Psychics given 4,500 Pound Gov't grant

Burning Beard

Muse
Burning Beard
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
540
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/c...ers-money-for-psychic-academy-91466-23235603/

TWO psychics have been given thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ cash to help grieving relatives contact the dead.

Paul and Deborah Rees were handed £4,500 through a businesses start-up scheme.

The couple, who have two children, claimed the “fantastic” boost would help them develop the Accolade Academy of Psychic and Mediumistic Studies from their home in North Cornelly, near Porthcawl.

Paul said: “Without the injection we wouldn’t be able to do this.”

But Taxpayers’ Alliance campaign director Mark Wallace said: “People work hard to afford to pay taxes and the last thing our money should be spent on is this kind of hocus pocus.

“At a time when people who are alive are losing their jobs, it’s absurd that money is being spent trying to contact the other side.”
Click to expand...

:(
 
That's disgraceful. There's just no justification for that whatsoever.
 
Not sure I really object to this.

This is a local government grant for starting up a business. Provided the business plan is good and the business they choose to indulge in is legal then I don't think there would be good grounds to refuse them the grant.
 
There might be possible objections to their claim on their website that, they can supply as one of their services, "professionaly[sic] trained & proven Mediums"

Further, "All our workers have been evaluated and are proven in their work out in the field, from one to one consulations to high profile theatre and demonstrating and teaching environment."
(my emphasis)

Proven? How?

ETA: Here's what I think may be the relevant clause in the new act that replaces the Fraudulent Mediums Act;

Evidence as to factual claims

27. After section 218 of the Enterprise Act 2002 insert—
“218A Unfair commercial practices: substantiation of claims

(1) This section applies where an application for an enforcement order or for an interim enforcement order is made in respect of a Community infringement involving a contravention of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market.
(2) For the purposes of considering the application the court may require the person named in the application to provide evidence as to the accuracy of any factual claim made as part of a commercial practice of that person if, taking into account the legitimate interests of that person and any other party to the proceedings, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) If, having been required under subsection (2) to provide evidence as to the accuracy of a factual claim, a person—
(a) fails to provide such evidence, or
(b) provides evidence as to the accuracy of the factual claim that the court considers inadequate,
the court may consider that the factual claim is inaccurate.
(4) In this section “commercial practice” has the meaning given by regulation 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.”.
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
There might be possible objections to their claim on their website that, they can supply as one of their services, "professionaly[sic] trained & proven Mediums"

Further, "All our workers have been evaluated and are proven in their work out in the field, from one to one consulations to high profile theatre and demonstrating and teaching environment."
(my emphasis)

Proven? How?

ETA: Here's what I think may be the relevant clause in the new act that replaces the Fraudulent Mediums Act;

Evidence as to factual claims

27. After section 218 of the Enterprise Act 2002 insert—
“218A Unfair commercial practices: substantiation of claims

(1) This section applies where an application for an enforcement order or for an interim enforcement order is made in respect of a Community infringement involving a contravention of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market.
(2) For the purposes of considering the application the court may require the person named in the application to provide evidence as to the accuracy of any factual claim made as part of a commercial practice of that person if, taking into account the legitimate interests of that person and any other party to the proceedings, it appears appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) If, having been required under subsection (2) to provide evidence as to the accuracy of a factual claim, a person—
(a) fails to provide such evidence, or
(b) provides evidence as to the accuracy of the factual claim that the court considers inadequate,
the court may consider that the factual claim is inaccurate.
(4) In this section “commercial practice” has the meaning given by regulation 2 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.”.
Click to expand...


Was looking for the same clause - thanks.

But, let us keep it quiet and sue the pants off them at a later date (I will make up an old granny, like one of the many that died when I was at school) and claim £4,500 damages split 50:50 - OK? :)
 
Last edited:
Last of the Fraggles said:
Not sure I really object to this.

This is a local government grant for starting up a business. Provided the business plan is good and the business they choose to indulge in is legal then I don't think there would be good grounds to refuse them the grant.
Click to expand...

EHocking said:
There might be possible objections to their claim on their website that, they can supply as one of their services, "professionaly[sic] trained & proven Mediums"

...snip...
Click to expand...

