And then the tarot reader began with 'this is probably all a load of cobblers'

[annwfyn]

I've just read this.

It appears that from now on, tarot readers, mediums, spiritualists, and astrologers are going to be covered by legislation which says they have to warn people before they begin that what they are doing is 'for entertainment only' and is in no way experimentally proven.

As a note, I've had my tarot read for me many times, by both friends, professionals and by myself. It's mostly been inaccurate enough that I've rather given up on it as anything other than a quite good way to poke around someone's subconscious. I've had my palm read, and was haunted by the prophecy for years.* I've gone to see a medium once, but that was with a friend and I just listened in. It did sound to me a lot like a rip off, but who am I to comment?

In a very odd way this darkly amuses me, mostly because I have NO idea how the average fortune teller of any kind would work that into their schtick. I've never met one who wasn't VERY keen to emphasize how real it was, how important it is. Mediums, in particular, I think are going to be screwed by this.

"Well, there might or might not be something out there. No idea. Scientifically this is all crap. That'll be £17 to sit in my living room and let me whiffle crap at you."

In a way, though, I feel kinda sorry for these people. I've got friends who use tarot, and dabble in other things, and they are often quite serious about this kind of thing. This is kinda now saying very firmly that in the eyes of the law, they are talking complete shite and the law thinks they are just making shit up. And that's a slightly harsh thing to say.


*I was told I'd meet a man, settle down with him and have a daughter. Then I'd meet the love of my life. I'd be totally torn and it would rip me apart. The palm reader wasn't sure what decision I'd make, but it would be the right one in the end, which struck me as a cop out.

Comments

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

It doesn't exactly surprise me that the law thinks we're making shit up :)

I don't mind. It can think that if it likes. It's unlikely to affect my relationship with the Haindl deck :)

[imagesandwords.livejournal.com]

I kinda think it sucks, it's not like in a church they have to give the same disclaimer for example...

[sea-cucumber.livejournal.com]

It is a bit bizarre to make laws covering things that are unexplained phenomena. Maybe they'll make air traffic regulations for UFOs next!

Whether such things are real or not, it is strange that the government seem to think they know the truth... Maybe it's a cover up! :O ;)

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Well, if churches charged I'd expect them to...

[castorlion.livejournal.com]

I'm not really sure that the law is saying that it's all crap. The way I read it, the law is saying that what they can't do is say that it's all entirely true, and that'll be £27, please. Which is a little harsh on the ambience, but seems fair enough really.

[castorlion.livejournal.com]

Yes, but churches don't charge for entry -

"Roll up, roll up! Experience the Truth of Jesus! Only £5.50 per visit!"

"Thank you Madam, God bless you, £4.70 please."

"OAP discount? No, I'm sorry sir, we actually charge more the closer to death you actually are. It's all about a heightened market interest, you see."

They are (on the whole)about shared worship rather than providing a service (no pun intended). And the faith healers that do charge for their services are being affected by the legislation too.

[jholloway.livejournal.com]

I believe similar regulations are already in place in the US -- or that some businesses show similar disclaimers voluntarily to prevent themselves getting sued. It doesn't seem to make much difference. But if people are offering a benefit in exchange for a fee, then there should be some regulation of that benefit, I would think. A mechanic who sort of fixed your car sometimes or a dentist who maybe kind of filled your teeth wouldn't be allowed to operate. And since fortune-tellers can't prove that they predict the future, they must be offering some other benefit. Like ... people like having their fortunes told. Thus, entertainment.

I get the thing about the law and people's spiritual beliefs, though. That's a little uncomfortable. But I think it's an inevitable consequence of the intersection of business and spirituality.

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

The key words here are consumer/customer., and commercial practice.

It's changing trading laws - which means it only covers cases where there *is* a trade going on. People reading each other's cards for free round at a friends' or whatever will be absolutely fine to continue doing so as before - it's the commercial readers who'll need to have a disclaimer.

Which considering how there /are/ some con artists out there who take advantage of the vulnerable, isn't necessarally a bad thing. If you're not chargiong money for it - well, you could probably give someone a scare or upset them by predicting something malicious, but you're not going to financially screw with them.

Mind you, maybe I have a more pragmatic attitude to this, because I already have to be careful on the whole 'please take everything I say with a pinch of salt' disclaimer as someone who's not *yet* qualified as an accountant, but who people still ask for financial advice (and assume that I'm a trusted source when they hear it). I can tell them what I know the benefits to be (for example, that if they put money into a pension, there will be X amount which goes into the pension fund that would otherwise have gone to the taxman), but I'm not allowed to recommend that they invest in certain products or anything, because I'm not an IFA.

[becky-spence.livejournal.com]

I think there should be! Those pesky UFOs, clogging up our skies...

