In which I finally receive a reply from Steve Nobel of Alternatives about Gary Mannion's "demonstration of psychic surgery" at St James' Church in February.
Here, with Mr Nobel's permission, is the correspondence between us:
Quote:
Dear Mr Nobel,
I have still not received a reply to any of my e-mails concerning Gary Mannion, the young man who gave "a demonstration of psychic surgery" at St James' Church on 4th February.
The results of my investigation of Mr Mannion's claims can be found here:
www.badpsychicsgarymannion.co.uk.
I would still like to know the answers to the following questions:
Is there any truth in Mr Mannion's claim that extra security had to be provided at St James on the night of his "demonstration" because threats had been received? If so, what was the nature of these threats?
Knowing what you know now about Mr Mannion's lies, exaggerations and evasions, would Alternatives welcome him back for another appearance?
To whom is Alternatives responsible for the content of its speakers' material?
Please feel free to leave a comment on the Unanswered Questions and Alternatives sections of BadPsychicsGaryMannion or contribute an article of your own to the site.
Mr Nobel's response:
Quote:
We are not used to such aggressive emails about the nature and content of our programme of events. I am surprised by the tone of your statement about 'Mr. Mannion's lies, exaggerations and evasions'.
I understand a skeptic to be someone who questions and researches the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. You seem to be up to something quite different!
Also you do not seem to report information accurately on your website, which concerns me. You also seem to take statements out of context: on the section about Gary Mannion's visit to the church you mention my statement about emails from the UK Skeptics Society. I remember this well. You omitted to mention that I continued by saying 'if anyone is here from this organisation, you are most welcome'.
http://stargoss.co.uk/garymannion/mo....php?storyid=4
There is also the issue that you did not ask for permission to record this talk.
We have our own means for assessing speakers which has worked well over the past 25 years. We also trust that our audience are intelligent enough to make up their own minds about these matters.
I would say that Gary was an articulate, engaging and knowledgeable speaker. I would certainly consider inviting him back.
To which I replied:
Quote:
Thanks for your reply. May I have your permission to publish it on the website?
I'm puzzled by your statement that:
Quote:I understand a skeptic to be someone who questions and researches the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. You seem to be up to something quite different!
You seem to be missing the point. Unlike any of Mr Mannion's credulous and scientifically illiterate admirers I HAVE spent a great deal of time and effort researching as many of his claims as possible, and in almost every case they fell apart at the first touch of sceptical enquiry. I chose the words "lies, exaggerations and evasions" carefully and I stand by them.
Gary Mannion has lied about :
his references - two out of the three people he named at St James' Church and elsewhere seem to exist only in his imagination. No-one called Manesh Naidoo has worked at Northwick Park Hospital, Mr Mannion's friend "Mannie" isn't the Head of Physiotherapy there and Mr Mannion has been unable to produce the homeopathic doctor Glen Davies. A representative of Northwick Park has warned Mr Mannion that if he continues to use the hospital's name legal action will be taken against him. His third reference, Dr Gowri Motha, shares my concern about "his extravagant claims" and has asked him not to use her name in future.
"BrainGym" - when the company heard that Mr Mannion was using their copyrighted technique and describing it in grossly misleading terms in online Q&A sessions, they warned him that if he continued to use their trademark they too would take legal action. Perhaps Mr Mannion was under the impression that "Indigo Children" are above such petty things as copyright law, or perhaps he knows his audience and thought no-one would bother to check his story.
Mr Mannion has been guilty of exaggeration in his claim to have worked as a "psychic medium" at the House of Commons, when all he did was to help organise and possibly appear as part of a cabaret act at a charity event.
Until Brent and Harrow Trading Standards were alerted to his possible breach of the 1939 Cancer Act Mr Mannion was claiming to have cured terminal liver cancer in two days. Many of the "testimonials" on his sites are equally absurd, as I discovered when - again, unlike Mr Mannion's fans - I made the effort to investigate further. I can think of few things more obscene than raising false hope in seriously ill people and charging them for the priviledge. And which do you consider most likely - that Mr Mannion has cured multiple sclerosis and "fixed" a patient's immune system, or that he is a poorly educated young man who lives in a fantasy world?
The current issue of Highspiritmagazine contains an article by Mr Mannion in which he claims that before he was 18 he had "worked one on one" with problem pupils in schools. Needless to say he has evaded answering the obvious question - which schools would allow such a thing? He also claims that at the same time he was "virtually running" two well-known home improvement companies (unnamed, of course) and teaching drama. I don't know how he found time to perform any "psychic surgery".
