Paranormal Review

Particle physicist Brian Cox has angered many by mocking people who believe in ghosts and the afterlife. He did so on Twitter after learning that the BBC had received complaints that Infinite Monkey Cage, the Radio 4 show he hosts with comedian Robin Ince, was unbalanced in an episode dealing with the paranormal.

Prof Cox – a former keyboard player in 1990s pop groups before focusing on cosmology and becoming a star presenter on television (a sort of supernova) – responded to the criticism by Tweeting:

“Just heard we got complaints about lack of BBC balance about ghosts – there are some utter nobbers out there! Here is my official statement, which also has the benefit of being fact. There are no ghosts, so it would be silly to believe in them.”

Which, of course, demonstrates that Cox is himself an even bigger nobber than the people who have upset him. The term nobber, for those unfamiliar with slang, means extremely stupid.

Brian Cox is sceptical of the paranormal, as were the guests on the very entertaining programme that caused offence: psychologists Richard Wiseman and Bruce Hood, and actor and magician Andy Nyman. Which is fine, of course, and their views shouldn’t be taken too seriously; after all, the programme’s concept is to inject comedy into science and make it a fun subject to discuss.

The Twitter pronouncement, on the other hand, was delivered as a statement of fact, based on the assumption that Cox knows the truth of such matters better than anyone else. Has he become God? Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise? And what about the incredible theories of multiverses and quantum events that cosmologists ask us to accept? How would he feel if we all dismissed such ideas and labelled their originators as nobbers, just because we don’t understand them or find them difficult to explain?.

While I realise that ghost sightings and hauntings are open to many different interpretations, there’s really no doubt that people report seeing them. Endeavouring to understand the phenomenon of apparitions – both of the dead and the living – has engaged the intellects of many scientists every bit as gifted as Cox over the centuries, and his dismissal of the subject is, to say the least, unscientific. Even a BBC source told the Daily Telegraph that, although the physicist was entitled to his views, “to call people ‘nobbers’ is just a little offensive.”

I suggest Brian Cox shows greater respect in future for those whose views differ from his own, and a good starting point would be to become better acquainted with the best parapsychological literature and those who have taken the trouble to conduct research.

A good starting point would be to acquaint himself with the opinions of British scientist Peter Sturrock, whose research in nuclear physics at Engand’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment led, in time, to a long association with Stanford University, California, where he was appointed Professor of Engineering and Applied Physics in its School of Engineering and its Physics Department. Since 1961, Sturrock has worked primarily on plasma physics, solar physics and astrophysics, as well as gravity research and studying the history and philosophy of science. He has 300 scientific papers to his name, most in solar physics in which he is a towering figure.

Does Sturrock believe in ghosts? I don’t know, but he has studied a range of paranormal phenomena and is open-minded about many of them. His interest in the role of anomalies in the progress of science led him to Chair the Founding Committee of the Society for Scientific Exploration and he has served as its president since 1982.The recipient of numerous scientific awards, Sturrock keeps an open mind on the paranormal for very good reasons: he has experienced an unusual phenomenon – notably a UFO sighting – at first hand.

Wikipedia’s extensive biography of Sturrock tells us that his interest in UFOs began when he employed Dr Jacques Vallee on a research project and learned that he had authored a number of books on UFOs. Sturrock, we are told, ‘felt a professional obligation to at least peruse Vallee’s books’ which led him to research the subject further. Though this story is true, it was not the start of his interest in the subject. That occurred on an autumn day in 1947 – the year the word ‘flying saucer’ was coined – when he was a student at Cambridge and saw an unidentified flying object: an experience he has since described as ‘very disturbing’. It was, he says, his ‘first encounter with an unorthodox world that does not conform to the orthodox, neatly packaged, world of conventional science.’

Sturrock knows from personal experience how closed minded many scientists are. So he has been doubly courageous not only in pursuing his interest in the paranormal but also in expressing his views on the subect in his books, A Tale of Two Sciences: Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist and The UFO Enigma.

Brian Cox’s contributions to litereature, on the other hand, appear to be largely confined to his co-authored books based on his television series, Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. If you want a starry-eyed account of astrophysics, Cox is your man. If you’d prefer a sensible discussion about unusual phenomena and scientists’ attitudes to them, Sturrock is undoubtedly the person you should turn to. [Just click on the appropriate images below, depending on whether you are UK or USA-based. One is a Blue-Ray disk.]

