going to do research and find out if your right, they are going to make their descision based on how much you seem to believe it.

And of course there is us, those in the minority who do not do this, but the difference between debate world, and the real one, is that outside of our forums, we, and those that use the same methods as us to come to conclusions are in the minority. In the acting business it is called "selling" ( for example, your doing a show in a working class town, your not going to toss in bits about how hard it is to be a doctor. ), and that is one thing i find the skeptic movement is seriously lacking, and our opposition has in spades. By being nice, and giving people the benefit of the doubt, we are essentially preaching to the choir, doing things that will impress those already in tune with our beliefs. If we want to be anything other than the minority, we need to "sell" our point of view more. We know we have the steak, now we simply need the sizzle.

Azrael 5

26th November 2011, 03:12 PM

Just seen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e6fQ5MCpwlc

MAde my night :"DOnt worry there's always James Van Pragh" :D

John Jackson

27th November 2011, 03:22 AM

Sure, in debate world, it is great to say " If we are just nice enough people will listen."

Who's saying that?

I actually agree with what you're saying but you're arguing against a position I don't hold.

commandlinegamer

7th December 2011, 02:21 AM

Sideroxylon

7th December 2011, 02:26 AM

Can't see this turning out well for her. Surely she should have just carried on business as usual and let the accusations be burred by time.

Rrose Selavy

7th December 2011, 08:10 AM

Jack of Kent/David Allen Green tweets today that Private Eye reports that Sally Morgan suing Daily Mail for calling her a cheat. No mention I can see on their website, so presumably it's the edition which will come out later this week.

See: @davidallengreen

Just had a quick browse of the latest issue out today.
IIRC according to the Private Eye report she intends to sue unless she gets an apology from the Mail for "calling her a cheat" . Don't know about any time scale So could be a bluff of course.

tuoni

7th December 2011, 10:52 AM

Just had a quick browse of the latest issue out today.
IIRC according to the Private Eye report she intends to sue unless she gets an apology from the Mail for "calling her a cheat" . Don't know about any time scale So could be a bluff of course.You remembered correctly...

Mystic Morgan's libel lawyers, Atkin's Thomson, tell the Eye that unless the Mail apologises for implying that Morgan was a cheat they will issue a writ with demands for costs and damages

commandlinegamer

7th December 2011, 01:31 PM

DAG has more on this, in the New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/12/sally-morgan-daily-mail-libel

Azrael 5

8th December 2011, 04:48 AM

So you cannot even imply a libel now?
Cannot imagine this getting very far in a court.

commandlinegamer

26th January 2012, 03:07 AM

tuoni

26th January 2012, 03:27 AM

I don't understand why she didn't take out an injunction before the article was published.Because then she wouldn't be able to publicly play the victim.

zooterkin

26th January 2012, 03:28 AM

Update on what Morgan is seeking in damages - £150,000:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48632&c=1

I don't understand why she didn't take out an injunction before the article was published.

So, she's claiming that she really is psychic, and the disclaimers (http://www.projectbarnum.co.uk/theatre-petition/) attached to her performances are not true?

Pixel42

26th January 2012, 03:59 AM

So, she's claiming that she really is psychic, and the disclaimers (http://www.projectbarnum.co.uk/theatre-petition/) attached to her performances are not true?
She's claiming she didn't engage in deliberate fraud using microphones etc. There's obviously a big difference between not using such techniques (i.e. relying on simple cold reading) and being a genuine psychic, but it's not one the general public is likely to grasp. If she wins this case (which she well might, deliberate fraud would be difficult to prove even if it had indeed taken place) she'll undoubtedly spin it as proof that she is genuine, even though it will prove nothing of the sort.

Azrael 5

26th January 2012, 04:33 AM

I would like it to go to court just so more bad publicity could come to light.The Daily mail wont miss £150,000 anyway.

snuffkin

26th January 2012, 10:01 AM

Time for those lighting techs to come forward perhaps...

Azrael 5

26th January 2012, 11:37 AM

Why doesnt Sally go after the audience members who started the ball rolling?