He used St James as a platform from which to spout utter nonsense about oranges being injected with arsenic, the miraculous properties of blue-green algae and "Abraham" being the Old Testament patriarch, not forgetting to slip in a disclaimer every now and then. What do you make of Mr Mannion's reply to a query about the oranges story:
Quote:"For comment like the oranges...These bits of information were passed onto me from ,someone who does have a medical knowledge. Infact both comments came from the same person. I fully trust this person and as you see from the evidence presented the orange claim is true. However if you listen to my talk you will find that I clearly state this is my opinion it is not backed up by any medical evidence so take what you want from it."
In fact Mr Mannion presented no evidence whatsoever. I find it quite bizarre that in the same sentence he can describe the story as being "true" because it's supported by "evidence", yet claim that it's only his opinion "not backed up by any medical evidence"!
Do you think I've invented the details of Mr Mannion's dishonesty? If so, by all means contact Dr Gowri Motha, Northwick Park Hospital and "BrainGym". They will confirm everything I've written on www.badpsychicsgarymannion.co.uk.
As for Alternatives not being "used to such aggressive emails about the nature and content of our programme of events", I don't remember sending any "aggressive" e-mails. I merely pointed out to you in straighforward terms that my fellow sceptics and I had unearthed some good reasons to doubt Mr Mannion's integrity. Were my e-mails the "threats" mentioned by Mr Mannion, and did you provide extra security at his talk because of them? If so I think Alternatives must be long overdue for some frank criticism of the New Age nonsense it disseminates. And as for audiences being "intelligent enough to make up their own minds about these matters", I would suggest that the vast majority of people who attend such events are strongly predisposed to believe - especially when the speakers appear in the respectable surroundings of an Anglican church.
About the recording: Mr Roberts made it in order to have a word-for-word record of exactly what was said during Mr Mannion's talk. Unfortunately such tactics are necessary when dealing with fraudulent mediums, fortune-tellers and similar con artists. The tape was not made for financial gain and probably hasn't been heard by more than a few sceptics. Incidentally, if Mr Mannion's talk is made available on DVD don't forget to edit out his references to Dr Gowri Motha and Northwick Park Hospital...
Finally, I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Mannion is "engaging" and "articulate" (at least when he isn't struggling with written English), but - "knowledgable"? I don't think so, unless you're referring to paranormal powers that, very conveniently, are difficult to disprove and can always be dismissed as "just my opinion". Some of the statements Mr Mannion has made about science reveal him to be stupendously ignorant. And I'm sorry to hear that despite ample proof that he is a compulsive liar you would still welcome him back to St James' Church.
You'll notice that I asked Mr Nobel to whom
Alternatives was responsible for the content of its speakers' talks. It certainly isn't the Rector of St James, the Revd. Charles Hedley, who told me that:
Quote:
Whilst I am not in the business of censoring Alternatives for their choice of speakers, I would encourage them always to bring wisdom, maturity and integrity to the process. I believe they do so, knowing that in the end they are themselves answerable for their own programme.
Answerable to whom? Steve Nobel seems to be blaming me and other sceptics for unearthing Gary Mannion's many lies, none of which he actually addresses. It seems that so far as
Alternatives is concerned, being "engaging" and "articulate" more than make up for being a compulsive liar and potentially dangerous conman.
Mr Nobel's reply:
Quote:
I give permission for you to publish my email reply but only in its entirety.
I cannot comment, nor do I wish to on your statements about Gary Mannion.
For whatever reason I am sure you feel justified in your tactics to unearth bad psychics.
I just do not agree with them.
I am not sure it is legal to record a talk without prior permission of the speaker.
I clarify knowledgeable to mean someone who has a grasp of his or her field and therefore worth hearing.
This does not mean someone that I agree wholeheartedly with them.
I would appreciate it if you stopped emailing this office.
We are a small organisation with a very busy workload.
Steve Nobel
I would suggest that in future
Alternatives should make an announcement before its talks to the effect that recording is not allowed (a few prominently displayed notices would also be helpful). But it should be pointed out that BEFORE Gary's appearance at St James we had plenty of evidence that he was being less than honest about his background and achievements - without the audio recording made by Mr Roberts we would have no proof that he was naming non-existent people as references and using Dr Gowri Motha's name without her permission.
I also find it extraordinary that Mr Nobel seems to be fixated on this recording but doesn't seem to care that, had sceptics not reported one of Gary's testimonials to his local Trading Standards office, he would still be insinuating that he cured terminal cancer in two days. Most people would regard this as considerably more serious than making an audio recording as part of an investigation into Gary's outlandish claims.
But don't worry, Steve - I won't send you any more e-mails, even though you still haven't answered my questions about extra security being laid on for Gary's talk because "threats" were received, or told me to whom
Alternatives is responsible for its choice of speakers. In fact you haven't commented on a single one of Gary's lies. And I wouldn't dream of NOT quoting your e-mail in its entirety - it's such a perfect example of "love and light" mentality I don't think any further comment is needed.
