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.
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.
As council housing activists continue to occupy former council property 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth to get homeless ex-serviceman Anthony Palmer and his 18 month son housed in dignified conditions, the council continues to LIE about what they can do.
Senior housing bosses led by their useless Tory-boy liar-in-chief, Housing Director, Nick “Drooper”Hooper, continue to claim that they have NO POWER to let Anthony ‘jump’ the housing list and give him a home.
THIS IS BOLLOCKS.
If you cast your mind back to 19 February 2012, you might recall Bristol City Council announcing with great fanfare that “the sole unnamed local person has discontinued his application to the High Court for a Judicial Review [into the Ashton Vale Town Green application].”
And you may also recall, the withdrawal of this person from this judicial review briefly made it look like Bristol City FC could build their multi-million pound new stadium and commercial development on greenbelt land unimpeded.
However, what you may not have realised is that this “sole unnamed local person” who briefly helped make this lucrative development a possibility also happened to be a council tenant in Ashton Vale.
You also may not have realised that the day before this gleeful press announcement from the council appeared, this “sole unnamed local person” was mysteriously whisked away in a chaueffeur driven car never to be seen at his Ashton Vale council home again.
And why was this? Er, because Nick Hooper’s housing department, which – remember – has no power to let anyone jump the housing list, rehoused this “sole unnamed local person” in a well-appointed one bedroomed bungalow elsewhere in the city at very short notice – working to a timetable that turned out to be very convenient to a local billionaire.
Isn’t it amazing what Nick Hooper can manage to do at the drop of a hat to help out a mega-rich football club owner who resides offshore to avoid tax and what he can’t do to help a homeless ex-serviceman trying to care for a young son just released from care?
Hooper’s clearly a man only too prepared to drop his pants and bend over his desk for the wealthy and influential of the city. The only question is: does he charge for his generous favours to local gentleman of considerable means?
The BRISTOLIAN has spoken to the occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth this evening and – despite the serving of a civil eviction notice on them three weeks too late by Bristol City Council – they say a solution remains on the table.
“Place Anthony Palmer on the Band 1 housing priority he’s entitled to and where he should be placed as an ex-serviceman NOW and we will leave the property before 5.00pm tomorrow,” they say.
“This will allow the council to complete the sale of the property with the buyer as they are obliged to do by that time.
“If they do not do this then the costs will start racking up to the council tax payer while the council housing department will face further embarrassment and negative publicity as we fight the eviction and their house sale collapses.
“The ball’s in the council’s court …”
Ho, ho! News coming in that EVICTION PAPERS have been served on 44 Richmond Terrace, fast on the heels of news that Paul “Wolfie” Smith has been appointed Marvin’s “HOUSING CZAR”. (We suggest he avoids the Counts Louse basement with a title like that).
So our loopy housing director with the extraordinarily fragile ego and thin skin, Nick “Drooper” Hooper, is being allowed to SQUANDER over £170k of your money pursuing a pointless vendetta against an Avonmouth resident!
Had Hooper stopped LOSING THE PLOT and started engaging his brain, he could have ended the occupation of 44 Richmond Terrace TODAY and handed the keys of the property to its new owner tomorrow as he’s legally obliged to do. But oh no. Nick’s tragic little self-image and ego problems must come before anything as unimportant as public money (think you’ll find these type of psychological characteristics are generally associated with having a small dick and/or long term erectile dysfunction issues. Medical Ed.).
So due to Drooper’s long term untreated self-image problems, we the council tax payer, must stand A LOSS of £140k on the, now, unsold house; at least £14k in COMPENSATION to the buyer whose contract Drooper has broken plus we must FOOT THE BILL for Drooper’s civil court action to remove the occupiers.
Value for money or wot in the age of austerity?
Here’s further details ….
From: steven norman <email@example.com>
Sent: 17 May 2016 07:22
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; The Bristolian .;
Subject: RE: MR ANTHONY PALMER
Dear Mrs Ryan
Further to our meeting at 44 Richmond Terrace Avonmouth yesterday, I am somewhat perplexed by your statement on behalf of Bristol City Council and Mayor Rees about wishing to find a resolution to the current occupation.
