I'd probably have gone with a different pseudonym than "Mr T" to be honest. Though ironically there are a lot of fools involved in DCBL.

I'd probably have gone with a different pseudonym than "Mr T" to be honest. Though ironically there are a lot of fools involved in DCBL.

It's not a pseudonym, the debtors surname would have began with a T (Timpson for example) hence "Mr. T" So it would have been shortened in the transcript, it's just rather unfortunate that it also happens to be the stage name of Lawrence Tureaud

You sure you have the right Mr T fule.............Imagine HM Murdock dealing with Bohill.

The above is because it seems that Channel 5 are now trying to flog a dead horse.

Yet another case has been upheld by OFCOM against Channel 5 but this time Channel 5 even try to use the Ali case (THE £20K one) as mitigation for their surreptitious filming inside the complainants home. Part of the agreement between the HCEAs was that if anyone questions the use of BWC, the HCEA is supposed to disclose that the images could be used and that they were the property of the show maker. They were asked about the cameras but they didn't disclose the full use, only saying that they were for protection and then fumbled around trying to avoid mentioning that the BWCs didn't belong to them.

It was also mentioned that the BWCs were in fact transmitting the images and sound directly to the show crew outside. This is the first time I have heard they did this as it was assumed that the A/V was stored on SD cards.

This complaint was made quite late so I am assuming that this complaint was made after the Ali judgement when the complainants realised their situation was similar.

Anyhoo, here is the relevant publication. It starts at page 60 and goes on to page 101 so 41 pages to read but it's well worth it.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/117468/broadcast-on-demand-bulletin-issue-359.pdf

Another excellent discovery SF. I will make sure that this decision is widely distributed (I have already copied it to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association)

Superb find SF, perhaps the writing is on the wall for this obnoxious miserython of a programme.

In today's OFCOM fortnightly bulletin there are two cases featured, both upheld. I haven't looked at the second one yet as I have to go out.

The first case involves a single mum who has depression and a daughter with medical problems. I don't watch Can' Pay but from reading the details of this case, my thoughts are that the HCEA's should have withdrawn as it was patently obvious this woman was vulnerable. Read it for yourself and then comment if you want.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/129050/Issue-367-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf

The first judgement starts at page 41 but I do find the entire bulletin a great insight into the role of the media.

In today's OFCOM fortnightly bulletin there are two cases featured, both upheld. I haven't looked at the second one yet as I have to go out.

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/129050/Issue-367-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf

 

The first judgement starts at page 41 but I do find the entire bulletin a great insight into the role of the media.

Hi Silverfox...the above link is not working.

Try https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins and go to the Current Issue

Two more nails in the Miserython's coffin I hope.

:

 

Yet another case has been upheld by OFCOM against Channel 5 but this time Channel 5 even try to use the Ali case (THE £20K one) as mitigation for their surreptitious filming inside the complainants home.

 

This complaint was made quite late so I am assuming that this complaint was made after the Ali judgement when the complainants realised their situation was similar.

 

 

Anyhoo, here is the relevant publication. It starts at page 60 and goes on to page 101 so 41 pages to read but it's well worth it.

 

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/117468/broadcast-on-demand-bulletin-issue-359.pdf

Silverfox,

The link to the above decision which you posted about on post 79 is broken. Can you work your magic again.....

Might be here P41 on

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/129050/Issue-367-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin-.pdf

Sorry guys (&gals) I'll try again

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins

That link takes you to the website page and the link is a little further down the page. Issue 03/1218

Originally put in Post 84!

Originally put in Post 84!

Sorry. Missed that you had already done so

Having now read the second case, it would be worth (in my opinion) to separate them into two separate threads for a more detailed discussion. I will get onto that today.

Sorry. Missed that you had already done so

Having now read the second case, it would be worth (in my opinion) to separate them into two separate threads for a more detailed discussion. I will get onto that today.

Good idea SF, these cases need scrutiny and comment as separate incidents. Both are indicative of a complete lack of ethics by Channel 5 when dealing with potentially vulnerable situations.

I wonder if Izzit249 will turn up to explain why the Judge was wrong to even query Channel 5's programme.

Now there is a legal Company on the case [Hamlins] perhaps they could have a go at getting Bohill taken to task for barging his way into someone's

house that happened on an earlier series.

Bohill needs the BWC sticking where the sun don't shine, I wonder if going in with BWC on as DCBL don't own the cameras, or copyright of the footage and therefore the footage isn't strictly for the supposed purpose of protecting both debtor and EA, and as in the highlighted cases no prior permission from the debtor there is an automatic breach of GDPR, as the primary purpose of the footage is for a TV programme?

That one might tempt Izzit249 lookedinforinfo.

Bohill needs the BWC sticking where the sun don't shine, I wonder if going in with BWC on as DCBL don't own the cameras, or copyright of the footage and therefore the footage isn't strictly for the supposed purpose of protecting both debtor and EA, and as in the highlighted cases no prior permission from the debtor there is an automatic breach of GDPR, as the primary purpose of the footage is for a TV programme?

 

That one might tempt Izzit249 lookedinforinfo.

This is exactly the reason that OFCOM have started upholding complaints. The agents are told to say, if asked, they the cameras were for security and training.

If DCBL had used their own cameras, GDPR or even the old DPA would have meant that any images recorded were protected and permission would have to be sought from the individuals concerned and if they had no permission, no program. Also, as DCBL would have held the copyright there would need to be an agreement between them and C5 for the images.

In some of the earlier cases which were not upheld I asked OFCOM (on Twitter) whether they would revisit any of the prior complaints to see if the cameras worn belonged to DCBL or the production company. No response!