UK Parliament mulls protecting consumers against supernatural claims

[bascule]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7354089.stm

 

Parliament is about to debate measures that will see all forms of paid-for paranormal activities fall under the new Consumer Protection Regulations.

 

Personally I'd love to see this happen in America as well.

[Aardvark]

This is good.

 

Anything that makes it harder for these frauds to be perpetuated on the vunerable and the gullible has to be a good thing.

[Pangloss]

Given the level of trust people have in government these days it might be better to go the OPPOSITE direction and embrace and recommend psychics to people. Heck we could even have the government PAY for it. The conspiracy theories alone would provide Hollywood with a whole new well to tap for ideas. And the psychics would never see it coming. Badum-boom.

 

But seriously, I wonder if one of the main benefits here would be to drive this sort of thing out of the mainstream media. Stories by local (and sometimes not local!) television reporters, syndicated television programs, stuff like that might have a hard time finding purchase if their underlying industry has to justify itself in court or face fraud charges.

 

So even if it didn't result in any prosecutions it could have a positive impact.

[gcol]

The term paranormal is, I think, being used too narrowly in this legislation. If passed, it will suffer the law of unintended consequences that is the fate of much trash law.

 

If I were a smart lawyer, I would be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of arguing that all religious activity is paranormal, and thus any broadly religious activity which has a paid for element, however disguised, should be illegal.

 

Loads of potential fun there.

[Sayonara]

Sounds good to me. If that were to extend as far as oooh, say, covering the "act of god" clause that insurance companies use to side-step claims, I would laugh my little bum cheeks off.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, if this were being considered in America, probably right around the corner, I'd have to be strongly against it.

 

Although it would solve one of my problems indirectly...my wife's addiction to Ghost Hunters and etc. Maybe I would get the TV back.

[ydoaPs]

If I were a smart lawyer, I would be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of arguing that all religious activity is paranormal, and thus any broadly religious activity which has a paid for element, however disguised, should be illegal.

 

Loads of potential fun there.

 

Not illegal, just falling under trade regulations.

 

Yeah, if this were being considered in America, probably right around the corner, I'd have to be strongly against it.

 

Why is that?

[D H]

Why is that?

Because the US has this thing called the First Amendment.

[ydoaPs]

Because the US has this thing called the First Amendment.

 

What does the first amendment have to do with subjecting paid services to trade regulations?

[gcol]

Not illegal, just falling under trade regulations.

 

 

Well, that would be start.....

[John Cuthber]

I presume the 1st ammendment is about freedom of religious belief.

 

That's a potentially interesting point.

Imagine I want to sell snake oil. presumably the people who buy it have some belief that it works.

Is the government right to rule out that belief by prosecuting me for fraud?

 

What if I was genuinely mistaken about the snake oil and I believed it worked?

[Phi for All]

What if I was genuinely mistaken about the snake oil and I believed it worked?

The gullible selling to the vulnerable? I like the image.

 

A lot like a rapist picking up a hitchhiking serial killer. Pop the corn and sit back, hilarity will ensue.

[Dak]

I presume the 1st ammendment is about freedom of religious belief.

 

and also about freedom of speech, which would probably be hijacked in this case.

 

But I want to say that I can speak to people's recently deceased relatives (for money)...

 

Personally, I don't see how seers etc. are any different from anything else. If i say i will do x for £y, then merely appear to be doing x, then that's fraud.

[Sayonara]

and also about freedom of speech, which would probably be hijacked in this case.

 

Trade regulations curtail freedom of speech in numerous other areas where the same concerns apply. Why should a special case be made for purveyors of the supernatural?

 

(I realise from the rest of your post that you get it, I am amplifying the point.)

[bascule]

I presume the 1st ammendment is about freedom of religious belief.

 

Religious freedom isn't being violated here. This applies to businesses, not non-profit institutions like churches. When your religion is a business, you have Scientology.

 

Is the government right to rule out that belief by prosecuting me for fraud?

 

What if I was genuinely mistaken about the snake oil and I believed it worked?

