Tag Archives: Mansion House

IN PLAIN SIGHT

guild

To the The Guild of Guardians website, which tells us that this obscure invitation-only organisation for the wealthy “is a registered charity that aims to improve the quality of the Civic life of the City of Bristol. In partnership with the City, the Guild continues to support and enhance the Mansion House and Office of Lord Mayor.”

So far so exclusive, dull and conservative but then it tells us, “It is unique in that through its membership it affords the opportunity for the private sector to discuss with senior politicians the policies of the City Council.” 

How nice. Selected wealthy members of the private sector get to discuss the policies of the city council with its politicians in exchange for donations to do up the Mansion House and crawl up the Lord Mayor’s backside.

All perfectly normal and above board for Bristol.

#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: PRASHAR UNDER PRESSURE

Has the useless bent lawyer, Sanjay Prashar, who’s been permanently appointed by Uncle George and Lady Gaga to oversee their bent council, realised he’s a public laughing stock yet?

Well, if not, here’s another letter from a member of the public he’s threatened – entitled ‘I think you should go back to law school’! – to remind him what an oaf he is and that nobody takes him seriously and nobody believes him (with the dishonorable exception of our gormless councillors who seem to believe every word he says!)

From: Phil@pandrews.com
To: sanjay.prashar@bristol.gov.uk
CC:
Subject: Sanjay Prashar – I think you should go back to law school!
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:00:46 +0000

Dear Sanjay, firstly, thanks for all the hilarity we had when we read your amateurish scare tactic letter last week, and secondly when the news was out that you sent it to a member of the public in error! I presume this letter was legally privileged information, so perhaps you had better send a threatening letter to yourself now, since you are probably in breach of some law or other!

Anyway, I think I would have a case against you for libel and defamation, since you have accused me of a dishonest & criminal act, and you’ve published it by sending it to a member of the public – inadvertently – you are quite simply incompetent!

Anyway, since I actually have a reputation to tarnish, unlike you or Cllr Hopkins, I think I might have a much stronger case against you, than the one you allege against me in one of your missives.

By the way, you identify me merely as Phil” in your e-mail to Cllrs. – as should have been clear from the signature block at the bottom of the e-mail, I am the Philip Andrews that lives in Bath, that co-owns the Jane Austen Centre, that owns the 35 year old (I started it by the way in 1978) legendary Moles Club, and also the Chapel Arts Centre.

You can call on me (in person) any time you like and I’ll give you a serious piece of my  mind about what a bunch of jerks the council employs in it’s Environmental Health Dept and Legal Services Dept, and exactly why they should be resigning and taking a very long walk off a very short pier!

Re your odious letter – I have done a little checking, and it seems that your letter is wrong, and it’s not covered, but I’m off to see a top QC – (not Errina Foley-Fisher!) to get chapter and verse.

In any case as is clear, in the extract below, 2-4 allows information disclosed or mentioned in  court to be disclosed in any manner the defendant sees fit. As all the key pieces of information were mentioned in court, for the time being I’m going to refer to them in that way.

Oh, and be a good sport and send me the freedom of information forms so in the meantime, I can order the minutes of the secret ASBO meetings please?

 

Section 17 provides as follows.

Confidentiality of disclosed information.

(1)If the accused is given or allowed to inspect a document or other object under—

(a)section 3, 4, [F17A]F1 , 14 or 15, or

(b)an order under section 8,

then, subject to subsections (2) to (4), he must not use or disclose it or any information recorded in it.

(2)The accused may use or disclose the object or information—

(a)in connection with the proceedings for whose purposes he was given the object or allowed to inspect it,

(b)with a view to the taking of further criminal proceedings (for instance, by way of appeal) with regard to the matter giving rise to the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c)in connection with the proceedings first mentioned in paragraph (b).

(3)The accused may use or disclose—

(a)the object to the extent that it has been displayed to the public in open court, or

(b)the information to the extent that it has been communicated to the public in open court;

but the preceding provisions of this subsection do not apply if the object is displayed or the information is communicated in proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section 18.

(4)If—

(a)the accused applies to the court for an order granting permission to use or disclose the object or information, and

(b)the court makes such an order,

the accused may use or disclose the object or information for the purpose and to the extent specified by the court.

Kind regards Philip

#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 …