One of the questions that came up was how Rebecca found her way into skepticism, and her response was quite telling – initially working through college as a magician, she found herself reading books from Penn & Teller.  Guided by their constant references to James Randi, she found herself on the JREF forum and things took off from there.  What interested me about her response was the familiarity of it – I got into skepticism from watching Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, and from there I began listening to the SGU simply to hear what Teller’s voice sounded like in an interview he gave with them.  From the SGU, Randi and the JREF was the next logical step.  But that’s just my story – I want to hear yours.

So, with that in mind, I ask you all:  What brings you here?  What path to skepticism did you take, and who were the inspirations and guides along the way?

Perhaps just as many of you may also know, I’m somewhat prone to receiving other comments, too.  I’ve been – in my short but somewhat-surreal skeptical career - labelled a paedophile, a fascist akin to the BNP*, accused of making myself look foolish and of having nothing more meaningful than my scouse wit – and that’s just what I can recall off the top of my head.  Fortunately, I kinda love it.

But I must admit, even my usually-calm blood was somewhat boiled by an exchange I recently had/am having on Facebook, in response to one of my regular (and actually rather innocuous) updates.  The feedbacker had, as far as I can see, taken offence to the question of the week that arose during the last Skeptics in the Pub (that’s right, I’m blaming you guys for this one!) – What would you sell your soul for?  Feel free to answer that if you haven’t already, by the way…

The nature of her feedback was somewhat remarkable to me – partly in the vehemence in the attack of British skeptics in general, and of me in particular.  But the other thing that struck me was the lack of direction – I can only assume from the tone and the aggression that she is a true believer, but curiously I have no clue what in!

I’ll keep the name of the feedbacker private for now, although if she’d like to stand by her views on a public forum I’m more than happy to continue the discussion we’re having here.  Until then, I’ll keep her name secret, but I will say that her friends list includes Steve, Jay and Bob Novello of the SGU, David Gorski of Science Based Medicine, David Colquhoun (pharmacologist and pseudo-medicine debunker) and even Richard Dawkins.  Either she’s hugely into the skeptical movement (and therefore has a personal grudge against me!), or she has other reasons for being involved.

In the interests of opening the discussion to a public forum and having a full and frank debate on the matter, I’ll publish here the exchange so far, unedited (save for obscuring the name of said feedbacker, whom we shall call D).  If nothing else, it will give you an opportunity to play ‘spot the logical fallacy’ and to see what level of argument a true believer (as I can only assume) will put forward.  I’ll let you guys make up your own minds, and your comments/logical-fallacy-sightings are welcomed:

But your favourite eldest ally and countryman Professor Colquhoun forgot to explain you about this …

PS. And why have you choose such idiotic subject – about Faust? Did you read Goethe? It sounds oddly for chap from Merseyside’s pub… Do Merseyside’s chaps read the books? And when do they do it? When don’t drink?

So, I hope that answers the question(s) for you! Perhaps that means I have brains, I’m not sure but then again I was never making that claim really

As for Faust, I must confess I’ve not read Goethe, partly because I find 18th century German somewhat impenetrable but also because I though Kit Marlowe told the somewhat definitive tale in Dr. Faustus, I remember I studied it during the Elizabethan theatre areas of my English Degree and really enjoyed the story. Plus the way in which it feeds into the blues mythology of the depression era and the surrounding racial tensions I find very fascinating. But I suppose that’s the benefit of a Literature Degree, you’re able to appreciate all manner of authorial voices and histories. So I guess some merseyside-based chaps do read some books, or my entire degree class would have found life a lot easier! Perhaps I’m just an exception though! In the same way that a couple of members of our group, including Mike our president, have never drank alcohol in their lives! Perhaps your views are a little out of line with reality in general then!

Ha-ha, is Goethe “impenetrable”? And I thought always that – contrariwise – too comprehensible, and even slightly “primitive”, didactic and homiletic in some points, though sentimental and rhetorical as real German poet and philosopher

What a difference of views, eh? Or – rather mentalities…

And if doesn’t one drink alcohol, why does one come to pub?

No, it is nonsense Pub exists for drinking!

