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

1
Seaford Haggington said:
He was under no obligation to do work for anyone referred to him. He was probably pissed off that he had to do work at all. He took in over £1million and there is very little evidence he did any more than the shoddy work he photographed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree he was under no obligation and his crappy behaviour around it says a lot about him but I do still think he’s right it’s not on for the charities to claim they never referred to Depher when they clearly did.

As I said, at least one of the people publicly exploited by him was sent their way by AgeUK (or at least their local office of AgeUK) - imagine how their family feel seeing AgeUK now just shrug and go “we never referred anyone” when it’s because of their referral which obviously gave Depher an extra level of “trustworthiness” that their relative was exploited publicly and likely had shoddy work done.
 
I don't think he's qualified to be pissing about with electrics.
Screenshot_20241210_181201_Facebook.jpg
 
Tin Can Crook said:
He still doesn't understand what he's done wrong.

View attachment 3322103 q

James you shared photos of vulnerable people with identifying information without their consent, sometimes with fabricated stories. I have no idea what you're referring to but I strongly suspect the appeal stated the actors were paid actors.
Click to expand...
I would 100% EXPECT certain charities to use actors in their appeals - otherwise that (imo) verges on exploitation of already vulnerable people.
How he thinks that is comparable with his grotty photos - often giving people's personal identifiable details alongside - is quite ridiculous.
I doubt the adverts he is talking about show old ladies in their bedrooms in their nighties with captions like 'she lives on her own, has cancer and is extremely vulnerable. Discusting' - advertising this fact to anyone who could take advantage (including him).
 
Jelly Bean said:
I would 100% EXPECT certain charities to use actors in their appeals - otherwise that (imo) verges on exploitation of already vulnerable people.
How he thinks that is comparable with his grotty photos - often giving people's personal identifiable details alongside - is quite ridiculous.
I doubt the adverts he is talking about show old ladies in their bedrooms in their nighties with captions like 'she lives on her own, has cancer and is extremely vulnerable. Discusting' - advertising this fact to anyone who could take advantage (including him).
Click to expand...

It really shows how little due diligence the charities etc who referred to him did as well. The twitter feed and FB should have been a massive red flag for them all and it was hardly hidden in the slightest. Yet they were all totally happy to refer to him until the BBC exposed him and their feet were held to the coals and suddenly it became “local offices” and “individual employees”. I know him asking for money from them is utter shite conman behaviour, but if people believe he got a meeting with the high ups in ageUK when they weren’t actively engaging with him, then I have a bridge in London to sell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top