Astrology and News
Am I a fraudulent medium?
It’s a bad time to be a British psychic. The 1951 Fraudulent Mediums Act is being repealed, and it’s going to be replaced with the Consumer Protection Regulation. The Fraudulent Mediums Act, as its name implies, is meant to protect the public from people claiming to be mediums and psychics, who use fraudulent methods to get their results. However it has lead to very few successful prosecutions, and very soon much tighter legislation will be coming into force. People visiting psychics and mediums will be regarded as fully-fledged consumers, with legal redress if the service they’re paying for isn’t adequately provided.
The key phrase in the Fraudulent Mediums Act is ‘intent to deceive’. If a purported psychic deliberately deceives their client, they are breaking the law. On the other hand, if they are acting in good faith, but still give bad advice, they are, as I understand it, doing nothing wrong. With the Consumer Protection Regulation, acting in good faith isn’t enough.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m wondering if astrology might also come under the new Consumer Protection Regulation. When people come to me, they often want to know what’s going to happen next. And being an astrologer, I do unashamedly claim that by looking at the movement of the Sun, the Moon and the planets I can get insights into the future. Of course making hard and fast predictions is very difficult, and very rarely do I tell a client that an event will absolutely, a hundred percent, definitely happen.
Unlike many psychics, I don’t make extravagant claims about where I get my information from. I just say that I got the position of the planets from the computer, or from my books of astrological tables. And I then use standard techniques, plus a lot of judgment, to convert the raw data into actual forecasts. So I can logically explain to a third party how I reach my conclusions. They might not agree with my underlying assumptions, but they can at least see my workings.
There is nonetheless a more extreme and more scary view about how astrologers get their answers, that would put me in the medium camp. In the early 1990s I saw a flyer in a fish and chip shop, put out by a local church, advertising a lecture on astrology. I went along, and having endured an incredibly long session of praying and singing, I got to listen to the visiting preacher. At first he was very rational, appearing to say that astrology was superstitious nonsense. Then the tone of the lecture changed, and he described the astrological consultation as a triangular process, involving the astrologer, the client and the Devil. You mean humble me, channelling satanic forces? I was flattered but not convinced.
The psychic consultation is far more interesting than anything I can do. I’ve known many psychics in my time, and they’re a mixed bunch, some of them very sane and very down to earth, and others completely mad. Yet I don’t believe that any psychic I have met deliberately set out to deceive his or her clients. Their claims can nonetheless be over the top. For example, that they get their information from their client’s dead relatives, or from other disembodied, quasi-spiritual entities. And this is why there’s been so much pressure for tighter legislation. It seems that psychics are taking advantage of people who are deeply troubled, and in particular, those who have lost loved ones.
The Consumer Protection Regulation doesn’t spell the end of professional psychics and mediums. Still, they do have to be more careful. They must make sure that they don’t make any claims to the validity of what they do, and they probably have to get their clients to sign a disclaimer, saying that their service is only for entertainment. Which is not the impression that the average psychic wants to give.
Psychic-bashers are delighted by the change in legislation, but their triumphalism is possibly premature, and seems to fly in the face of human nature. Since the dawn of history mankind has been consulting psychics, and has been trying to get in touch with dead relatives. Organised religion provided some respite, with Christians being able to deal with death via prayer, ceremony and priests; but with the collapse of Christianity in many parts of the world, especially in Western Europe, it’s not surprising that there’s a continued demand for the services of psychics and mediums.
Of course just because there’s a demand for something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be clamped down on. For example, there’s demand for heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, and by and large it’s considered advisable to discourage this demand, not least because these drugs can kill people. However is it really so bad to consult a psychic in an attempt to get in touch with a dead relative? The client wants to believe that the relative is, in some form, still alive. And the psychic does their best to provide a service. Now it’s possible that when psychics gets messages from the deceased they’re deluding themselves. But they’re giving the client what they want, and more importantly, they’re trying to provide some comfort. We might criticise the psychic for taking money, but they’re just doing their job. Likewise, people pay for Christian funerals, and some of that money goes to the church, and indirectly to the priest who promises ’sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life’. Maybe the priest should sign a disclaimer, saying that his or her services are only for entertainment, and eternal life can’t be guaranteed?
Perhaps we should also look at the competitors to psychics and mediums. Whenever we hear about a big tragedy, we’re told about the response of the emergency services. We’re then informed about the teams of counsellors who have been sent in to deal with the shocked and the bereaved. Do these counsellors do any good? Do they do more good than psychics, who might claim to be in touch with the dead victims? I suppose a counsellor is more likely to be psychologically stable than a psychic, and will also (hopefully) have had a minimum of three or four years of training and supervision. Nonetheless, they are taking financial advantage of another person’s tragedy, just as much as the psychic. And very often their fees will be higher. So why is it immoral for a psychic to take money from a bereaved client, yet reasonable and acceptable for a counsellor to do the same thing? And will a counsellor get their client to sign a disclaimer, agreeing that there’s very little scientific evidence that counselling and psychotherapy actually work? I know, the bereaved don’t always have to pay for counselling, but usually someone’s paying for it - and maybe, in the final analysis, it’s the taxpayer. Professional psychics, on the other hand, have to get their money directly from the client, because health services, local authorities and insurance companies won’t reimburse them.
So what’s the answer? I think one simply has to recognise that different professions have different limits. Psychics, priests and counsellors shouldn’t have to make their clients sign a disclaimer, saying that their services are purely for entertainment value. Yet there could be a disclaimer that accepts the limitations of the service. Sometimes religion, counselling and mediumship can make people feel better, but their success can’t be guaranteed. And neither can their fundamental basis. We don’t know for sure whether God exists, whether psychics can talk to the dead, whether psychotherapy has any scientific validity. In terms of forecasting the future, I try my best, but I’m also humble. Astrology, after all, is just scratching at Destiny’s surface, and the only person who really knows the future, in all its interlocking complexity, is God. Or am I deluding myself?