I went and had a look at the Fraud Act 2006. IANAL, but

” Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

11. Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4.

12. Subsection (2) defines the meaning of “false” in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of “representation”. A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

13. Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person’s state of mind.

14. Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website. ”

Seems to me there might be a case…

Statistically, the chances that the “right” patient will then be drinking the “right” potentised water (further diluted and strengthened by succussion in its journey through the pipes belonging to Southwest Water or whomever) at some point in the future are surely fairly high?

Maybe you could include a question about “active ingredients” in your next missive

Boots will, naturally, hide behind the fact that they don’t *guarantee* any of their medicines work, conventional or otherwise. If it were a coventional drug, there would be supporting information they could use to defend their decision to stock it. But since there won’t be for this, you demand to know the reason why they have sold you a drug that they know doesn’t work. Can we then do them under trades description, given their position as a chemist and our reasonable expectation that they wouldn’t sell something that they knew didn’t work? A hypothetical argument is one thing, but might it not have more power if it was an actual upset customer demanding action, going to local trading standards, maybe also appearing on local news?

Yes I know you wouldn’t atually have to take the potion, though it you did and documented it, then it might be useful supporting evidence.

Actually I have further questions for them that will be on their way at the weekend.

Given that research indicates that a more expensive placebo is more effective than a cheaper one – imagine all of the good that could be done by doubling the price!?! In fact, why stop there. Increase the price by a factor of 30 – imagine how incredibly effective that could be!

Spoken like a true Christian.

I’m scared to say anything – JoK may consider he has given me advice and send me a bill!

Zeno, well done.

Atheismisdead, your comments are obnoxious and silly. You appear to be a twit.