Depher/CPH CIC #2 The erratic and reactive way you run this causes half your problems

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Is it a duck? Is it a witch? No! Jimmy’s pissed himself 16 times
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4646.jpeg
    IMG_4646.jpeg
    42.8 KB · Views: 22
Seaford Haggington said:
Back to donations again. What happened to only using profits from paid work? Try sticking to a business model for an entire week.

View attachment 2786096 q

He just posted this. Why does he need donations if all the work is paid from profits? Where does this £10/month go?

View attachment 2786104 q
Click to expand...
So does this mean he’s taking donations again? Last week he wasn’t. Apart from standing orders and direct debits obvs 🥴

I mean, it’s TMI, but over the course of a day I don’t need to pee 16 times and poo twice, never mind be incontinent that many times.
 
Apartment3 said:
View attachment 2785793 q
Click to expand...

So he is literally incontinent as well as Twitter incontinent.
Apparently he has form for suicide-baiting so we can expect that soon.
---
lilykestrel said:
yeah they're either in such a state of consciousness that they cannot meaningfully consent to a random plumber taking pictures of his home, or filthy. Although can't say I'm surprised as I feel it is not uncommon for men of a certain generation who grew up at the tail end of 'separate spheres''s houses going to absolute tit when their wife leaves or dies because they don't know how or can't see the need. But either way, nobody needed to see that Breville Jimmy.
Click to expand...

That person needs a referral to adult social services to assess their needs. The council spoke to Jimmy to explain that social services can help- but there’s no evidence he’s done that as it would take the limelight away from him.
 
Lazarus said:
View attachment 2785507 q

using one set of photos to describe two cases.

reader: it most certainly is not kosher.
Click to expand...

This was basically me at first glance, he seemed like he did good work genuinely (and I think he did a few times) and the weird reusing of pics was what made me unsure. It was only when it continued after people had asked him and been ignored that I realised that it wasn’t just a naive and technology impaired man with a good heart and actually a dodgy bastard.
 
Been watching this thread for a while, had concerns about Depher for years after seeing their shenanigans on Twitter.

Since James is clearly reading Tattle and because I've had my head in Freedom of Information stuff today, I'd like to reinforce one point:

A charity or organisation should NEVER reveal personal identifying information about individuals they serve. It breaks the conditions of GDPR to post photographs without specific consent of the people involved (preferably in writing). Nor should you publish details that may be traceable back to an individual -- this would include specific health conditions, family circumstances, home or finances.

So all those social media posts posing people who might be vulnerable service users of Depher, or even pics that may give clues as to people's identities or place of abode, are breaking GDPR protocols. You also cannot post letters with identifying names and places in the text, even if you've redacted the sender's address.

It's breaking privacy law to publish all these details, which Depher is doing daily on its social media channels.

It's also morally repugnant to be using these images and emotive language to raise money from the public, especially when it appears there's very little accompanying transparency about your income and accounts (by which I mean audited information by a third party, not screengrabs and social media posts).
---
MurielSnark said:
Been watching this thread for a while, had concerns about Depher for years after seeing their shenanigans on Twitter.

Since James is clearly reading Tattle and because I've had my head in Freedom of Information stuff today, I'd like to reinforce one point:

A charity or organisation should NEVER reveal personal identifying information about individuals they serve. It breaks the conditions of GDPR to post photographs without specific consent of the people involved (preferably in writing). Nor should you publish details that may be traceable back to an individual -- this would include specific health conditions, family circumstances, home or finances.

So all those social media posts posing people who might be vulnerable service users of Depher, or even pics that may give clues as to people's identities or place of abode, are breaking GDPR protocols. You also cannot post letters with identifying names and places in the text, even if you've redacted the sender's address.

It's breaking privacy law to publish all these details, which Depher is doing daily on its social media channels.

It's also morally repugnant to be using these images and emotive language to raise money from the public, especially when it appears there's very little accompanying transparency about your income and accounts (by which I mean audited information by a third party, not screengrabs and social media posts).
Click to expand...
Quoting myself to add:

Any one of Depher's clients (whether or not they paid for the services provided) has the right under GDPR to request a detailed report on what information Depher holds on them, how this is managed, how secure it is and whether or not it is used for any other purposes than the fulfillment of a job. They also have the right to lodge a complaint if they believe their privacy has been compromised.

Any organisation that breaks the protocols of GDPR is liable to a fine. So, James, privacy is serious and you are breaking privacy laws with your ongoing social media posts. You can verify this through the Information Commission Office -- it's all online and you can call their helpline for advice.
 
Last edited:
BlairWaldorf86 said:
Hopefully he’s going to drive people to Tattle.
Click to expand...

well I notice that he posted the same photo of the certificate on Facebook, but without the dig at Tattle. The Facebook audience seems to be 100% positive, whereas Twitter is a mixed bag and there's a lot of detractors. So probably doesn't want to make his adoring fans think "oooh what's that Tattle then" and stumble over here.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top