The post you're talking about (and can't find) was on UK'S. Have you gone through your posts kk? That may be the best way to find it as I remember your response to it.
+3
Pixie
Feather
Umberto Cocopop
7 posters
Unmissable bargain on eBay
Kitkat
lar-lar wrote:The post you're talking about (and can't find) was on UK'S. Have you gone through your posts kk? That may be the best way to find it as I remember your response to it.
I don't remember responding to it!
I remember certainly having a response in my head(!) as with a lot of things on that site (and others), but as to responding I really can't remember that at all. What did I say, lar-lar? I'm intrigued now.
Jamboree
KitKat wrote:lol
- Spoiler:
Can't join in the joke here. I tried to read the link in the spoiler but all i got was this.
The thread you are trying to access does not exist.
Kitkat
Jamboree wrote:KitKat wrote:lol
- Spoiler:
Can't join in the joke here. I tried to read the link in the spoiler but all i got was this.
The thread you are trying to access does not exist.
Hmm. Well, that doesn't really surprise me, seeing where it came from.
I've actually forgotten now what was in there in the first place! .. but it was obviously something that made me chuckle.
Kitkat
- Post n°55
Update: Sally Morgan is suing the Daily Mail for defamation
by Kitkat Thu 26 Jan 2012, 12:48
TV psychic Sally Morgan sues Daily Mail for defamation
26 January 2012
By Sarah Limbrick
------------------------------
TV psychic Sally Morgan is demanding damages of £150,000 from Associated Newspapers over a Daily Mail story accusing her of scamming a vulnerable audience.
The article, published on 22 September, was headlined: “What a load of crystal balls!”
It alleged Morgan pretended to have psychic powers when she was in fact simply repeating instructions from members of her team via a microphone and hidden earpiece, according to a writ lodge at the High Court.
Morgan, who was Princess Diana’s former psychic, claims the story caused substantial damage to her reputation, as well as hurt, distress and embarrassment.
The story was widely reported in the national press at the time but Associated Newspapers is the only publisher named on the writ. The story in question was an opinion piece by the magician and former psychic Paul Zenon.
The Daily Mail published another article on the same day – headlined “Only the lonely believe in ghoulish psychics” – which repeated the substance of the allegations, according to a High Court writ.
Morgan, who is also suing over an online version of the story, claims the paper has failed to provide a full and unequivocal apology or admit the article was defamatory.
She is asking for an injunction banning repetition of the allegations about her.
She is also seeking aggravated damages, citing the serious and offensive nature of the allegations which effectively accused her of perpetrating a deliberate fraud on the public, which struck at the heart of her professional and personal reputation, integrity and honesty - the writ states.
In her High Court writ Morgan describes herself as a professional psychic and claims to have privately helped numerous people overcome traumatic or emotional situations.
Morgan is represented by Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48632&c=1
26 January 2012
By Sarah Limbrick
------------------------------
TV psychic Sally Morgan is demanding damages of £150,000 from Associated Newspapers over a Daily Mail story accusing her of scamming a vulnerable audience.
The article, published on 22 September, was headlined: “What a load of crystal balls!”
It alleged Morgan pretended to have psychic powers when she was in fact simply repeating instructions from members of her team via a microphone and hidden earpiece, according to a writ lodge at the High Court.
Morgan, who was Princess Diana’s former psychic, claims the story caused substantial damage to her reputation, as well as hurt, distress and embarrassment.
The story was widely reported in the national press at the time but Associated Newspapers is the only publisher named on the writ. The story in question was an opinion piece by the magician and former psychic Paul Zenon.
The Daily Mail published another article on the same day – headlined “Only the lonely believe in ghoulish psychics” – which repeated the substance of the allegations, according to a High Court writ.
Morgan, who is also suing over an online version of the story, claims the paper has failed to provide a full and unequivocal apology or admit the article was defamatory.
She is asking for an injunction banning repetition of the allegations about her.
She is also seeking aggravated damages, citing the serious and offensive nature of the allegations which effectively accused her of perpetrating a deliberate fraud on the public, which struck at the heart of her professional and personal reputation, integrity and honesty - the writ states.
In her High Court writ Morgan describes herself as a professional psychic and claims to have privately helped numerous people overcome traumatic or emotional situations.