Or Cox could make contact with Prof Bernard Carr, a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University, London, or Prof Archie Roy, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the British Interplanetary Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Both are past presidents of the Society for Psychical Research with immense knowledge of the paranormal. I suggest, however, that Cox doesn’t open the discussion with the words, “Hello, nobber.”

I’m not alone in taking issue with Cox. For those interested in a far more academic – and amusing – response, SPR member and psychic investigator Chris Jensen Romer has provided one here.

Cox, I’m sorry to say, appears to have let his TV success go to his head. He is in danger of losing credibility and going the way of all supernovae: fading from sight very quickly. Still, he could always return to playing the keyboards.

In what many will see as a humiliating climbdown, three members of the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) paid a visit to their honorary president, Eric Hatton, in Stourbridge last week to discuss their reasons for banning his autobiography. Their discussions have resulted in a joint statement that reveals the book – which the Union-run Arthur Findlay College was instructed to withdraw from sale – is now back on its shelves.

Here’s the statement in full:

Following the decision of the Union not to stock copies of its honorary president Eric Hatton’s book, Taking Up The Challenge, the president, the vice-president (Administrative) and the general secretary of the Union held a meeting with Mr Hatton, Hugh Davis and Susan Farrow to discuss the matters which had led to this decision.

The Union has accordingly agreed to put Mr Hatton’s book back on sale at the Arthur Findlay College bookshop. Mr Hatton recognised that some of the references in his book could have been taken to be misleading and denigratory but gave an assurance that this had never been his intention. With hindsight, the representatives of the Union present at the meeting acknowledge that a preliminary discussion with Mr Hatton about the Union’s concerns regarding his book might have resolved this situation more speedily.

The three SNU officials who met with Eric Hatton were David Bruton, president, Dinah Annable, vice-president (Administration), who are both members of its National Executive Committee (NEC), and Charles Coulston, the Union’s general secretary. Also at the meeting were Susan Farrow, who assisted Eric in writing the book, and Hugh Davis, a trustee of the JV Trust.

Though the statement does not acknowledge the fact, the decision to reverse the book ban is undoubtedly the result of the outcry which followed news that the book had been removed from sale at the Arthur Findlay College, without any reason being given and without any attempt to discuss the issue with its author, who is respected throughout the Spiritualist movement.

The ban was announced by Sue Farrow on 7 May on her SpiritOfPN website. I drew attention the story on the following day and made my own comments, including the suggestion that David Bruton should phone Hatton, apologise that the book ban had been handled so badly and disrespectfully, and then issue a statement discussing the issues. I’d like to think he would have done all those things without my prompting, and that of the 36 visitors to my Blog who felt so strongly about it that they made their own comments.

Even more supporters of Eric expressed their anger (with just a few who felt otherwise) on SpiritOfPN website which received an incredible 176 responses.

I’m not sure which pleases me the most: (a) the fact that the Union has at last started to show signs of listening to complaints and being prepared to act with greater civility and respect toward others; or (b) the new voice that the internet has given to those who feel bullied or ignored by those in power.

Above all, of course, I’m delighted that Eric’s excellent book is now back on sale at the Arthur Findlay College, as well as elsewhere. It’s a great read, even though the joint statement doesn’t shed any light on what it was that someone in the SNU felt so angry about to have it banned in the first place. I have my suspicions as to who that person is, but there’s no need for them to resort to a Super Injunction to keep me silent – I’m not saying.

Whatever next? First, the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) shut down the weekly Spiritualist newspaper Psychic News after almost 80 years, making its staff unemployed and its subscribers out of pocket. Next, it showed its gratitude to three members of its Philosophy and Ethics Committee, who had written two excellent books, by replacing them. Then Duncan Gascoyne, former SNU president and chairman of the Arthur Findlay College, resigned in protest at the lack of consultation that he was receiving from the National Executive Committee after more than a decade in that position. Now – in what amounts to the biggest slap in the face yet for one of the Union’s most respected and dedicated workers, Eric Hatton – it has banned the Arthur Findlay College (AFC) from selling Taking Up The Challenge, the superb autobiography by Eric Hatton, former SNU president and college chairman, the Union’s first ever Lifetime Achievement Award holder and its first and only honorary president. Who, in their right minds, would want to deprive Spiritualists from reading his life story? And why?

Sue Farrow, former editor of Psychic News who is continuing to be the voice of independent Spiritualism on her ‘Spirit of PN’ website, has just broken the story of the ban on Eric’s book. You’ll find the full story here.

Before running the story, she asked SNU president David Bruton to confirm that Taking Up The Challenge had been banned from sale at the college. She also asked whether he was aware that the decision had been taken, and whether it was a collective decision by the SNU’s NEC or the action of the AFC’s new chairman, Andrew Hadley. In addition, she wanted to know why the book had been on sale at the college prior to Gascoyne’s resignation and Hadley’s appointment.

The reply she received came not from Bruton but from Charles Coulston, SNU general secretary, who side-stepped most of these questions. His response, which Sue gives in full, begins by asserting that “the internal decision-making processes within the Union are a matter for the National Executive Committee and its Officers and not for private individuals to question”.

Such arrogance!

Regular visitors to www.ParanormalReview.com will recall that last year David Bruton refused to answer a question I put to him simply because he did not like something else I’d written earlier.

Do those running the SNU not realise that it is essential that their actions are scrutinised by independent observers and that they also have a duty to their membership to act with integrity and transparency?

So what was Coulston’s response to the main thrust of Sue Farrow’s questions?

“The Union has exercised its right, in common with all organisations which sell books, to decide what it will stock and what it will not. In the case of Minister Hatton’s book it was discovered late in the day that there were a number of references in the book to the Union’s activities which were inaccurate, misleading and denigratory of the Union: our minutes show the accurate version of events, which clearly differ considerably from the book.

“The Union sees no reason why it should stock any book which contains unfounded statements and derogatory innuendoes about the Union: no other organisation would countenance the promotion of a publication which contained such baseless and unwarranted assertions and insinuations against itself and its governing body.”

Banned books usually sell very well and I hope Eric’s will be no exception. It deserves to be a Spiritualist best-seller on its own merits: it abounds with fascinating accounts of his experiences with some of the finest physical and mental mediums, as well as offering insights about his business and personal life. I hope that the AFC ban on selling his book will encourage the entire SNU membership to buy it (just click on the book cover, here, to buy it through Amazon) and find out what it is the NEC does not want people to read.

What amuses me is that when David Bruton is not trying to steer the SNU ship through choppy waters he runs a retail newsagents, selling newspapers and magazines whose contents and opinions, doubtless, he does not always agree with. If anyone should understand the principles of free speech, it is the SNU president.

I trust, for his sake and the Union’s – assuming he is the ship’s captain and not a cabin boy – that Bruton lives up to his presidential pledge and starts communicating effectively with his committees, his membership and those of us who take the trouble to report on its activities.

And he could start by picking up the phone and calling Eric Hatton to offer his sincere apologies that the dispute over his autobiography has been handled so badly and disrespectfully. He should then authorise publication of a statement that puts the Union’s side of the issues Hatton has discussed and which the minutes apparently contradict.

Without that, the membership can make its own judgment and, having known Eric for well over 40 years, and knowing him to be a man of honesty and integrity, I’d put my money on his account of events every time, and I’m sure most SNU members will, too..

With careful steering, a fair wind and a crew who are encouraged to put the emphasis on “spiritual” rather than “ego” and “power”, I’m sure the SNU ship can eventually get back on course and return safely to port and start behaving in a way that Spiritualists can be proud of once more. But it will need more positive leadership than it has at present if a mutiny is to be avoided.

A few years ago, I was asked to cast a journalistic eye over a manuscript titled Philosophy of Spiritualism before its publication. I had only one comment to make, which was to congratulate its authors, Barry Oates, David Hopkins and Carole Austin, on producing an excellent, well-written book – the perfect introduction for anyone seeking a better understanding of Spiritualism.

And who better qualified to write such books? Both Oates and Hopkins are Spiritualist ministers, and Austin an officiant, which is one step down from being a minister. All three were also members of the Spiritualists’ National Union (SNU) Philosophy and Ethics Committee.

That book is now in print and, by all accounts, selling very well, as is a sequel written by the same trio, The Religion of Spiritualism, which became available last year.

So it came as a surprise to me to discover that the three authors have since disappeared from the Philosophy and Ethics Committee, leading inevitably to whispers about resignations and skullduggery.

Following the shock resignation of former SNU president Duncan Gascoyne as chairman of the Arthur Findlay College, which I reported on a few weeks ago, I felt I should investigate further. What I learned was surprising, raising once again important questions about the way in which the Union conducts its affairs. It’s a complex story, but I’ll keep it brief, and I’ll start by tackling the running of the Union.

David Hopkins (above right) knows the Union well. He has been an individual member for 52 years, is a second generation SNU minister (both parents were very active speakers and mediums) and an SNU Gold Service Award holder. He explains, “The current system is that, at the Union’s annual general meeting, the president and incoming officers choose the other NEC members, some from nominations, others without even nominations, including last year the financial director.”

Membership of all committees terminates at the closure of the AGM in mid-July, though in practice they remain in post until new members are chosen at the first subsequent NEC meeting, usually a couple of weeks after the AGM.

Problems began for the Philosophy and Ethics Committee (P&EC) when an Arthur Findlay College Course (AFC) Organisers’ and Tutors’ meeting took place at Stansted Hall in February 2010 at which, following discussions, a number of conclusions were reached on sometimes controversial subjects and statements were agreed collectively. Topics ranged from abortions and aliens to evil spirits and possession. A report of the meeting, including the statements issued, was published in Psychic News (6 March 2010), resulting in readers’ letters voicing criticism of the tutors’ views.

Barry Oates (left), a Spiritualist for 45 years, an SNU minister since 1992 and recipient of the Union’s Award of Merit in 2005 and 2009, tells me that he had differences of opinion with Duncan Gascoyne over the tutors’ statements because they gave the impression that they expressed Union policy on various ethical issues.

“The reason the P&EC was set up was to deal with these very issues, but we realised nothing is as straight forward as it seems and it was taking a long time to get the balance right, especially if they were to be accepted by the National Executive Council (NEC) as Union policy.”

Following those differences, Oates resigned as chairman but remained on the P&EC in order to get their second book finished and launched in time for the SNU AGM in 2010. Duncan Gascoyne had taken him onto the NEC when he became president and Oates said he would go when Duncan did. He had made it clear that he would not remain on the NEC after the AGM.

“I, like many who have known Duncan for many years, was very sorry to hear of his resignation,” Oates tells me. “Although I had my differences, I know Duncan as a very sincere Spiritualist who has always been motivated by his love for the Union and his desire to see it succeed. His methods did not suit everyone but he got the job done. There is no doubt in my mind that as far as the College is concerned he was in the right place at the right time and, for that, all Union Spiritualists should be grateful.”

After his election as SNU president in 2010, David Bruton took a number of new faces onto the NEC. He also phoned Oates and asked him to consider becoming chairman of the P&EC. Oates explains that there was a condition to that appointment, “being that they would expect changes to the committee – in other words, ‘we don’t want those who have produced two very successful books for the SNU’. I refused the chairmanship, of course, and later I discovered that is what the NEC expected me to do.”

Meanwhile, David Hopkins had similar issues with the AFC tutors’ statements, and had objected  – “as a member of the NEC, i.e., as a director of the SNU” – to them and the implication that this “policy” came from the AFC, which was a sub-committee of the NEC. “The response from Duncan Gascoyne was to issue a personal attack on me, coupled with an attack on the P&EC. This led to Barry Oates’ resignation as the committee’s chairman.”

David adds: “Voicing criticism of the AFC or its paid tutorial staff was not popular. One got the impression that the AFC was a ‘sacred cow’ with some, against which criticism was seen almost as blasphemy.”

Once Philosophy of Spiritualism was completed, it was submitted to the NEC for approval and publication. “Without reference to the committee or the authors of the book,” Hopkins continues, “the then-NEC, under President Gascoyne, gave away the income from the book to Psychic Press (1995) Ltd [publishers of Psychic News], which was then under the direction of SNU treasurer David Bruton.

“The authors had expended much time and effort on research, discussion and writing the book for the SNU only to see the fruits of their efforts given away and the Union losing any income that might arise. As one of the Union’s most successful (if not the most successful) publications, clearly there could have been considerable on-going income for the SNU.”

When the trio’s second book was ready for publication, the NEC was only prepared to fund a limited print run, which would have increased the cost of individual copies. Instead, the P&EC was extremely grateful to obtain funding for a substantial initial print run of The Religion of Spiritualism from the Winifred Gandine-Stanton Trust. All income goes to the Union.

