Category Archives: In The Courts

Our fine local legal establishment

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?

#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

#walrustrial: CITY COUNCIL DISASTER PENDING …

‘No’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, watercolour & crayon, 2013, guriben

‘No’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, watercolour & crayon, 2013, guriben

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 …

HI HO, HI HO IT’S OFF TO THE OMBUDSMAN WE GO …

Opening salvo against that scabrous little Tory shit, housing boss, Hooper …

From: s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk
To: faircomment@bristol.gov.uk
CC: wayne.harvey@bristol.gov.uk; matthew.melias@bristol.gov.uk; sw1ne2001@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:14:48 +0000

On December 17 I received a letter, ‘Re: report of anti-social behaviour’ from Nick Hooper, Service Director, Housing Solutions and Crime Reduction. A copy of the letter is attached. An identical letter was sent to XXX XXXXXX.

The letter is partial, inaccurate and breaches my rights under Article 6 of the ECHR. I further believe that Hooper’s correspondence is a crude attempt to bully and harass me.

My specific concerns are:

  1. Hooper appears to have conducted some kind of investigation in to me, which I was unaware of and which I was not invited to take part in. I have been given no opportunity via Hooper’s ad hoc process to provide evidence nor cross examine the evidence of others. There therefore appears to have been a covert investigation in to me by Hooper who has then gone on to draw conclusions. This breaches natural justice and my rights under Article 6 of the ECHR while Hooper’s covert investigation also meets the definition of ‘directed surveillance’ under RIPA. Hooper’s failure to inform us of an investigation and involve us in his investigation is therefore unlawful.
  2. Hooper is a housing officer. He is neither a lawyer nor a police officer. He is therefore neither skilled nor qualified to undertake an investigation into potentially criminal matters. Hooper is acting beyond his limited powers.
  3. Hooper accuses me of “behave[ing] in an anti-social manner” and “disrupt[ing] a councillors’ surgery” but provides no supporting evidence to back up these claims. The statements are therefore defamatory, intended to bully and harass.
  4. Hooper has failed to follow your Code of Conduct for Investigations policy, which provides an easy to follow format to conduct, “Formal management investigations arising where managers request an issue to be investigated where that issue does not fall within one of the recognised policies”.
  5. I am concerned that as a candidate at the last election in Avonmouth, I have been the victim of political bias. Hooper’s letter has been written on behalf of a Conservative councillor for Avonmouth and is totally accepting of and biased to their point of view. Hooper’s post is politically restricted. This means not only should he not engage in party politics but that he needs to be seen to not be engaging in party politics

What I require:

1. Hooper to withdraw his letter and all the claims and accusations contained therein.

2. Hooper to write and apologise to me.

3. If you still wish to pursue this pointless matter, a proper investigation into the events of December 3 needs to take place that is conducted openly, fairly and according to your policies and the law by a suitably qualified and skilled practitioner.

Finally, I note that Hooper is a Service Director. Your complaints procedure states, “The manager responsible for the service will look into the concerns”. As the manager of the service, however, I do not expect to see Hooper investigating himself. I therefore request that a senior officer at a grade above Hooper look into our concerns. I’d be grateful if you could inform me, at the earliest opportunity, who this will be. Please note, I will expect this investigating officer to personally sign off their conclusions rather than dumping it on to an unsuspecting and disposable minion.

Kind regards,

Steven Norman

Tel: 0117 2398042
Mob: 07747490902

 

POSH DROOPER’S ASBO FLOP

hooperA thick smog of hopelessness, crisis and meltdown drifts aimlessly through the air at Bristol City Council these days. We now discover that useless posh twit housing boss Nick “DROOPER” Hooper is threatening local residents in Bristol with LEGAL ACTION for, er … Delivering a letter to their councillor!

The posh underperforming middle management buffon sent a legally vacuous letter to two Avonmouth residents this week THREATENING them with legal action – despite being neither a copper nor a lawyer –  for “causing harassment, alarm or distress to others” after they visited Avonmouth Community Centre and HAND DELIVERED a letter to their local councillor, Wayne “DEE” Harvey.

