Tag Archives: Nick Hooper

ILLEGAL BCC GATE-KEEPING POLICY REINSTATED

Word is spreading that rogue bullshit jobbers (ie. middle management) in Bristol City Council’s Housing Department re-introduced the illegal practice of “gate-keeping” last week, presumably to restrict Bristol’s homeless access to public services they’re entitled to under the pretence of “saving money”.

Obviously aware that the council had already been reprimanded for this practice by the Ombudsman back in 2012, our very own bullshit jobforce (on huge salaries at taxpayer expense, and including members of the Dirty Thirty) went around all of BCC’s front-line housing staff in person and told them that they were to refuse all help to young Bristolians turfed out of their family homes, under the pretence that they “do not qualify as homeless” until they “can provide proof in the form of a legal notice to quit (28 days) from their families”. As if this is going to happen! Never mind, because the undeserving poor can just sleep on the streets until they get them.

So the question must be asked: Is Housing Director Paul “Wolfie” Smith aware of such illegal, clandestine shenanigans amongst his subordinates? Or are they simply doing whatever they want? And what is Nick “Pooper” Hooper’s role in all of this? Is the high priest of BCC’s bullshit jobbers still in charge of “administrating” the Housing Dept, or has he, as rumoured, been moved on to blight another department?

Maybe another visit by the Ombudsman can give us the answers to all of this and more…

ANTONA COURT: THROUGH THE KEYHOLE

keyhole-variant_318-54667More fun and games at Antona Court, the council owned residence of notorious housing activist and friend of the Bristolian, Steve “STORMIN'” Norman.

After 18 months of deranged accusations and smears emanating from the council’s housing service management pillock Nick “DROOPER” Hooper, Steve (and everyone else in the block including children) is now being subjected to camera surveillance from a PEEPING TOM weirdo resident while the council does nothing!

Last week, a female friend of Steve’s noticed – while walking through the communal hallway of Antona Court – a small CAMERA trained on her from the open LETTERBOX of one of the flats. Deciding she didn’t wish to be filmed by some sad old man, she pushed the camera back through the letterbox and went to visit Steve.

Alas, this did not go down well with the Nick “Drooper” Hooper’s new Peeping Tom SPY OPERATIVE who then proceeded to tell Steve that he would attack him with a baseball bat if his dodgy camera was touched again!

Steve, concluding that it might be better to engage with the authorities rather than beat the Peeping Tom to a finely juiced pulp, contacted Drooper’s NORTH BRISTOL ESTATES FALSE ALLEGATION UNIT to complain and they visited Antona Court last week.

Only to explain that the tenant in their view was doing NOTHING WRONG and they were happy for him to continue filming in the communal area of their flats if he wished.

Do you reckon if Steve were doing the filming that Drooper and his False Allegation Unit would be so lenient?

The council’s view also contradicts the police who have told Steve, if the council were to cooperate, they would assist in serving an ASBO on the Peeping Tom for fairly obvious reasons.

Meanwhile residents at Antona Court are voting with their feet. One grandmother is REFUSING to take her grand daughter through the hallway and past the camera. Presumably on the basis she doesn’t want some aging pervert filming her young grand daughter and retaining the footage for his personal use?

Other residents are requesting moves from the block to get away from Drooper’s freakish and anti-social SPY NETWORK.

Now the issue has now been handed to Drooper’s colleague Mary “Contrary” Ryan to resolve. Will she continue to allow the private filming of children and young women in communal areas of Antona Court or will she see sense?

Watch this space …

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: SOME QUESTIONS

With the occupation at 44 Richmond Terrace apparently winding down, it’s time to start asking some QUESTIONS about decisions regarding the occupation taken by by Bristol City Council.

Specifically questions about what senior bosses at Bristol City Council – who have just been awarded pay rises of up to 20 PER CENT to reflect their ‘expertise’ – have been up to.

To the untrained, non-corporate eye, their decision-making over Richmond Terrace has been consistently CRAP. Why did a group of highly paid ‘strategic managers’ have no strategy whatsoever throughout this whole occupation?

Instead the bosses seem to have staggered from one short term RANDOM DECISION to the next. Either based on Service Director Nick Hooper’s well-known PERSONAL DISLIKE of occupier, Steve Norman, or they have responded to events on the ground as they happened. All the precise opposite of what we’re over-paying these clowns to do.

