Tag Archives: Anthony Palmer

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: NO HEALTH RISKS FROM SEWAGE ANNOUNCES COUNCIL BOSS

Victorian man: Drooper

Finally word arrives from Housing Service Director, Nick “Drooper” Hooper, on this small matter of the RAW SEWAGE in the basement of one his private sector homeless hostels showered with public money that he personally authorises.

Drooper confirms that, yes, there was indeed a load of human shit in the basement of the hostel. However, – possibly exposing a few flaws in his expensive education here – he goes on to claim “there are NO HEALTH RISKS from what was found.”

Really? No health risks from raw sewage you say? You’d probably have to go back to the 19^th Century to find the over-privileged and powerful so IGNORANT on matters of human sanitation and the poor.

On the matter of the poor quality building work at the hostel – where two buildings have been joined together so uselessly you can put your hand through the outside wall and into the kitchen – Drooper appears to have forgotten to respond!

Odd, when the first line of his email claims it will deal with the “OUTSTANDING ISSUES”. Except the ones it doesn’t presumably? However, rest assured we’ll be chasing Drooper up about this.

What will his response be? That the hostel is fully compliant with 19th Century building regulations as they apply to the poor?

Drooper also managed to address the vexed issue of Anthony Palmer’s housing priority as an ex-serviceman. He claims:

“We changed our allocation scheme in 2013/14, following extensive consultation, and this was introduced in May 2015. We give additional preference (increase by 1 band) if someone has served in the forces and had been discharged within the last 5 years and also come within a reasonable preference category.”

Alas, we’ve read Drooper’s Bristol HomeChoice Allocation Scheme a few times now and find no mention of this five-year limit on ex-services receiving additional preference. Neither does it appear in the Housing Act (1996) or its Amendments (2012) as Drooper’s staff have claimed.

Where on earth is this five-year mystery clause of Drooper’s? It’s almost like he’s making it up!

Here’s latest Drooper’s email and Steve Norman’s response:

From: Nick Hooper <nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk>
Sent: 23 May 2016 09:49
To: ‘steven norman’
Cc: Mary Ryan
Subject: FW: RE:RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER

Mr Norman – further to my e-mail below to you I am now able to advise you on the outstanding issues.

We have checked Mr Palmer’s services record. This confirms that he was 16 when he signed up. He left the Army on 21/6/2007 (8 years 11 months ago), a week before his 18th birthday. Regulations were introduced in 2012 which said that local authorities should give additional preference to applications from certain serving and ex-members of the armed forces (and reserve forces) who come within what are called the ‘reasonable preference’ categories. We changed our allocation scheme in 2013/14, following extensive consultation, and this was introduced in May 2015. We give additional preference (increase by 1 band) if someone has served in the forces and had been discharged within the last 5 years and also come within a reasonable preference category.

With regard to the puddle of sewage water at the North St property this has been inspected by our private housing team. Their finding was that there was a small puddle of sewage in the basement (1m by 100cm by 1cm). The leak had been fixed some days before. The small puddle of sewage did not smell. The door to the basement had a padlock on it so access could not be by an unauthorised person. There was no one living in the basement and it was not being used for storage. The puddle was cleaned up last week by the property manager. There are no health risks from what was found.

Yours

Nick Hooper
Service Director – Housing Solutions & Crime Reduction
People Directorate
Bristol City Council
100 Temple Street
BS1 6AN
Bristol

Tel. 0117 922 4681

Email: nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:53 AM, steven norman <s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your latest email, which I’ve now had time to consider and consult the Allocation Scheme you refer to.

To make this easy, I’ve attached a copy of the scheme. Perhaps you could print this off, mark the section which says you only give additional preference (increase by 1 band) if someone has served in the forces and had been discharged within the last 5 years, scan the document again and return it to me by return (say, within 24 hours) with this simple proof?

I’ve checked the scheme and I can find no reference to a 5-year limit.

The section relevant to Anthony appears to be ‘4.4 Band 1’:

k) Armed Forces Personnel (Additional Preference)

Applicants that meet The Housing Act 1996 (Additional Preference for Armed Forces) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2989) and one of the reasonable preference categories in band 2 are given additional preference in priority by one band.

With reference to your claim in relation to raw sewage that “There are no health risks from what was found”, I find this surprising. The health risks of raw sewage are well known. Your knowledge of science appears even more limited than your knowledge of your own Allocation Scheme.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Stephen Norman
07747490902

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: WHY’S HOOPER AVOIDING THE QUESTION?

