Nice idea, but I don't think it's that simple. As has been stated a few times, Leon is the sole director and 100% owner of the legal entity behind Mostwam. All roads, not to say all profits, eventually lead back to Leon. Poppy (say) would have to buy him out of a business worth a five-figure sum as at the last accounts. And even if that's practical, I suspect more than a few would interpret that as Leon being rewarded for what he's done with a cash windfall, which would be very unpopular.

Unfortunately, Mostwam isn't just some hobby where they were filming at weekends and so someone could simply say "Leon's not welcome anymore and we don't film in his garage now either". There's a proper, legally constituted business there and Leon's the ultimate beneficial owner. That's very different.

Well, you said you were going to spend more money at Mostwam only to get back at people you'll never meet or know, so maybe you're just as empty.

Any business that makes over £60k profit after all wages and expenses is going have a worth of around 5 times that profit so £300k in theory. Obviously someone would have to look at how that company earns money,how admin is done and how many staff and due diligence would have to be done. So maybe in this case you would half it given the loss of UMD sales and knock a bit off for it being niche and possibly the way it's been run. I doubt any of the models would have the capital to invest. The company can continue exactly as it does now away from UMD but if Al or Lisa and even Leon has a brain they must do everything to protect the girls they hire. They say they have a procedure,now with an external HR company booklet. As Leon said that was needed after a trip in May where Leon took 5 girls away and it all went badly.
So I think you just leave them to do it however they think and if you don't mind what Leon was convicted for and how the team didn't do the right thing then you still do business with them.

I totally agree. Wam Game must get all the help possible to adapt his business.

Finally! A halfway plausible story!

I said 'personal connection to someone involved', I'm calling that close enough for an I Told You So.

Also, probably unpopular opinion, but I think it's BS that you condemn Al - an employee earning a wage - for not getting himself fired by betraying his boss. I doubt your moral certainty would pay his bills.

I think you just helped me come to my senses FSM.
No idea why I've allowed myself to get drawn into nutter conversations when the simple facts about Leon etc are the important factor which has now been dealt with. I must ignore any crazy talk on talk

The person I feel most sorry for is Messmaster. First the Ariel problem, now this. I've managed online forums before. There is no perfect way to handle situations like this.

Eh, I bet you could have a boss who'd cross a line that you'd quit over. What if you found out your boss was pulling Jeffrery Epstein stuff?

Right, but I'm sure you appreciate you were in a privileged position to be able to afford to make that choice.

Thankfully I've never faced that moral query, but I've been in a position where losing my income, even briefly, would have been financially devastating. Not everyone can afford to stand on principle.

Actually turning down that job meant remaining unemployed and in a, shall we say, less-than-ideal living situation. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, and the way I see it working with a sex offender is actually even less acceptable in this industry than it is in most.

Well then, if you would sooner starve than bend your morals, you're a better man than I. That's impressive, gotta respect that.

That £60k is retained profit built up over the entire life of the company after dividends have been taken. Retained profit only went up about £10k year on year (of course we don't know about how much dividends was taken in the year) but there are indicators that the company potentially did not do particularly well such as the cash went down, debtors went down and liabilities went up. I notice the main thing keeping the balance sheet afloat was the sharp increase in stock. I have no idea what kind of stock that would be but I doubt it can be used to pay the directors bills.

Also, don't get me started on how stock valuations can potentially be used to completely manipulate a set of accounts. Please note, I am categorically NOT accusing anyone of any kind of underhanded accounting practices. I am just sharing my experience, anyone looking to buy that company needs to do their own stock take as part of the financial due diligence.

Anyway, based on what I saw (a set of accounts over 18 months old which means trading throughout the lock down in the UK if I recall correctly) It isn't really possible to value the business. It would be necessary to establish the cost of replacing the exiting director/shareholder and many other facts/costs. It is possible the company made large profit and then distributed a large dividend in the same year so who knows.

Apologies for posting the least interesting comment on this thread so far.

Truly gutted by this, look, I have read both sides of the argument, and did he do it ?
I don't know, but the fact is, he plead guilty, and some wonderful people, from Lisa and their child, to some exceptional models, have been affected by this, I feel desperately sorry for 4veryone affected, I really hope they get through the pain caused by this, especially to the model involved in the incident, nobody should have to go through anything like that, and certainly should not have their integrity called into question not to mention that the cost of living crisis in the UK may have serious consequences for any of the models, Lisa and child, if they have come to rely on the extra income .

