MARKET FARCES: THE MYSTERY OF THE MISSING REPORT

The Markets FileWhat’s happened to this report on the city council’s crisis hit MARKETS SERVICE their Audit Committee has been promised by council bosses since September?

It didn’t appear in November. It didn’t appear in January. Although a minute from January assured the committee, “a report on the Markets Service will be presented to the Committee at its Meeting on 6th March 2015.”

Alas, there’s no sign of any such report on the agenda for 6 March now either. What on earth’s the problem? Where is this report? Why’s it taking so long?

Facilties Management bosses and their boss Robert “SPUNKFACE” Orrett have now had THREE YEARS to come up with a rational explanation for what looks very much like open corruption and theft in this department and the blind eyes turned.

However, we do note some small changes over the six months we’ve been waiting for this report to appear.

Initially it was going to be delivered by the senior boss responsible, SPUNKFACE. By January he’d found a minion, Charles “DIRTBUSTER” Harding to deliver the bad news. And now it looks like Harding has found his own useful idiot to explain the inexplicable. Step forward lower middle management mug, Stacey Bartlett.

If the buck passing continues at this rate, Spunkface and Dirtbuster soon will be putting forward the cleaner to deliver their report!

Oddly, none of the three were anywhere near the Markets Service in 2012 when former bosses Harvey and Morris “uncollected” £165k of the department’s money and then attempt to dispose of any troublesome whistleblowers to cover their tracks.

Presumably we can expect this thriller of a report in May then?

BENT ASBO WATCH: INTRODUCING THE COUNCIL’S ‘NOT-AN-INVESTIGATION’ INVESTIGATION

Mentally retarded council housing boss Nick “DROOPER” Hooper is getting himself into a right old pickle with his INEPT attempt to ASBO a pair of environmental campaigners from Avonmouth on behalf of the local Tory Party.

Drooper, you may recall, fired off a THREATENING letter to the pair after they hand delivered some questions to Avonmouth’s village idiot Tory councillor Wayne “DUMB” Harvey.

However, now under scrutiny for his bizarre conduct, Drooper is becoming increasingly SHIFTY and claiming that his investigation into the environmentalists was in fact some sort of peculiar “not-an-investigation” procedure!

He claims his letter “was intended to set out the Councils view that the conduct alleged was, from the reports received, potentially anti-social and not conducive to good public administration.”

So does ANYONE have the foggiest idea what the fuck the difference is between receiving reports and forming a view on the basis of them and a straightforward investigation please? Answers welcome below.

Meanwhile, Drooper has now ended all correspondence on the matter of his er, deranged, unlawful and party political correspondence telling the AVONMOUTH ASBO DUO to contact the Local Government Ombudsman instead.

A pointless exercise as we all know the ombudsman is a GUTLESS regulatory quango that will see no problem with Drooper’s quasi-judicial party political antics.

However, The BRISTOLIAN understands that the injured parties have now received legal advice and will be taking the matter further through that route.

This, of course, will cost you dear council tax payer A SMALL FORTUNE in legal fees. And all because some balding OLD TORY TWAT on £90k a year thinks he’s above the law and will not do the decent thing and withdraw a load of old bollocks he’s written and apologise.

What a reckless MONEY SQUANDERING TWAT Drooper is.

This arrogant piece of Tory fuck-up with the fragile ego needs to withdraw his ludicrous claims immediately and save a small fortune in the public money that he’s handsomely paid to have some kind of responsibility for.

#walrustrial: OH MY GOD! IT’S A ‘GUILTY’ VERDICT

Our father who art in heaven … You’re really fucked with clowns like this promoting you aren’t you?

Extraordinary events in Court 10 of Bristol Magistrates Court on Monday as LOOPY MAGISTRATES handed down a ludicrous, if predictable, GUILTY verdict in the #walrustrial to Misha Simmonite, owner of the Knowle Road Mansion House, for noise pollution.

Amid scenes of chaos and comedy during magistrate and self-styled street preacher IAN “JUDAS” BRAILEY’S bizarre summing up, no less than THREE people stood up in the public gallery and openly accused the red-faced religious zealot  from Timsbury of corruption before storming out of the court.

Brailey’s deranged summing up made little sense to anyone not steeped in OLD TESTAMENT IRRATIONALISM and was described by one observer as “like something out of Disneyland”.

For instance, Brailey agreed council officer, John Sinnott, was professionally NEGLIGENT in “losing” two log books with all his evidence in and in failing to take any sound recording evidence.

However, the DOOLALLY PREACHER then concluded that “council officers are all professionals so we accept their evidence as correct”. Presumably similar to the way we all accept the bible as the word of god?

Conversely, every witness put forward by the defence was either SMEARED or DISMISSED as a liar by this less than charitable Christian.

A 70 year old woman who has stood for election was accused  by Judas Brailey of orchestrating some sort of NON-EXISTENT Twitter campaign criticising his shite trial despite no such evidence being presented to the court and despite the fact the woman doesn’t even have a Twitter account!

She stormed out of the court after loudly expressing her disgust at the OUTRIGHT LIES emanating from man of god, Brailey.

The evidence of the defence’s EXPERT WITNESS with years of experience of scientific acoustics, meanwhile, was dismissed as “not credible”. A bit rich from a man who spends his Sundays encouraging country folk from the Parish of Peasedown St John to put their hands together, shut their eyes and have a chat with a non-existent deity to make the world a nicer place.

Another witness, who had been RACIALLY ABUSED by a neighbour of Ms Simmonite’s property in Knowle Road, was criticised for not going to the police about the abuse. Her evidence was DISMISSED on this basis without god botherering fake, Brailey, even pausing to sympathise with this victim of racism. No doubt Jesus would be proud.

And, in a final farcical judgement, Judas Brailey announced there was “NO EVIDENCE” of any council CORRUPTION or a VENDETTA against Ms Simmonite organised by Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins utilising public resources.

Er, except there was evidence of exactly this. Presented by key prosecution witness and senior council boss Mark Curtis who described the prosecution as “A VENDETTA” while on oath.

Oddly, in this particular circumstance, Judas Brailey didn’t see the need to follow his own advice from five minutes earlier -  “council officers are all professionals so we accept their evidence as correct” – and instead decided to pretend this inconvenient piece of evidence had simply ceased to exist! A bit like god.

The whole sorry circus now moves on to the Crown Court for appeal.

OFFICIAL: COUNCIL HOUSING BOSS HOOPER IS A TORY SUPPORTING BULLY!

hooperAll is not going to plan, it seems, with Bristol City Council’s efforts to ASBO environmental campaigners in Avonmouth on behalf of the TORY PARTY.

Readers may recall that the council’s thick and useless housing boss, Nick “DROOPER” Hooper fired off a letter to the two campaigners before Christmas threatening them with LEGAL ACTION for the new crime of hand delivering a letter to idiot savant Avonmouth Tory councillor Wayne “DUMB” Harvey.

Our intrepid campaigners, knowing a load of half-arsed BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL BULLSHIT when they read it, immediately fired in a complaint to the council, questioning the extent of the alleged statutory POWERS claimed by Drooper, his right to SECRETLY SNOOP on them and his apparent DISREGARD for their human rights..

A reply has now finally been received. And we discover that the council has simply IGNORED the majority of the complaint while helpfully explaining that no investigation into the pair took place despite Hooper’s legal threat detailing the conclusions of his. er … Investigation!

By what other process did DROOPER obtain “allegations” against the pair, consider the evidence and form his biased opinion then? Did it all just pop into his head as a vision while high on opiates? Or perhaps he just MADE IT ALL UP?

The council then go on to explain, using their amazing legal logic, that Drooper, by denying the pair their basic civil right of a RIGHT TO REPLY are not entitled to any civil rights whatsoever (such as the protections afforded under ARTICLE 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights)!

Normally at this point, we would say that you couldn’t make this shit up. But they obviously they have!

On the bright side, the council have not DENIED that Drooper is politically biased and doing favours for his friends in the local TORY PARTY. Neither have they denied that the purpose of his letter was to BULLY and HARASS local residents.

So at least we can all agree and publicly state without fear of legal action that Drooper is a POLITICALLY BIASED TORY BULLY BOY.

However, rest assured the matter will not rest here. A matter not likely to be helped by a RUMOUR emerging from the depths of Lawrence Weston that the complaint Drooper acted upon did not even come from councillor DUMB – who’s basically semi-literate and far too busy dropping his pants and bending over the desk for Merchant Venturer Port bosses Mordaunt and Ord to write a letter of complaint – but from local MP Charlotte “BACARDI” Leslie’s office.

