[Merged]Progress in the UK - Fraudulent Mediums Act repealed

[chillzero]

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13563.asp

The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 has rarely been used in the prosecution of mediums and psychics, who claim to contact the dead relatives of people. Yet there are increasingly more TV shows and live acts where people claiming to be mediums and psychics prey on vulnerable people who have lost loved ones, giving them spurious information and taking their money. We call upon the Government to revise the Fraudulent Mediums Act and make it easier to prosecute these people.

Well, unlike every other petition I have joined up to, this onde has had a decent response:


The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 will be repealed from April 2008 by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007 (CPRs) which implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).


The CPRs include rules prohibiting conduct which misleads the average consumer and thereby causes, or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.


<snip>


Unlike the Act, there is no requirement in the CPRs to prove an "intent to deceive". This means that where practices are aimed at vulnerable consumers or average members of particular groups, it should be easier to take action against fraudulent mediums than under the Act.
<snip>

I particularly like the credit for common sense they apply to the public:
"Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, ..."
:)

*dashes off to email Randi*

[volatile]

I particularly like the credit for common sense they apply to the public:
"Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, ..."
:)

*dashes off to email Randi*

That's the most uplifting thing I've read all day!

[tkingdoll]

Today's Daily Star had the front page story

MADDIE GHOST CONTACTS MOTHER, the story being that Mrs McCann claims (according to the lying paper) that her daughter's ghost has visited her.

Can we go after the Star for that now? :D

I will be very interested to see what this new policy does. Will we see some actual prosecutions now, I wonder?

[Elizabeth I]

Would someone please do something about this Lisa Williams wen that has been wished on US television?

[cj.23]

http://hayleysparanormalblog.wordpress.com/

I have not had a chance to verify but looks like an excellent result. :)

cj x

[Big Les]

It's verified alright - chillzero posted about it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96448&highlight=repealed). All of us that signed the petition got the same response - it's being superceded by a more powerfu overarching set of laws that theoretically might allow for more and more successful prosecutions. It will need testing of course.

[Mojo]

Today's Daily Star had the front page story

MADDIE GHOST CONTACTS MOTHER, the story being that Mrs McCann claims (according to the lying paper) that her daughter's ghost has visited her.

Can we go after the Star for that now? :D


Only if their conduct is likely to induce their readers to make a "transactional decision".

I will be very interested to see what this new policy does. Will we see some actual prosecutions now, I wonder?


I'm not sure that it makes prosecutions any more likely. There have been successful prosecutions of "psychics", such as the one discussed in the thread "Psychic Jailed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59817)", but they generally seem to involve the "psychic" inducing their victims to hand over money (like the "transactional decision" offences envisaged by the new Consumer Protection Regulations). There were, according to an answer given in Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/vo970113/text/70113w04.htm) (scroll down to "Column WA15"), 5 successful prosecutions, and one unsuccessful one, made under the Fraudulent Mediums Act between 1980 and 1995, but I haven't managed to find any details of them.

I suspect that the "transactional decision" bit may put the sort of "psychic" who performs in front of an audience (or over a premium phone line) out of reach (unless, of course, the decision to hand over the entrance fee is considered to be a "transactional decision". Hmmm...).

[cj.23]

I signed, but my email address changed after 9 years, so no response for me. :) Sorry about that, i did look and did not see other thread - that is crap of me! Can we delete thsi one or merge?

cj x

[Mojo]

Well, unlike every other petition I have joined up to, this one has had a decent response:


Note that it is in fact implementing a Directive from the EU, so it's something that the government would have had to do anyway, petition or no petition.

[Big Les]

Oh absolutely. That's the beauty of this online petition BS. It lets the public think they're doing something to influence policy, and when something that was already planned happens to jive with an existing petition, they get to make a reply that reinforces that perception of being involved. Almost as if the government were cold reading us!

"We" did nothing aside from appear as a small "people seem to care about this" blip on the civil service radar (if that). The law change is a coincidence. But a happy one, as it's a potential improvement in the existing legal situation vis "psychics".

[cj.23]

Absolutely. I have expressed my reservations on the previous law many times, and while the online petition and the result are probably coincidental/unrelated, this has positive implications and i'm in a celebratory mood. :)

cj x

[tkingdoll]

Only if their conduct is likely to induce their readers to make a "transactional decision".



Newspapers are sold on the basis of their cover story, so yes they are.

However, they also have the best lawyers in the country, so let's not go there.

[brodski]

Oh absolutely. That's the beauty of this on-line petition BS. It lets the public think they're doing something to influence policy, and when something that was already planned happens to jive with an existing petition, they get to make a reply that reinforces that perception of being involved. Almost as if the government were cold reading us!

As someone who has been at the other end of some of these petitions, they do have some influence on policy (usually as part of a wider campaign), provided that they have enough support and what they ask for is deliverable.
However most of the ones that I have had to deal with were so badly worded and ill informed that they have little to no impact.

[Big Les]

Ooh, we have an NWO mole! What you say is interesting (and pleasing) to hear.