Leave a reply

On 30 Steve Norman, as Anthony Palmer’s representative, wrote to Housing Service Director, Nick Hooper. Here’s one section of the letter:

Thirdly, the preferences for ex-servicemen that automatically takes Mr Palmer up a band from band 2 to band 1: I noted with interest the comments made by the housing support officer where she stated that this did not apply because Mr Palmer had left the Army some 7 yrs ago and that Bristol City Council had set the criteria for this at 5 yrs.

I challenged this and I was informed this was set down in the Housing Acts (1996) and the (2012) amendments by government allowing local authorities to set there own criteria and length of time between discharge.

To this end I have been unable to locate such a clause within the Acts. Can you please advise as to what section of the Acts covers this statement for my reference?

Here’s Hooper’s response to that letter. Has anyone any idea why Hooper has avoided Steve’s simple question?

From: Nick Hooper <nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk>
Sent: 18 May 2016 15:47
To: ‘steven norman’
Cc:anthonypalmer@hotmail.co.uk; Mary Ryan
Subject: RE: RE:RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER

Dear Mr Norman

Thank you for the authorisation form sent to my colleague Mary Ryan, which we note means that you can act on Mr Palmer’s behalf.

I have checked the conversation which you had with Linda Tasker and she feels that you may have misunderstood what she was saying. She merely advised you of the alternative possibilities the Council has with regard to providing temporary accommodation – she wasn’t actually offering Windermere, which as you note is generally used for larger families than Mr Palmer and his son, though we do occasionally use it for smaller households. I understand that Mr Palmer does not wish to be offered Windermere.

There is no question of us bullying you or Mr Palmer. We have over 300 households in temporary and emergency accommodation, some of which is very expensive, so we try to make best use of what we have access to, and need families to recognise that they must actively seek a move, which Mr Palmer has been.

I think your reference to the amount of time families should stay in hostels relates to government policy that families with dependent children should not stay in non self-contained temporary accommodation longer than 6 weeks (this is the Homeless Suitability of Accommodation Order 2003). However as Mr Palmer’s current accommodation is self-contained this does not apply.

I have investigated your allegations of sewage at North St, which have been referred to the owners. Apparently the photos are of a basement area, which residents are not allowed access, and there are signs stating this. North Street is inspected regularly by the Council, last visited 3-to-4 weeks ago, but I am arranging for it be inspected again.

Now that we have Mr Palmer’s service number in the armed forces, I am getting this checked and will contact you again.

Since your last e-mail Mr Palmer has moved into different accommodation at North St, which I understand he had requested and which meets his needs better. Meanwhile I am pleased to see that he has continued to bid regularly on HomeChoice and he is very close to being successful, on his last bid he came 5th. I am optimistic that he will be successful soon if his pattern of bidding is maintained.

Yours

Nick Hooper

Service Director – Housing Solutions & Crime Reduction

We shall be doing a full analysis of Hooper’s letter in due course ….

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: THE HOUSING HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP

1 Reply

Please come and support the occupiers on Wednesday in court against Marvin’s gang of council shysters. Bring bells, whistles, banners, boxing gloves etc.

Maybe we’ll pay a visit to Temple Street too?

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: HOOPER CAN’T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

1 Reply

Nick “Drooper” Hooper: ‘bent fucker’

Three weeks and counting and Bristol City Council Housing Director and all round wanker, Nick “Drooper” Hooper, is unable to produce a SHRED of legal evidence that backs up his department’s refusal to give any consideration to Anthony Palmer’s status as an ex-serviceman and give him the highest, Band 1, housing priority.

Anthony, supported by activist Steve Norman, met with representatives of Drooper’s department THREE WEEKS AGO on 28 April. And Hooper’s little minions claimed an ex-services consideration didn’t apply “because Mr Palmer had left the Army some seven years ago and Bristol City Council has set the criteria for this at five years.”

During the meeting Steve CHALLENGED this claim and was assured by Drooper’s minions that it was set down in the Housing Act (1996) and its amendments (2012) that local authorities could set there own criteria and length of time between discharge from the armed services and application for housing.

Subsequently in writing to Drooper on 30 April Steve further QUERIED this claim, “I have been unable to locate such a clause within the Act. Can you please advise as to what section of the Act covers this statement for my reference.”

He then went on to say, “Unfortunately I have come across statements like this in the past from Bristol City Council. Only to find it is a bit of a PETER PAN WORLD of wishful thinking on the part of Bristol City Council.”