I agree with both of you - if it is a legal business then they should be entitled to the same grants etc. that any business else is - however if they are making claims they shouldn't be that should also be dealt with.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Not sure I really object to this.

This is a local government grant for starting up a business. Provided the business plan is good and the business they choose to indulge in is legal then I don't think there would be good grounds to refuse them the grant.
Click to expand...

Fraud is taking money by deception, so I don't see how you could possibly construe this business as being legal unless you assert that the claims they are making are true. Those claims are not true, so it couldn't possibly be legal.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Fraud is taking money by deception, so I don't see how you could possibly construe this business as being legal unless you assert that the claims they are making are true.
Click to expand...

It's not fraud as long as they believe their own claims.
 
AvalonXQ said:
It's not fraud as long as they believe their own claims.
Click to expand...

This is true.

One complexity in all this is that their 'business' looks an awful lot like they're offering Spritualism or New Age training/education.

This is a very grey area: it's possible that they should have been screened out, as I'd be surprised if the funds are allowed to be distributed to organizations that promote a religion - even if they're planning to do it for profit.
 
there is a law of 'obtaining money by deception'.
when psychics take money from punters they are breaking this law.
 
AvalonXQ said:
It's not fraud as long as they believe their own claims.
Click to expand...

It's very rare that fraudsters are convicted solely on evidence that they are decieving.

A judgement is usually made to determine whether a reasonable person would accept the claims as true given the level of supporting evidence available.

If something obviously can't work, the judge/jury may feel that it's sufficient evidence that deliberate deception is behind the offers.



I had a colleague who got into trouble exactly this way. He was selling food at a beach and was informed that he needed a license.

"Fine," he said, and went home and got some card stock and crayons and drew himselef a license.

Later, when he was fined for still not having license, he disputed the contempt charges. He swore up and down that he sincerely thought he was operating legally and that the license requirement could be fulfilled by making one yourself *therefore* he wasn't in contempt.

So, we can understand why skeptics are unpopular. We are witching the scam by shifting what reasonable people will believe.
 
silver birch said:
there is a law of 'obtaining money by deception'.
when psychics take money from punters they are breaking this law.
Click to expand...

That varies from region to region, and probably relies on proof of deception (as opposed to mutual self-deception).
 
Before we all get too excited that was 9 months ago, and i have a feeling it never actually happened in the end. I did not check the article date but that may just be a journalist repeating the story, or a very old link? There is another thread on it somewhere on here...

cj x
 
My wife is Welsh and "can" predict into which numbered hole a carnival mouse will dive (according to some sources, the one salted with mouse droppings that make it seem "safe"), but cannot pick which balls will come up in the Lotto because "they aren't mice." :rolleyes:

By heritage I'm 1/4 Irish so my BS meter is naturally loaded to 25%. All the rest of my ancestors laugh at the psychos, but agree, to the distaste of some economic theora: Give a man £25 and, at best, he will try to find an easy way to demonstrate no more than £25 of effort, or to find a plausible-enough explanation for where it went.

OTOH, I know my relatives, including myself, too well to make the study about £25, much less £4500, without some way to prevent him from fleeing the country.
 
dropzone said:
My wife is Welsh and "can" predict into which numbered hole a carnival mouse will dive (according to some sources, the one salted with mouse droppings that make it seem "safe"), but cannot pick which balls will come up in the Lotto because "they aren't mice." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is awesome :) And I think Camelot might be interested - seriously! It would make great TV? Why not email the lottery, and suggest it? You can skip the psychic bit - the carnival act alone would be great tV! Nominated for sheer interest :)

cj x
 
Last edited:
cj.23 said:
Before we all get too excited that was 9 months ago, and i have a feeling it never actually happened in the end. I did not check the article date but that may just be a journalist repeating the story, or a very old link? There is another thread on it somewhere on here...

cj x
Click to expand...
An update in March 2009 at WalesOnline claims that, "They sent receipts to Want2Work and were reimbursed for £4,500."

I don't think there is much doubt they received the monies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom