I see that the unmasked 'Amway' Lord Haw Haw, Mr. 'IBOFB'Steadson, has descended to a level of puerile abuse previously occupied on your Blog by the (now-banned) Mr. Scott 'Tex' Johnson. Not only is the poor little lad incapable of performing simple mental arithmetic, he also still cannot comprehend plain English or recognize heavy irony.After all, the heavily ironic title of my previous post was: 'Customers? What customers?'
Perhaps we should explain to the intellectually-challenged Mr. Steadson that it is an ironic use of English to say that, in the UK (in 1999), the half million so-called 'Direct Sellers'had just 48 households each as 'potential, lawful, retail customers.'Since 1973 (when the 'Amway Business Opportunity' myth first infected the UK) virtually no banal, but over-priced,'Amway' wampum has been sold for a net-profit in the UK to persons who were not transient, insolvent contractees of the organization. Given this fact, what difference does it make what the banal, but over-priced, 'Amway' wampum comprised? Bottles of fresh air, could have served the same illegal purpose. In reality, 'Amway' adherents, like the majority of so-called 'Direct Sellers,' have peddled essentially the same endless-chain, counterfeit 'Business Opportunity.'The banal, but over-priced, wampum was there merely to dissimulate this ugly truth and to dodge all less-than-intellectually-rigorous investigation and regulation. The half-million so-called 'Direct Sellers' in the UK (in 1999) had just 48 households each as prospective victims for essentially the same, self-perpetuating, closed-market swindle, not lawful retail customers for diverse products and services.
Amazingly, for an adult who regularly presents himself as fictional masked-pirate whose real identity keeps changing, Mr. Steadson (and his invisible associates) expect your free-thinking readers to accept his masked character's self-proclaimed moral and intellectual authority in all matters(including English law), and without question. Notice how he quotes only part of what I have said, and then pretends thatI am pretending to quote an English law which does not exist, when I clearly state that:
'In theory, in order to earn money lawfully in the UK, the participants in any so-called 'Direct Selling/Marketing scheme' have regularly to retail products (for a net-profit), and/or services (for a net-profit), to a significant number of persons who are not participants in the scheme.Therefore, any so-called 'MLM Business Opportunity' (no matter how it is presented externally) where the overwhelming majority of the participants have remained insolvent, because they did not regularly retail to significant numbers of outsiders (for a net-profit), but instead were obliged regularly to buy effectively-unsaleable products, and/or services, and to find others to do the same (on the pretext that 'the Exact Duplication of a Proven Plan of self-consumption and recruitment can enable anyone to achieve Total Financial Freedom'), is a dissimulated closed-market swindle.'
Mr. Steadson then goes on to post a link to a less-than-intellectually-rigorous loophole of UK Trading Schemes Regulations which appears to allow the perpetration of closed-market swindles, provided these are dissimulated by arbitrarily defining the illegal internal payments of their endless-chains of victims as 'sales and consumption'
What Mr. Steadson has conveniently ignored, is that it is a principle of English Common Law that lying to someone in order to take his/her money is fraud, which is a form of theft.
The billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob, and their many copy-cats, have sustained a vast blame-the-victim 'Business Opportunity' fraud which has been maliciously designed to repress all dissent and to dodge all less-than-intellectually-rigorous investigation and regulation around the world.