Hopkins, who had been a member of the P&EC since it was established in 2004 and was its chairman up until the 2010 AGM, did not resign from the committee, nor did Carole Austin. They were, he says, “dumped”. Oates, as we have already seen, turned down the chairmanship because of that condition.

Rubbing salt into the wound is the fact that they were not told why, after the success of their two books, their services were no longer required on the P&EC. But they were not even told they were no longer required. It became apparent, however, when the SNU website displayed the membership of its committees … with the exception of the P&EC.

Hopkins adds: “We were not asked if we were prepared to take the committee in a different direction, nor if we had plans for further publications. In fact, extensive research and preparation had been undertaken by the three of us and we had informally discussed producing at least one and probably two more books in the ‘series’  – as we considered it to be.

“We were not told we were being replaced.  I would have expected at least the courtesy of a contact from the President or Vice-President Spiritual (as P&E is part of the responsibility of the holder of that position) but we waited and waited … and waited, knowing only when, months later, new names appeared on the website that our services had been dispensed with.”

Judith Seaman, SNU vice-president (Spiritual), is shown as the committee’s chairman and Brian Gledhill, Tony Penketh and Linda Smith are members.

“At the SNU AGM last year,” Hopkins adds, “much was made of the retirement of President Gascoyne.  Yet Barry Oates, who had been on the NEC for eleven years, had been the first vice-president (Spiritual), founder chairman and member of the P&E committee and had done a tremendous job dealing with churches in difficulties, was not even mentioned, by either retiring President Gascoyne (whose responsibility it clearly was) or incoming President Bruton, who could have done so when Mr Gascoyne failed to do so.

“The SNU had been led for years by Mr Gascoyne but there have been many others who have supported him and the work. Thanks and praise should not be concentrated just on the leader of an organisation but be given to all involved.

“I have recently been informed that I have been nominated as SNU vice-president (Spiritual).  After considering this nomination very carefully, I have advised the SNU General Secretary that I will not be accepting the nomination in these elections.”

Committees, of course, change all the time but it would be wrong to dismiss what has happened to the P&EC as no more than internal differences. It seems to me to reflect a far deeper problem with the way in which the SNU is run. Certainly, not enough public recognition is given to those who have worked on behalf of the Union for decades. And their contribution is swept aside when differences of opinion arise.

Perhaps those who are calling the shots should take a closer look at the three authors’ The Religion of Spiritualism and a quote they include from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in particular:

“Mankind must learn once and for all that Religion has nothing whatever to do with theological beliefs, or forms, or ceremonies, or priesthoods, or vestments, or sacraments, or any of the other trappings and adornments which have so covered it that we can no longer see it. It depends upon two things only, and those are Conduct and Character. If you are unselfish and kind then you are of the elect, call yourself what you will. If you are dry and hard and bitter and narrow, no church and no faith can save you from the judgment to come.”

Perhaps the time has come for the SNU’s rank-and-file membership to demand of its officers that they focus more on common courtesies and spirituality than on the personal pursuit of power at all costs.

Remember my story about the Vincent van Gogh painting I bought last year? I told how I had watched as Brazilian medium Florencio Anton, apparently channelling the long-dead spirit of the Dutch post-Impressionist painter, had completed the stunning landscape in just 11 minutes in front of an audience in Sussex.

I have just heard from Christine Parkin, organiser of that event, that Florencio is making a return visit to England next month.  He will be demonstrating his mediumship, once again, on three occasions: at Seaford, East Sussex (4 May), Banbury, Oxfordshire (5 May) and Worthing, West Sussex (6 May).

Tickets, which are limited, are £18 at each venue, and all the paintings are sold at the end of each demonstration for  £120 or £140, depending on the size of the canvas, to raise funds for Florencio’s children’s charity.  Further details are available at Christine Parkin’s website and tickets can be ordered from her at christine@christineparkin.com or by phone on 01903 691030 or 07838 257755.

Coincidentally, this month’s Take a Break’s Fate & Fortune magazine carries the story of the “van Gogh” painting I bought after watching the entranced Florencio produce it at rapid speed.

Whether you believe Florencio Anton really is capable of channelling the spirits of 80 deceased artists, including Picasso, Renoir, Monet and van Gogh, or whether you believe he has extraordinary artistic talents of his own, watching him at work is certainly a fascinating experience.