MNHQ - please can you clarify your policy on fraud?

[justanothernameagain]

THREAD ON GENERAL FRAUD - please do not delete.

If someone is accused of committing fraud via MN, by several MNers.
If said MNers have a load of evidence they would like to share with you.

Do you see it as your role to investigate and forward to the police?

Or do you just want to get the site "back to normal" and take a hands off approach?

@katemumsnet please can you clarify?

^Its also very difficult to nail down stuff that is in grey areas. Hypotheotcal case:
A woman could be separated from her husband. He then becomes terribly ill. She may not even live in the same house as her husband and may not ever see him, only ever seeing the children at a contact centre. She could document online a fantasy life of caring for the children and her husband and portray herself as the worried, frantic wife and mother who is desperate for support. She sets up a gofundme for a last, lifetime, memory holiday and to secure a future for 'the family'.
Legally I doubt that this would constitute fraud. It leaves a very nasty taste for those who contribute and then find out. But has she done anything illegal?^

This. ^

In @Iris65 example, the person tells you they're the bereaved spouse. That's because they are. And they can prove it. To you, mumsnet, the police and the whole world and can prove it with every document you need or want to see.They are exactly who they told you they were.

But they are deceiving by omission (in Iris' hypothetical example) and my reading of the fraud act is that that is enough to qualify

It's more like they set up a foundation and tell a story about helping poor deprived person have a holiday but the foundation page when you read what they are going to do with the money is written in such a way that they can use the money for any holiday, including one for themselves.

If HQ believe this person why are all his threads deleted?

[quote CoteDAzur]@KateMumsnet - "above and beyond' refers to a telephone conversation between a senior member of the team and that particular poster."

Jesus Christ.

So MNHQ declared you are reasonably sure that "David" is who he says he is because a number was called and there was a male voice on the other end who told you some stuff? [/quote]

Ah no, that's not actually what I said about the circumstances of either call, Cote. And I mention it partly to acknowledge that nothing is 100%.

(Also, it would be great if folks could have a look at Justine's post about MNHQ staff - we're really keen that the conversation stays polite.)

The problem is you read a thread, you think that looks dodgy but it's been on the site for several months. You assume a site as big as MN has someone who knows how to google. Then when a JG page appears and MNHQ's ONLY objection is it's in the wrong place to ask for donations and moves it to the correct place THAT is an endorsement, to go on to say they poster checks out is an endorsement and if HQ can't see that then I despair.
I didn't give any money because I only donate to proper charities and not many of them tbh but I can see how other posters would be reassured by such behaviour by MNHQ,

.

Will any of the threads be reinstated and locked for comments?, so MNers can show you their points? Maybe that would clear up a lot of the confusion and multiple threads. I doubt that will happen though.

In fairness, calling someone on the phone and speaking to them about a thread isn't typical MN policy.

Where this seems to have gone wrong is the movement of the thread to charities.

I don't think mumsnet can do that

But they should be able to read all th threads

Doubt it, I think they're all rocking in a corner drinking gin, muttering shut up, shut up, shut up.

Tough to prove fraud, because I am not sure a crime has actually been committed. The website allows the money to be spent as the bereaved spouse wishes. Donors should have read the Ts & Cs.

While, I believe this hasn't been Mnhq' finest hour, under U.K. Know your customer rules, the bereaved spouse in our example could have driven right up to Mnhq towers front door with their passport, and drivers license. They will have met them in person and got proof of ID. And yes, they check out as exactly who they say they are....the spouse.

So Mnhq go on the thread and say as far as we know, this person checks out. And they do check out....of course they do, because they're legally the spouse.

Bling. Agree.

It's the whole ofher mess that is odd. The fundraising and how that was done and other inconsistencies that were pointed out. Repeatedly.

And moving a crowd funding page to a charities noticeboard legitimised it.

TBF to MN they have acknowledged that.

The charities board - yes they have and I have thanked them for that

I'm not sure how much "checking" a website can actually do. At the end of the day we are all adults and we need to use our own discretion when deciding who and what to believe on an internet chat forum. Likewise when deciding who or what we donate to.

Well. Hopefully this particular website won't tell posters again that someone checks out and won't move a just giving crowd funding page to a charities notice board.

Amen Child x

So - just to be clear - since messages on other threads are now directing us to this one - does this mean we CAN discuss this matter freely on this thread ? And it won't be deleted?

JennyHolzersGhost

I think that you can discuss MN's general policy on fraud, crowdfunding etc on this thread where MNHQ will be able to answer questions, but nothing too specific.

I think part of the issue is that the way it was worded on the deleted thread made it sound like hq had checked the bloke and the whole thing out. That the whole shebang was legit

Which clearly no one can do or say.

Mnetters pointed that out - repeatedly -- and many threads were deleted.

I think the hq person who posted on hat thread to say the above and beyond was trying to bolster a position where they felt overwhelmed I think they might be quite new - hence putting the thread in Charities and posting to say he checked out.

But MNHQ representatives are themselves discussing details of the case in question - ?!

Also. I've been googling tonight and it's clear that until relatively recently just giving was a site for fundraising only for legit charities.

Which may have muddied the waters.

The irony is, in such a sad situation, if a parent said "I'm exhausted & grieving and as much as the advice & support is lovely, what I really need is a holiday or a few months of not having to pay my mortgage", I think lovely MNetters would gladly make a cash contribution. And all the drama and upset could be avoided.

I do think we need to move away from the specifics and onto generalities of how to prevent this occurring as far as possible.
We may never really get to the bottom of what went on, or at least not for some considerable time. Hopefully Mumnset are doing a lot more behind the scenes than they are able to reveal to us.
The key is to learn lessons both individually and as a forum