Darat

26th January 2012, 12:34 PM

Why doesnt Sally go after the audience members who started the ball rolling?

Someone above explained the reason - here is their post:

...snip... The Daily mail wont miss £150,000 anyway.

;)

Azrael 5

26th January 2012, 02:48 PM

Someone above explained the reason - here is their post:

;)

HAHA fair enough.

snuffkin

26th January 2012, 03:58 PM

http://neverthoughttoquestionwhy.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/psychic-sally-morgan-is-afraid-and-should-be/

MarkCorrigan

27th January 2012, 02:54 AM

Sally Morgan V The Daily Mail.

I genuinely have no idea who I want to win.

catsmate1

27th January 2012, 03:05 AM

Sally Morgan V The Daily Mail.

I genuinely have no idea who I want to win.
She loses and is publicly humiliated but the Mail is stuck with a huge legal bill perhaps?

Lamuella

27th January 2012, 03:11 AM

Sally Morgan loses, a Mail editor inadvertantly admits to phone hacking on the stand?

Filippo Lippi

27th January 2012, 03:26 AM

Morgan wins after a long, expensive legal battle for both sides. Judge decides her reputation is worth squat and awards £1 damages, but not costs

I wrote this with my thumbs

100

27th January 2012, 05:44 PM

Time for those lighting techs to come forward perhaps...

Just wondering, but if this does go to court, would the theatre be required to make the lighting technicians take the stand?
What would happen if they were lying about it?

Pixel42

28th January 2012, 12:11 AM

Just wondering, but if this does go to court, would the theatre be required to make the lighting technicians take the stand?
What would happen if they were lying about it?
Psychic Sally would win the case and damages and would claim this proved she was a genuine psychic even though she actually uses the same cold (and possibly warm/hot) reading techniques as every other fake one. She'd be able to brush off every challenge to have her supposed power tested on the grounds it had been proved in a court of law that she wasn't a fraud. It would be an enormous boost to her career.

If she didn't actually use the specific fraudulent technique described in the article (i.e. information provided via a microphone), or even if she did but she knows it can't be proved, taking this to court is absolutely the sensible thing for her to do.

underboyleheating

30th January 2012, 12:09 AM

I can’t wait for Sally to call Princess Diana to the stand as a character witness. :)

welshdean

30th January 2012, 01:34 AM

I can’t wait for Sally to call Princess Diana to the stand as a character witness. :)
And it would come with the added benefit of getting bloody 'Asylum Seekers Rake in Benefits' off the front page of the Daily Fail.

Rrose Selavy

30th January 2012, 04:05 AM

And it would come with the added benefit of getting bloody 'Asylum Seekers Rake in Benefits' off the front page of the Daily Fail.

Illegal Immigrants found in Overcrowded Spirit World.

Too Many Voices Confuse Us Say Mediums

100

30th January 2012, 10:50 AM

Psychic Sally would win the case and damages and would claim this proved she was a genuine psychic even though she actually uses the same cold (and possibly warm/hot) reading techniques as every other fake one. She'd be able to brush off every challenge to have her supposed power tested on the grounds it had been proved in a court of law that she wasn't a fraud. It would be an enormous boost to her career.

If she didn't actually use the specific fraudulent technique described in the article (i.e. information provided via a microphone), or even if she did but she knows it can't be proved, taking this to court is absolutely the sensible thing for her to do.
I meant if the theatre was lying about the technicians, unless you were talking about them too, and if that is the case, then you're going to have to lead me through on how Sally would win the case because the people indirectly supporting her claim that she doesn't use an earpiece were lying about it.

Pixel42

30th January 2012, 11:00 AM

I meant if the theatre was lying about the technicians.
Sorry, I thought you meant what if the technicians were lying.

100

30th January 2012, 11:06 AM

Sorry, I thought you meant what if the technicians were lying.

So, would the theatre be required to summon the technicians?
What would happen if they (the theatre) were lying about their statement?

snuffkin

31st January 2012, 05:08 AM

http://godhatestags.blogspot.com/2012/01/sally-morgan-prepares-to-unleash-army.html

LOL

100

31st January 2012, 09:58 AM

http://godhatestags.blogspot.com/2012/01/sally-morgan-prepares-to-unleash-army.html

LOL

Is this serious?

