SCAM BUSINESS.
WARNING ABOUT THE INSTITUTE OF MODELLING (IOM) 21st October
The IOM sprung up about 6 months ago, quickly befriending Kerri on Facebook and actively promoting the Academy and our Model Tutorial Days to raise their own profile in the industry. Sadly a turn of events this month has led to several studios and professional photographers throughout the UK rallying together to collect information on the IOM who we feel are breaking a lot of rules not only in the modelling industry but also laws as well.
We have been investigating them for the last few weeks and have found some disturbing facts. There is so much we have found out about them we thought it best to present each case in turn, the following are extracts from over ten industry professionals and what they have found out. This information was provided to us by a top studio who came under scrunity by IOM when they queried their practices:
1: Their name violates company law - Institute of Modeling is not legally allowed to call itself such in the UK. It's a violation of company law and has been reported to Companies House for doing so.
2. Their partners have not heard of them - The Institute of Modeling claims to be partners with BRE, Time for Change and Change for LIfe. None of these are partners with IOM.
3. They use virtual offices for lack of a real address - IOM's 'head office' and 'US office' are PO Box numbers, not physical or staffed addresses.
4. Training partners - IOM's 'Training Partners' are, as far as I know, not aware of their 'partnership'.
5. Qualified gardeners running the show - To our knowledge, the employee (s) of IOM have no formal experience in the photography, modelling, publishing or legal businesses. The director Rob Skinner is an accountant and according to one of his own former directors - an ex landscape gardener. Can a gardener really advise you on how to become a model?!
6. Their investigations - IOM is not able to provide, when asked, for any formal processes pertaining to the 'investigation' process, nor does it offer any indication of who is sitting in 'judgement' of cases nor offer any right of reply to any accused (eg Equity do just this).
Today we discovered that many of the models on the IOM website did not create their own profiles! When one of the models posted on Stuart Westons facebook asking why he said it was set up using a code from the KPA (us) however we have never given out codes to our members as we have never promoted IOM. He has also said in private messages to models that it must have been set up by the KPA. IOM boosts 3500 models on its website yet only has 400 Facebook friends.
On seeing this post on Facebook Kerri replied that she has never set up any accounts on their website or promoted them to her girls with codes and asked for immediate removal of her profile from the website under recent Twitter updates from IOM. Yesterday Rob Skinner on IOM Twitted boosting about his hacking skills in a post aimed at the Academy. After this was pointed out to Stuart on Facebook he quickly blocked her. Kerri then posted to her members and friends she feels the IOM are commiting fraud by setting up models profiles - and the Academy was quickly labelled a scam by the IOM website! Luckily we saw this coming and so gathered everything we could against them
7. Models on the IOM website know nothing of being on there! We took the liberty of contacting many members of the IOM website, this is what one had to say (we have blanked out her name for her protection but have screen grabbed the messages for our solicitors)
"A*************** 21 October at 19:03 Report
OH no. I didn't have any idea. thank you for telling me. I'm not entirely sure what to do about this.. "
Academy photographer Kirsty also found herself on the IOM website with stats not reflective of hers! It would appear they stole her images to set up the profile to boast higher model numbers than they already have.
These were listed as live profiles of models which could be contacted through IOM.
Academy investigators also reported:
''2 more girls from Australia just confirmed they knew nothing about it! ''
We still have a lot of members to contact to see whether they know they are up on the IOM website as a model. Advisors to us have informed us that this is a case of misrepresentation and fraud and so we have passed it onto the proper authorities.
A top studio helping with the investigations reported: ''Just has a mail from one of the models on there that I know - she seems to remember getting an email from them a long time ago, but didn't set the profile up herself.'' he then also reported ''J******* is someone on your books Kerri - and she has a profile on IOM that she didn't put up there herself. I have asked her to keep it to herself right now. It looks on the surface that Rob Skinner just took the lists off some people straight from your site Kerri.''
