Hayley is a Ghost

Sally Morgans phone number

Posted on: November 2, 2011

Do you want to know Sally Morgans phone number?


What purpose could that serve unless you’re after one of her readings? Some of those who do not believe she is psychics have been posting her email address and her phone number on twitter without also posting an intention (i.e. phone her up and ask her xyz). It’s sinister and bullying behaviour and it serves absolutely no purpose.

Screen shot of second tweet detailing further details of Morgan and her lawyer

Why would somebody that you criticise listen to you if you resort to intimidating, harassing behaviour such as encouraging people to phone her up en masse? Why would anybody listen to anything that people are saying about Sally Morgan when those who purport to be saying it (i.e. ‘the skeptics) seem to be loosing any dignity and self control and doing this sort of thing?

It’s pathetic and shameful, and anyone who tries to defend such an action in the comments to this blog shouldn’t bother.

One twitter account even went as far as to detail the birth date of the lawyer who has been involved in a heated discussion with Simon Singh recently. I don’t understand what purpose that serves other than to intimidate or harass. Maybe someone can clue me in.

screen cap of similar tweet detailing Morgans phone number and office email

I didn’t fully agree with the challenge issued to Sally Morgan on Halloween by Simon Singh, the Merseyside Skeptics, the JREF with the help of Professor Chris French – but after speaking to Chris about the actual test, and Simon in person about the intentions and ideas behind the challenge I can see that there is something that can be achieved with it, now that it is an annual event.

This publishing of private details is nothing to do with the challenge, it’s just an example of those who can’t even try to achieve something worthwhile muddying the word ‘skepticism’ and making things so much more difficult for those who do have good intentions.

Now Sally Morgan and her lawyer have a legitimate excuse not to get involved with any sort of testing. “People have been handing out our personal details online and we will not engage with these people”.

She wasn’t going to engage with skeptics anyway, having issued a challenge herself recently that skeptics should try to disprove her abilities, which was an unreasonable excuse. Now she doesn’t need to resort to unreasonable excuses – she has a reasonable one.

Those of you who posted the phone numbers and emails, or even retweeted them… you fail.


17 Responses to "Sally Morgans phone number"

Indeed, who would want Sally’s number?

After all, to call her it costs £1.53 per minute.

[…] skeptics who want to make science and skepticism popular should try at least not to be “sinister and bullying“. These acts of charlatanry make it hard to decide who is the more despicable – the […]

Agreed. It’s happened before in North America for even less reason… A group of JREF folks started a fauxsite to parody the American show “Ghost Hunters” (with the ghost seeking plumbers… I wish I was making this crap up…) Anyway, the webmasters decided to publish the exact addresses (and photos of the homes) of the “stars” of this reality-ish television program.

I have no love lost for this show or it’s “stars”, but they do have wives, neighbours, friends, and especially their children that don’t deserve the negative attention of those who’s zeal may be a little more than the norm… and sadly, in the world of scepticism, there are a number (thankfully a loud minority) who feel that any action is justified in their efforts to prevent the “woo” from spreading.

I absolutely agree that this hurts the overall discourse.

Thanks for porting this…

It will give her more incentive to play the victim.

I have to agree with this blog. Even though we had a misunderstanding, I am glad you have written this. This sort of behaviour is uncalled for and just makes it all the harder for skeptics to be taken seriously. Totally a childish act of malice. I was linked to that @MorganLibel this morning before I went out and I come home to all this, if I had know they were going to cause trouble I’d not have followed them.
If I find out it is someone I have been working with, I am going to be really pissed.

I posted this comment in the group to the people I have been discussing SM and skeptic stuff with on FB. I’m posting it here because once again, JD is making assumptions. I honestly don’t know who is behind it and just in case it was someone from the group, I let them know my thoughts on their choice of exposure. I can not link you to the group as it is closed/secret, JD knows which one it is. Anyway:

Caroline D*****
I admire all the work you have done with posting and helping to expose Sally and the retweeting of Simons and other things but I think this is too far.
It reminds me of highschool, when bitchy girls would write your phone number in the boys toilet stalls so you’d get prank calls. Sure, your number is in the phone book but no one would think to call until it’s out in the open.
It is childish, even for my standards. And it is being pinned on me because of how closely timed it is with the shit that went down yesterday.
I am happy to retweet blogs and news articles etc but not this type of thing. It has just made us look silly now. I really don’t think even Simon, Derren, Chris French or any journalists would approve.
It has just given Sally a one up on playing the victim.
I want no association to this type of thing.
I’ll continue with the rest of the stuff but I’m staying out of this for now.
Like · · Unfollow post · about an hour ago near Perth, Australia

Several other members agreed and we’ve moved on.

