I suggest in future you review the documents and write them up rather than presenting a load of photocopies. I for one was put off reading this item because of this presentation, especially as it starts with photocopies of the Sunday Mail (perlease!!!).

.... and you point is????

In my opinion that was incoherent and out of date nonsense.

On the other hand I do know the organisation very well - yes it has its faults and, like any Registered Social Landlord of its size, it has a political role to play. It is however full of good people working to try and improve the housing conditions and options across London.

Perhaps you'd like to put your point across more coherently and we can actually have some meaningful debate here.

' WASTEDBLOKE ' whose comments are set out on this page is an AGENT of the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

The management are in such a state of abusing their tenants by means of attacking any tenants that submit complaints in writing to the CHAIRMAN or the CHIEF EXECUTIVE together with the computer system which is used for identifying what the management refer to outsiders of the organization who are in a position of authority as so-called 'problem tenants' -
The tactics of terrorisation of good tenants are used to:
i) DEMONISE
ii) ISOLATE
iii) CRIMINALIZE
that is the method - and the ex staff from Hammersmith & Fulham Housing Department who now work at Notting HIll Housing Trust apply these tactics - ex staff speak about the methods that have all the hallmark of a Communist State.

The ex Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, GERARD LEMOS has just been obliged to tender his resignation [do we hear the words ' Political Expediency ' expressed as GERARD LEMOS it was who introduced the racist discriminatory policies worthy of a full blown COMMUNIST State into NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST under the direction of LORD TOM SAWYER, ex leader of the LABOUR PARTY] now Gerard LEMOS is hurriedly departing for COMMUNIST CHINA.

Note that GERARD LEMOS has left his Treasurer of Indian ancestry on the Board - previously of ASRA Housing where they were both involved to promote their brethren and he has also placed an ex Member of the Intelligence Service, JONATHAN BUCHANAN on the Board - so why would someone used to acting in a SECRETIVE and COVERT way promoting tohe use of non communication and applying devious tactics be of benefit to an organization that should promote openness, accountability, consultation and good communication!

THINK ABOUT IT...

Sounds very disturbing...

Please, let's stick to facts. Amongst many others, a fact is that Notting Hill Housing Trust is a filthy, discriminating, vile slum landlord. There a lot of overwhelming evidence to support this. So give the guy a break and take what it is he is trying to convey at face value . If you claim to know anything about Notting Hill Housing Trust, what you are actually doing is condoning their abuses against tenants.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST LATEST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST LATEST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST LATEST

NEW CHAIR TO NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NEW CHAIR TO NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NEW CHAIR TO NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST


[Due to the massive scandal that is accelerating out of control - whereby the management were regularly confronting tenants who raised legitimate complaints to the most senior management.

The Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST was replaced - but is the new CHAIRMAN any better? Will he reply to letters of legitimate complaint from good tenants?

The CHIEF EXECUTIVE of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has NOT been replaced - so it is quite clear that any letters of legitimate complaints will NOT be answered - as they were never answered in the past from tenants with legitimate complaints that sought redress to legitimate complaints. So MORE of the same hostility! Or is this change of managment merely a COSMETIC change.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is pleased to announce the appointment of ALAN COLE as the new CHAIRMAN of the Board of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

Coming from a successful business background, Alan brings commercial insight to help deliver NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST’s vision [what vision might that be - positive or negative - consensual or completely confrontational, as it has been in the past and continues to be in the present - CONFRONTATIONAL and HOSTILE?] for housing in London.

Alan Cole, age 63, was for eight years, Chief Executive of TDG plc, a European logistics [transport] company. He was non-executive Chairman of both The Oliver Group plc and Alldays plc, and is currently Chairman of JP[John-Pierre] Morgan Fleming Income and Growth Investment Trust plc.

His present non-executive positions include London International Exhibition Centre Holdings and Burren Energy Plc. In addition, Alan was Deputy Chairman of the South Westminster Custody Visiting Panel. [Is this not linked to the Probation Service?][A Member of the Labour Party?] Taking over from GERARD LEMOS a senior member of the LABOUR PARTY and the GOVERNMENT RACE ADVISER, hurriedly appointed COMMISSIONER of the AUDIT COMMISSION and COMMISSIONER of the CIVIL SERVICE to mention just two of the appointments arranged by TOM SAWYER (appointed as a LABOUR PARTY peer as LORD TOM SAWYER by TONY BLAIR in 1998 and appointed immediately thereafter as CHAIRMAN of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST)!

GERARD LEMOS was the protege of LORD TOM SAWYER of 22 INCHMERY ROAD, CATFORD & DARLINGTON the ex CHAIRMAN of the LABOUR PARTY & head of the NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (NUPE) now caled UNISON Union.

ALAN COLE said of his appointment “NOTTING HILL (HOUSING TRUST - do not forget it is a CHARITABLE TRUST - with TRUSTEES and with BENEFICIARIES to whom there are very strict LEGAL DUTIES, not mere 'customers' that can be discarded at a moment's notice" is a great organisation doing really interesting things [Please explain and expand...]. There’s a social and a business objective

(What about the accountability of taxpayers money?) Where is the accountability?
Where is the transparency?
Where is the involvement of the National Audit Office?
What about the 21+ charity shops? The thousands of vulnerable tenants. Are they to be left behind in the goal for the commercialisation and transfer of a chaitable entity into a hard-nosed commercial entity without any kind of redress by tenants that have not been listened to and treated as pariahs and abused by the management whereby the chairman and chief executive never answered any letters of legitimate complaints to them] to push their agenda forward.” [Please explain what is "the agenda" is this the agenda of the Labour Party... the agenda of discrimination as planted into the organization by Gerard Lemos through Lord Tom Sawyer and continued by Gerard Lemos who intorduced these policies of divide and rule... and non communication with tenants with legitimate complaints?

The departing CHAIRMAN, GERARD LEMOS is leaving the Board after 18 months (why only 18 months? Why not the full 4 year tenure? Or was it because there were so many scandals associated with the senior Labour Party members who were appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Charitable Trust that holds a property portfolio of some 18,000+ properties worth over FOUR BILLION POUNDS - £4,000,000,000] of 'successful' leadership to pursue a professorship at a University in CHINA [Nice and vague].

[In order to place him as far away as possible so that this scandal does not effect the local elections on 4 May 2006 - and TONY BLAIR's reputation as have the so-called 'LOANS' instead of receiving the DONATIONS for LABOUR PARTY funding. ] His clarity of vision [in identifying the 'Divide and Rule' tactics and attacking indigenous people by calling them 'Racist' even though there was not a shred of evidence to substantiate such a tissue of lies was a deviously clever tactic plagiarised from the 'Little Red Book' of Chairman Mao of mainland China] and drive have helped NOTTING HILL achieved a huge amount in a short period of time [please explain... does that explain why such a very high percentage of income from taxpayers money is expended on management who act in a very confrontational way to any tenant who raises a legitimate complaint which are not answered by the management - why?] and he has planted seeds that will bear fruit in years to come [these appear to be the seeds of division of the discriminatory policies that assure that some people receive immediate brand new luxurious properties, whereas others are dumped in damp hovels with massive disrepair and 'Neighbours from Hell' (such as through the Cyrenian organization with which the Trust has a financially lucrative agreement to their benefit to disperse such people with severe drug and distressing mental problems next to respectable tenants.

Is Alan Cole fully aware of such policies of confronting tenants against the 'Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment', which is read into any tenancy? ) and such tenants are now deliberately placed next to good tenants with legitimate complaints and they are not supported by the management and are obliged to pursue remedies against in the public domain against the landlords in breach of civil law, breach of criminal law, breach of human rights and breach of basic trust law! ]. Gerard leaves the organisation in great shape [no, not great shape but in poor shape - let any independent entity ask any fair representative sample of the beneficiaries of the Charitable Trust and a very, very different response would assuredly be forthcoming] for the future.

Under Gerard’s chairmanship, Notting Hill [please note the wording with its strict legal duties and its strict legal responsibilities)] has

• Attained four green lights from the Housing Corporation [The Housing Corporation comes ubnde the ODPM and is NOT INDEPENDENT - it is an entity of the LABOUR GOVERNMENT];

• Been rated by the Audit Commission [The AUDIT COMMISSION is NOT INDEPENDENT - it is an entity of the Executive not of the Legislature - what is more GERARD LEMOS was appointed COMMISSIONER of the AUDIT COMMISSION on the say so of LORD TOM Sawyer [ex CHAIRMAN of the LABOUR PARTY] as his protege which TONY BLAIR [his cheerleader] was able to easily rubberstamp (what it is to control the government - by proxy - of course)!] as an organisation with “excellent prospects and fair [why not excellent ] services”;

• Launched our innovative “Five Steps to Home Ownership” plan, a mould-breaking initiative that helps tenants achieve their aspiration of ownership [The initiative for home owning is the ground-breaking idea of the Opposition - it's good to take the ideas of others and clothe them with the mantle of one's own... isn't it...???];

• Secured development partner status with the Housing Corporation [the Housing Corporation is a federation of all Registered SOcxial Landlords... so this so-called 'achievement' is only to be expected...].

Notting Hill is very grateful to Gerard and wish him ongoing success in the future. [What about wishing success to what the Internet authoritatively informed us was his live-in partner who is his homosexual boyfriend with whom he lives with his boyfriend, homosexual lover and business partner [of Lemos & Crane (social researchers)] Paul Crane at an exclusive stunning luxurious residence at 7 Bisham Gardens, just on the left hand side before reaching the very top of Highgate Hill, next to the very high communication mast for north London - which the Internet authoritatively goes on to inform us is a house with a mortgage in excess of some £750,000]

Ends

Press release issued: April 11 2006
With editorial

Why did this release have to be released by exteremely expensive spin doctors, which have all the halmarks of the LABOUR PARTY.

Yet there is meant to be an internal NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST Communications Department which is meant to liaise with the Press.

What is more after the many internal scandals at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, one of the Trustees appointed to the Board of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST by GERARD LEMOS was somweone who is a professional PUBLIC RELATIONS CONSULTANT - as the image was getting so tarnished - the reason for the so-called re-branding. Making out that the TRUST element as in the CHARITABLE TRUST could be brushed to one side. Yet, can it not be used in 'the washing' of commercial properties - so that no tax is payable?

Very few entities can switich properties from an entitty that pays tax to one that does not - perhaps the opportunity for properties to be misappropriated like over 45 that were known about that were misappropriated.

What about the pay off of GERARD LEMOS - what was his pay off - termination payment for the breach of his contract? This INFORMATION should be made clear to the BENEFICIARIES of the TRUST as BENEFICIARIES of the CHARITABLE TRUST.

ACCOUNTABILITY of TAXPAYERS FUNDS?

TRANSPARENCY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF TAXPAYERS FUNDS?

INDEPENDENT AUDITING OF TAXPAYERS FUNDS BY THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE - WHY NOT?

WHY NO OPPORTUNITY FOR TENANTS TO BE ELECTED AS THE 'ONE POUND' SHAREHOLDERS TO THE BOARD?

THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS THAT WILL NOT BE ANSWERED AS THE NEW CHAIRMAN IS UNLIKELY TO BE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE CONFRONTATIONAL TACTICS OF THE MANAGEMENT HOUSE STYLE

IS THE NEW CHAIRMAN OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST A MERE INSTRUMENT OF THE LABOUR PARTY IN REPLACING THE PREVIOUS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY WHO WAS PREVIOUS CHAIRMAN OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST?

ACTIONS SPEAK VOLUMES...

