back to article Telly psychics fail to foresee £12k fine for peddling nonsense

Psychic TV has been fined £12,500 for failing to remind viewers that it’s all nonsense, while interactive quiz channel The Big Deal got stung with a 10 grand fine for advertising the service - something neither of them saw coming. The broadcast breached Ofcom's latest guidance for flimflam artists: that they must regularly …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How about homeopathic 'remedies' next?

    1. GettinSadda
      Boffin

      Cure

      I have placed a little bit of the internet between the two arrows below. Because it is such a small bit, diluted by all the rest it will have a powerful effect to cure the internet of all ills.

      ==> <==

      1. The Indomitable Gall

        Re: Cure

        Argh... that hyperpowerful Javascript is using up all my processor cycles!

      2. Parax
        FAIL

        Re: Cure

        But there is actually a character there!

        Homoeopathy doesn't even require a trace to be present!

        ==><==

        The logarithmic fail:

        1 part dilutant to 100 parts water = 1C dilution

        Repeat x2 = 2C dilution 1:10000

        Repeat x3 = 3C dilution 1:1000000

        ...

        12C dilution = Pinch of salt in the North & South Atlantic Oceans

        ...

        40C dilution = 1 Molecule in the observable universe.

        ...

        200C = Homoeopathic cure for flu

        Not understanding maths, chemistry, or medicine is a prerequisite for believing in homoeopathy (not to be confused with herbal remedies)

        The good news is that I've been treating all homoeopaths to a regular 12C* potentisation of my piss for the last 30 odd years. (*based on all the water in the world)

    2. Suburban Inmate
      Devil

      How about anything unsupported by material evidence? Let's see the various $deity hoards kick up a fuss about that, they're always good for a chuckle.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Hey that's not true, I have evidence that a friend of mine was cured of cancer thanks to homoeopathic remedies. Yeah, I know the sceptics amongst you will think it was the course of chemotherapy but I think that without the remedy his days would of been numbered. It was definitely the water, and the angels!

      1. Anonymous Custard
        Big Brother

        After all that, how about something similar for BBC Parliament?

        1. wowfood
          Paris Hilton

          Does this mean that they're going to start fining christian TV / islam TV / <insert religion> TV?

          1. Danny 14

            arent chiropractors classed as homeopaths? The chiropractor my insurance company let me use did wonders for my knackered rib cage after my motorbike accident. I dont go with all the stones and remote healing shite but crunching bones back into place worked for me.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              > arent chiropractors classed as homeopaths?

              No.

              Massage, even if not practised by a chiropractor, is demonstrably good for you.

              1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
                Stop

                It's the Simon Singh case you're thinking of...

                'Briefly, Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in which he criticised chiropractors for claiming they can treat children's colic, sleeping and feeding problems, ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, by manipulation of the spine. He said these interventions were "bogus", with "not a jot of evidence".'

                ( from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/17/bad-science-chiropractors )

    4. Crisp

      Re: How about homeopathic 'remedies' next?

      That stuff is dangerous!

      Well... it has an LD50 anyway.

      Water Intoxication

      1. Captain DaFt

        Re: How about homeopathic 'remedies' next?

        Yeah, it would have been funnier if you went with:

        "The main ingredient of homeopathic medicine is 'activated' dihydrogen monoxide! OMG,Think of the childern!"

    5. j1mb0b

      You're right: there is no clinical benefit from homeopathy.

      However, people become more healthy from taking it. It's the placebo effect - replicated in numerous double-blind, peer-reviewed trials.

      I agree people need to be told the truth, but surely the whole truth.

      1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

        Re: j1mb0b

        Sure, it's the placebo effect.

        So why dress it up as anything else?

        Allow me to answer my own question: Because there's good money to be made deceiving people.

        1. Don Jefe
          Happy

          Re: j1mb0b

          Not defending homeopathic gobbledygook, but if you tell people something is a placebo it won't work... The placebo effect only works if the subject believes what's printed on the tin.

          There's a strong argument that the placebo effect is actually caused by people making lifestyle changes which are responsible for the improvement. However, those changes are either not noticed or unconsciously ignored by the subject and/or near impossible to document.

          1. Tony-A
            Meh

            Re: j1mb0b

            Further: Expensive placebos work better than cheap placebos.

            1. Yet Another Commentard

              Re: j1mb0b

              See also "regression to mean" which is that people take <treatment> at their lowest point, and get better. They would have done anyway, but correlate the "treatment" with health improvement.

              There is an ethical issue with placebo prescription. As in, you can't knowingly prescribe something that has no discernible clinical effect.

              My biggest gripes are that my taxes fund the NHS to waste cash on this nonsense, and that the snake oil purveyors exploit desperate and vulnerable people who will try "anything" to help them with their suffering.

              Oh, a good article on acupuncture here - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/ in short, it's pretty much rubbish too.

              As for psychics, if they could really tell the future, why not just invest in the stock market, or live off gambling winnings rather than exploiting the gullible on TV?

          2. MonkeyCee
            Happy

            Re: j1mb0b

            "The placebo effect only works if the subject believes what's printed on the tin."

            Nope. Placebo (and nocebo) effects still work even when you are told that you are taking something that has no effect. It's considered about the only acceptable way to give people placebo's on the NHS (since Maggie changed the rules on lying to patients for their own good).

            You may be confusing it with double blind trials, where placebo and active medicines are mixed, but the patient and doctor don't know as to avoid biasing the results.

            Regression to the mean also covers a lot of what happens in healing. In fact a great deal of doctoring is either fixing what is causing the balance in homeostasis (such as an infection, parasite etc) or assessing that no intervention is needed as the bodies system will restore themselves. Hence why most of the time you can be "cured" by resting, drinking lots of water and eating some veggies. To simplify a little, if you're sick, you either will get better anyway (regression to mean), or will die. The second case requires an intervention, the first gets rest and palliative care.

            Quite a lot of "medicine" from the GP is not really anything of the sort. Since a lot of what is being medically treated really needs some rest, a lot of prescriptions or advice are just about treating symptoms or comfort. It appears unfashionable for a doctor to admit that there isn't a magic pill, just the same old "eat right, exercise, get more sleep" that gets ignored until it's dressed up as a diet and lifestyle choice that can be sold to suckers.

