Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Psychic" Sally Morgan sues over fraud allegations

Options
  • 09-10-2011 2:50pm
    #1
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,984 ✭✭✭✭


    The story was in the Daily Mail and the Independent a couple of weeks ago, but the latest is that she's suing "the media", which in this case was RTE's Liveline show. From her Facebook page:
    On behalf of Sally Morgan we would like to confirm that Sally Morgan has instructed Graham Atkins of Atkins Thomson to commence libel action in relation to press allegations that she is a cheat, following her show in Dublin. Thank you for your support and patience in this matter. Sally Morgan Management Team.
    In short: during Morgan's recent Dublin show, a member of the audience overheard technicians apparently feeding information to Morgan from a room at the back. The lady, Sue, called in to Joe Duffy's Liveline show the next day: "Everything he said, she would say ten seconds later."

    From a Guardian piece:
    Sue speculated, again not unreasonably given the history of psychic frauds, that the man was feeding Sally information that had been gathered by engaging members of the audience in conversation in the foyer before the show began. This is a technique widely used by psychic fraudsters, as audience members will naturally discuss with each other who they are hoping to hear from "on the other side", how their loved one died, and so on.
    If the Daily Mail writer is correct, even that isn't the whole story.
    Having been to one of Sally’s shows earlier this year, I know that there is no need for her to resort to such electronic subterfuge. For before each show starts, the audience are invited to write messages and leave details of their bereaved relatives in a giant bowl left in the foyer of each venue.
    I didn't know that - and if true, it makes it all the more amazing that anyone falls for this stuff at all.

    So now I read (from Jack of Kent) that Morgan is suing. It's not entirely clear who Morgan is suing, or what she would hope to get out of it. London is famous for libel tourism, but I find it hard to imagine that even they would find that a caller in to a radio show, reporting what she saw and speculating a bit, was committing libel. If it does come to court, however, I think we need to keep an eye on this one. It would be suing the kid who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes on. :o

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    OakeyDokey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭OakeyDokey


    She gets the audience to write information on the deceased person! Well that doesn't sound right at all, I don't think she'll get anywhere with this case.


  • Options
    #3
    ITS_A_BADGER
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭ITS_A_BADGER


    ha ha ha let her prove her psychic abilities so on a judge


  • Options
    #4
    RMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    How she plans to prove to a court of law she has functioning physic powers is beyond me.


  • Options
    #5
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    The spirits say she'll be laughed out of court.


  • Options
    #6
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    One reason the UK is used for libel tourism is that winning is irrelevant, they can destroy someone with legal fees.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    She'll sue and she'll win

    After all, she can see the future. So if she wasnt gonna win she wouldn't bother!


  • Options
    #8
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    bnt wrote: »

    I find it hard to imagine that even they would find that a caller in to a radio show, reporting what she saw and speculating a bit, was committing libel.

    You are right as libel only applies to the written word. If they intended to sue someone who was a caller to a radio show, that would be a charge of slander and not libel.


  • Options
    #9
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,984 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    easychair wrote: »
    You are right as libel only applies to the written word. If they intended to sue someone who was a caller to a radio show, that would be a charge of slander and not libel.
    That too. It will also depend on exactly what was said: criticising a person's actions is not the same as criticism of the person themselves. I haven't yet listened to exactly what was said on the radio, whether it was worse than the linked articles - which would have been carefully written to avoid such potential problems.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #10
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    She'll sue and she'll win

    After all, she can see the future. So if she wasnt gonna win she wouldn't bother!

    The only question is how she didn't foretell that window would be open..
    Maybe a Quantum Magnetic flux in the Ether Stream created a Tachyon bubble that stopped her from seeing...


  • Options
    #11
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    The only question is how she didn't foretell that window would be open..
    Maybe a Quantum Magnetic flux in the Ether Stream created a Tachyon bubble that stopped her from seeing...

    If she used this excuse in court i'd lose my sh*t!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    bnt wrote: »
    That too. It will also depend on exactly what was said: criticising a person's actions is not the same as criticism of the person themselves. I haven't yet listened to exactly what was said on the radio, whether it was worse than the linked articles - which would have been carefully written to avoid such potential problems.

    Of course the truth is a perfect defense to either slander or libel. I myself wonder why she wears an earpiece on stage, and wonder what it is she wants to hear in her ear when doing a live psychic show. On this documentary, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5imTBK-OY she can be seen clearly taking an earpiece out of her left ear immediately on leaving the stage at around 5.30.


  • Options
    #13
    meryem
    Registered Users Posts: 271 ✭✭meryem


    Now that's a question we might find answer to in the legal proceedings. It's pretty interesting question.


  • Options
    #14
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,409 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    She hasn't got a leg to stand on. That said, RTE will probably settle out of court ....


  • Options
    #15
    ANSI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭ANSI


    Akrasia wrote: »
    She hasn't got a leg to stand on. That said, RTE will probably settle out of court ....
    hasn't got an aura to stand on;)


  • Options
    #16
    _Beau_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭_Beau_


    I ain't psychic, but, I do foresee a supernaturally high legal bill in her future.


