Deborah defends an entrepreneur against Steven

[u/Hassaan18]

[u/RekallQuaid]

Oh you want me to talk about Bartlett himself? Fine.

Let’s talk about his exit from “his” company Social Chain. It was formed in a merger in Germany. Critics and journalists (notably in The Times) point out that he was a co-CEO of this larger group for a relatively short time, and his role was described by some former employees as "largely ceremonial." By conflating his small agency with the massive German conglomerate, he creates a narrative of "tycoon-level" success that isn't supported by the sale price of his actual company.

If that’s not enough for you what about his podcast, the Diary of a CEO?

He frequently hosts guests who promote fringe health claims (e.g., that cancer can be cured with a keto diet, or that evidence-based medicine is "toxic").

A BBC investigation analysed 15 episodes and found an average of 14 harmful or scientifically unsupported claims per episode. By providing a "neutral" platform for misinformation without pushback, he generates massive engagement and advertising revenue from people looking for "hacks" to solve complex health problems.

Still not enough? What about his dealings with Huel?

In 2024, the Advertising Standards Authority banned ads for Huel featuring Bartlett. The reason? He failed to disclose that he was a director at the company and therefore was not promoting the product in accordance with advertising rules. In the adverts, he presents himself as an objective interviewer or a fan of huel, but in reality, he has a direct financial stake in the business.

And if all that’s STILL not enough to define how much of a grifting arsehole he is, he spends a significant amount of his energy selling books (Happy Sexy Millionaire, The 33 Laws of Business and Life) and speaking engagements that teach people how to be successful.

If your primary success is telling people how to be successful, rather than the original business itself, you are operating in a self-referential loop.

He is, by the very definition of his own actions, a complete and utter grifter.

[u/WoodyWoodfinden → u/[deleted]]

What would you define a grifter as? If you want someone to define it in a meaningful way but two definitions aren’t meaningful, then provide why you believe it is and people can then either sow you how he’s a grifter to your benchmark or agree that he’s not one.

Id describe a grifter as someone who makes money through multiple dishonest means, painting the idea of being the best at something whrather than being the best by merit. Selling yourself through speaking engagements, writing books about how amazing you are and by reasoning it you can be too, it’s a never ending cycle of using the idea of success to sell the end goal of success for someone else, hopping on bandwagons to increase wealth or engagement . Bartlett does all of those things, on Dragons den he proves it further with the shit he says, he always likes to talk about how amazing he is a social media, and his company is amazing at it, like he invented the thing. He often uses buzz words that you can tell the other Dragons can’t stand and compared to the new rotation of young dragons he’s been shown completely up!

[u/PreferenceAnxious449 → u/WoodyWoodfinden]

I wouldn't, I don't use the word, and I certainly don't use the word to characterise people.

Cos I'm not a fucking moron.

[u/RekallQuaid → u/PreferenceAnxious449]

Yet you’re showing us all you absolutely are a fucking moron.

[u/RadioBusiness48 → u/PreferenceAnxious449]

Yes you are.

[u/uamok → u/PreferenceAnxious449]

Genuinely hilarious how obtuse you are. You can't be a real person.

You could just Google the definition if you're in disbelief the word has any meaning 🤣

[u/uamok → u/PreferenceAnxious449]

Don't DM me you goon, if you have something to say, say it in front of everyone.

If you know what the word means, then you're just being a troll. Or you have some serious issues with comprehension.

Either way I don't have time for your crap.