            Coming from a medical family it's very interesting to see how others treat doctors advice like it was from a priest. No arguing, no questioning, no explanations of how a particular medicine is supposed to affect you. Oh, and the idea that "western" doctors are even consistent with their treatments is a laugh. Doctors are human, it is impossible for a single person to keep up to date with the current best practices for all treatments. Hell, even specialists can't keep up with just their own area. So it's good to know when a doc has actual evidence for your diagnosis, or is just trying to push you out the door.

            It should also be noted that the doctors I'm related to are highly resistant to having any surgery done on them (unless it's directly life saving), resistant to "unnecessary" treatments (both have cancerous prostates, both are not treating them) and avoid taking any medication unless forced to. The pharmacologist argues with her GP whenever she gets prescriptions, since she actually knows what effects a drug will have, and so wants a treatment, not a symptom depressant. Heh, and her GP tried to get her to change her eczema cream to a non steroid one, which got firmly rebuffed. As she did her masters on eczema treatments.

            Anyway, went on a bit long here.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: j1mb0b

            "The placebo effect only works if the subject believes what's printed on the tin"

            Wouldn't that make it the Ronseal effect?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Ronseal Effect

              No... the Ronseal Effect would, of course, be when it actually does exactly what it says on the tin.

          4. Ralph B

            @Don Jefe Re: j1mb0b

            > if you tell people something is a placebo it won't work

            Actually the placebo effect still works even if you know it's a placebo. So, no need to wrap it up in homeopathic profiteering.

      2. Joseph Eoff
        Pint

        @ j1mb0b

        No, homeopathy doesn't make you healthier. You might convince yourself that you feel better, but it does bloody zip for the actual disease.

        That's a homeopathic beer, diluted 1:100000 to cure your hangover.

      3. sisk

        However, people become more healthy from taking it. It's the placebo effect - replicated in numerous double-blind, peer-reviewed trials.

        Not to defend the nonsense, but wouldn't that more or less validate the claims of certain types of homeopathic providers that their methods are fueled by belief?

      4. Parax
        Boffin

        @J1mb0b

        Whilst there is no doubt that Placebo can have a positive effect with certain ailments (pshycological ills). There is NO doubt that placebo does NOT treat Aids/HIV or Prevent Maleria. Yet homoeopathy is currently being used to treat Aids Patents in Kenya, in lieu of proper antiretroviral medication and for others, to prevent Maleria. This is why Homoeopathy is akin to the work of Satan. It is preventing a cure that science already has.. Homoeopathy is one of the vilest deceptions that still exist in our society. Pure Snake Oil.

    6. Allan George Dyer
      Joke

      They already fined them...

      but they divided the fine by a thousand billion to make it more effective.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    I can't believe they have the front to make claims about the Milly Dowler case.

    Just for that they should have to display a banner stating 'What we are saying is nonsense' at all times at the top of the screen.

    1. Cliff

      Millie case

      Absolutely standard stuff, sadly. Literally by the book.

      http://www.thecoldreadingbook.com

      Ian Rowland wrote pretty much the authoritative text on cold reading and pseudo psychics, he's not at all a fan of the psychics industry so this book is largely to help magicians to perform psychic shows/debunking.

      Psychics attaching themselves to investigations is extremely common, police departments get dozens or hundreds of time wasting psychics mailing in each time, getting messages with no real value but using the same chutzpah the psychics will claim a 'hit' no matter what. At the very least they can claim to have been helping the police (who really neither need nor want their help imposing on them)

      Charlatans. Can't bear them and their greasy insincerity.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: "Just for that they should have to display a banner..."

      Sorry, but I disagree.

      For that, they should be thrown in jail. One year for each mention.

      And if they start doing it again when they get out, then back into the slammer they go. This time, with Bubba. Maybe then they'll learn that you don't hijack someone's death to falsely make you look good.

  3. David Hicks

    Would it have been better for the mail...

    ... to question her grasp on reality?

    Because that seems the alternative to fraud here.

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

      They should field a stage magician who knows how to use the same techniques of reading the audience. Could be highly entertaining to see the tables turned!

      Re the advertising verdict, I take it this particular Psychic TV is nothing to do with Genesis P Orridge. I once saw them blown off the stage by Zodiac Mindwarp and the Love Reaction. Now that WAS magick!

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

        Houdini used to takje great delight in exposing "psychics"

        Of course the fun part is that should someone prove that the psychic in question has been using offstage help she'll have to go to court again and won't be such a happy bunny. Needless to say her stageshows will be getting extra special attention for the forseeable future.

        1. Anonymous Custard

          Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

          So does Derren Brown, although these days he's become a bit too well known to do it "properly" (suffering from Ali G syndrome).

          And then of course there's also longer-standing seekers of the real truth, like James Randi. Also a former magician, sits quite nicely between Brown and Houdini.

          1. David Hicks
            Facepalm

            Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

            Yes I saw one of his 'spiritualist' things on the telly a few years back. He read up on cold reading and applied to it to awesome effect, to do exactly what the psychics were doing and he did it very well.

            Unfortunately I've seen people take away from that that he is a liar and he was only able to do the amazing cold reading because he has huge psychic powers that he's not telling us about.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

              I like Derren Brown's act a lot. Also Penn and Teller. The stage personas can be a little grating, but they deliver on "proper" magic tricks, in that you know what's going on and they still manage to trick and delight you. Brown even shows you stuff you can do. It's all about tone and getting people to play along a bit. Hand people a water bottle and ask for their wallet/phone/watch and they'll give it to you lol.

              If Penn and Teller are normally not your cup of tea I urge you to check out them doing the cup and balls trick. They do it with clear cups, and show you where all the extra balls start off, and it's still amazing :)

          2. Anton Channing
            FAIL

            Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

            Only as I understand it, Randi has been caught out as a fraudster himself so he's hardly a 'long standing seeker of truth'. Just another huckster parading as one.

            1. David Hicks
              Meh

              Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

              "Only as I understand it, Randi has been caught out as a fraudster himself so he's hardly a 'long standing seeker of truth'."

              Got a reference for that? Would be interested to read it.

            2. Cliff

              Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

              Do you mean he's not really got magic powers?

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Anton

              Proof please or shut the *uck up.

              Uselessly calling someone a huckster is just muck spreading without a reference, and just shows you up as a moron.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Would it have been better for the mail...

      ... to question her grasp on reality?

      Naaahh.......

      Dangerous ground for the Mail.

  4. adnim
    Meh

    They are not alone in promoting nonsense

    "Psychic TV has been fined £12,500 for failing to remind viewers that it’s all nonsense"

    I can think of several organisations that spout just as much nonsense if not more, many of them are registered as charities. They have big buildings with pointy tops in most if not all towns and cities throughout the UK.

