James Anderson/ DEPHER #7 Desperate stuff from an unrepentant conman

1
ChampagneBox said:
Do not I repeat DO NOT google the rest of the lyrics….not just sexually explicit but also fucked up
Click to expand...
I did go look. I was going to say and duck me it’s appalling but I don’t think I want to even think about that word in any context for a long time to er come…

Seriously though. I thought I was done being shocked by Jimmys inappropriate behaviour but I think we need to invent some new words to fully capture just how sickening his behaviour truly is!
 
MrFMercury said:
I did go look. I was going to say and duck me it’s appalling but I don’t think I want to even think about that word in any context for a long time to er come…

Seriously though. I thought I was done being shocked by Jimmys inappropriate behaviour but I think we need to invent some new words to fully capture just how sickening his behaviour truly is!
Click to expand...
It’s almost like a kink…he gets off on involving unwitting people in it
 
It looks like he’s reposting the “joyce” story on his new TikTok, as if it’s real. He really is quite dangerous.
I'm beginning to wonder how many cons he’s possibly ran over the years.
IMG_1535.jpeg
 
Tin Can Crook said:
He's back whining about AgeUK again. Last time from the context of the email he poated, his complaint seemed to be that local branches signposted to him and then he hit them up demanding payment and the national branch stepped in to try and stop this reoccurring?

View attachment 3289043 q
Click to expand...

I think he’s got a point here tbf. AgeUK aren’t the only ones who have passed the buck claiming that someone working for them and actively representing them making a referral/signposting to Depher in the course of their job doesn’t mean that AgeUK (or whoever) were referring or signposting to Depher and James is lying.

By all reasonable standards, the above happening does mean they were referring to Depher and while it may be accurate to say it’s not a charity wide, council wide or whatever wide policy, I don’t think it’s fair for them to say he was lying and he never got a referral from them. Clearly local branches and individual employees did signpost and refer to Depher and they need to take a good hard look at why that was rather than try to twist the one sole aspect James is clearly telling the truth about.

After all, there are hundreds of James’s out there and if they don’t address the behaviour, it will recur again and again and again.

ETA: and while James may not deserve the charities and council etc being accountable for their role, the people exploited by him thanks to them sending them his way sure do. Imagine how the families of those exploited after AgeUK referred them to James feel seeing AgeUK deny all knowledge and say James is lying.
 
Last edited:
CabalofBolorneaise said:
I think he’s got a point here tbf. AgeUK aren’t the only ones who have passed the buck claiming that someone working for them and actively representing them making a referral/signposting to Depher in the course of their job doesn’t mean that AgeUK (or whoever) were referring or signposting to Depher and James is lying.

By all reasonable standards, the above happening does mean they were referring to Depher and while it may be accurate to say it’s not a charity wide, council wide or whatever wide policy, I don’t think it’s fair for them to say he was lying and he never got a referral from them. Clearly local branches and individual employees did signpost and refer to Depher and they need to take a good hard look at why that was rather than try to twist the one sole aspect James is clearly telling the truth about.

After all, there are hundreds of James’s out there and if they don’t address the behaviour, it will recur again and again and again.
Click to expand...

The problem is, he keeps turning around and complaining they didn't pay him for the work which in the instance of signposting would never be the arrangement.
---
Screenshot from 2nd November regarding expecting payment

20241209_181413.jpg
 
Tin Can Crook said:
The problem is, he keeps turning around and complaining they didn't pay him for the work which in the instance of signposting would never be the arrangement.
---
Screenshot from 2nd November regarding expecting payment

View attachment 3310436 q
Click to expand...

I don’t think he’s saying it was the arrangement though, he’s saying that given the amount of people they were referring to him that he thought they should be contributing? Hence having a meeting to ask them for support with it.

Which given it’s James the con man is ridiculous but if they are regularly referring people to small local charities for help without ever contributing I suspect a lot of them wonder why they don’t ever help out the small charities in any way. Most of them probably don’t have his gall to say it so publicly though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top