Fast forward three weeks and – despite responding to other aspects of Steve’s email – that bent little fucker Drooper is UNABLE to come up with the simple response that would back up his department’s claims.

Is this because these Bristol City Council regulations on ex-services have no basis in law? And is this because – yet again – Drooper has his own PERSONAL AGENDA and is pursuing his own PERSONAL VENDETTA against Steve Norman and his family on our time and money?

When is someone at Bristol City Council going to step in and make this increasingly deranged and out-of-control housing boss do his job properly?

He’s a total embarrassment to the city and a menace to the homeless.

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: TICK TOCK IT’S GONE 5 O’CLOCK – WE WIN!

2 Replies

On the 20 April 2016 housing activists occupied 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth with the intention of preventing this council owned home from being SOLD AT AUCTION later that day to the private sector. They didn’t succeed and the council sold the occupied house to a PRIVATE BUYER.

Earlier today, however, The BRISTOLIAN received news from inside Nick “Drooper” Hooper’s leaky toilet of a housing department that the buyer of the property has PULLED OUT of the sale. After it became apparent Bristol City Council would fail to hand the buyer UNOCCUPIED POSSESSION of the property at 5.00pm today as they were contractually obliged to do when they sold the home.

We are therefore proud to announce that 44 Richmond Terrace REMAINS in public ownership and that the activists are victorious! Mission accomplished. DIRECT ACTION GETS RESULTS!

Congratulations to all involved. Few believed this result possible. You’ve proved them all WRONG while plastering lashings of egg and the odd bucket of shit all over the faces of privatising senior bosses in the council’s housing department and making Marvin “The Reverend” Rees look hopelessly out of his depth as mayor.

So what happens now? The council’s hapless Service Director for Estates Mary “Contrary” Ryan assured activist Steve Norman yesterday that the house would go BACK UP FOR AUCTION as soon as possible if the occupation ever ends.

Although Mary Contrary seems to directly contradict Mayor Marvin “The Reverend” Rees who consistently stated throughout his election campaign that he would NOT SELL OFF any more council homes. A commitment he confirmed on ITV West News just last night.

Who’s running our council’s housing department and setting housing policy then? A bat shit crazy part time middle management housing bureaucrat with her OWN AGENDA or the elected mayor of Bristol? Watch this space.

The triumvirate of housing bosses who have fronted this occupation SHAMBLES for Bristol City Council – Strategic Director Alison “Three Jobs” Comley and Service Directors Nick “Drooper” Hooper and Mary “Contrary” Ryan – now have some explaining to do.

Let’s start with why, if the house was occupied on 20 April, did this trio of useless, unaccountable SHITHEADS not instigate eviction proceedings until almost FOUR WEEKS LATER and only 24 HOURS before the sale of the house was supposed to complete? What was the business case behind that decision?

The BRISTOLIAN’S Council House Kreminologists assure us that the three housing bosses are openly playing political games. Deliberately delaying doing anything about the occupation until after the election so they could dump the large pile of shit they’ve left festering on to the incoming Labour administration’s doorstep.

Why else would they FAIL to either instigate eviction proceedings or attempt to seriously negotiate a settlement to the occupation? The only two realistic options available to them to resolve the occupation that would have the house ready for their buyer to complete the purchase on 18 May.

Steve Norman and Anthony Palmer met with Service Director Nick “Drooper” Hooper’s minions on 28 April 2016, EIGHT DAYS after the occupation began. What agenda was Drooper pursuing at that meeting? The only outcome was a paltry offer of a place on a waiting list at a hostel in Southmead for Anthony. An offer that was then WITHDRAWN two days later by email.

Drooper’s efforts at this meeting were the precise opposite of attempting to reach a SOLUTION. He made it WORSE! And used the occupation as another opportunity to pursue his ongoing pathetic and ineffectve VENDETTA against leading occupier, Steve Norman. Drooper, presumably, believing the Reverend Marvin and his incoming Labour administration would simply go along with this personal-vendetta-funded-on-the-rates nonsense?

The Reverend himself doesn’t come out of this shambles too well either. What’s he been doing for the last TEN DAYS about this occupation? And why did his housing service director Mary “Contrary” Ryan appear at Richmond Terrace to apparently negotiate a settlement on Monday with NOTHING to offer?

Marvin effectively paid Mary Contrary FIFTY QUID AN HOUR of our money to sit outside in the sun at Richmond Terrace shooting the breeze for a few hours achieving nothing. A nice little earner if you can get it!

