Monday, 13 July 2009

Amway de facto agents fabricate mystifying fiction

Our smug Mr. 'IBOFB' Steadson has played what he would have your readers believe is a genuine ace, but it actually turns out to be just another mystifying fiction fabricated by the de facto agents of the 'Amway' Ministry of Truth.
When you actually examine the detail of the UK judgement, you find that Judge Norris of the UK High Court accepted some pretty suspicious figures, and not from the actual victims of the 'Amway' swindle or from BERR accountants (who seized 'Amway UK's' accounts for 2006-2007), but from unnamed individuals working for the private accounting firm of KPMG.
The figures accepted by Norris record what KPMG employees defined as 'averaging material provided in reports compiled 2001-2004' .
However, in his judgement, Judge Norris first accepts that, according to all the quantifiable evidence recovered by BERR, 'Amway' products were so grossly over-priced and difficult to retail that 'Amway UK' was obliged to slash them by enormous margins in order to forestall immediate closure. He then goes on to state that KPMG reports revealed that, in fact, a whopping 91% of all persons involved in 'Amway UK' were found to be not even attempting to sell anything to anyone. The overwhelming majority (91% of agencies) were actually being obliged to self-consume on average around £1000 of products each per year.
So how come a learned High Court Judge then meekly accepted that a mere 9% of 'Amway' agents were miraculously managing to 'retail 40% of all purchases,' when even a ten year old child can tell that the products were of such deliberately banal quality, but exorbitantly priced, as to render them (effectively) unsaleable on the open market?
Not only that, but BERR lawyers even described certain 'Amway' agents as deluded. For if this miraculous minority core-group of unquestioning players of the 'Amway' game of make-believe are set aside as an unreliable source of information, we find that the instigators of the 'Amway' myth were, indeed, running (and occulting) a 100% closed-market in the UK for 35 years.
Judge Norris offers absolutely no explantion of how KPMG verified the information they were given by the miraculous 9% core-group in order to compile their reports, or exactly what was meant by 'all purchases.' Similarly, Judge Norris offers no explanation of exactly who contracted KPMG to compile their reports or who the individual authors were.
The lack of intellectual rigour applied by UK government lawyers in the presentation of what should have been an open and shut criminal case, beggars belief.
David Brear

No comments: