Tag Archives: Gillian Douglas

GOTCHA! YOU NAME ‘EM, WE SHAME ‘EM!

All was not well in the department of endless lies and cover-ups run by Bristol City Council housing boss GILLIAN “Irma Grese” DOUGLAS after our last issue.

We hear Ms Grese was less than pleased at our REVELATION that her department was slyly signing off eviction threats to homeless families who had fallen behind on a dodgy service charges demanded by Grese’s favoured landlord for the city’s most vulnerable – Connolly & Callaghan (Bristolian 40).

We’re reliably informed that an especially sour-faced Grese marched long suffering managers and supervisors into a meeting room and began waving a copy of The BRISTOLIAN above her head while screeching, “THERE’S BEEN A LEAK, THERE’S BEEN A LEAK.”

The scene, we’re assured, was “completely and utterly hilarious and it was hard to keep a straight face as this ludicrous Scottish banshee whined her dismal song of the thoroughly EXPOSED.”

Meanwhile, over in HR, President Assad look-a-like, HR Director Mark “BASHAR” Williams has been telling anyone who will listen (which isn’t many) that, “The BRISTOLIAN has been giving me sleepless nights.”

No, we’ve no idea why either. But if your caring, sharing BRISTOLIAN is inducing nervous breakdowns in pointless Bristol City Council middle managers, who are we to complain?

Heard a boss whinging about The BRISTOLIAN? Get in touch.

WOLFIE’S GATEKEEPING SCAM EXPOSED

Leave a reply

Bristol City Council’s gatekeeping policy on trial

Earlier this month, The BRISTOLIAN revealed that Bristol City Council was reintroducing the ILLEGAL practice of “gate keeping”, one that it had already been reprimanded for in July 2013 by the LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN. The hush-hush policy aims to exclude certain categories of recently-made homeless from the assistance which a council is under a legal obligation to provide – all, of course, to allegedly “save money”.

We can reveal that BCC’s Housing Department Manager GILLIAN “Irma Grese” DOUGLAS and her boss, NICK “Pooper” HOOPER are the six-digit salary (and former “Dirty Thirty”) criminals responsible. In early September Pooper directed unterscharführer Irma to do his dirty work for him, which she promptly did. Telling the entire BCC Housing Department – by word of mouth ONLY so there was NO WRITTEN EVIDENCE – that from now on they were to EXCLUDE young Bristolians recently made homeless.

For example, if an applicant was a teenage single mother kicked out of her home, then she would have to go back to her parents and get a 28 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT and would not be helped until she had brought that “evidence” back IN WRITING.

The BRISTOLIAN can also reveal that word of this unauthorised scheme – drawn up by TWO OF HIS SUBORDINATES – landed on the desk of BCC’s Housing Czar, PAUL “Wolfie” SMITH, thanks to two concerned housing activists. In addition, it was revealed that not only were teenagers being excluded but also adults.

Wolfie responded that he was “very concerned” and would “investigate”. In addition he added that this would “at last” provide him with the evidence he needed to DRIVE OUT Pooper and SS unterscharführer Irma from BCC.

Well Wolfie, September is now finished and we’re still waiting for ANY ACTION AT ALL. Rumours are circulating that the latest BCC “gate keeping” policy introduced by two sociopathic apparatchiks on their own initiative is not only continuing, but has also been EXPANDED.

Wolfie had better get cracking, as The BRISTOLIAN is amassing compelling evidence of this and MANY OTHER UNCONSCIONABLE FAILURES by the Director of Housing that it will reveal in due course and, of course, PASS ON TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

#walrustrial: COUNCIL’S BENT ASBO SHOCKER!

6 Replies

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?