The "mockers" are ignorant. They do not understand the "risk" consumers take when fake, free for all, tricksters try to take advantage. This risk is acknowledged in legislation, which protects the consumer.
Case law also reflects this:
Per Lord Hoffman in Dimond v Lovell  1 AC 384
In the words of District Judge Manners IN THE CLERKENWELL AND SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT in the case of SANTANDER CARDS (UK) LTD Claimant – and – IANA MAYHEW Defendant, Dated 08/03/2012- "The policy of the 1974 Act is to penalise...the accident hire company...for not entering into a properly executed agreement. A consequence is often to confer a benefit upon the debtor, but that is a consequence rather than the primary purpose.
it is and was incumbent on Santander [Claimant] to get its tackle in order."
an expression previously used by
LORD JUSTICE GROSS in Ian Karl Robert Brandon - and - American Express Services Europe Ltd - Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Civ 1187 - Case No: B2/2010/1463.
" 32...But it is also true that it is and was incumbent on
Amex, especially when seeking summary judgment, to get its tackle in order. "
49Instead, the courts may do little more than expect the creditor to “get it right” subject to de minimus variations as informed by the vague and as yet undefined “prejudice” test- after all, they are often possessed of the resources and experience to do so and, as opined by :
Lord Brown in Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank plc,
Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc  UKHL 48 at .the absorption of these by the creditor sits as part of “a fair balance between the creditor and the debtor” in such relationships.