Drooper also requested that they “refrain from such conduct in the future” and “where issues persist we may have to take ACTION against those responsible”! Ooh er missus! Don’t go delivering letters to councillors on Drooper’s watch! Or he’ll use those DRACONIAN powers that only exist inside his deluded mind to punish you!

One resident has described this ‘incident’ to us in all its criminal glory:

“I entered the Avonmouth Community Centre with Steven Norman to present Cllr Harvey with a set of written questions as he had refused to answer our enquiries. I asked where Cllr Harvey was and was directed to the back room.

“The door was open and I walked in and apologised to the person sat with Cllr Harvey and asked if I could just drop the letter off and not take up any further time. This I did and asked Cllr Harvey to respond in writing at a later date. I then left the building to attend a remembrance ceremony for the victims of the Bhopal chemical crime.”

What a crime! Call the cops! A letter’s been delivered!

You really have to ask what pea-brained dick head Drooper’s playing at here. This OVER-PROMOTED posh wanker, no doubt with an expensively purchased MA in vacuous bollocks, is currently overseeing the worst HOUSING CRISIS in living memory in the city and doing fuck all about it apart from picking up a fat salary every month.

Surely this lazy-arsed failing boss has more important things to do than write dumbass letters full of pseudo-legal DRIVEL and EMPTY THREATS to local residents? Why doesn’t he, er, do his actual job? Sorting out the social housing crisis in the city or maybe even the homelessness crisis in the city or finding somewhere for the city’s army of battered women to live?

Coincidentally, Drooper’s absurdist legal assault on resident correspondents to councillors came the day before it was revealed that the Environment Agency’s brief dust monitoring programme at Avonmouth Port will be pulled IMMEDIATELY with the full backing of Bristol City Council’s officers. No doubt these two events are entirely unrelated?

There may be trouble ahead …

#walrustrial HOPKINS’ AND COUNCIL’S STAR WITNESS EXPOSED AS A RACIST

‘Kind But Still’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, ink and brush, 2013, Jeff from Bedminster

‘Kind But Still’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, ink and brush, 2013, Jeff from Bedminster

What was supposed to be the last day of the WALRUS TRIAL yesterday at Bristol Magistrates Court, where Councillor Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins has been personally intervening to have the GOTHIC MANSION and TOWN HOUSE (Bristolian passim) prosecuted for noise pollution, predictably descended into an expensive farce.

First, inept magistrates ruled that TWO defence witnesses, who may have confirmed the existence of a VENDETTA by Hopkins – already been exposed in open court by senior city council Environmental Health Officer Mark Curtis last week – could not take the stand. Bristol City Council then attempted to have another defence witness PROSECUTED for contempt of court for discussing the case on Twitter.

Following hours of legal argument and delay, the trial finally recommenced in the late afternoon and featured a defence witness, Ms X, who had stayed at the TOWN HOUSE. She revealed that not only did her group not make any noise during their stay as they had young children in bed by 9.00pm but that the council’s star witness, JOHNATHAN ROSS of KNOWLE ROAD, was a RACIST who had HARASSED her during her stay.

Ms X revealed that this scumbag Ross, an associate of Fuckbucket’s and a serial complainer about noise to a receptive council, constantly banged on their door one evening to complain about the noise from a film on DVD they were watching. The next day Ross called her mixed race son a “MONKEY” and a “GOLLIWOG” in the street. The following evening he was once again complaining. This time about the noise generated from music from an Ipod dock.

Ross is quite transparently an offensive and deluded nutter. Just the man to get in to supply hearsay evidence for Hopkins and his crew of bent council officers then!

An already shaky prosecution is now in crisis. Having ‘lost’ TWO logbooks recording alleged incidences of noise at the Town House and having installed sound equipment that revealed NO EVIDENCE of any noise at the house at all, the council is now totally reliant on the kind of evidence supplied by a known RACIST and OBSESSIVE, Ross.

Due to the massive delays yesterday, the trial now has been adjourned until 12 January next year. How much this is costing the council taxpayer is anyone’s guess. But we’ve been assured a figure of £50k is not unrealistic.

#thewalrustrial TORY IDIOT RESPONDS TO CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS!