The fact is the bosses directly responsible – Service Directors Nick “Drooper” Hooper and Mary “Contrary” Ryan and Strategic Director Alison “Three Jobs” Comley – on a combined income of around £310k per year – have been thoroughly OUTFOUGHT, OUT THOUGHT and OUT RUN during the last six weeks by a band of Bristolian activists.

Is this trio of useless twats really the best Bristol City Council can offer to solve our housing crisis?

Here’s some of the questions that the council and its highly paid bosses need to start answering:

1. Why did the sale of 44 Richmond Terrace go ahead at all on 20 April hours after it had been occupied by protestors?

2. Why did both Bristol City Council and their auctioneers tell the buyer the house was “rumoured” to be occupied when Steve Norman had emailed housing Service Director, Nick Hooper, at noon on 20 April informing him he had occupied the house?

3. Why did no one at Bristol City Council visit and confirm if the house had been occupied or not on 20 April before proceeding with the sale?

4. Did Bristol City Council receive confirmed reports from the BBC on 20 April, prior to the auction, that the house had been occupied?

5. Why did Bristol City Council do nothing between 20 April – when the house was occupied and then sold – and 18 May – when the sale should have completed – to regain possession of the home?

6. After 18 May why did Bristol City Council not attempt to negotiate a solution to the occupation until 31 May, once they had dismally failed to evict the occupants after half an hour trying?

7. Why did Housing Service Director, Mary Ryan, visit the occupiers on 23 May claiming she was negotiating a solution with them while offering nothing?

8. Why did Bristol City Council not obtain an eviction order until 25 May, five weeks after the occupation had begun and one week after the sale should have been completed?

9. Why did the council take six days, from 25 May to 31 May, to attempt to evict the occupiers, giving the occupiers time to dig in and secure the house?

10. Why, when the council’s bailiffs visited on Tuesday 31 May, were they not aware the occupiers were on the roof of the house – and had been since Friday 27 May as reported on the BBC – and that a specialist team was required to remove the occupiers rather than the gang of thick, useless oafs they sent.

11. Despite repeated requests to Housing Service Director, Nick Hooper from April 20, why has he never supplied written evidence that Anthony Palmer was not entitled to extra housing priority as an ex-serviceman because he had left the services over five years ago?

12. Why was Anthony suddenly awarded this extra housing priority on 31 May without explanation?

13. Why was Anthony Palmer allowed to be harassed by staff from Connolly & Callaghan, the private owners of his homeless hostel, through regular checks on his whereabouts throughout the day?

14. Why was Anthony Palmer threatened with eviction if he did not stay at his shithole Connolly & Callaghan homeless hostel overnight? Is it a prison?

15. Why did housing Service Director, Nick Hooper, consistently disregard the advice of social services and health visitors in relation to the urgent housing need of Anthony Palmer?

16. Why did the details of 44 Richmond Terrace supplied on the Hollis Morgan website describe the house as requiring “complete modernisaiton” (sic) while the so-called ‘structural report’ produced by Bristol City Council on 25 May says the building has “structural damage”?

17. Who wrote the 224 word ‘structural report’ for 44 Richmond Terrace for Bristol City Council and when?

18. Was this ‘structural report’ sufficiently detailed and complete for a senior council boss to take the delegated decision to sell 44 Richmond Terrace?

19. Which manager at Bristol City Council took the decision to sell 44 Richmond Terrace?

20. Why did the council undertake renovations at 44 Richmond Terrace in the year prior to its sale?

21. Did the council offer the former tenant the opportunity to return to 44 Richmond Terrace earlier this year after the council had completed repairs and renovation?

22. Why did a council spokesman say on 25 May, “Costs to bring the property up to the standard we aspire to for council houses were estimated in excess of £35,000″ when the figure stated in the council’s own ‘structural report’ is £30,000?

23. Why had no one at the council been in touch with the buyer at any point to discuss the occupation of the home they had sold to her?

24. Why did the council tell the buyer information on the occupation was “confidential”. On what legal basis was it “confidential”?

25. Why was the buyer reliant on information regarding 44 Richmond Terrace from the media; from Richard Carey and Steve Norman occupiers at the property and from BBC Radio who had contacted her at various times? Why did the council not communicate with her?

26. Why did the council misrepresent the actual facts regarding the sale during pre-contract enquiries by the buyer?

27. Why had Marvin Rees not seen an email sent to him by the buyer on Thursday 19 May by Monday 30 May despite the sender receiving an automated acknowledgement from Marvin’s council email account? Who had seen that email and who withheld it from the mayor?