A top photographer also stated: ''I suspected he was just adding people- he claimed at one time on the website that he had something like 3500 members and growing all the time. I pointed out on a forum (Purestorm I think) that at £25 per time, then he should be registered f... or VAT purposes- even if a good portion of these are from abroad and the VAT number should be displayed on his web page. Almost immediately tis figure was taken down from the IOM website. If you look at most of the entries for "scouts, they are "non-compliant", which makes me think that they haven't asked to be on there.''
We expect even more models to come forward to say they have been illegally added to his website! When one model questioned why she was on there they blamed the Academy for setting her profile up however the Academy has no admin powers on the IOM site we are not in any way associated with them! See point above.
8: Exposing legitamate people as scam artists - Rob exposed UK Beauties as a scam - run by a good friend of Kerri's called Hannah, a young mum who has won international pageants, Rob exposed her as a scam on his website because she has not filed her tax returns on time and because he could not get hold of her! Hardly breaking the law was she?! Other complaints we have received:
''I've had Rob publicily announce i was being investigated for being unprofessional, he did this on the nuts magazine website in their forums, luckily i saw this and straight away replied to his comments saying i was going to contact a solicitor for legal advice as i believed it to be slanderous, his response was 'go on then' but the post was very soon deleted...
He does seem to be very supported on the nuts forums though, after speaking with Keith (the editor in cheif of the mag) he has informed me that although the site hosts the forums they do not run or police them... so anything said on their is not as it would seem and agreed by Nuts magazine, the do not as it would seem support Rob or the IOM as the forums would let you believe..''
(NB We have informed our friends at Nuts magazine about him using their forums for his own motives)
Another photographer stated:
''I've had the pleasure of Rob trying to "track me down" for daring to question the accuracy of his website.'' This is the same case we have heard from two other studio's - anyone who does not agree with Rob is labelled a scam.
One studio said Rob informed him he was not allowed to run a studio offering portfolio shoots as well as being an agency as this is not ethical however he actively promotes other studios (friends of his) who sell portfolio shoots and work as agencies - these are fine!
Complaints about his actual website advice include: ''his website states not to pay for a portfolio but to use TFP instead and work with the good the bad and the ugly - how is that helpful? Surely you only want to be working with the good lol otherwise the bad and the ugly could take crap shots that could ruin your career/ and or molest you! '' Which is a very good point! Clearly the IOM know nothing of the industry and the value of a decent photographer and portfolio.
Rob has also scared some photographers as seen in this complaint: ''I actually scrapped my plans to run an agency because I did not want the crap from him.''
Another photographer said of Rob: 'So long as an agency- like any other business- complies with the law, then it should be free from harrassment, threats or inuendo. If they don't they should be reported to the proper authorities to be dealt with, not by the lone ranger and his posse of tonto's.''
One studio stated: ''And there was another folio company who got labelled as 'dangerous' and 'scammers' after one disgruntled customer went around posting nasty messages on all the forums that she could manage. She got to IOM, posted a complaint, and the 'judgement' was made.''
They were amazed, took legal advice - the judgement disappeared.
9. He warns of crimes he himself commits - ''on his thread about scammers beware he says beware of companies offering free tax advice to models - then at the bottom says the IOM offers free accountancy advice to all its members'' It seems one rule for him and one for another.
He boosts of being data protected for his members however the 'Tweets' that he has hacked accounts to read messages (we believe this was aimed at Kerri as her facebook was hacked that day, and the comment referring to the 'stupid bitch' seems likely aimed at her! The messages involved were teams of professionals discussing how to expose his actions. When Kerri refers to not trusting him with her data as a member because of his 'hacking skills' she is quickly blocked on Facebook and labelled a scam!
10: He insists for recommendations from certified companies yet lists not traders - On Rob's facebook he asked for a studio to have at least 3 recommendations from models having shot there to be listed on the IOM website - however when Kerri pointed out that one of the studio's he listed was not being opened until December he had nothing to say. Rob appears to actively promote those who he considers friends whilst policing everyone else and exposing them as scams. However he has no authority to be policing anyone - and luckily he were policing him!
