Wake
up call - for the media... Bogus Agencies? Actors
& Models... You have no rights!
Most journalists are not willing to tell you
the real truth...
Most adverts you see, by so called 'agencies',
offering immediate work, for actors, models
and extras - are nothing but a scam!
They just want to charge up-front fees...
All
they want is your money!
When will the media tell you
the real truth???
Governments since
1995 - think that you should be allowed to be open to every scam out there - if you want to be a performer
in the entertainments industry...
It is not illegal to offer work - that does not
actually exist in order to charge up-front fees...
According to statements by BIS
Employment Agency Standards:-
"There is no regulation in the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 that makes
it an offence for an employment agency to offer a work-seeker work that does not exist. If such behaviour was taking
place it is possible that the such offers were not being made by an "employment agency", as regulated by EAS,
and that the service was bogus and the person was purporting to operate as an employment agency." 1/08/2011
And...
"It is not within EAS' legal remit to deal with the issue of scams for photographic
portfolios." 9/09/2011
”EAS does not investigate allegations of obtaining money by false
pretences.” 7/02/2011
So
that is why the EAS ignore these scams?
There are more up-front
fee scams involving photography, than any other type of scam.
And...What does the government actually mean, by claiming
- that if an employment agency offers work - that does not exist - they may
not be an agency???
Then why allow
them to trade...
So it is perfectly legal
to claim work exists - when it does not?
Government have no
interest in photography scams? - So why
the bogus 30 day EAS cooling off period... Not a single prosecution since 1995...
What Planet are the Media
on???
Had
the 'media' blown the whistle before on this EAS government
department, thousands could have been protected!
"We do not
publish the detail of our investigations, or reveal information captured during an inspection, unless it leads to a public
prosecution or prohibition."
No up-front fee
prosecutions means no wrongdoing...?
---oo0oo---
Yet another Minister tricks news
media!
In November 2003 this EAS government department stated in their press release:
"Agencies
placing actors, models and extras no longer being allowed to charge upfront fees before they find them work;
"They'll
also mean that unscrupulous entertainment and model agencies can't charge young hopefuls a fee where they have no work
to offer.
"In the future, everyone who uses the services provided by agencies and employment
businesses can have greater confidence in them – both those companies that use them to supply staff as well as the agency
workers themselves."
Today (4 January 2012) the ASA highlighted
an advert published in 'The Stage', as being completely bogus. The advertiser 'Castingallstars', were exposed
- for never finding anyone a job, despite being in business since December 2008, three years ago.
The 'agency' were also found
to be operating from a rented 'desk' and did not even rent an office. The agency claimed to audition "extras,
walk-ons, actors, singers and dancers". But no one was. The only thing on offer to performers, was the chance (hard sell)
to pay 'up-front' fees, for photography. Even if you brought your own portfolio, the agency claimed they were not
to their standards, but of course the agency had their own photographers...
It will come as no surprise to 'The Stage' readership, that the agency website has
now disappeared. Who was running the agency? Well without agency licensing, we will never know. No doubt they will set up
another agency and place further advertisements. A complaint was made to BIS EAS in July, but of course the EAS never replied.
Strangely, the ASA would not uphold my complaint regarding
the charging of up-front fees. They did initially. This is what I wrote back to the ASA: -
Further to my call to you today, I have now been able to read your latest
draft adjudication:
3. Not upheld We noted that the complainant
had forwarded us correspondence from someone who attended the interviews and was asked to pay for photography services, even
though she had brought her own professional photographs. We also noted that Castingallstars.com said they did not charge any
fees for attending the interviews or joining the database. We also noted that they recommended the services of other clients,
but maintained these services were optional. Because we understood that Castingallstars.com did not charge up-front fees for
attending the interviews we concluded that the ad was not misleading on this point.
You have explained to me that this was changed from:
3. Upheld We noted that the complainant had forwarded us correspondence from someone who attended
the interviews and was asked to pay for photography services, even though she had brought her own professional photographs.
We noted from their response that Castingallstars.com would only accept photographs of a certain type/quality for inclusion
on their website and database. We considered that many of the respondents would be asked to take out photography services,
either with a client recommended by Castingallstars.com or elsewhere. We therefore considered that for a significant number
of respondents a financial outlay was likely to be necessary for inclusion in the advertiser's database. We considered
that this should have been mentioned in the ad. Because it was not we concluded that the ad had omitted material information
and was therefore misleading. On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
You told me that although Castingallstars
had not provided any further evidence, you the ASA have now decided, for no obvious reason, to change it from upheld
- to not upheld. The evidence I presented has not changed either.
As far as I am aware there is no legal distinction (limit) of what constitutes as an “upfront
fee”. I have asked for the EAS to define such a legal term, but so far it has refused to do so.