I think maybe in some corporate environments that might be the mentality. But in our business things are much more personal. Over the past 25 years we were cool. I built and maintained Leon's sites, built his first download stores (which UMD's own stores were later based off), and it was a long business / friendly relationship.

With this situation we were left exposed for months with no heads up. He made the decision for us to not get out ahead of this, and that meant somebody had to find this information and post it to the site, and now there's all sorts of cynicism and confusion. The community is having to figure out how to deal with it and in full view of other victims who this has traumatized all over again. It made everything infinitely worse. Just look at this shit.

The former level of trust just cannot be regained after something like that, especially not when the issue is sexual harassment. He may have been the one who performed the act, but really, anyone at MostWam who knew but didn't tell us left us all out to dry by not giving us the chance to sever the relationship. There are a lot of other people who earn their incomes here who could have been put at risk. I could be wrong but I think that's the *general* consensus of the community.

It's not for the community to take the moral high ground here and change the laws of the UK.

I state again that there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION for anyone to disclose their convictions, whatever they may be, unless they are asked directly to disclose any.

So trying to say that Lisa & Al have covered it up or left UMD out to dry is

Sorry, I don't know if we're talking at cross-purposes here and you were quoting the above numbers just as an example, but I would disagree if you were referring to the entity behind Mostwam. I won't quote exact figures, as although I know it's all in the public domain I've also frankly lost track of what we are and aren't supposed to say now and so will err on the side of caution!

The worth of any business is the value of the balance sheet, which is also called shareholders' funds. That's the amount that (for example) Poppy would have to find. We don't know the 2021 profit for sure because they're only abbreviated accounts (perfectly legal for a small business) and so don't have a profit and loss statement. However, we can easily deduce the 2021 profits by comparing the value of the balance sheet in 2020 with 2021. The amount it's increased by in 2021 is the retained profit for those 12 months.

As I said, anyone interested will have to look it up for themselves, but suffice it to say the figures of £60k profits and a £300k net worth are rather inflated. Again, apologies if you (VAVAVIE) already know all this, but I wasn't sure where you were getting your numbers from.

And just to clarify to 34gate, I wasn't implying that a model who buys Leon out would face criticism. I think a lot of people would be fine with that end of the transaction. No, it's the "Leon banks a tidy cash sum" part that would cause the problem.

Legal isn't always moral and moral isn't always legal.

You're similarly under no legal obligation not to shart in a crowded lift and then block the doors to prevent anyone from leaving. Doesn't mean doing that isn't a real dick move, y'know?

It's was a moral obligation. That takes priority over any law.

I must respectfully disagree. A company can potentially be worth a whole lot more than just its balance sheet value (or even less than the balance sheet value though that is uncommon). Also, we cannot deduce the trading profit just by comparing the value of the balance sheet in 2020 with 2021 because we don't know what dividends, if any, were issued.

I agree that the 60k and 300k figures are likely too high for 2021.

So, because the other thread is now locked, and discussion here is going into a lot of numbers and such, I want to ask directly and publically, MessMaster* and any others on the admin team:

What, if anything, is being done about other similar issues should they happen in the future?

Whether a whistleblower, a model, another producer, a community member etc - what if this happens again? Where a model or someone on a team, no matter who, comes out and says either themselves or with anonymity about someone who has been convicted of sexual assult/abuse/harrassment and is currently selling content on this website, making a profit and featuring videos where they are around other models?

I'm sorry but discussing numbers and how legal systems all work is well and good - but the topic at hand is slowly vanishing even if it is all mildly relevant.

Rather than discussing how MostWam can continue, perhaps we should discuss how models of any site, affiliation and producers can be:

A. Better protected if content is to be hosted here.
B. If they choose, how it can be made aware of any incidents or convictions as a direct result or involvment of content that is being hosted here?
C. If this happens again - someone outed, admitting, accused as having a criminal conviction tied to a model, or models who are plastered in content on this site - what action and how fast can it be taken?
D. And finally, for the sake of fairness, how can the genuine producers and teams continue with no fear of 'wittchunts' etc?