Although he asks for recommendations as it is 'IOM policy' one studio had this to say: ''He also added my studio without my knowledge, but seemed to take it off again when I reminded him about his promise to meet me which he kept cancelling.''
11: He has already tried and failed - Basement Models another company Rob tried to set up in the industry had no success.
12: If he polices everyone who polices him? - Simple - we do, and we have, and we have reported everything to the appropriate authorities. One complaint stated: ''This is the problem with IOM- who checks them? Who makes sure what they do is legit? WHo makes sure what they say is true? Scary stuff! ''
13: He keeps well out of the spotlight - With only a web presence and no actual offices, cancelling meetings with studios and professional photographers we believe he then created this 'Stuart Weston' to avoid our questions. His personal facebook has no mention of his dealings with the IOM - we wonder if he stays out of the spotlight is because of interregation of his practices. It seems no one has ever met him yet he boosts over ten years experience in the model industry?!
14: His own legal disclaimers are not even the correct law proving he does not get legal advice before posting such remarks - maybe people like Rob consider themselves above it?! -
On the IOM website there is a Q&A section where either someone has tried to sue him (we believe many have threatened) or he is protecting himself. His statement to a question that someone is suing him:
''we thought rather than posting individual replies to all the bogus agencies that are being exposed, we would post a blanket response to your enquiries.
Firstly, yes anyone has the right to take The Institute of Modeling to court for Libel (for us writing/publishing), or slander (verbally). However, please be aware of the following;
1) You must prove; the item has been seen by more people than just yourself
2) You must prove it was about you. Many of our tip/hints and warnings are 'general' - although guilty consciences often see it directly.
3) You must prove it has damaged your reputation and / or income (if you're claiming losses)
Secondly, even if you have proved the above, you must also;
1) Prove the statement / article is untrue. We only publish information about facts. We always have more than six complaints before we write a 'warning' or if asked to do so by the police / legal departments.
2) Prove that no permission was given by yourselves or representatives to initially publish the document/article.
We do not publish incorrect or untrue articles and believe fully in the freedom of speech / press. We welcome you posting blogs/articles to tell everyone that we nasty people that post untrue comments - for us slander will only increase our profile. We have removed names of our complainants from the website following harassment and intimidation from fraudsters.''
We sent this to our Academy solicitor who wrote to Rob (receiving no reply of course) Godfrey Morgans email to Rob stated:
''We have had the opportunity of viewing your website with some interest and we note the bastardisation of the requirements for defamation.
You should be aware that for defamation action it is for the maker of the statement to prove that the statement is true, not for the “victim” to prove that the statement is incorrect.
As you will appreciate your statement is an inversion of the norm and therefore in your case it would be for you to prove that what you say is actually correct, and in the absence of such ability to prove the same you would be liable for damages.
You might like to think about amending your website.''
15: He talks of scams which are big but does not expose them - preferring to 'bully' smaller companies and random people on Facebook (well until he tried messing with the Academy that is!) In private messages Rob has warned Kerri that The London School of Modelling and Alba Models were running scams, to which she did not hold the knowledge of. Rob stated he had spent ages collecting facts about them - yet he has not exposed them!
We have no knowledge of either company commiting a scam however Rob thoroughly believed they were and yet says nothing. Thus we come to the conclusion that he only takes on the smaller companies or individuals who he knows he can bully and do not have the money and power to sue and discredit him as the London School of Modelling and Alba Models likely do.
All of his scam warnings are mainly facebook individuals where someone is saying they are from a magazine. Also many people have commented that every time the Academy exposed a scam he would comment ''yes we have also had complaints'' yet seems to have done nothing. His website also has a section for hearings about cases - however there have never been any. We presume he is also taking on the role as county court judge as well as model police!
16: They breach copyright - They do not make it clear that when a member uploads an image it then becomes their property to use on their homepage - hence many of the Academy images and even pics of Kerri have been used on the IOM homepage to promote their services! No copyright agreement has been issued by the Academy for them to do this.
