Tag Archives: Steve Norman

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: SOME QUESTIONS

1 Reply

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!”

Leave a reply

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.

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: BELLYFLOPPING BAILIFFS SPELL END OF COUNCIL RESISTANCE

1 Reply
Bailiffs

Useless twats employed by senior council bosses fuck off after failing miserably

A PATHETIC attempt by the council’s bailiffs, accompanied by THREE coppers, to evict the occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace this morning at 5.00am has resulted in a flurry of activity from Bristol City Council.

FIVE bailiffs arrived this morning at dawn at Richmond Terrace causing an unholy racket as they unsuccessfully tried to batter the door of number 44 in. Having FAILED at this pretty basic task for bailiffs, the gormless quintet then attempted to drill the lock out of the front door.

When this, too, was entirely UNSUCCESSFUL, the bailiffs beat a hasty retreat along with their cop bodyguards. Although they did successfully manage to call the occupiers and the entire street, who were by now wide awake and watching the entertainment, ‘WANKERS‘ as they departed. Classy stuff from the forces of law and order there.

To add to the general feeling of wholesale PATHETIC FAILURE for Bristol City Council, the local BBC kindly made their ludicrous bellyflopping bailiffs headline news all day!

By noon, a thoroughly DEFLATED and DEFEATED council, had made an offer of a council property to ex-serviceman Anthony Palmer and his 18 month son. This happened soon after Anthony – the original cause of the protest – was mysteriously handed the BAND ONE housing priority the occupiers have been demanding since 20 April to reflect Anthony’s ex-services status.

The latest RUMOUR is that the council are now in the process of helping the buyer of Richmond Terrace to quickly pull out of the purchase of the home that they have not wished to buy for, at least, two weeks.

The end may be in sight …

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: MIND YOUR LANGUAGE

5 Replies

illegalIn the cat and mouse game of political public relations, it’s sometimes worth looking at what your opponents are calling you and then asking WHY?

So this really caught our eye on Wednesday from Marvin “THE REVEREND” Rees’s PR boss, Tim “ZOMBIE” Borrett and his brain dead council communications team about the occupiers of Richmond Terrace:

“During the course of the occupation the ILLEGAL OCCUPIERS have raised a number of issues around the sale of council houses.”

What the hell is an “ILLEGAL OCCUPIER“? And what’s illegal about them? Is Zombie Borrett suggesting the people involved in this occupation are innately “ILLEGAL“? Their very existence now against the law because they’re challenging his wanky little local authority?

Are senior council bosses openly characterising the occupiers as a class of people without any rights or a voice so the public needn’t have to give a fuck about them?

Zombie’s claim is both a little bit DISTURBING and wholly UNTRUE. For starters, the occupation itself isn’t even illegal. Zombie Borrett should know this from his own council’s statement to the County Court on Wednesday.

This admitted that the police “declined to exercise their powers” under the Legal Aid and Prosecution of Offenders Act (LAPSO) 2014 because the cops didn’t accept the occupation was a criminal act. The occupation is therefore UNLAWFUL. The people involved are not “ILLEGAL” in any sense.

The problem for Zombie and Rees is that their language of ‘illegality’ directly mimics and mirrors the language the FAR RIGHT uses about migrants.

We’ve all heard talk of “ILLEGAL ALIENS” and “ILLEGAL ASYLUM SEEKERS” and we all know this language is deliberately deployed to MARGINALISE and DEHUMANISE migrants and to stir up hatred against them.

Is Zombie Borrett attempting a similar strategy to turn the public AGAINST the occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace?

Or maybe he’s just WEAK and SLOPPY with language? After all, language and its deployment only makes up the entire content of the job he’s paid a fat wage to do. Why would he know what he’s doing with it?

This behaviour from Zombie Borrett, an over privileged little twerp from East Devon, is of little surprise. But it’s nothing short of SCANDALOUS that the Reverend Rees – within weeks of taking office – is signing off press releases using this kind of language towards his political opponents. Language that has a history of MARGINALISING and SPREADING HATRED toward a section of the public.

This DEHUMANISATION of the vulnerable and their campaigners and protestors is a dangerous game. Many of the occupiers are themselves vulnerable people living in poverty and in precarious housing conditions.

When the occupiers get an ‘accidental’ kicking from The Reverend’s bailiffs will the public turn a blind eye because the occupants have been sold to the public as “ILLEGALS“?

Marvin, the silly little prick, should know better than to be using this ugly language of the far right.

 

 

THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE: THE BENT STRUCTURAL REPORT

3 Replies
Lockleaze board

Deputy Mayor Estella Tincknell (right) introduces her new council to residents

The council’s PR department, under the hapless management of  thicko public sector PR, Tim “Zombie” Borrett, has popped out from under the stone it’s been hiding beneath, taken careful aim at its own foot and fired off a comment on THE GREAT SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE.

These giants of communication thundered to Bristol 24/7 on Wednesday:

“During the course of the occupation the illegal occupiers have raised a number of issues around the sale of council houses, and the condition of the house on Richmond Terrace, that we would like to address. The decision was made to take the property to auction following a structural report that revealed structural damage, which would be uneconomic for the council to repair.

“Costs to bring the property up to the standard we aspire to for council houses were estimated in excess of £35,000, which meant the council took the decision to take the property to auction in accordance with current practice.”

