Panorama Programme - 7 April - Discussion

[wonkeydonkey]

I hope your t-shirts carry an appropriate slogan.....'the lights are on but we will pretend not to be at home' further suggested slogans on a post card please...

[HCEOs]

Given the programme is only 30 minutes and the fact that new regulations came in today which can be used to state that any malpractice has now ceased, I see this supposed exposé falling a bit flat.

 

So we will see if the talk of 'bringing down the bailiff industry' by that fool on his laughable forums carries any weight in a few hours. If it does, you can bet that he had little to do with it.

 

It will be interesting nonetheless.

[sweep1]

I suspect the programme in question will now be seriously "watered down" and simply an 30 min feature about the activitys of bailiffs and the new rules introduced on sunday.

 

The company in question did this afternoon release a statement about tonights programme

 

7th April 2014

 

JBW made an application for an injunction against the BBC on Friday 4th April in the Royal Courts of Justice. The application failed.

 

JBW effectively had no option but to apply to protect the position of its clients and the business. Snapper TV’s letter of 24 March set out very serious facts and allegations that JBW had breached relevant regulation, guidelines and committed unlawful acts by its agents. Snapper invited a response, and that was the purpose of its letter. However, despite the fact that JBW produced (as the learned Judge recognised) an extremely detailed response by letter on 2 April comprehensively dealing with all points and allegations made by Snapper showing without doubt that what it was saying was plainly wrong and would be defamatory, they refused to engage with us or provide us with the requisite reassurance and undertakings.

 

Mr Justice Tugendhat gave very clear indication at Court on Friday that for Snapper and the BBC to disregard our comprehensive response would not only be “utterly irresponsible” and “extremely foolish” but that the “consequences for the Defendant of doing so would be extremely grave”.

 

Justice Tugendhat commented that it was very unlikely the BBC would now publish or broadcast the Programme as originally intended and outlined in Snapper’s letter.

http://www.jbwgroup.co.uk/news/2014/jbw-statement/

Edited April 7, 2014 by citizenB

[Conniff]

A few minutes ago this appeared on twitter. I had heard whispers to the application for an injunction but this confirms them to have been true.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/07/panorama-bailiffs-bbc-investigation-aired-waller-court-bid?CMP=twt_gu

 

 

 

But does this mean all the juicy parts have been withdrawn

 

 

"Justice Tugendhat commented that it was very unlikely the BBC would now publish or broadcast the programme as originally intended and outlined in Snapper's letter."

[Conniff]

....and the fact that new regulations came in today which can be used to state that any malpractice has now ceased

 

 

I have read the new regs and can't for the life of me see any real difference except that old washing machine will now stay in the shed.

[45002]

Don't forget tonight BBC One 20:30 hrs

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040rdxs

 

Broadcasts

 

 

 

• Mon 7 Apr 2014 20:30 BBC One
  
  
• Thu 10 Apr 2014 04:30 BBC News 24
  
• Fri 11 Apr 2014 00:20 BBC 2
  

 

and iplayer thing .....

[brassnecked]

Whatever it will be interesting to see, but it would be short notice to re edit the whole programme.

[ploddertom]

I hope your t-shirts carry an appropriate slogan.....'the lights are on but we will pretend not to be at home' further suggested slogans on a post card please...

 

Well strangely enough I do have a Fred Flintstone T-shirt that actually says "The lights are on but there's no-one home"

[lamma]

Undercover filming. That brings me joy. We will see what makes the cut.

[unclebulgaria67]

Should not have watched it. Made my blood boil !

 

If the government, Police and Courts do not tackle this problem, unfortunately people will take matters into their own hands, with bailiffs losing their lifes as a consequence. They are making the job more dangerous by their actions.

[brassnecked]

Should not have watched it. Made my blood boil !

 

If the government, Police and Courts do not tackle this problem, unfortunately people will take matters into their own hands, with bailiffs losing their lifes as a consequence. They are making the job more dangerous by their actions.

Having just watched the Panorama programme I can see why JBW wanted it pulled, every shenanigan we see on here they pulled Newlyn seizing third party car, threats, intimidation. MOJ SHAME ON YOU for not putting a regulatory framework in.

 

Things have got worse than when Boast, was exposed.