We will add more evidence about IOM as it becomes available - everything about this company has rung alarm bells from the start. Kerri has been in the industry for 8 years as a full time model, yet they come instantly on the scene boasting of 3500 members nationwide straight away as soon as their website launches! If you have your own comments or concerns please get in touch - we know IOM have exposed a lot of innocent parties.
17: They talk the talk - Using fancy latin phrases and quoting legislation it is easy to believe they know what they are talking about. However Kathleen Parker (Kerri's mum and Academy manager) spoke to Rob about a govenment issue where she said she had spoken to the 'DFS' where Rob thoroughly agreed with her. Little did he know we were yanking his chain to see how clever he actually was. DFS is a furniture company not a government body. Sorry Rob but it did have us all giggling for a very long time!
They also make claims which do not surface - the ''you're fit and you know it campaign'' with posters in every campus this summer, yet this never materialised. The discounts on plastic surgery for models (should you really be offering discounted surgery?!! Hardly ethical) which also never materialised. Many of their promises have never materialised.
IOM's claims against the Academy
Since Kerri chose to expose their practices IOM have responded by calling the Academy a scam on their website in the scams and warnings section (exactly what we were anticipating and the reason we gathered all the above information and have already sent legal warnings to them from our solictors Godfrey Morgan in Norwich.)
Their claims on the website are ludicrous and so we felt the opportunity was needed to reply to them - our replies are shown in bold:
''We have received a number of complaints about the conduct of the Kerri Parker Academy and its owner. Despite attempts to contact the individual direct, we have not received any response. The owners of the academy have been unwilling to respond to accusations.''
Iom often states it receives complaints yet none are ever listed, there is never any evidence, we feel it is just Rob making things up and many people agree. Their claims they tried to get hold of its owner - Kerri are so laughable on the grounds that she spoke to Stuart on Facebook about an hour before Rob lists them as a scam on the IOM website!
Kerri asked why he felt the need to hack his members accounts and then Tweet about it on Twitter (publicly on his wall) to which he quickly blocked her so he would not have to reply to her accusations.
There is just one owner of the Academy which is Kerri - Rob did not even accuse Kerri or ask her for her opinions - he simply put the KPA up as a scam on his website which we were anticipating! So their claims that the owner has been unwilling is a lie - he never even bothered to contact her! Kerri's inbox shows no emails from Rob or his other username Stuart.
''One such complaint (received directly by nuts magazine);"I'm from Kerri Parker's Model Academy who are actually doing a nuts shoot today."Pete Cashmore: Really? That's the first we've heard about it! I think what you mean is that they are doing a shoot which will be submitted to Nuts for our consideration - a HUGE difference.''
We have emailed Nuts to ask them if Pete knows he is being used to accuse Kerri as a scam. The Academy's contact at Nuts is Rich Pelley who deals with the Real Girls features. Rich has many times in the past organised shoots with Kerri for Real Girls Real Places and Club Strip. Over 20 models from the Academy have been used at these shoots as organised by Kerri for Rich, in Norwich, London and Manchester locations.
We have mentioned to Rich this is the case and await his reponse. Kerri receives no credit or pay for organising these shoots with Rich - which take up a lot of her time - she does it out of kindness for the Academy girls and as a favour to Nuts man Rich who she enjoys working with.
''As for this part - "if you want to shoot direct with the magazine make sure you see how to apply inside the Academy now! x" - the way to apply for this is clearly stated on the Nuts Boards. Kerri isn`t offering anything special via the academy.''
As mentioned Kerri organises these shoots with Rich which have used up to ten girls at a time, we have had 4 castings with Nuts so far over the last year for the Club Strip which Kerri has organised, Rich also requests models from time to time for other real girl features. Again Kerri gets no pay or credit however still sets these up for Nuts using the Academy girls. Girls can apply for features on the Nuts forum, or from the magazine directly but Kerri sets these up for the Academy girls with Rich to ensure the pics get sent directly to be seen first!