We anticipate no answers to these questions as the council, its staff and its councillors will now pour a lot of time, money and resources into defending at all costs the bent, overpaid deadbeats responsible.

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: “MARVIN REES CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELLUVA BEATING!”

kesWith ex-serviceman Anthony Palmer and his 18 month son, Kai, housed on Monday and news coming in that Bristol City Council have finally agreed with the buyer to cancel the sale of the house, thus keeping it in public ownership, the occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace can claim TOTAL VICTORY.

We look forward to a homeless family moving into the house in the near future after it’s handed back to the council once repairs to damage due to the attempted eviction are completed.

Congratulations to all involved. You know who you are and what you did. Another victory for Avonmouth against the odds. No doubt more will follow.

Got a problem with Bristol City Council’s housing department? Contact your caring sharing BRISTOLIAN for no-nonsense results orientated housing advice.

BRISTOL HASN’T GOT A HOMELESS PROBLEM. IT’S GOT A HOUSING DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT PROBLEM

Bristol Labour’s new housing boss, Paul “Wolfie” Smith lets slip a few very INTERESTING FACTS in a piece of shameless self-promotion he’s written for the Guardian:

“Bristol has a real problem with homelessness, with more than 300 households in temporary accommodation at a net cost to the council tax payer of £800,000 a year; at the same time 550 council homes are empty, losing rent of £2m and £700,000 in council tax. “

Er, sorry, come again? We’ve been handing around a £1,000 a month to private sector temporary housing ‘specialists’ for each homeless family – at a cost he alleges of £800k but is likely to be much  more  – while leaving 550 council homes they could live in sat EMPTY?

Council homes that could generate almost £3m in income to the city. That’s lots of money and housing stock that we could be using to house the homeless ourselves. Instead our money’s being handed over to DODGY LOCAL BUSINESSMEN to provide a revolting, anti-human homeless service while our own housing resources are left to ROT.

Wolfie’s wrong. This city hasn’t got a homeless problem. It’s got a HOUSING MANAGEMENT PROBLEM. What the fuck is going on at Bristol City Council’s housing department? Wolfie offers us half an explanation:

“six years of austerity, service cuts, redundancies and restructures, all of which have destroyed both morale and provision”

It’s not just morale and provision that’s been destroyed, however. The concept of a social housing department that’s there to serve the public and provide support to the vulnerable has been PULVERISED.

The city’s senior housing bosses – strategic director, Alison “Three Jobs” Comley and service directors, Nick “Drooper” Hooper and Mary “Contrary” Ryan – have obsessively focused – for over six years now – on delivering Tory policies of AUSTERITY, CUTS and PRIVATISATION at the expense of their actual jobs of delivering a housing service to the public.

We’ve had these three fucking idiots systematically SACKING, DOWNGRADING and DESKILLING their workforce for over eight years now while introducing a GORMLESS CORPORATE CULTURE of privatisation, outsourcing, constant restructuring, regular office moves, ‘agile working’, management consulting, ‘demand management’, half-arsed techno solutions, useless software and IT fixes and any other PASSING MANAGEMENT FAD a well paid consultant can pass off on this trio of useful idiots.

These three bosses haven’t bothered running a housing department in the traditional sense for years. They’ve been implementing a right wing, ANTI-PUBLIC SECTOR ideology. DOWNGRADING a vital public service to the point where it’s barely viable. Try phoning (0117 922 2200) Drooper Hooper’s housing department and see if you can even get to speak to a human being.

All three need to QUIT or be SACKED. We need normal housing bosses in our housing department who can quickly provide homes fit to occupy and get families into these homes. It’s not difficult and it’s what a housing department should do. Leaving council homes EMPTY while stuffing the pockets of local businessmen with large amounts of public cash for shit housing is nothing short of a criminal enterprise.

The current housing management needs to go and go now. They’ve fucked up our city up and now they need to fuck off.

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: NO HEALTH RISKS FROM SEWAGE ANNOUNCES COUNCIL BOSS

Hooper

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
Subject: FW: RE:RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER

 

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.

Yours

 

Nick Hooper
Service Director – Housing Solutions & Crime Reduction
People Directorate
Bristol City Council
100 Temple Street
BS1 6AN
Bristol

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
07747490902

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: WHY’S HOOPER AVOIDING THE QUESTION?

On 30 Steve Norman, as Anthony Palmer’s representative, wrote to Housing Service Director, Nick Hooper. Here’s one section of the letter:

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?

Here’s Hooper’s response to that letter. Has anyone any idea why Hooper has avoided Steve’s simple question?