Education must be valuable for life – the doctor, engineer, teacher, scientist, etc. Educated person of these professions, if he (she) has self-esteem and love of learning, as a rule knows also literature, art, history, etc by tens better than any humanitarian. Thus former has two good educations in fact, whereas latter has one very poor education. If a person wants to be skeptic, the person needs to receive good education plus – … to have the brains

And as for Big Brother…. My first husband was Russian (the scientist from USSR). So I could tell you much more funny info about the interesting side of our great world such as “Big Brotherhood” than all our stupid mass media

PS. As for Faust… And didn’t you have an idea that devil can give only NOTHING? Don’t you understand – why? Because devil is a Master of DESTRUCTION, but not creation. So devil CAN’T give or create something. He can only take away or destroy. So – to ask devil about anything is terrible stupidity. And this primitive thought is main idea of all innumerable versions of this fairy-tale about Faust. Uh-huh…

_________________________________________________________________

From: D
23 July at 08:44

Hi, Michael,

Answer me, please, buddy, why must the skeptics meet just IN THE PUB? Why – in conditions of drinking, in darkness, embracing with drunk stupid maids/chaps, in noise and sometimes even in smoke? Why – not in library, not outdoor among nice nature, not in university, not in cinema, not in theatre, etc? Why – just in this place of drinking and stupid entertainment?

Did you ask such question to yourself anywhen?

Why must reasonable and clever person (and skeptics consider themselves as reasonable and clever people, don’t them?) meet with friends in such conditions, which are suitable rather for idiots? Why is it necessary to change one idiotism to another stupidity?

Can you answer this question?

I guess that you can’t answer this question. You need enough brains for this. And it is unlikely you can find the answer yourself.

But your favourite eldest ally and countryman Professor Colquhoun forgot to explain you about this …

Cheers,
D.

PS. And why have you choose such idiotic subject – about Faust? Did you read Goethe? It sounds oddly for chap from Merseyside’s pub… Do Merseyside’s chaps read the books? And when do they do it? When don’t drink?

_________________________________________________________________

From:  Marsh
23 July at 09:39

Hey D

Thanks for your questions. The reason our monthly debates and chats are in a pub is purely convenience – if we met in a cinema or theatre people would probably get a bit annoyed with our talking and chatting! It’s very hard to hold a balanced intellectual debate while strangers are asking you to quieten down and stop spoiling their film. Similar for the library really, it’s a bit off-putting to have a lively and educated debate while people are requiring silence to read! But, fortunately, we don’t just meet in pubs – I’ve met with people in parks, at parties, at book signings, and generally everywhere that people meet people.

Also, I don’t think I’d call a pub a place of stupid entertainment, but then again I’m not really someone who labels anything stupid really – except probably Big Brother. I can confirm to you right now that we will never have a Skeptics’ social event in the Big Brother house, you have my word on that.

So, I hope that answers the question(s) for you! Perhaps that means I have brains, I’m not sure but then again I was never making that claim really

I think the beautiful thing about independent thought, really, is that it’s capable of being arrived to independently – if you can learn ways of exploring and learning about the world, the base set of tools, then you’ll find that these simple guidelines can help you navigate through all manner of mires.

As for Faust, I must confess I’ve not read Goethe, partly because I find 18th century German somewhat impenetrable but also because I though Kit Marlowe told the somewhat definitive tale in Dr. Faustus, I remember I studied it during the Elizabethan theatre areas of my English Degree and really enjoyed the story. Plus the way in which it feeds into the blues mythology of the depression era and the surrounding racial tensions I find very fascinating. But I suppose that’s the benefit of a Literature Degree, you’re able to appreciate all manner of authorial voices and histories. So I guess some merseyside-based chaps do read some books, or my entire degree class would have found life a lot easier! Perhaps I’m just an exception though! In the same way that a couple of members of our group, including Mike our president, have never drank alcohol in their lives! Perhaps your views are a little out of line with reality in general then!

All the best
Michael

_________________________________________________________________

From:  D
27 July at 14:32

Hi, Michael,

Ha-ha, is Goethe “impenetrable”? And I thought always that – contrariwise – too comprehensible, and even slightly “primitive”, didactic and homiletic in some points, though sentimental and rhetorical as real German poet and philosopher

What a difference of views, eh? Or – rather mentalities…

And if doesn’t one drink alcohol, why does one come to pub?

No, it is nonsense Pub exists for drinking!

Any man must drink though once. Why? To know his measure and not to give his possible enemies additional weapon against himself.