Paul

31st January 2012, 10:52 AM

About as serious as an army of marauding ghost Vikings gets.

snuffkin

31st January 2012, 11:20 AM

Are you serious about it being serious??

Loved the Viking bit, and the "dumpy 60 year old from Fulham" bit too :D

Paul

31st January 2012, 11:24 AM

Are you serious about me being serious about 100 seriously enquiring if you were serious?

welshdean

1st February 2012, 04:11 AM

Are you serious about me being serious about 100 seriously enquiring if you were serious?

You can't be serious.

100

1st February 2012, 06:53 PM

But seriously, would there be any legal consequences for the theatre if they were lying about the technicians?

AvalonXQ

6th February 2012, 09:57 AM

This could be a great opportunity for someone to dive deeply into Morgan's operations. Get her employees on the stands, subpoena documents, and either uncover whatever hot reading techniques she uses or force her and all her people to perjure themselves hiding them.

cerberus

29th February 2012, 04:31 AM

I've just come across this from another site.

Sally Mogans Kreed Kafer moment?

http://psycicornot.wordpress.com/

commandlinegamer

29th February 2012, 04:40 AM

Report of a Sally Morgan show, tweeted by Derren Brown and others. The audience member is anonymous, no corroboration, so can't call it evidence of anything other than an interesting read.

http://psycicornot.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/hello-world/

Duffy Moon

2nd March 2012, 10:50 AM

A new Sally website:

http://www.cansallymorgantalktothedead.co.uk/

zooterkin

2nd March 2012, 10:59 AM

A new Sally website:

http://www.cansallymorgantalktothedead.co.uk/

:D

George152

2nd March 2012, 11:45 AM

:D

:)
Truth in advertising

rjh01

2nd March 2012, 12:19 PM

A new Sally website:

http://www.cansallymorgantalktothedead.co.uk/

It is wrong. She can talk to the dead. Any idiot can. However they cannot talk back.

Pixel42

7th March 2012, 03:08 AM

Simon Singh writes about the latest incident in the Guardian:

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

azzthom

7th March 2012, 03:54 AM

Isn't suggesting a psychic cheats a bit like suggesting that the pope has catholic tendencies?

Gord_in_Toronto

7th March 2012, 05:38 AM

Simon Singh writes about the latest incident in the Guardian:

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

As long as no body actually suggests that Sally was, gasp, cheating I guess we are free to believe in her . . . abilities?

Love the Google ads on the page:

3-Minute Chakra Test

Take the Free Chakra Test to Find Out Which of Your Chakras Are Weak

Free Psychic Reading

Give your name and birthdate, and receive by email your own reading!

Psychic readings

No matter what your problem is, there is a Solution for you !

snuffkin

8th March 2012, 08:17 AM

https://www.facebook.com/sallymorgantv?ref=ts

Sally denies allegations of fake TV character reading

*SIGH*

Azrael 5

8th March 2012, 12:07 PM

https://www.facebook.com/sallymorgantv?ref=ts

Sally denies allegations of fake TV character reading

*SIGH*

That's not the way Drew McAdam tells it. What will it take to show her for what she is? :mad:

ETA: All women on that Facebook page:quelle suprise.

snuffkin

8th March 2012, 12:15 PM

AgeGap

8th March 2012, 12:32 PM

I would also love to know what it will take to get through to her..

Ouija board.

azzthom

8th March 2012, 01:15 PM

I would also love to know what it will take to get through to her..

Jail Time.

zooterkin

8th March 2012, 01:29 PM

So frustrating not being able to comment on her page. She was deleting any skeptical comments immediately from her wall, but now it seems like they're being moderated before even being published. So none are making it at all.

When the earpiecegate story first broke there were hundreds of non-believers popping up on her page, then within about a week they were all permanently banned.

I would also love to know what it will take to get through to her..