    Accepting that many of them actually do good work for the community, they should still be bound by law not to promote their own brand of superstition as fact.

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

      "Accepting that many of them actually do good work for the community, they should still be bound by law not to promote their own brand of superstition as fact."

      The pointy-hat wearers in the Lords would veto any such law. You'd have to separate Church & State first (as they should be)

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

        "The pointy-hat wearers in the Lords would veto any such law. You'd have to separate Church & State first (as they should be)"

        I agree with you, but look how well that separation has gone down in America! It's far worse than here!

        1. Suricou Raven

          Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

          They have seperation in law, but not in practice. We have seperation (mostly) in practice, but not in law.

          Really it comes down to democracy. When the population is intensely religious then politicians pandering to them, promising to protect the religion and spouting off about their faith will get elected - regardless of what the law has to say on the matter. While if the population is less religious, and regards what religion they have as a purely private affair (as most of the UK does), politicians attempting the same stunt will be laughed out of office. A democracy reflects the views of the constituents. That's the idea. Even if those views are in conflict with the law - though that situation, if persisting long enough, will self-correct as the law is revised.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

            "A democracy reflects the views of the constituents. That's the idea. Even if those views are in conflict with the law - though that situation, if persisting long enough, will self-correct as the law is revised."

            Unfortunately that only works if the voting system gives equal weight to everyone's vote at all stages.

            The English "first past the post" system means someone can be elected as an MP with a minority of all votes cast locally. A party can have a working majority in Parliament with a minor percentage of total votes cast. The Government Executive, or even the Prime Minister alone, can ride roughshod over their Party's MPs by use of patronage and forced election/re-selection threats. Media, Unions, and Big Business, Organised Religions, and other lobby groups - all have non-democratic disproportionate influence on policies.

            Elections hinge on swings in the marginal seats - where you just have to convince enough swing voters that you will pursue the policies of their self-interest. If you are in a "safe" seat - or your favoured party doesn't field a candidate - then you don't really have a vote.

            The people who get selected to represent the major parties locally can all be green monsters from Mars - and that is the only choice the electors get. The parties' candidates' selection processes often have a list imposed on them by Party powers at some level of the hierarchy.

            It annoys me intensely that my local MP votes on many issues according to the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

              @AC 22:14 From one AC to another - I've been arguing this very same point for donkey's years. Glad to know I'm not the only one.

              But despite the persuasive logic of the observation (imo), the status quo remains. I thought that perhaps fraudulent MPs, rogue bankers and a screwed economy may have tipped the balance, but alas not.

    2. Avatar of They
      Happy

      Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

      You must also include those with domed buildings and any other place of talking 'nonsense'. Afterall you can't say one is 'fake' if the others are not also' fake', when all say pretty much the same thing.

      I do have to say that kudos to the 'Reg for not in any way sitting on the fence with this article.

    3. Robert Grant
      FAIL

      Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

      Accepting that many of them actually do good work for the community, they should still be bound by law not to promote their own brand of superstition as fact.

      Who's uncritical enough to not see this as breaking freedom of speech? Does it also apply to Dawkins?

      Getting pretty bored of the 95% of unthinking atheist comments that dogmatically repeat the same tired old mantras on forums. There are good atheist arguments. When you say stuff like that, it pretty much guarantees you weren't persuaded by them, but instead just read some book that straw-manned all religions together, and made you feel superior for being atheist.

      1. adnim

        Re: Robert Grant - They are not alone in promoting nonsense

        Being forced to go to Sunday school, being told that if I didn't capitulate to the rules of a religious system that fed me stories similar to those of the brothers Grimm. And the promise of eternal damnation if I didn't acquiesce was almost enough to sway me from my indoctrination. Even as a child I could see there was something wrong with this. Discovering that almost every religion on the planet prays to a different god convinced me that god is indeed a product of human imagination.

        I don't need to read any book to see the obvious, just a critical mind that only accepts reasonable and verifiable explanations.

        There are thousands of gods all requiring different behaviours from their followers.

        There is only one truth, it is called reality.

        Would the words of an advertiser selling product by providing unverifiable information about that product and threatening the end user with eternal damnation if they didn't buy it be considered free speech?

        Why should religion be any different?

        1. DragonLord

          Re: Robert Grant - They are not alone in promoting nonsense

          What if religion and the god(s) are actually separate and that the religions that grew up around them are completely man made constructs designed to proliferate ideas that will ensure the survival of the people that follow that religion in the setting that the religion was born in. The reason that the god(s)/spirits are involved in that religion is because it's very hard to change the way that people are behaving even if it is long term destructive when they don't have the education to understand what you're trying to tell them, and you can't even tell them causes.

          At that point there are thousands of religions all using God as the man with the club that require different behaviours from their followers. It also explains the inconsistencies in the god(s) as the religion evolves over time.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Robert Grant - They are not alone in promoting nonsense

            @DragonLord:

            "What if religion and the god(s) are actually separate and that the religions that grew up around them"

            The gods currently worshipped (plural) are extremely unlikely to exist. Following backwards through the ancestors of the current religions and the religions before that also reach an extremely small chance of them being right. With the many gods vs the current singular almighty deities prove that most religions are wrong if even one of them hits the tiny chance of being true.

            So this leaves truth and belief split strongly. This calls into question the religions themselves which almost exclusively call for absolute belief that that one is the right one and all others are wrong. So if the very remote possibility that even 1 is right damns the rest. But does it? If we praise a creator as the great one and find its the right one would it be happy that it was praised by religious russian roulette fools who took a huge and clueless guess? If so then it isnt any of the peace loving gods favoured now.

            Surely if you do meet some entity after death (pretty much the promise/bribe of all religions) it would prefer that you would make the effort to care enough and seek answers? Instead of promoting blind belief it would surely insist that you wernt so easy to manipulate into believing any rubbish spouted?

            WW2 created religions. Look up cargo cults from the world wars. They worship the amazing powers who bring magical technology. To be a god you need not to be understood.

            1. DragonLord

              Re: Robert Grant - They are not alone in promoting nonsense

              My point was that religions are human constructs that have no bearing on if there are any gods or not. I personally believe that there are gods, but that's separate from my belief of religion. On that basis, proving that religions are inconsistent further proves that they are created by humans rather than gods. In religion you could think of the gods as the mafia enforcers, so if you don't do what the boss says the enforcers will get you, but if you're good and do what the boss says, they will bring you nice stuff.