However, I saw in some countries that their cinemas, theaters and libraries have special halls and rooms, which people can take (for payment and sometimes even free) for their meetings and not to disturb the readers/spectators by their noisy discussion. I saw also the meetings of skeptics in universities or in universities clubs. However, these countries have old traditions of reason, whereas Britain preserves still a tradition of stupidity, ignorance and obscurantism. This dark traditions comes from past centuries, when there were two ways to pass the time. Poor people did it in pubs, where they tippled up to piggish state. And rich people did it in elite clubs, where they behaved not better sometimes, because despite of their good education, they had low and dirty moral. Moreover – the university’s education gave only degree for career, but not knowledge for life.

Besides, the tradition of pub meetings is also some tribute of ancient and obsolete opinion that commons, plebeians are more progressive social power than educated people.

But if one thinks a bit, then the idea arises itself that the skeptic in pub is … some nonsense and enough idiotic contradiction…

Skepticism (if you don’t know it still) is a product of good education and reason. But in absence of high moral the skepticism turns into cynicism. However absence of education, reason and high moral makes the skeptic to be like a parrot, who is meaninglessly chiming the sounds of human speech.

Unfortunately, I don’t see your good education. Degree in literature supposes the good knowledge of originals and best examples of literature criticism. But it seems you were taught merely to murmur nice senseless words and in addition, you were hastily familiarized with the list of main world writers. And the content of their works (best world literature classics!) was reported for you on the level of comics and yellow tabloids. Your degree is suitable only to boaster before silly maids, having an aim to fuck each other in some dark corner and rush asunder after this like cockroaches. Pardon.

Education must be valuable for life – the doctor, engineer, teacher, scientist, etc. Educated person of these professions, if he (she) has self-esteem and love of learning, as a rule knows also literature, art, history, etc by tens better than any humanitarian. Thus former has two good educations in fact, whereas latter has one very poor education. If a person wants to be skeptic, the person needs to receive good education plus – … to have the brains

And as for Big Brother…. My first husband was Russian (the scientist from USSR). So I could tell you much more funny info about the interesting side of our great world such as “Big Brotherhood” than all our stupid mass media

Sorry for my delay with answer. Simply I was bored. Only educated and clever people are interesting as companions. But then I thought that you are still young, so you have time and chance to become clever and educated man in future, if you are warned in time.

That is why I have answered.

Good luck.

D.

PS. As for Faust… And didn’t you have an idea that devil can give only NOTHING? Don’t you understand – why? Because devil is a Master of DESTRUCTION, but not creation. So devil CAN’T give or create something. He can only take away or destroy. So – to ask devil about anything is terrible stupidity. And this primitive thought is main idea of all innumerable versions of this fairy-tale about Faust. Uh-huh…

_________________________________________________________________

From:  Marsh
27 Julyat 23:18

Hi D.

Goethe is as impenetrable to someone who speaks and reads almost no German as Sun Tzu is to someone who reads no Chinese – I of course wasn’t talking about a translation of the text into a native tongue to the reader.

I think people visit a pub for the association and interaction as well as the alcohol – as I say, there are members of our group who are teetotal. Then again, there are also members who do not wish to ‘fuck silly maids in dark corners and scuttle off like cockroaches’ too, so perhaps you have a strange impression of English pubs! Similarly, your perception of Britain as a tradition of stupidity seems somewhat baffling also – I am not someone who believes with fervent nationalism that any country is so much intrinsically better than any other, but to label a country which gave the world Newton, Shakespeare, Darwin, Faraday, Orwell and Hawking as having ‘a tradition of stupidity, ignorance and obscurantism’ seems a wildly inaccurate and baffling statement!

Similarly I have to take umbrage with your use of discriminant and archaic labels such as ‘plebians’ and ‘commons’ to describe members of (presumably) the working class, although from your broken grammar indicative of a non-native English speaker of the Eastern European or Germanic regions, I’d say, perhaps this is more of a language barrier issue.

Ironic, too, that you profess to have a better understanding of skepticism as being based on education and reason, and yet you purport that there is an internal and ‘idiotic contradiction’ in the notion of skepticism taking place in a public house – this is a clear non-sequitor, as there is nothing in the slightest to say that reason cannot act within the walls one particular building as opposed to another. For too long, people assume that discussion, debate and knowledge is the sole remit of the privileged and the stuffy, the snobbish assumption that the ‘plebians’ in their pubs are not worthy of entry into the elitist world of such haughty notions as reason and logic is a wildly antiquated and counter-productive to social and scientific advance, frankly.

