How did he assess whether they actually needed the work doing for free? How strange.
Depher - James Anderson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Depher Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
That looks like he wrote it…but I don’t doubt he’s said that to people who were/are paying customers
Their work was paid for by donations, but they also had to give a donation. So it was paid for twice.
He has been reported to FCA (not by me) for the loans. Oh dear
good. serves him right. i hope he's been reported to the cic regulator, too. the more reports that go in, the stronger the case is. especially if everyone's presenting different evidence.
When Dominic gets in to work on a Monday and has to delete posts made over the weekend, you know somethings not right! You'll note the blurb that accompanies the spamming of photos has gone, along with the post that says how awful Twitter is.
---
Depher/CPH has received significant amounts of public money and seem to do with it what they wish. They show a limited understanding of good governance and regulation (if any). Its really quite worrying.
---
Every bit of this. The regulation around charities is there for a reason - to protect the people they serve and to protect funds that the charity raises. They're onerous for that very reason.
Depher/CPH has received significant amounts of public money and seem to do with it what they wish. They show a limited understanding of good governance and regulation (if any). Its really quite worrying.
No social media manager with the most basic training would be posting the flurry of posts over the weekend. The relentless wall of faces of the vulnerable utterly turned my stomach.
My report to the regulator focused on the safeguarding aspect. I've said before on here about the people he photographs, the state of them and the state of their houses - it all really shows quite how vulnerable they are. it seems very clear to me there's no adult kids, nieces, nephews or neighbours dropping in on them.
what makes it all the more concerning is: if that was my mum/dad/aunt/uncle i'd be asking him to remove their photo from his publicity. there's no way someone's safeguarding these people.
FoI's need to go to the council to ask why referrals are being made to him, if they are. he's breaching the most basic policies which should be in place to protect vulnerable, he's displaying their faces, their homes, their ages and what's in their bank account, along with medical conditions and what services he's providing and the likes of bleeping Hugh Grant are lapping it up and think they're sticking it to the man??? it's dangerous.
what makes it all the more concerning is: if that was my mum/dad/aunt/uncle i'd be asking him to remove their photo from his publicity. there's no way someone's safeguarding these people.
FoI's need to go to the council to ask why referrals are being made to him, if they are. he's breaching the most basic policies which should be in place to protect vulnerable, he's displaying their faces, their homes, their ages and what's in their bank account, along with medical conditions and what services he's providing and the likes of bleeping Hugh Grant are lapping it up and think they're sticking it to the man??? it's dangerous.
The pinned tweet is now this - they haven’t even shown the “after” photos of the supposedly amazing free bathroom they fitted 
One aspect I didn’t talk about but others have mentioned is the safeguarding aspect. On a very basic level, based on James’ own reporting, we are potentially talking about vulnerable, disabled elderly in Crisis along with families and children - I would like to know , WHO is James making safeguarding referrals to, if at all? I know people who are plumbers for LAs for example who have a safeguarding procedure for the vulnerable they follow so people can access qualified and appropriate help - I would be interested to know if DEPHER has a policy - it absolutely should beyond James and his ego cape
He is very reluctant to divulge anything like this. Seems to take it as an affront anyone even asking.
He's an idiot to leave himself and his employees so vulnerable to accusations in this way tbh.
More than he realises. I don’t say this flippantly but I’ve worked in various arms of the law over my career and I will never forget one of my bosses saying to me early on, when I was working generally with the public and not even people who would be classed as vulnerable, whenever I was making a decision, liaising with clients or others, etc - “make sure you can explain it to the coroner” which is pretty harsh way of reminding anyone with a duty of care to the public what exactly that duty means. Part of me hopes it’s all just a massive scam and the money isn’t going anywhere because the reality he describes for some people isn’t worth living. And if that IS the reality my original point stands - who is he referring these vulnerable people to?
it was when he was posting about the woman who’s back door was basically held together by hopes and prayers my hackles went up the most they ever have. What a fantastic way to highlight to the world a vulnerable old lady in an insecure property.My report to the regulator focused on the safeguarding aspect. I've said before on here about the people he photographs, the state of them and the state of their houses - it all really shows quite how vulnerable they are. it seems very clear to me there's no adult kids, nieces, nephews or neighbours dropping in on them.
what makes it all the more concerning is: if that was my mum/dad/aunt/uncle i'd be asking him to remove their photo from his publicity. there's no way someone's safeguarding these people.
FoI's need to go to the council to ask why referrals are being made to him, if they are. he's breaching the most basic policies which should be in place to protect vulnerable, he's displaying their faces, their homes, their ages and what's in their bank account, along with medical conditions and what services he's providing and the likes of bleeping Hugh Grant are lapping it up and think they're sticking it to the man??? it's dangerous.
Not to mention she apparently lived alone yet there were clearly men’s shoes there and beer… ok perhaps there’s a small chance they were hers (she didn’t look like the shoes would have fit in the slightest but obviously women can drink beer), but if she truly lived alone it screamed cuckooing yet he ignored all the concerned people asking if he’d contacted social services.
If he really is lending money to people on a commercial basis (with interest), and doesn’t have FCA authorisation to do this (and assuming he doesn’t fall within one of the exemptions in the legislation - though that looks unlikely, based on what we know), then he’s basically a loan shark. And in very deep tit.
It’s not even about the interest, you absolutely CANNOT release ANY sort of money product to anyone without going though the FCA.
A good friend of mine specialised in finance and particularly, working with banks, lenders etc to get new offerings on the market (I was in the wrong game - she earned fortunes and was always in demand). It take literally years sometimes to launch products and there are a huge amount of personal liabilities, legalities etc and that’s major banks and lenders with some of the best brains working on it.
I can also say from years working in law and particularly criminal, that this country could not care less about its people when it comes to Justice (just look at our sentencing) but it absolutely LOVES money so if this all comes on top, he’s gonna be in the tit. Probably ask a disabled pensioner to fund his legal defence.
Exactly this. But here’s James, making out he’s a saint when really he’s a bleeping loan shark. So so so illegal
Attachments
Oh, my bleeping Good God.
He's just given somebody (pretty Mum, by any chance?) nigh on two and a half grand? to be repaid over 23 years?
I dread to think of the sort of payments on account he's hoping to take on that.
ETA: And now he's miraculously laundered it all fresh and clean within a couple of hours. Allegedly. All paid off. Like magic.
Pouff! and the money lending disappears. To be replaced with just the overstepping the remit and misuse of funds. Bailiff's fees for a two parent family with a car aren't bleeping central heating pumps for pensioners.
He's just given somebody (pretty Mum, by any chance?) nigh on two and a half grand? to be repaid over 23 years?
I dread to think of the sort of payments on account he's hoping to take on that.
ETA: And now he's miraculously laundered it all fresh and clean within a couple of hours. Allegedly. All paid off. Like magic.
Pouff! and the money lending disappears. To be replaced with just the overstepping the remit and misuse of funds. Bailiff's fees for a two parent family with a car aren't bleeping central heating pumps for pensioners.
Excellent, excellent points here.
Because even if he doesn’t take sinister payments in kind, he’s opening himself up to the suggestion doesn’t he? It’s always a possibility. Same as the laundering - it’s pretty suspect isn’t it. Plus how do we know the money is collected or where it goes? And like I said about, I’d be furious to donate money to pay for someone’s baliffs. He does what he wants.
Shouldn't trading standards be having a look at all this, let alone other authorities
Couldn’t agree more. And as ‘Britain’s nicest plumber’ (or whatever he calls himself
) surely wanting to make sure that all of these people are safe and getting the help they need should be a reflex reaction for him anyway?!- Status