Web ExclusiveIt’s the story that never dies! Minutes finally published in late June for a meeting that took place on 24 April reveal that the council have discovered £41k in CASH is MISSING from their Markets Service. Just like The BRISTOLIAN’s been saying all along!

But how can this be? Didn’t Mayor Cover-Up and his trusty sidekick, Sir Gus Hoyty-Toyty, publicly assure us all in 2013 that NO MONEY WAS MISSING from Markets and that the Bristolian needed to stop making unsubstantiated insinuations? !

Well, that’s now officially a load of bollocks – and not at all – according to Mayor Foot-in-Mouth’s own Audit Committee. They heard ADMISSIONS from the council’s over-promoted bog cleaner-in-chief Charlie “Gutbucket” Harding, the Chief Internal Auditors and the council’s finance boss, Peter “What Crisis?” Gillet, that, despite strenuous DENIALS stretching back over three years, at least £41k of CASH has in fact gone astray.

Not that sensitive council bosses put it quite as crudely as that. Instead they referred to “A DEBT” of £41k. Albeit a rather unusual cash “debt” that was authorised by no one and is owed by no one!

Indeed, most of us would say that this money is “unaccounted for” or “missing” or, even, “STOLEN”. But what’s some deliberately misleading SEMANTICS between senior council finance managers covering arse and councillors?

This motley collection of expert finance bosses, who have taken just three years to uncover a “debt” that was first pointed out to them by a whistleblower all that time ago, were also quick to assure councillors that the “debt” was “not thought to be the result of MISAPPROPRIATION or BAD MANAGEMENT“.

Really? So how did the cash disappear then? Did it float out of a safe and up to heaven one day? Did it spontaneously combust somewhere in St Nicks Market? Or perhaps their Market safe is a portal to another dimension and our money now lies safely beyond everyone’s reach?

These latest excuses from council bosses are RIDICULOUS. How the fuck can £41k of public money not be accounted for and it not be the fault of anyone? Do they take us all for fools?

Indeed, when pressed, the council’s USELESS pair of Chief Internal Auditors were forced to admit that they were “not able to determine what had happened to the money”! So quite how the pair of COVER-UP merchants can then state categorically that it’s nothing to do with “misappropriation or bad management” is anyone’s guess. Mainly theirs!

Mayor Cash Loss’s Tory cabinet finance chief, Geoff “Cods” Gollop, was even forced to wade in at the meeting. Blustering that “accounting systems have been changed to ensure that this situation is rectified for the future”. But what “situation” is he referring to? How exactly do you rectify an INEXPLICABLE OCCURRENCE?

At least councillors on the Audit Committee, after spending three years staring gormlessly into space listening to increasingly WILD EXPLANATIONS from finance bosses while their Markets Service was ripped off, may have finally woken up.

They’ve demanded a further report from their BENT finance chiefs by the autumn and demanded an update on the so-called “debt” for their next meeting.

But what happens next? Will anyone call the POLICE to investigate where our money is as it’s obvious our council has either no idea or is covering up what’s happened to it?

Media creams itself as mayor reverse ferrets

Was it just last year that Mayor Blind Eye BANNED members of the public from asking him questions at meetings that didn’t relate to items on the agenda? Why indeed it was!

But that didn’t stop the Bristol 24/7 vanity publishing website wetting itself with joy at the announcement by Mayor Ferret that he would now be PERMITTING the public to ask him questions at meetings that didn’t relate to items on his agenda!

This “inspires more people to be more active in our democracy” gushed George’s web mouthpiece before explaining with a straight face that this was “the latest step down the path of empowered democracy”!

All neatly sidestepping the fact that George had personally BANNED these questions last year and has only reinstated them after being TOLD TO in a report by the Centre for Democratic Scrutiny about George’s council’s lack of democracy.

Playing out at our expense?


Well done to Alice Ferguson and Naomi Fuller, Director and Communications Director respectively of the hopelessly middle class Southville charity, PLAYING OUT, for delivering one of the best self-inflicted PR disasters we’ve ever seen.

A sort of Reclaim the Streets for the Cath Kidston set, this ridiculous charity blocks upmarket residential streets for a few hours every month so kids can get to play in the road “like we did in the old days”.

The two lovely Southville gals behind the charity, one of whom just happens to be Mayor Bent Trousers’ DAUGHTER, were given some space recently in the mayor’s new personal propaganda machine, the Bristol 24/7 website, to “set the record straight”.

What record ? Why was this record ever bent? What’s going on?

