Beat the Bailiffs Extra
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
📈 تحلیل کانال تلگرام Beat the Bailiffs Extra
کانال Beat the Bailiffs Extra (@beatbailifs) در بخش زبانی انگلیسی بازیگری فعال است. در حال حاضر جامعه شامل 10 730 مشترک است و جایگاه 829 را در دسته قانونی و رتبه 1 075 را در منطقه المملكة المتحدة دارد.
📊 شاخص‌های مخاطب و پویایی
از زمان ایجاد در невідомо، پروژه رشد سریعی داشته و 10 730 مشترک جذب کرده است.
بر اساس آخرین داده‌ها در تاریخ 16 اکتبر, 2026، کانال فعالیت پایداری دارد. در ۳۰ روز گذشته تغییر اعضا برابر -76 و در ۲۴ ساعت گذشته برابر 3 بوده و همچنان دسترسی گسترده‌ای حفظ شده است.
- وضعیت تأیید: تأیید نشده
- نرخ تعامل (ER): میانگین تعامل مخاطب 6.63% است و در ۲۴ ساعت نخست پس از انتشار، محتوا معمولاً 3.64% واکنش نسبت به کل مشترکان کسب می‌کند.
- دسترسی پست‌ها: هر پست به طور میانگین 711 بازدید دریافت می‌کند. در اولین روز معمولاً 391 بازدید جمع‌آوری می‌شود.
- واکنش‌ها و تعامل: مخاطبان به‌طور فعال حمایت می‌کنند؛ میانگین واکنش به هر پست 5 است.
- علایق موضوعی: محتوا بر موضوعات کلیدی مانند debt, warrant, property, donation, act تمرکز دارد.
📝 توضیح و سیاست محتوایی
نویسنده این فضا را محل بیان دیدگاه‌های شخصی توصیف می‌کند:
“SELF HELP - SHARING THE ORIGINAL BTB FB AND MORE”
به لطف به‌روزرسانی‌های پرتکرار (آخرین داده در تاریخ 17 اکتبر, 2026)، کانال همواره به‌روز و دارای دسترسی بالاست. تحلیل‌ها نشان می‌دهد مخاطبان به‌طور فعال با محتوا تعامل دارند و آن را به نقطه اثرگذاری مهم در دسته قانونی تبدیل کرده‌اند.
10 730
مشترکین
+324 ساعت
-277 روز
-7630 روز
در حال بارگذاری داده‌ها
کانال‌های مشابه
ابر برچسب‌ها
اشارات ورودی و خروجی
---
---
---
---
---
---
جذب مشترکین
اکتبر '26اکتبر '26
اکتبر '26
+11
در 4 کانال‌ها
سپتامبر '26
+40
در 7 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '26
+30
در 6 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '26
+63
در 4 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '26
+65
در 8 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '26
+54
در 8 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '26
+26
در 2 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '26
+30
در 4 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '26
+50
در 2 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '26
+67
در 13 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '25
+35
در 5 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '25
+58
در 5 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '25
+32
در 5 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '25
+22
در 4 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '25
+33
در 5 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '25
+46
در 7 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '25
+85
در 7 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '25
+90
در 13 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '25
+87
در 6 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '25
+98
در 5 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '25
+351
در 9 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '25
+214
در 42 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '24
+170
در 20 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '24
+265
در 26 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '24
+225
در 20 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '24
+293
در 27 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '24
+206
در 22 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '24
+199
در 21 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '24
+221
در 16 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '24
+179
در 16 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '24
+231
در 16 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '24
+260
در 22 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '24
+294
در 21 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '24
+339
در 25 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '23
+374
در 23 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '23
+362
در 26 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '23
+202
در 9 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '23
+314
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '23
+334
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '23
+323
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '23
+321
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '23
+666
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '23
+530
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '23
+653
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '23
+987
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '23
+804
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '22
+613
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '22
+620
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '22
+3 356
در 0 کانال‌ها
| تاریخ | رشد مشترکین | اشارات | کانال‌ها | |
| 16 اکتبر | +3 | |||
| 15 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 14 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 13 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 12 اکتبر | +3 | |||
| 11 اکتبر | +1 | |||
| 10 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 09 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 08 اکتبر | +3 | |||
| 07 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 06 اکتبر | +1 | |||
| 05 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 04 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 03 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 02 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 01 اکتبر | 0 |
پست‌های کانال
| 2 |  LOST A PROPERTY DUE TO FREEMAN IDEOLOGY
BARCLAYS & C&G
MORTGAGE CALL
Will Be Explained in Detail Once We Have “Your” Paperwork
Those requiring intimate details from me from a fake profile should do an ego check!