From: Nick Hooper <nick.hooper@bristol.gov.uk>
Sent: 18 May 2016 15:47
To: ‘steven norman’
Cc:anthonypalmer@hotmail.co.uk; Mary Ryan
Subject: RE: RE:RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER

 

Dear Mr Norman

Thank you for the authorisation form sent to my colleague Mary Ryan, which we note means that you can act on Mr Palmer’s behalf.

I have checked the conversation which you had with Linda Tasker and she feels that you may have misunderstood what she was saying. She merely advised you of the alternative possibilities the Council has with regard to providing temporary accommodation – she wasn’t actually offering Windermere, which as you note is generally used for larger families than Mr Palmer and his son, though we do occasionally use it for smaller households. I understand that Mr Palmer does not wish to be offered Windermere.

There is no question of us bullying you or Mr Palmer. We have over 300 households in temporary and emergency accommodation, some of which is very expensive, so we try to make best use of what we have access to, and need families to recognise that they must actively seek a move, which Mr Palmer has been.

I think your reference to the amount of time families should stay in hostels relates to government policy that families with dependent children should not stay in non self-contained temporary accommodation longer than 6 weeks (this is the Homeless Suitability of Accommodation Order 2003). However as Mr Palmer’s current accommodation is self-contained this does not apply.

I have investigated your allegations of sewage at North St, which have been referred to the owners. Apparently the photos are of a basement area, which residents are not allowed access, and there are signs stating this. North Street is inspected regularly by the Council, last visited 3-to-4 weeks ago, but I am arranging for it be inspected again.

Now that we have Mr Palmer’s service number in the armed forces, I am getting this checked and will contact you again.

Since your last e-mail Mr Palmer has moved into different accommodation at North St, which I understand he had requested and which meets his needs better. Meanwhile I am pleased to see that he has continued to bid regularly on HomeChoice and he is very close to being successful, on his last bid he came 5th. I am optimistic that he will be successful soon if his pattern of bidding is maintained.

Yours

Nick Hooper

Service Director – Housing Solutions & Crime Reduction

We shall be doing a full analysis of Hooper’s letter in due course ….

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: THE HOUSING HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP

Bout in the Mouth

Please come and support the occupiers on Wednesday in court against Marvin’s gang of council shysters. Bring bells, whistles, banners, boxing gloves etc.

Maybe we’ll pay a visit to Temple Street too?

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: HOOPER CAN’T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

Baldy Dropper: posh twit

Nick “Drooper” Hooper: ‘bent fucker’

Three weeks and counting and Bristol City Council Housing Director and all round wanker, Nick “Drooper” Hooper, is unable to produce a SHRED of legal evidence that backs up his department’s refusal to give any consideration to Anthony Palmer’s status as an ex-serviceman and give him the highest, Band 1, housing priority.

Anthony, supported by activist Steve Norman, met with representatives of Drooper’s department THREE WEEKS AGO on 28 April. And Hooper’s little minions claimed an ex-services consideration didn’t apply “because Mr Palmer had left the Army some seven years ago and Bristol City Council has set the criteria for this at five years.”

During the meeting Steve CHALLENGED this claim and was assured by Drooper’s minions that it was set down in the Housing Act (1996) and its amendments (2012) that local authorities could set there own criteria and length of time between discharge from the armed services and application for housing.

Subsequently in writing to Drooper on 30 April Steve further QUERIED this claim, “I have been unable to locate such a clause within the Act. Can you please advise as to what section of the Act covers this statement for my reference.”

He then went on to say, “Unfortunately I have come across statements like this in the past from Bristol City Council. Only to find it is a bit of a PETER PAN WORLD of wishful thinking on the part of Bristol City Council.”

Fast forward three weeks and – despite responding to other aspects of Steve’s email – that bent little fucker Drooper is UNABLE to come up with the simple response that would back up his department’s claims.

Is this because these Bristol City Council regulations on ex-services have no basis in law? And is this because – yet again – Drooper has his own PERSONAL AGENDA and is pursuing his own PERSONAL VENDETTA against Steve Norman and his family on our time and money?

When is someone at Bristol City Council going to step in and make this increasingly deranged and out-of-control housing boss do his job properly?

He’s a total embarrassment to the city and a menace to the homeless.

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: TICK TOCK IT’S GONE 5 O’CLOCK – WE WIN!

On the 20 April 2016 housing activists occupied 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth with the intention of preventing this council owned home from being SOLD AT AUCTION later that day to the private sector. They didn’t succeed and the council sold the occupied house to a PRIVATE BUYER.