*grins*

[pmp.livejournal.com]

I think it's a little unfair that certain types of businesss are singled out, the change in the law should cover anyone selling an intangible product or service. For example, people giving advice are selling a service based upon their skills, that may or may not be accurate.

[bringeroflight.livejournal.com]

MOST churches don't charge for entry. ;-)

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

Are preachers going to have to start their sermons with the same disclaimer?

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: Any content in this comment are based on a non-scientififcally proven and non-professional viewpoint and are unsubstantiated by scientific research.

Should this extend to any advice given by anyone anywhere who is a non-professional?

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember a collection plate last time I was in church.
Not compulsary?
You try not putting anything in.

[mangochutney04.livejournal.com]

yeah I think I agree that if it is going to apply here it should apply to anything where results are not "clinically" proven e.g religious sermons, holistic therapies etc. Tarot/fortune-telling etc are not much different to holistic therapies in that they rely on the "it worked for me" anecdotal approach to evidence.

I was pretty convinced on what my tarot reader said to me back in Barcelona in 2002 and a little spooked by how she got my past so accurately. She said I would meet Mr. Right and get married but I didn't know him yet (I didn't meet Robin until 2003). She also said that I would have children, and when I protested that I didn't want them (at the time), she said aha but you have no choice fate will bring them to you.

The only things I'm not so sure on is that she said my husband would be rich and good-looking. Fairly cliched. I think Chutney is good-looking but rich? hmm, I'm not so sure.

Also, she said of the time that I had an older man looking out for me, looking after me. I still have yet to establish who that was/is. Unless she meant my Dad but that's a bit obv!

To be honest isn't it a bit mad that they even think people would need a disclaimer on this type of stuff. Surely even the most stupid of people know that things like this, holistic therapies included, are not proven and cannot 100% be relied on?

[adze.livejournal.com]

They aren't charging you anything, though, just giving you the choice to contribute, should you choose to.

I've never been to a church where the collection plate was something you HAD to contribute to.

[castorlion.livejournal.com]

I have, on several occasions when I haven't had any money on me.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I often don't put money in the collection plate. I always feel a bit guilty, but no one has ever been nasty to me.

[castorlion.livejournal.com]

yeah I think I agree that if it is going to apply here it should apply to anything where results are not "clinically" proven e.g religious sermons, holistic therapies etc.

I totally agree, as long as they are charging for providing that service. Which is, after all, the point of the legislation - to prevent people being conned out of their money. The tarot readers, mediums, spiritualists, and astrologers are getting caught up in the legislation, rather than being the focus.

[chrisvenus]

They are more than welcome to say its true. They jsut have to provide evidence that it is that will stand up in court. I find it hilarious because the whole point is that its not forcing them to say its not real. If it was I could imagine objetions but the law allows for the fact it might be real and just says that you have to prove it (if I understand correctly).

[chrisvenus]

Err... But things like investments you always see things like "value of investment may go down as well as up" and such like. They do cover that sort of thing (though perhaps not completely, I'll agree).

[chrisvenus]

Does it not apply to holistic medicine? Or do they have to disclaim already?

[mouflonmatt.livejournal.com]

You are making it up. It's all unmitigated crap and you know it. The law is necessary to protect people from charlatainry.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

It's not unmitigated crap, and I know that.

Most of the people who read commercially, however, are charlatans.

[fetket.livejournal.com]

This is odd reporting. I expect there was no news story in EU cracks on fraudulent health services. The EU act was originally targeted at people selling polarised and energised healing water and similar charlatan health care, which was not covered under a conventional trade descriptions act.

Weirdly enough it doesn't cover some holistic therapies, those that have undergone limited clinical trials, like most EU legislations the British media either makes it up or reports it badly.

[eladriell.livejournal.com]

"charlatainry?"

Ah, the voice of the educated man.

I cannot believe I'm rising to this...

[eladriell.livejournal.com]

If yer payin money from it, or know the kind of pathetic morons that think they can BUY...

in fact forget it, you either get it, or you don't.

On a side note, holistic medicine is a dishonourable blight upon every spiritual, scientific and intellectual achievement this country has ever accomplished. Death camps are to good for those muppets.

[colonel-maxim.livejournal.com]

Having actually read and advised some psychics on this act, I actually think that the threat is being wildly over-exaggerated. Effectively what they now have to do is act in the way that a responsible member of their profession would think was reasonable. This is pretty much it. So long as their practises are not out of keeping with the industry norm, they will not face prosecution. Mind you, in a seperate matter, Ofcom have effectively announced that close down all the television psychic channels by insisting that they get licensed as shopping channels rather than entertainment channels.

[colonel-maxim.livejournal.com]

The target of the legislation is actually dodgy tradespeople like plumbers and builders.