Quacks or special talents?

[MKG]

I'm just getting into a quiet barney on another site about the new legislation on spritualists, mediums, astrologers and others of that ilk. It promises to be a good one. Just wondered what, with a site full of pagans, the general attitude is here. Should they be allowed to charge for their services, or should they be burned at the stake (not literally, of course).

I'll come straight out and lay my cards on the table - I think that at the first mention of charging for services, the word CHARLATAN should appear, just like here, in capital letters.

[Flo]

Ah I feel nanny state coming on here when people start getting taken to the cleaners and the media starts to bleat that the government should do something about it. At this point someone will have to point out that most papers employ astrologers that you can call on a premium number.

Life could get interesting in the future don't you think?

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I couldn't come out and say that there is absolutely nothing in it, but only because I accept the near impossibilty in difinitively proving a negative.

But, personally, I wouldn't put any trust in any of them and certainly wouldn't hand over any money.

[Fatima&Tim]

Personally I think it's up to the individual, if your daft enough to think calling a premium rate number is going to give you all the answers in life then you deserve to be taken for a ride.
I'm not saying they're all con artists, but most who charge by the minute propbably are!

[eccentric_emma]

I agree. I think it should be up to the individual. After all nobody is forcing them to pay that money, and they have the right to spend it that way. Personally I don't think there is much in it but I don't think there should be laws against charging for it.

[Sian]

I agree about the charlatan bit! Don't really think they should be banned from selling their 'wares' altogether; plenty of people know full well it's a load of rubbish but simply find palm-reading, or whatever, entertaining-that's my libertarian angle anyway, I completely understand why people want to do that. BUT I'm heavily in favour of the new EU idea of making them give a disclaimer, etc.

[snapdragon]

Having
1. paid for a 'reading' from a 'medium card reader' and heard nothing accurate.
2. handed a Gypsy lady a coin to pay for combs and received -without asking- a past and future account that was (and proved to be) accurate.
3. At a spiritualist church service received a drawing from a Psychic artist with instructions to give it to Mum - and she immediately recognised it as her Uncle.

I have nothing to say

[witch way?]

On the whole I agree that people who are daft enough to pay and expect something that's not merely entertainment deserve to loose their money. Its their money and its their choice.

However when people loose someone who is very close they can be in a very vulnerable state of mind and so desperate as to clutch at any straw. It would be nice to be able to protect those people from con artists who are just out to fleece the vulnerable. How the hell you could do it, I have no idea. ww.

[citizentwiglet]

OK....*deep breath*....I read auras. Always have been able to, well, for as long as I can remember, anyway. Mum spotted it when I was about 3.

Do I charge for my services? No way. I feel that it is a 'gift' (I put that in inverted commas because it's often a curse as well, to be honest) and gifts should be given, not sold on, IYSWIM. In fact, I tend to keep it quite hidden as I often see things I wish I hadn't - that shows immediately on my face, I'm not good at hiding my emotions - and if I AM pressed to do a reading, people are warned from the outset that there might be something there they won't like.

Aura reading, of course, cannot profess to tell the future; I use it to pinpoint emotional states and sometimes physiological/medical problems. Of course, it all gets a tad boring after the 20th plea of 'Hey, would THAT guy be good boyfriend material'? when you're out with single mates in the pub.

[MKG]

You don't need the deep breath - I wasn't attacking anyone's beliefs, even they don't fit with my idea of reality. It's the big business side of the thing which I was getting at. I looked on the net and came across a lady (???) who claimed to be able to give readingas via email - at a price (four questions for £32).

She should be in jail.

[citizentwiglet]

The brass-neck on some folk does make me chuckle...it's very like the 'love spells', 'success spells' etc that can be bought online for a very reasonable $49.99.....it really does tarnish the name of witchcraft. I'd love to go undercover to one of their conventions and start banging heads together which is, I admit, uncharacterisically uncharitable and undiplomatic of me, really.

[witch way?]

I personally have an open mind. I've been reikied and felt nothing, been on 'journeys' and fallen asleep. It doesnt make me uncomfortable at all but I accept that, maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to pick up on these things. But how would it be possible to legally define between the genuine people who want to help others, and I don't see anything wrong with making a reasonable charge for doing so, and those who are deliberately out to make money by conning people? ww

[MKG]

Yep - you've hit on the big debate point. It is impossible, in law, to distinguish the "genuines" from the crooks. Or to define a "reasonable" charge. Does this mean, though, that to safeguard the rights of (let's say) the 5% of honest practitioners, the dishonest shennanigans of the 95% bent-as-a-box-of-frogs remainder should be ignored?

Or should we, as a society, be protecting the well-being of our, shall we say, more gullible brethren?

In any field outside of the supernatural, it is incumbent upon the provider of a service to prove, if necessary, that the stated service has, in fact, been provided. Should we make an exception for mystics?

[AXJ]

I think defining this collection of services offered by sooth sayers as entertainment is perfectly reasonable. I suppose that if there were to be any truth in any of it, then finding a 'good seer' as opposed to a 'fake fakir' comes under gmbling.

So perhaps gmbling, which is a form of entertainment, is the best definition of paid for divination, if you follow me.

LoL gmbling = g.a.m.b.l.i.n.g. other wise it looks like this "gambling"

[citizentwiglet]

Mmm, MKG....that's where I start scratching my head, to be honest. I'm not wholly comfortable with people being dictated to as to what they should and shouldn't do/see/watch/spend their money on. I honestly think that people with money to waste will waste it regardless of the 'service' being offered....scratchcards, chatlines, TV phone-ins....

Most folk I know who use such services do tend to go by word-of-mouth recommendation; reputation is, I think, the best form of advertisement.