In due course we’ll be running an EXCLUSIVE and BINDING public vote to discover what design Bristolians really want.
Watch this space …
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?
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
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 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 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:
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)
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?
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?
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!)
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—
(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.
(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
More extraordinary scenes at BRISTOL MAGISTRATES COURT on Monday when the legendary #walrustrial recommenced after a Christmas break.
The trial, ostensibly a prosecution of a short let home – the MANSION HOUSE on Knowle Road, Totterdown – for noise pollution, has turned into something of a forensic analysis of the conduct of the city council’s environmental health department and especially the malign influence Councillor Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins seems to be able to exert over their work.
Monday saw more bad news for the council when an EXPERT WITNESS for the defence on noise pollution took the stand and DEMOLISHED the council’s utterly crap evidence based on lost log books and zero sound recordings.
This was followed by a BIZARRE summing up from the council’s barrister – paid handsomely by you, dear reader – in which she accused Andrew Forsey of the Mansion House of writing the BRISTOLIAN!
This is obviously a pile of evidence-free bullshit, which shows just how WEAK the council’s case is if they have to focus a prosecution for noise pollution on YER LOCAL SMITER rather than any evidence of, er … Actual noise!
The council barrister then went on to distance herself from her own star witness, Mansion House next door neighbour and RACIST Jonathan Ross. And then finished with a flourish by privately accusing the defence of “VINDICTIVENESS” after it transpired that an anonymous complaint had been made to the NSPCC and social services regarding Ross’s racist language towards a child.
Nice to see the city council speculating on the identity of ANONYMOUS complainants in respect of child SAFEGUARDING allegations don’t you think?
The magistrates then adjourned for three hours to consider a verdict only to return and announce they were unable to reach one and were therefore adjourning the court until 9 FEBRUARY.
Presumably buying themselves some time to work out a way to find the defendants GUILTY despite a key prosecution witness, council boss Mark Curtis admitting under oath that the whole prosecution was in fact a VENDETTA against the defendants and there being no evidence of noise pollution at the Mansion House at all!
Watch this space …
Just two and a half years after serious issues were first raised by staff and over two years since any investigation was cynically SPIKED by council facilities boss Tony Harvey, the city council’s AUDIT COMMITTEE has finally woken up and requested a report into the crackpot finances at their Markets Service.
The committee requested the report in September although nothing appeared at their November meeting. Presumably it will appear at their meeting in January then? Unless more INEXPLICABLE DELAYS occur.
What’s the harm in a few more months of dodgy council bosses pissing about after over thirty months out in the long grass anyway? We note the report will be presented to the committee by the council’s overpromoted bog cleaner (surely senior facilities manager? Ed.) CHARLIE “DIRTBUSTER” HARDING.
Surely not the same Dirtbuster Harding we find listed as the chair of a recruitment panel for a wholly unnecessary Markets Service reorganisation devised on the back of an envelope by former Facilities boss Tony Harding back in the summer of 2012 right in the middle of a major audit investigation?
Indeed it is one and the same. Dirtbuster was even joined on this BIZARRE reorganisation and recruitment escapade by his old mate, Markets boss Steve Morris. Presumably taking some time away from DELETING £32k from his dodgy departmental accounts in the middle of the audit investigation that he didn’t bother cooperating with?
Morris, incidentally, was also at the centre of serious MISCONDUCT allegations by the very people he was interviewing. And according to our extensive files, Harding’s panel conveniently failed to reappoint any Markets Service complainants and whistleblowers to their own jobs. Who’d have guessed that?
Although the gormless duo, along with their idiot boss Harvey, later had to fork out PUBLIC MONEY in compensation to these same staff to avoid ending up at an employment tribunal and having to explain away their transparently bent recruitment process.
It’ll be interesting to see if any of these facts make it into Dirtbuster’s independent report won’t it?
What happened to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of FERRY BOATS owned by the original Bristol Ferry Boat company after it went tits up within days of its 42 per cent shareholder “UNCLE” GEORGE FERGUSON taking office as mayor?
According to a report presented by Bristol City Council officers to their Place Scrutiny Commission in October, the boats were SOLD to the first of the so-called ‘Phoenix’ ferry companies set up in the wake of the collapse, Ferryboats of Bristol Ltd.
This short-lived private company was set up in January 2013 by a former director of Uncle George’s failed ferry company, IAN “BUNGLE” BUNGARD, and ran ferries around the docks until it was wound up in May 2013 when another company, the Bristol Community Ferry Boat Company, took over the routes and, apparently, the ferries.
However, we’ve seen the closing balance sheet for Bungard’s Ferryboats of Bristol Ltd and it only ever had £2 worth of assets held in cash throughout its short existence. There’s no sign of any ferry boats at all.
However, we do know, from the liquidators report, that the boats were sold by the liquidators “by private treaty’ for £171k in December 2012. The question is to who? And how did they then end up at this new community co-operative ferry operation run by ‘THE FRIENDS OF GEORGE’, the Bristol Community Ferry Boat Company?
A further mystery surrounds the disappearance and reappearance of at least one of the ferry boats, ‘THE ELIZABETH’. In June 2012 the boat was listed in audited accounts supplied to Bristol City Council as an asset of Fergie’s collapsed Bristol Ferry Boat Company.
So how come the boat is now registered at Ferguson’s address at THE TOBACCO FACTORY and is up for sale for £15k? This invites obvious questions such as how did this asset of the collapsed Bristol Ferry Boat Company end up in George’s possession?
And if it was an asset of the original Ferry Boat Company, that Fergie was a 42 per cent shareholder in, why was the boat not sold and the monies used to pay creditors as bankruptcy law requires?