[tthtarot]

I have heard that the 'fraudulent mediums act' of 1951 has been repealed. Can anybody tell me if this is true?

[enna]

i stand quite happily to be corrected on this - but to the best of my blief and knowledge - this act has not been repealed - howsoever the government are considering updating it - i think so that the new technologies and the concomitant problems can be covered

enna xx

[DannyW]

It is being repealed in April 2008.

I am told it will be replaced by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007, which implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).

[whatdoyouthink!!]

link to Government's web page below
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13563.asp

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The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 will be repealed from April 2008 by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007 (CPRs) which implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).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

Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, such conduct would still be unfair under the CPRs if it deceives the average member of (i) the group to which it is directed, or (ii) a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to this type of practice.

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.

The CPRs will be enforced by both civil (injunctive) action and criminal sanctions.

Further information on the UCPD and the CPRs is available on BERR's website (new window).

[DannyW]

I am quite surprised that only a couple of people have commented on this.

Because the implications to psychics and mediums appears to be quite significant.


Can anyone give any insight into the legal implications?????? :roll:

[Windswept]

I think whatdoyouthink & Danny were indicating that, payment for the service of a medium will fall under normal Or selected consumer right laws.

Not sure what the Tax implications are then? Readings might go up by 17.5%, :lol:
I don't think its a bad thing, You go to a dodgy medium - just report them to the Taxman, your guaranteed if they are conning you they are conning the state aswell.

I think though that for Genuine mediums there is a large degree of Onus put on the buyer, there can be many ways to interpret what you are buying and a degree of Care should be placed on the buyer and not necessarily the reader. For example if you don't go to someone who is registered (perhaps with SNU) you have failed to adhere to norm and have in a sense shown a degree of negligence to yourself. (Would you pay a dentist to do your plumbing?).
I guess this is where everything then becomes regulatory and out of hand.

Yet again this is where spiritualist churchs will benefit given that they are OR can be calssified under Charitable Organisations.

Take Care

[Nat]

Seems the law is moving under guidelines more in line with those in Australia where psychics/mediums/ etc, can be accountable under the Vagarancy Act just like any other business or service if they are coercing people in to parting with money under deceptive/ unethical means, etc, etc. This is something the Wiccan movement pushed for as it actually protects them to some degree from those accusing them of being fraudulent, coz they can offer their services and not be accountabe for people accepting them unless they are using unethical means to extract money or push services the client would not have otherwise offered or sought of their own free will.

Doubt there will be any major changes to the amount of charges brought forth under it tho, ... the last person here charged under it, if my memory serves me correctly (so don't hold me to it) was back in 1992, in Queensland, and came about when a guy used psychic ability as part of his defence in an unrelated case and the prosecutor took a disliking to that tangent and slapped some extra charges on him. Not sure if they held in court off the top of my head, ... I would need to look it up tho to get the specific details. Incidentally, psychic / spirit readings only became legal in the state I live in 2-3 years ago, but you could do them if you stated it was for 'entertainment only' - a term mediums get canned for using but don't always have a legal option in.

I would certainly love to see some of these people who scare people in to giving them on going payment for spells, protection rituals, etc, under the guise of something bad happening that only they can protect them from being charged under it, ... but it isn't happening here, so I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

Nat xxx

[bexgood]

Hello Everyone. Im a student at Leeds university and i am doing some research into what people think of this new law. Perhaps you are a psychic, do you think this is a good or bad idea? What will be the implications for you?

Kind regards.

Rebecca

[spider*lily]

Personally I would never charge for a reading if I was confident enough to start doing them outside my family and friends. When I was in Australia I had a private reading from a medium of a Spiritualist Church that my brother was connected to. She never asked for money but instead people would bring her something in exchange - a homemade cake, a little trinket, groceries, just anything to say thank you. A bit like barter really! I have never paid money for a reading - not because I'm tight but because I would never charge anyone myself.

If people want to make money from their gift or talent, then I guess the consumer has the right to ensure they aren't being defrauded and be protected by the law.

[gazzAB]

Psychic mediums have to eat and pay bills, fiootballers use their ability to make money so do artists why shouldnt psychic?