              Equally I think that there are gods as without them where did the energy for the universe come from without violating the known laws of physics. I think that science will be able to answer pretty much every question about the universe except that one.

      2. Colin Wilson 2

        Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

        >> Getting pretty bored of the 95% of unthinking atheost comments that dogmatically repeat the same tired old mantras on forums...

        Amen to that!

        Seriously - if I could vote that up more than once I would

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They are not alone in promoting nonsense

      "Accepting that many of them actually do good work for the community, they should still be bound by law not to promote their own brand of superstition as fact."

      Agreed.

      Having a religion is like having a penis. It's ok to be proud of it, but theres really no good reason to be getting it out and waving it around in public!

  5. Crisp

    If you listen very very carefully...

    You can hear James Randi dancing a jig :D

    But this ruling doesn't go far enough. There should be an announcement every 15 seconds that it's all bullshit.

  6. unwarranted triumphalism

    Hilarious

    '...something neither of them saw coming'

    Oh, pardon me while I split my sides laughing. That one never gets old.

    What's next, El Reg, are you going to remind us that 'all religion is bunk', just so you can feel superior?

    1. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
      Angel

      Re: Hilarious

      No, they'll just leave that to the commentards - they do it so well after all...

    2. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: Hilarious

      Maybe the Reg won't .... but some religions must be bunk as they can't all be right. I understand there is some debate as to which these might be. Do let us know when it's settled.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Holmes

        Re: Hilarious

        > but some religions must be bunk as they can't all be right.

        Indeed: only a maximum of 1 can be correct since they all contradict each other.

        Since there is no particular reason to favour any one over the others, the proper answer is 0 as any fule kno.

    3. Suburban Inmate

      They might have

      They might have seen it coming and just accepted it as an operating cost, while making a buttload more from the stupids with unsupervised access to phones.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: They might have

        Oh they saw it coming, just unfortunately lost in translation. This happens when your spirit guide is a Turkish warrior from the 14th century. What they actually heard was "Çok fazla para var gibi görünüyor, ama ruhları bu size kurtaracak yardımcı olacaktır. Oh, ve orada bir not ve bunun üzerine bir penis bir çizim vardır"

    4. Spleen

      Re: Hilarious

      "Oh, pardon me while I split my sides laughing. That one never gets old."

      That's because it makes sure to take its special homeopathic remedy to prevent jokes getting tired - write 'My dog's got no nose' on a piece of paper, grind into dust, dilute a billion times and drink.

      And if it ever does get old and dies on its arse, who cares? We can just get a medium to call it up from the spirit world.

    5. Greg J Preece

      Re: Hilarious

      Religious believer in psychics, are we?

      1. unwarranted triumphalism

        Re: Hilarious

        'Religious believer in psychics, are we?'

        No, just someone who is getting fed up with the Register's constant bashing of people's beliefs.

        1. EyeCU

          Re: Hilarious

          When you have demonstrable proof that said beliefs have any basis in reality we will treat them with some respect. Until then, the proof gathered over many years that this is all bunkum and nonsense makes it entirely justified to mock them at every possible opportunity.

          1. h3

            Re: Hilarious

            All I know is at a most basic level somehow science starts with nothing and then suddenly there is something.

            This makes me technically agnostic.

            There is no proof of anything. (Lack of evidence for is not the same as proof against).

            (I think the world could do with a bringer of death destroyer of worlds. I wouldn't mind one of those ceremonial daggers sikh's get to wear.)

            1. Frumious Bandersnatch

              Re: Hilarious

              I wouldn't mind one of those ceremonial daggers sikh's get to wear.

              You could also just pretend you're Scottish. Wearing a dress is a small price to pay if you really, really want to carry a dagger around.

            2. Tubs

              Re: Hilarious

              @h3

              You can't prove that something doesn't exist.

              You can only provide a theory of prediction which can be tested and proven with a level of certainty; something the opposition has yet failed to do.

            3. TeeCee Gold badge
              Meh

              Re: Hilarious

              Lack of evidence for is not the same as proof against

              No, it isn't. But given the sample size and the length of time it's been studied, it's a massive clue that the correct answer here is; "It's all a complete load of bollocks.".

            4. MonkeyCee
              Thumb Up

              Re: Hilarious

              I thought it "started" with matter/antimatter wiping each other out.

              Only turns out it's not quite a perfect balance. So there's a tiny tiny miniscule amount of stuff produced each time. Hence the universe. Or at least as much of it as we can sense. We think. Maybe.

              I'm atheist because any concept I have of a God is not described in the religions out there. If it made everything, then it exists and operates on a timescale and breadth that is so far beyond my consciousness it is difficult to conceive. We cannot even conceive the universe. Even relatively tiny things like galaxies are mind bending to imagine. If there is a God then our minds couldn't handle it.

              Prayer, reflection and faith are all vital parts of the human existence. We just don't need any institutions telling us how or why.

              As a science geek, I find it quite spiritual to think of the fact that molecules I'm made up from* where forged in the explosion of a dying sun millions or billions of years ago. My conscious gets to borrow a bit of the universe for a moment, have some joy, then give it back. Just glad I don't have to do it alone :)

              Find religion and God in yourself and your life. Go in peace.

              *apart from the hydrogen

              1. DragonLord

                Re: Hilarious

                @MonkeyCee - Would that make you agnostic rather than athiest - as you seem to be saying that there might be a god, but if there is there's no way I could comprehend it.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Hilarious

                @MonkeyCee "My conscious gets to borrow a bit of the universe for a moment, have some joy, then give it back. Just glad I don't have to do it alone :)"

                You could be a "pantheist" - in its non-religious meaning. Also the Quakers have a very egalitarian philosophy that eschews hierarchies and telling people what to think.

                Christian friends often insist that atheists cannot experience the real beauty of "God-given" things like nature or

                music. When you try to explain to them how these things are even more beautiful below their surface appearance - they are baffled. They cannot see the beauty in the way "simple" things have evolved to produce particular complex interactions.

          2. The Indomitable Gall

            "Respect"

            There is a difference between not respecting someone's beliefs and insulting people based on their beliefs.

            I used to be religious. Why? Because the people around me were.

            I stopped being religious. Why? A Damascene conversion? No, that would be preposterous. Just because the people around me weren't.

            Anyone who claims they're atheist on intellectual grounds is deluding themselves -- one way or another, we've all been acculturated.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Stop

              Re: "Respect"

              > Anyone who claims they're atheist on intellectual grounds is deluding themselves -- one way or another, we've all been acculturated.

