The article offers only the usual rubbish you get from ghost enthusiasts; evidence consisting solely of anecdotal accounts. For instance, the testimony of Ms. Leone de Ferranti, publican of the Elephant Bridge Hotel in Darlington (could it be a marketing ploy perhaps? Call me a cynic), is most amusing:

“I went to that corner, her favourite spot, and suddenly I felt uncomfortable. I took two steps back and the strange feeling stopped at once. I believe Adeline was communicating with me.”

Now that’s a whole lot of stupid to cram into just a few sentences. First of all, it’s pretty obvious that she already knew there was ‘supposed’ to be a ghost haunting the place. Consequently, she’ll be on the lookout for strange occurrences, and very willing to attribute even the most mildly strange event to ghostly apparitions. And this is about as mild as it gets. She had a strange feeling? Give us a break. It was probably her foreknowledge of the ghost story that gave her the strange feeling in the first place. It is also unclear whether she had already been told about the ‘favourite spot.’ She then jumps to the most ridiculously unlikely of conclusions: “I believe Adeline was communicating with me.” Why would you believe that unless you’d already heard the background ghost story? Why wasn’t it aliens that caused the strange feeling? Why not pixies? How the fuck do you know it was this specific ghost that was attempting to communicate? That’s a hell of a lot of information to infer from a feeling. I had a similar strange feeling last night. Did I assume it originated from a ghostly interaction? No, I assumed that I’m a pussy who’s afraid of the dark.

She then says something very similar to what dipshit Siimon Reynolds said last week. You know, the whole ‘science doesn’t know everything’ line of bullshit:

“It would be arrogant to assume we know everything. Just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

Yes, and just because you’re not currently dribbling doesn’t mean you’re not retarded. Who the hell is assuming we know everything? Certainly not sceptics and scientists. We merely ask for some decent evidence before we believe extraordinary claims. Is that so bad? People have believed in ghosts for a long time. If they existed, surely some decent evidence would have been produced by now? The human mind is fallible; seeing is not believing. Anecdotal evidence will never be sufficient for scientific questions. Sorry, and asking people to believe in ghosts because you had a strange feeling is hilarious, especially when you have a vested interest in propagating the ghost stories for business reasons. I bet a lot of people lap it up though, poor dumb saps.

Anecdotes from other hotspots included the piano that plays itself. Seems an easy thing to prove, so why is it that whenever scientists investigate such claims, the piano tends to just sit about, mysteriously not playing itself? When I talk about a scientific investigation into ghosts, I’m talking about proper scientists/sceptics, not the asshats on the Ghost Hunter type of television show. You know, the morons who walk around with EM meters finding ghosts by the dozen. Isn’t it strange how these people never go to a place and not find anything? Funny that.

Also of interest is this old chestnut, regurgitated by Drew Sinton, owner of the Haunted Bookshop:

“For believers, no proof is necessary. For sceptics, no proof is possible.”

 Drew, you’re a moron. This is similar to the 'sceptics are close minded' argument that we hear all the time from those who believe in all sorts of insane crap. If these ghosts have a measurable effect on the universe as all the ghost nuts claim they do, then their existence can be proven. I will then change my mind. Until then, I feel very confident in assuming that all of these anecdotes are merely the result of fallible minds, overactive imaginations, and credulous ignorance. It is, in fact, the believers who are close-minded, as they refuse to accept the possibility that their beliefs are wrong, even when presented with convincing evidence.