Morgan is represented by Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48632&c=1
Umberto Cocopop
The piece by Paul Zenon doesn't actually make any specific claim about SM directly.
Obviously, it implies that she, and her ilk, are using trickery similar to that used by magicians/mentalists but I don't know whether an implication is the same as an accusation regarding defamation law.
I think she may have a great deal of trouble winning this one.
Obviously, it implies that she, and her ilk, are using trickery similar to that used by magicians/mentalists but I don't know whether an implication is the same as an accusation regarding defamation law.
I think she may have a great deal of trouble winning this one.
Kitkat
Umberto Cocopop wrote:The piece by Paul Zenon doesn't actually make any specific claim about SM directly.
Obviously, it implies that she, and her ilk, are using trickery similar to that used by magicians/mentalists but I don't know whether an implication is the same as an accusation regarding defamation law.
I think she may have a great deal of trouble winning this one.
The report says "She is asking for an injunction banning repetition of the allegations about her."
Well who, I wonder, can that injunction be aimed at
... the Daily Mail? There is repetition of those allegations in loads of places all over the net. Does it mean slapping an injunction on every individual and every area and place that repeats or refers to those allegations? I can't really see how that would work.
Umberto Cocopop
Well people who operate a business like Sally Morgan's are always going to be susceptible to 'allegations' because at no point have they ever demonstrated that their claimed ability is real.
To anyone not blinded by belief, it's blatantly obvious that what she's doing isn't genuinely what she claims it to be - it's not a question of whether she deceives her audience but which method she uses.
I can understand her wanting to silence her critics - they're bad for business.
To anyone not blinded by belief, it's blatantly obvious that what she's doing isn't genuinely what she claims it to be - it's not a question of whether she deceives her audience but which method she uses.
I can understand her wanting to silence her critics - they're bad for business.
ratzo- Guest
Did the Mail pay up? Anyone know?
Kitkat
ratzo wrote:Did the Mail pay up? Anyone know?
Hi ratzo. It all seems to have gone very quiet in that area. I suppose that in itself could be an indication that some kind of settlement has been made. The fact that it is so quiet too probably means that money was involved somewhere. I don't suppose we'll ever get to hear the full details there.
Kitkat
Well, whaddya know? Spoke too soon. Big Bad Jon's been quick to discover this little snippet posted on 28th September from http://psycicornot.wordpress.com/
That article was posted up on the Bad Psychics forum today HERE
to which I must add this little thought-provoking comment:
Fails to say whether the reporter spoke out there and then in the theatre, saying what he later reported in his article. Surely that would have been an opportune moment to let thousands of "devoted followers" know just how they were being 'conned'. He had hold of the microphone. Perfect situation to do just that. Did he? If not, you have to wonder why not.
Some things missing out of all this ... One can't help but read between the lines.
PSYCHIC OR NOT… YOU DECIDE.
DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting for one minute that Sally Morgan is not speaking to the dead, telling the truth, getting messages from the deceased, or being anything but honest with her audience. I am merely reporting EXACTLY what happened, and leaving the conclusion to those who read this. In the course of her performance, Morgan stated that what she did was entertainment. Again, I leave the validity of that statement to the reader – draw your own conclusion.
On February 23 2012, I was tasked with attending a performance of Psychic Sally Morgan, and writing a review. On the grounds of what happened, the newspaper decided not to run the review because it would make a big story. It was then handed to their legal people who vetoed it, on the grounds of the fact that there is a current legal dispute between Morgan and a newspaper, and they had no wish to be drawn into the fight. I was told that Sally Morgan has made it clear that if any media outlet suggests that she is a fraud or that she is a liar, then she WILL sue.
So, the story was dropped. However, it was handed to The Sun. They initially seemed very excited, but it was then given to the legal people there… and nothing came of it.
It is worth bearing in mind that in the days prior to the show, I informed a number of people of my intentions, despite the realisation that the odds against my “message” being selected were high, indeed.
So, here is what happened…
On the actual evening of the performance, as the show was closing for the first half, Psychic Sally Morgan had what can only be described as hysterics. She was wailing and squeaking, saying that she could see an explosion… and a man “being thrown in the air.” She seemed to be completely overcome by the horrific vision, stating that she was trying to get it out of her head, but couldn’t. She seemed to be completely overwhelmed by this vision.