''After discussions with various other people the KPA is suing for no legal reason we have been blocked from Facebook and Twitter whilst the individual attempt to smear the name of the Institute of Modeling. Although we have no reason to suspect any physical scams; should you be undertaking any competitions run by the Kerri Parker Academy in association with brands and magazines, make sure its an actual model competition and not just a ‘bedroom babes’ style shoot that any amateur can submit their home taken pictures to.''
Actually IOM blocked Kerri before she could respond about how Rob hacked a members account, she then posted how models had complained their profiles had been used without permission. We have made no attempt to smear the name of the IOM until they labelled the KPA as a scam so we have been forced to publish the FACTS!
Exactly - they have no physical evidence to suspect any physical scams! That is because Kerri puts her heart and soul into helping every Academy girl, never takes a day off, and always offers them as much as she physically can for as little as she physically can!
They have no reason to label the KPA as a scam other than the fact Kerri did not agree with their practices. Also the Academy does not run bedroom babes style competitions - it runs national, established modelling competitions such as The Model of the Year as featured many times on the BBC.
We believe there have been no complaints - their 400 facebook friends are mostly Academy members and their status's get no interest to the point they have to like them themselves as no one else pays any attention. We believe this is a dig at Kerri with as much evidence as the rest of their claims against individuals have had.
Robs attempts to previous discredit the Academy: We feel that by trying to expose UK Beauties as a scam this was a dig at the Academy, as in messages Rob asks Kerri for the list of directors of the pageants to which she did not give them to him (as its none of his damn business which pageants we supply!) However when we said we supply Miss Friendship International he agreed saying this was a good pageant, but continued to then expose Hannah the owner of UK Beauties as a scam to try and discredit us! It did not work when our models returned from China having had the time of their lives and the opportunity of a lifetime!
So then Rob made a dig about 'model tutorial days' on his scams and warnings section of IOM which caused uproar from the Academy, our girls, and of course the many photographers and studios we are partnered with on our nationwide model tutorial days. The points he made lacked validity and were absurd and he was quick to state it was not aimed at us but all days in general - despite us being the only company calling our days model tutorial days.
His claims made no difference to us - with events sold out almost up until christmas his petty remarks cannot damage a brand as strong as what Kerri has developed nationally with her events!
What we encourage our models and members to do next
We highly recommend that you check the IOM website to check your own details - images, stats, email etc have not been duplicated into a profile, and if they have to report them to trading standards, and to [email protected]
We recommend if you do have a profile to get it removed as they have clearly shown breaches of data protection from their 'hacking' Tweets and these have been reported to the appropriate authories and govenerning bodies.
We believe the IOM was only set up to increase Robs database to push accountancy services on - his primary job. We have people looking into his background as an accountant at present times as well.
Kerri strongly feels that the IOM has tried to con her (despite her being a member!) through the use of another member - and the Academys solicitors are currently in the process of suing said member and sent warnings to Rob as well.
A top studio said this about the IOM:
''Whilst the industry need to protect vulnerable model from the scams and perverts, I think people like the reputable studio owners and people like Kerri do a much better job than some guy who has never had any experience with the world of photographic modelling other than doing a couple of model's accounts and is running a phoney Institute and charging £25 a year to join. Sorry but all the institutes I belong to I have either had to have a degree or go through the mill with portfolios of images.''
We are now gathering quotes from people who want to put their name to the case in exposing IOMs practices, these will be added and published shortly. Many industry professionals have backed our case to expose them for the greater good of the modelling industry.
What the professionals had to say about the IOM:
We have found a long list of people with complaints about the IOM - with some mentioned above. Sadly many do not wish to be named because they have seen the IOM expose anyone as a scam who does not agree with them, or dare question them. However many professional photographers and studios have seen the bullying tactics IOM use and are willing to make a stand against them for what they believe in.
