This creep Rob Skinner used mu images on his site without my permission so be careful girls and read this -FACTS ABOUT THE INSTITUTE OF MODELING


Many industry professionals, studios, photographers and model advice websites have joined forces to expose the IOM for what they really are, and post the facts against them. Here the Academy has published everything discovered about the IOM and managing director Rob Skinner. We suggest you read it as well as statements from professionals at the bottom of the page and make your own mind up about this company.

Since Kerri exposed the IOM as a fraud, they have been quick to try and discredit her and falsely accuse her - listing the Academy in the scams and warnings section of their website and then stating ''Although we have no reason to suspect any physical scams'' . The IOM know we are the body protecting the models from scams and have nothing to comment about us.


Information that has been gathered about the IOM:


The name violates company law: Rob Skinners website WHOIS states the IOM is a Limited company, he also states he is the managing director of IOM on the Meet the Team pages, and calls himself the director in all correspondence. However IOM is not a limited company though Companies House and why not you ask? Why not register it? Because he is not legally allowed to call himself an Institute as he does not meet the criteria:

(In the United Kingdom the title 'Institute' is a protected word and companies or other organisations may only use that word if they are "organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing".[1] Furthermore, if a company is carrying on a business under a different name to the company name, that business name must comply with the Business Names Act. Use of the title 'Institute' requires approval from the Secretary of State. Failure to seek approval is a criminal offence.)

Therefore Rob is lying when he calls himself the Director of IOM and has been reported to Companies House and other authorities for calling himself an Institute when that is not the service he provides. He is however the director of various companies - including many dormant or failed ones such as Basement Models. Therefore Rob lists IOM as a trading name of:


Name & Registered Office:
MODEL AND FASHION INDUSTRY ALLIANCE LIMITED
97 CLARENDON STREET
LEAMINGTON SPA
WARWICKSHIRE
ENGLAND
CV32 4PF
Company No. 07082071

There is no evidence of this company, it appears on no searches and so we wonder why he hides under so many names? With many companies including Basement Models being registered at this address.


Their partners have not heard of them - According to Saracen House studio who investigated IOM after they did not agree with their practices - The Institute of Modeling claims to be partners with BRE, Time for Change and Change for LIfe. None of these are partners with IOM. Saracen House also reports their training partners had not heard of them at that time!


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. They do not list an actual office for their business.


Models on their website did not know they were on there - This is why we finally exposed the IOM, as we had over 30 complaints from models who did not know they were on his website. One of our photographers Kirsty Farrow found herself on there as a glamour model and raised the alarm, questioning IOM about this. On October 25th we discovered a 15 year old Academy model on the website, stating she was 17 and does glamour modelling which is illegal at her age!
On discovering this Kerri raised the alarm on Facebook, and IOM quickly removed her profile. The fact her profile was removed before we had even rung the model suggests she did not put up her profile, or consent to being on there so IOM removed it to protect themselves. Not before screen grabs were taken and sent to the police and trading standards by us though! We have kept every single complaint and name and their comments for our solicitors.

A professional 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 for 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 this 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.''


They have no experience of the model industry - Rob states he has ten years experience in the model industry however we cannot find evidence of this. He states he was a child model at the age of 13 but again we cannot find evidence of this and we are sure the industry has changed in the last 13 years as well even if he was. He states he has sat in meetings as an auditors assistant however we cannot find evidence of these agencies, or how that qualifies him to try and police the model industry and advise models in the way he does. His company Basement Models never took off and was quickly dissolved.


Rob Skinner lies about his work with agencies - In a statement to his own directors (his own brochure about the IOM) Rob states that he has worked with the following agencies: Noa Noa Models, Look Models, and O2 Models. We did our own investigations and Noa Noa Models and O2 models don't exist (nor ever have done looking at Google searches and company records - if they did they were not big enough to even have one search engine record!) One of our photographers Mike Parsons emailed Look Models who stated: ''he hasn't worked for us...Ever - Wolfgang Schwarz, CEO Look Models''.