There followed the intermission.
After the intermission she came back on stage, still talking about the horrific image she had in her head, and that she had to get it out. She then gave the name “Mark” linked to this explosion. Somebody stood, suggesting it might be him, as his name was Mark and he worked with somebody whose son had been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan.
Sally took it a step further, saying she was getting the name “Tobin” or “Toe-been” something like that…. At which point I stood up, yelled “Up here” and was handed the microphone. The onstage video camera picked me out, so my image now appeared on the backdrop video screen. I was then told that this chap who was killed in the explosion was on the stage with Sally… big explosion… He was sitting on something…. Or hunched over something… Then the explosion…Horrific… Horrible.. blah blah blah.
Now, here’s what Sally didn’t know. A couple of weeks before the show I found her website and I sent a message, saying that I was all excited that she was coming to Edinburgh. Also, I hoped to get a message from Toby “Tobias” Wren, who was killed in an explosion on December 14 while defusing an explosive device.”
On the evening of the show, when you first enter the theatre foyer you are faced with a standee which proclaims “Sally’s Love Letters and Photographs”. Inside, there are stacks of hundreds of “Sally’s Love Letters” and pens. The Love Letters are pieces of card, about 3″x2″ which state: “Ask Sally about a loved one who has passed over and she may pick this card out of her ‘Psychic Orb’ during the evening and come to you with a special message….”
There are literally hundreds of people filling out these slips of paper and placing them in a box. These slips are later taken onto the stage and dumped into the Psychic Orb, which looks like a big, glass fishbowl. Myself and an assistant spent a merry half-hour filling out the slips – all with exactly the same information – “Toby ‘Tobias’ Wren. Killed in an explosion on December 14 while defusing an explosive device.”
What makes this so strange – that Sally had Toby on stage with her – is that the explosion and the character names are actually lifted directly from the fictional death scene of Toby Wren, a character played by Robert Powell in the BBC series “Doomwatch”.
How could she be so distressed by such a horrific scene, when it was a television dramatisation from 1970? How could she get the name of “Toby” and have him stranding beside her – as she told us he was – when, actually, Toby never existed? Remarkable, indeed. Is it possible that she picked up on my psychic thoughts?
Where could that information have come from? Certainly not from the dead spirit of Toby, that’s for sure, because Toby never existed, other than as a fictional character in a BBC drama!
If that IS how she got the information, then passed on a message to me that had the audience gasp in astonishment, then it makes me wonder about the source of the other “messages”.
What I found so distressing about this, as a member of the audience, is that there were whole families turning up, each paying around £25 per person. These were people, some of whom obviously would have found this a financial burden, in the hope of having some sort of contact from a dearly loved mother, father or child.
Seeing Sally Morgan on-stage clutching her chest, acting out the last thoughts of a deceased father, squealing “He’s saying: I don’t want to die. I don’t want to die.” and watching the sobbing reaction of the relatives… Made me feel distnctly uneasy – and that’s putting it lightly. It is the vulnerable and the bereaved who suffer the cruel consequence of all this. I would question the suggestion that this brings comfort to the bereaved.
So, with all that reported: Here is the review :
Sally Morgan
Playhouse Theatre
Stars: 1
Run ended
THE show starts long before the curtain goes up. In a side room there are pens and cards: Sally’s Love Letters. Audience members are invited to fill in a card with information about a loved one who has passed over, with the promise that she may pick that card out of her “Psychic Orb”.
There were a lot of cards being filled out. And the psychic orb looked suspiciously like the fish bowls favoured by fake spiritualists in the past, and by psychological illusionists such as Derren Brown today.
Morgan skipped onto the stage and launched into a long explanation of what she does and how she does it. She took great pains to point out that she has to refer to her performance as a “show” and that it is entertainment, because of legislation and the fact that there is a “lot going on at the moment”. Possibly referring to the upcoming legal case.
And eventually, the performance began. She would throw out names, often as loose as “Shirley… or Shirl… or Sheila. It may be a place name like Sheil.” It seems that the spirits mumble.
There were moments where she got the information bang on. But there were also moments when the answers to her questions drew a long string of “No”s, at times producing giggles from sections of the crowd. There were many more misses than hits.