Your safety is not important to me. Mine is! #fuckoff | 370 |
| 3 |  +1BANNING WOOD BURNERS?
#EnergyFaud #GasLighting
DRAX POWER STATION BURNS 4.9 MILLION TONNES OF WOOD A YEAR READ
Receiving Subsidies From The Government to produce TWICE THE CARBON OF GATWICK | 388 |
| 4 | BARCLAYS & C&G
MORTGAGEES
PAST; PRESENT or REPOSSESSED
WANTED
@Jatinder369 | 408 |
| 5 |  NESO GETTING NOTICED
Not Only for the £400 Million Spent on Marketing…
“This isn’t Energy
Balancing
This is Last Minute
Expensive Fixes”
Katherine Porter
- Independent
Energy Consultant
Yesterday’s Catastrophic Reliance on Imported Electric
COST THE BILL PAYER
£50 Million
Today is Hitting Close To £30 Million
These “Unusual Events” are becoming a Common Occurrence
THE TIMES:
WHY ARE POWER GRID BOSSES GAS LIGHTING US? | 395 |
| 6 |  DO YOU EVEN KNOW YOUR COUNCILLORS?
ZIONISM IS RACISM
Councillors Coming Out Endorsing Zionism over Christianity?? #WTAF
NB: They Get in With as Little as 400 Votes -GET THEM OUT!
#AntiChristian #AntiEnglish
#AntiGaza #AntiPalestine | 500 |
| 7 | THE ANGLIAN WATER ISSUE
Please message me Directly
I lost your Message!
👇
@Jatinder369 | 59 |
| 8 |  NOTICE TO SCC
CTR CONSULTATION UNLAWFUL
https://t.me/BeatBailifs/18741 | 475 |
| 9 | By failing to explain that the Council possesses a broad, discretionary power under Section 13A to write off Council Tax for working people in crisis, the consultation deprives the public of the ability to give an "intelligent response." How can the public accurately judge if an 80% maximum support cap is fair if they are not concurrently informed that the Council holds the power to reduce the bill to zero in exceptional circumstances? Working-age residents evaluating Table 1 of the consultation are essentially being kept in the dark about their full statutory rights;
3. Required Action The consultation explicitly states its intent to "support the most vulnerable". However, by hiding the broader application of Section 13A(1)(c) discretionary relief, the Council is failing to inform working-age residents of the full spectrum of support available to them during life-altering crises;
Therefore, I demand that the Council:
1. Immediately pause the consultation and issue an addendum clarifying the full scope of Section 13A(1)(c) discretionary relief, specifically noting its availability to working-age residents who are not claiming Universal Credit;
2. Confirm how the Council intends to evaluate the needs of working people who face sudden hardship (such as bereavement) outside of the proposed income bands;
3. Ensure that all elected councillors are made aware that failing to clearly consult on discretionary alternatives places this policy at risk of a judicial review under the Moseley precedent. | 410 |
| 10 | SCC CONSULTATION
UNLAWFUL 👀
Online | PDF
FAILING TO INFORM:
A. Residents To “Take” The Consultation
B. WORKING QUALIFY FOR ZERO BILLS
Subject: Formal Challenge to the Legality of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2027-28 Consultation (Failure to Adequately Consult on Section 13A Provisions - Since 2013
To the Consultation Team and Elected Councillors,
I am writing to formally challenge the legal adequacy of the ongoing consultation regarding the proposed income-banded Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2027-28;
A. DEMOCRATIC FAILURE TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS
A public consultation is legally invalid if the public is actively kept in the dark about its existence. I explicitly registered for email alerts regarding council consultations, yet I received absolutely no notification that this critical Council Tax consultation had launched;
The Council holds the email addresses of its residents. It costs nothing to send a mass digital notification to inform Council Tax payers that a policy affecting their financial liabilities is actively being debated. Relying on residents to stumble upon this consultation by chance is a deliberate suppression of public engagement and a breach of our legitimate expectation to be consulted;
B. WORKING RESIDENTS DISCRIMINATION
Having reviewed the consultation documents, it is apparent that the Council has fundamentally failed to provide sufficient information regarding discretionary relief under Section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. By omitting clear details on how this statutory provision supports working-age people outside of the standard benefits system, the Council is arguably in breach of the common law duties of fairness in public consultations, as defined by the Supreme Court;
1. The Misrepresentation of Discretionary Relief in the Consultation Section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 grants the billing authority the discretionary power to reduce Council Tax liability to such extent as it thinks fit, including reducing it to nil. This is a standalone provision meant to support residents facing unforeseen, exceptional hardship—such as a sudden bereavement in the family or unexpected job loss—regardless of whether they are claiming state benefits like Universal Credit.
