[bots]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...it’ll be an interesting watch later but with the Harry Redknapp example..?..it wasn’t that he was endorsing anything, it was that he was endorsing nothing...the ‘charity’ didn’t exist...

all that was proving is that Arry will endorse anything if the price is right, it has no relation to the reality of what is being endorsed. Money received was the only factor in the equation

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

all that was proving is that Arry will endorse anything if the price is right, it has no relation to the reality of what is being endorsed. Money received was the only factor in the equation

...ooops sorry, I didn’t read my own OP....Caitlin Jenner endorsed the same ‘charity’...it was set up for both of them...I’d be interested if that ‘scam’ was applied to multiple other celebrities and they were the only two to accept the fee without checking..?...or whether it was only ever directed at those two...

[bots]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...ooops sorry, I didn’t read my own OP....Caitlin Jenner endorsed the same ‘charity’...it was set up for both of them...I’d be interested if that ‘scam’ was applied to multiple other celebrities and they were the only two to accept the fee without checking..?...or whether it was only ever directed at those two...

he could endorse the eradication of Rhino flatulence in Africa, it doesn't matter ... it may or may not be something he genuinely cares about, but if something is endorsed it should be stated that it is being endorsed for money

In America, they have never cared about such things. They have adverts where people in the audience are paid to whoop and clap and say wonderful things about something, that type of thing has never been permitted in the UK because it breaches advertising standards. This is basically advertising standards, and Arry is breaking the law (in the UK)