I don't think there's any prospect of getting through to her; why would she give up her living? However, it might be possible to get through to enough of her audience that she stops making money from them.

snuffkin

8th March 2012, 02:55 PM

via Twitter

@TheActorJPaytonReply

C'mon @SallyMorganTV, I do my best to expose your vile & fraudulent actions, yet you remain quiet. Why so shy?

James Payton‏@TheActorJPayton

Oh dear me. Why won't @SallyMorganTV sue me for accusing her of fraud? We both know we need the publicity...

:D RT folks!

Also:

Coffee Loving Skeptic shared a link.

http://qkme.me/36ia1u?id=192329058
So, you think Sally Morgan is a real psychic?

Duffy Moon

8th March 2012, 09:34 PM

Our Sal responds to recent scurrilous accusations:

http://www.sallymorgan.tv/sallys-response-to-edinburgh-allegations/

Squeegee Beckenheim

9th March 2012, 12:29 AM

Our Sal responds to recent scurrilous accusations:

http://www.sallymorgan.tv/sallys-response-to-edinburgh-allegations/

She's brining legal proceedings. I really, really, really, really hope the reporter recorded the session and that this is made public.

Azrael 5

9th March 2012, 02:42 AM

I informed Drew McAdam(he who instigated the thing) of Sally's response and got back this reply:

The cheek of it! The legal team at The Mail and Simon Singh are wanting more information on this - thing is, some audience members have now come forward - so that will back up what I have said. This whole idea that my wife "interrupted" is a nonsense - Morgan gave us the name and invites audience members to stand if what she says or describes means something. And I am not part of an organised effort - this is a wheeze I came up with on my own, just to see what would happen, It's grown legs, though! Yes, I'm a friend of Paul Zenon, but this was my baby.

Thanks for the info.

Drew

Paul

9th March 2012, 03:08 AM

While Ms Morgan is in a litigious mood, I would like to say that she is in no way psychic and any claim otherwise is dishonest on her part.

bluesjnr

9th March 2012, 05:50 AM

While Ms Morgan is in a litigious mood, I would like to say that she is in no way psychic and any claim otherwise is dishonest on her part.

I will happily second that and I wish to state that Sally Morgan is either deluded or a fraudster with regard to the messages she claims to receive from people who have died.

I unequivocally state that it is impossible to receive messages from deceased individuals and invite any libel court to find in favour of Sally Morgan ability in this regard.

commandlinegamer

9th March 2012, 06:05 AM

Synchronous messages.

If Joe Bloggs posts a letter to you, crosses the street, is squashed flat by a Routemaster and you receive said missive two days later, one might argue you have received a message from a dead person.

AgeGap

9th March 2012, 07:18 AM

Before Sally Morgan goes to court she should do some research on how things will turn out. She could do this by reading her horoscope in the Daily Mail.

I am of course a real psychic. I will soon predict the name of the next bogus psychic who goes on TV and says they have never heard of cold reading. Watch this space!

Azrael 5

9th March 2012, 09:29 AM

snuffkin

9th March 2012, 01:22 PM

The Edinburgh show probably was recorded, but by her own crew, for her next TV series.

Azrael 5

9th March 2012, 03:19 PM

Professor Yaffle

9th March 2012, 03:26 PM

Dunno if this was mentioned,its amusing. She was on a Radio show (5live) a while back and the presenter busted her chops anbout her gift(she was bad at cold reading him).His wife was pregnant wand Sally was asked what its sex would be .With only a 50/50 guess and all the power of spirit(it subsequently transpired a few weeks ago) she still got it wrong :)

Was that the Richard Bacon one when she said something he didn't recognise and she did the standard trick of saying "ask your mum, she'll know what it means"? So he got his mum on the phone who said she didn't know what Sally was going on about.

:D

Azrael 5

9th March 2012, 05:14 PM

Was that the Richard Bacon one when she said something he didn't recognise and she did the standard trick of saying "ask your mum, she'll know what it means"? So he got his mum on the phone who said she didn't know what Sally was going on about.

:D

Yep the very same. It was painful listening,but highly amusing.

Dubious Dick

11th March 2012, 04:17 AM

I just sent the following message via the SM website contact form:

'You bunch of con artists. Defrauding vulnerable, deluded and grieving people. SICK!'.