              That's a very weird and culturally biased view. For me, I thought about it and realised that it was all bunkum. It was really that simple.

              If anyone thought about it long enough and hard enough, they would come to pretty much the same conclusion.

              The fact that our culture makes it hard to do so objectively is an entirely different thing though.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Respect"

              "Anyone who claims they're atheist on intellectual grounds is deluding themselves -- one way or another, we've all been acculturated."

              Like the Vicar of Bray most people will do anything for group favours, benefits, and protection.

              In the 1950s it was the conformist thing to be Christian and to be baptised and confirmed. It was the easy thing to do - and you had nice presents on the latter occasion. To declare yourself an atheist was unthinkable - and put you outside the social niceties. You couldn't even belong to the Boy Scouts. Non-denominational secondary schools wouldn't have a Head Boy who was a declared atheist - his role was assumed to include some State School religious duties.

              Even so - I declared myself an atheist at the age of 14. After years of being a model church pupil and choir boy. Nothing has happened since then to dissuade me of that Enlightenment philosophy.

              It took nearly another 40 years for "atheist" to become an accepted philosophical position alongside any religious affiliation in England. Several religious friends, neighbours, and acquaintances still pronounce that one day I will "see the light" - even though their "loving god" has been demonstrably cruel to them, and others, on innumerable occasions.

            3. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

              Re: The Indomitable Gall

              Please try to avoid projecting your experience on to everyone else.

              1. Cameron Colley

                Re: The Indomitable Gall

                "Anyone who claims they're atheist on intellectual grounds is deluding themselves -- one way or another, we've all been acculturated."

                Only morons are like that. The rest of us make our own minds up whether we end up agreeing with our friends and family or not. Only the ignorant do not constantly question their own beliefs and values. You do hear of priests and vicars (and just normal churchgoers) who have decided they're atheist because their constant scholarship meant they lost their faith.

                The same goes for other beliefs too, of course, whether it be in Socialism, Capitalism, AGW or anything else you care to think of.

                Our whole lives should be spent being open to change and receptive to new ideas.

            4. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Respect"

              I grew up with parents who had no strict beliefs but generally attested to some "traditional" version of religion. They got married in church, etc. and Mum would write "C of E" on the census for herself, my dad, my brother and (until I protested) me. My brother wasn't / isn't exactly religious - he's of a scientific mind - but there's certainly room for his own personal religion in his head. For years he ran various Scouting groups to quite a high level, and I was absorbed into them as I grew up, and there's quite a heavy Christian basis in there.

              I moved in with a woman who became my wife, who was religious. Her father is religious. Her mother was religious. Her step-dad was religious. The version of religion practised by her father influenced her mother, and then when they split up, the version practised by her step-father overtook that and influenced her mother again. Neither "agrees" with the other's version of their religion. Neither were her personal view of religion. None of the above were my opinion.

              My wife accepted that I wasn't interested in religion (agnostic, you might say, but I'm honestly not interested enough to find a proper word to describe it). Years later, we married (in a church at her request) with no cross words. We divorced years later (contrary to her mother's religion, but not her father's), still with no cross words. I moved in with a girlfriend (whom I met after the break-up!) who was a scientist. We got on well primarily because we shared the same opinions on religion. She comes from a highly-religious country and had had crosses on the wall of the classroom, true even today, and everyone at home from her granny to her uncles had religious beliefs, none of which she ever shared.

              I have a daughter by my wife. She is not religious, she's too young to understand what that means. Nanny reads her Noah's Ark, Grandad will go along with things but doesn't really believe that it's worth affecting your life for, Grandma is devoutly Roman Catholic, Grandpa is too, "mad" Grandpa (my wife's father) is more religious than the lot but hardly ever goes to church because "churches in England are stuck in the 12th Century", and mummy goes to Methodist church when she remembers to (but her personal religious view does not make her obligated to do so). She'll probably grew up knowing more about the various religions than I do.

              When she's old enough, my daughter will decide because she has more than half-a-brain. I'm not saying she won't follow the crowds, or her family, but that'll be up to her. Will she be free-thinking and choose either path, or will she choose to be ignorant and be forced down a path of other people's choice? That's up to her and, in a small way, the way she's brought up - but mainly down to her ability to think objectively, which is a skill not associated with your parent's ability to do so, nor their religious methods, nor your own intelligence.

              Over the years, I was a child who was put into a state school and forced to sing hymns in assembly, I was a member of staff in a Catholic school (where I witnessed brainwashing worse than I thought was even legal, but apparently it is), worked in Christian-based youth clubs, and I now work in a private school who have a "Christian ethos" and still sing hymns in school. I am not, nor have been previously, religious in the slightest. This means that I don't actively avoid working in, say, a Catholic school because of the principle but because of the specific example of the way i saw one run. But, equally, I probably *would* prefer my child not to go through a Catholic school, but it's not a requirement. There is no one incident that makes me non-religious (unlike a transgender homosexual friend of mine). There is no amount of subtle brainwashing or subtle personal interactions that have made me change my mind at any point. My partner's wishes have always been clearly separated from what I believed in at all times.

              And I was the kid that everyone told what to do. I was still living at home into my 20's. I was the one who didn't have many friends and thus was liable to be influenced easily. It's not a question of "how you were brought up", so much of "how free-thinking you are". It's not even a question of intelligence, more of common sense. Do *I* believe this stuff? No. Have I heard arguments from others that could change my opinion? Possibly. Have they? No. Just because of stubbornness? No, I don't believe them. In the same way that I don't believe in homeopathy or acupuncture beyond placebo, or that giving kids computers will automatically make them more clever. My ex-father-in-law believes that Hell is not a place of punishment but, by way of missing out on the "glory" of God's blessing, a comparative Hell - compared to "knowing" God, it's much "worse". I found that a very interesting argument and ensuing philosophical discussion and helped me understand him more. But it doesn't change what I *believe*.

              I don't think it's healthy, or objective, to be "brainwashed" as I've seen in some places, but to say that your parents/partners "obviously" greatly influence your religious choices just reeks of sheep-like behaviour to me. It's like the argument that if your parents smoke, so will you. No, I didn't. Not once. Because I hated the smell? No, I can't smell it to be honest - my wife/girlfriend often have said how I've come back from my parent's house reeking of smoke that I can't detect until they say it. Because I hated the concept? Not really, I do lots of stupid and unhealthy things. Because someone told me not to? Not really, if anything the opposite, given the school that I went to. I don't because - well, I never wanted to, nor do I care that I don't or what others think of me because of that.