However, the Council's consultation documents severely misrepresent this statutory safety net. In "Part 1" of the consultation document, the discretionary scheme is mentioned exclusively in the context of mitigating losses for those negatively impacted by the new banded scheme:
"It is estimated that around 5% of working age households could see a reduction in support... Where this happens, any applicant will be able to apply for extra help through the Council's Discretionary Council Tax Reduction Scheme";
Framing the discretionary scheme merely as a transitional "top-up" for those already in the CTR system is legally and factually incomplete. It completely misses out on informing working people—who may not qualify for the banded scheme or who do not wish to claim standard benefits—that they have a statutory right to apply for discretionary repayment under Section 13A if they suffer a sudden financial shock.
2. Breach of the Moseley Precedent and the Sedley Criteria The failure to accurately present Section 13A(1)(c) options renders this consultation vulnerable to judicial review. The legal standard for a lawful consultation on Council Tax schemes was definitively set by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56.
In that landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that a local authority's consultation on a Council Tax reduction scheme was unlawful because it failed to present the public with realistic alternatives or explain the broader context of the proposals. The consultation must satisfy the "Sedley Criteria", the second of which dictates that:
• "Sufficient reasons must be given for the proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response."; | 341 |
| 11 | +2 SCC CTR What’s Changing.pdf | 360 |
| 12 |  NESO PAID TO FAIL
Neso Paid £2 Billion a Year
Transmission unable to move FREE ELECTRICITY from the north to the south because of transmission issues
DIDN’T EXPERIENCE TRANSMISSIONS ISSUES..
BUYING the most expensive electricity from France 🇫🇷 | 512 |
| 13 |  £2100 ENERGY BILLS
SAVES 1% CARBON
- 2100% Higher Than Iran 🇮🇷
- 5 DAY BLACKOUTS 💡 | 457 |
| 14 | 👆
They Run Court Administration
👇
https://t.me/BeatBailifs/18720 | 459 |
| 15 |  DO NOT CRITICISE ISRAEL
See ALL X Comments Here
Friends of
UK Lawyers for Israel
A Zionist message to Americans
"Anyone who criticizes Israel is our enemy.
We will monitor you through Google, identify your weaknesses, get you fired from your job, and if you own a business, we will make it go bankrupt." 👀
#AntiGaza #AntiPalestine #AntiFreeSpeech #Antilife
TREASON | 394 |
| 16 |  DO NOT CRITICISE ISRAEL
See ALL X Comments Here
Friends of
UK Lawyers for Israel
A Zionist message to Americans
"Anyone who criticizes Israel is our enemy.
We will monitor you through Google, identify your weaknesses, get you fired from your job, and if you own a business, we will make it go bankrupt." 👀
#AntiGaza #AntiPalestine #AntiFreeSpeech #Antilife
TREASON | 1 |
| 17 |  DO NOT CRITICISE ISRAEL
See ALL X Comments Here
Friends of
UK Lawyers for Israel
A Zionist message to Americans
"Anyone who criticizes Israel is our enemy.
We will monitor you through Google, identify your weaknesses, get you fired from your job, and if you own a business, we will make it go bankrupt." 👀
#AntiGaza #AntiPalestine #AntiFreeSpeech #Antilife
TREASON | 1 |
| 18 | DO NOT CRITICISE ISRAEL
See ALL X Comments Here
Friends of
UK Lawyers for Israel
A Zionist message to Americans
"Anyone who criticizes Israel is our enemy.