My understanding of a resolution is that something is brought to the table that both parties can agree. I personally do not think anything was brought to the table by you that can bring the current occupation to an end.
The HomeChoice policy allows the housing department the right to use discretion. Based on the matters discussed, the occupation could be brought to an end immediately allowing the buyer to complete the purchase by the completion on the 18th May. Thus avoiding Bristol City Council having to pay 10% compensation to the buyer, which I believe would be in the region of about £14,000 based on the selling price of £140,000.
You stated you would not be able to house Mr Palmer and his son as there were others in more need. As discussed, I believe the needs of Mr Palmer & Son are above what you currently have him assessed for.
I also think the statement you provided is a diversion away from the facts and somewhat ludicrous and bizarre given the HomeChoice policy allows you discretion.
I will now give you three cases of where this discretion was used: Miss X, a domestic violence case, was moved from St George private housing to Brentry social housing. This was a case I was personally involved in.
Mr X was moved from 13 Antona Court to Lockleaze alleging harassment last year.
Then there’s the case of the gentleman in Ashton Vale who removed his name from the Judicial Review against Bristol City Council over the disputed new ground for Bristol City Football Club. He never returned to his council home in Aston Vale and was re-housed immediately by Bristol City Council.
This current situation, I believe, is purely being driven by a personal vendetta and dislike of myself by Mr Hooper. He seems unable to make a sensible and rational decision and is prepared to cost the city tax payers £140,000 in a lost sale and £14,000 in compensation and deprive the buyer of the house she has bought in good faith.
Based on the statement given to buyers by both the auction house and the City Council. Bristol City Council officers have the ability at hand to bring this political occupation to an end today 17th May if it so wishes as allowed for in the HomeChoice policy and the word DISCRETION.
Without wishing to sound facetious, whilst council officers may feel that we – the great un-washed – are beneath them, you may rest assured we will continue to fight for social justice and the right for every individual to have a home irrespective of colour, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
I also attach two of the photos to remind you of the current conditions you are prepared to see desperate homeless people live in while honouring the owners with vast amounts of tax payers money for providing slum and squalid living conditions.
Mr Stephen Norman
Bristol City Council appear to have NO IDEA what to do about the ongoing occupation of 44 Richmond Terrace by housing activists supporting homeless dad, Anthony Palmer.
Today – out of the blue – £110k a year job share Housing Service Director, Mary “Contrary” Ryan, showed up at Richmond Terrace offering the occupiers, er … ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return for leaving!
Where exactly do these overpaid, underperforming Bristol City Council management baboons get off? Does idiot Ms Contrary think she’s so bloody important and authoritative that we will simply do what she says because she’s got some poncey job title, an oversized ego and opens her mouth and makes a DAFT DEMAND?
This might work in that bent, bullying shithole she calls a workplace where her poor long-suffering staff have no choice but to implement her WANK. But is she so so deluded that she thinks anyone else in Bristol – not reliant on her for their livelihood – will take any notice of her? Or have any reason to be in the slightest bit scared of her?
Do Ms Contrary and her useless executive colleagues like Nick “Drooper” Hooper not understand they command ZERO RESPECT from the public and we’re not in the slightest bit afraid of these REPUGNANT PEOPLE or their soppy threats?
There’s simply no way we’re ever going to do what these tossers order. We have NO RESPECT for them. They’ve sold out our city; wrecked and destroyed our public services and spend their time fucking up our lives for huge personal gain.
These are people who force vulnerable families to live around RAW SEWAGE while their private landlord associates get signed over huge sums of public money on their authority for fucks sake. Do these MORALLY UNFIT DREGS of humanity really think we owe them anything except our undying hatred?
We suggest next time the council sends one their SHIT-FOR-BRAINS superannuated managers around to Richmond Terrace, they come with a proper offer or don’t bother.
We’re not fucking stupid. When will these overpaid wankers understand that?
