One of the 'clairvoyants' makes this astonishing claim:
'People who feel their tax money has been wasted should remember that if they'd lost a child they would go to a medium to get peace that their loved one has passed safely and is in a better place. Our job is to provide substantial evidence to bring ease to people's grieving.'
What is so disgraceful about the grant?
Consider this:
The Consumer Protection Regulations include rules prohibiting conduct which misleads the average consumer and thereby causes, or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.What type of person would be considered particularly vulnerable to individuals such as these? Precisely those identified by the couple as their target - the bereaved, and in particular, bereaved parents.
Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, such conduct would still be unfair under the CPRs if it deceives the average member of (i) the group to which it is directed, or (ii) a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to this type of practice.
Unlike the Act, there is no requirement in the CPRs to prove an "intent to deceive". This means that where practices are aimed at vulnerable consumers or average members of particular groups, it should be easier to take action against fraudulent mediums than under the Act.
The CPRs will be enforced by both civil (injunctive) action and criminal sanctions.
The aims of this couple are outside the law, and the Department of Work and Pensions have colluded with them. Shame on all concerned.
Emma Gee
No comments:
Post a Comment