I just feel that if these points aren't addressed by yourself, MM and the admin team, then a lot of the chatter the past few days has been wasted. One thing it has done, unfortunatley is made enemies of people, shown some clear lines, brought out the worst in people...

And, the best in some cases too.

So, any early ideas, suggestions, clear lines you want to state now or intend to with any site wide** updates etc? Not saying it would be easy or be done overnight but anything already slowly coming together at the very least?

*I mean anyone can feel free to respond to this, either to agree, have a go, argue whatever, but I for one am interested in MessMasters response mainly. I've no intent in getting into hours long bickering with anyone, I just think these things need to be addressed as they have cropped up in and out of the forums. I think MM yourself, has acknowledged it being something that this place can do better from.

**And I mean site wide, if possible and especially across the stores propped up here, because they *are* propped up here. Not saying it would be quick of course, but surely this weekend has made you think, and had some early ideas or motivation to do something to prevent or help lower the chances of what has happened, happening again (All of it, from the incident to the bickering, to the fallout).

We were all caught flat-footed by this, and we dealt with it as swiftly as we could. UMD itself does not have any models and is not involved in any shoots so I don't see a way that we could have prevented it. To answer the question, we would handle it the same way, albeit more efficiently given what we learned.


We're required to immediately take down content if a model in it contacts us to remove it. That's part of the new Visa / Mastercard rule. We have never been directly contacted by anyone accusing a producer here of harassment or assault or anything like that. If that did happen then I would immediately close their store, contact the producer, and scan all the data that I have in an attempt to possibly corroborate the story. If I couldn't find any evidence, I honestly don't have a next step. It's never happened before. This is why I've been floating around the idea of relying on court verdicts for guidance.


A: My job is to protect the users who are here on this site. I think our community should promote and even come up with guidelines on how producers should be interacting with their models, and how models can try to protect themselves. But ultimately I have no hand in what goes on during producers' shoots. They create the productions and upload them here to this platform. I don't know what kind of off-site protection I could offer them other than to just be responsive if I hear a producer has been accused.

B: I don't have any actual model information. That has to be on-file with the producer. I have no way to contact them unless they also happen to be here. In which case they will definitely be contacted.

C: We have to immediately take down any scenes if a model contacts us and says to take them down. If a producer is merely accused, I will investigate the best I can with everything that I have. If I can't come up with any conclusive evidence, and I'm not presented with any evidence, then I will take no action. It cannot be the case that I will shut down any store at the whim of somebody who emailed me and just said so. Competitors would absolutely abuse that.

D: A witch hunt is when you accuse someone of something, and close your mind with no interest in hearing any evidence from the accused. I will always listen to everybody involved and make the best moves that I can.

So I get the feeling that some members on here want not only to deprive Leon of his marketing portal (UMD understandably) but his ability to earn a wage too. The fact that some seem to think that the sentence attributed to the crime by a legitimate court is not enough, that the guy's company should be liquidated too. Even to the extent that customers who rented the studios, where the events under discussion did not even take place, have possibly to be put out of business.as well.

It is all going too far.

Taking a cue from both my convention days and my "real" profession, I'd have to say that the best way to keep everyone safe - those in front of the camera and those behind it - is to make sure that shoots aren't a one-on-one thing. Having a third party (who can fill any role from model to production assistant/gofer) present means that there's someone there who can act if an assault occurs and who can provide vital support for a valid complaint or testimony against a fabricated one. My workplace has established that as an unwritten rule, but one that is adhered to more strongly than most of the written ones: If you're going into a volatile situation or in with a volatile client, don't go in alone. Take someone with you. Don't let yourself be alone with them, ever. That way there's a much lower chance of Bad Things happening.

A closer-to-home example: In 2019, I was lucky enough to be able to arrange an in-person session with Alana and Sabrina from SexyMessyBabes (my avatar's from this event). Now, when Alana and I put this together, she had not the first clue who I was or what quality of man I was. I could trust her, as she was already well-established around these parts, but she had no reason to trust me. So, in addition to Sabrina, we had another guy there. He primarily operated the camera, but I have no doubt that he could have or would have stepped in as security if I'd acted inappropriately. Since I was, naturally, on-the-level, the result was a fun experience during which no one had to be concerned for their safety. That's how all shoots should be.