It was easy to remember that in her previous job Morgan was a dental nurse – because this was like pulling teeth.
Just before the intermission, she was suddenly overcome with shock. She could “see” an explosion. “A man being thrown in the air.” She couldn’t get the horror of it from her mind, but she promised to return to the theme on her return.
And she did. Clearly appalled by what she was “seeing” she offered the name of “Tobin”. Which is when a certain Evening News reviewer found himself in the spotlight. Her message was uncannily accurate. One of the highlights.
Unfortunately, the spirit who was “standing beside her” describing the details – the same details that had been written on a number of Sally’s Love Letters, and emailed earlier that week – was actually a death scene played by the great British actor Robert Powell as Toby Wren in the BBC series “Doomwatch” in 1970. Oops! Didn’t see THAT coming.
Coincidence? Might have been. Either way, it would seem that, for a short while at least, Morgan’s “extraordinary gift” had deserted her. It was a show that left more questions than it offered answers.
That article was posted up on the Bad Psychics forum today HERE
to which I must add this little thought-provoking comment: Fails to say whether the reporter spoke out there and then in the theatre, saying what he later reported in his article. Surely that would have been an opportune moment to let thousands of "devoted followers" know just how they were being 'conned'. He had hold of the microphone. Perfect situation to do just that. Did he? If not, you have to wonder why not.
Was this message printed in public on her website. Does the writer have a copy of the message he sent to Sally - that he can produce as hard evidence?Now, here’s what Sally didn’t know. A couple of weeks before the show I found her website and I sent a message, saying that I was all excited that she was coming to Edinburgh. Also, I hoped to get a message from Toby “Tobias” Wren, who was killed in an explosion on December 14 while defusing an explosive device.”
Some things missing out of all this ... One can't help but read between the lines.
Umberto Cocopop
I saw this earlier today.
It is how to go about exposing a psychic in principle but it doesn't seem to have been carried out properly. i.e. without a solid evidence trail, it's not worth much. Probably why no paper would print it.
BTW, a digression regarding Leslie Flint,.....
The world's greatest internet skeptic gets it completely wrong when he implies that Flint wasn't genuine because he doesn't sound like Gandhi. I'm sure that Jon Culshaw could do a more convincing Gandhi but his impersonation is meaningless as evidence of afterlife communication - likewise with Flint.
The only way to do a meaningful test with the recordings is to transcribe them and then use text analysis software to see whether:
A) Flint's use of language (as Gandhi) is the same as Gandhi's;
B) Whether Flint's use of language differs when allegedly channelling other people; and
C) Whether Flint's use of language differs from his normal usage (if such recordings are available).
Analysis software can measure things like verb usage etc., but also idiosyncrasies that individuals have.
In short: it's not about how good an impression sounds but whether the actual content and form of the content matches the original.
This method is ideal for older recordings and texts as the people at the time didn't foresee the development of such techniques.
That's because there's no such thing as psychic powers.
It is how to go about exposing a psychic in principle but it doesn't seem to have been carried out properly. i.e. without a solid evidence trail, it's not worth much. Probably why no paper would print it.
BTW, a digression regarding Leslie Flint,.....
The world's greatest internet skeptic gets it completely wrong when he implies that Flint wasn't genuine because he doesn't sound like Gandhi. I'm sure that Jon Culshaw could do a more convincing Gandhi but his impersonation is meaningless as evidence of afterlife communication - likewise with Flint.
The only way to do a meaningful test with the recordings is to transcribe them and then use text analysis software to see whether:
A) Flint's use of language (as Gandhi) is the same as Gandhi's;
B) Whether Flint's use of language differs when allegedly channelling other people; and
C) Whether Flint's use of language differs from his normal usage (if such recordings are available).
Analysis software can measure things like verb usage etc., but also idiosyncrasies that individuals have.
In short: it's not about how good an impression sounds but whether the actual content and form of the content matches the original.
This method is ideal for older recordings and texts as the people at the time didn't foresee the development of such techniques.
That's because there's no such thing as psychic powers.
Kitkat
Umberto Cocopop wrote:BTW, a digression regarding Leslie Flint,.....