Surely known Tory sympathiser DROOPER, Bacard’s office and the council wouldn’t be stupid enough to conspire to issue a blatantly BENT ASBO to help a Tory MP in a marginal constituency just months before an election?

Would they?

EXCLUSIVE!!!! 6th PROPOSAL ADDED TO BRISTOL ARENA SHORTLIST

We’re happy to confirm that a late entry has been allowed on to the Bristol Arena design shortlist from Bristol’s very own Dru Marland.

Bristol Arena - white elephant - Dru Marland

In due course we’ll be running an EXCLUSIVE and BINDING public vote to discover what design Bristolians really want.

Watch this space …

#walrustrial: LADY GAGA OF BENT ASBO?

Fuckbucket Hopkins admits that City Council Chief Exec, Nicola “LADY GAGA” Yates masterminded the bent ASB case meeting about Misha Simmonite’s properties!

Lib Dem Focus

Having somehow wormed his way, in November 2013, into a CONFIDENTIAL ASB case meeting about Misha Simmonite’s Knowle Road property, a meeting he had no business attending, then BULLYING impartial council officers into reopening lines of investigation and enquiries that they had closed, Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins scuttled back home to report on his handiwork in his ‘Lib Dem Focus on Knowle’ leaflet.

Here’s what he told residents in January 2014 (our emphasis in bold):

 The Planning Dept failed to get a grip on the situation, despite pressure from residents, and from Chris and Gary. Petitions were lost!  It was only when Gary spoke personally to the council’s new City Director, and gave her the background, that action started.

Gary pointed out that the impression of departments deliberately looking the other way, was heightened by the Mayor’s apparent association with the owners. Since then the police and council departments have been co-operating to get a full and accurate picture. A prosecution is imminent at another venue they run in Totterdown.

Hopkins’ article appears to say that it was City Director, LADY GAGA, who set up this bizarre ASB case meeting with Hopkins, his Lib Dem Chief whip, Mark Bailey, a city council lawyer and Safer Bristol boss Gillian “Where’s yer brain cells” Douglas in the chair.

 In the circumstances and in honour of her latest achievement, Bristol’s dodgy City Director will henceforth be known as LADY GAGA OF BENT ASBO.

#walrustrial: MORE BENT ASBOs!

Remember, in December, the council’s useless social housing boss, posh twit NICK “DROOPER” HOOPER, threatening two Avonmouth residents with an ASBO because they hand-delivered a letter to his Conservative Party friend WAYNE “DEE” HARVEY, Avonmouth councillor and well paid Merchant Venturer lackey and useful idiot at the Port of Bristol?

When the Avonmouth pair started querying Drooper about the LEGALITY of his bizarre threats and the exact source of his POWERS to issue an ASBO when he feels like it, Drooper bravely ran away and ignored them. A bit like a little child running away to their bedroom to hide under the covers when they’re asked to explain why their hand’s, once again, in the cookie jar.

Refusing to be deterred by an IDIOT council boss doing a runner and refusing to explain his actions or answer simple questions, one resident decided to formally complain to the council about Drooper’s deranged conduct.

The complaint suggested that Drooper had BREACHED natural justice,  the European Convention on Human Rights and RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) laws for investigation of citizens as well as the council’s own policies on investigations.

The complaint also highlighted that Drooper, a politically restricted senior manager, appeared BIASED towards a member of the Conservative Party and against other election candidates in Avonmouth.

What other explanation is there for Drooper’s CRAZED MISSIVE that functions entirely outside of the basic principles of British law? In fact, Drooper appears to function outside the principles of any democratic system of justice anywhere in the world.

What type of regime would allow an unelected middle management bureaucrat to dispense justice on the basis of ONE secret verbal claim, NO investigation, NO right of reply, NO right of representation and NO right of appeal? This is worse than bloody China.

The complaint was sent in by STEVE NORMAN (yes, him again!) on 23 December and a response was promised by 14 January.

But lo and behold! Here we are on 23 January and the council is UNABLE to formulate any kind of response – not even a simple holding letter – to the complaint. They also appear unable to explain when they will respond or, even, who is dealing with the complaint.

Clearly there’s something extremely ROTTEN in Bristol City Council and among its officers in their use of ASBOs and RIPA laws towards certain citizens, especially when it directly benefits councillors.

Perhaps it’s time an independent body was hauled in to see what these officers and councillors have been up to and review how ASBOs and the RIPA are being used by our council?

