As many of you know, one of the topics I explore in our STAND – Parents as Protectors workshops is manipulation.
Not always the obvious kind.
Not the dramatic, easy-to-spot kind.
The subtle kind.
The kind that influences perception before we have even realised it is happening.
Recently, I found myself on the receiving end of an experience that perfectly illustrates why understanding manipulation matters.
For almost ten years, A Positive Start CIC has used the same internet provider. Whilst I have watched prices rise over the years, the service has been reliable and I intended to continue with them when we moved to our new premises.
The move itself created challenges. The property was not listed on the Postal Address File (PAF), meaning I had to go through the process of registering the address before services could be transferred. I made numerous calls, completed paperwork, paid the relevant fees and repeatedly contacted my provider trying to arrange installation.
I was assured someone would call me back.
Eventually, the call came.
The person introducing themselves stated they were calling in relation to my existing account.
Relieved that somebody had finally responded after weeks of chasing, I engaged in the conversation believing I was speaking with a representative connected to the company I had been dealing with for almost a decade.
The conversation focused on a package specifically aimed at small businesses and not-for-profit organisations. I was told I could save money and receive a better deal than the one I currently had.
Naturally, I was pleased.
As the founder of a community interest company supporting mental health and wellbeing, any opportunity to reduce costs means more resources can be directed towards supporting people.
I agreed to proceed.
The following day, I received information from a company I had never heard of.
Initially, I assumed it must be a subsidiary or partner organisation. After all, the conversation had begun with a reference to my existing account. However, a quick search revealed there was no connection between the two companies whatsoever.
When I contacted the company to query this, I was informed that their representative had mentioned the company name several times during the call.
Perhaps she had.
But that wasn’t really the issue.
The issue was perception.
I was expecting a call from one organisation.
The conversation began by referencing that organisation.
Everything that followed was interpreted through that lens.
What happened next concerned me even more.
Once I realised I was dealing with a company I had never knowingly chosen to engage with, I requested cancellation.
No service had been installed.
Nothing had been delivered.
I had signed nothing.
Yet I was informed that, as a business customer, I was not entitled to a cooling-off period and that cancellation could result in financial penalties.
At that moment, my concern shifted from confusion to discomfort.
Whether something is legally permissible and whether it feels fair are not necessarily the same thing.
The experience reminded me of something we discuss regularly in trauma-informed work.
People do not simply respond to words.
They respond to meaning.
Meaning is shaped by context, expectation, previous experience, emotional state, trust and timing.
This is why manipulation can be so difficult to identify.
Many people assume manipulation requires outright lies.
In reality, manipulation often relies upon implication, assumption and carefully managed perception.
If I say just enough for you to reach a particular conclusion without explicitly stating it, have I lied?
Legally, perhaps not.
Ethically, the answer may be more complicated.
This principle extends far beyond sales.
We see it in relationships.
We see it in families.
We see it in safeguarding.
We see it in politics.
We see it in media.
We see it wherever information is presented in ways that shape what people believe to be true.
The question is not always whether the facts were technically stated.
Sometimes the more important question is:
What understanding was intentionally created?
In my STAND workshops, we encourage people to pause and examine situations more carefully.
To ask questions.
To seek clarity.
To trust their instincts when something feels uncomfortable.
And most importantly, to recognise that informed consent requires genuine understanding.
Transparency is not simply saying what you are legally required to say.
Transparency is ensuring people understand what they are agreeing to.
For me, the experience became a powerful reminder of why these conversations matter.
Manipulation doesn’t always require deception.
Sometimes it only requires carefully shaping what another person believes to be true.