Don't be scammed like me

Hoof_Hearted

Just pleased I'm blessed with ugly kids, or "unconventionally pretty" as I should now call them. Only joking....

Hermia

hollydays wrote: »

Unfortunately when girls hear " you don't have to be conventionally pretty" , this probably just continues to feed this scam.

Very true. Unconventionally pretty models are still striking even if they are slightly odd looking. They are not plain Janes who blend into the wallpaper. Given that most teenage girls seem to underestimate how pretty they are, it always surprises me that there are girls who do delude themselves in this way.

I believe the Clothes Show is supposed to attract model scouts, although I expect a lot of girls go there for that reason.

PKPK_2

Hi,


You saw my post. Someone else contacted me recently as they were scammed too. Of I can help anyway I will try. PKPK

soolin

pogofish wrote: »

And we want to see your MSE accreditation to post!

You clearly agreed to the T&Cs on journalistic/commercial-interest/contact off-board posting as part of your signup, so please abide by them and get permission.

Until then, you are no better than a scammer/spammer yourself!

I agree, the idea of someone warning about scams and then totally ignoring MSE rules by posting without permission, really doesn't feel me with confidence.

soolin

PKPK wrote: »

Hi,


You saw my post. Someone else contacted me recently as they were scammed too. Of I can help anyway I will try. PKPK

I'd be careful trusting a alleged company that posts without permission when you've already lost money to another organisation.

Pollycat

soolin wrote: »

I agree, the idea of someone warning about scams and then totally ignoring MSE rules by posting without permission, really doesn't feel me with confidence.

Yes, especially when the post that pogofish quoted was removed and the poster - Modelling Scambusters - just posts something very similar again.

Modelling Scambusters should get approval to post from MSE.

LilElvis

Hitting that spam button.

Pollycat

LilElvis wrote: »

Hitting that spam button.

After the removal of 2 posts, let's hope that Modelling Scambusters will take the hint and get MSE's approval to post.

LilElvis

Modelling Scambusters investigative powers can't be that hot as he dredged up this old thread, but failed to spot the active one on the Praise Vent and Warnings board. :T

Julian_Franklin

I don't spend a lot of time adding to people's heart-felt threads, which (for reasons which escape my understanding) are responded to by people picking holes in their spelling, questioning the intelligence of various contributors, and generally getting in the way of the actual story/problem. For my part, I would ask that if you don't want to contribute to the solution, then you are only helping people that, through no skill of your own, didn't get you this time, but have hurt and upset a person who needs your help - not your dictionary, not your cries of derision. Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can hope for a better outcome than then one they were led to believe would, but upon cold, sober reflection, would think "oh dear, I’ve done a damn silly thing. What can I do? And now I have to face the look of my loved ones, of my own reflection, and somehow make up the loss of the money, and I cannot".
Please, can we just try to be a little compassionate here, and stop adding to the hurt and destruction perpetrated by really evil people - unless, of course, you prefer to be numbered among them?
To my friend in arms who complained of being scammed, I would be looking into any action that can be pursued in court, such as "Undue Influence", whereby a person exerted unreasonable influence to coerced you into doing something you ordinarily would not have done, or would not have done, had you been properly advised by an expert. It is often used in cases where (for example) a husband talks his wife into signing something such as a mortgage or a joint loan. She would not have signed it but for his overbearing influence. In a case such as this, where no promises are made of modelling work, but the threat that the photographs will be destroyed right there and then UNLESS you comply with an immediate answer, with no recourse to a cooling-off period, then it could be shown that you, and many others, presumably, were subjected to acting under extreme duress. Duress, by the way, is another legal doctrine which may be looked into.

I hope this is helpful and constructive advice.

I wish you and your family the very best of luck in getting this resolved to your satisfaction.