It’s also bizarre that you lay claim to my level of education and the content of my learnings throughout my life – I’d be intrigued as to how you came to the conclusion, logically and with sound reasoning, that I ‘were taught merely to murmur nice senseless words and in addition, you were hastily familiarized with the list of main world writers’. Bizarre. Please, if you could detail your thought process in coming to the conclusion that ‘the content of their works (best world literature classics!) was reported for [me] on the level of comics and yellow tabloids’ it would greatly increase my understanding of a viewpoint so alien and askew to the rational-minded.

To your opinion that the only valid education is that of a doctor, engineer or scientist, again I can only shake my head in wonder! What world you wish to live in, where people may only walk such narrow paths! Why you wish to deny the world the art, music and literature you were only moments ago chastising my supposed ignorance of… I suppose one of the many burdens of the rational and logical mind is the need to obey internally consistent standards; abandonment of such constraints must free you up to be as internally inconsistent and self-contradictory as you see fit.

I am, however, grateful for your concern that I am neither clever nor educated, and your wish to save me from a life of such leaden-eyed dopery. I wish only that one day this young man may reach so haughty a position as to dispense the wisdom and beneficence you’ve shown me so far.

Adieu, et à votre santé
Michael

_________________________________________________________________

That’s as far as we are so far – D, I await your response.

_________________________________________________________________

Quick Update - A comeback from D.

From:  D
28 July at 08:05

Hi, Michael,

I have impression of you, not of English pubs…

Wszystkiego najlepszego,

D.

_________________________________________________________________

From:  Marsh
28 July at 09:24Hi D.

Really? That seems unusual, given your initial note mentioning pubs as being ‘in darkness, embracing with drunk stupid maids/chaps, in noise and sometimes even in smoke’, and how the pubs are ‘such conditions, which are suitable rather for idiots’.

Also, what gave you such bizarre and incorrectly-specific impressions of me?

And it’s not my birthday for another month yet… but dziękuję anyway!

Michael

_________________________________________________________________

*A somewhat long story whereby an old school friend of mine decided that, as he’s just finished being psychically ‘tuned’, he would offer me sound and sage advice of the ‘turn your life around and believe or great misery will come your way variety’.  When I offered him a little more critical thinking and posed a few questions, I was treated to ‘skeptics, to me, are exactly like the BNP’.  Amazing.

Check out more from us on Skeptics with a K

Cool drizzle fell onto the grey Saturday streets of Liverpool, a light breeze tumble-weeded a sweet wrapper down the road in a clichéd fashion, and I was becoming increasingly aware that this would be the strangest conversation of my life.  And I didn’t need psychic powers for that.  For I was in the company of ‘Psychic’ Joe Power, fresh from his latest in-store book-signing (signed copies of which, I add, are still on the shelves of Waterstones – supply quite exceeded demand it seems), and things were getting weird.

“The thing about you sceptics,” he said, standing on the step of a plus-size lingerie shop to raise himself to my eye-level, “is that you sit there, festering in front of your computers at 3am, thinking up ways to get at people.  What if I were to sit in front of your house and tell people you’re a paedophile?”

“Well,” I say, “that’s for you to decide to do if you want to but it’s not really the same thing – I’m raising questions over what you do and the service you claim to provide; insinuating I was a paedophile would be just a personal attack, and wildly baseless.  It’s not really the same thing.  At all.”

“Oh I think they’re very similar,” he answers, “because you’re there festering, at 3am, plotting to get at me, in the same way that paedophiles fester and plot to interfere with children – you both have to be sick in the head to do what you do.”

With Herculean effort to suspend my natural what-the-fuck? reaction, and with a curt politeness that in retrospect now seems other-worldly, I manage a swift retort:  ”Sorry, can I just clarify – are you comparing sceptics to paedophiles?  Could you explain that?  I mean, are you saying that paedophiles also ask questions of you, or what exactly?”

Joe:  ”I think most sceptics probably are paedophiles. I mean you’re sat around at 3am, plotting, aren’t you?  Do you deny that?”

An-incredulous-Marsh: “Do I deny what?  That I ask questions?  That I’m sometimes awake at 3am?  Or that I am a paedophile?  Could you please be clear what you’re asking me, Joe?”

It’s not often that you’re 5 minutes into a conversation with someone you’ve never met before and they’ve already played the paedophile card.  I had a feeling it was going to be one of those days.