              My parent's drink. My dad has worked in a damn brewery for his whole life. I can't STAND the taste of beer. Yes, I've tried it. No, I've never been "forced" to drink it so breeding a hatred of it. I just don't like it. It's not for me. If you really pushed me, yes, I could down a pint of beer without retching. But why would I do that if it's not what I wanted to do? As such, why would I go to a church or believe in a God if that's not what I agree with, not how I think nature works, not what I want to do? And any God I *did* believe it would surely be one who was as understanding as myself. A God that makes me do what he says? Stick it up your bum. You made me, pal, so you made me that way too.

              But I don't believe in a God, or anything else that people might consider part of a religion. I have no objection to religion existing. I have no objection to people having beliefs. I'm not even sure I have an objection to religions having particular schools (properly controlled like every other school should also be). I have an objection to people telling ME what to do or what to think, which I think covers 99% of all the objections I ever have.

              It's obvious that many people are religious, so they should continue to exist. They can claim the flying spaghetti monster dines on the ocean, no matter how nonsensical or unintuitive, that's up to them. They can bring up children in an entirely FSM-believing environment. What I don't think they should be allowed to do is tell you what to think, or force you to sit through something you don't want to, nor to say that "they are right and ONLY they are right". That's just breeding hatred.

              But any vaguely independent person will soon arrive at conclusions themselves, even in such an environment. If anything, it works AGAINST religions to teach insular beliefs - like teaching girls in all-girl convent schools that boys are nasty and horrible and they should have nothing to do with them, it'll just backfire.

              Your parents don't make you religious. Once you hit the age of consent / age of legal responsibility, you have the power to make your own choices. You dad might work in a brewery, it doesn't mean you have to. You mum might smoke, it doesn't mean you have to. Your grandparents might have been entirely racist. Once you hit 11-19 somewhere, those opinions are NOT your own. If you choose not to think for yourself, that's YOUR problem, unless you have quite literally been locked in a room for your life and been tortured every time you expressed an opinion. And even then, on release, there will come a time when you can express your own opinion without fear and that's your moment to announce what you believe in (you've already decided by then what it is, just never been able to say it).

              To be changing what you believe in on a regular basis, or because of a parent / partner / friend, suggests that either you've never thought things through properly in the first place, or that you didn't really care enough about what you believe in. Sure, people can present you with new opinions and arguments to you that may sway you, but to flit between major opinions because of something "you never thought of" just suggests you never really thought properly. And that's an attribute that even the brightest, the dumbest, the most kowtowed, or most independent can possess independently of anything else.

              Don't blame your beliefs on your parents, partners, or local church. I think you should believe what the damn hell you like, and surround yourself with people who respect that opinion even if they don't agree with it.

          3. Vic

            Re: Hilarious

            > When you have demonstrable proof that said beliefs have any basis in reality

            "In God we trust. All others - bring data".

            Vic.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Stop

          Re: Hilarious

          > No, just someone who is getting fed up with the Register's constant bashing of people's beliefs.

          What's wrong with "bashing" someone's beliefs?

          It's just a philosophical opinion.

          You might as well get offended by someone's assertion that the theory of gravity is incorrect or incomplete.

          Nothing to get all huffy about.

    6. Colin Wilson 2

      Re: Hilarious - and phoney

      "What's next, El Reg, are you going to remind us that 'all religion is bunk'...

      ... and that Atheists prefer Android

  7. AndrueC Silver badge
    Joke

    but Ofcom can explicitly require presenters to denigrate their own beliefs as nonsensical entertainment.

    Does that apply to party political statements?

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Partly Political Broadcast

      They already do... those kind of entertainment shows have to be fronted by a clear, unambiguous "This is a Partly Political Broadcast on behalf of <insert party here>" statement.

      This notifies of an upcoming show where we all need to be prepared to suspend our disbelief circuits and get our chunder buckets ready to watch the grinning lunatics hug otherwise previously innocent, unsoiled children.

      1. Don Jefe
        Happy

        Re: Partly Political Broadcast

        Here in the States the disclaimer comes after the political statement has been made. The nature of political ads here mean the disclaimer is worthless, as the statements are often outright falsehoods designed to elicit emotion from the audience. It kind of like saying 'your wife was killed in a train accident' followed by 'just kidding' after waiting long enough for the message to sink in.

        I believe I like your rule of 'disclaimer first' better.

  8. ISYS

    Does this mean....

    that the following should also be published with a warning that it is mostly bollocks?:

    1. Astrology section in the newspapers.

    2. In fact most of what is written in newspapers.

    3. BBC 'news' website that seems to be following the lead of the newspapers.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Astrology

      I remember when I first came across it, I was wondering.

      1) Where was Patrick?

      2) What was this rubbish to do with looking through telescopes?

      That was when I found out it was not AstroMoNy, I was still small at the time OK

      1. Jediben
        Headmaster

        Re: Astrology

        You were correct - and it wasn't AstroNoMy either.

        1. MJI Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Astrology

          <------- My spelling

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Astronomy vs Astrology

        Dara O'Briain gave a good way to remember which is which in one of his stand-up routines;

        AstroNOMy - Nom, nom, nom, Brian Cox is delicious

        AstroLOGy - Log, a unit of poo

    2. baxter
      Holmes

      Re: Does this mean....

      ...surely weather forecasts fall into the same category?

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Does this mean....

        No - but economic forecasts do

  9. ukgnome
    Big Brother

    Cold reading - And that's not just there website!

    <---That's not big brother, it's Tim my spirit guide

    Derren Brown has a lot to say on this in his books and shows, essentially he says it's a load of twaddle

    1. Fogcat
      Devil

      Re: Cold reading - And that's not just there website!

      I went to a talk a little while ago by a guy who was a professional magician. He had been on a show on local radio where three "psychics" did reading on various volunteers and the listeners voted on who was the best/most accurate. He (as a self confessed fake) beat the two "genuine" psychics.

      Apparent their response to that was "But you ARE really psychic, it's just that you don't realise it.

      Surly there must be some old un-replealed witchcraft laws floating around we could use.

      (devil obviously appropriate)

      1. Frumious Bandersnatch

        Re: Cold reading - And that's not just there website!

        He (as a self confessed fake) beat the two "genuine" psychics.

        Reminds me of the story from quite a few years ago that pitted Microsoft's technical helpline against some "psychic" hotline for fixing some Windows-related problems. The result was that they were both (surprisingly) relatively on a par with each other in their ability to fix the problems.