The world's greatest internet skeptic gets it completely wrong when he implies that Flint wasn't genuine because he doesn't sound like Gandhi. I'm sure that Jon Culshaw could do a more convincing Gandhi but his impersonation is meaningless as evidence of afterlife communication - likewise with Flint.
The only way to do a meaningful test with the recordings is to transcribe them and then use text analysis software to see whether:
A) Flint's use of language (as Gandhi) is the same as Gandhi's;
B) Whether Flint's use of language differs when allegedly channelling other people; and
C) Whether Flint's use of language differs from his normal usage (if such recordings are available).
Analysis software can measure things like verb usage etc., but also idiosyncrasies that individuals have.
In short: it's not about how good an impression sounds but whether the actual content and form of the content matches the original.
This method is ideal for older recordings and texts as the people at the time didn't foresee the development of such techniques.
That's because there's no such thing as psychic powers.
Absolutely agree with you that, Umberto. (er ... except for the last sentence
)This is something which the so-called critical thinkers fail to (or deliberately don't want to) look into.
Can I quote you on that? ETA: If you don't answer that question, I'm going to do it anyway.
Umberto Cocopop
Yeah, go ahead and steal my knowledge. 
Kitkat
Not stealing. I'm just elaborating on something I already thought of - and agree with. 
Umberto Cocopop
I feel violated. 
Kitkat
Let's see what Mister Know-it-all-world's-greatest-internet-skeptic has to say in response ... 
Kitkat
Back to Sally Morgan ...
Somebody has put a comment to the article, asking these questions:
The reply was:
Somebody has put a comment to the article, asking these questions:
As skeptics we should really be asking for more proof of this persons claims.
Which newspaper originally was he commissioned to write the article on?
Why didn’t they speak out during the show?
Is there anyone else who can coroborate this story, someone who was at the show?
Is there any proof that the person who wrote this article didn’t just make it up?
As
skeptics we demand proof from psychics and mediums, yet we seemingly
accept anti-psychic material without question because it fits our
pre-conceived ideas.
I think people like the author of the
article, need to stop hiding behind anonymous blogs, grow a set of
balls, and speak out in a public way.
Provide proof of your claims, then and only then will we have a chanc eto stop people like Sally Morgan
The reply was:
Hmmm. So the article is due to be published in full in The Guardian (presumably giving the reporter's real name? ... and that of his "colleague"?) I wonder ....Evening News. I didn’t speak out because there were people genuinely
upset – (see posts above) Who am I to add to their misery? Yes – I was
with a colleague – and an audience of 3,000. This is NOT “anti-psychic –
it is a report on what happened, I HAVE spoken out in a public way. Buy
The Guardian when the piece comes out… All answered, I think.
Umberto Cocopop
JD: "JJs suggestion to me is only valid if the voice he put on sounded like Gandhi."KitKat wrote:Let's see what Mister Know-it-all-world's-greatest-internet-skeptic has to say in response ...
He quite clearly doesn't understand the point. Sounding like someone is a measure of how good you are at doing an impression of them - but that's all.
Channelling (and direct voice mediumship is a claim of channelling) is where the spirit allegedly uses a living person's body to communicate (write books, music, or speak) so it's not unreasonable to expect that any resulting handwriting or speech would be in the medium's own style or sound. What should be different is things like usage of language. e.g. An Indian speaking English will probably make many mistakes (both systematic and personal idiosyncrasies) and these can reasonably be expected to be reproduced accurately.
If someone claims to have written a book by channelling Emily Bronte, you would expect the use of language to be identical to Bronte's even if the handwriting doesn't match. Software analysis can find matches and discrepancies between texts. That's why it would be an appropriate way to evaluate the quality of evidence.
The idea that a medium should sound like the person they are channelling (who's using their voice box) is a rather simplistic assumption really. Perhaps JD needs to invest in an armchair and do some studying.
Umberto Cocopop
It will be interesting to see how it's worded. If there's a solid evidence trail then this is some very bad news for Sally Morgan but if it's another weak allegation it will make the "witch hunt" claim look more plausible.KitKat wrote:Hmmm. So the article is due to be published in full in The Guardian (presumably giving the reporter's real name? ... and that of his "colleague"?) I wonder ....
Umberto Cocopop
Which is completely missing the point!Jon Donnis wrote:I understand the point completely.