I received the following auto response which I thought was quite amusing in the context of my comments!

Thank you for contacting me

Thank you so much for my message.

I love hearing from my fans, it really means the world to me and I enjoy reading your messages.

I hope you have enjoyed looking around my website! My team are constantly keeping it up to date with all of my latest news plus I have my own Blog page which is like my own online diary.

I may be coming to a town near you very soon so make sure you check out my Tour Dates on my website!

Thank you once more for taking the time to contact me.

xSallyx

rjh01

11th March 2012, 04:29 AM

wardenclyffe

11th March 2012, 08:27 AM

Was that the Richard Bacon one when she said something he didn't recognise and she did the standard trick of saying "ask your mum, she'll know what it means"? So he got his mum on the phone who said she didn't know what Sally was going on about.

:D

Is that archived online somewhere? I'd love to hear it.

Ward

zooterkin

11th March 2012, 10:06 AM

This looks like it (I'm using my phone for data, so I'm not going to watch it now), but I think you can also find it on youtube.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jkj7l

Professor Yaffle

11th March 2012, 10:39 AM

Yes thats the one. And here it is on YouTube:

LNQtjepLlQQ

wardenclyffe

11th March 2012, 05:44 PM

Thanks. I wasn't able to watch the BBC clip, but the youtube clip worked just fine. But it started while the mother was already on the phone. I really wanted to see the look on SM's face when Richard Bacon said he could get his mom on the 'phone.

But I enjoyed what I did see.

Thanks,
Ward

Azrael 5

15th March 2012, 09:18 AM

Sally has removed mention of Dublin and Edinburgh "scandals" from her blog. Curious.

Rrose Selavy

15th March 2012, 10:50 AM

Sally has removed mention of Dublin and Edinburgh "scandals" from her blog. Curious.

Seems she has a "brand new" website design and blog which conveniently has deleted all references to her replies to that nasty business of anyone questioning her amazing powers.

Significantly, none of "Britain's Best loved Psychic"'s upcoming shows are sold out.

Even more signficantly , here is obvious evidence of gaining material for "hot reading" later.

Throughout the show Sally will give spontaneous messages to the audience from spirit world. Audience interaction is a huge part of the show; all we ask is that you come forward if you feel a message is for you to ensure you do not miss an incredible opportunity. There are a few other ways that you can get a message from Sally during the show:

* Complete one of Sally’s ‘Love Letter’ cards in the venue foyer and leave a question for Sally.

* Bring a photo of a loved one passed and if it is chosen Sally will try and connect with them in the spirit world. Please note that due to the high volume of people, photos cannot be returned so please use copies.

http://www.sallymorgan.tv/categoryevents/1.html

Azrael 5

15th March 2012, 12:19 PM

For amusement read her biog
http://www.sallymorgan.tv/About-Sally/biography.html

Featuring such gems as claims she inherited psychic powers from her Grandmother and she read for Princess Diana for 4 years!!!
Amazing.

AgeGap

15th March 2012, 04:39 PM

Sally has removed mention of Dublin and Edinburgh "scandals" from her blog. Curious.

Saleem Organ's response. Link (http://www.sallymorgan.tv/News/sallys-response-to-edinburgh-allegations.html)

leon_heller

24th May 2012, 03:48 AM

rjh01

24th May 2012, 04:50 AM

zooterkin

24th May 2012, 08:19 AM

Resurrecting this thread, I see that "Psychic Sally" is performing here on May 31. I saw the poster outside the White Rock Theatre on the way home just now. I thought of attending with one of my amateur radio transceivers, which has wide-band receive, until I saw the ticket price:

https://whiterocktheatre.org.uk/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScontent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=3A30F8 F1-4A5E-4150-BDAC-94A44D849FFB

I might see if I can pick up a signal from outside the theatre.

It would be interesting to know the result, though these days I'd assume that something like a bluetooth receiver would be used, which would be cheaper and more secure (if, in fact, she is actually using an earpiece for this sort of thing).