Earlier today, however, The BRISTOLIAN received news from inside Nick “Drooper” Hooper’s leaky toilet of a housing department that the buyer of the property has PULLED OUT of the sale. After it became apparent Bristol City Council would fail to hand the buyer UNOCCUPIED POSSESSION of the property at 5.00pm today as they were contractually obliged to do when they sold the home.

We are therefore proud to announce that 44 Richmond Terrace REMAINS in public ownership and that the activists are victorious! Mission accomplished. DIRECT ACTION GETS RESULTS!

Congratulations to all involved. Few believed this result possible. You’ve proved them all WRONG while plastering lashings of egg and the odd bucket of shit all over the faces of privatising senior bosses in the council’s housing department and making Marvin “The Reverend” Rees look hopelessly out of his depth as mayor.

So what happens now? The council’s hapless Service Director for Estates Mary “Contrary” Ryan assured activist Steve Norman yesterday that the house would go BACK UP FOR AUCTION as soon as possible if the occupation ever ends.

Although Mary Contrary seems to directly contradict Mayor Marvin “The Reverend” Rees who consistently stated throughout his election campaign that he would NOT SELL OFF any more council homes. A commitment he confirmed on ITV West News just last night.

Who’s running our council’s housing department and setting housing policy then? A bat shit crazy part time middle management housing bureaucrat with her OWN AGENDA or the elected mayor of Bristol? Watch this space.

The triumvirate of housing bosses who have fronted this occupation SHAMBLES for Bristol City Council  – Strategic Director Alison “Three Jobs” Comley and Service Directors Nick “Drooper” Hooper  and Mary “Contrary” Ryan – now have some explaining to do.

Let’s start with why, if the house was occupied on 20 April, did this trio of useless, unaccountable SHITHEADS not instigate eviction proceedings until almost FOUR WEEKS LATER and only 24 HOURS before the sale of the house was supposed to complete? What was the business case behind that decision?

The BRISTOLIAN’S Council House Kreminologists assure us that the three housing bosses are openly playing political games. Deliberately delaying doing anything about the occupation until after the election so they could dump the large pile of shit they’ve left festering on to the incoming Labour administration’s doorstep.

Why else would they FAIL to either instigate eviction proceedings or attempt to seriously negotiate a settlement to the occupation? The only two realistic options available to them to resolve the occupation that would have the house ready for their buyer to complete the purchase on 18 May.

Steve Norman and Anthony Palmer met with Service Director Nick “Drooper” Hooper’s minions on 28 April 2016, EIGHT DAYS after the occupation began. What agenda was Drooper pursuing at that meeting? The only outcome was a paltry offer of a place on a waiting list at a hostel in Southmead for Anthony. An offer that was then WITHDRAWN two days later by email.

Drooper’s efforts at this meeting were the precise opposite of attempting to reach a SOLUTION. He made it WORSE! And used the occupation as another opportunity to pursue his ongoing pathetic and ineffectve VENDETTA against leading occupier, Steve Norman. Drooper, presumably, believing the Reverend Marvin and his incoming Labour administration would simply go along with this personal-vendetta-funded-on-the-rates nonsense?

The Reverend himself doesn’t come out of this shambles too well either. What’s he been doing for the last TEN DAYS about this occupation? And why did his housing service director Mary “Contrary” Ryan appear at Richmond Terrace to apparently negotiate a settlement on Monday with NOTHING to offer?

Marvin effectively paid Mary Contrary FIFTY QUID AN HOUR of our money to sit outside in the sun at Richmond Terrace shooting the breeze for a few hours achieving nothing. A nice little earner if you can get it!

It’s time for the The Reverend to urgently start kicking some ARSE in his housing department. His senior housing directors are taking the piss. They have DELIBERATELY run up a bill in excess of £170k to enagage in some pretty ugly PERSONAL and PARTY POLITICS while dumping the resulting political mess and public relations disaster in his lap.

Are we now in for four years of IN-FIGHTING between an elected mayor and his cabinet and a bunch of RECALCITRANT senior council bosses determined to fuck up a Labour administration at any cost they feel like charging to the council tax payer?

The Reverend needs to nip this POLITICAL CRAP from his officers in the bud. What have they been playing at for the last four weeks? All three housing directors need to be investigated and called to publicly account for their bizarre and expensive POLITICALLY MOTIVATED decisions around Richmond Terrace.

But don’t hold your breath.