I am not gonna waste my time investigating someone who sounds like my Grocer
So we start by knowing the answer.....Jon Donnis wrote:we ALL know the Flint is not really channelling Gandhi
Either way ITS NOT GANDHI. No need to analyse anything.
So to be clear, you expect someone to spend time and effort analysing
speech patterns and all other manner of b*****ks, just to prove what is
the bleeding obvious in the first place?
To investigate Flint further is time wasting stupidity.
10 bonus points for anyone who can tell us what's wrong with that approach.
If someone wants to reach an informed and evidence-based conclusion on an issue then the only way to do so is to actually examine the evidence* and see what it tells us. Simply yelling "bollocks" is the ramblings of a closed-minded person who thinks they know answers without any need to investigate anything. 'Just knowing' should be left to the psychics.....Jon Donnis wrote:
So to be clear, you expect someone to spend time and effort analysing speech patterns
Again, this shows you haven't understood the point at all.Jon Donnis wrote:
If Flit was channelling an Indian speaking voice, then yes lets examine the grammar, and so on.
* Are you aware of the relationship between skepticism and evidence?
I suspect not. Armchair time again methinks!
Kitkat
Umberto Cocopop wrote:It will be interesting to see how it's worded. If there's a solid evidence trail then this is some very bad news for Sally Morgan but if it's another weak allegation it will make the "witch hunt" claim look more plausible.KitKat wrote:Hmmm. So the article is due to be published in full in The Guardian (presumably giving the reporter's real name? ... and that of his "colleague"?) I wonder ....
AHA! The author is Drew McAdam - "Scotland's foremost mindreader" !
“If you think your thoughts are yours and yours alone, think again.
Drew McAdam’s “MindPlay” abilities will blow you away! Even Uri Geller
is impressed by him. Drew McAdam has numerous TV and radio credits to
his name, including a hilarious special guest appearance on Ready Steady Cook where he not only read Ainslie Harriott’s mind but bent all the spoons. Drew is also the subject of the recent BBC series School For Genius and has a regular spot as The Interrogator on the UK’s most popular daytime talk show: The Trisha Goddard Show.”
“Bafflingly brilliant” Evening News (5 stars)
“Mind Master McAdam.” The Mail
http://drewsmuse.wordpress.com/about/
Clarifies things somewhat.
Kitkat
Well of course you don't need to be psychic to predict that Simon Singh and his Merseyside Mates would latch onto this one. It's right up his street. Sooooooo very predictable.
http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=medpsy&action=display&thread=10580
http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=medpsy&action=display&thread=10580
Kitkat
Post subject: Re: Gandhi vs Gandhi
Posted: Thu, 01 Mar 2012, 3:08 pm
Posted: Thu, 01 Mar 2012, 3:08 pm
badpsychics wrote: Can he not come on her eto reply himself, or does he need his girl friend to speak for him?
Kitkat
Mar 8 2012
Sally’s Response to Edinburgh Allegations
As you are aware, Sally has been forced to bring libel proceedings over the false accusation that she had cheated her audience at a performance in Dublin last year by repeating out instructions she was receiving from members of her team via a microphone and hidden earpiece. This is nonsense but she hopes that the legal process will provide her with the vindication she deserves.
In the meantime, it has come to her attention that another false allegation of cheating has been made. It appears that this is the work of a small but very vocal group of individuals who have a clear and pre-meditated agenda. These recent allegations concerning a show in Edinburgh are untrue. The truth is that the wife of the reporter/friend of Paul Zenon (whose article is the subject of Sally’s libel case) simply interrupted a message regarding an explosion which in fact related to other people in the audience. Both of those people validated messages from Sally regarding relatives/friends who died after explosions. No specific information was given by Sally relating to the fictitious character which the reporter deliberately planted into the show and when it became clear that the reading was not meant for the reporter, Sally quickly moved on to a relative of a young man who had been killed in an explosion.
It obviously would not be appropriate for us to make any further comment whilst the legal action progresses.
She also wants to reassure the many thousands of people she has helped over the years that she will continue to do the good work she has done and will not be deterred by anyone else’s agenda.
