Autumnterm Really? Go back and read your 20+ posts to this thread. You’ve called me (and I quote) “mad”, “gullible” and “naive”. You also have implied I am ignorant and do not know the currency of a country I have visited multiple times. Finally you’ve suggested, on the basis of ZERO evidence, that I am a scammer myself. If I used my real name here that would not just be an insult, it would be defamatory.
Golly. I think courts might view that as a "bait and switch" rather than defamatory, given that you've courted attention about it on a public forum through your own choice.
Given that you are clearly wonderful, and that the most recent posts on this increasingly aggressive thread have encouraged us to simply give our money to near strangers as soon as they ask us too, despite the vote disagreeing with this entirely, and disregarding that showing photos of children or other suitable images is one of the most common tactics of scammers (of course this particular man isn't a scammer), and we are being discouraged from saying this, I fully expect my post to be reported as it does not agree with the increasingly pro giving away money narrative that has taken over the debate on this thread.
I think if you asked any police officer for their opinion, it would be entirely different to what is being advocated on this thread.
I mean really OP, if you want to give money to a Morrocan taxi driver and don't want advice about it, why post at all? The majority of the vote thinks it unreasonable and the post seems to have turned into insulting people and indicating that there is something wrong with them for being wary about giving their money to virtual strangers. I find it quite intimidating. I must admit I've thought twice about posting in case I am reported, and thats pretty sad, since mumsent is supposed to be a safe forum for this type of discussion which many of us might find helpful.
The link that Ratrick posted is actually an article summarising various research from different reporting agencies, none of which necessarily show the full picture (since its believed much of this type of fraud goes unreported) but even that article stated In contrast to Tessian’s research, over half (55%) of victims were women, with men accounting for 36 per cent of reports. An additional 8 per cent of reports were filed by people whose gender was unknown. Around 63 per cent of victims reported to Action Fraud are female and lose twice as much on average as men. That appears to support the generally held thinking behind advice that you would receive from anyone working in the police or legal sector that women are disproportionately targetted by scammers playing on their heartstrings to give them money while men are more prone to romance fraud through internet dating - so-called catfishing. Although we know from the Tinder Swindler etc that it affects everyone.
Why is that relevant? Because mumsnet has a majority female audience. It seems unusual to go to such an effort to argue against awareness of an issue that disproportionately affects women.
I also noticed that the OP's contact has come through a text message, and that is one of the contact methods not mentioned in the article that Ratrick linked to. Does that mean its safer for people other than the OP, who is very confident about what she is doing? Not necessarily. Its unusual.
I personally prefer giving to smaller charities, I don't like discussing it and its entirely my choice to do so. I'm a bit wary of larger charities although I accept that some have the reach that others don't. Even with smaller charities however I'd urge people to be wary. I researched a local charity recently (I won't give details) and although charities aren't required to give exact details of their directors' salaries, discovered that its director was paying himself more than £80k pa, which is around a quarter of the charity's income. It seems to fund a very nice lifestyle for him without the need to work anywhere near full time. So direct giving can in some cases be better, but in many cases it is part of an organised scam.
There is no way that any of us on this thread can tell with any certainty whether this is or is not a scam, which is why I'm really uncomfortable with the remarks made by some recent posters. I also think people are intimidated into posting because these posts are so different from the actual vote. Being aware that scammers exist and often use exactly these techniques is not "projecting someone's fear of the world". Its basic common sense. And its also basic common sense not to let anyone suggest there is something wrong with you because you choose not to give your money to anyone who asks you to.
Apologies for the lecture. Its something I have been involved in during my employment. I don't really want to get involved in arguments or suggestions about people's character and so on, or clever arguments trying to insinuate that I'm wrong.