Tag Archives: Docks

DICK ED NEXT TO TACKLE DOCKS SHAMBLES

“Dick” Edrich: the latest boss drafted in to sort out the council’s docks and markets shambles

Over FOUR YEARS after we told them so, Bristol City Council finally notice that their HARBOUR OFFICE and MARKETS SERVICE are expensively mismanaged basketcases.

The council is now threatening some sort of ACTION after finally publicly acknowledging, “poor governance arrangements; a poorly managed balance between commercial rigour and democratic accountability; a failure to maintain the Harbour assets and poor management” at its Harbour Office.

This comes four years after The BRISTOLIAN revealed that turd in human form, Harbour Master, Cap’n Tony “Ahab” Nichol, was a serial and, apparently, unsackable BULLY who has got away with MULTIPLE BULLYING OFFENCES towards staff over many years. 

The docks infrastructure that he’s responsible for, meanwhile, remains at near-collapse after years of CHRONIC MISMANAGEMENT by underqualified Ahab and his handpicked team of clueless over-promoted supervisors and absent civil engineers.

We’re told that Bill “Dick” Edrich – the man who helped set up the loss-making Bristol Energy fiasco – has been urgently drafted in to BANG HEADS TOGETHER at the Harbour Master’s Office and in Markets, managed, for no coherent reason, by one of Ahab’s hapless minions in recent years.

However, those with longer memories may recall that recently departed property boss, Robert “SPUNKFACE” Orrett, was similarly ordered by Mayor No More Red Trousers – back in 2014 – to sort out the embarrassing management shambles exposed by The BRISTOLIAN in docks and markets.

Although the opposite happened when Spunkface left Ahab to reorganise the docks service as he saw fit. Ahab then used the opportunity to FIRE any experienced workers who had complained about his bullying and incompetence while ensuring his useless crew of management and supervisory bullies were kept on with enhanced salaries.

We can probably look forward to not much happening for a few years yet then

BRISTOL FERRY BOAT COMPANY SAGA: #1 WHAT IS A SECTION 216 OFFENCE?

The original name was the BRISTOL FERRY BOAT COMPANY, 42 per cent owned by Mayor George Ferguson, which went into full liquidation in February 2013.

A new name appeared between January 2 2013 and April 2013 – FERRYBOATS OF BRISTOL. One of two directors was IAN “BUNGLE” BUNGARD, a former director of the insolvent BRISTOL FERRY BOAT COMPANY. This is the company that never had more than £2.00 in assets during its existence.

A third company, set-up by “the gang” appeared in April 2013 – BRISTOL COMMUNITY FERRY BOAT COMPANY.

The very long arm of Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 on “Phoenix Companies” says:

Prohibited name

Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 defines the circumstances in which criminal and civil liability can be imposed on a director who acts, without proper notice being given or the leave of the court, for a company or even an unincorporated business which is known by a prohibited name.

A name will be prohibited where it is the same name that the liquidating company was known as at any time in the 12 months immediately before it went into liquidation, or where it is sufficiently similar as to suggest an association with the liquidating company.

This includes a trading name.

Criminal liability:

Where a company trades under a prohibited name an individual can be guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both for:
• acting as a director of the company; and
• taking part either directly or indirectly in the formation, management or promotion of the company.

An individual can also be liable under Section 216 for being involved in a business using the prohibited name, even if it is not a company.

Civil liability

Under section 217 of the Act, a person will be personally responsible for the ‘relevant debts’ of a company if he is involved in the management of the company in breach of section 216, or if he is involved in the management of a company and takes instructions from a person he knows to be in breach of section 216. The relevant debts are those debts which were incurred whilst that person was acting in contravention of section 216 or taking instructions from a person he knew to be in contravention of section 216.

What interesting times we live in …