        The point? I guess that anecdotal evidence is fun, but of little use otherwise.

  10. Slawek

    This is outrageous. It is not business of government to tell people what is true and what is not (especially that they produce a mountain of idiotism every day).

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      I'm seeing a short woman in a brown coat ...

      Does the name Edna mean anything to you? She's saying, 'Chill, Slawek'. And, something about ... the meringue ... is under the sideboard.

    2. alain williams Silver badge

      outrageous

      But it is the business of government to help to protect those with less than perfect critical facilities from being taken in by scam artists who are trying to lighten their wallets.

      1. John G Imrie

        Re: outrageous

        But it is the business of government to help to protect those with less than perfect critical facilities from being taken in by scam artists who are trying to lighten their wallets.

        Then we should ban the National Lottery.

        1. jake Silver badge

          @John G Imrie (was: Re: outrageous)

          Nah. The lottery is a tax on people who failed math(s).

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: @John G Imrie (was: outrageous)

            Lottery

            Or we play it for fun.

            I do a couple of rows, a bit of fun and the money goes to good causes.

            Yes I count VTTS, canal restoration, railway preservation as good causes.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. auburnman

      It is however...

      ... the job of the government (or specific agencies thereof) to protect the vulnerable from charlatans.

      1. Grikath

        Re: It is however...

        because, after all, that is their own monopoly.

    4. Spleen

      "This is outrageous. It is not business of government to tell people what is true and what is not (especially that they produce a mountain of idiotism every day)."

      Wrong. Either you haven't thought that statement through, or you believe there should be no laws against fraud.

      If I try to pass-off second-hand cars as new, is it the business of government to tell people that I'm cheating them? Yes. And if I tell people I can speak to their dead granny, is it still the business of government to tell people I can't? Again yes.

      1. Frankee Llonnygog

        Anyone can speak to their dead granny

        The tricky bit is getting an answer

        1. The Indomitable Gall
          WTF?

          Re: Anyone can speak to their dead granny

          Frankee,

          If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?

          If you speak to your granny but she's dead, is it speaking?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Stop

            Re: Anyone can speak to their dead granny

            > If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?

            Yes

            >If you speak to your granny but she's dead, is it speaking?

            Yes.

            Next question?

  11. hamsterjam
    Angel

    I learned a new phrase today! "Participation TV"

    As a non-resident of the UK I have a satellite dish to ensure that my children learn their English from more than just me (and their German from more than just their Mum).

    Alas, tuning the British channels is a depressing experience. Shopping channels, channels offering games of "chance", straight-to-video movie channels with centibit video bitrates choked with finservs advertising, on and on it goes. Most loathsome are the channels with leering munters in underwear, inadequately concealed behind garish neon lettering, holding telephones to their ear*. And, yes, the fortune tellers.

    I get this stuff FTA. It must be lovely for all those paying Sky for this "content".

    What makes it depressing? Firstly, even at fax-machine levels of video quality, these channels cost money to set up. That money seems to have been invested with the sole intention of preying on the weak, and there's no shortage of it.

    Secondly, the sheer volume of it, more channels of shit than I can be bothered to count. Are there really that many cretins on the island? Clearly the money-pigs seem to think so, or they wouldn't be funding this stuff.

    This story is just the final piece of the puzzle. Conning, gulling, rooking and exploiting are legitimate aims for respectable businessmen. The petty-cash fines are no more than license payments as far as they are concerned. And it's all legit, of course it is! Look, it's "regulated".

    The level of contempt for the public displayed by these broadcasters is egregious, yet nobody seems to care. It's a good job that British television is the best in the world, otherwise people might start to notice it...

    * "Participation TV". It's like "collateral damage", a euphemism that becomes more revolting the more you think about it. Brought to you by the same people who gave the world "premium telecoms services".

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      Re: I learned a new phrase today! "Participation TV"

      Don't worry - there'll soon be the inevitable consolidation into a single channel - Highlights from the Norfolk Regional Finals of the Psychic Porn Shopathon, or some such

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I learned a new phrase today! "Participation TV"

        "Don't worry - there'll soon be the inevitable consolidation into a single channel - Highlights from the Norfolk Regional Finals of the Psychic Porn Shopathon, or some such"

        Don't forget the last gasp ratings boost from the urban terrorists' on-air assassination in that mix.

        For the youngsters - see Peter Finch and Faye Dunaway in the black comedy "Network" (1976).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_%28film%29

    2. Professor Clifton Shallot

      Re: I learned a new phrase today! "Participation TV"

      " tuning the British channels is a depressing experience"

      I've still never been anywhere that has better TV. If Germany is now superior in that department things have changed tremendously since I lived there (which admittedly was some time in the last millennium).

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: I learned a new phrase today! "Participation TV"

        Remember BBC2HD and BBC4 though

        Best channels I know of.

  12. 1Rafayal

    I can think of a few project managers I know who could also be included under this sort of rule...

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Be careful around psychic types...

    I got into all manner of trouble after I slapped a palm reader, I was in a hurry and hoped he could skim read the highlights!

    1. Tanuki
      Thumb Up

      Re: Be careful around psychic types...

      Was he laughing? If so, well, you know you should always strike a happy medium.

  14. Greg J Preece

    I can't honestly believe that I'm defending the Daily Mail, but is it really wrong to call a fraud a fraud?

    Why do we let these charlatans continue?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Eek - are you calling a well known respected psychic a fraud? Or are you calling Sally Morgan a fraud.

      *no, don't reply, the mists are clearing, I see a bloated woman with a sign saying fraud

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Coat

        a bloated woman

        Definately fraudulent then. She tells everyone she's a medium.......

    2. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Stop

      @Greg J Preece

      The Daily Mail lost because they alleged Psychic Sally used a particular technique of defrauding which they had no proof of. This is a specific claim which is a slur, and hence Sally (rightly) won when she accused them of libel.

      If they had simply said "Psychic Sally is a fraud - no one can speak to the dead" then it would have been a different outcome. Mainly because I bet if they did print that, all of a sudden Psychic Sally will be nowhere to be found.

      1. Crisp

        Maybe she'll find it in her heart to use that money to compensate her victims.

        Well... I can't see the future, but I can hope.

        1. Tom Wood

          Oh, the irony

          Daily Mail found saying someone else spouts bollocks?!

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    That'll be 'alleged' psychic.

  16. TheDysk
    Joke

    I already knew it....