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – THE UNEXPURGATED AND UNAUTHORISED VERSION (1965-2005)

The senior members of the Labour Party would want to remove this highly sensitive information from any independent site in the UK - yet this information is the truth that the most senior members of the Labour Party, including Tony Blair, Tom Sawyer, Clive Soley, Jonathan Powell, Charles Falconer (LC), Peter Goldsmith (AG), Ken Macdonald (DPP), Mike O'Brien (SG), Harriet Harman [all appear to have compromised British law on the altar of political expediency? - surely this cannot be true?] and their pals in the Labour Party do not want this sensitive information released before 4 May 2006 - the date of the all important local elections around the UK.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST (IP) - CHAIRMAN – GERARD LEMOS
NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP - CHAIRMAN - GERARD LEMOS
NOTTING HILL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LTD-DIREC'R-GERARD LEMOS
NOTTING HILL PROPERTIES LTD - DIRECTOR - GERARD LEMOS
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST SHOPS LTD–DIRECTOR-GERARD LEMOS
NOTTING HILL CARE SERVICES LTD - DIRECTOR - GERARD LEMOS
LEMOS & CRANE LIMITED - DIRECTOR - GERARD LEMOS

+ BANKING CODE STANDARDS BOARD LIMITED–DIRECTOR-GERARD LEMOS
+ MORTGAGE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD LTD–DIRECTOR-GERARD LEMOS
+ A.K.C.T. LIMITED (KATHAK DANCE) - DIRECTOR - GERARD LEMOS


GERARD LEMOS (26/02/58) is a protégé of his mentor and friend, the ex Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER (12/5/43) of Darlington, Durham. LAWRENCE SAWYER of CATFORD, south east London was appointed as:
Deputy General Secretary of the NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (NUPE) that became UNISON (1981-94). LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER was appointed as GENERAL SECRETARY of the LABOUR PARTY (1994-98). He was and remains an influential member of the powerful NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (NEC) that controls the LABOUR PARTY (1981-94 and 1999-2001). He was appointed as CHAIRMAN of the LABOUR PARTY (1990-91).

Political spin-offs ensued:
Chairman REED HEALTH GROUP (2001-03),
Chairman of ROYAL MAIL PARTNERSHIP BOARD (2001),
Non Executive Director 'INVESTORS IN PEOPLE UK' (1998-).
A Labour peerage was arranged by the Prime Minister's office as a 'PEOPLE'S PEER'.
Then appointment as Chairman:
i) NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP,
ii) NOTTING HILL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED,
iii) NOTTING HILL PROPERTIES LTD,
iv) NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST (IP),
v) NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST SHOPS LIMITED,
vi) NOTTING HILL CARE SERVICES LIMITED
together with other non registered entities (1998-2004) - as Chairman of NOTTING HOUSING TRUST, this was THE prime appointment in order to put in place the agreed proposed 'SECRET SCHEME'.

LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER was appointed to:
i) the Supervisory Board of THOMPSONS SOLICITORS (2001-)[useful to have a law firm 'on side', also useful for the law firm],
ii) Visiting Professor, CRANFIELD SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (1999).
iii) LAWRENCE SAWYER was recently appointed by the PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (10 DOWNING STREET, LONDON SW1A 1AA) as Chancellor of TEESSIDE UNIVERSITY.
LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER was a good friend of PETER REDMAN - the ex CHIEF EXECUTIVE of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and
CLIVE SOLEY (7/5/39), 24 BIRCH GROVE, EALING, LONDON the ex spokesman for the vitally important portfolio - the KEY portfolio to ensure votes - as LABOUR PARTY spokesman for HOUSING (1987-92),
i) Chairman of the PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR PARTY (1997-2001) and
ii) member of the very powerful NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (NEC) of the LABOUR PARTY (1998-2001).
He was responsible for the publication: REGULATING THE PRESS (2000) - his vision to regulate all the many press interests in the UK owned by Rupert MURDOCH [Sun, News of the World, Times, Sunday Times, Sky, BSB, Fox News, Twentieth Century Fox etc.] if the LABOUR PARTY were to win a third term. [Even with the BL ROVER collapse and the postal voting scam which would discredit a banana republic.]

[CLIVE SOLEY it was who wanted to shut up RUPERT MURDOCH - by denying RUPERT MURDOCH the ability to promote Freedom of Speech, through his discredited book 'Regulating the Press'.]

As a result of the extremely serious 'ALLEGED' FRAUD that surprisingly came to light within NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST when very many valuable NOTTING HILL TRUST PROPERTIES were MISAPPROPRIATED by the management of the Trust, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE - PETER REDMAN was obliged to 'Fall on his Sword' with a substantial payment from LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER of CATFORD, south east London out of the funds of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST. Soon after, LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER - the Chairman hurriedly departed - to be replaced by his protégé and his very good friend, GERARD LEMOS.


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - CHAIRMAN - GERARD SAWYER - NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP - CHAIRMAN - GERARD LEMOS
'THE UNAUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY' [This is too politically sensitive to appear in the carefully sanitised UK media, such as the BBC which is headed by a good friend of the Prime Minister – Michael GRADE nee WINOGRADSKI.]

GERARD LEMOS (26/02/58) lives in the much sought after prestigious and highly desirable area of Highgate in north London. He lives close to the exclusive Pond Square with listed historic houses, close to a private gym in Swains Lane, behind the exclusive Highgate Society in Pond Square, not far from the exclusive Channing independent school, close to the Whittington Hospital but even closer to the Waterlow Park. Although on the same side of the road of his neat and very well kept house, bought in August 2002 with his partner PAUL CRANE for £750,000 through the Northern Rock Building Society of Gosforth, Newcastle and his house in Bisham Gardens [at number 7] is next to the tallest communications mast for north London which has substantial microwave dishes attached to it which the owners of the aerial are not likely to have informed him emit extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation – does this not pose a high cancer risk for anyone living within a 500 metre radius of the high dosage radiation as emitted on a daily basis?


GERARD LEMOS was in 2004 appointed Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST as the protégé of LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER who lives at 22 Inchmery Road, Catford, Lewisham in south east London (SE6 2NE) [contacts in high places can be and often are extremely useful] – he purchased his house in February 1997 through the Britannia Building Society of Cheadle Road, Leek in Staffordshire. LAWRENCE was the ex GENERAL SECRETARY of the LABOUR PARTY and senior member of the NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (NEC) that controls the LABOUR PARTY and who had previously been GENERAL SECRETARY of UNISON – the very powerful union tasked with responsibility for 'controlling' employees of local government and central government. It was important for the prime minister to have such a person ‘on message’ without the possibility of union dispute.

Immediately before appointment to NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER was appointed to the House of Lords and with political support as LORD 'TOM' SAWYER he took control of the flagship Registered Housing Landlord (RSL) the flagship Housing Association – NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - all part of the massive top-heavy and mismanaged NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP. With substantial assets of over 3 Billion pounds [£3,000,000,000] the entity in its public communications pleads poverty and yet it is progressing rapidly in a major acquisition programme out of taxpayer funds, acquiring properties in key areas linked to specific political purposes. Over 18,000 properties translate as many times more votes as potential voters for election purposes - that is, after all, the BOTTOM LINE of the agreement between the political party in power and the major flagship Housing Association in the country. This agreement would be categorically denied by those underwriting it. The evidence, however, speaks volumes. The tenants provide the evidence.

It is good for TONY BLAIR as there is no accountability to government as the unlimited taxpayers money is paid through a non government department known as the Housing Corporation which hurriedly fled out of its base in Tottenham Court Road, central London to the provinces and the Registered Social Landords otherwise known as Housing Associations receive substantial amounts of unaccountable taxpayers money that is audited by the AUDIT COMMISSION - which is regulated by the Executive and is unaccountable to Parliament, whereas all taxpayers money should be regulated by the NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (NAO) which is accountable to Parliament (not to the Executive). All taxpayers money should be accountable to Parliament.

Expecially when some £24 BIllion [£24,000,000,000] is being frittered away to Registered Social Landlords in this country. People do not need to have contributed one penny to the taxation system of this country - yet non indigenous people [no disrespect to them, but] they are provided with housing in excellent condition out of the budgets of Registered Social Landlords [no longer by local authorities to whom RSLs provide housing stock - the bigger the family the bigger the houses; more kids, very much more income support to breed many more babies] whereas the indigenous people who have invariably contributed to the taxation system are provided with damp properties with massive disrepair which are invariably a danger to health and often an environmental hazard.

It is simply a vote delivery system for Tony Blair - to be re-elected as LABOUR PARTY Prime Minister.

Deviously Clever.

The flagship Registered Social Landlord or flagship Housing Association is called NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

This appointment of LAWRENCE SAWYER [given a LABOUR PARTY peerage by his pal TONY BLAIR] was not co-incidental.
HOUSING MEANS VOTES.
SOCIAL HOUSING MEANS THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF VOTES FOR A PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTY - THE LABOUR PARTY!

KNOWN AS GERRYMANDERING!

GOVERNMENT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TOGETHER WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CAN CONTROL EXACTLY WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IN ORDER TO ENSURE MAXIMUM VOTES IN MARGINAL AREAS

This policy of controlling key areas of constituencies is known as 'GERRYMANDERING' – the ability of moving core potential voters into marginal wards, marginal boroughs and marginal Parliamentary Constituencies - key electoral areas.

Enter GERARD ANTHONY LEMOS.

In May 1993, GERARD LEMOS flags up his CV with his highly privileged background with an expensive education recorded to the prestigious independent school of DULWICH COLLEGE in south London. This was followed by him undertaking a degree at York University. [A good solid university.]

His first appointment was as Director of LONDON INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF THEATRE LIMITED (THE) (1) Perhaps 'lacking in confidence'(?), he described himself by the rather grand name of ‘Management Consultant’. In April 2002 he was to leave the organization. His interests were of dance, the arts and the more gentle and delicate aspects of life.

In October 1997, he was appointed as a Director of HOMELESS INTERNATIONAL (2) resigning in October 2000. He described himself more realistically as a ‘Researcher’.

In 1999 GERARD was made a member of the BRITISH COUNCIL - a political appointment confirmed by the PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE as a 'prize' for political - in this case - LABOUR PARTY support. [Tom Sawyer to the rescue?]

The next major aspect featured on his CV is in October 1999 when he saw his appointment as a Director of THE BANKING CODE STANDARDS BOARD LIMITED (3). He described himself as a ‘Social Researcher’.

In 2000 GERARD was made a member of the AUDIT COMMISSION. This was a KEY appointment as the AUDIT COMMISSION controls the overseeing of the disbursement of public finances of all Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) of Housing Associations, such as NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - the flagship Registered Social Landlord or flagship Housing Association.

In March 2000 GERARD LEMOS was appointed as Director of the SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS (4). He described himself as a person engaged in ‘Social Research’. In December 2001 he was to leave the organization.

In June 2000, GERARD was appointed as a Director of THE MORTGAGE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD LIMITED (5) He described himself as a ‘Social Researcher’. In December 2001 he was to leave the organization.

In 2001 GERARD was appointed as a CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER.

In December 2001 GERARD LEMOS was appointed as a Director of the CONTEMPORARY DANCE TRUST LIMITED (6). He described himself as a ‘Researcher’.

In March 2003 GERARD was appointed as a Director of LEMOS & CRANE LIMITED (7) which was set up as a vehicle to receive funds, as from NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST in order for him to ‘research’ matters which were part of the ‘secret scheme’. Major government housing policy needed to be materialised – taking power from some - giving power to others – all part of government social control. Think of housing as the main engine for votes – policies that could be introduced that would do disservice to a banana republic. This was the major break that would transform his fortunes and catapult his trajectory onto another orbit.
Using the policies of Chairman Mao of COMMUNIST CHINA to his support. He studied how dictatorships worked. Non communication, non consultation, confrontation and promoting unaccountability. Hostile staff were promoted. Good staff were quickly dismissed. Kate Davies who does not answer letters from good tenants with legitimate complaints was quickly appointed as Chief Executive fronm Servite Houses. Tenants from her ex employer complain of the same tactics of hostility and yet she is paid astronomical sums of money for her inefficienct uncommunicative and confrontational behaviour to good tenants.
[Low level staff are often replaced by agencies, such as Adecco employment agency next to the Hammermith Public Library in Shepherds Bush Road.]

For the first time now Gerard LEMOS was to describe himself as a ‘Director’. It appears he gained his increasing confidence from a powerful source close to but not from himself. [Was it not TOM SAWYER?]]

