They don’t sell that brand in my country so I can’t speak for the wrapper but I checked the Wikipedia page for the company and their website. The wiki page doesn’t really help with the claim but provides some helpful context for how the company was founded and about Tony himself who you could say did indeed go out and check in his capacity as a broadcaster, though prior to forming this company.

I think it’s probably more accurate to say that Tony’s puts high standards and systems in place in addition to external certification programs to make it more likely that when they’re assured that production in their supply chain doesn’t involve slavery, it’s more likely to be true. I guess we haven’t set a definition for what going out and checking vs taking someone’s word for it means here but to the extent that I wondered how exactly they were able to physically go and inspect without endangering themselves the answer seems mostly to be that they don’t actually send people from the company to go and check as far as I can see. I think it’s worth pointing out as well that they’re probably not best viewed as a good manufacturer in contrast to a Fairtrade certified manufacturer because they seem to think those certifications are good and credible and are themselves Fairtrade certified, it’s just that according to them that’s really only a baseline minimum to try to avoid slavery creeping in to the supply chain. The other steps they take seem to be more around fair practices and traceability to make slavery less likely to occurr and a lot of this depends on their careful selection of partners and the formation of co-ops.

The closest claim I could find that resembles my interpretation of the idea that they go out and check rather than just taking the word of a supplier or external certification body is something they have an article about on their page called Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System. CLMRS seems to be a set of practices that co-ops that Tony’s has partnered with are encouraged to adopt and relies upon volunteers from the community (unclear which community, is that the co-op or the physical area where most members are from?) to go out and inspect so that’s pretty close to what you say. Their description of this system is entirely focussed on “families” found to be employing child labour and child labour specifically as opposed to anything else. None of this is a critique of this approach I should say right now, but in terms of the claim of how they go about actively checking for themselves rather than taking the word of others, this approach seems a little more complicated than that and not entirely aligned with that description. It’s volunteers from a community not Tony’s representatives or employees, and they’re specifically focussing on a kind of slavery where such a form of inspection could reasonably be done with any safety where it’s household farmers likely using their own children for labour. Their approach to that specific situation is great I should add, and doesn’t just cut people loose likely making the problem worse and tries to work with them to eliminate the practice.

Great though they sound and certainly an option I’d consider if I could, I think from my initial research that the fact that the closest thing to your claim is CLMRS and that this is done by the co-op themselves, with verification done by unnoficial volunteers, not Tony’s themselves, and that adopting CLMRS seems not to actually be mandatory to become a Tony’s partner does I think put the idea that Tony’s checks rather than just accepting claims in to a different and more nuanced light.

I will express once more it sounds like to my non-expert ears that they are doing this right and I don’t criticise their approach, I’m just clarifying because based on what you said I was imagining people from Tony’s making random inspections of cocoa plantations that may have many types of slavery going on (not just child) and which may be run by more sophisticated criminal networks that might violently defend their interests rather than just family run farms.

How do they check this? Seems like a good way to get yourself shot trying to walk in to a covert slave operation to see if it’s really a covert slave operation.

I did learn of this difference many years later. To me the Ceylon kind is a nicer, though perhaps less strong a flavour and seemed more like whatever my brain has decided “cinnamony” should taste like, but cassia will give you a more obvious punch even if not quite as delicious. I wonder if at some point Masterfoods switched from Ceylon to Cassia.

Yeh it was Masterfoods ground cinnamon if I recall. It really defies intuition because things like nice aromatic spices should get progressively weaker flavoured over time. I feel compelled to say this may have been a freak occurrence and it’s probably unwise to seek out 25 year old spice.

In 2011 I was in an unfamiliar kitchen and had some porridge in the morning. I put some ground cinnamon on it that was in the cupboard and noticed that it was particularly good cinnamon, much more flavoursome than I was used to. I looked at the bottle again and it was the same brand I always use myself at home so I didn’t see why it should be so much better but I noticed that the although pretty similar the labelling seemed subtly different than I was used to. I looked at the expiry, it expired in 1986 and the label was different because they’d updated the design since. I don’t know why the 25 hear old cinnamon seemed to taste so extra good, I would have thought that if it wasn’t somehow rotten and sloiled it’d at least have lost basically all its potency but somehow it was super nice. I even had extra after this discovery.