    I already read this article in my crystal ball yesterday. Yesterdays new for me.

    1. Frumious Bandersnatch

      Re: I already knew it....

      I already read this article in my crystal ball yesterday.

      Careful with that crystal ball! Allow me to dredge up to a link to an old Reg article: Crystal ball torches woman's flat . As the sub-head there was "didn't see that coming", and to answer a previous commenter here, no, "That one never gets old".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I already knew it....

        "That one never gets old".

        Wonder when the seaside postcard was published? A view of a fortune teller's tent - with a sign saying "closed due to unforseen circumstances".

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They should also ban/fine/Regulate God.

    The TV evangelists and preachers, for always hinting that God "just" happpend to speak to him/her a few moments ago and is sitting backstage, ready to pounce on stage, if the devotees would desire, and grant them their wishes.

    Most nauseating that.

    And they all know God is a He , cos he's waiting backstage.

  18. Dropper
    Facepalm

    Too right

    My dead granny told me not believe anything a TV psychic says..

  19. Captain DaFt

    obligatory XKCD. two for one special!

    http://xkcd.com/628/

    http://xkcd.com/808/

  20. Dropper

    Mediums Are Far More Credible

    I'm looking at a person with an 'A' in their name.. could be first or last name.. no? No one with a loved one that had an A-name.. what about 'B'.. getting a 'B' now.. could be a 'C'.. sometimes wore green, red, brown, orange.. the month of December was special, always had a big celebration at this time of year.. sometimes at the beginning of January too.. still nothing? It's a man, boy, girl or woman.. especially fond of dogs or cats.. wait.. our plant in the audience, I mean the person sitting at the back has raised his hand..

  21. sjsmoto

    I hate the commercials in the states where a jerk like Montel Williams happily encourages poor people to get a "payday loan" with astronomically high interest rates. I want a law that requires him to make this offer naked while sitting in a vat of lava.

    1. Don Jefe
      Unhappy

      How I hate those payday loan places. It isn't just the interest rates, the whole thing is horrible. Thy are taking advantage of those in need and I have no tolerance for that. Take advantage of the 'smart' people, or those who aren't desperate (if you feel you can't get by without being shady) but not the weak.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A long, long time ago I dated a girl who recently claimed on TV to have been born with psychic abilities, developed them when she was growing up and has subsequently 'helped' the police with missing person enquiries.

    Although we have no contact now, I know this person well enough to state categorically that her background story is a lie. She is simply taking advantage of the suffering of others to make a fast buck.

    How can these people sleep at night?

    1. Frankee Llonnygog

      How can these people sleep at night?

      I think you'll find piles of money make a surprisingly comfortable nest

    2. Jediben

      <Rainier Wolfcastle> "On a bed of money, with many beautiful ladies."

  23. dorsetknob
    Happy

    Next inline for a Fine

    Next inline Must be the Gay porn chatline channels

    Their subject material is Bollocks

    and the Pink Pound / Dollar is highly Disposable income

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't watch TV anymore

    But what happened to those call in scams where you were asked to add up the numbers in a grid but they would include the grid pattern as a number on a random basis, making it impossible to ever win or if you did guess it more likely to win the lottery.

    I hope these scams don't fade from history as there is very little work being done to preserve them.

    1. Don Jefe
      Happy

      Re: I don't watch TV anymore

      There's a business opportunity for you right there! The 'Library of Scams' - "Think something may be too good to be true? Check it out here before you get scammed". Hell, you could set it up for pennies as a wiki and generate revenue with ads (although a lot of the ads would probably end up being scams).

      If you wanted to be a real ass you could charge a fee to remove certain scams from your database... :)

  25. h 2
    Happy

    This sort of thing always reminds me of the Billy Connolly film "The Man Who Sued God"

  26. Ash-N

    unknown unknowns

    I'm not saying the likes of Sally Morgan or others are to be believed.....BUT

    we should still try to keep an open mind.

    A hundred and fifty years ago, if someone had said, you would be able to beam live moving pictures from around the world into everyone's living room......they probably would had thought the person was a witch.

    Thirty years ago, if someone told me I would have a wireless phone in my pocket which would have ability to watch TV, AFTER the programs had already been on, and take pictures, and guide me to any postcode and play my music....

    Who knows what the world will be like in another 30, 50, 100 years. We don't know. Psychics may even be vindicated. It could happen......

    Thanks for reading.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: unknown unknowns

      There's a difference between an open mind and one that's just empty.

      And, if so, then it'll be 30, 50, 100 years before we need to believe them.

      If these people can talk to the dead? What use is that? The only thing I can think of is to talk to Einstein and see if he can come up with anything on the current poser in physics.

      If they can see the future? Well, it ain't doing them much good at the moment. Not one of them has won the lottery, to my knowledge, or predicted a major world event better than Nostradamus ever did (and usually ALWAYS after the event concerned).

      What other skill can they offer society, even if one comes along that is 100% verifiably true?

      Fact is, it's bunkum, and it's bunkum that has no value even if it's true. Reassuring your granny that grandad is okay where he is HAS NO VALUE, if the person telling them could be a complete liar. You might as well hire a "professional liar", not tell your granny, and have them tell her the same.

      If it was true, why aren't these gits performing the same service for free, or for absolutely minimal cost to sustain their living? If the spirit world got into contact with me, the last thought on my mind would be "Hell, I can sell this" because I'd be too damn scared of what the spirit world thought of me turning them into a commercial enterprise. If it permits commercialisation - go win the lottery or play on the tip of where dead person X buried their gold, use that to spread the word. If it doesn't like commercialism, then why the hell are you selling tickets and why aren't you spreading the word on your own time?

      Sally Morgan is a con artist whose "talents" are not recognised as genuine (or even possible) by any scientist of repute. Please sue me for that. Go on. Please. I want to see what your team of undead lawyers could do in a modern court, especially when I ask for a demonstration.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Who knows what the world will be like in another 30, 50, 100 years. We don't know. Psychics may even be vindicated. It could happen......"

    All the things you mention had a proof of concept in independently controlled tests quite early. It then took some time to improve the implementation into various products.

    A psychic should be equally able to produce results under independent controlled conditions. They have so far failed to do so.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > A psychic should be equally able to produce results under independent controlled conditions. They have so far failed to do so.

      Indeed, and psychics have had hundreds of years to produce even a single scrap of verifiable evidence.

      I think that if there was anything to find, we would have seen *something* by now, even if we didn't fully understand it.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like