Our old friends at Private Eye have picked up on the SEND spying scandal.
They picked up on the farcical ‘fact finding’ report produced by the council’s none-too-bright Deputy Head of Legal Nancy “Rollercoaster” Rollason which claims she found “no evidence” of “systematic monitoring”.
A strange conclusion when emails in the public domain between SEND managers openly state that they’re “working hard to uncover concrete evidence”!
Perhaps they worked hard uncovering unsystematically?
Bristol City Council have been insisting via a ridiculous ‘fact-finding’ report authored by their ridiculous head of legal Nancy “Rollercoaster” Rollason that no ‘systematic monitoring’ of SEND parent’s social media ever took place.
Now a video clip, from the summer, briefly comes to light, before disappearing again into the internet shadows, starring one of the council’s ‘weak men’, People Director, Hugh “Cares” Evans. The “brains” behind the hapless surveillance operation, Evans says:
Would you want to read from your partner organisation or colleagues something on social media the like of which we’ve been reading on social media?
Leaving aside why Hugh’s being paid £180k a year to read the general public’s social media, are we to believe Hugh and his SEND manager mates must have been regularly accessing parents social media in a totally unsystematic way?
Or has he been lying through his teeth to a council lawyer?
I am waiting with bated breath to read your article on the BCC meeting today (26th September) regarding the subject. I trust it will highlight the fact that every time she told a lie Nancy Rollercoaster closed her eyes.
Her reliance upon the term “I think” was also rather telling. If she “‘thinks” something she cannot be found to have made a definitive statement and may, legally, be marginally incorrect (wrong) without having made a false statement as opposed to using the term ‘I believe’ or making a statement of fact. “I think” implies a lack of conviction and therefore provides ‘wriggle room’ for subsequent retractions or amendments.
The fact that so much fuss was made over the definition of systematic monitoring and surveillance as well as the identification that the ‘fact’ finding report only considered the cases of data1 and data2 only serves to enhance the smell of whitewash emanating from the Cuntz Louse.
Asher Craig was clearly only present as a member of Marv-el-louse Marvin’s glove puppet cabinet to try and shut down criticism of the council and it was good to see that she got put firmly back in her box by the chair and Cllr Weston.
It is clear that Marv-el-louse Marvin has his rather smelly fingers buried deeply in this issue and the matter needs fully investigating by a properly independent body.
Regards
Members of the public who complained about our idiot Lord Mayor, Jeff “CUNT” Lovell, calling them “a disease” for attending the council budget meeting in February have received a response from a couple of the council’s useless lawyers, Pauline “Cow” Cowley and Nancy “Boy” Rollason. Is this because Lord Mayor Cunt is too much of a PUSSY to respond himself?
Cowley and Rollason – who signs off as ‘Head of Legal’ – explain that they are writing on BEHALF of the Monitoring Officer, Shahzia “DIM” Daya, who “determined the issue” before disappearing on long term SICK LEAVE!
So why’s she off sick all of a sudden? Is Dim Daya’s oversight of last year’s budget and the CRIMINALITY involved finally catching up with her? And why is her colleague now Head of Legal? Has Dim Daya been relieved of some of her duties by any chance?
Naturally Daya’s response is FARCICAL. The dim one explains that “the complaint centres on the interpretation of phrases used by Lord Mayor Jeff Lovell”. No shit Sherlock! Although it’s a pity that Daya then doesn’t bother to identify – let alone interpret – any of Cunt Lovell’s phrases before concluding he used “language that is designed to foster an INCLUSIVE atmosphere”!
The rest of the letter is a load of irrelevant CARPING from the lawyers about conduct in the public gallery at the meeting, which nobody’s complained about.
How do these overpaid fuckers get away with producing this shit?
The full correspondence is below:
Complaint to Monitoring Officer regarding Jouncillor Jeff Lovell
Date of Complaint 24 February 2017
Name of Complainant
Allegation against Councillor Jeff Lovell
Nature of Allegation Disgraced the office
Outcome: The Monitoring Officer can decide either that
no action should be taken (with reasons) or
refer the matter for investigation or
take other action (including mediation or training).
Details: This complaint relates to the behaviour of the Councillor Jeff Lovell at Full Council meeting on 21 February 2017
Decision: No further action to be taken
Reasons for the decision:
I have viewed the web cast from 20 minutes on. The webcast shows the chair, Lord Mayor Jeff Powell managing the budget presentation by the Mayor. The complaint outlined in the email of 24 February centres on the interpretation of phrases used by Lord Mayor Jeff Lovell, acting as Chair in this meeting.
I note that prior to the alleged incident, there were a number of interruptions from the public gallery, starting at 21 minutes. These last on average half a minute. There are at least 9 interruptions which affect the delivery of the budget by the Mayor. Swearing is audible at times, although this subsided to low level heckling.
Throughout, the chair demonstrates a desire to run the meeting efficiently and with due process. He uses a tone that is polite firm and fair and uses language that is designed to foster an inclusive atmosphere. He gave repeated warnings and an explanation of the powers of the Chair.
I do appreciate that this was an emotive meeting and that people wished to protest against cuts, the outcome of which would mean changes over which they have little control.
Shahzia Daya, Interim Monitoring Officer, Bristol City Council
27 March 2017