Ignoring GDPR rules. Being quite dodgy with the money that people have donated. Outright lying. Unsafe and possibly illegal work practices. Etc.In lay terms whats the crux of this story. Clearly he has done some good (?) but whats the issue, he told fibs and hes got rich on the back of it?
Read the BBC articleIn lay terms whats the crux of this story. Clearly he has done some good (?) but whats the issue, he told fibs and hes got rich on the back of it?
Obtaining funds using fraudulent means (see his own admission on BBC)In lay terms whats the crux of this story. Clearly he has done some good (?) but whats the issue, he told fibs and hes got rich on the back of it?
Also the issue wasn’t sharing pictures of him with a Britain First logo badly photoshopped onto his shirt. The issue was JAMES’ OWN POSTS making up stories about old people trying to off themselves but stopping when Jimmy fixed their boiler. But those still defending him on Facebook will believe he’s done no wrong.Does he not realise people have screen shots and evidence. Can’t believe he is trying to defend this. He truly is thick skinned. No way will he get the support he once had. So many more people coming forward, more people seeing other things the BBC didn’t mention like the racism and harrasing those people who he called trolls who were spot on about him.
SafeguardingIn lay terms whats the crux of this story. Clearly he has done some good (?) but whats the issue, he told fibs and hes got rich on the back of it?
Not to mention the BBC have to verify and made it clear they verified all the posts they showed were from James/DEPHER. They didn’t just get loads of screenshots from Twitter folk and then publish immediately. Thick duck.Does he not realise people have screen shots and evidence. Can’t believe he is trying to defend this. He truly is thick skinned. No way will he get the support he once had. So many more people coming forward, more people seeing other things the BBC didn’t mention like the racism and harrasing those people who he called trolls who were spot on about him.
I think the only subcontractor is him. He doesn’t take a wage as a director but I bet he coins a pretty penny as a subcontractor.He's not employing sub contractors he is just passing on work to other firms and paying the invoice. I'd be very surprised if any formal agreements are in place so they won't have been vetted.
In lay terms whats the crux of this story. Clearly he has done some good (?) but whats the issue, he told fibs and hes got rich on the back of it?
Exactly thisHe's not employing sub contractors he is just passing on work to other firms and paying the invoice. I'd be very surprised if any formal agreements are in place so they won't have been vetted.