Tag Archives: Pollution control

#walrustrial: ARNOLD OVERBOARD!

So farewell then ARNOLD “WINDY” MILLER, head of pollution control at Bristol City Council. Anyone got the foggiest idea what’s happened to him?

Windy was, of course, Mark Curtis’s boss. Curtis being the man who admitted under oath in open court that the city council’s prosecution last month of Misha Simmonite for noise pollution was due to a VENDETTA led by Lib Dem councillor, Gary “Fuckbucket” Hopkins.

There’s also some recorded evidence knocking around of Windy blithely explaining that companies shouldn’t be prosecuted if they are trying to mitigate their pollution.

A policy he’s carried out beyond the letter where Sims Metal, friends of the Merchant Venturers, in Avonmouth are concerned while he strangely overlooked it when it came to Ms Simmonite and the thousands she spent on noise mitigation at her Knowle Road property.

Why the double standards we wonder?

Anyway, Let’s hope Arnold enjoys his luxury retirement at our (and who knows who else’s?) expense.

#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?

#thewalrustrial TORY IDIOT RESPONDS TO CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS!

 

‘Local Taxi Driver’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, ink, 2013, Durston Fletcher

‘Local Taxi Driver’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, ink, 2013, Durston Fletcher

Steve Norman’s received a reply to his email sent to all councillors last night pointing out that their local authority’s resources and officers have been used to pursue a PERSONAL VENDETTA against a member of the public on behalf of Bristol City Council’s Lib Dem leader, Gary “FUCKBUCKET” Hopkins.

And what a reply! It comes from none other than former Bristol Tory boss and all-round twat, PETER ABRAHAM. Abraham’s combination of stupidity and pomposity and his puppy-like willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption at the council make him an ideal spokesman for all Bristol City Councillors.

And Abraham is no stranger to sharp practice himself is he? Wasn’t he the chair of the Public Rights of Way Committee that UNLAWFULLY AGREED to allow billionaire Steve Lansdown to build a football stadium on a Town Green? A case that eventually ended up in the High Court with Bristol City Council unable to offer any defence.

Below is Abraham’s email in full. Below that we’ve Fisked it for you to reveal our councillors’ ignorance and stupidity in all its glory.

From: peter.abraham@bristol.gov.uk
To: s-norman123@hotmail.co.uk
CC:
Subject: Re: IS THIS THE WAY A COUNCILLOR SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELF?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:29:07 +0000

Good Evening

I find it very difficult to follow what allegations you are making and a letter sent to all members does not seem to me to be the most responsible way of deal with this issue, I do not understand your involvement and if you have information please summit them to the Head of Legal Services.

I also find the political edge to your email again not the best way of dealing with any issue which might have a case to answer.

The member officer relationship is a very important to good governance of our city and I would wish any allegations to be fairly and properly investigated.

Yours
Sent from my iPad

Cllr. Peter Abraham

“BRISTOL : THE BEST CITY IN BRITAIN ” The Sunday Times.

Our comments in red:

I find it very difficult to follow what allegations you are making [Can’t this thick Tory shit read? The allegations are that one of your officers committed PERJURY and the other admitted to helping a councillor organise a VENDETTA against a member of the public you gormless fucking halfwit] and a letter sent to all members does not seem to me to be the most responsible way of deal with this issue [Well, how fucking stupid. Writing to complain about corruption to the people who are actually in charge of the organisation. Why would they want to know about that? It might spoil the smooth running of their pointless meetings], I do not understand your involvement [How dare a member of the public get involved in Abraham’s council going about its bent business!] and if you have information please summit them to the Head of Legal Services [Good idea. Submit a complaint to the head of one of the departments involved in the corruption. We’ve seen emails from Abraham’s Legal Services regarding the detail of the ongoing court case that have been openly copied into Gary Hopkins. This is so unusual it’s entirely unprecedented. Why is confidential legal information being shared with a councillor? This usually never happens. A councillor should not be party to that level of detail. Especially as the information relates to an action against a house in Knowle Road in the Windmill Hill Ward. Hopkins is, of course, the councillor for Knowle. What exactly’s the point in complaining to a bent manager about their bent service? They’ll just do what they always do. Cover it up and lie to councillors about it.]

I also find the political edge to your email again not the best way of dealing with any issue which might have a case to answer [A Mickey Mouse politician like Abraham complaining about politics? What the fuck?]

The member officer relationship is a very important to good governance of our city and I would wish any allegations to be fairly and properly investigated [So who’s going to investigate? Your bent legal services or your bent Internal Audit? Why don’t out councillors get off their lazy, underemployed arses and do it themselves? And do it properly. Or are they scared what they might discover?]

Over the last eighteen months The BRISTOLIAN has exposed corruption in the council’s Markets Service, the Cash-in-Transit Service, among facilities managers, the Docks Service, the Internal Audit department and, now, Environmental Health. The Planning Department are also now seriously implicated in this latest piece of council corruption.

How much longer do councillors intend to sit on their arses doing nothing, pretending there isn’t a problem in an organisation that clearly appears to be bent from top to bottom?

Bristol City Council isn’t a public service organisation run for the benefit of the people of Bristol any more. It’s a nasty little gangster organisation run for the benefit of a few managers and councillors.