It’s time for the The Reverend to urgently start kicking some ARSE in his housing department. His senior housing directors are taking the piss. They have DELIBERATELY run up a bill in excess of £170k to enagage in some pretty ugly PERSONAL and PARTY POLITICS while dumping the resulting political mess and public relations disaster in his lap.

Are we now in for four years of IN-FIGHTING between an elected mayor and his cabinet and a bunch of RECALCITRANT senior council bosses determined to fuck up a Labour administration at any cost they feel like charging to the council tax payer?

The Reverend needs to nip this POLITICAL CRAP from his officers in the bud. What have they been playing at for the last four weeks? All three housing directors need to be investigated and called to publicly account for their bizarre and expensive POLITICALLY MOTIVATED decisions around Richmond Terrace.

But don’t hold your breath.

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: MARVIN IS EVICTING THE OCCUPIERS!

1 Reply

The semi-retired old farts running BBC Radio Bristol seem rather CONFUSED about Marvin “The Reverend” Rees’s role in events at 44 Richmond Terrace.

After interviewing one of the occupiers of the house, Carl Mann, this morning on the radio, the station’s website blustered, “[Carl] was due to be evicted last week but the action was called off following an INTERVENTION understood to be from the mayor.”

Er, who the fuck “understood” any intervention took place from the mayor?

It’s pure BOLLOCKS. A glance at the eviction order the mayor – yes, the mayor – served on the occupants of 44 Richmond Terrace yesterday reveals the TRUTH in a statement from Malcolm Paul, a solicitor in the mayor’s – yes, the mayor’s – legal department:

“Having worked closely with the police for an eviction on Thursday 12 May 2016, my instructing officer was informed that night, that the police declined to execute their powers.”

In other words the eviction was called off after the police REFUSED to arrest the occupiers – who they regarded as political protestors not squatters – not because the Reverend Rees intervened.

How has the BBC managed to get these simple facts so HOPELESSLY MANGLED? And why haven’t they asked The Reverend the obvious question if they believe he stopped an eviction last Thursday:

“Why the fuck did you start another eviction on Tuesday then?”

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: THE BIG COUNCIL LIE

Leave a reply

As council housing activists continue to occupy former council property 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth to get homeless ex-serviceman Anthony Palmer and his 18 month son housed in dignified conditions, the council continues to LIE about what they can do.

Senior housing bosses led by their useless Tory-boy liar-in-chief, Housing Director, Nick “Drooper”Hooper, continue to claim that they have NO POWER to let Anthony ‘jump’ the housing list and give him a home.

THIS IS BOLLOCKS.

If you cast your mind back to 19 February 2012, you might recall Bristol City Council announcing with great fanfare that “the sole unnamed local person has discontinued his application to the High Court for a Judicial Review [into the Ashton Vale Town Green application].”

And you may also recall, the withdrawal of this person from this judicial review briefly made it look like Bristol City FC could build their multi-million pound new stadium and commercial development on greenbelt land unimpeded.

However, what you may not have realised is that this “sole unnamed local person” who briefly helped make this lucrative development a possibility also happened to be a council tenant in Ashton Vale.

You also may not have realised that the day before this gleeful press announcement from the council appeared, this “sole unnamed local person” was mysteriously whisked away in a chaueffeur driven car never to be seen at his Ashton Vale council home again.

And why was this? Er, because Nick Hooper’s housing department, which – remember – has no power to let anyone jump the housing list, rehoused this “sole unnamed local person” in a well-appointed one bedroomed bungalow elsewhere in the city at very short notice – working to a timetable that turned out to be very convenient to a local billionaire.

Isn’t it amazing what Nick Hooper can manage to do at the drop of a hat to help out a mega-rich football club owner who resides offshore to avoid tax and what he can’t do to help a homeless ex-serviceman trying to care for a young son just released from care?

Hooper’s clearly a man only too prepared to drop his pants and bend over his desk for the wealthy and influential of the city. The only question is: does he charge for his generous favours to local gentleman of considerable means?

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: A LETTER TO THE COPS

2 Replies

A copy of email sent to Avon And Somerset Police HQ and the PCC yesterday:

FORMAL NOTICE OF LEGAL STATUS OCCUPATION OF 44 RICHMOND TERRACE. AVONMOUTH. BS11 9EW.

The current occupants of the above premises owned by Bristol City Council have reason to believe that Bristol City Council are attempting to use the police to break up a legitimate Political Protest which is a Civil Court Matter, and as such we demand that Bristol City Council follow such procedures as allowed for by Civil Court Rules & Procedures.