 

What if you're a car salesman who was genuinely mistaken about a car having a 50 MPG gas mileage when it really has a 20 MPG gas mileage? Even if you're "genuinely mistaken" you're misrepresenting a product to your customers.

[ParanoiA]

I presume the 1st ammendment is about freedom of religious belief.

 

That's a potentially interesting point.

Imagine I want to sell snake oil. presumably the people who buy it have some belief that it works.

Is the government right to rule out that belief by prosecuting me for fraud?

 

What if I was genuinely mistaken about the snake oil and I believed it worked?

 

I would say that if you just sold snake oil, it doesn't matter what you believe. If you're selling snake oil claiming it will do x, y and z, then it must do x, y and z or else it's fraud.

 

But I want to say that I can speak to people's recently deceased relatives (for money)...

 

Personally' date=' I don't see how seers etc. are any different from anything else. If i say i will do x for £y, then merely appear to be doing x, then that's fraud.[/quote']

 

I think you should have to prove they aren't "seeing" or talking to your deceased relatives. Otherwise, it's just like the god issue: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The onus is on the authorities to prove fraud. Incidentally, I doubt it would be all that difficult either.

 

I really don't see any sense in this kind of thing in America. We have all the laws we need to prosecute fraud.

[Glider]

What if you're a car salesman who was genuinely mistaken about a car having a 50 MPG gas mileage when it really has a 20 MPG gas mileage? Even if you're "genuinely mistaken" you're misrepresenting a product to your customers.

True, and the salesman has a responsibility to check the accuracy of his claims.

[Royston]

I think you should have to prove they aren't "seeing" or talking to your deceased relatives. Otherwise, it's just like the god issue: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The onus is on the authorities to prove fraud. Incidentally, I doubt it would be all that difficult either.

 

That reasoning is fine, until the person making the claim, is making a profit from that reasoning. You can't profit from a service based on those grounds, that's lunacy IMO. I welcome that this issue is being discussed seriously. Nobody is forcing mediums / psychics / astrologers from not practicing, just that they can't profit from their claims...I really can't see any problem with that.

 

My first thoughts were the media, so I agree with Pangloss...I'm wondering what the daily horoscope will be replaced with.

 

I can't see any ramifications associated with discrimination of belief, this is soley to do with making profit. I could however, fabricate a religion where it's written 'that I must have your money or pestilence will befall you' but that's just silly.

[ParanoiA]

That reasoning is fine, until the person making the claim, is making a profit from that reasoning. You can't profit from a service based on those grounds, that's lunacy IMO. I welcome that this issue is being discussed seriously. Nobody is forcing mediums / psychics / astrologers from not practicing, just that they can't profit from their claims...I really can't see any problem with that.

 

But I don't see them making claims. Does a horoscope actually make the CLAIM that they are telling your future? I never see that. They just provide a horoscope for those that believe it tells the future. Subtle, but quite distinct.

 

To me, it has to do with who is making the claim. Most of these services aren't making claims, that I've seen anyway, they are just providing the service for those who happen to believe in it. Hey, if you think dirty water from my pond makes wrinkles go away, I'll sell you all you want. But you'll never catch me making that claim.

 

So we get right back to allowing others to believe what they want. As long as this doesn't hurt the person or property of another, I see no reason why we should intrude on someone else's belief system, no matter how silly I think it is.

[Royston]

But I don't see them making claims. Does a horoscope actually make the CLAIM that they are telling your future? I never see that.

 

Really, I see it all the time...

 

Mystic Meg predicts your week ahead.

 

Mystic Meg predicts the week ahead for those who believe in astrology, for those who don't, then note, she isn't claiming she can predict the week ahead.

 

The latter doesn't make any sense, does it.

 

To me, it has to do with who is making the claim. Most of these services aren't making claims, that I've seen anyway, they are just providing the service for those who happen to believe in it. Hey, if you think dirty water from my pond makes wrinkles go away, I'll sell you all you want. But you'll never catch me making that claim.

 

But that's back to front, how am I supposed to know your dirty water reduces the appearance of fine lines, and wrinkles ? Well you advertise it, to advertise you need to claim your product works.