As it happens, I hadn’t sat awake at 3am plotting this at all.  In fact, although I’d penciled in Joe’s book-signing weeks ago as an opportunity to go along and present him with an application from for Randi’s $1m Challenge, it was only upon arrival at the bookshop that it struck me that I had no absolutely no idea what I was going to say, or do.  I hadn’t planned that far ahead.  I’d figured I’d wing it, have a quick five-minute chat for the benefit of the unconvinced amongst the queue of would-be signees, and be on my merry way with a first baby-step into sceptical activism successfully traversed – onwards and upwards.  Admittedly, the first hiccup in my vague plan was the total absence of a queue of would-be signees.  When I arrived at the bookshop, Joe sat alone at a specially-roped-off table, signing a pile of books – with no baying hordes nor adoring fans to dazzle.  Perhaps I’d missed the masses’ arrival and departure – I could only speculate, as I’d arrived 15 minutes after the start of the signing, and stuck around for maybe 20 or so minutes.  I saw 5 people request signatures in that time.  I felt a pang of guilt, even.  I figured I’d wait for Colonel Molerat to arrive, then introduce myself, hand over the application form, explain what it was and leave it at that.  Alas, as I descended the stairs with the newly-arrived Molerat, we were struck by unforeseen hiccup #2: Joe Power had left the building.  Perhaps he was psychic after all – evidently, Molerat and I were not.

But luck was on our side – I could see Joe was stood outside the shop, with his manager Claudine Hope.  ’In for a penny, in for a pound’ thinks-I, introducing myself as I approach them, mentally re-citing my position: ‘Stay polite no matter what, keep professional and calm, don’t get goaded into saying something silly, don’t argue, don’t shout and don’t lose your head’.  Good thing too, as it turns out.

What follows is a pretty solid account of my interview with Joe.  Initially, I hadn’t planned on making a big deal of it – which is why I didn’t record anything, and why I initially verbally agreed not to use some of the… kookier allegations and insults Joe sent my way.  Indeed, it all had ended rather professionally and amicably, as was my intention.  However, a few days later I was notified of a rumour that had been posted to the excellent BadPsychics forum – which read as follows:

“On saturday the sixth of june Joe power was attacked by group of people who surrounded him and his wife and child. waterstones staff were witness to it. He had just finished signing his books when he was caught as he and his family came out. waterstones staff reckoned they were sceptics. But I would not have thought that sceptics would be party to that only debate and disscussion would be the right thing to do. Has anyone heard about this incident. A security guard from the shop broke up the mob”

The ‘mob’ in question consisted of Molerat and I.  The attack was the 30-or-so-minute conversation we had with Joe and Claudine.  We spoke to his wife Claudine specifically in her capacity as his manager – she was actually rather reasonable and amicable.  Surrounding them would have proven mathematically tricky, with two of us and two of them (although, as Colonel Molerat mentioned to me later, only Joe could tell if there were a surrounding-mob of ghosts on our side – I am not the Man Who Sees Dead People after all).  The security guard in question stood near us for part of the conversation, but was told by Joe and Claudine that he did not need to intervene as we were merely discussing things.  The entire rumour quoted above, unfortunately, is wildly inaccurate.

When I heard about it, I immediately emailed Joe and Claudine to give them the chance to clarify things – to date they have not responded.  We’re also working on obtaining the CCTV footage of the incident, and will post stills from it as soon as we get that.  In the meantime, in order to set the record straight, the MSS has no choice but to tell what actually happened.  I stress that the views expressed by Joe are not the views of the MSS, and that although the direct wording of the conversation is not exactly transcribed, the subject matter and style is accurate.

Shortly after the conversation where Joe likened scepticism to paedophilia, the police arrived at the bottom of the street.  Joe paused and raised his hand to quieten me, saying, “I want to see what the police are doing.”  I, entirely off-handedly, told him, “Oh, it’s ok, they’re just on their routine patrol I think,”  to which he ominously answered, “No, actually they’re not – they’re here for you, we called them because I knew you were coming.”  The police patrolled routinely past, and didn’t look at Joe or I once.  I’m unsure if Joe was claiming to have called them psychically, or to have predicted my arrival in advance and prepared the police in that way – but the police took no interest in us.  Almost as if they had not been called to deal with us, and as if Joe was entirely bluffing to try and end the conversation.