A copy of email sent to Avon And Somerset Police HQ and the PCC yesterday:
FORMAL NOTICE OF LEGAL STATUS OCCUPATION OF 44 RICHMOND TERRACE. AVONMOUTH. BS11 9EW.
The current occupants of the above premises owned by Bristol City Council have reason to believe that Bristol City Council are attempting to use the police to break up a legitimate Political Protest which is a Civil Court Matter, and as such we demand that Bristol City Council follow such procedures as allowed for by Civil Court Rules & Procedures.
Section 144 LASPO: THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PROTEST OCCUPATION, SECTION 144 LASPO does NOT apply
Although this is a “residential building” within the meaning of section 144, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 this is a POLITICAL occupation not a RESIDENTIAL occupation which is being applied according the this legal precedence –
(Hampshire Waste Services v Persons Unknown  EWHC 1738 (Ch);  PLSCS 217, University of Sussex v Person Unknown  PLSCS 84)
The provisions of section 144 are therefore NOT APPLICABLE to this building or to our occupation of it.
Part II, Criminal Law Act 1977 (As amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994) DOES APPLY.
We, the occupants, therefore request that the Avon and Somerset Police Constabulary, and its officers, uphold and respect the legal rights of the occupants of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth, given that this is a Civil Court matter and there is no criminal intent in respect of the occupiers and never has been.
In good faith we offer to meet with the senior police officer for the area of Avonmouth and Shirehampton should any further dialogue be required.
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.
All this raises the question: who’s getting the backhanders to house our vulnerable and homeless in these shithouse conditions?
Anthony Palmer and his 18 month old son have been dumped by Bristol City Council in a revolting, cockroach infested hostel run by a notorious local slum landlord firm, Connolly & Callaghan.
Since 20 April Anthony and his son have been supporting the occupation of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth – the former council home sold by Mayor No More to a private investor – while campaigners draw attention to his plight.
Here’s the latest communication to Bristol City Council housing boss Nick “Drooper” Hooper to update you about what’s going on (or not).
Look out for our photos of raw sewage washing around a city council funded hostel coming soon …
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:50 AM, steven norman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Dear Mr Hooper,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. I attach for your reference the requested updated signed Form Of Authorisation.
There have been a number of developments since my last correspondence, which have left me somewhat perplexed and I feel it appropriate that I bring these to your attention in order that you can address all matters together.
At the meeting I attended with Anthony, Linda Tasker offered a hostel in Southmead – Windermere – as an alternative to the current hostel and informed Mr Palmer he could be put on the list for a place.
Not the ideal solution but a move in the right direction. I have since been informed by Mr Palmer that this offer has been withdrawn as an option because there has to be three people to reside there. f
Firstly why was this offered in the first place if that is the criteria? Surely the housing officer should know the criteria? Secondly, I have concerns as to whether or not this is the true reason. Only I have a very good friend who is a single man and was housed in Windermere prior to being housed at Antona Court. That person being a Mr Donald Baker.
Mr Palmer then received either a telephone call or visit from Lynette Benjamin where I believe he was told he was being moved to Trinity Hostel, Montpelier. A move Mr Palmer was not prepared to accept as it was a shared bathing situation and – with due respect – not much better than what he has now.
He was then informed his refusal could affect his housing application. Will you please clarify if it is now a case of bullying tactics by your department? As it seems Ms Benjamin raised some concern over the length of time Anthony had been in the hostel at Bedminster.
I assume your department was hoping it would then be able to start the length of time Anthony and his son have been in hostel afresh? Which, I believe – according to BCC Policy – is no longer than 4 Months. Mr Palmer is now entering his sixth month in hostel.
I have in my possession a number of photographs which I will shortly be releasing to the press including one that shows raw sewage spilling on to a floor of the North Street hostel just below the kitchen and living area. A further one shows an attempt to join two buildings together where you can put your hand through the wall into the kitchen of the hostel.
I can only reiterate my position. Would you be happy for your son or grandson or any other member of your family to live in such a place and why are we rewarding such hostels with substantial sums of tax payers money?
I look forward to your email addressing all things raised to date
Mr Stephen Norman