Weirder and weirder
It has been brought to my attention recently that one of the organisers of the ‘Weird conferences’ that are held in Wiltshire, is claiming to have sacked me from being involved in the conference.
I was a volunteer for ‘Weird ’09′ and ‘Weird ’10′ and also spoke at the first of these events too. I quit as a volunteer and crew member after the Weird ’10 conference because of the openly snide way in which one of the organisers spoke to speakers,and about merchants (who also happened to be my friends). This nasty attitude spilled over onto facebook in the private group on there for crew members. It’s when this happened that I decided enough was enough and left the crew.
I’m glad I did but I’m dismayed to find that one of the organisers is now telling people I am “unhinged” and that she sacked me. This is a lie. There, clarification made 
This ends now
Anyone who has been to one of my skeptics in the pub talks will know about the horrible things that happened to me when I stopped being a believer in ghosts and related “woo” ideas in 2007. You’ll know about the woman who phoned up the company I worked for and tried to get me sacked simply because I no longer agreed that ghosts existed, and had fallen out with her because of this.
You’ll know about the Wiltshire ghost hunter who phoned up a location that I had arranged to visit for a paranormal investigation and cancelled our investigation – and tried to do the same with another location by sending them text messages warning them not to let us in.
You’ll know about the threats, the abuse, the phone calls, having to call the police & the online harassment.
All because of things that happened a long time ago, and because I don’t think like them and – quite frankly – don’t like them any more. Things happen, people change, life goes on… or at least it should.
These last few years as things have progressed and I’ve taken on new opportunities presented to me I’ve always had a cloud hanging over me that has always bittered the experience.
“What will they think? They’ll think I’m being egotistical and vain and they’ll use something from my past to try and catch me out”
It hasn’t exactly been pleasant. This year I’ve had empty legal threats from people trying to shut me up when I write critically about them and what they do, hateful messages have been sent my way by people who don’t even know me but know one of the people I used to be friends with, I’ve had gossip spread about me online and this week the icing on the cake came in the form of a string of anonymous prank calls to my home phone.
So I thought I would just write this blog post to explain to those few bitter people who don’t like me and yet seem to hang around my websites so much that this ends now.
You don’t agree with me, I don’t agree with you, it actually isn’t the end of the world. Grow up, move on and stop it.
I will no longer allow your spiteful opinions of me to cloud decisions I make in the future, and I will no longer care what you happen to think of me because your opinions aren’t important to me.
You can threaten me, you can phone my house and hang up, you can make up rumours or call me names online where I can’t see it, you can write to my boss and try to get me sacked, but it wont make me go away because when all you can do is throw muck it proves to me that you have no argument against what I do and what I say, only against who I am – and I wont be changing who I am for anyone.
By all means criticise me, but have the guts to do so directly and not behind my back, by all means challenge what I say and prove me wrong… however some of the behaviour I’ve had to deal with is pathetic.
If you don’t like me, I don’t actually care. This ends now.
Respect is earned: A follow on
After writing my initial blog post about the complaint group on Facebook, I got into a discussion on the group wall about what the creator of the group felt was being misinterpreted by the BBC that warranted a complaint. Here is the dialogue:
Hayley: Could you explain what you mean about them not having a concept of what mediumship is? What is mediumship and how did they misrepresent it? I’m genuinely confused. Thanks.
Sam: Mediumship is not fortune telling. Mediumship is communicating with the dead. Personally I don’t believe that mediums are able to see the future. I was referring to the terminology that the BBC used.
Hayley: what terminology did the BBC use?
Sam: On the programme, mediums were referred to as fortune tellers, which is not true. They also attempted to bring horoscopes into the mix, which has nothing to do with mediums. The BBC obviously didn’t research this.
Hayley: If there will always be people who claim to be mediums while also doing tarot cards and psychic readings and healing and such, doesn’t that mean that something needs to be done to regulate who uses the term ‘medium’ when they sell services? How have the BBC abused the definition of the word, if there are people who claim to be mediums doing the very same thing?
Sam: The word medium describes a go-between, a channel between worlds. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone can display mediumship through testing, like for example the practical SNU testing, then they are a medium.
Hayley: I am questioning, though, the ‘misrepresentation’ you claim the BBC made, when in fact, every day, people who claim to be mediums also make that misrepresentation…
Sam: The world is full of misrepresentation, which is why I am endeavouring to educate people, regardless of their belief, what mediums do.
Hayley: but you’re blaming the BBC for that? When the misinterpretation actually has its roots in the medium and psychic industries? Why? Why wouldn’t sorting out who claims to be a medium or psychic take priority? Is it even something that can be sorted out?
