Regular readers will recall that, back in April, I posted an article entitled: The Express publishes the pernicious 'Multi-Level Marketing' fiction as 'fact,' but doesn't mention 'MLM.'
I explained that an article, signed by a journalist, Temie Laleye, had appeared in the Personal Finance section of the Express online, January 13th 2024, but it had only recently been brought to my attention.
The Express article was a classic example of the Big 'Multi-Level Marketing' Lie being reported as the truth. Some of the vague, unsubstantiated quoted-claims that were prominently featured in the article were so outrageous, and obviously-false, that it beggars belief that any journalist working in the area of finance could swallow them, but apparently, Temie Laleye did.
 |
| Temie Laleye |
I also explained why the Express article could never have been researched, and that it was not clear what was the actual motivation of Temie Laleye. However, at the time, I did not explain how I had attempted to contact Temie Laleye as well as the editor of the Personal Finance section of the Express, with my concerns. However, neither of them replied to e-mails.
As a consequence, I contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation Home (ipso.co.uk), but without any serious expectation that this would result in the Express article being withdrawn or rectified.
Thus, it was clearly explained in my initial e-mail to IPSO how the Express article was specifically constructed to pretend affinity with women and, thus, facilitate an insidious criminal fraud that has been designed to spread like a virus, and which has lately been mainly preying on hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, and ill-informed, women in the UK. However, the staff at IPSO (of whom there are only 20) were apparently so snowed-under with work, that they initially reacted to my accurate information and analysis by requesting that I reduce the size of my complaint, and merely set out why I considered the Express article to be in breach of IPSO's own Editors' Code of Practice.
ecop-2021-ipso-version-pdf.pdf.
This week I finally received a lengthy e-mail from IPSO signed by 'Assessment Officer,' Natalie Johnson. In this, behind a barrage of convoluted verbal gymnastics, Natalie Jonhson informed me that IPSO had decided to reject my complaint. As far as I could ascertain, this was essentially on the grounds that the Express article was not in breach of IPSO's Editors' Code of Practice, because, although the claims made in it might very well have been inaccurate, nevertheless, they were an accurate report of what the journalist had been told, and as such, this type of lazy reporting is permitted.
Quite obviously, this intellectually-feeble and morally-relativist interpretation of IPSO's Editors' Code of Practice, makes a mockery of it, because if the bar for press standards has been set so low, then what the Hell is the point of having them? In simple terms, IPSO's position is that it can be acceptable for the UK media to publish, or broadcast, falsehoods without any attempt to discover the truth, provided the falsehoods come from third parties and are accurately quoted word for word.
Thus, after a further formulaic e-mail from Natalie Johnson which concluded with the classic Orwellian phrase:
'We are unable at this stage to enter into correspondence offering reasoning beyond that included in the original decision.'
I sent the following e-mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie
Contrary to what you write, based on the accurate information and analysis that I sent you, the choice you people had before you here, was extremely simple.
Either you stand against fraud and for the rule of law, or you don't.
Tellingly, you are still clinging to your Editors' Code and making absolutely no reference to the guts of the insidious criminal activity I flagged to your organization, or to the very real danger that misleading articles, like the one in the Express, pose to our fellow citizens. The article in the Express was quite obviously designed to facilitate a fraud that has been mainly preying on women in the UK. This was why the article was very specifically constructed to pretend affinity with women. It was signed by a woman and contained quotes from two other women, one of whom was pictured with her infant daughter.
Sadly, I can only conclude from your guarded-replies that any expectation on my part that anyone in a position of authority in your organization might do the right thing, is pointless.
That said, I would still like to know what would be your personal reaction if someone you cared about (e.g. a sister or daughter) came to you and declared that she had signed up with a so-called 'MLM/direct selling' company?
Misleading articles like the one in the Express are not only designed to lure vulnerable, and ill-informed, women into de facto servitude, they have also been designed to persuade victims that companies like 'Juice Plus' cannot possibly be the fronts for frauds. This is part of the reason why 'MLM' victims rarely come forward.
Sincerely
David Brear
Well done, David! It’s about time that news outlets in the U.K. and also U.K. government agencies learn that this continued condoning of the Big MLM Lie is not protecting the people. It’s time that the truth about these fraudulent organisations is exposed and dealt with appropriately.
ReplyDeleteI’ve seen a recent improvement at Action Fraud, with their inclusion of “Work From Home Scams” ( https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/a-z-of-fraud/work-from-home-scams ), but they still are not doing enough to shut these rackets down.
It would be so simple for them to test these organisations against the Fraud Act 2006 and even the Serious Crime Act 2015 (‘SCA’) and Organised Crime Group (‘OCG’) under section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (‘SCA’).
It’s sad that a handful of antiMLM activists have to point out to government how to do their jobs.
One could almost believe that the government is somehow benefiting from these organisations, but surely that can’t be the case? /sarc
Thanks.
DeleteI've recently been talking to yet another agent of 'Action Fraud.' I pointed out that, although there is now the inclusion of Business Opportunity Fraud on its 'types of fraud' web-pages (https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/a-z-of-fraud/business-opportunity-fraud), no Business Opportunity fraud has ever been criminally- prosecuted in the UK.
Not surprisingly, Action Fraud's warning about Business Opportunity fraud is pretty basic:
'Business opportunity fraud involves an offer to become financially independent, or to generate extra income, by setting up your own business.
A letter, advert or website asks if you are interested in making easy money by working from home, or setting up your own online business.
The scheme allows you to choose when you work and enables you to fit your work around your other responsibilities. The work itself could involve filling envelopes, assembling products or selling goods or services through your own website.
However, any products or services you are asked to sell are worthless and you won’t be able to sell them.
You have to pay money up front to register with the scheme, buy customer leads, set up your web site, buy products to sell on, or receive an instruction manual on how to run your business.
If you’re asked to assemble goods or fill envelopes, the fraudsters will find fault with your work and use it as a reason for not paying you.
Many of these schemes are straightforward pyramid schemes, where you will only earn money by introducing other people to it. For example: by selling them copies of the instruction manual.'
What's the point of Action Fraud warning about business opportunity fraud, when its been openly permitted in Britain?
DeleteAnonymous - Starting in the USA, what the authorities in almost every country have failed to grasp, is that by failing/refusing to identify accurately the Big 'MLM' Lie, they have effectively authorized fraud. Whilst this situation persists, the Action Fraud page which attempts to identify Business Opportunity fraud, is pretty pointless.
Delete