We will be posting their statements over the next couple of days. As we believe at the Academy - that you must stand up for what you believe in and follow Kerri's fine example of never letting anyone threaten you or bully you into not doing what you feel is right. Of course please expect every one of these individuals to be investigated and exposed as a scam by the IOM in due course!
A statement from Kathleen Parker - appointed Academy manager:
''IOM advised Kerri on a business matter which would have resulted in them being the only party that benefited if she had gone along with their suggestions. Since not taking that advice they have gone out of their way to inadvertently point the finger at the KPA and at the same time fully supporting the other party. I was insulted when I was lied to about the background of this advice when the other party posted on their website a statement saying how they had advised her in all matters legal in setting up her business, something which the IOM had said to me they had nothing to do with.
After Kerri's exposure of one of the academy girls having been set up on the IOM as a model showing statistics such as shoe size, weight, BMI etc when she actually knew nothing about it, I asked a few of the other models on the IOM site how they had found working with them and their replies were all the same- they didn’t even know the IOM existed and were devastated to know their details were being used, one even stated that she did topless and she wasn’t even a model!
With the facts now vastly showing the IOM to not be the kind of company I would wish to be involved in I can state now that I fully support Kerri and the KPA in this matter. Kathleen Parker - Academy Manager''
For the record Kathleen has had more checks, and government clearance from her previous jobs, than IOM can ever dream of, is also a governor, and high standing member of the community.
A statement from Layla Randle - Conde - professional model:
''As an experienced model, I couldn't believe my eyes when I stumbled across the IOM website.
I found them via a random add to my Facebook page. When I checked out their page I saw that they were encouraging models to 'name and shame, ' individuals for being 'perverts' on their page. This immediately rang alarm bells, so I checked out their website.
I found references to 'investigations' and 'hearings', but no actual details, case studies or facts to support these very stern-sounding procedures.
It seems the IOM are very good at 'Donutting' - political slang for loosely associating yourself with people and events that have nothing to do with you, in order to influence others and further your own career.
The two individuals prosecuted for posing as photographers to assault women I believe are genuine, but nothing to do with the IOM.
The three very famous women that appeared prominently on the homepage (I haven't checked if they are still there, two models and one actress) are nothing to do with the IOM.
Other evidence seems to suggest that 'partners' and 'government bodies' mentioned on the website, are again nothing to do with the IOM.
I feel that some of the advice given by the IOM is damaging to the industry as a whole. Models have been advised not to pay for professional portfolios as a matter of principle, and encouraged to 'bid' for work.
Reducing the amount of money circulating within an industry is damaging enough, especially in the current climate. But encouraging models to bid for work by lowering their fees or even worse, compromising their levels is in my opinion, deeply irresponsible.
Finally, on a personal level I believe that the key to model safety is transparancy and communication. Any organisation that attempts to protect a group of people should be encouraging them to communicate with each other. I am deeply suspicious of an organisation that scare-mongers with lurid tales while borrowing kudos from established bodies that it is not connected with in any way''
A statement from Mike Parsons professional photographer and ex director for IOM!
''As owner of Capture Moments Photography and a former Non-executive director of teh Institute of Modelling, I have been working with Kerri and the Academy for teh past 2 years. I have recommended her to several models and photographers and also chose to become a franchise partner in the model tutorial days.
During my stay at the Institute of modelling, Rob Skinner asked me on over half a dozen occasions to recruit Kerri to the institute. They also featured the academy as the training provider for a non existent qualification they were running.
They claim to work with the local government and yet Rob Skinner has openly admitted that the government will NEVER accredit them as the official body because Rob refuses to operate as a non profit organisation.
When a fellow director and myself decided to open up an agency in accordance with the IOM's guidelines, an alledged anonymous complaint was made claiming conflict of interest. Considering as the IOM wanted 5 agencies represented it should not have been an issue - however we were asked to resign. Curiously this was at the same time I questioned the methods and motives behind an investigation that was taken place. Rob refused to share the information with any other member of the Institute. He claims he is the co-founder of the institute and yet companies house only shows Rob as the sole director.