Soon after in December 2003 GERARD LEMOS was appointed as a Director of the AKRAM KHAN DANCE COMPANY (8). He was to describe himself as a ‘Researcher’. This was, after all, his first love and his real self that gravitated to the nature of dance and art and matters delicate.

In 2003 GERARD was made DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of the BRITISH COUNCIL, known as being in the gift of the Prime Minister, invariably as a political favour.

It came to the attention of the AUDIT COMMISSION - the policing body responsible for overseeing irregularities of Registered Social Landlords – that a substantial amount of properties had been ‘ASSET STRIPPED’ from the portfolio of the housing stock of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST. As many of the tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are vulnerable tenants, it makes it far easier to take advantage of many of them and to usurp and to blatantly misrepresent their housing and legal rights and with much at stake and much to potentially lose on the political front, if the scheme was to be discovered by the public – the management has to ensure that government policy is prioritised to ensure the same political party is re-elected.
PETER REDMAN as the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST was expected to ‘FALL ON HIS SWORD’ and to take the blame for the loss of many highly desirable NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST properties that are understood to have been misappropriated by management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST. [It was decided by the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) - whose head is the DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (DPP) - that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute a criminal prosecution.]
[Ken MACDONALD QC is Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), decides whether criminal prosecutions are taken forward. Ken MACDONALD QC, the colleague and good friend of CHERIE BOOTH QC (LLB, LSE, London) of MATRIX CHAMBERS – wife of the Prime Minister, TONY BLAIR (BA Law, St John’s Oxford) who worked in the same MATRIX CHAMBERS. The specialization of Ken MACDONALD was Defence rather than Prosecution work.]

This was the reason why there was such a heated argument between PETER REDMAN with LORD TOM SAWYER. Why did PETER REDMAN have to accept SOLE responsibility for the ‘ALLEGED FRAUD’ with so many very valuable properties being plundered from the Trust and that was well known to be taking place at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST?

Why take the blame - was this not a part of the AGREED culture?

This UNDERSTANDING was resolved whereby a substantial secret financial pay-off of over £100,000 was paid (on no account to ever be disclosed to the media or to the public) [in breach of TRUST LAW] to PETER REDMAN by LORD TOM SAWYER out of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST funds – all taxpayers money/money out of charity funds - that seems not to be subject to total transparency, absolute accountability or complete consultation. WHY? What of any property package?

It appears: Control the housing - control the vote – a well known political ploy.

If any political party wanted to address issues as serious as these - the law would be changed.

If any political party wanted to change the ethos and if the newspapers were not so entwined to the political party in power - there would be no need for any INDYMEDIA.

GERARD LEMOS had previously been relatively recently appointed as a COMMISSIONER of the AUDIT COMMISSION (in 2000-) [but the Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is regulated by the AUDIT COMMISSION, [the organ of the Executive not of Parliament and therefore UNACCOUNTABLE] this poses a very serious CONFLICT OF INTEREST thus compromising any proposed investigation by investigators of the AUDIT COMMISSION – this means that the AUDIT COMMISSION is now totally compromised and is NOT in a position and CANNOT currently investigate any alleged UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR or BREACH OF TRUST by the TRUST] [GERARD LEMOS had been appointed as a board member of the BRITISH COUNCIL (in 1999-)(Deputy Chairman in 2003-) and made a Civil Service Commissioner (in 2001-)] and he was to be put in place and appointed in substitution to LORD TOM SAWYER who was obliged to step down as Chairman of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and as Chairman of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP.

In September 2004 the life of GERARD LEMOS was totally transformed on his appointment by his mentor as a Director to NOTTING HILL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LTD. (9) He was to describe himself as a ‘Social Researcher’. He was also appointed as a Director to NOTTING HILL PROPERIES LTD. (10) on the same day, also describing himself as a ‘Social Researcher’. Yet to balance the hard nosed commercial organization of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP he was appointed as a Director of NOTTING HILL CARE SERVICES LIMITED (10).

The 'social' aspect of the Trust is equally hard nosed and on the evidence of its many complaining tenants, it seems to enjoy resorting to bullying tactics against its tenants. GERARD LEMOS described himself as a ‘Social Researcher’.

GERARD was also appointed as a Director of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST SHOPS LIMITED (11) describing himself as a ‘Social Researcher’.

In February 2005, GERARD LEMOS was appointed as a Director of A.K.C.T. LIMITED (13) No longer the ‘Researcher’, no longer the ‘Social Researcher’. GERARD LEMOS at last ‘came out of the closet’ as he was to describe himself as a fully fledged ‘COMPANY DIRECTOR’. [K. = KATHAK (Indian classical dance form)]


GERARD LEMOS knows much about the practices that are adopted as core policy by NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST. Though many tenants have shown evidence that he will not respond to extremely serious, disturbing written complaints by tenants, he thereby ruthlessly abdicates any sense of legal, corporate, trust and personal responsibility.

The organization is truly out of control if a CHAIRMAN of a Trust acts as supporting unlawful behaviour.

In 1994 GERARD LEMOS wrote:
i) 'Interviewing Perpetrators of Racial Harassment'.
'Fair Recruitment and Selection' (1995),
ii) 'Safe as Houses: supporting people experiencing racial harassment' (1996) (written with support),
iii) 'The Communications We Have Lost and Can Regain' (1997),
iv) 'Urban Village, Global City: the regeneration of Colville' (1998) [impossible without the very close support of LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER and the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - as COLVILLE was a 'pet' project of LAWRENCE SAWYER a.k.a. TOM SAWYER of CATFORD, south east London],
v) 'A Future Foretold: new approaches to meeting the long-term needs of single homeless people' (1999)
vi) 'Racial Harassment: action on the ground' (2000)(with support),
vii) 'Dreams Deferred: the families and friends of homeless and vulnerable people' (2002).
The ‘evidence’ necessary to skew the vote?

The Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST through his senior management must ensure through his policies and the proposals of the previous Chairman and Chief Executive that some people have dreams bestowed – whilst for the sake of the proposed ‘vote delivery system’ others MUST receive nightmares a plenty? To any trust tenant that raises legitimate complaints to the management, repairs are intentionally not seen to or if they eventually are seen to, there is powerful evidence that there is a poorly delivered repair performance, this is often associated with a sudden misleading and deceitful materialisation of massive non existing ‘rent arrears’, there is a misrepresenting of ‘the facts’ of the housing situation of particular tenants, there is a common theme from complainants in placing ‘tenants from hell’ next to tenants that the management have decided ‘need to be evicted’ without going to court, as it is known by the management that the courts would not endorse a deceitful scheme of conduct against vulnerable tenants.

It is also known from many tenants that the management represent they have ‘offered’ some tenants flats when this is not the case. It seems to be a common tactic by the management that when the good tenants have lost faith in the management and have instructed them to correspond through third parties together with the sending of all correspondence through a means of proof – such as by recorded delivery – such understandings are not honoured by the management.

The management seems to give the false impression to many tenants that a flat has been offered – of which there is no proof – as the tenant has not even had the opportunity to agree a place or to view a place – and were the tenant who has ever complained legitimately, it tends to follow like clockwork that such a person would be offered a shameful slum not in the area of their choice and this seems to be followed with increasing regularity that soon after moving in, if the tenant accepts, a ‘tenant from hell’ tends to be placed next door so that the tenant can be stigmatised as ‘anti-social’. [Several tenants have stated that ASBOs can be a very ‘useful device’ if an unprincipled landlord lacking in moral principles is prepared to act in an immoral way by ‘providing’ the evidence against tenants that previously lodged legitimate complaints.]

The nature of the complaints of many tenants against the management of the Trust is shameful.

There is unanimity amongst most of the tenants that the management have just gone too far. Too many lies, too much deception, too much illegality.

The office of GERARD LEMOS is located in a shady looking entrance up the top of stairs above a chemists shop at 64 Highgate High Street, London N6 5HX
Tel: 020-8348-8263
It appears as if the office disguises far more than it reveals. Not unlike the unaccountable and bullying behaviour of the management of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP?

The office of his partner, PAUL CRANE and himself as LEMOS & CRANE LIMITED is very close to his luxurious and very tastefully appointed exclusive home which is conveniently very close to Pond Square, not so far from the Highgate and Archway underground station on the northern line in N6. It is the shiniest house in the ‘Gardens’. The number seven is the number of understanding – it is the number of GERARD and PAUL’s house. Although GERARD is a man that appears, from the way he executes his policy throughout the Trust, not to exhibit any sense of fairness or understanding. Otherwise, why would bullying and hostility, hate and discrimination against tenants be so rife by means of the implementation of policy throughout the organization?

Too many tenants of the Trust testify of that fact, so that it is not possible to dismiss such a large body of evidence. The senior management of the Trust have been found not to be of a standard that most people would expect should be necessary to uphold the onerous responsibilities they hold down. Too many tenants say that the senior management must go and go now.

Many tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST that become aware of the 'secret scheme' of acquiring votes for housing will find it deeply offensive of the perception that differs from the reality whereby those in the know write about a 'terrible situation' which has been consciously and purposely put in place by powerful politicians who must faithfully represent those applicants that it has been agreed must - for political purposes - be given priority, whereas other tenants - it has been agreed - are not to be supported.

It has been noted that the senior management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST enjoy lavishly appointed and highly desirable prestigious housing in the most desirable areas of London.

It has been noted that senior politicians in the key area of Hammersmith & Fulham enjoy prestige properties. It has been observed that key 'representatives' of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST seem also to enjoy well appointed properties provided by the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

The Borough of HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM is a 'MUST WIN' high priority Borough that needs to be targeted to win by the LABOUR PARTY.


The ‘secret scheme’ of ensuring the right votes for housing mentioned above was to be carried out, in practice leaving many tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP not understanding why they as tenants would be discriminated against, as some prospective tenants would receive utmost priority whereas other tenants would be ‘consigned to the dustbin’ in the allocation stakes.

Some of the management staff seeming to delight in applying hostility and cowardly tactics in ABUSE OF TRUST by a greedy self-interested and self-serving landlord against too many of its vulnerable tenants.

The situation at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is now spiralling from bad to far worse and appears to be going out of control.

RECOMMENDATION BY MANY NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST TENANTS:

The whole structure of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST needs to be ‘defanged’ by its negative, hostile, aggressive and anti-social senior management that seem to revel in the confrontational policies against its tenants.

It seems to delight in misrepresenting and deceiving its tenants and 'targeting' many of them for hostile treatment. Documentary evidence of far too many tenants bear witness to this applied housing practice.

Its hostile policy against its own tenants appears to be strongly supported by the Chairman – GERARD LEMOS and Chief Executive – KATE DAVIES who do not respond to urgent and serious complaints. Demonstrating a total abdication of trust and corporate legal responsibility.
Why? Think along the lines of blatant political purposes.


Unless and until specific senior staff of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are removed, the tenants of the TRUST and of the GROUP will continue not to place their faith or trust in the management.

The recent moves by NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, after numerous complaints from too many tenants, the Trust management have tried to misrepresent that there is an effective complaints procedure and have quickly unveiled a hurriedly set up website. Yet this COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE by the Trust has been and is being taken as a sad but unfortunate 'joke' by tenants, as any tenants complaints that are now being invited to lodge any complaints on the computer recording system device is taken by tenants as neither serious nor worthy of serious response.

Indeed, many tenants have indicated that they are either fearful or apprehensive to complain. Particularly as this BLATANT and CALLOUS ABUSE of TRUST by the management or by their agents continues as blatantly as it could ever be.

Nothing short of MAJOR STRUCTURAL change to NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP will satisfy TRUST tenants.

Many tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are NOT prepared to reveal their names in this atmosphere of hostility and recrimination perpetrated from the senior management and relentlessly carried out by management of the Trust or its agents against Trust tenants.

It is understood that 10 DOWNING STREET and the executive of the LABOUR PARTY is only too aware that a wholesale discrimination of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST tenants exists at institutional level.

Some tenants have argued that there is no longer a need for NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST to exist as an organization, as a business and as a charity for it has based its 'success' on the basis of peoples suffering and the management has tried very hard to disguise the blatant tactics for the most recent of its 40 years (1965- 2005) that has now come to a head.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST senior management has continued to pursue a course of conduct towards its vulnerable tenants for which it was originally established in order to end such abuse. The reasons for its incorporation were noble.

The incorporators were good people. It was set up by a very concerned priest, Reverend Bruce Kenrick. Winnifred Atwell was so determined to do something positive that she immediately provided funding.

Yet now the entity has a misplaced aura of respectability with the invitation of the Duchess of Gloucester to act as the royal patron - by a political party that, in reality, detests such a connection.

It has been argued by the senior management that they listen to the concerns of the many tenants - this is certainly not the reality. If it was, why would so very many of the tenants have been complaining of a negativity by staff, a lack of courtesy by staff, no repairs or poor quality repairs, no response to urgent calls for assistance, harassment by management or by their agents and anti-social tactics that were both unlawful and unacceptable to any tenant in a tenant-landlord relationship, not forgetting the placing of tenants falsely in rent arrears and the moving of anti-social tenants next to tenants that present written legitimate complaints in documentary form to the management.

The reality is that this whole edifice of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST serves a blatantly political purpose in order to return a LABOUR GOVERNMENT. [This is clearly unlawful.]

END THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CHARITY THAT PAYS NO TAX AND PLEADS POVERY WANTING VOLUNTEERS TO WORK IN THE 21 CHARITY SHOPS IN CENTRAL LONDON YET WITH RESERVES OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS AND THE COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT PAYS TAX BUT CAN SWOP ITS PROPERTIES INTO THE CHARITABLE ENTITY TO AVOID TAX.
IT MAKES SURE THAT ALL ITS TENANTS IN ITS PROPERTIES ARE IN A POSITION OF WEAKNESS PAYING MAXIMUM RENT OFTEN FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY - SO THERE IS AN EXTREMELY COSY RELATIONSHIP.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST can be summed up simply as an unrepresentative entity based on social (Peter) RACHMAN(ISM) at work, promoted loudly by politicians of a political party that sees a way of returning to office - no matter the casualties, no matter the abuses, no matter the illegalities – all for the sure fire way to power.


HOUSING MEANS VOTES – CONTROL OF VOTES - TO WIN AN ELECTION - PROVIDE HOUSING TO ‘THE RIGHT’ VOTERS - LET NO PERSON SAY OTHERWISE!

THE EVIDENCE FOR THE REASONING IS SUPPORTED IN THE BOOKS RESEARCHED BY GERARD LEMOS AND WITH SUPPORT FROM LAWRENCE SAWYER HIS CLOSEST MENTOR - THAT IDENTIFY THE ESSENCE OF THE ‘SECRET SCHEME’ STRATEGY NOW BEING RUTHLESSLY IMPLEMENTED IN THE UK AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE HARD WORKING BRITISH TAXPAYERS BY THE POLITICAL PARTY IN POWER.


WHO CONTROLS THE HOUSING? – THE RIGHT PEOPLE GET APPOINTED AS CHAIRMAN AND RECEIVE: TITLES, HONOURS, APPOINTMENTS AND ADVANTAGE AND OF COURSE HOUSING IS NOT A PROBLEM!

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BUY THEIR OWN HOUSE - THAT IS THE WAY FORWARD - THAT WAS THE WAY FORWARD WITH COUNCIL HOUSING AND THAT WILL BE THE WAY FORWARD WITH PROPERTIES HELD WITHIN THE HOUSING STOCK OF REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS, KNOWN AS HOSING ASSOCIATIONS. THAT IS CERTAINLY THE POLICY OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

WHY IS 26% OF ALL TAXPAYERS INCOME TO NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST PAID EXCLUSIVELY ON FAT CAT MANAGEMENT ON ASTRONOMICAL SALARIES THAT ENJOY CONFRONTING GOOD TENANTS - THIS IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE HOUSING POLICY IN 2006.

IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN GEORGE WALKER BUSH's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - LAND OF THE FREE

EQUALLY, SUCH UNLAWFUL TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

WE WILL FIGHT TO GET OUR POINT ACROSS IN THE MEDIA

WE WILL FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE UK HAS BECOME AN ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP UNDER THE LABBOUR PARTY - HAS IT NOT NOW BEEN EMASCULATED WITH SLEAZE AND TOTAL CORRUPTION?

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST NEEDS TO BE SORTED OUT NOW ! ! !


LOCAL ELECTIONS ON THURSDAY 4 MAY 2006


DO NOT VOTE COMMUNIST LABOUR PARTY


VOTE FOR FREEDOM


VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY

VOTE FOR AN END OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

VOTE FOR AN END OF THE CONFRONTATION AND HOSTILITY OF TENANTS BY TRUSTEES OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST

TRUSTEES HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TENANTS WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST!


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

WHY DOESN'T

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

STOP ABUSING THE GOOD TENANTS OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST

I have seen what too many respectable tenants of Notting Hill Housing Trust are going through and I think it is absolutely disgusting how the senior management of any landlord let alone the flagship Housing Association - otherwise known as a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) - in London and in this country can act with such callous disregard to the legal rights of good tenants.

These tenants have urgent issues that desperately need to be urgently addressed rather than for the senior management to unlawfully steam-roller over the basic human rights of decent tenants with legitimate issues that need to be raised immediately.

I am not so naive as not to realise that it is politicians in the most senior positions of the Labour Party who are deeply involved in this harassment by proxy.

I have been provided with authoritative documentary evidence that senior members of the Labour Party have been advised that it is the way for the prime minister to be re-elected as prime minister - by gerrymandering parliamentary constituencies. This has been been done in the past and it is being done now out of unaccountable taxpayers funding.

Surely, it cannot have come to this, that the most senior levels of the Labour Party hierarchy are so full of sleaze that they have stooped as low as to use such devious, underhand, deceitful tactics as these to gang up against - in the main - vulnerable tenants?

I think Mr Kornhauser and other tenants need to IMMEDIATELY and URGENTLY:
1. Get all respectable tenants together in Unity.
2. Contact the Media.
3. Arrange to Picket the HEADQUARTERS of Notting
Hill Housing Trust and demand immediate
action from the CHAIRMAN.
4. Seek the resignation of the Chief Executive.
5. Hold the organisation to account.
6. Seek the dismissal of confrontational staff.
7. Agree to lodge a CLASS ACTION against Notting
Hill Housing Trust.
8. Instruct the appropriate specialist barrister.
9. Bring this matter to the attention of the
Media and to the head of the Political
Opposition.

I have the personal addresses of the leader/s
and I will pass this information on as
required if the CHAIRMAN takes no EFFECTIVE
action.


This is not a threat - I do not threaten
anyone - it is a solemn promise.

Lords Hansard
20 October 2005: Column 958

Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for initiating this debate. It is a serious, complex and worrying issue for us all. I therefore suppose that it is good to talk. Perhaps I too can declare an interest at the beginning of the debate. The only one I can think of is that I was once the treasurer of the Darlington council tenants' action committee. We used to battle against the council, both Labour and Conservative. I do not know why they made me the treasurer— I had no money at the time. I think it was because they wanted someone young to carry the banner. The only people we disliked more than the council in those days were private landlords, whom we used to depict as greedy, grabbing and thieving rogues, and that was when we were being polite to them. But time has moved on. Modern times meant that the council which was once our saviour fell out of favour and the workers with more money wanted to be like the bosses and own their own homes—and why not?

Selling council houses was probably Maggie Thatcher's most successful policy, making tenants owners at the right price. The trouble was that she did not replace the stock that she sold with new stock for those coming into housing need. In many ways I feel quite depressed at present. I do not blame the Government for that in any way—I think that the pressures on every front are so intense that we are going backwards. Council provision is not very good where it does exist, and it does not exist in many places. Housing associations make some provision for those who cannot afford to buy, but that provision is declining: 7 million dwellings in 1981 and 5 million dwellings in 2003.

On a personal note, the big increase which quite annoys me is the development of small private landlords—"buy to let" or "how my generation exploits its own children" are the terms I use—and rent levels that my children cannot afford and make it impossible for them to save for a deposit to buy. Now we have self-invested pensions, to which the noble Baroness referred, where once again the wealthy will receive tax relief at the expense of the not so wealthy and give the market another spin towards the private landlords and the rich.
The Government are trying in any way they can to reverse some of those trends but it is difficult. However, by their own admission—an interesting statistic—only one-third of today's 10 year-olds will be able buy their own home if nothing is done about the right-to-buy, the supply and the affordability situation.

I know that the Government is doing their best. I was very interested in David Miliband's contribution this week about trying to get communities to take responsibility for buying and making provision for housing. I am also very interested in the initiatives which I have read about that John Prescott has been trying to take; to build houses that people can buy for £60,000 or £80,000. It would be immensely exciting for young people in my life and in my family if that were possible.

I must keep on at the Government to make home ownership—this might not be everyone's priority, but it is certainly my top priority—a big campaign in the future. The matter I want to touch on in the next few minutes concerns whether to ask housing associations—we do not normally associate them with houses to buy—to become involved in such a campaign. I was the chairman of Notting Hill Housing Trust for five years. Our main focus was on the kind of things I have already talked about. Initially, we tried to overcome the legacy of notorious landlords such as Peter Rachman. Eventually, we got into our stride and provided 15,000 homes for rent in some of the most desirable parts of London. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to Notting Hill. The association built rented homes there where the opportunity for less well-off people to buy is almost non-existent. However, much more needs to be done in that respect. Although Notting Hill Housing Trust and other housing associations should continue to build houses for homeless people to rent—that must be their core business—they ought to consider that when people come off benefits, get into work and become more socially and economically active, their aspirations, abilities and desires to buy start to grow. As their life chances improve, they want their housing situation to improve.

Just before I left Notting Hill Housing Trust a survey was carried out which revealed that two-thirds of our tenants would prefer to buy their own homes. You cannot go on ignoring that. You must face up to the fact that those tenants want to be like us; they want to buy. They do not want to rent. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the report of Professor Wilcox published this week, which reveals another group of people who are stuck in housing need as a result of the slow pace of building. These are people who do not qualify for social housing—they have jobs and a reasonable income—but in many parts of the country they cannot afford to buy. What will happen to them? That was a question posed by the noble Lord. They will become increasingly disaffected. They will slide down the social scale and open up divisions in our society. They will see themselves as not being part of the "haves" but as being part of the "have-nots". We cannot afford to let that happen.

Over the years I have become increasingly convinced that if we are serious about reducing some of the big social issues such as child poverty, and increasing social mobility, we must help more working class people into appropriate forms of home ownership. In rented homes the poor get poorer and have precious few assets in their old age. Buying shares in their home—the one place they possibly could buy shares—or buying it outright will encourage them to save, build asset ownership and strengthen the commitment of families to their communities and homes. All the research shows that having an asset can make all the difference to poorer families, older people and people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Notting Hill Housing Trust was one of the first organisations to pioneer shared ownership. That was an early attempt to make home ownership more affordable. That has been successful. We provided about 7,500 such dwellings. Other associations have taken that on. It is a growing area. However, it needs to grow more. Perhaps we could encourage tenants to buy shares in homes owned by housing associations to enable them to have a stake. They could start to build up assets, increasing wealth, choice and self-esteem by having such a stake in their homes. They could then perhaps free up social housing for those people who need it more.

I do not want to occupy all the time that I have been allocated. I knew what I wanted to say and I hope that I have said it fairly clearly. Home ownership is very popular in this country. Perhaps it should not be, but it is. That is how it is. In some European countries wealthy people are very happy to rent, but that is not the case here. Seventy per cent of people in this country own their own homes, but, interestingly, 80 per cent of households comprising a couple and two children own their own homes whereas 30 per cent of single parents own their own homes. That statistic tells a story. I do not want to go over the top but I sometimes get tired of armies of professional home owners lecturing tenants, or speaking on their behalf, about what they should want. We should listen to what tenants want. More often than not they will say that they want to be home owners too. We should take every measure that we can to try to help them become home owners.

Lord Sawyer

INTERIM REVIEW OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL’S
JOINT COMMISSIONING HOUSING ASSOCIATION PARTNERS

The Council was in the middle of its second three year agreement with partners, and this agreement was due to expire in July 2006. The purpose of a mid-term review was to allow areas to be identified where action needed to be taken. The council currently had seven preferred partners. The interim review of the partners began in May 2005 when
questionnaires were sent out to all partners. The results of the questionnaires were followed up with interviews in August 2005. All seven partners had demonstrated that they had a strong commitment to developing services in the borough. Partners had been working closely with both the council and Hammersmith and Fulham Housing Management Services (HFHMS) and had shown their commitment to continuing to work with the council to tackle the problem of overcrowding. Notting Hill Housing Association had recently been assessed by the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation. Both assessments had shown improvements in Notting Hill, however, members of the council had raised a number of difficulties associated with the resolution of complex cases. Therefore, the Chair of the Housing Scrutiny Panel and the Deputy Leader would be meeting with Notting Hill for a further interview to discuss these issues.

Panel members then received a presentation by representatives of the council’s seven joint commissioning partners. Paul Doe, Shepherds Bush Housing Association, introduced the presentation and informed members of the Panel that Hammersmith and Fulham Housing Association Forum had recently produced a brochure titled ‘Creating New and Sustainable Communities’ which gave an insight into the wide range of work carried out by housing associations in the borough. Peter McCormack, Dominion Housing, informed Panel members that there were currently 10,704 RSL (registered social landlord) homes in the borough. The main stockholders were Shepherds Bush Housing Association and Notting Hill Housing Trust. 12% of these homes currently did not meet the decent home standard. £28m was being spent in order to get all homes to the decent home standard by 2010. In addition to this, there were new developments to help meet pressing housing needs. Peter McCormack made specific mention of new developments by housing associations which were helping to raise standards in the borough. These developments offered a range of facilities, some including doctors’ surgeries, others using sustainable material or providing added space in high density build by having balconies.

There were many mixed-tenure developments and some shared ownership schemes, as well as a special needs care scheme and regeneration schemes. Geeta Nanda, Notting Hill Housing Group, informed panel members that housing associations took on a range of initiatives in addition to those of providing housing, including employment initiatives, healthy living initiatives and volunteer programmes were all being widely used. There were also initiatives to sustain tenancies including youth initiatives and financial inclusion. Supported housing and homelessness prevention also played a part in housing associations’ business. 22% of RSL tenants had asked for transfers, making demand high. Much of this demand was due to overcrowding, which housing associations were trying to tackle in a number of ways, including tenancy audit, incentives for under occupiers and rehousing children of tenants, extensions/conversions and choice based lettings.

Paul Doe concluded the presentation by stating that the housing associations wished to work closely with the council in order to tackle the problem of overcrowding. Councillor Charlie Napier stated that housing associations had become more accountable over recent years and asked whether representatives felt that their organisations were now run more like businesses than charitable organisations to the detriment of the tenants. Paul Doe replied that funders required all housing associations to act in a business-like way. Housing associations were required to profit from the activities they undertook, but this profit went back to the tenants. Dilys Tisshaw, Octavia, stated that a number of tenants sat on Octavia’s board, and there was a high level of involvement and satisfaction from tenants at the way the association was run. Caroline Wagstaff, Family Housing, stated that Family Housing acted in a business-like way to the advantage of the tenants.

Councillor Napier stated that where this was the case then there were advantages to tenants, but he was still concerned that some housing associations might be focusing more on the funders than their tenants. He hoped that this was not the case. Geeta Nanda, Notting Hill, advised that the Audit Commission ensured that housing associations focused on their tenants. Councillor Charlie Napier commented that he understood Shepherds Bush Housing Association had tenants sitting on its board. He asked whether this was the case for other RSLs. Caroline Wagstaff advised that the Old Oak subsidiary of Family Housing had around one third tenant members on its board. Family Housing had just under one third tenant members on its board. Sue Daniels, Threshold, stated that tenants at Threshold had not shown a huge appetite to sit on formal boards. Instead, they tended to prefer to become involved at a more localized level, and this was then fed into the board. Geeta Nanda stated that Notting Hill’s board had around 20% tenant members on its group board, with one third tenant members on the housing committee.

Leaseholders sat on the home ownership board, and two in ten board members were tenants. Phil Thompson, Catalyst Housing, advised that there were generally one third tenant members on Catalyst’s board. Councillor Napier stated that he welcomed tenant participation at all levels and involvement at the top level was particularly important. Councillor Charlie Napier commented that he was impressed with the work the housing associations were doing. However, he felt that management issues needed to be addressed when dealing with certain cases. Councillors had received the largest number of complaints regarding Notting Hill, no doubt because they had the largest stock. An Audit Commission report some years back had highlighted some negative aspects of the association. He asked what had been done to improve Notting Hill Housing Group since then.

Geeta Nanda responded that a recent report by the Audit Commission had been far more positive of Notting Hill and had given it a one star rating. However, she recognised that there was some way to go. Notting Hill was currently looking at new contractors and improved delivery. It would also be joining Locata choice based lettings scheme. This was important because 90% of the tenants wanted such a scheme. As an organisation, there was a huge demand for transfers. Councillor Adronie Alford stated that as a councillor, she found that management issues still needed to be improved. Often, councillors contacting RSLs got no response, or at the most got a holding response, which was not sufficient. This was a general perception and did not apply equally to all seven RSL partners. It would be useful if RSLs could establish a rapport with both housing managers and councillors. Dilys Tisshaw advised that following a Housing management Sub-group all RSLs now had a protocol in place which supported a robust response time to queries. However, more could be done on this and it would be useful to met with councillors to discuss this.

Councillor Adronie Alford commented that some housing associations seemed to have particular difficulties in working with council departments. There were a number of examples where there had been failures on behalf of Housing Benefits or Housing Associations. Geeta Nanda advised that due to the large amount of stock in the borough, Notting Hill did have instances of housing benefit arrears. However, a tenant would not be evicted on this basis. Caroline Wagstaff added that there were some occasions where cheques did not match up, which created delays. When this occurred there would usually be consultation with the Housing Benefit team in order to trace the correct cheques. Much effort went in from both RSLs and Housing Benefits to solve these problems. Paul Doe advised that Shepherds Bush was running a pilot for a Housing Benefits officer to attend its offices, meet tenants, hold
surgeries and handle cases.

Councillor Stephen Cowan, Deputy Leader, stated that a council study had found that a third of tenants entitled to housing benefits had not taken them up. Those people not taking up entitlements were often the poorest and most vulnerable in the community. It would be interesting if the RSLs undertook a similar study and shared their evidence with the council. Councillor Napier asked for information regarding the strategies adopted by RSLs to deal with the problems of overcrowding. Paul Doe stated that Shepherds Bush Housing Association always tried to meet the borough’s requirements in its schemes. There had been issues around planning when trying to add extensions and loft conversions to street properties. However, often it was not possible to add extra rooms to properties because of funding restrictions. Dilys Tisshaw stated that Octavia had incentive schemes for under occupiers in place to try to free up under occupied properties and decrease overcrowding in other areas. However, such schemes, along with conversion schemes were limited to the number of people they could help.

Chris Jones, Strategy and Performance Manager, stated that, as with local authorities and ALMOs, the schemes to tackle overcrowding only helped relatively small numbers of people. The Overcrowding Strategy should bring best practice from authorities, ALMOS and RSLs forward to enable the borough to learn more effective ways to tackle the problem. Councillor Stephen Cowan advised that the ALG had written to a number of people in parliament to lobby the issue of overcrowding and requesting it be given greater priority in order to effectively address the problem.

Overcrowding had a negative impact on health, spreading illness such as TB. There was also a disproportionate number of people from BME backgrounds living in overcrowded accommodation and this needed to be addressed. Councillor Charlie Napier thanked the RSL representatives for attending and asked them whether there were issues they would like to raise with the council. Geeta Nanda commented that it was important for high- density sustainable schemes to continue to be developed in the borough. Paul Doe praised the council’s corporate will to support affordable housing in the borough and hoped that this would continue.

RESOLVED:-

THE MEETING COMMENCED AT 7.16 PM AND CLOSED AT 9.56 PM

Contact: Charlotte Saini
Scrutiny Co-ordinator
Scrutiny & Research Team
East Wing, Hammersmith Town Hall
King Street, London, W6 9JU
Tel: 020 8753 2094

THE GOVERNMENT - ITS AGENTS
LABOUR PARTY - (LABOUR PARTY) NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST


THE FACTS SO FAR.


THE PEOPLE - THE FACTS - THE POLITICS - THE LAW - THE MEDIA - THE CONTROL - THE INTELLIGENCE
BUT THE INTELLIGENCE IS NOT AS SECURE AS MANY THINK...

OTHERS KNOW ALL THE PEOPLE - THE FACTS - THE POLITICS - THE LAW - THE MEDIA - THE CONTROL - THE INTELLIGENCE - AND MORE!!!

ON THE DEATH OF THE VERY HIGHLY RESPECTED JOHN SMITH IN 1994, IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS FUNERAL SERVICE HELD AT WESTMINISTER ABBEY, DERRY IRVINE [THE LABOUR PARTY SHADOW LORD CHANCELLOR] WHEN CROSSING PARLIAMENT SQUARE, BUMPED INTO PETER MANDELSON [(A MAN THAT MOST GOOD DECENT AND RESPECTABLE PEOPLE WOULD NOT TRUST - SHARING THE SAME, SOME MIGHT ARGUE, PERVERSE PECCADILLOS AS PETER MANDELSON & REINALDO DA SILVA, NOT UNLIKE GERARD LEMOS & PAUL CRANE OF POND SQUARE, HIGHGATE) - PETER MANDELSON WAS HEAD OF COMMUNICATIONS OF THE LABOUR PARTY] & DERRY IRVINE ARGUED TO PETER MANDELSON THAT "TONY (B.LIAR)" [HIS EX PUPIL BARRISTER, EX ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD & LINCOLN'S INN (ONE OF THE FOUR INNS OF COURT - A LAWYER HAS TO JOIN AN INN OF COURT IN ORDER TO STUDY LAW FOR THE BAR EXAMS - THE SAME INN THAT MRS THATCHER & CHERIE BOOTH & CERTAIN NAMELESS OTHERS JOINED)] WOULD BE THE NEXT LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY.
THIS "SECRET SCHEME" WAS PUT IN PLACE & THE PLAN WAS MATERIALISED INTO FACT. [1994-1997]


THE DEVIOUS DECEIT WAS EXECUTED WITH THE INTENTION TO FAVOUR ONE SPECIFIC CANDIDATE IN ORDER TO DELIBERATELY EXCLUDE SOME GOOD PEOPLE: GORDON BROWN,
ROBIN COOK,
DONALD DEWAR (POOR DONALD - HOW HE WAS BETRAYED & CUCKOLDED (BY YOU KNOW WHOM WHO WENT OFF WITH HIS WIFE) - DONALD WAS A SOLICITOR BUT THE OTHER, WHO ACTED AS IF HE WAS CARDINAL WOLSEY, WAS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL BARRISTERS IN THE COUNTRY - HE WENT OUT IN DISCREDIT - AS THE PUBLIC DID NOT SUPPORT HIM AS A LABOUR CANDIDATE MP, HE USED HIS PROXY - TONY B.LIAR, TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF - DEVIOUSLY CLEVER - THIS VILE TACTIC WAS USED BY THE LABOUR LORD:

LORD TOM SAWYER OF 22 INCHMERY ROAD, CATFORD (EX CHAIRMAN OF THE LABOUR PARTY) WITH LABOUR MEMBER GERARD LEMOS OF 7 BISHAM GARDENS, HIGHGATE HIS SUCCESSOR AND PUPPET (APPOINTED ON HIS RECOMMENDATION AS THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT RACE ADVISER - WHO SET UP NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION RACE POLICIES & THESE DISCREDITED LABOUR PARTY POLICIES WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE FLAGSHIP RESISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD/HOUSING ASSOCIATION [TO BE ADOPTED BY ALL OTHER RSLs/HAs]:

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - THE FLAGSHIP REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD ('RSL') OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FLAGSHP HOUSING ASSOCIATION ('HA')
WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED AS CHAIRMAN OF
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
(BY THE LABOUR PARTY) HE HAD ALSO BEEN APPOINTED AS COMMISSIONER OF THE AUDIT COMMISSION, AND COMMISSIONER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BANKING COMMISSION AND MORTGAGE COMMISSION, AS RECOMMMENDED BY TOM SAWYER TO TONY BLAIR FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO MANY SENIOR POSTS, INCLUDING DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE BRITISH COUNCIL, DEPUTY TO LABOUR LORD NEIL KINNOCK) HIS FRIENDSHIP WITH LORD TOM SAWYER GOES BACK SOME 10 YEARS BEFORE 2004 - AS GOOD LABOUR PARTY FRIENDS.

LABOUR LORD TOM SAWYER WAS AN EXTREMELY GOOD FRIEND OF LABOUR MP, LATER LABOUR LORD:
LORD CLIVE SOLEY (AN EX PROBATION OFFICER AND EX LABOUR PARTY COUNCILLOR) OF 24 BIRCH GROVE, EALING COMMON (EX CHAIRMAN OF THE MOST POWERFUL LABOUR PARTY PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR PARTY (PLP) WHO ORDERED ALL THE LABOUR PARTY MPs TO VOTE FOR AN UNLAWFUL WAR IN IRAQ - IF NOT, EVERY ONE OF THEM WERE INFORMED BLUNTLY THEY WOULD 'LOSE THE WHIP' - MEANING THEY WOULD BE SACKED AS A LABOUR PARTY MP AND NOT CONSIDERED FOR PROMOTION TO THE FRONT BENCH OR TO CABINET) WAS IT NOT HIM WHO NOMINATED EX COUNCILLOR & EX LEADER OF EX LABOUR PARTY HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL ANDREW SLAUGHTER - ANOTHER LABOUR PARTY EX BARRISTER).

MANY OF THE MOST POWERFUL LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS DECEIVED, DUPED AND BETRAYED THEIR CONSTITUENTS - TOGETHER WITH BETRAYING VERY GOOD AND RESPECTABLE PEOPLE LIKE DONALD DEWAR, ROBIN COOK, MO MOWLAM, MAGARET BECKETT ET AL. AT THE ALTAR OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.

WHEN THERE WAS A CHOICE TO SUPPORT GOOD CONSTITUENTS WITHIN THEIR CONSTITUENCIES, THE LABOUR PARTY MP WICKEDLY UNDERMINED THE GOOD CONSTITUENTS AND ATTACKED THE CONSTITUENTS WITH VENOM & SPITE.

SPECIFIC LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT DECEITFULLY ACTED IN LEAGUE WITH LABOUR PARTY NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST MANAGEMENT.

GOOD RESPECTABLE PEOPLE WHO WERE ORIGINALLY LABOUR PARTY SUPPORTERS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THEIR LABOUR PARTY REPRESENTATIVES.

THE LABOUR PARTY REPRESENTATIVES DECEITFULLY TURNED ON THEIR GOOD CONSTITUENTS AND ATTACKED THEM WITH VENOM.
THE WAY OF THE BULLY
THE WAY OF THE COWARD
THE WAY OF NOTTING HILL HOME OWNERSHIP LIMITED
THE WAY OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
THE WAY OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING
THE WAY OF THE CHAIRMAN OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
THE WAY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
THE WAY OF THE DIRECTORS OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
THE WAY OF THE TRUSTEES OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

ATTACK THE WEAK
ATTACK THE VULNERABLE
ATTACK THE DISPOSSESSED
ATTACK THE INARTICULATE
ATTACK THE ILLITERATE
ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT LEARNED IN LAW
ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS
ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT AWARE TO SEEK EFFECTIVE REDRESS

HOW WICKED
HOW VILE
HOW DECEITFUL
HOW UNDERHAND
HOW DUPLICITOUS
HOW TREACHEROUS
NOT A SCRAP OF DECENCY
NOT A SCRAP OF GOOD MORALS
NOT A SCRAP OF GOOD FAITH
NOW ALL IN TERMINAL DECLINE!


WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND...


THE GOOD TRIUMPHED ON THURSDAY 4 MAY 2006


WHEN THE GOOD CONSTITUENTS OF 32 LONDON BOROUGHS OF GREATER LONDON WENT TO THE POLLS TO REGISTER THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE STATE OF THE NATION - GREATE LONDON AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY REGISTERED ITS FURY.

THEY WERE FURIOUS
THEY WERE ANGRY
THEY WERE LIVID
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING LIED TO
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING DECEIVED
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING CONFRONTED
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING HARASSED
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING TRUSTED WITH ILLIGALLITY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING TREATED WITH HOSTILITY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO BEING TREATED AS A SECOND CLASS OR AS A THIRD CLASS CITIZEN
THEY WERE NOT USED TO TREACHERY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO THEIR LANDLORD BEING A CREATURE OF THE LABOUR PARTY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LANDLORDS BEING A MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE LANDLORDS BEING A MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALL BEING A MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY
THEY WERE NOT USED TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE LANDLORDS ALL BEING A MEMBER OF THE LABOUR PARTY


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST:
IT IS A CREATURE OF THE LABOUR PARTY


HIGH PRIORITY IN HOUSING TO NON INDIGENOUS CITIZENS
LOW PRIORITY IN HOUSING TO INDIGENOUS CITIZENS


NON INDIGENOUS CITIZENS: PALATIAL PROPERTIES IN PRIME PLACES
INDIGENOUS CITIZENS: DEPRESSING DAMP SLUM IN DESPICABLE DISREPAIR


1. AFTER THE SECRET NATIONAL LABOUR PARTY SCHEME WAS DELIVERED
IN 1997;
TOM SAWYER AS LABOUR PARTY CHAIRMAN SENT OFF TWO OFFICIAL LETTERS:
i) HE OFFICIALLY CONGRATULATED TONY B.LIAR [AS WINNING THE GENERAL ELECTION - THIS MEANT PATRONAGE AND LARGESSE A PLENTY]
ii) HE OFFICIALLY WROTE TO (THE NOW LABOUR LORD) MICHAEL ABRAHAM LEVY
THE UNOFFICIAL TREASURER OF THE LABOUR PARTY NEC - UNDERMINING JACK DROMEY (NUMBER 3 IN THE OFFICIAL NEC HIERARCHY) (HUSBAND OF LABOUR PARTY ELECTIONS MINISTER HARRIET HARMAN - LABOUR PARTY MP FOR CAMBERWELL & PECKHAM - HOME OF GLAZER DELMAR SOLICITORS - WHERE COUNCILLOR DAME SALLY POWELL HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A SOLICITOR - AS LABOUR PARTY CABINET MEMBER OF REGENERATION OF HAMMESMITH & FULHAM & LIVING AT 30 COVERDALE ROAD, SHEPHERD'S BUSH - SHE IT WAS WHO INTRODUCED 24 HOUR ALCOHOLIC DRINKING LAWS, [WAS SHE NOT FOUND SLUMPED AT THE STEERING WHEEL IN HER CAR, MASSIVELY OVER THE DRINK OR DRUGS DRIVE LIMIT, DRUNK IN HER CAR IN HARLEY STREET AND WAS SHE NOT GIVEN A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE BUT A FINE?] ONE OF TWO LABOUR PARTY COUNCILLOR MEMBERS OF THE POWERFUL LABOUR PARTY NEC - SHE WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE ASTRONOMICAL REGENERATION BUDGET).

2. IN 1998 TOM SAWYER WAS APPOINTED BY TONY B.LIAR AS A LABOUR PARTY LORD

3. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER IN 1998, TONY B.LIAR NOMINATED LORD TOM SAWYER AS CHAIRMAN OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

WHO WAS TOM SAWYER?
HE WAS EX HEAD OF THE NATIONAL UNON OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ['NUPE']NUPE/UNISON UNION - SUPPOSEDLY REPRESENTING, AMONGST OTHERS, CENTRAL GOVENMENT & LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
HE WAS EX CHAIRMAN OF THE LABOUR PARTY
IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT 45+ PROPERTIES OF THE NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WERE MISAPPROPRIATED [CASH FOR TRUST PROPERTIES - I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SOME NHHT MANAGEMENT GIVE TRUST PROPERTIES FOR CASH IN BREACH OF TRUST - AT THE RIGHT PRICE] PETER REDMAN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE WAS OBLIGED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANY UNACCOUNTABLE PROPERTIES THAT WERE DISCOVERED BEING MISAPPROPRIATED [READ STOLEN] AND A SECRET PAY OFF WAS PAID BY LORD TOM SAWYER OUT OF TRUST FUNDS
SOON THERERAFTER IN 2004, LORD TOM SAWYER HURRIEDLY DEPARTED.
HE WAS VERY, VERY, FORTUNATE HE WAS NOT PROSECUTED.

HOLD ON - WHO DECIDES ON PROSECUTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY?
OH, IT IS OUR OLD LABOUR PARTY FRIEND - WAS HE NOT PROSECUTED FOR POSSESSION OF CANNABIS ONCE UPON A TIME IN HIS LAW STUDENT DAYS? - WELL WE ALL HAVE FAULTS!

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECECUTIONS (DPP) IS HEAD OF THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) - WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN KEN MACDONALD - THE EX HEAD TENANT OF MATRIX CHAMBERS - THE HEAD OF THE LAW OFFICES WHERE CHERIE BLAIR WORKS - THE WIFE OF THE LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER.
ON CHERIE BLAIR [CHERIE BOOTH'S] RECOMMENDATION KEN MACDONLD WAS APPOINTED BY TONY BLAIR AS DPP!

MIGHT THIS HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?

WHAT DO YOU THINK - EXERCISING YOUR WISE INTELLECT & JUDGMENT!

I SEE...

SO THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

WHO IS HEAD OF THE LAW FUNCTION IN THIS COUNTRY?
WH APPOINTS THE JUDGES?
WHO PROMOTES THE JUDGES?
WHO DISMISSES THE JUDGES?
WHO APPOINTS THE MAGISTRATES?
WHO DISMISSES THE MAGISTRATES?
WHO SITS AS HEAD OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS [JUDICIARY]?
WHO SITS AS HEAD OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS [LEGISLATURE]?
WHO SITS AS HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE/CABINET?
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STAFFING OF THE COURTS?
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTRODUCING MAJOR/MINOR LEGISLATION?
WELL IT WAS DERRY IRVINE - THE LORD CHANCELLOR [TONY B.LIAR's EX PUPIL MASTER]
AFTER THA BLAZING ROW...
IT IS NOW [LABOUR LORD] LORD CHARLES FALCONER [EX FLAT MATE OF TONY B.LIAR][ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON (ACL) BLAIR - HE HAS A BROTHER, WILLIAM BLAIR, WHO IS A PRACTISING BARRISTER - A RESPECTABLE AND HONOURABLE MAN]
WAS NOT CHERIE BLAIR/CHERIE BOOTH APPOINTED AS A JUDGE...
I WONDER WHO APPOINTED HER?
WAS IT NOT A LABOUR PARTY MEMBER... [SEE ABOVE!]

4. IN 2004, GERARD LEMOS [THE PUPPET OF LORD TOM SAWYER] WAS APPOINTED AT THE AGM. HE INTRODUCED THE NEGATIVE CONFRONTATIONAL COMMUNIST POLICIES THAT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN LIFTED FROM CHAIRMAN MAO'S LITTLE RED BOOK. HE CLEARLY HAD A STRONG LEANING TO COMMUNIST CHINA.


THE LOCAL ELECTIONS HAVE SIGNALLED OUR POSITION
VERY LOUD
AND
VERY CLEAR!!!

YET...


THE DOOR IS OPEN...


AS IT ALWAYS WAS...


HOW WILL THE LABOUR PARTY AND THEIR AGENTS, SUCH AS AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, NOW ACT?


WILL THEY SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL?


WILL THEY LISTEN?


WILL THEY COMMUNICATE?


WILL THEY AVOID CONFRONTATION?


WILL THEY ACT AS MANAGING PROPERTIES NOT MANAGING PEOPLE?


WILL THEY NO LONGER CONFRONT GOOD RESPECTABLE TENANTS?


WILL THEY NO LONGER HARASS GOOD RESPECTABLE TENANTS?


WILL THEY ABANDON THE CRIMINAL TACTICS THEY HAVE EMPLOYED (OF WHICH THERE IS OVERWHELMING & UNBELIEVABLE PROOF)?


WILL THEY ABANDON THE: SAWYER, REDMAN, LEMOS, DAVIES, COLE, LABOUR PARTY POLICIES OF NEGATIVE DISCRIMINIATION AGAINST GOOD RESPECTABLE TENANTS?


24 BILLION POUNDS [24,000,000,000 POUNDS] IS A VAST AMOUNT OF TAXPAYERS MONEY TO BE UNACCOUNTABLE - AVAILABLE TO THE EXECUTIVE TO DISBURSE AS NECESSARY TO - IN THE MAIN - NON INDIGENOUS CITIZENS?


THE HOUSING CORPORATION IS UNACCOUNTABLE TO PARLIAMENT BUT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE EXECUTIVE [LACK OF TRANSPARENCY - LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY - LACK OF CONSULTATION]


THE AUDIT COMMISSION IS UNACCOUNTABLE TO PARLIAMENT BUT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE EXECUTIVE [LACK OF TRANSPARENCY - LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY - LACK OF CONSULTATION]


THE BRITISH COUNCIL IS HEADED UP AS A CRONY COUNCIL [LACK OF TRANSPARENCY - LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY - LACK OF CONSULTATION]


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST IS IN RECEIPT OF UNACCOUNTABLE TAXPAYERS MONEY [LACK OF TRANSPARENCY - LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY - LACK OF CONSULTATION]


THE EXECUTIVE [OF THE LABOUR PARTY] AGUE THAT RSLs PROVIDE HOMES FOR 'KEY WORKERS' (LIKE POLICEMEN & NURSES).


THE TRUTH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

1. RSLs/HAs PROVIDE HOMES FOR NON INDIGENOUS CITIZENS FIRST -
2. DAMP HOVELS IN MASSIVE DISEPAIR TO INDIGENOUS CITIZENS LAST -


WILL THIS DISCREDITED POLICY CONTINUE AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS?


IT BETTER NOT... OR LABOUR WILL WITNESS A SIMILAR RESULT AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION ...


WE DO NOT THREATEN - WE PROMISE!


HOUSING POLICY COMES UNDER THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (ODPM) AS DOES THE UNACCOUNTABLE HOUSING CORPORATION (WHICH PROVIDES UNACCOUNTABLE TAXPAYERS MONEY) - AS DOES THE AUDIT COMMISSION (WHICH IS UNACCOUNTABLE AND INSPECTS THE RSLs/HAs SO IT GIVES THE RSLs/HAs EXCELLENT RATINGS - UNLIMITED TAXPAYERS MONEY GOES INTO RSL/HA HOUSING (FOR VOTES) - GERYMANDERING IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET AS MANY VOTES IN MARGINAL CONSTITUENCIES OR IN CONSERVATIVE BOROUGHS OR WARDS).

BECAUSE JOHN PRESCOTT [THE EX BRITISH SHIPPING COMPANY, P&O, STEWARD WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO SERVE THE OFFICERS ON THE P&O FERRIES IN THE MERCHANT NAVY - P&O HAS RECENTLY BEEN SOLD OFF TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - DUE TO, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, THE WRECKING TACTICS OF INDIVIDUALS LACKING FORESIGHT LIKE THE NON-COMMUNICATIVE CONFRONTATIONAL JOHN PRESCOTT - HIS BOOK: 'NOT WANTED ON VOYAGE' - WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE ULTRA SECRET SCHEME FOR GERRYMANDERING THE VOTE.
SO TONY B.LIAR WILL NOT WANT TO SACK 'TWO JAGS(SHAGS)' PRESCOTT.
WHO BREACHED THE CABINET CODE?


COMMUNIST CHARLES CLARKE [HOME SECETARY - IN CHARGE OF MI5 - SECURITY SERVICE] HAS GONE - AS HE HAD TO GO - AS WAS ROBUSTLY ARGUED ON THIS SITE BY VARIOUS CONTRIBUTORS.

PATRICIA HEWITT HAS GONE - IN CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & THE NHS - AS WAS ROBUSTLY ARGUED ON THIS SITE.


CHARLES CLARKE HAS GONE - LIKE PETER REDMAN [LABOUR PARTY MEMBER CHIEF EXECUTIVE] IN DISCREDIT

HE HAS GONE LIKE LORD TOM SAWYER [LABOUR PARTY MEMBER CHAIRMAN] IN DISCREDIT

HE HAS GONE LIKE GERARD LEMOS [LABOUR PARTY MEMBER CHAIRMAN] IN DISCREDIT [HE HAS RUN AWAY TO COMMUNIST CHINA - WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING TO GIVE HIS REASONS TO THE MEMBERS (THE ONE POUND SHAREHOLDERS CAREFULLY SELECTED BY THE CHAIRMAN - WHAT A DISCREDITED SHAM OF A LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY - THIS IS UNKNOWN IN BRITISH CORPORATE AND/OR BRITISH TRUST ACCOUNTABILITY HISTORY) AND THEN TO TENDER HIS RESIGNATION (IN DISGRACE)

KATE DAVIES [LABOUR PARTY MEMBER CHIEF EXECUTIVE] NEEDS TO GO

ALAN COLE [LABOUR PARTY MEMBER CHAIRMAN] NEEDS TO GO


ALAN COLE HAS NOT SUPPORTED THE GOOD RESPECTABLE TENANTS


KATE DAVIES HAS AT NO TIME SUPPORTED THE GOOD RESPECTABLE TENANTS OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - JUST USED CRIMINAL TACTICS AGAINST THEM - AS SHE APPEARS TO WANT THE MANAGEMENT OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST TO ACT AS A LATTER DAY PETER RACHMAN - THE VILE, EVIL, DECEITFUL SLUM LANDLORD OF NOTTING HILL - WHERE NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST STARTED AS A RESULT OF THIS EVIL MAN - WITH THE EXCELLENT GOOD INTENTIONS OF REVEREND PETER KENRICK (THE ANGLICAN PRIEST) & WINNIFRED ATTWELL (THE WEALTHY & VERY GOOD INTENTIONED SINGER) WHO PUT MONEY IN TRUST IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE DESPICABLE DAMP HOUSING THAT WAS IN MASSIVE DISREPAIR THAT GAVE RISE TO ADVERSE HEALTH PROBLEMS THAT GOOD RESPECTABLE TENANTS WERE OBLIGED TO BEAR AND OBLIGED TO LIVE IN.


BUT NOW THERE ARE RIGHTS - LEGAL RIGHTS - HUMAN RIGHTS - REMEDIES - THAT WILL DEAL WITH SUCH BETRAYERS OF GOOD RESPECTABLE PEOPLE.


ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND NO MORE.


A POWERFUL SIGNAL WAS SENT OUT ON THURSDAY 4 MAY 2006.


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST IS RATHER LIKE AN 'ALMO' - AN ARMS LENGTH MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION ('ALMO') ACTING AS A PROXY FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ('ODPM') - DESCRIBED IN AUTHORITATIVE REPORTS AS A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FULL OF DISCRIMINATION & BULLYING & BEING RUN LIKE A PANTOMIME HORSE!


WILL NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST LISTEN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE...


1. DISMISS ALAN COLE: "THE 'GOOD' (THESE WERE EVIL) SEEDS GERARD LEMOS HAS SOWN..."
2. DISMISS KATE DAVIES : "THE 'GOOD' (THESE WERE EVIL) SEEDS GERARD LEMOS HAS SOWN..."


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST IS NOW "ON NOTICE"...


HOW WILL IT REACT...

Important Notes

If you are registering a Charity:

As a Charity, you will need approval from the Charity Commission. They recommend that you register the company before formally applying for charitable status. The Charity Commission is the regulator and registrar of Charities in England and Wales. They aim to help Charities perform effectively, and monitor their compliance. A charity registration implies credibility and integrity for your company. If you wish to use the word "Charity" as part of your company name, Companies House may require prior, written approval from the Charity Commission.

Yes but Notting Hill Housing Trust discrimates and abuses (its) tenants very badly and has never registered with the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission has informed that Charities 'cannot trade' and that Notting Hill Housing Trust is registered with the Financial Services Authority and not with the Charity Commission. I asked whether NHHT has previously registered as a charity. According to the Charities Commission, NHHT has never ever registered as a Charity. So, therefore Notting Hill Housing Trust is in breach of, amongst other things, Trading Standards regulations.


NOTTING HILL HOUSING LIMITED
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT 1965
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 16 OF THE ACT
57959\0625

Publication Date: Wednesday, 19 April 2006
Notice Code: 2802

Industrial and Provident Societies
NOTTING HILL HOUSING LIMITED
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT 1965
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 16 OF THE ACT

Notice is hereby given that the Authority has, pursuant to the above-mentioned section, this day cancelled the registration of Notting Hill Housing Limited (Register No 29988 R), the registered office of which is at Grove House, 27 Hammersmith Grove, London W6 OJL at its request. The society ceases to enjoy the privileges of a registered society, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by the society, which may be enforced against it as if such cancellation had not taken place.

Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS.

10 April 2006.
(1003)

CORPORATE INTELLIGENCE asserts: [INLAND REVENUE REF: XN13652]

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST ‘Charity’ Shops are all part of one of the largest and most lucrative of ‘Charitable Trusts’ in this country.

If NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is a Charitable TRUST, then why does it commit UNLAWFUL ACTS in relation to flagrantly breaching trading standards and clear, unambiguous, strict laws of this country, amongst others, breaches of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1979, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, and the Sale of Goods Act 1979?

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 asserts, amongst other things, that: i) In a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that Goods must correspond to their description [Section 13(1)]; ii) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that Goods must be of merchantable quality [Section 14(2)]; iii) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business for a particular purpose, there is an implied condition that Goods supplied are reasonably fit for their purpose. [Section 14(3)]

It is also a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to exclude liability for IMPLIED TERMS in a Contract.

ALL these laws are some of the many laws that SUPPORT the vulnerable tenants:
i) Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998
ii) Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) 1997
iii) Protection from Eviction Act (PEA) 1977
iv) Criminal Law Act (CLA) 1977
v) Housing Act (HA) 1988
vi) Housing Act (HA) 2004
vii) Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) – the overriding objective is to enable the Court to deal with cases justly.


BASIC IMPLIED TERMS OF ANY TENANCY:
1. COVENANT (agreement) BY LANDLORD NOT TO DEROGATE (deprive) FROM THE GRANT (of the Tenancy)!
There is a STRICT obligation on the landlord not to DEROGATE [or deprive a Tenant] from the GRANT of an Assured Tenancy – the landlord must NOT do anything on the retained property by the Assured Tenant, so as to make the land that has been let to the Assured Tenant less fit for the particular purpose for which the letting was made. Yet, NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has broken the tenancy contracts of too many tenants in CIVIL law and in CRIMINAL law. [BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT!]

2. COVENANT (agreement) BY LANDLORD of QUIET ENJOYMENT!
It is UNLAWFUL for the Landlord or his agent or any other person associated with the landlord to unlawfully intimidate or harass the tenant. [If not, immediately go to COURT!]

