Tag Archives: Bristol Magistrates Court

#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: 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 …

#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.

DEAR COUNCILLOR, REGARDING THE PERSONAL VENDETTAS AND THE OPEN PERJURY …

‘Meat Zeppelin’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, watercolours, 2013, @guriben

‘Meat Zeppelin’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, watercolours, 2013, @guriben

From:
To: gus.hoyt@bristol.gov.uk; rob.telford@bristol.gov.uk; wayne.harvey@bristol.gov.uk; matthew.melias@bristol.gov.uk; colin.smith@bristol.gov.uk; mark.bradshaw@bristol.gov.uk; daniella.radice@bristol.gov.uk; tim.malnick@bristol.gov.uk; kevin.quartley@bristol.gov.uk; richard.eddy@bristol.gov.uk; mike.wollacott@bristol.gov.uk; mike.langley@bristol.gov.uk; rhian.greaves@bristol.gov.uk; jackie.norman@bristol.gov.uk; alex.woodman@bristol.gov.uk; mark.wright@bristol.gov.uk; charles.lucas@bristol.gov.uk; barbara.janke@bristol.gov.uk; simon.cook@bristol.gov.uk; christian.martin@bristol.gov.uk; neil.harrison@bristol.gov.uk; anthony.negus@bristol.gov.uk; afzal.shah@bristol.gov.uk; faruk.choudhury@bristol.gov.uk; mhairi.threlfall@bristol.gov.uk; mahmadur.khan@bristol.gov.uk; christopher.jackson@bristol.gov.uk; jeff.lovell@bristol.gov.uk; lesley.alexander@bristol.gov.uk; bill.payne@bristol.gov.uk; naomi.rylatt@bristol.gov.uk; mark.brain@bristol.gov.uk; mark.weston@bristol.gov.uk; chris.windows@bristol.gov.uk; barry.clark@bristol.gov.uk; michael.frost@bristol.gov.uk; glenise.morgan@bristol.gov.uk; clare.campion-smith@bristol.gov.uk; noreen.daniels@bristol.gov.uk; phil.hanby@bristol.gov.uk; claire.hiscott@bristol.gov.uk; olly.mead@bristol.gov.uk; tim.leaman@bristol.gov.uk; jason.budd@bristol.gov.uk; christopher.davies@bristol.gov.uk; margaret.hickman@bristol.gov.uk; hibaq.jama@bristol.gov.uk; estella.tincknell@bristol.gov.uk; gill.kirk@bristol.gov.uk; fi.hance@bristol.gov.uk; martin.fodor@bristol.gov.uk; jenny.smith@bristol.gov.uk; brenda.massey@bristol.gov.uk; sean.beynon@bristol.gov.uk; charlie.bolton@bristol.gov.uk; s.pearce@bristol.gov.uk; fabian.breckels@bristol.gov.uk; ron.stone@bristol.gov.uk; sue.milestone@bristol.gov.uk; jay.jethwa@bristol.gov.uk; david.morris@bristol.gov.uk; john.goulandris@bristol.gov.uk; peter.abraham@bristol.gov.uk; geoffrey.gollop@bristol.gov.uk; alastair.watson@bristol.gov.uk; helen.holland@bristol.gov.uk; tim.kent@bristol.gov.uk; mark.bailey@bristol.gov.uk; sam.mongon@bristol.gov.uk

Subject: RE: IS THIS THE WAY A COUNCILLOR SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELF?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:13:02 +0000

 

Dear Councillor,

I feel I must bring the following to your attention as a matter of urgency.

This afternoon a senior pollution control officer stated in the Bristol Magistrates Court – while on the witness stand and under oath – that Councillor Gary Hopkins has a personal vendetta against the defendant in the case in which he was giving evidence.

In addition to this alarming fact, the defendant has powerful evidence to show that a second pollution control officer has openly perjured himself under oath.

It begs the question as to why or how a councillor has been able to influence officers in the conduct of their office? Clearly Mark Curtis was not prepared to take the fall for Councillor Hopkins.

I further hope that other councillors will rally around Mark Curtis and support him in what I have no doubt will turn into a witch-hunt to have him dismissed.

The defendant in this case is the same defendant who was denied planning permission recently for the Gothic Mansion, 100 Redcatch Road. Again one can only assume that Councillor Hopkins was involved behind the scene in orchestrating this refusal because he was the person who actually called this planning matter before committee. The very same committee in which I accused Mr Calabrese of being corrupt.

In light of today’s revelation, Mr Woodman should note, that I feel somewhat vindicated.

I have no doubt that this particular case will end up costing tax payers tens of thousands of pounds and all because an overgrown bully, Gary Hopkins, wanted to run a vendetta against a citizen of Bristol who stood up to him.

Unfortunately what has been disclosed here is only a fraction of the evidence that supports Mark Curtis’ statement. However I am unable to disclose further evidence at this stage as it would be prejudicial to the case and because it has not yet been heard in open court. Methinks a big scandal is about to hit the Lib Dems and the big house on the green.

Yours Sincerely

 

Stephen Norman

The case continues tomorrow and Monday at Bristol Magistrates Court (free entry) …

Background to the case here: thebristolian.net/2014/10/23/knowle-noise-annoys/