SME Ltd
http://www.sallymorgan.tv/sallys-response-to-edinburgh-allegations/
Sally’s Response to Edinburgh Allegations
As you are aware, Sally has been forced to bring libel proceedings over the false accusation that she had cheated her audience at a performance in Dublin last year by repeating out instructions she was receiving from members of her team via a microphone and hidden earpiece. This is nonsense but she hopes that the legal process will provide her with the vindication she deserves.
In the meantime, it has come to her attention that another false allegation of cheating has been made. It appears that this is the work of a small but very vocal group of individuals who have a clear and pre-meditated agenda. These recent allegations concerning a show in Edinburgh are untrue. The truth is that the wife of the reporter/friend of Paul Zenon (whose article is the subject of Sally’s libel case) simply interrupted a message regarding an explosion which in fact related to other people in the audience. Both of those people validated messages from Sally regarding relatives/friends who died after explosions. No specific information was given by Sally relating to the fictitious character which the reporter deliberately planted into the show and when it became clear that the reading was not meant for the reporter, Sally quickly moved on to a relative of a young man who had been killed in an explosion.
It obviously would not be appropriate for us to make any further comment whilst the legal action progresses.
She also wants to reassure the many thousands of people she has helped over the years that she will continue to do the good work she has done and will not be deterred by anyone else’s agenda.
SME Ltd
http://www.sallymorgan.tv/sallys-response-to-edinburgh-allegations/
Umberto Cocopop
KitKat wrote:Post subject: Re: Gandhi vs Gandhi
Posted: Thu, 01 Mar 2012, 3:08 pm
badpsychics wrote: Can he not come on her eto reply himself, or does he need his girl friend to speak for him?
I don't know what he thinks went on at Muncaster but I reckon he's well jealous!
Umberto Cocopop
Well it looks like Sally Morgan has quite possibly walked straight in to a trap.
She's been accused of using an earpiece to receive info from her crew and now she's accused of feeding back information that was acquired earlier as if it was psychic.
Her real problem is that the claims that she's had levelled at her are both entirely plausible and known tricks of the trade of mentalist magicians.
Mentalists need the tricks in order to deceive people but if Sally's genuinely psychic and in touch with the spirit world, why does she use the same tricks as mentalists in addition?
Of course, the obvious answer to her predicament is to undergo some proper controlled testing of her claims. If she's genuine then there's no reason for her to fail, if she's not then she'll have great difficulty (or need a huge slice of luck) to pass.
She wouldn't necessarily have to be tested by her protagonists either.
But, she won't put herself forward for testing - I think that can be taken as a given.
She's been accused of using an earpiece to receive info from her crew and now she's accused of feeding back information that was acquired earlier as if it was psychic.
Her real problem is that the claims that she's had levelled at her are both entirely plausible and known tricks of the trade of mentalist magicians.
Mentalists need the tricks in order to deceive people but if Sally's genuinely psychic and in touch with the spirit world, why does she use the same tricks as mentalists in addition?
Ah! Defiance....KitKat wrote:She also wants to reassure the many thousands of people she has helped over the years that she will continue to do the good work she has done and will not be deterred by anyone else’s agenda.
Of course, the obvious answer to her predicament is to undergo some proper controlled testing of her claims. If she's genuine then there's no reason for her to fail, if she's not then she'll have great difficulty (or need a huge slice of luck) to pass.
She wouldn't necessarily have to be tested by her protagonists either.
But, she won't put herself forward for testing - I think that can be taken as a given.
Whiskers
Umberto Cocopop wrote:KitKat wrote:Post subject: Re: Gandhi vs Gandhi
Posted: Thu, 01 Mar 2012, 3:08 pm
badpsychics wrote: Can he not come on her eto reply himself, or does he need his girl friend to speak for him?
I don't know what he thinks went on at Muncaster but I reckon he's well jealous!
Oh yes? Do tell.
Kitkat
Whiskers wrote:Umberto Cocopop wrote:KitKat wrote:Post subject: Re: Gandhi vs Gandhi
Posted: Thu, 01 Mar 2012, 3:08 pm
badpsychics wrote: Can he not come on her eto reply himself, or does he need his girl friend to speak for him?
I don't know what he thinks went on at Muncaster but I reckon he's well jealous!
Oh yes? Do tell.
You'd be better off asking Jon Donnis. 
He seems to know more than we do. Reckons he "knows everything about it". 
by 
61-BLUES
