Tag Archives: hostel


Despite the EMERGENCY CLOSURE of a hostel at 57 Prince Street for fire hazard and impending criminal charges for negligence, the disgusting capitalist scum, unregistered landleech Jayne Brown and her scamming, corrupt ‘business partners’ in the University of Bristol, Barbados and Spain are allowed to hold on to their STINKING PROFITS.

Meanwhile, 85, mainly young Spanish people, evicted from the hostel have been refused help from Bristol City Council because they “DIDN’T MEET PRIORITY CRITERIA“.

Neither, as promised, have the city council opened a hostel at St Anne’s for these victims of capitalist gangsterism. This means 85 mostly young Bristol-Spanish service sector workers are now SOFA-SURFING and many have LOST THEIR JOBS in the shite end of Bristol’s low pay gig economy.

In the words of one forcibly-homeless Spanish worker speaking to BCC staff yesterday in the Temple of Doom: ‘The GOVERNMENT in Spain is FUCKING SHIT, but at least EVEN THEY would have GOT US RE-HOUSED BY NOW.’

Unfortunately not in Bristol, a ‘CITY OF SANCTUARY’. Neither has this blatant evidence of the mass warehousing of foreign gig economy workers in dangerous conditions and the involvement of
dubious employment agencies,  attracted the attention of Bristol’s, usually, noisy modern slavery campaigners.

Are they on holiday? Or do low waged European nationals not count in Bristol?




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 19th 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


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.



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

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


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.

Joining two hostels together












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


An open invitation for Bristol City Council housing boss, Nick “DROOPER” Hooper to confirm in writing that he’s happy at the conditions Anthony Palmer and his son are currently living in.

Also an invitation to Drooper to identify the non-existent bits of housing law his department are quoting:

From: steven norman <s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: 30 April 2016 10:59
To: Nick Hooper

Dear Mr Hooper,


Thank you for your email and the information you have provided. It has been noted and passed on to our legal representative. On Thursday the 28th April  I attended a meeting with Mr Palmer.

Present at that meeting were Mr Palmer’s Social Worker, Health Visitor and a lady from the housing department (Housing Support Worker), who I have to say I felt rather sorry for as she was clearly the messenger of nothing new. I assume this is the contact to which you refer in your email?

I would now like to deal with what I was able to ascertain from that meeting. The support worker mentioned a move to another hostel called Windermere in Southmead which would bring Anthony closer to his support network and also give him a front room bedroom & kitchen.

At this point it looked like there was a glimmer of hope of a move in the right direction. Only to be told in the next breath there were no current vacancies but we will put you on the list!

When challenged over the waiting period he could expect to wait, it became a case of how long is a piece of string? So nothing substantial was being offered other than ifs, buts and maybes, which seems to be how your department is run these days.

There are three factors that concern me a great deal. Firstly, the child has a serious health problem with eczema that requires him to be bathed in emollients. Something that Mr Palmer is unable to do. He is currently sitting him in the shower tray, having to hold the shower head as one minute it goes from warm to a temperature that could scold the child. Secondly, the development of the child is being held back as stated by both the social worker and health visitor.

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?

Unfortunately I have come across statements like this in the past within Bristol City Council only to find it is a bit of a Peter Pan world or wishful thinking on the part of Bristol City Council. I usually find a quick Legal Action remedies such statements before we even get to issuing court proceedings.

A synopsis of where Mr Palmer currently stands is as follows:

1) If, but and maybe in terms of another hostel.

2) Bristol City Council feel they have no Statutory or Legal Duty in terms of his son’s health problems and how they are exasperated by his current  housing condition

3) Bristol City Council feels it is okay to ignore the advice of another organisation involved with his and his child’s welfare

4) A possible Peter Pan World in terms of him being put in the correct banding

Now without wishing to sound facetious, I think it only needs me to ask when you will be placing a member of yours or Mr Ferguson’s family in to such conditions?

Certain people within society of certain political persuasions would like to push the great unwashed back in to the squalor of the 1800s living with rats and cockroaches while they get rich off the selling of council houses.

Will you and your department please confirm in writing that you are happy at the conditions Mr Palmer and his son are currently living in?

I look forward to your immediate reply

Yours Sincerely

Mr Stephen Norman

Local Independent Candidate Avonmouth & Lawrence Weston Ward