Has any 1 had experiences with mediums

[kinboshi]

I fully agree with this verdict.

Whatever your opinion psychics, the Daily 'hate' Mail, or any other paper for that matter, deserve to be penalised for printing lies.

They didn't print any lies in this case.  They just didn't have evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/13/sally-morgan-prove-psychic-powers

So it's OK for newspapers to print unsubstantiated allegations?

No, that's what they were fined for.

They weren't lying though in this case.  They were 100% accurate about the lying thief.

Is that your opinion or a proven fact?

Which part?  The bit where she's a liar and a fraud, or the bit where there are witnesses that heard an earpiece transmitter being used?

There are witnesses who independently heard the comments coming through the ear-piece.  Don't think they have a reason to lie about it, and I'm more inclined to believe them than a woman who claims to be a psychic.

My opinion is also that she has no psychic powers at all, because if she did she'd be more than willing to demonstrate them in a controlled environment. She'd make more money from that than she does with her fraudulent act.

[Tal]

I fully agree with this verdict.

Whatever your opinion psychics, the Daily 'hate' Mail, or any other paper for that matter, deserve to be penalised for printing lies.

They didn't print any lies in this case.  They just didn't have evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/13/sally-morgan-prove-psychic-powers

So it's OK for newspapers to print unsubstantiated allegations?

No, that's what they were fined for.

They weren't lying though in this case.  They were 100% accurate about the lying thief.

In this case, the defendants accepted that the claims were untrue. That sounds like a lie to me.

The real point of this whole silly thing is that there is a right way and a wrong way to report the facts and a right way and a wrong way to pose questions.

The Daily Mail was perfectly entitled to report in its newspaper to its millions of angry readers that there were allegations that a psychic was getting help from more than the spirit world in a live show. It was equally entitled to speculate - and to invite its audience to foam at the mouth while speculating - about whether mediums in general are honest folk, snake oil salesmen or a mixture of the two. Finally, it would have been within its rights to challenge this individual to prove the veracity of her claims and demonstrate that she really could converse with "the other side".

We know this because that is precisely what Simon Singh did. He wrote an article in which he voiced his concerns but presented as fact only what he was satisfied was correct. For everything else, he explained where he was leaning but noted that, in the face of contrary evidence, he was quite prepared to change his stance.

Had the Daily Mail done that, this wouldn't have happened. Instead, it has had to back down.

What strikes me is the comments underneath Ms Morgan's article. It is almost exclusively women. Or, at least, the names are almost exclusively female.

"Please to hear Sally .Everyone should keep their own opinions to their selves"

"I am thrilled to hear this Sally. I have been to see you a few times and it does not take rocket science to see that there is no way on earth you can cheat..I ignored the whole accusation at the time because I know better but I’m so pleased that you finally have your integrity intact and can now put this behind you..God bless."

I will just say one thing more: can there be any question that, whatever she does and however she does it, she is very good at it?

[curnow]

lol the Daily Mail just proved she was genuine , think they could have jailed under the British Witchcraft Act of 1735 like they did for Helen Duncan during WW2

2+2=5908349

Where on earth do you make that huge leap into anyone prooving anyone is genuine?

if you have done family history , you would know anything over 100 years is pretty easy to research but all the modern relations you cant research in couple of hours , even professional heir hunters would have problems , all these people do is ask leading questions , any one could do it & become a fake medium

is she genuine & can talk to the dead , simple answer is no , can anyone = no , its up to you what they want to believe & spend your money on

[DaveShoelace]

I will just say one thing more: can there be any question that, whatever she does and however she does it, she is very good at it?

#Invalid YouTube Link#

[RED-DOG]

I fully agree with this verdict.

Whatever your opinion psychics, the Daily 'hate' Mail, or any other paper for that matter, deserve to be penalised for printing lies.

They didn't print any lies in this case.  They just didn't have evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/13/sally-morgan-prove-psychic-powers

So it's OK for newspapers to print unsubstantiated allegations?

No, that's what they were fined for.

They weren't lying though in this case.  They were 100% accurate about the lying thief.

Is that your opinion or a proven fact?

Which part?  The bit where she's a liar and a fraud, or the bit where there are witnesses that heard an earpiece transmitter being used?