Something must be done.

DEAR COUNCILLOR, REGARDING THE PERSONAL VENDETTAS AND THE OPEN PERJURY …

‘Meat Zeppelin’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, watercolours, 2013, @guriben

‘Meat Zeppelin’, Councillor Gary Hopkins, watercolours, 2013, @guriben

From:
To: gus.hoyt@bristol.gov.uk; rob.telford@bristol.gov.uk; wayne.harvey@bristol.gov.uk; matthew.melias@bristol.gov.uk; colin.smith@bristol.gov.uk; mark.bradshaw@bristol.gov.uk; daniella.radice@bristol.gov.uk; tim.malnick@bristol.gov.uk; kevin.quartley@bristol.gov.uk; richard.eddy@bristol.gov.uk; mike.wollacott@bristol.gov.uk; mike.langley@bristol.gov.uk; rhian.greaves@bristol.gov.uk; jackie.norman@bristol.gov.uk; alex.woodman@bristol.gov.uk; mark.wright@bristol.gov.uk; charles.lucas@bristol.gov.uk; barbara.janke@bristol.gov.uk; simon.cook@bristol.gov.uk; christian.martin@bristol.gov.uk; neil.harrison@bristol.gov.uk; anthony.negus@bristol.gov.uk; afzal.shah@bristol.gov.uk; faruk.choudhury@bristol.gov.uk; mhairi.threlfall@bristol.gov.uk; mahmadur.khan@bristol.gov.uk; christopher.jackson@bristol.gov.uk; jeff.lovell@bristol.gov.uk; lesley.alexander@bristol.gov.uk; bill.payne@bristol.gov.uk; naomi.rylatt@bristol.gov.uk; mark.brain@bristol.gov.uk; mark.weston@bristol.gov.uk; chris.windows@bristol.gov.uk; barry.clark@bristol.gov.uk; michael.frost@bristol.gov.uk; glenise.morgan@bristol.gov.uk; clare.campion-smith@bristol.gov.uk; noreen.daniels@bristol.gov.uk; phil.hanby@bristol.gov.uk; claire.hiscott@bristol.gov.uk; olly.mead@bristol.gov.uk; tim.leaman@bristol.gov.uk; jason.budd@bristol.gov.uk; christopher.davies@bristol.gov.uk; margaret.hickman@bristol.gov.uk; hibaq.jama@bristol.gov.uk; estella.tincknell@bristol.gov.uk; gill.kirk@bristol.gov.uk; fi.hance@bristol.gov.uk; martin.fodor@bristol.gov.uk; jenny.smith@bristol.gov.uk; brenda.massey@bristol.gov.uk; sean.beynon@bristol.gov.uk; charlie.bolton@bristol.gov.uk; s.pearce@bristol.gov.uk; fabian.breckels@bristol.gov.uk; ron.stone@bristol.gov.uk; sue.milestone@bristol.gov.uk; jay.jethwa@bristol.gov.uk; david.morris@bristol.gov.uk; john.goulandris@bristol.gov.uk; peter.abraham@bristol.gov.uk; geoffrey.gollop@bristol.gov.uk; alastair.watson@bristol.gov.uk; helen.holland@bristol.gov.uk; tim.kent@bristol.gov.uk; mark.bailey@bristol.gov.uk; sam.mongon@bristol.gov.uk

Subject: RE: IS THIS THE WAY A COUNCILLOR SHOULD CONDUCT THEMSELF?
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:13:02 +0000

 

Dear Councillor,

I feel I must bring the following to your attention as a matter of urgency.

This afternoon a senior pollution control officer stated in the Bristol Magistrates Court – while on the witness stand and under oath – that Councillor Gary Hopkins has a personal vendetta against the defendant in the case in which he was giving evidence.

In addition to this alarming fact, the defendant has powerful evidence to show that a second pollution control officer has openly perjured himself under oath.

It begs the question as to why or how a councillor has been able to influence officers in the conduct of their office? Clearly Mark Curtis was not prepared to take the fall for Councillor Hopkins.

I further hope that other councillors will rally around Mark Curtis and support him in what I have no doubt will turn into a witch-hunt to have him dismissed.

The defendant in this case is the same defendant who was denied planning permission recently for the Gothic Mansion, 100 Redcatch Road. Again one can only assume that Councillor Hopkins was involved behind the scene in orchestrating this refusal because he was the person who actually called this planning matter before committee. The very same committee in which I accused Mr Calabrese of being corrupt.

In light of today’s revelation, Mr Woodman should note, that I feel somewhat vindicated.

I have no doubt that this particular case will end up costing tax payers tens of thousands of pounds and all because an overgrown bully, Gary Hopkins, wanted to run a vendetta against a citizen of Bristol who stood up to him.

Unfortunately what has been disclosed here is only a fraction of the evidence that supports Mark Curtis’ statement. However I am unable to disclose further evidence at this stage as it would be prejudicial to the case and because it has not yet been heard in open court. Methinks a big scandal is about to hit the Lib Dems and the big house on the green.

Yours Sincerely

 

Stephen Norman

The case continues tomorrow and Monday at Bristol Magistrates Court (free entry) …

Background to the case here: thebristolian.net/2014/10/23/knowle-noise-annoys/