Drew McAdam writes about his recent visit to a Sally Morgan show. Click on "February 2012 Archives", then "PSYCHIC OR NOT… YOU DECIDE.."
http://drewsmuse.wordpress.com/about/
Sally Morgan. Again.
-
bindeweede
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:45 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
"Even Uri Geller is impressed by him."
-
bindeweede
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:45 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
Well, at least you gotta smile.
http://www.sallymorgan.tv/News/belfast- ... ation.html
ETA. Just in case it is modified.......
http://www.sallymorgan.tv/News/belfast- ... ation.html
ETA. Just in case it is modified.......
We are extremely sorry to announce today that due to unforeseen circumstances Sally’s show at the Waterfront in Belfast on Tuesday 11thSeptember has been cancelled.
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
They actually posted that???
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Don't blame me - I voted remain 
-
bindeweede
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:45 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
The Sally Morgan/Daily Mail issue has been very quiet for a long time, then I came across this.
http://slsingh.posterous.com/psychic-sa ... ial-set-foPsychic Sally v Daily Mail libel trial set for 2013.
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
ooh itching to see the full version of Sally's "Particulars of Claim." What's already there is worthy of inclusion in a complaint to trading standards but I await the full store of ammunition before composing my letter.
Spot the difference with...Particulars of Claim
1. The Claimant is a professional psychic. In addition to the public performance side of her work, for which she has become well-know to the general public, the Claimant has also privately helped numerous people over the years with traumatic or other emotional situations.
http://www.sallymorgan.tv/categoryevents/1.htmlSally Morgan is investigational / experimental. There are no guaranteed or certain results and the show is for the purposes for entertainment.
-
Asthmatic Camel
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:54 pm
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
What's the best we can really hope for?
Case dismissed, costs awarded to defendant, I should think. That won't hurt her much; Colin Fry and Kreed Kafer are still coining it.
Case dismissed, costs awarded to defendant, I should think. That won't hurt her much; Colin Fry and Kreed Kafer are still coining it.
-
bindeweede
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:45 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
I was wondering what had happened about this.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trial-dat ... daily-mail
A trial date has been set for TV psychic Sally Morgan’s libel claim against Daily Mail publishers Associated Newspapers.............
The libel trial is due to start on 10 June and has been scheduled for three weeks.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trial-dat ... daily-mail
-
Croydon13013
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:48 pm
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
She played a gig in Croydon last week but I only noticed today.
thIS sIGnaTure iS an
-
bindeweede
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4009
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:45 pm
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
Well, well, well.
£125,000, according to The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... tv-psychic
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mai ... he-cheatedDaily Mail agrees to pay substantial damages to TV psychic Sally Morgan over report suggesting she cheated Dublin audience
£125,000, according to The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... tv-psychic
-
Croydon13013
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:48 pm
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22988215
As far as I can see the Daily fail has only admitted that she didn't use an earpeice.
"The Daily Mail withdraws the suggestion that Mrs Morgan used a secret earpiece at her Dublin show in September 2011 to receive messages from off-stage, thereby cheating her audience, which it accepts is untrue."
"It apologises unreservedly to Mrs Morgan for publishing the allegation. It has agreed to pay her substantial damages, together with her legal costs, and it has also agreed not to repeat the allegation."
As far as I can see the Daily fail has only admitted that she didn't use an earpeice.
"The Daily Mail withdraws the suggestion that Mrs Morgan used a secret earpiece at her Dublin show in September 2011 to receive messages from off-stage, thereby cheating her audience, which it accepts is untrue."
"It apologises unreservedly to Mrs Morgan for publishing the allegation. It has agreed to pay her substantial damages, together with her legal costs, and it has also agreed not to repeat the allegation."
thIS sIGnaTure iS an
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
Yes - I think you are right. It's only about the earpiece. There's some silly things being said along the lines of 'so the court thinks she really is psychic 
'. Complete nonsense.
'. Complete nonsense.Don't blame me - I voted remain
Re: Sally Morgan. Again.
This is why I support Libel reform
I am darn disappointed that after waiting patiently for getting on towards two years it all gets settled behind closed doors without giving us the spectacle of a full trial. I was really looking forward to Sally's legal team trying to defend the action whilst tip tiptoeing through the minefield that is the the regulations on Unfair Commercial Practices (which amongst other things replaced the Fraudulent Mediums Act)
I'm aware of two areas of law where the burden of proof is commonly said to be reversed. Here in libel law the initial burden, to prove that a comment is defamatory, is on the claimant. Sally might easily say that people reading such an article might be less likely to buy a ticket if they no longer thought she could genuinely talk to the dead. It's not much of a burden. From then on it is the on the defendant to prove that the comment is a fair opinion or true fact. So the more substantial burden is for the accused to prove themselves innocent. The other area is the regulations on Unfair Commercial Practices (which amongst other things replaced the Fraudulent Mediums Act) Here the initial burden is for the claimant to demonstrate that they or a typical customer would be likely to make a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made based upon the impression given by the trader. ie. Trading Standards would only need to prove that for example that there are people who go to her show who would not do so if they did not believe that she could talk to the dead. The trader can then be compelled to demonstrate that the impression they've given is accurate. Again the accused must prove their innocence. It would have been interesting to see these two areas of law intersect. Depending what is made public on the goings on up until now maybe it can still be made to happen.