Playing Out wanted to assure us that the fairly LARGE SUMS of public money that have come the charity’s way from the council since daddy arrived on the hot seat at the Counts Louse is purely down to their brilliance and an overwhelming public need for middle class kids to access boutique retro play experiences.

What better possible way is there to spend public cash in this age of austerity? Especially while the mayor personally cuts real public services – where his relatives don’t work – to the bone.

“It’s funding which was ring-fenced for this kind of initiative. It doesn’t all just come out of one big pot, that’s not how it works,” the pair bleated to Bristol 24/7 while not bothering to explain how it did work.

“It’s two years before Bristol as a city even decided it wanted an elected mayor that Alice and Amy held their first playing out session,” the site wailed neatly sidestepping the issue of when their generous levels of funding began.

And then the coup de grace. A Bristol City Council PR is rustled up to RUBBERSTAMP the vacuous claims: “The Mayor has never been involved in a funding decision relating to Playing Out. He took office on November 19 2012, meaning the majority of funding decisions pre-date his time in office.”

Alas, within two hours of this bizarre PR manouevre – randomly denying any nepotism exists between the mayor and his daughter for no apparent reason  – an article had appeared from the mayor-watching Bristol News team rebutting the council’s and the charity’s claims.

Up to the Mayor’s election in 2012, Playing Out were paid by the council the fairly reasonable amount – for what they do – of £12,000. By the end of the Mayor’s first year in office that figure was £92,000!!!

That’s, almost, an EIGHT-FOLD increase and none of it from especially ring-fenced council funds for middle class mums with daft ideas in Southville so far as we can see.

So did this £92k not “come out of one big pot at the city council”? Who knows? Neither Playing Out nor 24/7 provide evidence one way or the other. Although the council’s published expenditure records do nothing to disabuse the public of the notion that Playing Out’s money did indeed just come out of one big pot at the council.

Now 24/7 and Playing Out have set the hare loose, this hugely embarrassing issue for the mayor looks set to run and run in the lead-up to next year’s mayoral election.

So who’s idea was it for Playing Out to go to the local media with a load of  partial information for us to pick over then?


Our old friend, that hopeless fuckwit of a public sector lawyer, Bristol City Council legal boss SANJAY “UNDER” PRASHAR, has been busy spending your money on a proper lawyer.

So he’s now issuing threats to councillors in order to stop them learning more about the open corruption washing around their organisation:

From: Sanjay Prashar <>
To: Gus Hoyt <>; Rob Telford <>; Wayne Harvey <>; Matthew Melias <>; Colin Smith <>; Mark Bradshaw <>; Tim Malnick <>; Daniella Radice <>; Kevin Quartley <>; Richard Eddy <>; Mike Wollacott <>; Mike Langley <>; Jackie Norman <>; Rhian Greaves <>; Alex Woodman <>; Mark Wright <>; Charles Lucas <>; Barbara Janke <>; Christian Martin <>; Simon Cook <>; Neil Harrison <>; Anthony Negus <>; Afzal Shah <>; Faruk Choudhury <>; Mhairi Threlfall <>; “‘‘” <>; Mahmadur Khan <>; Christopher Jackson <>; Jeff Lovell <>; Lesley Alexander <>; William Payne <>; Naomi Rylatt <>; Mark Brain <>; Chris Windows <>; Mark Weston <>; Barry Clark <>; Michael Frost <>; Glenise Morgan <>; Clare Campion-Smith <>; Phil Hanby <>; Noreen Daniels <>; Claire Hiscott <>; Olly MEAD <>; Tim Leaman <>; Jason Budd <>; Gary Hopkins <>; Councillor Christopher Davies <>; Margaret Hickman <>; Hibaq Jama <>; Estella Tincknell <>; Gill Kirk <>; Fi Hance <>; Martin Fodor <>; Jenny Smith <>; Brenda Massey <>; Sean Beynon <>; Charlie Bolton <>; Steve Pearce <>; Fabian Breckels <>; Ron Stone <>; Sue Milestone <>; Jay Jethwa <>; David (Cllr.) Morris <>; Peter Abraham <>; John Goulandris <>; Geoffrey Gollop <>; Alastair Watson <>; Helen Holland <>; Timothy Kent <>; Mark Bailey <>; Sam Mongon <>; Tracey Morgan <>; “‘‘” <>; “‘‘” <>; Nick Hooper <>
Cc: Shahzia Daya <>; Alison Comley <>
Sent: Friday, 16 January 2015, 18:10
Subject: Important information from the Monitoring Officer of Bristol City Council

Dear Councillors and Officers and others copied into this email,

Please read this email immediately and in full, it contains important information that you must know

I am writing to you because on about 14 January 2015  you received or were copied in to an email with a subject line beginning “The shit finally hits the fan…” from somebody identified as Phil.