Section 144 LASPO: THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PROTEST OCCUPATION, SECTION 144 LASPO does NOT apply

Although this is a “residential building” within the meaning of section 144, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 this is a POLITICAL occupation not a RESIDENTIAL occupation which is being applied according the this legal precedence –

(Hampshire Waste Services v Persons Unknown [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch); [2003] PLSCS 217, University of Sussex v Person Unknown [2013] PLSCS 84)

The provisions of section 144 are therefore NOT APPLICABLE to this building or to our occupation of it.

Part II, Criminal Law Act 1977 (As amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994) DOES APPLY.

We, the occupants, therefore request that the Avon and Somerset Police Constabulary, and its officers, uphold and respect the legal rights of the occupants of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth, given that this is a Civil Court matter and there is no criminal intent in respect of the occupiers and never has been.

In good faith we offer to meet with the senior police officer for the area of Avonmouth and Shirehampton should any further dialogue be required.

HOW HOOPER’S DUMPED OUR VULNERABLE IN THE SHIT

Leave a reply

As the council threatens to evict the occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace – including homeless ex-serviceman Anthony Palmer and his 18 month son – perhaps now is the time to reveal the conditions Bristol City Council Housing Director, Nick “Drooper” Hooper on £90k a year expects the city’s vulnerable to live in.

The photo below shows the basement of the North Street hostel that the council is paying slum landlords Connolly & Callaghan £260 a week to house Anthony Palmer and his 18 month old son in. And yes, that’s raw sewage in the basement of the building, which is directly beneath the hostel’s main kitchen.

The second photo shows a bodged attempt by cowboy builders to join two buildings together. You can actually put your hand through the wall and into the kitchen of the hostel! Health and safety? Warmth and security? Not for this city’s vulnerable, not on Hooper’s watch.

All this raises the question: who’s getting the backhanders to house our vulnerable and homeless in these shithouse conditions?

ANTHONY PALMER UPDATE: COUNCIL IN THE SHIT?

Leave a reply

Anthony Palmer and his 18 month old son have been dumped by Bristol City Council in a revolting, cockroach infested hostel run by a notorious local slum landlord firm, Connolly & Callaghan.

Since 20 April Anthony and his son have been supporting the occupation of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth – the former council home sold by Mayor No More to a private investor – while campaigners draw attention to his plight.

Here’s the latest communication to Bristol City Council housing boss Nick “Drooper” Hooper to update you about what’s going on (or not).

Look out for our photos of raw sewage washing around a city council funded hostel coming soon …

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:50 AM, steven norman <s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Hooper,

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. I attach for your reference the requested updated signed Form Of Authorisation.

There have been a number of developments since my last correspondence, which have left me somewhat perplexed and I feel it appropriate that I bring these to your attention in order that you can address all matters together.

At the meeting I attended with Anthony, Linda Tasker offered a hostel in Southmead – Windermere – as an alternative to the current hostel and informed Mr Palmer he could be put on the list for a place.

Not the ideal solution but a move in the right direction. I have since been informed by Mr Palmer that this offer has been withdrawn as an option because there has to be three people to reside there. f

Firstly why was this offered in the first place if that is the criteria? Surely the housing officer should know the criteria? Secondly, I have concerns as to whether or not this is the true reason. Only I have a very good friend who is a single man and was housed in Windermere prior to being housed at Antona Court. That person being a Mr Donald Baker.

Mr Palmer then received either a telephone call or visit from Lynette Benjamin where I believe he was told he was being moved to Trinity Hostel, Montpelier. A move Mr Palmer was not prepared to accept as it was a shared bathing situation and – with due respect – not much better than what he has now.

He was then informed his refusal could affect his housing application. Will you please clarify if it is now a case of bullying tactics by your department? As it seems Ms Benjamin raised some concern over the length of time Anthony had been in the hostel at Bedminster.

I assume your department was hoping it would then be able to start the length of time Anthony and his son have been in hostel afresh? Which, I believe – according to BCC Policy – is no longer than 4 Months. Mr Palmer is now entering his sixth month in hostel.

I have in my possession a number of photographs which I will shortly be releasing to the press including one that shows raw sewage spilling on to a floor of the North Street hostel just below the kitchen and living area. A further one shows an attempt to join two buildings together where you can put your hand through the wall into the kitchen of the hostel.

I can only reiterate my position. Would you be happy for your son or grandson or any other member of your family to live in such a place and why are we rewarding such hostels with substantial sums of tax payers money?

I look forward to your email addressing all things raised to date

Yours Sincerely

Mr Stephen Norman

07747490902