Unfortunately for Zombie Borrett and his brain dead gang of strategic communicators, however, someone else in the council had released this so-called “structural report” on Tuesday under Freedom of Information legislation and it casts their confident claims in a somewhat DIFFERENT LIGHT.

The so-called ‘structural report’ is a half page that runs to just 224 words. It’s on unheaded paper and is neither signed nor dated. So who produced this piece of UNDERWHELMING DROSS and when?

All the ‘report’ tells us is that ‘Carlos’ (presumably a reference to council in-house structural surveyor Carlos De Lima?) visited the property briefly at an UNKNOWN time and date and then telephoned the mystery author of the ‘structural report’ at another UNKNOWN time and date.

Carlos’s brief verbal comments – anonymously reported second hand – do NOT make a compelling case that the property is structurally unsound as the council’s PRs claim. The only identified PROBLEM is that the loft conversion – where the bathroom is located – built by the council in the first place, is “an insubstantial build” and “not a liveable space”.

This is NOT “structural damage” to the property as claimed by the council’s PR drones then. It simply means the quality of the council’s own workmanship doesn’t, apparently, meet their own standards.

A bent structural report

A bent structural report

The ‘report’ then goes on to provide a GUESSTIMATE of £30k (not £35k as claimed by the PRs) to move the bathroom and upgrade the loft space to a standard the council now requires from itself since installing a new bathroom in the loft sometime in the last six months.

How is this “uneconomic”? An investment of £30k –  in a property that will command a rent of at least £5k a year and rising over the next 20 years, while housing a family in need that would cost us £12k a year in temporary accommodation – seems reasonable.

Indeed, at this LOW PRICE quoted, you could turn this ‘structural report’s’ conclusion and Zombie Borrett’s PR claim on its head and say, “it is difficult to see the value in disposing of this property”.

It’s also revealing to look at the METADATA contained in the Microsoft Word document that the council published their ‘structural report’ in.

While it’s not possible to discern when this ‘structural report’ document was first created as the creation date is listed as 24/05/2016 15:39 – the time and date the document was uploaded to the internet – it is possible to discover some information about the CREATION of this document.

For example, we know the document was created by Peter “Mary” Quantick, a boss in the council’s housing department. If we assume he is the AUTHOR of the report, this raises the question as to why a ‘structural report’ appears to have been directly produced by a manager who also might make a decision about the property’s future based on the content of the report.

The metadata also tells us that this document has NEVER been printed at any point in its existence. This seems ODD as the report would have had to be viewed by a number of managers within the council to get the sale of the property SIGNED OFF. Did no one print a copy for this purpose?

This contrasts with some of the more LEGITIMATE looking Word documents released at the same time under FoI.

For example, the document called ‘FOI MAYOR BRIEFING NOTE1.docx’  –  a report prepared for the mayor to view – was last printed 22/03/2016 at 12:31. While the document ‘FOI PSS broad strategy Cabinet 15th July.doc’ was last printed 27/06/2003 at 16:52.

Completed Structural Report

A real structural report

To add to this overwhelming sense of DODGY CONDUCT from Mary Quantick and his team, the council’s FoI team also helpfully published a real Bristol City Council structural survey report on another property, 148 City Road. And the difference is remarkable.

This report runs to 44 pages, is on headed paper and is signed and dated 9 December 2015 by Carlos De Lima, Structural Engineer. A glance at its metadata tells us it was created on 10 12 2015 and modified on 24 05 2016 when it was published on the internet.

The CONTRAST with Mary Quantick’s half page anonymous ‘structural report’ is significant. Indeed so shit is Quantick’s report, it’s difficult to understand how he and his fellow managers could make a coherent decision regarding the sale of a PUBLIC ASSET based on it.

The decision to sell 44 Richmond Terrace is quite obviously BENT and this Mary Quantick chancer in the housing department is a fucking CROOK who should be should be DISMISSED. If Quantick doesn’t like what we have to say about him, the BENT twat is welcome to try and sue us.

Onwards and upwards!

44 RICHMOND TERRACE: “WE’RE NOT LEAVING!”

Leave a reply

THE SIEGE OF RICHMOND TERRACE BEGINS! (You’ll be telling your grandchildren about this – well, Marvin Rees probably won’t. He’ll be shuffling around the room, staring at the floor desperately trying to change the subject)

Following a short hearing at Bristol’s County Court this morning, occupiers of 44 Richmond Terrace, Avonmouth have been ordered to leave the house immediately so that the sale of the council house to a private buyer can proceed.

Occupiers of the house, who have been there since April 20, six hours before the home was auctioned off to the highest bidder, have rejected the order out of hand. “We’re not leaving,” announced occupier Steve Norman immediately after the hearing.

During the hearing the council revealed the buyer of their property had issued them with a Notice of Completion on 18 May after the council had failed to complete the sale transaction on time because they were unable to provide the buyer with ‘Unoccupied Possession” of the home.

This Notice of Completion gives the council ten working days to complete the transaction or the sale falls through and the house remains in public ownership. The stage therefore is set for a battle between between bailiffs and occupiers leading up to this deadline of2 June

Occupiers say, “we have contingency plans in place and are confident of remaining in the house for the foreseeable future.”

Please call Steve 07747 490902

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

Leave a reply
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