Rob hides behind other names - When Rob Skinner changed his Facebook name to Stuart Weston (a breach of Facebook rules) declaring Stuart was to take over the account, everyone questioned it. We believe Stuart Weston does not exist and it was Robs way of avoiding interegation over his actions. There is no image under Meet the Team on IOM for Stuart, despite there being images of every other team member. Stuart keeps changing his story, from knowing Rob for 6 years, then 10, and has made countless posts for us to be convinced it is the same person. Rob also kept his personal Facebook page away from anything to do with the IOM's pages not even mentioning his involvement on there.


The IOM's rules change to suit themselves - When Kerri queried studio listings on the IOM website Rob stated you needed 3 model recommendations to be listed, yet he listed his friends studio which was not even opened yet. IOM seems to promote it's friends and accuse anyone they feel is in competition.


They expose 'scam artists' without evidence - 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! Hannah is now taking legal action against IOM for slander.
Other individuals suing IOM for slander include Mike Parsons, and of course - ourselves. Over the past few days IOM also exposed professional photographer David Glover for, as they put it on their Facebook status ''a guy we uncovered for indecently touching models!'' There has been no evidence of this, and is a matter for the police so we have reported IOM's claims of this to them.

However David shortly received a message from Rob stating that if David removes his comments about IOM being a scam - they will remove their comments about him touching models! Surely if they are the professional body, protecting models like they make out to be - they would not make this offer but instead take all evidence to the police? Thus proving their claims as lies to discredit anyone they feel. This is a serious allegation to make about someone in a professional position and has been dealth with accordingly.

Other individuals report that as soon as they threaten legal action - posts by Rob get taken down immediately without follow up. Saracen House Studio told us: ''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.''


Martyn Rayner at the Works Studio in Cambridge told us: ''I actually scrapped my plans to run an agency because I did not want the crap from him.'' Suggesting the way IOM have been bullying individuals and calling them a scam at every opportunity is preventing genuine industry professionals from setting up agencies which would benefit the industry as a whole.


They openly lie and make slanderous comments- Over the past few days they have repeated complained about the Academy and Kerri stating she deleted them from Twitter and Facebook pages. Kerri has not logged onto Twitter for months and Stuart Weston blocked her on Facebook for making public allegations on his wall as to why her models had not consented to the profiles on his website. Kerri has posted her blocked list showing no IOM members have been blocked to prove Stuarts lies - therefore what else does he lie about?! A lot it would appear.

They also state on their website about the Academy ''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.''

However Kerri actually wrote on Stuarts wall no more than ten minutes before when this went up on their website, after she publicly exposed them on her own Facebook wall. This shows Stuart blocked Kerri and then lied about trying to contact her. Kerri received no phone call or email despite Rob having her details. Therefore we set up our own page here responding to their accusations publicly for all to see.

IOM have also stated that Mike Parsons and Mike England - directors of theirs resigned, when in fact emailed evidence given to the Academy suggests otherwise. Mike Parsons is now seeking legal action against the IOM, who even put on their Facebook status that Mike was brain damaged after an illness which is a disgusting statement to make about anyone and has been reported to the disability equality scheme.


Rob warns of crimes he himself commits - We were informed ''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 then '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!

IOM's own legal disclaimers are not correct however he has a legal advisor - Firstly we are unsure if his legal advisor exists under the grounds we have not been able to find ''Jeanne Blakely'' in the legal sector, and secondly in her biography she is referred to as 'Jackie' a different name. IOM has posted a legal disclaimer on his website for those wanting to sue him, where he has incorrectly pointed out the law. The Academy solicitors have emailed Rob to inform him of the correct law insisting he amends his website accordingly as he has been posting legal information that is simply not reflective of the actual law.


IOM team up with companies they have exposed as scams out of desperation - In private messages to Kerri Rob insisted he was currently investigating Ideal Honeyz a northern company, who he said were conning girls. Ideal Honeyz are currently being sued by Kerri for copying her website content and passing off as the Academy and Model Tutorial Days which we run. Despite exposing Ideal Honeyz as a scam to Kerri before, Rob was happy to side with them out of desperation as they are the only ones he can find who have a problem with the Academy - and of course they do - we are rightly suing them for copying us to con new models!


Rob talks of scams which are big but does not expose them - preferring to 'bully' individuals - In private messages Rob has warned Kerri that The London School of Modelling and Alba Models were running scams, to which she was not aware 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 do.


They breach copyright - IOM 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. Many photographers have complained to us about this and we have advised them to issue bills for the misuse of their images accordingly.


IOM make false claims - Stuart claimed on Facebook that Kerri does not own the company Model Tutorial Days and has falsely set up events around the country. The business is 100% owned by Kerri with legal contracts on all franchises around the UK, she haas been trading under this name for two years now and IOM know this.


IOM have recommended the Academy before - IOM have regularly promoted Kerri and the Academy including a huge feature in the IOM's Shimmer Magazine publication, funnily enough as soon as we exposed them all credits they gave Kerri have been removed from their website as well as the copies of the Shimmer feature. We have kept copies however. IOM has also in the past tried to recruit Kerri as a director for their company, however she refused as she could not trust a company which came onto the scene boasting 3500 members yet she had never heard of IOM nor Rob Skinner in her 8 years as a full time model.


IOM tried and failed to expose the Academy as a scam - IOM posted an article in the scams section stating that they spoke to Nuts magazine and were told by the editor we did not supply them with models for features. Labelling us a scam for claiming we do. Some calls were made and the editor forced Rob to remove his name from these posts on IOM, they have kept up the quotes but not the names however Nuts have told them to remove everything. We have supplied Nuts for countless features and members of staff have apologised that Rob has used their name to try and discredit me - we are awaiting a statement from him for this document. Nuts have since reported that unless Rob removes everything about us from the website they will be considering their own action.


IOM's own directors have turned against them - Mike Parsons and Mike England left IOM after questioning their actions, you have to wonder what makes a company so bad that it's own appointed directors leave and attempt to sue them!


Investigations believe that IOM has tried to con Kerri herself - On Facebook Stuart keeps reporting ''All Kerri does is sue people'' which is in fact a lie - Kerri has only gone to court once in a dispute with her management company of her apartments (where she represented herself and won!) It is true that Kerri at the moment has sent legal warnings to Ideal Honeyz for the copying of the Academy content and passing off, and a close friend of Rob Skinners - make up artist Natasha Worby. We believed, working through Natasha that Rob has tried to con Kerri - for reasons unknown. Evidence and statements by Natasha point to this. This is now in the hands of our solicitors awaiting response from Natasha and Rob. Once we have an outcome we will share what has been discovered to you.


IOM attempt to collect models personal data - One agency reported to us that IOM requested income and accounts details for all of this agencies registered models - for what reason we do not know! This is data protected and they should not be requesting it. Another agency informed us that IOM requested they hand over all their models details if they wish to work alongside them.


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] as well for our legal records


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.


Statements about IOM by industry professionals


We have found a long list of people with complaints about the IOM. 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 more 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!


Latest news! Since these individuals have commented about IOM almost all of them have been met with slanderous comments about them on Facebook and the IOM website. These are all industry professionals and we are awaiting statements from Nuts magazine to add to our growing list.


A statement from Saracen House Studio's:
'Saracen House Studio has been in discussions with Rob Skinner of Institute of Modeling since May 2010, 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.''


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 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 Kirsty Farrow - professional stock photographer
I was aware of numerous people’s concerns with regards to the IOM and when browsing their website in order to try and forge my own opinion I was horrified to see a profile had been set up in my name. There were photographs of me alongside my name and false vital statistics including a false BMI and measurements. I instantly contacted the IOM via the email address I found on their website questioning how it was possible for a company promoting security within the industry to have failed to run adequate security checks themselves and requested that “my” profile was removed. I also informed Kerri as I have been a part of the academy for 18 months now and thought it was important for her to know at least one of her academy members had been targeted. (Since I made Kerri aware of this incident numerous other girls have found they have profiles they were previously unaware of).