My opinion, is that any fee an agency charges applicants, prior to getting paid work, constitutes
- as an up-front fee, if it is through the agency or recommended through a third party, connected to that agency – in
some form. Quite often I find that those running the agency, also run the firm of photographers. Therefore they are connected.
Performers, as I have clearly shown, are just as likely to be scammed
now, as they were before - the three sets of EAS legislation purportedly banning up-front fees.
'Performers' deserve better...
---ooOoo---
Conservatives
Biggest Mistake!
Was removing Agency Licensing in 1995...
"There is a scam for everybody. It doesn't
matter who you are, where you are, where you live. The conman have custom built a scheme to get your cash. The question is,
how do you recognise it and how do you avoid it? Well that's where a bit of inside knowledge can be a very valuable thing..."
(Matt Allwright BBC1 'You've Been Scammed' 18 November 2011)
What
have we got government departments for, such as Trading Standards, Employment Agency Standards and Office of Fair Trading?
Are they merely figureheads - but do nothing!
When
was the last time (any time) the BBC actually castigated government
- that put in up-front fee regulations - that had absolutely
no effect?
NEVER!
Nobody is willing to tell the REAL
truth, not even the BBC. When will this change...
---ooOoo---
---ooOoo---
Previous Minister, Patrick McFadden, stated on the BBC Radio 4
Today programme on 29 January 2008:
"Enforcement is not just
about prosecution, but getting people to abide by the law," he said. "But where there is persistent offences, we
will prosecute."
What utter rubbish...!
Scam agencies do NOT abide by the law; why should they; there are NO penalties in
place to stop them...
Mark Prisk Shadow Minister, on 31
May 07, interviewed 6 members of the public who came from all over the country, regarding being victims of up-front
fee scams by bogus model and extras agencies. This was the closing date for (BERR) Employment
Agency Standards latest
consultation; but we have had so many...
On 4th June 07, an early day motion (EDM) was
put to the House of Commons by Mark Prisk regarding the fact that the BERR EAS still
refuse to take a single prosecution, despite the promise made by Gerry Sutcliffe to Parliament, in May last year to:
“Stamp It Out!”
EDM 1598
Fraudulent Up Front Fees!
That this House notes that thousands of young aspiring actors and models are being defrauded by unscrupulous agencies
who charge unwarranted up-front fees; further notes that the vast majority receive no work in return; recalls the promise
made by the Government in May 2006 that it would stamp out this practice; is concerned to note that not a single prosecution
has since been made; and calls on the Government to now prosecute rogue agencies and to close the legal loophole which allows
this fraudulent activity to continue in the entertainment industry.
“Recent changes in the law
will have a significant impact on the abuse that occurs in the sector,” said the spokesperson. We have put safeguards
in place that ensure that workers in the entertainment sector are adequately protected from the attention of rogue agencies
whilst still having the opportunity to look for work. We do not think a licensing regime is appropriate for this sector and
our priority is effective enforcement of the existing regulatory framework, not further licensing." Yet the two government
bans put in place in October 2010, do not work. The ban on charging up-front casting directory fees to models, is worthless.
Agents just have to say that their models will be offered none speaking acting roles - in order to circumvent this regulation.
The 30 day ban on charging portfolio/photography fees by agents is worthless too. The agent just sets up a separate photography
company, to circumvent this regulation.
Nothing has changed, so how can the government claim that there is adequate protection? Under the 'Freedom
Of Information Act' (FOI) I have now asked the government to substantiate these claims, by 28 April 2011.
Here we are in December, but a wall of silence,
despite agreeing to provide answers!
it will be interesting if they ever do try to substantiate
their bogus claims...
From 1st March 2011,
the Advertising Standards Authority
(ASA), took complaints about website claims. For the very first time we have the opportunity to ensure that acting/modelling
agency websites, tell the truth.
Until now agency websites could make any claim they wanted, to entice
applicants to pay up-front fees/portfolio fees. Employment Agency
Standards although responsible for the conduct of employment agencies has always refused to police
agency websites. I think we are finally starting to turn the corner - towards better standards.
Model Advice Ltd + Photographers = £1,500! Beware
of claims to give free independent Model Advice...
They
cannot give you independent model advice about your chances for
modelling. Their incentive is selling you a portfolio shoot etc - Not
impartial advice!
They advertise for staff that can demonstrate
the ability to close a sale where their role is 80% selling
- Not impartial advice!
Nothing is what it appears to be...
Beware of BBC giving wrong Advice!
'Model
Advice' and BBC are misleading
the public by claiming -
"Since
October 2010 it is actually illegal for an agency to charge any up-front fee".
It is not illegal!