 

Also, what are you doing charging me for this product, that you know doesn't reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles ? Even if you believe it does, should you really be making money from that product, even if the claim is wholly inaccurate ?

 

So we get right back to allowing others to believe what they want. As long as this doesn't hurt the person or property of another, I see no reason why we should intrude on someone else's belief system, no matter how silly I think it is.

 

Again, nobody is stopping anyone, believing in this, that, or the other. Just that people shouldn't be making a profit from such activities. The intrusion is ensuring people don't get ripped off. They can still go and see a medium at a time of bereavement, but they should not be paying for that little bit of comfort, in fact that's one example I find particularly sickening.

 

I leave you with this...http://www.theonion.com/content/horoscope/apr-01-2008

[John Cuthber]

Re. Paranoia's post "I would say that if you just sold snake oil, it doesn't matter what you believe. If you're selling snake oil claiming it will do x, y and z, then it must do x, y and z or else it's fraud. "

OK, Sorry for failing to make myself clear.

 

For " sell snake oil" please read "sell snake oil while claiming that it has some medical property (eg it cures something) where that claim is not, in fact, true"

"selling snake oil" is to be construed accordingly.

[ParanoiA]

Mystic Meg predicts the week ahead for those who believe in astrology' date=' for those who don't, then note, she isn't claiming she can predict the week ahead.

 

The latter doesn't make any sense, does it.[/quote']

 

Makes perfect sense to me. Astrology follows rules that depend on the positions of stars - mystic meg is simply interpreting the rules as they've been laid out for this particular day of the year. The newspaper is printing on a piece of paper so you can read it. No one in the chain is saying "Read here to find out your future!". They are just regurgitating the predetermined "text", if you will, of what Astrology says April 24 has in store for each person. I suppose you could try to prosecute Astrology.

 

But that's back to front, how am I supposed to know your dirty water reduces the appearance of fine lines, and wrinkles ? Well you advertise it, to advertise you need to claim your product works.

 

If I advertise my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles then that's fraud. If I advertise I'm selling pond water - and you have been told by others that my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles, then I'm not committing fraud.

 

Also, what are you doing charging me for this product, that you know doesn't reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles ?

 

I don't know, nor care why you're buying my pond water. I never said it did a damn thing, and I'm under no obligation to interogate you and test your belief and filter myself accordingly.

 

Again, nobody is stopping anyone, believing in this, that, or the other. Just that people shouldn't be making a profit from such activities.

 

So are you going to rob me of my pond water? Or deny others the right to negotiate for it? If they have the right to believe, and I have a right to my property, then one of us is being denied a fundamental right.

 

Persuade people to stop believing in unsubstantiated things. Does this mean Bibles can't be sold anymore? No more science books that posit tachyons? Really stop and think of all the things you believe in, and how much of that is not empirical. Sure there's no profiting going on?

 

That's why we have the first amendment in my country. It certainly has its silliness, but it ensures that no one's beliefs can be impeded by others who think they know better. This includes belief that snake oil cures pimples and the belief that you don't have any right to simply HAVE my snake oil.

[Dak]

Makes perfect sense to me. Astrology follows rules that depend on the positions of stars - mystic meg is simply interpreting the rules as they've been laid out for this particular day of the year. The newspaper is printing on a piece of paper so you can read it. No one in the chain is saying "Read here to find out your future!". They are just regurgitating the predetermined "text", if you will, of what Astrology says April 24 has in store for each person. I suppose you could try to prosecute Astrology.

 

otoh, astrology comes with the implicit suggestion that it is true. Many people use it for a bit of a laugh, but many people belief it is real, which is a belief that is fostered and capitalised on by some for profit.

 

which, at the end of the day, does involve taking money off of people whilst only pretending to provide the (impossible) service that they believe they will get (for people who believe astrology is real -- for people who don't, presumably they're paying for a bit of fun sillyness, and getting it: no problem there)

 

If I advertise my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles then that's fraud. If I advertise I'm selling pond water - and you have been told by others that my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles, then I'm not committing fraud.

 

[...]

 

I don't know, nor care why you're buying my pond water. I never said it did a damn thing, and I'm under no obligation to interogate you and test your belief and filter myself accordingly.