 

‘Local Taxi Driver’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, ink, 2013, Durston Fletcher

‘Local Taxi Driver’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, ink, 2013, Durston Fletcher

Steve Norman’s received a reply to his email sent to all councillors last night pointing out that their local authority’s resources and officers have been used to pursue a PERSONAL VENDETTA against a member of the public on behalf of Bristol City Council’s Lib Dem leader, Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins.

And what a reply! It comes from none other than former Bristol Tory boss and all-round twat, PETER ABRAHAM. Abraham’s combination of stupidity and pomposity and his puppy-like willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption at the council make him an ideal spokesman for all Bristol City Councillors.

And Abraham is no stranger to sharp practice himself is he? Wasn’t he the chair of the Public Rights of Way Committee that UNLAWFULLY AGREED to allow billionaire Steve Lansdown to build a football stadium on a Town Green? A case that eventually ended up in the High Court with Bristol City Council unable to offer any defence.

Below is Abraham’s email in full. Below that we’ve Fisked it for you to reveal our councillors’ ignorance and stupidity in all its glory.

From: peter.abraham@bristol.gov.uk
To: s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk
CC:
Subject: Re: IS THIS THE WAY A COUNCILLOR SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELF?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:29:07 +0000

Good Evening

I find it very difficult to follow what allegations you are making and a letter sent to all members does not seem to me to be the most responsible way of deal with this issue, I do not understand your involvement and if you have information please summit them to the Head of Legal Services.

I also find the political edge to your email again not the best way of dealing with any issue which might have a case to answer.

The member officer relationship is a very important to good governance of our city and I would wish any allegations to be fairly and properly investigated.

Yours
Sent from my iPad

Cllr. Peter Abraham

“BRISTOL : THE BEST CITY IN BRITAIN ” The Sunday Times.

Our comments in red:

I find it very difficult to follow what allegations you are making [Can’t this thick Tory shit read? The allegations are that one of your officers committed PERJURY and the other admitted to helping a councillor organise a VENDETTA against a member of the public you gormless fucking halfwit] and a letter sent to all members does not seem to me to be the most responsible way of deal with this issue [Well, how fucking stupid. Writing to complain about corruption to the people who are actually in charge of the organisation. Why would they want to know about that? It might spoil the smooth running of their pointless meetings], I do not understand your involvement [How dare a member of the public get involved in Abraham’s council going about its bent business!] and if you have information please summit them to the Head of Legal Services [Good idea. Submit a complaint to the head of one of the departments involved in the corruption. We’ve seen emails from Abraham’s Legal Services regarding the detail of the ongoing court case that have been openly copied into Gary Hopkins. This is so unusual it’s entirely unprecedented. Why is confidential legal information being shared with a councillor? This usually never happens. A councillor should not be party to that level of detail. Especially as the information relates to an action against a house in Knowle Road in the Windmill Hill Ward. Hopkins is, of course, the councillor for Knowle. What exactly’s the point in complaining to a bent manager about their bent service? They’ll just do what they always do. Cover it up and lie to councillors about it.]

I also find the political edge to your email again not the best way of dealing with any issue which might have a case to answer [A Mickey Mouse politician like Abraham complaining about politics? What the fuck?]

The member officer relationship is a very important to good governance of our city and I would wish any allegations to be fairly and properly investigated [So who’s going to investigate? Your bent legal services or your bent Internal Audit? Why don’t out councillors get off their lazy, underemployed arses and do it themselves? And do it properly. Or are they scared what they might discover?]

Over the last eighteen months The BRISTOLIAN has exposed corruption in the council’s Markets Service, the Cash-in-Transit Service, among facilities managers, the Docks Service, the Internal Audit department and, now, Environmental Health. The Planning Department are also now seriously implicated in this latest piece of council corruption.

How much longer do councillors intend to sit on their arses doing nothing, pretending there isn’t a problem in an organisation that clearly appears to be bent from top to bottom?

Bristol City Council isn’t a public service organisation run for the benefit of the people of Bristol any more. It’s a nasty little gangster organisation run for the benefit of a few managers and councillors.

Something must be done.