Having failed to antagonise with the paedophilia slur, Joe decided next to plough a different furrow:  ”Well I could set up my own website, I could set one up saying that gays are all wrong, and what right do you have to stick your cock up another man’s arse, and screw him.”  Charming.  His words, not mine.  ”Are you gay, by the way?” he added.  ”As it happens, no I’m not,” I politely said, getting the hang of this handing-people-enough-rope malarkey, “and you could do that if you wanted, you could exercise your free speech and make that website.  But I think you’d have to expect even more criticism than you’re getting now, and a lot of very upset responses.”

Seemingly aiming to goad me into a more confrontational position, Joe then re-iterated his point:  ”But I could say that you’re wrong to stick your cock up another man’s arse and fuck him…”  At which point Claudine admonished him, in what I felt sounded like serious distaste with his language and approach.  I find it interesting that he could draw a comparison between a sceptical organisation and a homophobic one – quite the false analogy.  What it might show about some of Joe’s personal views, I couldn’t comment on.

It was at this point – withouth trace of irony – that Claudine condemned me for making personal attacks on Joe, and even discussing where he lives, what car he drives, and bringing his family into things.  That’s not something I have ever done, nor will I ever do.  Firstly, I believe it’s important and more intellectually-honest to criticise the work rather than attack the man – the sceptical position is better-served by being professional in criticism; personal vitriol and venomous attack only serve to alienate an audience.  Secondly, and more entertainingly, there are way way way more things to say about Joe Power’s work than there could ever be to say about him as a person – we won’t be running out of material any time soon!

Joe then asked about the Randi challenge – why should he prove himself to James Randi of all people.  I explained through the obvious answers – the importance of evidence, how exciting it would be if we could prove people did have these powers, plus the $1m (“We don’t need the money.”  ”Then give it to charity, Joe.  Give it to the families of the victims whose murders you helped investigate – I’m sure they’d appreciate the gesture”).  I also pointed out the prestige and publicity involved in being officially, scientifically certified as genuine – if not for his own career (“I don’t need the publicity.  I’ve got my own book out, you know.  I’ve just done a book signing.”  I didn’t retort with “A book signing that 5 people showed up to,” because I’m a) not that cruel and b) not that quick-witted) then for the careers of mediums less successful than he.  And to expose the fakes in the industry.  ”You must personally know, surely, a lot of people in your profession who are fake, and you know they are fake and THEY know that they are fake, right Joe?”  Joe replied, “Yeah, of course I know plenty”.  ”So if you can prove you’re real, then others who are just as psychic as you can follow suit, and the ones who are fake will be weeded out, and your whole profession would gain a lot more credibility.”

Joe’s next false analogy was one I’ve heard before, in less extreme terms:  ”It’s all the same, you sceptics, you don’t believe, you’re all atheists”.  I pointed out that not all sceptics are atheists, Joe disagreed:  ”Well you don’t believe in life after death so you must be atheist.”  ”There is a difference,”  I countered, “between life after death, and COMMUNICATING with the dead.  Christians, for example, don’t believe that people are able to communicate with the spirit world – in fact that would be necromancy and would be a sin to even attempt.  There’s no major religion that believes people are able to habitually communicate with the deceased”.  That lapsed Catholicism of mine is still good for something other than a general crushing sense of guilt, it seems.

Joe: “What do you get from this, from writing about people like that?”  Marsh (with a slightly-friendly laugh): “Oh, that’s it entirely – I’m not going to get anything from this, I won’t get a job or a career out of scepticism, I certainly won’t make any money out of all this like you do Joe.  I suppose what we get is the chance to protect people who are vulnerable from exploitation – exploitation from people like all those fake psychics you said you know of.”

The conversation then turned to my previous article on Joe, and his involvement with specific Police inverstigations.  ”I have email communications from the police where they ask me for help on cases,” Joe claimed, “What can you say to that?”  ”Show me them,” I answered, “and I’ll change my tune.  But the police have denied ever having worked with any psychic, ever”  It was at this point that Claudine and Colonel Molerat had an interesting exhange – Claudine: “How do you know the police all know about it?  Maybe the people denying Joe’s involvement aren’t aware of the individual who asked us for help.”  Molerat:  ”It was an individual then?  Was this individual acting in an official capacity as a representative of the police force, or was he just an individual who happened to be a policeman?”  Joe and Claudine had no response to this.  If I were to be asked my personal opinion at the moment, I think that’s why Joe won’t show the emails – I’d say the only communication Joe’s had (if any at all – without showing his proof we can’t accept that any of it exists) would be if someone personally contacted Joe and just so happens to be a policeman, and was not acting as an official spokesperson for any specific investigation.