When
the BBC production company 'Flame TV' were told they
had made bogus claims, they stated:
"The aim of our series was to raise awareness of a wide range of scams and in each
case offer as much basic advice as possible on how to recognise scams and avoid them. The nature of television means it's
not always possible to provide full, detailed advice and in the case of our 5 minute piece on modelling scams we were really
only able to look at them in quite a general way. However, as modelling scams are clearly a serious problem, we did feel it
was important to include them in the series. "Given the time constraints of the piece, our priority was to look
at some typical features of a modelling scam and to make the point that whilst there are regulations in relation to upfront
fees, it is still an unregulated industry. I appreciate you have some concerns over exact wording but we feel we did get these
key messages across and I would hope that it has made many more people aware that modelling scams are out there."
This was my reply:
“Even with your poor excuse, constraints of time…? What was
stated on your programme, “key message”, was completely and utterly bogus. There is no other word to use. The
‘key message’ is - that up-front fees have NOT been banned. I expect the ‘BBC’ to tell the truth,
don’t you? I will now print your lamentable excuse on my website. You are turning this important issue into farce!”
Guess
who made a complaint to the BBC and is still
awaiting a response!
It
would appear that the nature of 'BBC' television - is that they can make
it up as they go along...
The public don't
appear to deserve the (basic) truth?
BBC also mislead the public
by claiming that they have "spoken to some of the UK's leading authorities
(Model Advice) on fraud".
Yes 'Model Advice' charge up to £1,500 - They should know...
"These scam agencies will accept the model immediately
and promote a promise of paid work. They generally ask for an upfront fee to join the agency
and give you the promise of paid work under the condition that you purchase an expensive, and
often useless, modelling portfolio. So be wary and always check out the agency before you sign
with them."
If there were indeed "scam agencies" - Who exactly are they? Surely
they would face prosecution?
'Model
Advice' gives the impression that portfolios (makeovers) are expensive
and often useless?
However...
Those who have contacted me, have claimed that Model Advice Ltd charged
them £1,500 for photography/pictures/portfolios.
But, according to world famous modelling agency 'Storm'...
“Lots
of girls and boys want to get into modelling. Many are being exploited by unscrupulous people posing as bogus model agents.
On the false promise of a successful modelling career, girls as young as 15 are spending up to £500 on portfolios of
pictures that are useless.”
And...
"Do not pay for any
pictures"
And...
"Do
not believe anyone who tells you that you need a professional portfolio
to be considered by an agency. Natural shots without make-up are the best guides for us to decide as to your potential. Many
people have thrown away hundreds of pounds having useless pictures taken on false promises."
Who claim "launched in 2001"
but only registered on 23Aug11
UK Model
Advice Ltd, when asked to substantiate such a claim, told me that I had to prove
- they had not been in business for 10 years - Watch
this space...
You could
not make it up if
you tried!
If you are looking for good
government 'model advice' - you should contact "The Vulnerable Workers Team" in BIS - Or should you?
Well, the government will "work
with" almost anybody, it does not matter who
they are - they simply don't care!
'Zebra' changed their name! to
'Guava Talent Management'
After I got
the BBC to expose Chris Garner's scam!
Then they changed
their name again... to Replay Models!
Over 180 complaints so far, a
record number against an agency, in 12 years. But not one direct,
to BIS Employment Agency Standards'.
All were through my website.
Why did the BBC hide this
evidence showing that 'Zebra Collection' had fictitious
invoices, for £255 - given to every victim
claiming - they had paid it to 'The Light Rooms'
Why did the BBC hide the fact that Zebra Collection
had set up six bogus forums, saying how wonderful they were...
According to the Police, Trading Standards, Employment Agency Standards and the Office of Fair
Trading - It is not illegal to issue fictitious invoices - claiming they had paid them???
---ooOoo---
UK Models = Diesel Models + Blue Rooms + Fusion = £1,500
Tricksters on the Internet!
Watchdogs do NOT charge fees! Beware of those claiming to be an "Industry
Watchdog", yet want to charge you a fee...?
They will profit/offer/get you
to pay for:
Model Workshops - Competitions - Photographs - DVD's
Claiming by paying this money
- it will help you in your career?
BBC
'Watchdog' expose 'Growing Talent'!
There are many who promise to help you in the entertainments
industry - for a price, who do not deliver...
Growing Talent charged up to £1,235 - with the
promise of helping your career...
These
people prey on those with aspirations of being a model
or performer...
You can easily
be talked into attending a workshop or talent contest at a hotel,
such events are unlikely to help you get any work, so beware of those trying to help you, providing
you pay them £££'s
The
more convincing they sound, the more you have to be on your guard!
Erik Irving/Chandler's mob including
Siobhan Dwyer (calling herself Clair Pink) were in
Plymouth - at the Invicta Hotel LPL1 2PU on Sat
16 April & Sun 17 April for a Free Phototest Shot & Photograph (£399)
posing as an - 'employment agency'...
