A new law aimed at protecting consumers against rogue traders has come into force in the UK.

For the first time in UK law there will be a duty on all businesses not to trade unfairly...

Fortune-tellers, astrologers and mediums are among those affected by the rules, which require them to say their services are for "entertainment only".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7416809.stm

Does anyone know anything about this? For instance, whilst the law was being drafted, was there any discussion with actual astrologers about what we do?

It would crumble legally if anyone bothered to stand up to it. Where is the proof that there is nothing legitimately helpful in astrology and divination? Where and when was it proven that 1 or 2 years of paying for psychological counseling with a licensed psychological therapist is more valid and helpful than an occasional talk with an astrologer or Tarot card reader? It's based on the assumptions and beliefs of some mainstream people with a lot of power. A legal challenge would reveal its weakness.

I saw a TV discussion on this ?impending move? a few weeks ago. The angle then was ? ?how can someone like a spiritualist medium, who has all the legal protection afforded to a member of a recognised religion, be expected to say that what they do is for entertainment only??. The spokesman said its purpose was not to deny or impede the capabilities of serious astrologers or mediums, and he stressed that most are seen as valuable tax-paying members of society who go through training and work hard to make an honest living that can do a lot of good. He claimed that the emphasis is all about ensuring the duty to trade fairly, so the amendment is intended to stop spammers and scammers, ie., the kind of people who blanket-mail or email the vulnerable and gullible, claiming knowledge of the future for which they offer protection by ?lucky charms? etc. Apparently lots of elderly people are being taken in, and I could see his point although I find it hard to imagine that the problem is as bad as it was made out to be.

At the time that I watched the discussion I didn?t feel that it was a worrying move at all, because the representative was very persuasive about its tolerance to legitimate practitioners and focus on those people who give the whole industry a bad name. But I suppose it does have to be taken seriously in terms of how the use of this legislation might be altered over time. At the moment our culture is very protective of people?s rights to practise their beliefs and as Kirk says, this would never stand up in court if used against an honest practitioner. But there has to be some point where it becomes very messy establishing ?respectable versus controversial? dealings in any occult-related business.

Perhaps politicians should be added to this act since they seem to be able to misrepresent themselves and rip off the public about as well as any group. They certainly cause more damage than any wild eyed fortune teller ever did. In fact, I think it would be difficult to defend the words ""Politician" and "Fair trade" being used in the same sentence.

This is also one of the reasons I have long felt we should just go ahead and claim astrology IS a religion and that way perhaps we could get some of the same protections that are given to religions no matter how far out their beliefs. Oh my God, I think I just agreed with a part of Richard Dawkin's position ( his assertion that religious get unique protections under the law)....I am going to leave now and wash out my mouth with soap.

Make sure it?s carbolic Yak, no; I value my freedom in not having to define myself as belonging to any particular astrological organisation, let alone a religion; could you imagine the kind of squabbles that could ensue? I have a very uneasy reaction to the thought of astrology being legislated as a religion, no matter what practical benefits we can get out of the system by playing them at their own game. How would it work? Would we have to have astrological priesthoods or ordained ministers, or some new hierarchy of power? Could we make it a sort of ?umbrella religion? like Christianity, so we can have warring factions within it ? Religion always seems a good idea in principle but it gets ruined the moment you mix it with politics or living people.

I do feel some sympathy with what this act is aiming to do, though I can?t agree with how they are going about it. But I haven?t seen the details of when and where the ?only for entertainment? applies. Has anyone actually seen the small print? I am fairly convinced that someone like myself would not have to declare my services to be ?for entertainment only?. I would never do that for say, horary consultations. I might admit to something like ?information purposes? only, and would be happy to caution people about the need to take responsibility for their own decisions, but I couldn?t use that phrase and imagine there would be very few people willing to acknowledge this law if it was expected to apply to their one-to-one consultation services.

I heard this story covered on Radio 4 last week. Not only did interviewees mention " for entertainment only " they also said that astrologers had to state that there was no scientific evidence for their claims. I am in Westminster Reference Library reading the Statutory Instrument in question. I can find nothing to support these statements. There is a footnote saying that the Fraudulent Mediums Act has been repealed but nothing about anything replacing it. Maybe I have missed something but I have a feeling that this one will end up in the Fortean Times Mythconceptions column

Deb.
Perhaps you have taken me more seriously than I intended. Sometimes my humour is so sublte as to be unnoticed. I was simply pointing out that no religion is required to preface their teaching or practices as "entertainment only", no matter how far out or metaphysical their assertations may be, or how much "magic" they claim for their rituals and beliefs.
I have no serious desire to have astrology declared a religion. Although many would argure that what we do is a sacred art, it is usually far removed from what most religions say and do. That does not mean I am denying the likely religious roots to our art.
If what we do is in any way religious, is is more of the first hand kind rather than the second hand type and thus little need for dogma, or organization, or formal priesthood.

Hi James

I did suspect you were being tongue-in-cheek, and of course I was being flippant in my reply. But the idea of making astrology a religion was seriously proposed over here a few years back, as a way to gain legal advantages in our representation by the media. I guess you can tell that I?m not up for the idea myself, though I feel exactly the same as you do with regard to there being something sacred in its workings and a great deal of religious mysticism in its origin.

no religion is required to preface their teaching or practices as "entertainment only", no matter how far out or metaphysical their assertations may be, or how much "magic" they claim for their rituals and beliefs.

Exactly. This was the point developed by the TV show I caught. It was claimed that all working mediums, including Spiritualists who are a recognised religion, would be forced to say that what they do is merely entertainment, and the debate centred on the fact that this was outrageous and never going to happen. But after reading Matt?s post I don?t know what to think anymore. (Thanks for giving us your imput Matt!)

Is this a mythconception or what? It sounds to me like nothing has been specifically stated regarding astrologers and psychics, and that this is just a general law saying that traders have to be fair and honest in their business promotions. Perhaps some media reports simply assume this forces us to admit to being mere entertainers because they honestly believe that is what we are. Do you think these people would be very shocked to discover that even we are not that subtle in our humour; and in this we?re actually being ?straight-up? and serious ?


So Garry, what do you make of all this?

Here's the statutory instrument:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ ... 574_en.pdf

and here's the explanatory memorandum:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ ... 574_en.pdf

As Matt says, it certainly isn't immediately obvious where the newspaper scare stories concerning astrology are coming from.

Since this is, apparently, an implementation of EU law, I wonder if anyone is able to comment on how it has worked out elsewhere?

I have heard no more about this even after writing to my MP but before the act was passed humanists and skeptics were congratulating each other on the laws restricting mediums and psychics.Were their predictions based on wishful thinking rather than evidence? Not very "rational" of them! At least we know what their plans are now.