We will monitor you through Google, identify your weaknesses, get you fired from your job, and if you own a business, we will make it go bankrupt." 👀
#AntiGaza #AntiPalestine #AntiFreeSpeech #Antilife
TREASON | 1 |
| 19 |  DRIVERS CHARGED TO PARK ON PUBLIC LAND
….. BY COUNCILS???
DID YOUR COUNCILLORS UPHOLD THEIR DUTY:
HOLD A PUBLIC CONSULTATION WITH THE PEOPLE THEY “WORK FOR”, YOU? 🫵
WHERE IS THE BENINGINGING?
Were DRIVERS Consulted?
Councillors often consult school children….. 👶
COUNCILS RIP OFF DRIVERS: How to Hold Your Councillors Accountable When Executives Bypass the Public
Local government executives frequently implement sweeping operational changes to reduce administrative budgets, often leaving the public to foot the resulting bill. A glaring example is the recent shift away from traditional ticket machines in council car parks. Drivers forced to use parking apps can end up paying up to 40% more in extra fees just to park on public land. This shift raises an urgent democratic question: were drivers actually consulted, or did elected councillors simply turn a blind eye and allow the executive branch to bypass public scrutiny?
When unelected executive teams propose changes that directly impact the daily lives and wallets of residents, elected councillors must act as the primary line of defense. When they fail to do so, it is up to the public to formally challenge them;
What Powers Are Councillors Failing to Use?
By allowing executive boards to implement public land charges without public input, councillors are abdicating several of their most critical statutory and democratic powers:
• The Power of Scrutiny and "Call-In": Under the Local Government Act 2000, councillors on Overview and Scrutiny Committees have the power to "call in" executive decisions before they are implemented.
• Enforcing Lawful Consultations: Councillors have the authority to halt proposals that fail the "Sedley criteria," endorsed by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey. This ruling dictates that consultations must happen at a formative stage and the results conscientiously taken into account.
If councillors let executives skip this, they are failing to uphold common law standards;
• Mandating Equality Impact Assessments: Under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, councils must consider how decisions affect protected groups. Councillors are failing their duty if they do not demand proof that moving to app-only parking won't disproportionately disenfranchise or financially penalize elderly residents or those without smartphones;
• Financial Oversight: Councillors have the right to scrutinize third-party contracts. By not interrogating the deals made with private parking app providers, they are failing to protect the public from extortionate convenience fees;
Why You Should Complain to Your Councillor
You should direct your complaints to your local ward councillors rather than the council's customer service desk because executives and bureaucrats are unelected—they are insulated from public backlash. Councillors, however, rely on your vote.
When a policy is framed as a mere "operational cost-cutting measure" by an executive, it stays hidden. Lodging a formal, legally grounded complaint with a councillor forces the issue into the political arena. It compels the councillor to ask difficult questions on the public record and places the liability for the failure to consult squarely on the shoulders of the elected officials; | 516 |
| 20 | PUBLIC LAND CHARGES
Parking Charges/ Fines
How to Complain to Your Councillor: A Step-by-Step Guide
If you want to dispute public land charges and a lack of consultation, follow these steps to hold your representatives accountable:
Step 1: Put It in Writing Identify your local ward councillors via your council’s website. Send a formal email so that there is a written paper trail. Do not rely on phone calls, which can be easily dismissed or forgotten.
Step 2: Demand the Consultation Data Do not just express anger over the parking fees; challenge the process. Ask the councillor explicitly: "Can you provide the evidence of the public consultation that was carried out prior to the executive decision to remove ticket machines? How did this consultation meet the legal standards established in Moseley v Haringey?"
Step 3: Ask for an Equality Impact Assessment Request that the councillor provide the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) that was completed before this decision was approved. Ask them how they, as an elected representative, are ensuring that the elderly or digitally excluded are not being penalized by smartphone-only policies;
Step 4: Request a Committee Escalation Instruct your councillor to take action. Ask them to formally refer your dispute to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee for a public review. Demand that the executive's decision be debated openly, not behind closed doors;
Step 5: Follow Up with FOI Requests Inform your councillor that you are independently submitting a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to uncover the financial contracts between the council and the parking app providers, as well as the internal communications regarding the lack of public consultation; | 450 |