#walrustrial: COUNCIL’S BENT ASBO SHOCKER!

All facts as heard in open court …

Can anyone explain why Lib Dem councillor for Knowle, Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins, and the Lib Dem’s chief whip and councillor for Windmill Hill, MARK BAILEY, were invited to attend a confidential ASB (anti-social behaviour) case meeting on 12 November 2013?

A confidential meeting chaired by the boss of the Safer Bristol Partnership, GILLIAN DOUGLAS, and a meeting that another Knowle councillor, CHRIS DAVIES, was invited to but sent his apologies for after being supplied detailed minutes. Avon & Somerset POLICE OFFICERS also attended the meeting along with COUNCIL MANAGERS from Pollution Control, Licensing and Planning as well as a city council lawyer.

Can anyone then explain why a case conference convened to discuss events at 20 Knowle Road in the Windmill Hill Ward was allowed by Ms Douglas and a city council lawyer to discuss various HEARSAY ALLEGATIONS raised by these Lib Dem councillors about an entirely different property – The Gothic Mansion on Redcatch Road in Knowle?

And can anyone further explain why issues to do with the property in Knowle Road that had been agreed as ‘NFA’ (no further action required) at an ASB meeting without councillors, lawyers or Ms Douglas present on 28 May 2013 were inexplicably reopened at this case meeting on 12 November when councillors attended and Ms Douglas appeared in the chair?

Then perhaps someone can explain why SENSITIVE and CONFIDENTIAL information obtained by Bristol City Council’s licensing team using COVERT SURVEILLANCE methods was shared with these councillors? And why sensitive FINANCIAL INFORMATION obtained by city council officers relating to the owners of Knowle Road and Redcatch Road was shared with councillors? And why sensitive POLICE INTELLIGENCE was also shared with these councillors?

Can anybody imagine councillors being invited to attend housing case meetings? Adult care case meetings? Or social services case meetings?  Does anyone believe they’d be invited to sit in on criminal investigations by the police?

What on earth has been going on here? The council’s own guidelines contained in the council’s constitution under the ‘Protocol forMember/Officer Relations’ explains what should happen in very plain and simple language:

 6. COUNCILLOR INVOLVEMENT IN CASEWORK

 CONVENTION

6.1: Officers must implement council policy within agreed procedures. An individual councillor cannot require an officer to vary this and cannot take a decision or instruct an officer to take action. The councillor’s role in relation to case work is:

- to be briefed or consulted where there is a need to know;

- to pursue the interests of individuals by seeking information, testing action taken and asking for the appropriateness of decisions to be reconsidered.

A councillor’s entitlement to be involved is based on the “need to know” and determined in accordance with conventions 2 and 3.

Access to files may need to be denied or restricted if one of the exceptional circumstances in convention 2.1 and 2.2 applied. Any access then allowed may need to be “managed access” (as described in convention 2).

COUNCILLORS

Councillors should avoid becoming unduly involved in individual cases and operational detail, except within clear procedures. Involvement in legal proceedings and audit investigations carries special dangers of prejudicing the case, and of personal embarrassment.

OFFICERS:

Officers should take the lead in pointing out where the boundaries lie in particular areas, recognising that:

- councillors legitimately adopt different approaches;

- councillors may legitimately pursue non-ward issues (for example, a city-wide community of interest);

- the special local knowledge of particular councillors may be useful to a particular case.

Officers should point out to the councillor when a restriction on the need to know may apply, explore entitlement with the councillor and, in cases of doubt, consult the monitoring officer.

Chief officers should ensure that their staff know how to obtain appropriate senior management support (particularly out of hours) when the extent of a councillor’s involvement is an issue that needs to be clarified.

And to avoid any doubt, here’s the relevant sections of Convention 2.1 and 2.2 mentioned above:

 CONVENTION

2.1 Every councillor has the right to information, explanation and advice reasonably required to enable them to perform their duties as a member of council (the “need to know”) but not where:

- there is an over-riding individual right of confidentiality (for example, in a children’s or employment matter)

CONVENTION

2.2 Councillors are normally entitled to be given information on a confidential basis, the exceptions being:

- an over-riding council interest (for example, protecting its legal and financial position); and

- natural justice (for example, giving an individual the chance to respond to allegations).

Isn’t it becoming increasingly obvious that Bristol City Council managers are operating a private ASBO service for the benefit of serving councillors?

