During a video link with my solicitor, I began questioning people’s ideas and spiritual values. Andrew stated the process of law is straightforward. In litigation, there must be a provable concept to make a judgement. What one believes or senses is none admissible, although a belief can be a mitigation. He followed the statement with an example: ‘You cannot claim that you think an act is correct if the action counters a law.’

I asked for further interpretation. We were considering what makes a fraud, as we have recently been accused of fraud! In a nutshell, committing fraud is intending to deceive or take advantage by deception to make a profit. Primarily there has to be a claim which offers a reward, which in the long term turns out to be false.

Last week we were accused of operating a fraudulent event! The Memorial Award! The accusor’s correspondence compared his interpretation of a mediumistic demonstration and how we conducted the award process. The accusor believes many years of ‘working within spiritual organisations’ qualified him to be Judge and Jury. Andrew stated, ‘Well before the accusor could become an ‘expert witness’, he would have to prove that he could communicate with the deceased empirically. There is no such instance; therefore, he would struggle to compile a compelling case.

We await the visit from the constabulary, and we will be waiting forever because Andrew answers the question. Did we operate a fraudulent event? With the reply: ‘What did you offer and not provide? I need help finding something you submitted or promised in the event that you still need to provide. The conduct of the process. The audience’s acceptance, and, more importantly, the participants of the proceeding, and a hand count vote for each ‘demonstration’ must be taken as fair and above board. It is irrelevant if an individual disagrees with the process. You have your procedure, and the people who took part in it accepted the process. Is there an intent of deception? Have you acted fraudulently? Of course not!

There is another issue: an individual must clarify grievances in the first instance and during the process, not after the fact. Allowing a method to continue without making known concerns contributes to the process. Allowing an illegal approach to take place can indicate complacency or entrapment.

I wonder about Andrew’s final comment.

‘Of course, you have to be convicted of fraud before anyone can state you, or the directors of Pure Spirit Ltd can be named as fraudulent. The accuser has undoubtedly overstepped the mark when it comes to defamatory statements. Not a very intelligent act to send emails to people and within the emails, state there is a certainty you have planned or committed a fraudulent act.’ I will leave you to ponder the lawyer’s final comment.

The last few days have left me with thoughts of the fragility of human reason. How can we take the undoubtedly complex journey of spiritual enlightenment and allow an opinion of something unprovable to control our lives? And hold the view to such a degree that the belief becomes above the thoughts of all others?

The spiritual journey takes us into unprovable avenues, from a belief in omnipresence to the perception of communication with the spirit or soul of the dead. There are concepts of reincarnation, karma, predestined life experience, and religion’s complex and diverse aspects. All aspects are within the sphere of spiritual ideas.

The coverage is universal and encompasses the societies we live within, wonderfully diverse cultures that have discovered ways of living close to each other, from the millions of people who follow differing faith and have learned to accept the various religious beliefs of others, although in contradiction to their own; to the small unions and associations following a unique spiritual practice. Most have learned to accept and live without prejudice. We know about the wonder of human endeavour and fortitude, the incredible resolve of human beings. Learning to accept and respect the ways of others is very much part of lessons of a spiritual nature, part of the spiritual and creative journey.

So, why would anyone aligned with spiritual concepts wish to approach people who have taken part in an award? And with intimidation and aggression, inform that the event organisers are fraudulent. Furthermore, state the circumstances and practices of the event are dishonest and therefore have been reported to the police. Why would someone wish to cause so much pain and discord at a small event attended by likeminded people? The reason escapes my comprehension.

I do not care a fig for the accusations. I am interested in the motivation behind any who fails to accept there is no set method of spiritual attainment. There is not ONE way. One particular way of mediumistic demonstration. There is no singular way to pray, meditate or follow the myriad of spiritual practices. I could comment on the decline in interest in spiritualism and other related procedures and offer the idea that we see an example of causation.

The basis of all spiritual exploration is one of love and caring, and respect for others.


  1. I do not know the detail of the complaint made.

    I am familiar with the Witchcraft act of 1735, and its replacements, first the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, subsequently repealed, and its replacement Schedule 4 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ( which Brexiteers want abolished).

    From what you have reported I am confident that neither the participants nor the organisers have anything to fear.

    However, it also presents us with an opportunity. Derek himself had been subject to adverse allegations, which were successfully refuted. I have noted a tendency over the past decade for the claims of services offered by some mediums lengthening. If this serves to ensure that the services offered are reviewed that may be no bad thing.

    I work closely with Jane Osborne in the field of Past Life Regression, the process of reviewing that process is continuous.

    I am regularly involved in judging literary competitions and habitually publish assessment criteria. In the lead up to this award I did suggest eleven potential criteria, but have no idea what the criteria ultimately were , or how the candidates measured up against them.

    The principle of the Derek Acorah award is sound, and positive. I think that we can both be confident in the integrity of what we do while simultaneously ensuring that we remain vigilant.

Comments Are Always Welcome

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.