If you have read the email you will understand why I am not re-sending it to you myself and why I would not encourage anybody else to repeat statements that may well be  within the scope of the law of defamation.

The email included, among other things, the following threat:

“I will be attaching to a subsequent email, which you and the other councillors should receive within the next 48 hours, the un-redacted minutes of the ASBO meetings…”

I am writing to let you know that the documents referred to in that threat are almost certainly subject to confidentiality under section 17 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.  It is a criminal contempt contrary to section 18 of that act for a person knowingly to use or disclose an object or information recorded in it if the use or disclosure is contrary to section 17.  I am therefore writing to you to ensure you are aware that, should you receive a future email from ‘Phil’ my advice is that you should not open it, nor any of its attachments and under no circumstances should you forward them to any other person or make any use of them or the information within them. The penalty for contravention of section 18 is a £5,000 fine and/or being committed to custody for a specified period of up to 6 months if convicted in a magistrates court.  If convicted in the Crown court the specified period of custody and/or fine are unlimited.

I understand that those emails will provoke interest but I am sure you appreciate that it is not appropriate for those of you that are elected members to be operationally concerned in any criminal cases. We will not be able to discuss the case with any of you at this stage following the advice of Senior Counsel, not least because the case is ongoing.  The police are aware of the ‘Phil’ email.


Sanjay Prashar
Service Director Legal and Democratic Services
Parkview Office Campus
PO Box 3176
Bristol City Council
Bristol BS3 9FS

DX: 7827 Bristol

Tel: 0117 92 22839
E mail:

Meanwhile, as usual, thicko Prashar has demonstrated his inability to operate an email account’s ‘reply’ function and has already received a reply from, er, a member of the public to his threatening tosh intended for councillors’ eyes only.

A member of the public, coincidentally, that’s been threatened with one of these bent ASBOs that Bristol City Council apparently specialises in and is keen to cover up:

To: Sanjay Prashar <>, Gus Hoyt <>, Rob Telford <>, Wayne Harvey <>, Matthew Melias <>, Colin Smith <>, Mark Bradshaw <>, Tim Malnick <>, Daniella Radice <>, Kevin Quartley <>, Richard Eddy <>, Mike Wollacott <>, Mike Langley <>, Jackie Norman <>, Rhian Greaves <>, Alex Woodman <>, Mark Wright <>, Charles Lucas <>, Barbara Janke <>, Christian Martin <>, Simon Cook <>, Neil Harrison <>, Anthony Negus <>, Afzal Shah <>, Faruk Choudhury <>, Mhairi Threlfall <>, “” <>, Mahmadur Khan <>, Christopher Jackson <>, Jeff Lovell <>, Lesley Alexander <>, William Payne <>, Naomi Rylatt <>, Mark Brain <>, Chris Windows <>, Mark Weston <>, Barry Clark <>, Michael Frost <>, Glenise Morgan <>, Clare Campion-Smith <>, Phil Hanby <>, Noreen Daniels <>, Claire Hiscott <>, Olly MEAD <>, Tim Leaman <>, Jason Budd <>, Gary Hopkins <>, Councillor Christopher Davies <>, Margaret Hickman <>, Hibaq Jama <>, Estella Tincknell <>, Gill Kirk <>, Fi Hance <>, Martin Fodor <>, Jenny Smith <>, Brenda Massey <>, Sean Beynon <>, Charlie Bolton <>, Steve Pearce <>, Fabian Breckels <>, Ron Stone <>, Sue Milestone <>, Jay Jethwa <>, “David (Cllr.) Morris” <>, Peter Abraham <>, John Goulandris <>, Geoffrey Gollop <>, Alastair Watson <>, Helen Holland <>, Timothy Kent <>, Mark Bailey <>, Sam Mongon <>, Tracey Morgan <>, “” <>, Nick Hooper <>
Cc: Shahzia Daya <>, Alison Comley <>, “” <>, “The Bristolian .” <>, “” <>, “” <>, Martin Jones <>

Sanjay, I am indeed pleased that you have identified yourself as director of legal services for BCC. I’d like an answer from you as to why BCC are in breach of their duties to serve a noise abatement notice on Sims Metal Management based out of Avonmouth docks for multiple breaches of the law. I have asked many of your colleagues in the senior team but not one will actually give a straight answer.