It was suggested to me to just ignore JD as he is just trying to intimidate me, but I prefer to defend myself, especially when blamed for something I haven’t done (again.)

I understand, and don’t worry, Jon doesn’t sway my beliefs or opinions at all unless he is stating facts 🙂

It is all a bit daft; the only consolation is that the number is that of her office, her solicitor’s and one of her email addresses. The emails can be easy to ignore – I’ve had enough hate ones in the past that just get filtered out.

Whilst two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps she should step back and consider why this has happened. Any abuse she may receive…is it really too different to the way in which she may be abusing her audience if she is aware she has no psychic powers? All in all though it’s only a small number of people and you can’t account for everyone’s behaviour. There’s always one poo speck in the Sudocrem.

Trystan, I really don’t agree that anybody deserves having their numbers posted online for people to contact them with the intention of harassing them. It feels like people are wanting to ‘teach her a lesson’ or ‘punish her’ through this and nobody deserves that.
Not only that but nobody really knows what is happening in her head – perhaps she really thinks she is psychic? Okay she hasn’t provided the evidence or hasn’t been willing to be tested and that isn’t fair of her. However, I think of someone like Litz Butcher or Vickie Monroe who we’ve interviewed on Righteous Indignation in the past. It’s impossible to know outright if a psychic is intentionally misleading people. If they’re not, then what sort of message does this sort of thing send them? Skeptics are out to get you? Not good.

You’re missing the point Hayley. I explicitly say that two wrongs do not make a right.

However, I can understand why some people may have done this because I’m not a bastion of what is considered moral in some eyes (and let us not forget that we all have different morals and ethical stances) and I don’t pretend to be. It doesn’t excuse it, but I can relate to feelings of revenge, anger and sheer annoyance! As humans we’re all flawed. I’m not excusing what has happened, I’m just attempting to understand it.

I think there is also a danger of confusing the philosophical process of skepticism with the separate issue of how one tackles an issue – do you educate, be activist, abuse someone, do nothing or plant a tree?

Well said, Hayley. It gives skeptics a bad name, and is completely counter-productive. Scary, in fact.

I agree with Hayley that no one deserves attention directed at them purely to harass. I understand that when you have a big group, one will find different people using many different ways to get their message across, and some people will defend their actions to the death.

In accepting people have their own way of doing things, sometimes with no clear goal or objective (thats the way they roll), I simply ask that we all take a moment to consider if our actions may have a negative impact on someone else’s activism, or the movement in general, before we proceed.

I don’t believe there is a ‘movement in general’. There are lots of movements and lots of skeptical communities. This behaviour has nothing to do with skepticism as a process or ‘movement’ or ‘community’.

Firstly, I haven’t read this whole post because it’s too long.

I’d like to make these points:
– I’m not your friend, and I don’t care about your agenda, or your goals.
– I’m not out to harass anyone, that’s your interpretation. This is for news media.

Graham Atkins, the lawyer, is invincible. He’s untouchable. I’m daring the news media to get of their asses and go interview him.

It goes without saying, I have NO affiliation with Simon Singh or Merseyside Sceptics.

You can’t be bothered to read the whole post? Then you probably missed the bit where I told people to not bother trying to justify those tweets.

Also, I know you’re not my friend, and you may not be harassing people, but you’re making information readily available to those who might. It’s irresponsible.

Graham Atkins isn’t invincible, he also isn’t the most important factor in this whole mess. If you don’t libel Sally Morgan then he can’t do anything.

“Firstly, I haven’t read this whole post because it’s too long.”

Too long? It’s about 400 words! Wow.

“I’m not out to harass anyone, that’s your interpretation. This is for news media. ”

Funny how you only said that after people pointed out your tweet looked intimidatory. Also, journalists will get in touch with Sally or Graham Atkins quite easily if they want to, your excuse doesn’t stand up.

The only point of posting someone’s contact details is to encourage others to contact them. Direct calls to Sally or her lawyer isn’t going to do anyone any good, and she’ll be able to claim she is being bullied. That isn’t going to help your or anyone else’s cause.

Tom, I have serious reason to believe they’re just trolling.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Hayley is a ghost

Hayley Stevens is an advocate for science-based research into seemingly paranormal experiences and occurrences. With a background in the pseudo-scientific research into ghosts, Hayley offers a unique insight into the strange world of ghost hunting through her experience.

She describes herself as 'a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt for ghosts' and this is her personal blog where she writes about ghosts, people, and other interesting things. Read more here.

Recommended Posts

Question.Explore.Discover. Back for an encore. Only £89

Those looking for the 'QED Rebel Dinner' click here.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 40 other followers

%d bloggers like this: