Most Haunted

I actually do believe in ghosts which is exactly why I hate television shows such as "Most Haunted" - they simply cash in on the paranormal phenomenon knowing full-well that it will grab the attention of everyday people.

I've had my own experiences in the past, and read supported stories, to convince me there is some type of supernatural force out there - but "Most Haunted" certainly isn't a study of that. It's an exploitation - and a fake one - not only of ghosts but of its viewers, too.

The lead psychic, Derek Acorah, seems to get possessed every time he walks into a room. The Mirror (UK) recently uncovered evidence proving Derek is a faker - he was supposedly "possessed" by a fake ghost character invented by a sceptical co-star to test Derek's honesty.

I think this show is just a really poor and deceiving program that shouldn't even be on the air anymore.

A pile of dog toffee, they got rid of Derek Acora, and that ddodgy get in a fat pinstripe suit, they are the types that put me off paranormal investigations. Its always the same boring topic locations, fxxxng pubs and inns, statley homes, hotels....yawn yawn.. Then its 60mins of infra red camera shots, pebbles being tossed about (by the crew). screaming and shouting..To invoke spirits, you don't start a conversation just like you were asking for a jar of coffee in the corner shop...MH...is a load of cobblers

I first got interested in Most Haunted when it started a couple of years ago. It is an interesting idea - take a film crew, a self-proclaimed "parapsychologist" and "spiritualist medium" to some of the country's allegedly "Most Haunted" locations for a night and see what happens. This show has quite a strong following here in the UK, where it is probably the No. 1 programme on the Living TV channel which, given its programme lineup would be more accurately described as the "Psychic Telly Channel".

I have to say that I now suspect that all is not quite as it seems here folks. Presenter Yvette Fielding and husband Karl Beattie (also the "director" on this show) are behind the production company that make this programme. As I see more of these shows I've come to realise that this is purely populist entertainment chasing ratings rather than a vehicle for serious investigation of the possibility of real paranormal behaviour. Nothing wrong with that really I suppose - those ratings show that there is a market for this stuff and that is what commercial TV is all about. This is a product, and originally it was quite cleverly packaged and presented and even had a certain (limited) seriousness attached to it.

But the game is up I think. Most of the time the crew seem to be intent on scaring themselves by poking around in dark corners with all the lights deliberately turned out because "the ghost's prefer the dark". Yeah right - and it adds atmosphere for the viewer's at home doesn't it?. The crew seem to be trying to recreate a kind of "Blair Witch lite" on primetime TV". Yvette may be a likeable enough TV presenter, but she's a totally hopeless investigator of the paranormal. She (and most of the rest of the crew) seems to get completely freaked out by the smallest noise and at the first signs of any real possible activity they run in the opposite direction. What is this, a serious investigation or some kind of live action Scooby Doo? If you are seriously looking for evidence of the paranormal, you don't run away from it when you find a few hints that it may exist. "Spiritualist medium" Derek Acorah is generally unconvincing. I don't believe him and I find it hard to believe that he is not briefed in advance by the production crew before he arrives at the "haunted" locations. After all, the purpose of this show is to generate ratings and so they need their "medium" to "produce the goods" in order to make it all look convincing. Sorry if that sounds cynical people, but nothing in this program is done scientifically, no matter how may "EMF meters" get waved about. This show is not investigative - it is entertainment and that is all.

You only have to watch one of the (increasingly frequent) Most Haunted Live shows to make you suspicious that things could very well be engineered behind the scenes of this programme. These live shows are "Dumb TV" at its very worst. Painful viewer phone-ins of "weird" events at home - stopped clocks, barking dogs etc. Stage psychics doing "automatic drawings". Webcams on which online viewers report seeing things for which there is no subsequent evidence. Yvette supposedly complaining about why she has to go poking around in the dark (possible answer: for the money honey?) Sending the "sceptical scientist " Matthew out into the cold and dark as some kind of "punishment" while the audience brays... this is Trash TV.

As for their "evidence" - it also doesn't really seem to have occurred to anyone that those "orbs" (visible only on night-vision video cameras, and the only "evidence" that the crew ever find) could be due to the way that these cameras operate. Anyone ever think of trying some simple tests like putting two cameras side by side and see if you get the same result on both? No. Or put two cameras at different angles focused on the same area and see if they both pick up the same thing. No. Never happens. A few noises and air draughts in buildings that are many hundreds of years old does not constitute evidence for the paranormal no matter how much Derek, Yvette et al may try to play it up. This is showbiz folks - the 21st century, satellite TV equivalent of telling ghost stories around the camp fire. Watch with a healthy dose of scepticism and don't accept at face value everything, or indeed anything that you see here. Remember the objective of these programme makers is to sell their product at the highest possible price. These people are salesmen, not scientists.

While i'm not sure whether i believe in ghosts or not, I did really enjoy the show in the beginning. Now it just seems like i've seen this show before. I did enjoy Derek on the show as he gave much more history on the places visited & the ghosts that lived there. He even interacted with the ghosts. He made it all seem fun & exciting to the viewer. Altho i like Fred, the Demonalagist, i find he doesn't participate in the show as much as i think he should. He gives a bit of history in the beginning of the show, almost repeating what Yvette already says in the intro & then it's like he fades out sight. As for Dr. John Callow, his reviews are monotone & boring. I keep waiting for him to fall asleep in the middle of his droning on & on. He's almost emotionless. Does he ever blink?? I want to get a good look around of the beautiful places investigated before investigation starts, a bit more history & maybe Fred could interact with the ghosts a bit more.

This is one of those shows that deserves it's own drinking game. Every time the host shrieks or cries, take a drink. Every time Derek says "Slaughter", take a drink. Every time they say that a place isn't haunted, drink a whole fifth of Everclear.

Where does one begin to unravel how stupid this show is? Yes, they go to interesting places. Yes, the UK is filled with spooky places to investigate, but it's amazing that EVERY site they travel to is chock full o' ghosts.

Yvette Fielding is about as scientifically minded as a carnival barker at the freakshow. She flips out as soon as the light are off, and every bump or cobweb is a sign that someone is trying to contact her.

Derek Accora is ridiculously cheesy, especially when he goes into trances that supposedly lead to him "channeling" an evil spirit. And his "spirit guide" Sam, Derek's imaginary friend whom he thanks profusely throughout the show always manages to give him half-correct clues that lead them to another room where Yvette will nearly pee her pants.

Be sure to take a drink whenever the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen suggests that there's no proof to back up whatever Derek says. It happens often, so you'll probably be toasted after one full episode.