George Ferguson, Gus Hoyte, Arnold Miller and Mark Curtis  and many members of the executive are aware of the issues in Avonmouth and have been for significantly longer than the two or so years BCC have failed to serve the abatement notice as per your legal and lawful duties. Senior officers have been pointed at the legislation, have the evidence that could be used in court and have somehow managed to avoid doing their jobs for a significant amount of time.

To be clear, BCC are breaking the law and you in your official public position  are now given formal notice of these issues; I require you to provide me with detail of how BCC are to rectify the disparity and a timescale for doing so.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the same officers involved in serving and enforcing the abatement notice against Ms Simmonite are the same officers (and unit head) that stated they would not prosecute a case against Sims. We can also discuss the Port of Bristol themselves, Boomeco, Churngold, A&A Recycling, Stobarts Biomass, the grain collective and many other organisations breaking the law day in and day out with the assurance from Arnold Miller’s team via George and the top team of mafia Cllrs with their fingers in lots of pies.

There is corruption at the heart of BCC, touching Cllrs and senior officers alike and we have the proof that officers and Cllrs have proceeded in a manner that could be construed as Misfeasance, Malfeasance and or Nonfeasance in a public office, I believe if Sue Mountstevens were to investigate we might even see a few more rapid retirements with gagging clauses and heavens above perhaps a few collars felt; an auspicious day it would be indeed.

What are you going to do now Sanjay, throw some more public money at threatening me like your colleague Mr Hooper did because I dared ask Cllr Harvey why BCC are supporting large, profitable business interests (that just happen to be based on land owned by Merchant friends of George and his employer) to break the law but prosecuting small businesses that just happen not to be friends of George because another Cllr seems to have a problem with successful women that just happen to own property that rests on prime development land?

You will not bury this story, might be time to do some work rather than advising Cllrs on how to avoid getting caught for buying council houses on the cheap



What happened to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of FERRY BOATS owned by the original Bristol Ferry Boat company after it went tits up within days of its 42 per cent shareholder “UNCLE” GEORGE FERGUSON taking office as mayor?

According to a report presented by Bristol City Council officers to their Place Scrutiny Commission in October, the boats were SOLD to the first of the so-called ‘Phoenix’ ferry companies set up in the wake of the collapse, Ferryboats of Bristol Ltd.

This short-lived private company was set up in January 2013 by a former director of Uncle George’s failed ferry company, IAN “BUNGLE” BUNGARD, and ran ferries around the docks until it was wound up in May 2013 when another company, the Bristol Community Ferry Boat Company, took over the routes and, apparently, the ferries.

However, we’ve seen the closing balance sheet for Bungard’s Ferryboats of Bristol Ltd and it only ever had £2 worth of assets held in cash throughout its short existence. There’s no sign of any ferry boats at all.

However, we do know, from the liquidators report, that the boats were sold by the liquidators “by private treaty’ for £171k in December 2012. The question is to who? And how did they then end up at this new community co-operative ferry operation run by ‘THE FRIENDS OF GEORGE’, the Bristol Community Ferry Boat Company?

A further mystery surrounds the disappearance and reappearance of at least one of the ferry boats, ‘THE ELIZABETH’. In June 2012 the boat was listed in audited accounts supplied to Bristol City Council as an asset of Fergie’s collapsed Bristol Ferry Boat Company.

So how come the boat is now registered at Ferguson’s address at THE TOBACCO FACTORY and is up for sale for £15k? This invites obvious questions such as how did this asset of the collapsed Bristol Ferry Boat Company end up in George’s possession?

And if it was an asset of the original Ferry Boat Company, that Fergie was a 42 per cent shareholder in, why was the boat not sold and the monies used to pay creditors as bankruptcy law requires?



Bristol Arena - white elephant - Dru Marland

The budget for mayor “Uncle” George Ferguson’s major VANITY PROJECT and RE-ELECTION STRATEGY is spiralling dangerously out of control.

Despite efforts from the mayor to GAG councillors from revealing the financial shambles, we know that CANCELLATION of any on-site car parking and the LOSS of revenue has smashed a £10m-sized budget black hole into mayor’s £90m Arena project.

Meanwhile a council Scrutiny Committee in August UNCOVERED a further £4m worth of costs for the project, pushing the total budget up to at least £94m.

Now it’s been revealed that the owners of the land, the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), are DEMANDING payment for their land, which the council had originally claimed would be a freebie. The HCA are believed to want around £4m for the land.

So just a year into the project and costs have been already pushed up by around NINE PER CENT to £98m before a shovel’s got anywhere near the site. The total FUNDING GAP for the project is now at least £18m and this will have to be met by council taxpayers and through cuts to services already being hammered by austerity.