It's not perfect - Chernabog knows there have been tag-team assaults before, and it is potentially an additional expense - but it does drastically reduce the chances of impropriety on any side. As long as no one goes out of their way to isolate a vulnerable target, producers get the CYA they need if things go off the rails, and models get the protection they too often need from guys who think a production is "implied consent".

Ugh. Even typing that phrase makes me feel dirty.

As for what we need to do as a community when this happens again - and the chances are high that it will, unfortunately - I've given my suggestion, based on experience with responding to sexual malfeasance, elsewhere. It sucks that the axe has to fall, but that's what it has to do, and the less time between verification of claim(s) made and action taken the better. Any leeway given to a verified abuser makes everyone less safe, especially those who put themselves at risk to create what we consume, and not an insignificant number of those have faced the trauma of sexual assault already. Drawing the discussion with hand-wringing and real or feigned uncertainty about how to proceed only serves to allow people who revel in making things worse to do just that, and subjects victims to their trauma again, and again, and again. Creamy's post here: (https://umd.net/forums/i/i-am-leaving-umd/start/150#postid_908763) does a better job of explaining just how bad it gets than I - a man who hasn't even faced a real possibility of sexual assault - ever could.

If the choice is between an admitted offender and the safety of our models/actors/actresses, I will always, always side with the ones who haven't committed a crime.

If anyone has to ask which of the two that would be, please don't bother responding. I've had about enough of that already this week, and it's only Tuesday.

I don't believe anyone is really trying to ruin Leon financially and harm his family. Just trying to cut ties. We've decided that producers who have only used his studio for their own productions can stay, so long as the producer has cut all future ties to him

You klnow the issue aside isnt the crime, it was the malice of keeping it buried and hoping it wouldnt come up, that never works.

I dont think it's as much to put him out of earning money but to show the disgust at his actions, inappropriate touching is one thing, but going on like it never happened and only speaking after someone else brings it to the administrations attention is abhorrent.

the people who didnt know are pissed off, wouldnt you be? especially if u were renting his studios to operate your store, i mean there innocent but take a second to imagine how twisted their stomachs feel right now.

leon had the chance to do the right thing, he didnt. as some have said shows he pretty much didnt learn anything.

OK, thank you for taking the time to respond.

I understand UMD is a platform, and the content is produced seperatley and such, of course. It still does host them, but I understand that that does not mean you control said shoots and what goes on. I won't comment on every point, simply because I don't have the knowledge or any hand in this site and it's running of course, so you know what you can and cannot do, not me!

At least, some producers may have seen these threads even if they haven't commented, and at least thought about how they treat their models, each other and whether it has is correct, both in the past and going forward. I hope most don't need to of course, but not a bad thing for them to in any case.

I just have to interject: The delay was not indecision. This is how long it took to put in the work of tying things up and shutting down the account. Before my official announcement, I was updating the thread and its notes, letting people know I was furiously working in the background, but they probably got buried in the craziness so some assumed I was lallygagging. I'll have to do better at letting folks know what's going on meanwhile, but then again MostWam was our largest account and others are being affected too, so it took a while. Again, this was an incident that happened I think in early 2020, and once we found out, we had results in 2 days. Maybe not great for optics, but I really don't think that enabled Leon to like assault one more model before the door hit him.

You're right - that was hasty and inappropriate on my part, and I apologize. That said, I do support loudly broadcasting a decision once it's made, even if the software-side of implementing that decision takes rather longer. It won't make these incidents any less harmful, but it does a lot to mitigate that harm by providing the opportunity for a clean break.

The decision doesn't just involve Leon. There's a lot more to this that involves other producers and how they'd be handled. With the level of anxiety and fighting going on, the actual announcement and related decisions had to be as spot-on as I could make it, lest it get picked apart by both sides and the fighting get prolonged longer because of some detail I messed up. Definitely could have done more announcements meanwhile... I was just inundated with everything else at the same time.

I hope you aren't using Leon hurting anymore models in that time in jest. During investigations, is it possible to temporary close the store or put it offline so to say. Of course this would not be something where every vindictive whim put a store offline. But something where if there is credible information and something needs investigating then to offline the store.