As a general comment, it's probably best to assume that anything you post here can be seen by Sally or her team. Also, if you (generally, not specifically leon_heller) are planning something more active than just scanning the radio frequencies, it would be a good idea to hook up with the Project Barnum (www.projectbarnum.co.uk) folks. I think they have some long term plans, and there have been some instances of local skeptic groups mounting a local protest or something similar that meant those plans had to be altered.

Blue Wode

16th August 2012, 04:46 AM

pakeha

16th August 2012, 05:18 AM

Thanks for the article link.
I've put it on my FB page.

Sideroxylon

16th August 2012, 05:28 AM

Excellent investigative piece on Sally Morgan by Simon Singh in today's Guardian:

Is psychic Sally Morgan deluded, but essentially harmless?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/16/psychic-sally-morgan-deluded-harmless?CMP=twt_gu

The stupid twat!
Sally: You're very … there's nothing wrong with you

Subject: So … no HIV or anything?

Sally: Oh don't tell me that!

Subject: I hope not, I pray. I've never been tested

Sally: Never say you don't need … You don't need to be tested. I'm looking up to God here …
Subject: I have a fear of needles.

Sally: Well I'm looking up to God here and you haven't got it. Okay. So as long as you remain sensible with your partners, you have not got it.

commandlinegamer

31st October 2012, 05:16 AM

A little update, courtesy of Simon Singh:

http://slsingh.posterous.com/psychic-sally-v-daily-mail-libel-trial-set-fo

pakeha

31st October 2012, 05:47 AM

Great news and thanks for posting it.

ttguy

10th November 2012, 10:39 PM

The defence submissions are posted too on pinterest - the link is in the afore mentioned URL in post 428. What is cool about the defence is that they point out that it is actually illegal in the UK to claim to be a professional Psychic.
She can not claim to be psychic in public performances because this is in breach of the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008. And she can not claim to be psychic on TV or on the phone because this breaches rule 15.4 of the OFCOM code which states that 'Psycic readings cannot stray beyond the circumscribed area of entertainment and should never be presented as relaiable, substantiated or offering anything other than a form of entertainment'

So the defence is saying that we can not damage her repretation as a professional psychic because she can not legally claim to be a professional psychic.

Pretty funny that.

Squeegee Beckenheim

11th November 2012, 12:42 AM

I feel dirty for wanting The Daily Mail to win a legal case...yet I do.

zooterkin

9th December 2012, 06:57 AM

The date for the trial has been set, starts on June 10th (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trial-date-set-tv-pyschic-sally-morgans-libel-case-against-daily-mail).

The libel trial is due to start on 10 June and has been scheduled for three weeks.

The story was widely reported in the national press at the time but Associated Newspapers is the only publisher named on the writ. It was written as an opinion piece by the magician and former psychic Paul Zenon.

The Daily Mail published another article on the same day – headlined 'Only the lonely believe in ghoulish psychics'– which repeated the substance of the allegations.

Morgan is seeking aggravated damages, citing the serious and offensive nature of the allegations which effectively accused her of perpetrating a deliberate fraud on the public, which struck at the heart of her professional and personal reputation, integrity and honesty.

Gord_in_Toronto

9th December 2012, 12:46 PM

A demonstration in court before a judge would certainly be an impressive defence. Colour me as completely optimistic that this will be successful. :(

Azrael 5

9th December 2012, 12:56 PM

Shouldnt Sally already know the outcome? ;)

rjh01

9th December 2012, 01:40 PM

A demonstration in court before a judge would certainly be an impressive defence. Colour me as completely optimistic that this will be successful. :(

Shouldnt Sally already know the outcome? ;)

I agree. She should demonstrate genuine psychic powers in front of the judge and then collect big $ from everyone. Somehow I doubt it. She will turn around and say "prove I am a fake or lose." The judge will agree with her and so she will win.

Squeegee Beckenheim

9th December 2012, 02:55 PM

The judge will agree with her and so she will win.