Concerns have also been expressed about other aspects of Uncle George’s funding proposals. He claims £53m will come from the City Deal ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND.

A complicated mechanism based on borrowing against any increased receipts from business rates in the TEMPLE QUARTER ENTERPRISE ZONE. At present there’s little sign of much growth in these receipts, which leaves Bristol council taxpayers, as lenders of the last resort, to pick up that tab too.

Uncle George claims a further £38m of funding will come from rental and operating income from the arena. Although this figure has been described to us as “VERY AMBITIOUS” and, again, any shortfall will have to be met by the council taxpayer.

Uncle George, however, remains wedded to his basketcase project, which was one of the few actual promises he made in his election campaign. Delivering an arena, regardless of cost, may also be the only chance this highly unpopular mayor has of getting RE-ELECTED.

So worried is Uncle George about these PRECARIOUS FINANCES being revealed, he got his useless new legal boss SANJAY “UNDER” PRASHAR to invent a so-called ‘BLANKET EXEMPT STATUS’ gag to stop anyone discussing them.

Uncle George now has also removed the responsibility for the arena from the council’s PLACE SCRUTINY COMMISSION who had been asking some tricky questions and given it to the friendlier OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION.

The commission’s Labour Chair, STEVE PEARCE, has already been quoted as saying “I won’t be pushing the mayor too hard on this.”

Thanks Steve. Nice to know you’re looking after us so well.


Annoying-noise-001Black Friday was the start of a new Christmas tradition in Bristol. Welcome to Make-as-much-noise-as you-like-at-night-in-the-lead-up-to-Christmas-time (is there not a catchier title for this? Ed.).

In an unprecedented move, Bristol City Council are allowing everybody to make as much noise as they like at night until the 15 December because there will be no environmental health officers workings evenings!

This appears to be a direct result of mayor “Uncle” George Ferguson’s cuts that “will not affect frontline services”.

Know of any more council cuts that have affected frontline services? Get in touch!




Red pants aflame Mayor, “Uncle” George Ferguson and his large collection of turds (surely highly trained and skilled officers? Ed.) have RENEGED on their deal made this summer after some high-profile protests to hold monthly meetings with the residents of Avonmouth on POLLUTION ISSUES.

Protestors and the Avonmouth Dust Forum were told earlier this week by council officers that tonight’s pollution meeting was CANCELLED and that pollution issues could be dealt with by the TOOTHLESS, council officer-run Avonmouth Neighbourhood Forum instead.

And indeed it came to pass, no sign of any council officers at tonight’s meeting.

SOD THAT! It’s hi-ho, hi-ho back on the streets we go. Starting on DECEMBER 3 with a Bhopal/Avonmouth special. Come along. We’ve even been promised hot dogs and burgers!

Microsoft Word - bhopal.docx



























The original name was the BRISTOL FERRY BOAT COMPANY, 42 per cent owned by Mayor George Ferguson, which went into full liquidation in February 2013.

A new name appeared between January 2 2013 and April 2013 – FERRYBOATS OF BRISTOL. One of two directors was IAN “BUNGLE” BUNGARD, a former director of the insolvent BRISTOL FERRY BOAT COMPANY. This is the company that never had more than £2.00 in assets during its existence.

A third company, set-up by “the gang” appeared in April 2013 – BRISTOL COMMUNITY FERRY BOAT COMPANY.

The very long arm of Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 on “Phoenix Companies” says:

Prohibited name

Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 defines the circumstances in which criminal and civil liability can be imposed on a director who acts, without proper notice being given or the leave of the court, for a company or even an unincorporated business which is known by a prohibited name.

A name will be prohibited where it is the same name that the liquidating company was known as at any time in the 12 months immediately before it went into liquidation, or where it is sufficiently similar as to suggest an association with the liquidating company.

This includes a trading name.

Criminal liability:

Where a company trades under a prohibited name an individual can be guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both for:
• acting as a director of the company; and
• taking part either directly or indirectly in the formation, management or promotion of the company.

An individual can also be liable under Section 216 for being involved in a business using the prohibited name, even if it is not a company.

Civil liability

Under section 217 of the Act, a person will be personally responsible for the ‘relevant debts’ of a company if he is involved in the management of the company in breach of section 216, or if he is involved in the management of a company and takes instructions from a person he knows to be in breach of section 216. The relevant debts are those debts which were incurred whilst that person was acting in contravention of section 216 or taking instructions from a person he knew to be in contravention of section 216.

What interesting times we live in …