Job ad reveals private landlords targeted as POCA “income”

 

A London council job advertisement sparks concerns about the true motives of creating a private landlords’ register. Leading many to question whether planning enforcement is morphing into an out-of-control profit-driven abuse of process. TheBigRetort...

Understanding POCA

The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) 2002 allows authorities to recover funds obtained through illegal activity. The Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS) financially rewards authorities with a significant 37.5% of the value recovered under the POCA scheme. While POCA serves a valuable purpose in the fight against criminality, concerns arise when such a significant financial gain appears to be the driving force behind prosecutions, as evidenced by Lewisham Council's revealing job advertisement we unearthed for a new enforcement officer.

 

Red flags raised by enforcement job advertisement

The job advertisement for a "Private Sector Housing Fraud and Intelligence Officer" raises red flags. Remarkably, the ad explicitly states that the successful candidate should "...ensure prosecutions are successful and maximise income for the borough in respect of proceeds of crime." 

The focus on financial gain contradicts the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which demands prosecutions be based solely on public interest, not a council's income.

 The curious case of Kevin Bottomley: Unintended consequences?

 

In 2010, an Appeal Court ruling equated breaches of planning enforcement orders to criminal activities. This ruling may have had unintended consequences, as demonstrated in the case of Kevin Bottomley, a long-time shopkeeper and landlord running K J Building Supplies. Last year, Bottomley, based in Loampit Hill, Lewisham, faced closure due to a seemingly curious planning enforcement action. 

Despite years of openly trading sand and cement from the side of his shop, a practice previously tolerated by the council, Bottomley found himself targeted for planning enforcement, possibly - or now it may appear - for targeted income. Kevin is the landlord of the store's new owner.

Court case sets precedent

A Court of Appeal case, Wokingham Borough Council v. Scott and others[2019], established a strong precedent for ensuring ethical enforcement practices. The court ruled that a council's desire for financial gain through POCA should not influence its decision to prosecute. 

This case directly addresses Lewisham Council's questionable tactics in the Bottomley case. Notably, whilst the store eventually received planning permission, the prosecution still continues. Kevin Bottomley, though now retired,  is the "landlord" of the store's new owner..?

Call for investigation and ethical enforcement practices

A full, independent investigation into Lewisham Council's use of POCA and ARIS is necessary to ensure ethical enforcement practices. Mayor Brenda Dacres must address these concerns and prioritise the welfare of the people, as outlined in Lewisham's borough motto, "Salus Populi Suprema Lex." 

We urge Mayor Dacres to reject POCA profiteering and prioritise ethical enforcement practices within Lewisham Council in order to protect private landlords from POCA profiteering.

Continued Investigation

TheBigRetort is commited to investigating this story further and reporting any future developments.

THE BIG RETORT

 

 

The "support facade": a lizard enigma?

Leaks over Lewisham

In today's digital age, seeking assistance from companies and local authorities following complaints or issues has become a tedious endeavour. What was once a straightforward process has now evolved into a maze of automated responses, elusive chatbots, and dead-end "helplines".  Has the era of genuine customer support been replaced by the "Support Facade" enigma? TheBigRetort...

Have you ever found yourself trapped in a cycle of endless automated messages, nonsensical music, playing over and over ad infinitum, leading absolutely nowhere? 

Or perhaps you've experienced the frustration of being redirected from one department to another, only to end up back where you started? 

These are tell-tale signs of Support Facade in action. 

Support Facade, as we've named it, is the deceptive practice employed by Lewisham Council and those companies and individuals who feign assistance while secretly aiming to undermine your concern or claim. (See attached photo of the endless leaks above one Lewisham Council ceiling and note the deafening response from the council.) 

It's the illusion of support, crafted by crafty people to give the appearance of helpfulness without any genuine intention of resolving the issue at hand. Hopefully, wishfully, you will soon go away.

However, as we delve deeper into this modern phenomenon, we couldn't help notice the lack of direct communication channels for complaints or feedback. For gone are the days of easily accessible email addresses or direct phone numbers. Instead we have illusive assistance. 