Actually, you know, I think the paper will win. I'm not sure a judge will tolerate her nonsense. Not just because because the paper seems to have a much better case than she does, but because magic (including talking to spirits) has been declared impossible in English law since the Witchcraft Act of 1735, and people claiming to do so named as frauds. This was replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums act in 1951, which made it prosecutable to take money while claiming to be a medium for any reason other than "entertainment", although you had to prove that the medium was setting out to commit fraud. This was repealed 4 years ago and replaced with EU trading standards regulations which made it easier to prosecute mediums, as they have to be able to prove they can do what they claim they can.

So there's a long history in UK law of being anti-psychic, and the legislation has only been getting more stringent as time has gone on. If Sally Morgan is, by law, defined as a fraud unless she can prove she can contact the dead - which she is - then I can't see a judge saying "oh, actually, she's right. She can contact the dead". In fact, by law, she has to say that she's presenting her show for entertainment purposes only, and can't say that she's genuinely contacting the dead in her shows, because otherwise she's admitting to committing fraud under UK law.

I think this will be a lot of fun, and could set a lovely precedent. Even if it does mean that I'm rooting for The Daily Mail.

wardenclyffe

9th December 2012, 11:10 PM

Is the newspaper the only one she's suing? I thought Simon Singh or someone else was as well.

Ward

rjh01

9th December 2012, 11:38 PM

Actually, you know, I think the paper will win. I'm not sure a judge will tolerate her nonsense. Not just because because the paper seems to have a much better case than she does, but because magic (including talking to spirits) has been declared impossible in English law since the Witchcraft Act of 1735, and people claiming to do so named as frauds. This was replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums act in 1951, which made it prosecutable to take money while claiming to be a medium for any reason other than "entertainment", although you had to prove that the medium was setting out to commit fraud. This was repealed 4 years ago and replaced with EU trading standards regulations which made it easier to prosecute mediums, as they have to be able to prove they can do what they claim they can.

So there's a long history in UK law of being anti-psychic, and the legislation has only been getting more stringent as time has gone on. If Sally Morgan is, by law, defined as a fraud unless she can prove she can contact the dead - which she is - then I can't see a judge saying "oh, actually, she's right. She can contact the dead". In fact, by law, she has to say that she's presenting her show for entertainment purposes only, and can't say that she's genuinely contacting the dead in her shows, because otherwise she's admitting to committing fraud under UK law.

I think this will be a lot of fun, and could set a lovely precedent. Even if it does mean that I'm rooting for The Daily Mail.

I hope you are right. If so it may damage her career. I wonder why she is doing it rather than ignoring the comments?

Pixel42

10th December 2012, 12:33 AM

IIRC the accusation was that she was tricking her audience in a particular way (communicating with someone backstage via microphone and earphone). She's always denied this and I'm inclined to believe her - her act is so poor it's unlikely to be the result of anything more than cold reading. I think she and her lawyers are going to concentrate on disproving that specific allegation, and hope to leave the public believing that she has thereby proved that she's genuine.

The other side needs to make sure that it's whether or not she can really contact the dead, rather than whether or not she used this specific trick to pretend she can, that's at issue, or she might well end up winning the case.

Squeegee Beckenheim

10th December 2012, 01:44 AM

The other side needs to make sure that it's whether or not she can really contact the dead, rather than whether or not she used this specific trick to pretend she can, that's at issue, or she might well end up winning the case.

A large portion of their defence is, indeed, that she is a fraud and is perpetrating a scam on vulnerable and suggestible people by claiming to be able to speak to the dead. In fact, a cornerstone of their defence will be that it's impossible for them to damage her reputation as a psychic, as her case claims, because it's illegal for her to claim to be a psychic while soliciting money from people, as well as the fact that all "right-thinking people" are aware that there is no such thing as a psychic. Furthermore they're going to argue that if the court rules that she is a psychic, then she will be able to advertise herself as a court-sanctioned psychic.

They further go into many techniques Morgan uses, and have evidence that, at least, she has made statements that she wears an earpiece for "stage directions", which they contend is nonsense as her act consists of her standing on a stage. They're also going to bring up the time when, due to a bit of information-feeding from a member of the audience, Morgan got in contact with the spirit of a character from Doomwatch.

I think it's going to be a lot of fun, and I can't see any judge worth his or her salt ruling in Morgan's favour.