During email conversations with the IOM a few contradictions in their statements were noted as to how this profile came about. Reading their statements about KPA on their website, again I was horrified to see what they had to say. Claiming that Kerri refused to communicate and blocked them on facebook is in itself a false statement as Kerri has proved by making her blocked contacts list public. In actual fact it is the IOM who have blocked Kerri along with several other professional bodies who have decided to speak against them. Claims of campaigns and charities set up by certain members of the IOM have also proven to be false.

It should be noted by anyone reading the accusations by the IOM that any claims being made against them can be proved and backed up using evidence which has been gathered by numerous people. It is only the claims being made by the IOM which are based on rumours, speculation and personal attacks without any evidence to back up the statements being made. Any statements against IOM have been purely factual. Numerous statements by the IOM have been personal and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I have now known Kerri for 18 months and been a part of the academy for equally as long. I initially joined the academy with a model profile because it was something I just wanted to be a part of, not realising what they academy also offers to photographers. My current status is as a photographer after I became more aware of what Kerri and her team have to offer. I have been doing photography now for 8 years and although this is mainly stock and wedding photography as well as children’s portraiture, I still feel the KPA is beneficial to anyone within the photographic industry regardless of your area of expertise. There has been speculation from the IOM with regards to the quality of photographers associated with KPA and the KPA tutorial days, after every event held by the academy I see nothing but endless praise for Kerri and her team from the girls who are more than happy with their images. Having had two shoots with Kerri and her team as a model myself I can also state I have not been disappointed.

In relation to the other photographers whose name the IOM has tried to ruin lately, from a personal point of view and as a fellow photographer I cannot fault those associated with KPA, whether it is their talent, their individual styles or their personalities and I would not risk affecting any reputation I have built for myself as a photographer by stating this if I did not believe it to be true. I whole heartedly support Kerri and the Kerri Parker Academy and associated team.''


Statement from Kathleen Parker, 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. IOM are discrediting Kathleen's statement saying it is from Kerri's mother so of course it will show support - they forget to mention she is also appointed manager who has been in the industry managing Kerri for the last 8 years of her successful career.


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 Simon Fowler professional photographer -


"After hearing the concerns from several photographers about the Institute of Modelling, I decided to view the website for myself. I immediately felt uneasy as it appeared to be making several bold statements which were unsubstantiated. For example, it gives the impression (http://www.instituteofmodeling.org/LegislationProposals.asp) that the IOM had been instrumental in creating legislation by working in partnership with government agencies- but the organisation hasn't been in existance that long, so how is this the case?


It also states that all companies have to be registered with the Information Commisioner Office (ICO) for data protection purposes and not to trust any company that isn't (http://www.instituteofmodeling.org/about.asp) yet even the ICO doesn't make this statement. They say not every organisation needs to register, and to complete an online questionaire to determin if you should register (http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/for_organisations/data_protection/notification/need_to_notify.aspx).

This is an example of scaremongering that could give people the impression that a legitimate organisation is not operating legaly. The final concern was that he stated that he had over 3500 members, which at £25 a time would certainly make the business liable for VAT (and as an accountant, Roberts Skinner would know this). If the IOM was VAT registered, then the reg number should be dislplayed on the website. No reg number was ever displayed, and soon after I raised this on an online forum, the figure was removed from the website. This led me to believe that the actual numbers of registered members was much lower than originaly claimed.''

I was warned that anyone questioneing Robert Skinner would be met with threats and the suggested implication that if you don't agree with him then you must have something to hide, however I didn't just want to form an opinion based on what I had read and wanted to give him the oportunity to address my concerns - I really think that the idea is a good one if it is policed properly. So I decided to email the IOM using an email address not linked to my business. I received a very quick reply from Rob Skinner which basically refused to address any concerns, and instead offered to trace me via my IP address and see what interesting information about who I am he could find out.
Unfortunately Robert Skinner was either unable or unwilling to address any of the issues raised, instead spending time searching the internet to trace who I really was.''

-