In the case of Lewisham Council there is the obligatory 20-day response time to emails.  

Instead of resolution, we're met with generic holding responses and elusive and deceptive tactics by kicking the ball  - and with it the complainant - into the very long distance. 

Indeed, even AI now seems to have been trained in deflecting queries more than providing solutions. It is though still absolutely trumped by petty bureaucrats employing allusive assistance.

What can we do in the face of this facade? Awareness is the first step, surely. By recognising the signs of Support Facade, we can empower ourselves. By demanding genuine assistance from companies and ne’er-do-well councils using these sly tactics, we can prevail. Additionally, we can hold businesses and civil servants  accountable by sharing our experiences and shining a light on their deceptive lizard-like practices. (That's an appalling analogy. Lizards have rights too.)

To probe further light on this issue, we have created a potential list of snappy terms to describe mock support, please vote for your favourite:

• "Support Facade"
• "Deceptive Assistance"
• "Ostensible Aid"
• "Phantom Resolution"
• "Masked Support"
• "Illusive Assistance"
• "Pseudo Help"
• "Mock Support"
• "Sham Resolution"
• "Cloaked Assistance"

Have you encountered pseudo help in your interactions with companies, councils, or individuals? If so, which term resonates with you the most and why? 

Join the mock support conversation. Let's unveil the illusion together. After all, genuine support should never be just a facade for sham resolution by lizards.

 

 

Tory donor's hidden history of racist banter: Unveiling Frank Hester's troubling racist mouth

In recent news, the spotlight has fallen on Conservative Party donor Frank Hester, with accusations of racism swirling around his rather bloated publicly-funded wallet. While calls intensify for the Prime Minister to return Hester’s £10 million donation, we take a peek back in time and discover that this may not be the first time in what is now termed an isolated incident. TheBigRetort...

The refusal to acknowledge the racist nature of Hester's comments until pressured to do so speaks volumes about the lack of accountability within the Tory Party where big bucks are concerned. The failure to address racism head-on further erodes public trust.

However, what truly sheds light on Hester's character are the revelations from various sources via Reddit and Glassdoor. Unearthed by TheBigRetort, these posts, some four years old, paint a damning picture of Hester's leadership at The Phoenix Partnership, depicting a toxic and bullying culture, and a man who likes to play games at the racist tip of his tongue.

The accounts we unearthed, if well-founded and not just the musings of aggrieved former employees, corroborate the allegations now made against him. They provide a disturbing glimpse into the mind-set of a racist personality.

One allegedly former employee's description of Hester's penchant for racist and sexist "jokes" were found to be “his Trumpian filter”.

The fear of reprisal for failing to laugh along with Hester’s offensive remarks underscored the oppressive atmosphere cultivated by the boss. And everyone knows when the boss tells a joke you had better laugh.

Once more it must be said “if true” it's evident that Hester's racist banter may not be confined to isolated incidents but permeates his personality and the professional and political spheres surrounding him.

The Conservative Party's acceptance of his donations sends a troubling message, condoning racist banter for the sake of financial gain. 'Tis a bitter pill to swallow.

As calls for accountability grow louder, it's important for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party to heed them. Turning a deaf ear to racist jokey banter, and other things, whether in the form of private discussions or workplace conduct, is totally unacceptable in modern-day Britain. Turning a blind eye is a total no-no. It's time for decisive action to demonstrate a genuine commitment to combating racism within the party and society at large. £10m should not be a get out of jail free card, however expensive.

Finally, we can reveal, what that alleged former employee wrote - 4 years ago - on Reddit: “Not only does Frank often make racist or sexist “jokes,” but he revels in his Trumpian filter and expects you to laugh alongside him. Failure to comply can be seen as grounds for dismissal. Virtually none of the longstanding employees engage in non-mandatory company social events, presumably to avoid having to socialize with Frank and risk getting on his bad side, however unintentional it may be.”

So, if it walks like a duck… QED.