#walrustrial: PRASHAR HAS 48 HOURS TO COMPLY!

City council legal boss, SANJAY “UNDER” PRASHAR wants to threaten local people does he? That’s a two way street isn’t it? So let’s see how the dodgy little lawyer likes it up him.

According to the letter below, he’s got 48 hours to explain his legal threats before the material he’s desperately trying to conceal from the public to cover-up corruption, crime and wrongdoing at Bristol City Council goes into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Such an outcome will be another personal humiliation for Sanjay. It would be the second time he’s issued EMPTY THREATS based on pseudo-legal lies to try and gag the public only to be ignored and ridiculed. Is anyone ever likely to believe a word he ever says if his gagging efforts flop again?

 The soppy little wimp isn’t exactly projecting power and authority is he?

Request for clarification letter to Sanjay Prashar legal

#walrustrial: PRASHAR UNDER PRESSURE

Has the useless bent lawyer, Sanjay Prashar, who’s been permanently appointed by Uncle George and Lady Gaga to oversee their bent council, realised he’s a public laughing stock yet?

Well, if not, here’s another letter from a member of the public he’s threatened – entitled ‘I think you should go back to law school’! – to remind him what an oaf he is and that nobody takes him seriously and nobody believes him (with the dishonorable exception of our gormless councillors who seem to believe every word he says!)

From: Phil@pandrews.com
To: sanjay.prashar@bristol.gov.uk
CC:
Subject: Sanjay Prashar – I think you should go back to law school!
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:00:46 +0000

Dear Sanjay, firstly, thanks for all the hilarity we had when we read your amateurish scare tactic letter last week, and secondly when the news was out that you sent it to a member of the public in error! I presume this letter was legally privileged information, so perhaps you had better send a threatening letter to yourself now, since you are probably in breach of some law or other!

Anyway, I think I would have a case against you for libel and defamation, since you have accused me of a dishonest & criminal act, and you’ve published it by sending it to a member of the public – inadvertently – you are quite simply incompetent!

Anyway, since I actually have a reputation to tarnish, unlike you or Cllr Hopkins, I think I might have a much stronger case against you, than the one you allege against me in one of your missives.

By the way, you identify me merely as Phil” in your e-mail to Cllrs. – as should have been clear from the signature block at the bottom of the e-mail, I am the Philip Andrews that lives in Bath, that co-owns the Jane Austen Centre, that owns the 35 year old (I started it by the way in 1978) legendary Moles Club, and also the Chapel Arts Centre.

You can call on me (in person) any time you like and I’ll give you a serious piece of my  mind about what a bunch of jerks the council employs in it’s Environmental Health Dept and Legal Services Dept, and exactly why they should be resigning and taking a very long walk off a very short pier!

Re your odious letter – I have done a little checking, and it seems that your letter is wrong, and it’s not covered, but I’m off to see a top QC – (not Errina Foley-Fisher!) to get chapter and verse.

In any case as is clear, in the extract below, 2-4 allows information disclosed or mentioned in  court to be disclosed in any manner the defendant sees fit. As all the key pieces of information were mentioned in court, for the time being I’m going to refer to them in that way.

Oh, and be a good sport and send me the freedom of information forms so in the meantime, I can order the minutes of the secret ASBO meetings please?

 

Section 17 provides as follows.

Confidentiality of disclosed information.

(1)If the accused is given or allowed to inspect a document or other object under—

(a)section 3, 4, [F17A]F1 , 14 or 15, or

(b)an order under section 8,

then, subject to subsections (2) to (4), he must not use or disclose it or any information recorded in it.

(2)The accused may use or disclose the object or information—

(a)in connection with the proceedings for whose purposes he was given the object or allowed to inspect it,

(b)with a view to the taking of further criminal proceedings (for instance, by way of appeal) with regard to the matter giving rise to the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c)in connection with the proceedings first mentioned in paragraph (b).

(3)The accused may use or disclose—

(a)the object to the extent that it has been displayed to the public in open court, or

(b)the information to the extent that it has been communicated to the public in open court;

but the preceding provisions of this subsection do not apply if the object is displayed or the information is communicated in proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section 18.

(4)If—

(a)the accused applies to the court for an order granting permission to use or disclose the object or information, and

(b)the court makes such an order,

the accused may use or disclose the object or information for the purpose and to the extent specified by the court.

Kind regards Philip