 

[...]

 

So are you going to rob me of my pond water? Or deny others the right to negotiate for it? If they have the right to believe, and I have a right to my property, then one of us is being denied a fundamental right.

 

all good points. however, i think you have to differentiate from valid philosophical points (as your points above) and what people will actually do (suggest that the pond-water cures wrinkles without actually comming out and saying that they do -- they're still, knowingly, profiteering from protending to provide a service). hell, you could simply set up two legally unrelated companys -- one to promote the use of snake oil as an anti-pimple agent, and one to sell it.

 

notwithstanding what you said (which i do agree with), people will end up encouraging peoples beliefs that pond-water cures wrinkles, and profiteering from selling people this pond anti-wrinkle agent, knowing that's what they'll buy it for, and knowing that it doesn't do that. that, right there, is wrong; it's just hard to think of rules that couldn't be circumvented and that aren't heavy-handed that would stop it.

 

anyway, i get the impression that this suggested legislature is more to do with outright making claims -- e.g., that psychics claim to be able to speak to dead people/see the future, as opposed to claiming to be pretending to do so.

[ParanoiA]

Sounds like you're secretly interested in my pond water yourself Dak. I'm running a special on it right now, you know. I'm not saying it will do anything, but other people that buy it say it eliminates wrinkles and makes their weiner big. Of course, I'm not making that claim.

 

Yeah, they can get around the claims by using this sort of proxy testimony. But, then again, we're very accustomed to filtering advertisements with our inner sensibilities here in the states.

 

All of your counterpoints are sensible as well, it's just not good enough reasons to plow through the principles of freedom of belief and use of property, in my mind.

 

This also reminds me of the gun debate, in that you take away guns and people just start killing each other more with knives and sling shots. Business is always going to present their product in the best possible light, and use any and all means to sell practically anything you want to buy. Likewise, people are always looking for the "easy way out" and will always believe in stupid stuff. The two will always find each other.

[Royston]

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

Really ? The sentence is a blatant contradiction, but if you want to explore the demographic it's aimed at, it still doesn't make any sense. How can she claim the future can be predicted for person X, but not person Y, because Mystic Meg has accommodated for the fact that person Y doubts her ability.

 

Astrology follows rules that depend on the positions of stars - mystic meg is simply interpreting the rules as they've been laid out for this particular day of the year. The newspaper is printing on a piece of paper so you can read it. No one in the chain is saying "Read here to find out your future!". They are just regurgitating the predetermined "text", if you will, of what Astrology says April 24 has in store for each person. I suppose you could try to prosecute Astrology.

 

That is such crap, just like anything in a newspaper, it's a selling point. As I said before, they are making the claim that Mystic Meg predicts the future, or people wouldn't read it, it's that simple.

 

If I advertise my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles then that's fraud.

 

Right

 

If I advertise I'm selling pond water - and you have been told by others that my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles, then I'm not committing fraud.

 

You would be if what the others say, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

I don't know, nor care why you're buying my pond water. I never said it did a damn thing, and I'm under no obligation to interogate you and test your belief and filter myself accordingly.

 

See my last comment.

 

So are you going to rob me of my pond water? Or deny others the right to negotiate for it? If they have the right to believe, and I have a right to my property, then one of us is being denied a fundamental right.

 

What ? We're not talking about the right you have to your property, and people thieving your rejuvenating water.

 

Persuade people to stop believing in unsubstantiated things. Does this mean Bibles can't be sold anymore? No more science books that posit tachyons? Really stop and think of all the things you believe in, and how much of that is not empirical. Sure there's no profiting going on?

 

Again, it's not persuading people to not believe in unsubstantiated 'things', it's persuading people that profit making should be built on a sound basis, is that clear ? Please don't mix gaps in scientific theory with this discussion, it has nothing to do with it.

 

That's why we have the first amendment in my country. It certainly has its silliness, but it ensures that no one's beliefs can be impeded by others who think they know better. This includes belief that snake oil cures pimples and the belief that you don't have any right to simply HAVE my snake oil.

 

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, nobody is denying them making a claim, just that they don't profit from said claim.