Joe also spoke to me about the Lynsey Quy murder case:  ”You don’t do your research, you just repeat other sceptics’ opinions.  The officer you quoted, Sloane, wasn’t even involved in the case when I gave my information”.  Well, Joe, I’m not the only one who doesn’t do my research.  Your website describes the case, and how Jeff Sloane replaced the chief inspector you spoke with.  His name is Geoff Sloan, as various reliable and non-sceptical sources testify.  Aside from bad spelling, the point remains – if the information Joe Power had provided on the case was in any way correct, accurate or specific enough to be useful, the new Detective Superintendent would have been told about it, and about it’s source.

Joe then returned to the subject of testing:  ”Well I would do a test but they’re always rigged. I just had to pull out of a test because it turned out there were two sceptics running it. I won’t say anything else about that test.”  I can’t be sure, but I know Joe was due to be involved in a TV show with Derren Brown.  If I were a betting man, I’d say that was the test he’s pulled out of – but that’s just my opinion/guess.  ”But why can’t it be a sceptic and someone independent,” he continued, “and we leave it to the independent person to decide.”  I answered, “Because a sceptic, by definition, IS independent – they just want to follow truth and logic.  Whereas the third party or a believer might not know the skills that people like the guys you openly admit are fakes can use.  How can they tell the difference between yourself and one of the fakes you talked about just using cold reading? A sceptic can do the research and find out all about that, and ensure the test is as fair as possible”.  Joe:  ”But what about all the grieving people, the thousands of people who have invited me into their homes and I’ve connected to their dead little boys – if I was a fraud the people of Liverpool would never fall for that, never accept that.”  I replied:  ”Well that’s it – there are people who are frauds who DO do that, and grieving people fall for it because they are in such vulnerable state.  How do we tell the difference between you and those fakes?”  Joe:  ”But why should I prove anything?”  Marsh:  ”Because any claim that is unusual needs proof before it is to be believed.  Show one bit of real proof and I’ll back you to the hilt. It’s like if I said I could fly, and I charged money to teach others how to do it – you’d want to see me fly before some poor sod jumps out of a window.”

One thing Joe was very determined to go on record on was James Randi:  ”He’s the most boring, uneducated man I’ve ever met.  Just look at his face, he’s so boring”  Marsh:  ”Just to clarify, when did you meet him?”  Joe:  ”Well I’ve not met him, but I’ve heard of him.  Just look at his face, he’s so boring.  And he’s a frustrated medium, that’s what he is – he tried to do it and he failed. He used to attend a spiritualist church even.”  As I pointed out to Joe at the time, Randi did mentalism as part of his magic act, and attended a spiritualist church – to debunk it!  Again, Joe, it really is worth doing proper homework on these things, I’d advise reading Randi’s book Flim Flam, where he recounts the whole tale of the spiritualist church, and the debunking of the use of the old Billet-Reading trick he found there.  Furthermore, how can someone be a failed medium – if you really are genuinely seeing the dead, how can someone who had ‘the gift’ try to do it and fail?

The conversation, by this point, had clearly bested Joe, as he reverted back to gauche attempts to irk and goad us.  ”What if I tell you, right now, the exact day and time you’re going to die?” he gloated, “The exact date and time you’re gonna croak it.  What would you say to that?”  I replied in good humour: “Well, I’d probably put some kind of bet on it”.  Colonel Molerat in fact went one better, and offered to put £50 on Joe’s prediction of my expiry, but alas Joe didn’t give us a date.  I even offered to make it simple for him, “Actually, if you’d like you could tell me the date and time I was born.  Because I already know that answer, so I we check easily.”  Joe declined.