  • Options
    #17
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,626 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    easychair wrote: »
    Of course the truth is a perfect defense to either slander or libel
    The problem is proving the truth. In a defamation case, (AFAIK) the person who wrote the piece is the one that needs to prove what they said is true. All the burden of proof is on them*

    *IANAL

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #18
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    28064212 wrote: »
    easychair wrote: »
    Of course the truth is a perfect defense to either slander or libel
    The problem is proving the truth. In a defamation case, (AFAIK) the person who wrote the piece is the one that needs to prove what they said is true. All the burden of proof is on them*

    *IANAL

    I don't see that will be much of a problem for many of the fine members of the legal profession who will be only too glad to take on the case and argue it. No court case is ever certain, especially a libel suit, and the prospect of an order for costs made against a losing plaintiff should help focus the mind, more especially when both sides disclose their evidence to each other before any trial.


  • Options
    #19
    irishjig69b
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭irishjig69b


    look guys, if idiots want to spend der cash on this dribble and make her a fortune i say goodluck to her.................i would and so would u do the same


  • Options
    #20
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    irishjig69b wrote: »
    look guys, if idiots want to spend der cash on this dribble and make her a fortune i say goodluck to her.................i would and so would u do the same

    Disgraceful attitude TBH!


  • Options
    #21
    irishjig69b
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭irishjig69b


    no it aint, what we do with our own money is our own buisness.....i dont believe in this antmore than u do, but alot of people find alot of comfort in it...........so if, as i said want to spend THEIR cash, its up to them


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    irishjig69b wrote: »
    no it aint, what we do with our own money is our own buisness.....i dont believe in this antmore than u do, but alot of people find alot of comfort in it...........so if, as i said want to spend THEIR cash, its up to them

    So you think it's ok for these people to exploit peoples' grief in order to take their money?

    Do you think it would be ok for me to say to all of the old people on my road "There's a dinosaur loose in the neighbourhood. Give me €200 and i'll dinosaur-proof yhour house with a magic dance"? Do you think that's ok for me to do? You think it's their money and they can do what they want?

    Grand, but it still makes me scum! And these "psychics" are scum! They prey on the weak and the vulnerable and they prey on grief and loss. It's disgusting!


  • Options
    #23
    Kadongy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭Kadongy


    28064212 wrote: »
    The problem is proving the truth. In a defamation case, (AFAIK) the person who wrote the piece is the one that needs to prove what they said is true. All the burden of proof is on them*

    *IANAL
    They could dismiss the case and then charge her with bringing a frivolous lawsuit or something like that. That would prove she's not psychic :pac:


  • Options
    #24
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    I hope she ends up bankrupt and homeless. She's a thief of the highest order and should be treated with contempt.


  • Options
    #25
    irishjig69b
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭irishjig69b


    as i said i dont believe in this rubbish either but as i said if people are silly enuf to pay up well thats der look out


  • Options
    #26
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    irishjig69b wrote: »
    as i said i dont believe in this rubbish either but as i said if people are silly enuf to pay up well thats der look out

    Just because people are silly, does not give people the right to exploit their sillyness in order to part them with their money. It's immoral.


  • Options
    #27
    irishjig69b
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭irishjig69b


    people have the right to do what the hell they want with der own cash, if they believe this dribble thats up to them u and i can moan bout it all we want but my first 15 words is A FACT, failing that, why dont u just pray for their souls.......


  • Options
    #28
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    irishjig69b wrote: »
    people have the right to do what the hell they want with der own cash, if they believe this dribble thats up to them u and i can moan bout it all we want but my first 15 words is A FACT, failing that, why dont u just pray for their souls.......

    No, that's not how it works.

    Sally Morgan is offering a service (a psychic reading) which she does not live up to. Like any other service, it should be scrutinized. If she cannot prove that her offerings are valid and scientifically verified, then she should be sued for fraud.

    All these psychics should be outlawed, and placed in prison for fraud unless they can scientifically validate their claims.


  • Options
    #29
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    irishjig69b wrote: »
    people have the right to do what the hell they want with der own cash, if they believe this dribble thats up to them u and i can moan bout it all we want but my first 15 words is A FACT, failing that, why dont u just pray for their souls.......

    Well people have a right to do with they want, but others haven't got the right to use fraudulent methods in order to take their money from them.

    My issue is not with what people are doing with their money. it is with the people who will lie to them and prey on their weaknesses to take their money from them. I thought i'd made that pretty clear.

    And why would I pray? What are you on about?


  • Options
    #30
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Well people have a right to do with they want, but others haven't got the right to use fraudulent methods in order to take their money from them.

    You are quite right, although fraud is already illegal in Ireland. Although you may consider it fraud, the legal system does not define fraud as a private transaction between two individuals, of sound mind, where one seeks a service from another.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    easychair wrote: »
    You are quite right, although fraud is already illegal in Ireland. Although you may consider it fraud, the legal system does not define fraud as a private transaction between two individuals, of sound mind, where one seeks a service from another.

    It is if they do not provide the service offered.


Advertisement