Talent
Search UK Ltd. Company No 07551416. Was registered at Companies House only on 3 March
2011. The (puppet) director shown is a Darren
Stephen Somerville (originally from Dungannon) trading from: TV Studio 105, 483 Green
Lane,London N13 4BS. On 4 March 2011 I had two concrete blocks thrown through my house
windows. On 5 March they were in Leeds...
Pout
Photography is run by Erik Irving he has put in his on/off partner/girlfriend Rebecca Moore to actually front it and she set up the website: www.poutimages.com Erik Irving has put in his assistant, Siobhan Dwyer to front
the hotel events by Talent Search UK. An awful lot of coincidences. Of course Erik
Irving will deny he is behind the scam. But, he was behind all the others, yet was never
a director of most of those companies...
The only company that Talent Search UK put you in touch with,
is Talent Management who also runs Models
Direct. According to the Advertising Standards Authority only one
agency is used...
Runway Models had charged £475
to put you in touch with - ModelModel.tv -
same people, who promise you a job,
but cannot give you the date
or send you any details of the job. The 'agency' was registered in the Virgin Islands and demanded an up-front
fee of £99!
I took the time to go and watch the proceedings
at this delegated legislation committee, in room 9 at the Palace of Westminster. I believe I was the only person from the
entertainments industry, who attended. What took place at this government debate, shocked me. Exactly 19 minutes, most
of which was taken up by speeches which had no relevance to the issues under discussion. This time round it was just a rubber
stamp job, where no real debate took place. A far cry from the previous statutory instrument debated in 2007, which MP Mark
Prisk attended. Shame!
Only one MP at this committee acknowledged my existence...
“I have a particular
concern. The Minister referred to the distinction in respect of acting and the fact that the outright ban will not apply to
that area. Clearly, there are hazy areas between acting and modelling that might cause some difficulty in definition. Could
the Minister say a little more about the definitions? How can we be sure clear distinctions will be drawn between acting and
modelling, in order to avoid future problems?”
And the reply:Mr Davey: (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills)
“-our concern was more whether, if we had extended
the ban to acting, we would have had a much greater problem with definitions distinguishing between extras and actors—there
are some difficult distinctions there. That is not why we did not apply the ban on up-front fees to actors; as I am sure the
hon. Gentleman is aware, the findings of the consultation were that there was less abuse in that sector, so it would have
been disproportionate to have a ban on the fees. However, the distinction from the past between modelling and acting in all
its different guises is not one with which the employment agency standards inspectorate has found a problem.”
There are two issues here: The first is that this government
department claims that it is difficult to differentiate between extras & actors, but that it is easy to differentiate
between models & extras. Is this true? if it is then what do they base this on? The second is that there is less
abuse in acting and extra sectors.This (so called) fact - now claimed by this government
department, has never been made public before, as far as I am aware, not even in the government published consultation report...
So, what proof have they to substantiate
this (bogus) claim? All the adverts I have seen, many refer to “Do you want to be a model or extra?” The
same agent represents both models & extras. Will these types of agencies be able to continue - to charge up-front fees?
Many of the agents who have represented me, have provided
me - with both photographic work and extra/walk-on work. Clearly the ban on model agencies charging a fee for entry into a
directory, is doomed to utter failure. Is this government department now telling me - that they were unaware - that agencies
offer both modelling and acting/extra work, at the same time? Is this yet another indication of the need for a BIS Select
Committee board of enquiry on what the EAS is doing/not doing. This is quickly turning into utter farce. I thought that Ministers
were there to scrutinise issues, was I wrong in this assumption?
No EAS Regulations - that are ever put into place, actually mean anything. There are no fines/penalties imposed
if agencies ignore them. The EAS have no powers to ensure refunds. You have to seek your own remedies.
We were deceived by Labour, will the Conservatives be any better? Well I certainly know that
BIS Minister Mark Prisk is up to speed on this issue - since 2007.
Government now claims that Employment
Agency Standards service is getting better, but there are
still no prosecutions or fines being imposed for wrong doing. Shame!
"One person with an intriguing insight into the workings of the agency is the broadcaster
Vanessa Feltz, who appeared on Celebrity Wife Swap with McGee and Daniels
in 2007.
She says: "Debbie represented herself as some sort of
business mogul, but during the entire week we devoted just 20 minutes to her agency.
"I saw no staff and it looked like a miserable website with
a few extremely ordinary people on it."
She adds: "I wasn't aware of a single phone call coming in
to the agency while I was there.
"I can't say whether it was a scam or not, but it wasn't a
hive of activity."
Bogus 'Escort' agencies do not provide work, neither do bogus 'Acting'
or 'Modelling' agencies. It is exactly the same
scam!
If the Gangmasters Licensing Authority
(GLA) covered such 'agencies', we could stop these scams
immediately.
It must be illegal - to charge 'workers'
up-front fees. If it was illegal, then we would not need to find - even more victims of such scams, in order to get a successful
prosecution...