One final note on this – Claudine expressed her desire that this stay off the record, because sceptics ‘twist everything that’s said, to make Joe look bad’.  I’d just like to re-iterate that I’m only publishing this account to clear up the erroneous reports that we had mobbishly surrounded and attacked Joe – we didn’t want accounts of our peaceful and professional encounter twisted to make us look bad.  If there’s anything in the above account that Joe or Claudine feel does not accurately reflect the conversation we had, I’ll be more than happy to listen to their concerns, and if I’ve misremembered any details I’m happy to finesse the account.  With an open and honest dialogue, I’m sure we can get to the truth on these things – and if at any point Joe is able to offer any kind of proof of his gift that holds up to any kind of serious scrutiny, I will personally become his number one advocate.  I’ll run the fan club.  I’ll wear the T-Shirt.  Hell, I’d even buy one of the many signed books that are still sitting on the shelves in Waterstones.  But personally, I don’t predict that will happen any time soon…

For those of you with good memories for niche outré pieces of pop-culture tat (and why the hell wouldn’t you?), Joe was the chap who chatted with a posthumous John Lennon back in 2006.  The reason why many of you wouldn’t have known that – coincidentally the same reason that all of modern science wasn’t turned entirely on its head, causing scientists and philosphers the world over to fall to their knees, beating their breast and cursing their wasted lives in pursuit of damned reason – was that he didn’t actually talk to John Lennon.  John Lennon’s dead, he’s not talking to anyone these days, least of all Joe Power (his name gets better the more you say it aloud. Joe Power. Joe Power).  More details on that can be found all over the internet.  Go ahead, check, I’ll wait.

These days Joe tends to use his ‘powerful gift’ (because his name’s Joe Power.  Good punning, Liverpool Echo) to help police with their investigations – the latest being his help in locating Madelaine McCann.  Joe Power says:

“I believe I have seen the face of the person who abducted Madeleine and it is not dissimilar to the sketch which the detectives released after help from Jane Tanner”

So his psychic ability appears to have led him to confirm the information police came up with on their own and which they have been working on for a while now.  Handy.  Coincidentally, my own psychic ability leads me to predict that the River Mersey is wet, that the sky is blue, and that Joe Power is a fraud.  If he can retrodict, so can I.

This isn’t Joe Power’s first foray into the world of psychic detection.  In the past Joe Power (who’s name really does get better each time you say it out loud) has made similar claims, including having played pivotal roles in the investigations into the death of Sarah Payne and the disappearance of Shannon Matthews – two high-profile cases that were solved without a mention of psychic intervention.

“The police never like to admit they have come to ask me but I have kept all their emails on past cases,” says Joe Power

If that’s the case, then this sceptic is more than satisfied – simply go on record with the emails, Joe Power, show the world that they exist and I will doff my cap, bend my knee, eat my words and personally carry you to the door of the JREF to collect your $1million.   But, it seems, the police are indeed reticent to give Joe Power the credit Joe Power deserves – after claims of psychic involvement in the investigation of Lynsey Quy’s murder in 1998, the following official statement was issued by Detective Superintendent Sloan:

“I wish to state, categorically, that as the Senior Investigating Officer on the Lyndsey Quy murder, I made a policy decision not to use psychics on the investigation. Joe Power has allegedly made claims that he assisted the enquiry but this is not the case.”  Source – Skeptic Report, January 2007

This seems pretty cut and dry – an emphatic denial of the use of psychics in the police force.  As Greg O’Keefe mentions in his article:

“…you don’t hear of many psychics who are regularly contacted by Metropolitan police detectives for help cracking grisly murder cases.”

Too true Greg, too true.  In fact, I’d go further – you don’t hear of ANY psychics who are regularly contacted by any police for help psychicly cracking anything.  As Scotland Yard themselves will confirm:

“There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution.”  Source: JREF Encyclopedia

So Joe Power – despite his media-friendly local-boy-come-good life story, his dead-celeb hob-nobbing, and his entirely awesome name (it sounds best in a superhero voice, I’ve discovered) – is not a psychic detective.  He is not even a psychic OR a detective.  Joe Power is little more than, well… I believe it was Greg O’Keefe himself who mentioned a ‘publicity-seeking psychic personality’…

*Joe Power will be signing copies of his book at Waterstone’s, Bold St, Liverpool at noon on Saturday, June 6.  I’m just mentioning. I’m not in any way suggesting anybody should attend. And say his name. In superhero voices. Incessantly.

** Update:  Joe Power has his own Facebook fan page, which you can visit.  I’ve left my thoughts there, if you decide to follow suit please be kind, many of the people there have suffered real losses which have sadly lead them to believe Joe Power is magic.  Also, BadPsychics has an excellent archive on Joe Power, as well as on all of the other psychic-claimants – definitely well worth checking out.