There are witnesses who independently heard the comments coming through the ear-piece.  Don't think they have a reason to lie about it, and I'm more inclined to believe them than a woman who claims to be a psychic.

My opinion is also that she has no psychic powers at all, because if she did she'd be more than willing to demonstrate them in a controlled environment. She'd make more money from that than she does with her fraudulent act.

How do you know about the witnesses? Is your argument based on what you are inclined to believe?

Why bother with courts and trials at all? Why not let the Daily Mail publish it's version of the facts and, if you are inclined to believe it, job done.


 

[kinboshi]

I fully agree with this verdict.

Whatever your opinion psychics, the Daily 'hate' Mail, or any other paper for that matter, deserve to be penalised for printing lies.

They didn't print any lies in this case.  They just didn't have evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/13/sally-morgan-prove-psychic-powers

So it's OK for newspapers to print unsubstantiated allegations?

No, that's what they were fined for.

They weren't lying though in this case.  They were 100% accurate about the lying thief.

Is that your opinion or a proven fact?

Which part?  The bit where she's a liar and a fraud, or the bit where there are witnesses that heard an earpiece transmitter being used?

There are witnesses who independently heard the comments coming through the ear-piece.  Don't think they have a reason to lie about it, and I'm more inclined to believe them than a woman who claims to be a psychic.

My opinion is also that she has no psychic powers at all, because if she did she'd be more than willing to demonstrate them in a controlled environment. She'd make more money from that than she does with her fraudulent act.

How do you know about the witnesses? Is your argument based on what you are inclined to believe?

Why bother with courts and trials at all? Why not let the Daily Mail publish it's version of the facts and, if you are inclined to believe it, job done.


 

I wasn't defending the Daily Mail. It's an odious rag that publishes lots of articles that are full of inaccuracies, bias, and out-and-out lies.

I was merely pointing out that this time they'd accidentally published an accurate article.  The reason they were fined in court is that they questioned her motives without evidence for what they said.

You ask how I know about the witnesses?  I don't obviously, I wasn't there. I've heard what they've said and see no reason to doubt the validity of their comments.  Do I believe what Sally Morgan says?  As she's a professional fraud, no I don't.

[AndrewT]

.

[RED-DOG]

I fully agree with this verdict.

Whatever your opinion psychics, the Daily 'hate' Mail, or any other paper for that matter, deserve to be penalised for printing lies.

They didn't print any lies in this case.  They just didn't have evidence to back up their claims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/13/sally-morgan-prove-psychic-powers

So it's OK for newspapers to print unsubstantiated allegations?

No, that's what they were fined for.

They weren't lying though in this case.  They were 100% accurate about the lying thief.

Is that your opinion or a proven fact?

Which part?  The bit where she's a liar and a fraud, or the bit where there are witnesses that heard an earpiece transmitter being used?

There are witnesses who independently heard the comments coming through the ear-piece.  Don't think they have a reason to lie about it, and I'm more inclined to believe them than a woman who claims to be a psychic.

My opinion is also that she has no psychic powers at all, because if she did she'd be more than willing to demonstrate them in a controlled environment. She'd make more money from that than she does with her fraudulent act.

How do you know about the witnesses? Is your argument based on what you are inclined to believe?

Why bother with courts and trials at all? Why not let the Daily Mail publish it's version of the facts and, if you are inclined to believe it, job done.


 

I wasn't defending the Daily Mail. It's an odious rag that publishes lots of articles that are full of inaccuracies, bias, and out-and-out lies.

I was merely pointing out that this time they'd accidentally published an accurate article.  The reason they were fined in court is that they questioned her motives without evidence for what they said.

You ask how I know about the witnesses?  I don't obviously, I wasn't there. I've heard what they've said and see no reason to doubt the validity of their comments.  Do I believe what Sally Morgan says?  As she's a professional fraud, no I don't.

I just think it's important to penalise newspapers every time they publish unsubstantiated articles that damage individuals or communities.

Not for times like these, when most people know they're right, but for the other times, when most people don't know they're wrong.

[kinboshi]

Oh I agree.  The tabloids in this country are often guilty of awful 'journalism'.

This case reminds me of Cantona's kung-fu kick.  It was obviously wrong, and he was punished for it.  But the bloke he kicked turned out to be a NBP/NF supporter, so you can't feel sorry for the victim either.