I genuinely do not believe that it is the BBC’s fault for using the ‘fortune teller’ definition of mediumship when, actually, mediums represent it in such a manner in the first place.
As I mentioned in the last article, the SNU self-regulate the mediumship industry, with people choosing to be regulated by the SNU – it isn’t independent regulation, and the definition of mediumship from the SNU is the one they’ve chosen to use, but it isn’t set in stone and it isn’t compulsory for all mediums to use that definition.
Instead of blaming the BBC for using the “wrong definition”, I think that the mediumship industry should take a hard look at itself as it’s exactly where the problem of misrepresentation comes from.
Respect is earned
I wasn’t on the BBC yesterday in the end because the debate about mediums & psychics charging money was shortened because of recent tragic events that the program wanted to cover. Fair enough, and besides, I got to have my lay-in so it wasn’t that bad.
I didn’t get to watch the show live as I was editing the next episode of ‘Righteous Indignation’ but from what I’ve heard it was a good debate with the awesome Wendy Grossman making extremely valid points from a skeptical angle.
This morning on Facebook a friend posted a link to a group on there entitled ‘Complain to the BBC about their unfair treatment of mediums’. I’m sure you can guess what the point of the group is from the title, but the main page of the group says:
Today’s Sunday Morning Live show on BBC1 had a debate in which they suggested that mediums should be banned from charging for their services. They used 4 cynics, 1 skeptic and only 2 mediums in this debate. There were no mediums in the studio during the whole debate, they were only consulted via a video link. I think this was a very biased debate and the BBC should apologise since Spiritualism is a recognised religion in Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
You can view the programme here for the next few days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012xr53/Sunday_Morning_Live_Series_2_Episode_5/Moreover, the BBC seemed to have no concept of what mediumship is.
PLEASE, PLEASE COMPLAIN to the BBC, thank you.
The BBC have no concept of what mediumship is? I was confused by that because it often seems to me that those claiming to be mediums or psychics have no concept of what it is! For example, when interviewing Steven Upton from the Spiritualists National Union he said that there is no such thing as a ‘psychic-medium’ and that psychics and mediums are two different things. A mediums service, he told us, is to ‘provide evidence of survival’. Yet, loads of mediums do other things besides that while using that label – healing, insight readings, tarot cards etc.
There’s no official definition because there’s no compulsory regulation of mediumship… so perhaps what the creators of this group meant was ‘the BBC don’t use our personal interpretation of what mediumship is’, which would make more sense.
I may be different from other sceptics, but I do have some respect for Spiritualists – hey, I used to bloody be one in everything but name, and I have respect for the way in which the SNU regulate their members as best they can. Though, I am of the opinion that a lot more needs to be done to regulate those trading as mediums or psychics to prevent people from being conned out of their money by frauds who use psychology tricks and misdirection to make people believe they have abilities. Knowingly and unknowlingy.
However, I was genuinely surprised to see that people were complaining en masse to the BBC about the “unfairness” in the debate because there were “4 cynics, 1 skeptic and 2 mediums” which wasn’t, apparently, balanced and respectful of their beliefs.
I think there is something wrong when people demand respect and balance for their belief systems when, actually, they’ve been given a platform from which to defend their beliefs in the show they’re complaining about. There were two mediums in the show, not to mention the fact that others could Skype in with their opinions had they wanted to. They were being represented, how much more is needed exactly? Is this a numbers game? Could one or two more mediums have made a difference? I don’t think so…
There were three guests in the studio who were non-believers, and one via Webcam. Sure, that’s a ratio of four vs. two, but the question being discussed was whether mediums should be banned from charging money for what they do.
I don’t believe that all four non-believers were of the opinion that they should be banned. So how is it unfair?
Some serious points were raised by Wendy Grossman, points that anybody would agree with whether they were a medium or not. Had I been on the show I too was going to argue that charging should not be banned, but that regulation and education of the public was a must – to help weed out charlatans, and ensure that those mediums who do operate with a fee do so fairly while trying ‘to provide evidence of survival’. Would a “genuine medium or psychic” disagree?
The whole point of ‘Sunday Morning Live’ is to encourage debate surrounding a thought or question sent in to the studio – that’s exactly what it did.
If mediums and psychics watched the show in the hope that they would be given a platform from which to promote their industry and religion without their claims being challenged, then they need to learn what ‘debate’ actually is and how it works.
Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that nobody has to respect what anybody else believes in. To clarify that point – I respect and defend your right to believe what you want, but it doesn’t mean I will respect what you choose to believe in. To demand that people respect what you choose to believe is unrealistic and stubborn, and when people don’t respect your beliefs don’t throw your toys out of the pram – that’s life, deal with it. We all have to.
I support…