Several people have approached me about the institute of modelling and what goes on there. I have done my own research and have found that the London head office and New York offices are run by address forwarding companies - anyone can have them for a fee. The term institute cannot be used by them by law and it is currently under investigation by companies house.
I have worked personally with Kerri and have met with her in person. Rob refused to meet with ANY IOM member or director and will not answer the contact phone number. He claims he cannot contact people and yet No one has been able to get him on the telephone.
I fully support Kerri in this annoying time and am fully prepared to present my full evidence in a court of law. People like Rob Skinner and the Institute of Modelling are damaging the industry they claim to protect''
A statement from David Glover - professional photographer:
''I've had Rob publicly announce i was being investigated for being unprofessional, he did this on the nuts magazine website in their forums, luckily i saw this and straight away replied to his comments saying i was going to contact a solicitor for legal advice as i believed it to be slanderous, his response was 'go on then' but the post was very soon deleted...
He does seem to be very supported on the nuts forums though, after speaking with Keith (the editor in cheif of the mag) he has informed me that although the site hosts the forums they do not run or police them... so anything said on there is not as it would seem and agreed by Nuts magazine, they do not as it would seem support Rob or the IOM as the forums would let you believe..''
A statement from Saracen House Studio's:
''Saracen House Studio has been in discussions with Rob Skinner of Institute of Modeling since May following our concerns that they were encouraging 'anonymous' reporting of scam or dangerous companies or photographers/agents.
Whilst every legitimate business involved in our industry supports the discussion and warnings of certain bogus operators, such investigations can only be carried out via a process that is legitimate, experienced and open.
Our initial concerns surrounding the anonymous reporting process, and absence of any documented investigation procedure and governance, were quickly and rebuked at length by Mr Skinner in a public arena. Replying, constructively and at length, a equally lengthy, yes extremely abusive reply was sent by Mr Skinner questioning our legitimacy, implying that we were in some way involved in illegal activity and suggesting that, by asking pertinent questions about what IOM's policies were that we were somehow making libellous comments about his company.
Some time after this, we were approached once more by Mr Skinner on the premise that our owner would be made a Non Executive Director of IOM, to make a change to the industry from the inside. This offer was politely declined, instead offering a meeting with Mr Skinner to discuss his vision for the industry and to fully understand IOM's aims.
After several attempts and reminders about agreeing to this meeting Mr Skinner eventually said that he was too busy, quoting the first available date as early September (some six weeks hence). We accepted this date and declined paid studio bookings as a result of this booked appointment with Mr Skinner. Upon reminding Mr Skinner of our meeting on the day before, he claimed to have sent us a "letter", (despite only communicating previously via FaceBook email) cancelling our meeting, citing the opening of his new offices in London and New York as taking up too much of his time.
We have learned that IOM does not have offices in London nor New York, with both of these addresses simply low-cost mail forwarding addresses similar to PO Box numbers.
Given that we have presented many opportunities for Rob Skinner to meet, discuss and explain the nature of his company, I feel that after much investigation we have reached the conclusion that IOM offers false promises of protection for those, both entering and experienced in the industry, which potentially expose the individuals to more risk of harm or wrong-doing than if IOM did not exist.
We remain wholly uncomfortable and unconvinced by the lack of procedure, governance and evidence of 'investigation' into persons or organisations that are cited as being 'scams or perverts' by the company, and we have seen evidence from several sources that those featuring as named 'scams' appear to be named after some sort of personal disagreement or single email complaint received.
We are also deeply concerned that IOM claims to be 'partners' with very well respected bodies, facilities and governmental departments and of Mr Skinner's own claims of experience in our industry which, after conducting our own investigations into both sets of claims, appear to be completely baseless.
As a company that has an established professional relationship with Kerri Parker and Kerri Parker Academy, we share a common goal in promoting good practice within our industry, highlighting the need for professionalism and openness and exposing those who seek to divide or deceive.''
0 comments