At the video rental store, the customer that returned a DVD case reeking of cigarettes and full of cockroaches. I had seen the customer before and always read the notes about the latest gross ass thing they’d done that flashed up on screen when serving them because all the other staff hated them and would write these complaints. Despite that I didn’t really remember them particularly or have much of a run in with them.

I happened to be the one on shift when they were to discover they’d been banned though. They tried to pick up some movies to rent and I had to explain that I couldn’t rent to them because they were banned. They asked why and I told them that it says here you returned a DVD case full of cockroaches and they responded indignantly “What!? Is that IT!?” They definitely weren’t denying it and seemed very surprised this was a bannable offence.

I have a peacoat that I just really love, it’s super warm and comfy and it makes me feel like a ship’s captain. In fact, before I knew that sort of thing was called a peacoat I just referred to it as my captain’s jacket.

sounds good but negative on both counts, no account, not in the US. Thanks though.

True though that may be, there’s no benefit to mentioning that in this situation.

I think an important related aspect is that the ‘unfortunate things’ that happen make it only “not quite as great” but are definitely destined to make it “the worst”. That way there’s a sense of urgency that you wouldn’t otherwise get from just “not quite as awesome as it could be, but still the best”

You don’t seem to understand, I’m not logged in here with you, you’re logged in here with me!

This can NOT happen, the risk is too big and people could get hurt. Your Mom has allowed this to escalate too far, too fast and can’t see the danger she is inviting.

Your Mom isn’t ‘mad’ but she is definitely being reckless and while trying to help someone else that she thinks needs her, she is forgetting about her family that need her. She doesn’t know everything she needs to know to be sure this is a safe idea and she doesn’t have the resources or ability to find out. Just getting to know someone over the internet is NOT enough and it IS possible to be deceived even when you think you know the person well. That’s how online scammers work, they have to be convincing or people would not give them anything.

Even if they are telling the truth, the amount of help they’re going to need and the long term commitment could be a disaster for you all. This person will be completely dependent on your family while in your country and they may have all kinds of complicated needs having come from a difficult home in a very different country, and with potential immigration questions. Offering to help someone with those kinds of needs is not a good thing to do if you are not truly in a position to offer that much help. Already your Mom can’t even offer them a place to stay without making promises on someone else’s behalf (yours), can she really offer what will likely be years and years of emotional, legal and financial support to a stranger without compromising her responsibilities to her family? When you speak to your mother about this, you need to remind her that YOU are her first responsibility and you are the one being put at risk most of all. You mentioned siblings, I’d be worried about them too. Are they minors? This is just such a bad idea.

You should speak to your father and find out if he is really okay with this like your Mom says? It sounds possible that like you, he didn’t think it would do any harm for your mother to comfort this person online and now it’s getting out of control and he doesn’t want to upset her or doesn’t know what she’s promised them. If he really doesn’t have any objections, then maybe there’s other family members you can talk to? Most people outside this situation will think your Mom is making a bad decision and maybe you have an Aunt or Uncle that can talk to her. YOU are her first responsibility, because you are her child and family, this person online is not. It would be nice if it was possible for her to take care of the whole world, but it isn’t, and if she tries to do that she might find herself unable to care for you and your family either because she gets scammed and loses your family’s money, or because the person invited in to your home turns out to be more dangerous than expected or just requires more care than any of you can offer. It’s not that they don’t deserve care or help, it’s that it’s not help your family can reasonably and safely provide.

I hoped I would have good advice on how your mother could still help this person without the risk of being scammed or without going way too far like inviting them to live in your home but unfortunately I don’t know any way that can be done. Though tragic, there is sadly a line where your personal responsibility for others ends. When caring for strangers involves risks to your own children that line has been crossed. Help offered to people in bad home situations, or in dangerous countries or in this case both, is complicated and difficult and full of risks even for professional organisations that try their best to do this, to take on this responsibility personally is very reckless and dangerous for your Mom, for you, for the rest of her family and even for her internet friend. Once he stays with you guys, what then? Can he work in your country? Can he legally immigrate there? What’s his family going to do if they find out about you guys? How long can you support him? If he stays for some time and it doesn’t work for any reason, where could they go? They’d be be alone in a foreign country with no where to stay? This isn’t a real plan, it’s a big, kind, but thoughtless gesture that needs to be reconsidered.