As it's fruitless to argue back and forth our thoughts and opinions, I've just done a little digging. It seems that
Consumer Protection from unfair trading Regulations 2008 (known as CPRs) was brought in (following an EU directive). In force, I think since 2010. It seems that a recipient of any medium or other psychic reader's service can now claim (sue) for non-provision of service paid for, with the onus being on the medium or reader to prove no foul. This therefore applies if a charge is made for the service, be it a fee, donation, or gift.
If you read the undernoted first link, you'll see that mediums/readers are advised to say "for entertainment only" or "as scientific experiment" as such are exempt from the CPRs. There apparently is no legal requirement to state such. Perhaps self-evidently if it's a way of side-stepping the CPRs
You'll appreciate that this is somewhat ironic in that a genuine medium wouldn't need to use those descriptions (and some mediums object to them in principle) so logically their use is most likely to benefit frauds who don't want to risk being sued and can easily cover themselves by their use, together with limiting statements and a disclaimer notice. See the second link re professional indemnity insurance advice to astrologers (towards the end) for suggested limitations to state about what can be expected/achieved from the service offered. I assume similar restricting caveats are suggested for mediums.
http://www.psychicchatter.com/psychics- ... ions-2008/
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/apai_1.html
The intention of the CPRs is clearly to try to protect consumers, which apparently it doesn't as the rules can be so easily side-stepped. So, I'm afraid it's still buyer beware, but at least one now has to be made aware of what one is paying for.
Where all of this falls down is perhaps that it isn't people who believe who are vulnerable but those who would like to. So, say I told you that my fee was £20 for 15 mins but I couldn't guarantee receiving any messages at all, would you still pay it? I know you wouldn't of course, but if I were to pay on that basis, that'd be my choice. You'd be entitled to think a fool and his money are soon parted (if that's what you think) and I'd be entitled to tell you it was none of your business. No offence intended of course.