However I'm not too surprised to see Sally win.
Using the analogy of a magician, imagine you worked hard to produce an illusion. You designed it, constructed props ran through the stagecraft over and over, recording the performance from around the auditorium so you could view the sleights misdirections and concealments from every possible angle. You trained your muscles until you were confident that your contortions felt and seemed natural whilst at the same time knowing that every line of sight was covered. Then after your performance a critic declared that the reason nobody in the live audience detected your deception was not this hard work but instead that they were all stooges. I think you'd have a libel case. Though bringing it to court risks exposing your actual method.
It may be that whatever Sally's methods are, whether they are some uncanny power to speak to the dead or other means of obtaining a similar looking result, they don't include people in a projection box feeding her lines.
In which case, her claim may have been entirely fair without requiring her to demonstrate genuine clairvoyance (under controlled conditions). Maybe all she'd have had to demonstrate is that she can produce similar effects to her stage show without using an earpiece. This would be eminently doable by numerous professional charlatans.
If instead however her claim was explicitly about being called a charlatan in general and included a strong legal claim to be a genuine psychic it would possibly open her up to being forced to provide robust proof of this claim to trading standards. I do so want to see what she put in writing. The articles are worded to make it seem that the Mail now accepts that she's not a charlatan. However when you take a close and literal look, all they're really confessing is that they have no strong evidence that she's fed lines through an earpiece. Subtle difference.
I am darn disappointed that after waiting patiently for getting on towards two years it all gets settled behind closed doors without giving us the spectacle of a full trial. I was really looking forward to Sally's legal team trying to defend the action whilst tip tiptoeing through the minefield that is the the regulations on Unfair Commercial Practices (which amongst other things replaced the Fraudulent Mediums Act)
I'm aware of two areas of law where the burden of proof is commonly said to be reversed. Here in libel law the initial burden, to prove that a comment is defamatory, is on the claimant. Sally might easily say that people reading such an article might be less likely to buy a ticket if they no longer thought she could genuinely talk to the dead. It's not much of a burden. From then on it is the on the defendant to prove that the comment is a fair opinion or true fact. So the more substantial burden is for the accused to prove themselves innocent. The other area is the regulations on Unfair Commercial Practices (which amongst other things replaced the Fraudulent Mediums Act) Here the initial burden is for the claimant to demonstrate that they or a typical customer would be likely to make a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made based upon the impression given by the trader. ie. Trading Standards would only need to prove that for example that there are people who go to her show who would not do so if they did not believe that she could talk to the dead. The trader can then be compelled to demonstrate that the impression they've given is accurate. Again the accused must prove their innocence. It would have been interesting to see these two areas of law intersect. Depending what is made public on the goings on up until now maybe it can still be made to happen.
However I'm not too surprised to see Sally win.
Using the analogy of a magician, imagine you worked hard to produce an illusion. You designed it, constructed props ran through the stagecraft over and over, recording the performance from around the auditorium so you could view the sleights misdirections and concealments from every possible angle. You trained your muscles until you were confident that your contortions felt and seemed natural whilst at the same time knowing that every line of sight was covered. Then after your performance a critic declared that the reason nobody in the live audience detected your deception was not this hard work but instead that they were all stooges. I think you'd have a libel case. Though bringing it to court risks exposing your actual method.
It may be that whatever Sally's methods are, whether they are some uncanny power to speak to the dead or other means of obtaining a similar looking result, they don't include people in a projection box feeding her lines.
In which case, her claim may have been entirely fair without requiring her to demonstrate genuine clairvoyance (under controlled conditions). Maybe all she'd have had to demonstrate is that she can produce similar effects to her stage show without using an earpiece. This would be eminently doable by numerous professional charlatans.
If instead however her claim was explicitly about being called a charlatan in general and included a strong legal claim to be a genuine psychic it would possibly open her up to being forced to provide robust proof of this claim to trading standards. I do so want to see what she put in writing. The articles are worded to make it seem that the Mail now accepts that she's not a charlatan. However when you take a close and literal look, all they're really confessing is that they have no strong evidence that she's fed lines through an earpiece. Subtle difference.