[Conniff]

So why aren't we hearing of any court cases, especially with such as the Ambulance.

[ploddertom]

So why aren't we hearing of any court cases, especially with such as the Ambulance.

 

Probably because the people involved don't know where to turn.

[brassnecked]

So why aren't we hearing of any court cases, especially with such as the Ambulance.

Because the police arrested him, and unlawfully assisted the bailiff he should sue the council for the cost. the other one is Equita were caught charging a van fee when the bailiff turned up in a Corsa, again bet police will do squat.

[citizenB]

Ouch.. I taped this to watch later.. I think maybe I shouldnt !

[ploddertom]

Ouch.. I taped this to watch later.. I think maybe I shouldnt !

 

Wish I'd watched Corrie instead.

[tomtubby]

There is a misconception about 'undercover' programmes.

 

Whilst the filming is undoubtably 'in secret' the programme makers would have had to write to each bailiff company with the evidence and allowing them 'rights of reply'. Clearly JBW were not happy with their exposure and sought an injunction on Friday and lost.

[brassnecked]

There is a misconception about 'undercover' programmes.

 

Whilst the filming is undoubtably 'in secret' the programme makers would have had to write to each bailiff company with the evidence and allowing them 'rights of reply'. Clearly JBW were not happy with their exposure and sought an injunction on Friday and lost.

 

It did not show the named companies in a very good light though

[Cott]

Hello all......

..I only come on here in exceptional circumstances now

but thought I'd just make a simple comment after tonight's programme.

 

Quite simply,

 

remember Bailiff Watchdog and what was said all those years ago

and also how not many people believed that the sainted Jaimie could possibly do nasty things...

 

....well, you could say "we told you so!"

 

Although as a few have commented on here,

 

Panorama tonight only showed the VERY tip of the iceberg.

 

Certainly if JBW were only involved in the things that were shown then actually we'd all be quite ok......

 

.....if only one day the real truth would come out,

 

then EXTREMELY long criminal sentences would be involved.

 

I know that's dreamworld as obviously the 'connections' that all these companies have will always prevent them being brought to justice

for the lives they've ruined and indeed in some cases literally ended.

[tomtubby]

Hopefully the programme( as short as it was) will make the 'powers to be' really think whether it really was a good idea to provide "Interpleader' proceedings in the new regulations. They should also have provided simple guidance on the position regarding vehicles considered 'tools of the trade'.

 

It was clear that JBW came in for a lot of criticism but I was surprised that Hackney agreed to go on record to confirm that their contract with JBW Group had been suspended for failings.

 

Clearly the NoTo Mob did a lot of research.

[brassnecked]

If those tools ,of the trade vehicles are worth more than £1350, apparently under the new rules the EA can have them away and sell them, or so it would seem. Hope that one is overturned, or amended as there will be a lot of vehicles taken from builders, plumbers and electricians.

 

This new system could well backfire on MOJ .

[lamma]

How could Panorama - with input from the NoToMob who have examined the council contracts - utterly fail to mention the 'kickback clause' ?

Nor Council responsibility as principal.

The brief suspension of JBW was not to punish JBW it was to protect the council, as was in my view every word that came from the Hackney spokesperson.

The programme did not go far enough, not by a very very long chalk.

TT must be spitting feathers. Even though she sees this every working day (and on her 'days off' I bet)

[wonkeydonkey]

Hopefully the programme( as short as it was) will make the 'powers to be' really think whether it really was a good idea to provide "Interpleader' proceedings in the new regulations. They should also have provided simple guidance on the position regarding vehicles considered 'tools of the trade'.

 

It was clear that JBW came in for a lot of criticism but I was surprised that Hackney agreed to go on record to confirm that their contract with JBW Group had been suspended for failings.

 

Clearly the NoTo Mob did a lot of research.

 

I agree with that TT ..the input from NTM was superb and their research was phenomenal, it 'stole the show' so to speak. Hackney were brave to go on record saying this was not the first time JBW had been called into question and they would give consideration to removing their contract with them, if it is proved they don't seem to have 'cleaned' their act up.

[RaeUK]

Crikey. Nothing really changes does it?

[caro]

I found it incredible that Hackney took JBW back on. I really wouldn't like to speculate too much about why that might be.