3. LANDLORD MUST PROVIDE A PROPERTY FIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION
The property let by the Landlord must be free from DAMP, INFESTATION of any kind, STRUCTURALLY SOUND, not a danger by its SECURITY or SAFETY and the COMMON PARTS MUST BE SAFE, WELL LIT, and any and ALL LIFTS IN GOOD WORKING ORDER, with a working phone in them, in case of break down. Fire appliances and fire safety equipment must be available throughout the property. No asbestos. No live wires (whether this is next to water leaks or not). It would be UNLAWFUL for the landlords to provide heaters that spew out CARBON MONOXIDE poison if th(is)ese fact/s ha(s)ve been notified to the landlords.
If the landlords promise to put the structure or fitted carpets or any essential part of the property in good order and fail to do so, this constitutes an ANICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT! [DAMAGES are then OBTAINABLE!]
Proof of a breach makes the Landlord STRICTLY LIABLE – STRICT LIABILITY.

4. LANDLORD MUST PROVIDE A PROPERTY THAT IS SUITABLE
If a Tenant suffers from CLAUSTROPHOBIA and/or the fear/stress compounded by or brought on by restricted spaces and/or this medical condition has been expressly asserted to the Landlord, the landlord MUST immediately take the necessary action or suffer the consequences accordingly. It is UNLAWFUL to provide a property that is NOT suitable for the particular tenant.
If a tenant is ‘dumped’ in a damp flat in massive disrepair and as a result, the tenant sustains severe pains and spasms due to the adverse, hostile, deliberate and vindictive acts of his landlords, the tenant accrues a LEGAL RIGHT of action against the landlord.
It becomes UNLAWFUL for the landlord NOT to take the necessary lawful action.

5. PROPERTY MUST BE SAFE
If a tenant suffers as a result of the landlord NOT taking the degree of care that a LAWFUL landlord would take, the landlord will be held STRICTLY LIABLE – STRICT LIABILITY.


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has UNLAWFULLY committed the following acts:
i) The management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has UNLAWFULLY bricked up the windows of a tenant’s property,

ii) The management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has UNLAWFULLY bricked up a tenant’s easement to his garden,

iii) The management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has UNLAWFULLY broken into a tenant’s flat not once - but twice - stealing the tenant’s files and deliberately and UNLAWFULLY causing criminal damage to the tenant’s personal locks and UNLAWFULLY committing break-ins and UNLAWFUL entry into the tenant’s flat. The second time the tenant photographed some of the management of the landlords committing CRIMINAL acts [COMMITTING CRIMES] by two cameras, whereby the management were identified as tooled up with offensive weapons and after following the management back to the staff entrance of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST where other management were waiting to receive the CRIMINAL MANAGEMENT [to try to subvert the evidence?] the tenant thereafter was immediately granted a High Court Injunction and the High Court Judge saw evidence of the RACHMAN methods perpetrated by the EVIL landlord. Next time it was stated IT WILL BE immediate PRISON - even For The CHIEF EXECUTIVE!

The two latest UNLAWFUL matters, the tenants obtained an Injunction against the management and against the Chief Executive [KATE DAVIES] of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST who acted in a CRIMINAL way, after she was notified of the first UNLAWFUL Break-In by RECORDED DELIVERY and by FAX. The Injunction asserts that the CHIEF EXECUTIVE [(THE EVIL) KATE DAVIES] can be: i) IMPRISONED, ii) FINED and/or iii) HAVE HER ASSETS SEIZED, if she commits and/or incites through her management, once again: a) the tampering of the Assured Tenant’s electricity [so that the Tenant is obliged ‘to crawl on his hands and knees’ [this appeared in the local newspaper (dated Friday April 28, 2006 – the very week before the LOCAL ELECTIONS on Thursday, 4 May 2006)] in order to get in or get out of his flat], b) the tampering of the tenant’s water supply, and/or c) the theft of the tenant’s own personal or official mail.

How could anyone be so EVIL and so WICKED to vulnerable tenants?

The documentary evidence speaks volumes.
[Did the Chief Executive do the same at SERVITE HOUSES – as Chief Executive?]
[Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - No cause of action may be founded upon an IMMORAL or ILLEGAL act.]

All these matters NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST have been known to have breached.
All of these breaches are UNLAWFUL.

As the photograph above indicates, the entrances to some of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST ‘Charity’ shops are DANGEROUS and can cause injuries. This is also UNLAWFUL.
It is also a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to exclude liability for DEATH and/or PERSONAL INJURY. [Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977, Section 2(1)]

Would you really want to sustain a serious injury in order to part with your hard earned money in order to consider ‘throwing away’ your hard earned money to a highly questionable ‘Charitable’ cause?

Do the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST ‘Charity’ shops still exist or have they been re-branded? Is this WRONGFUL TRADING? Is this FRAUDULENT TRADING?

It is known of at least 2 (TWO) good, pleasant, sociable, respectable and extremely honourable tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST who complained in writing to the senior management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST about the very DANGEROUS defects in their homes which were the legal responsibility of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST which not only allowed but INCITED breaches of the strict LEGAL DUTY OF CARE to be UNLAWFULLY caused by the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and this breach of the lawful duty of care CAUSED the DEATHS of at least 2 (TWO) good, respectable Tenants.

As a result of the NEGLIGENT/RECKLESS action of the senior management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, the good respectable tenants were to die [yes, DIE] UNLAWFULLY.
Were they killed?
They certainly DIED.
Both DIED cursing [yes, CURSING. I know, as I have the evidence] NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and its senior management are EVIL beyond measure.

The senior management, acting with gay abandon [as under the authority of GERARD LEMOS (yes, him of 7 BISHAM GARDENS, HIGHGATE) – ex Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – the Government Race Adviser – Commissioner of the Audit Commission – Commissioner of the Civil Service – Deputy Chairman of the British Council – all nominated by LABOUR PARTY LORD, TOM SAWYER (yes, him of 22 INCHMERY ROAD, CATFORD), ex Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and before that ex Chairman of the LABOUR PARTY and before that, head of the NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (NUPE) being in a position of responsibility for Central Government and Local Government employees – now known as UNISON UNION, and then his nominations were automatically appointed by LABOUR PARTY MEMBER, TONY BLAIR – yes, TOM SAWYER, as the representative of the workers has to be ‘on board’], wafts on with no communication to tenants who are also Beneficiaries of a Charitable Trust, where the management act with confrontation, a lack of consultation, hostility, intimidation and harassment, oblivious to the grave concerns and legal consequences that mount on a daily basis.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has a LEGAL DUTY to adhere strictly to Trust law. If it does not, any Beneficiary of the Charitable Trust can immediately apply to the Court to initiate an action in Breach of Trust.

What are the objectives of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST ‘Charity’ shops?

The landlord, NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST owns 19,000+ properties [worth over 4 BILLION (£4,000,000,000) + pounds in the prime locations across London - which are legally owned by the Beneficiaries of the Charitable Trust.
YES, but who are all those Beneficiaries of the Charitable Trust to whom we refer?

They are the 50,000 [fifty thousand] tenants of ‘the flagship’ Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) referred to by the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST as only mere ‘CUSTOMERS’ – no more. It sounds as if the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are referring to some kind of 50,000 [fifty thousand] illiterate, inarticulate ‘VEGETABLES’ who are wholly unaware of their immediate surroundings and who do not have any kind of brain, as if they are those who will never ever take effective action against the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST regarding the severe UNLAWFUL disrepair of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST properties and/or the confrontational, hostile, aggressive attitude of intimidation and harassment that is demonstrated regularly by the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST to the good tenants that raise legitimate complaints to the senior management.

Yet NO RESPONSE – AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN!

The only solution is the LEGAL solution - the COURTS.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST treat the tenants as: i) ‘VEGETABLES’, and to anyone who complains in writing, ii) Place a ‘PLANT’ next to the ‘VEGETABLE’. [The Psychological War carried out by Proxy/Others!]

If a good reasonable tenant raises legitimate complaints in writing, immediately, 2 (two) courses of action are initiated by the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST:
i) Place the good tenant DELIBERATELY in PURPORTED RENT ARREARS [thank you local authority for your co-operation, do the local authority not deliberately INHIBIT or STOP the Housing Benefit for NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST good respectable tenants?

As we all know, NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are on first name terms with the Housing Department of the Local Authority and are they also not members of the same political party who support each other?
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST supply the properties from their vastly expanding housing stock from unaccountable taxpayers money from the ODPM which washes through the unaccountable HOUSING CORPORATION; whilst the housing authority of the local authority has the legal duty to house the various housing priority ‘cases’ and the local authority rely on NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST to provide the properties.

Does not the local authority feel obligated to comply with the requests of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST to deliberately inhibit or stop a tenant’s Housing Benefit?

Yes – NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST manage people or ‘customers’ not houses!]; ii) place a ‘TENANT FROM HELL’ [a ‘PLANT’ placed next door to a good tenant.] [Is this not where ‘the CYRENIANS’ comes in particularly useful? – there is a contract that was entered into between ‘the CYRENIANS’ and NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST for a considerable sum of money whereby the Charity called ‘THE CYRENIANS’ needs to house people with severe psychological problems, often with severe drug and anti–social tendencies, to place prospective tenants which are placed at the discretion of the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – ideally, as far as the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are concerned, to place unlawfully such tenants next door to the tenant who has raised legitimate complaints in writing? and iii) place the tenant in administrative isolation – then besiege the good tenant with local government and central government imperatives.
Do this – or else!

ISOLATE, DEMONISE and (try to) DISCREDIT?

This is where the astronomically expensive specifically designed NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST computer comes in useful!
This is where the Patrol Officers come in useful.
This is where the Tenant Officers come in useful.
All EVIL tactics done deliberately to intimidate and harass good tenants.
It never fails to amaze the wicked tactics NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST can employ!

In the meantime, the management deliberately and UNLAWFULLY switch off the lights in the common parts of so many NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST properties of vulnerable tenants!
These are the actions of CRIMINALS.
The new RACHMANISM!

KEEP A DIARY.
Take the right LEGAL steps.

With ‘VEGETABLES’ and ‘PLANTS’ come ‘THE GHOSTS’.
Who are ‘THE GHOSTS’?
One NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST tenant living in what was, until 4th May 2006, the ‘flagship’ Borough, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (since 1968 – 38 years) was very recently unlawfully denied his vote. He was informed by specific individuals in authority that he did not live in a particular building. This was a deliberate lie. This was a deliberate deceit.
Yet specific individuals who are employees of the local authority of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham knowingly and unlawfully placed 4 (four) ‘GHOSTS’ in an empty flat which they knew was empty and the flat has only ever housed one adult, and under the postal vote, allowed four votes to be registered and recorded for that particular tiny flat. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham when informed of the reality and of the full facts, acted with surprising intransigence, inertia, complacency and hostility in not being prepared to remove ‘THE GHOSTS’. [Is it true that there is an identification number on the polling card so is it not possible for those in a position of authority to check how an individual voted? Is it still the case that Labour Party membership is an implied term of the employment contract for those employees employed within the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham – and the only way for ensuring promotion for the senior officers of ‘the flagship’ Borough?]

If the tenant does not begin as a ‘VEGETABLE’, after careful initial screening by NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – the Tenant Questionnaire – then NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST place ‘PLANTS’ with psychological problems next to the carefully targeted tenant. Yes, NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST house ‘VEGETABLES’ and ‘PLANTS’ in their properties – where all private landlords house REAL people with REAL feelings and REAL emotions. Indeed, if a good respectable tenant does not start as INCAPACITATED and VULNERABLE – the research department of social policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) together with the Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST know how to incapacitate a good respectable tenant to the level of a passive ‘VEGETABLE’. Then they house ‘PLANTS’ and thereafter they seem intent to be determined to house ‘GHOSTS’.

[LSE is the college of London University from where Cherie Booth/Cherie Blair undertook her LLB law degree (before she undertook her Bar exams at Lincoln’s Inn as did TONY BLAIR). She met DERRY IRVINE (the part-time law lecturer) at LSE – who later put her and TONY BLAIR together [as pupils in his law chambers]. In 1994 on the Leader of the LABOUR PARTY, the Barrister, John Smith’s death, DERRY IRVINE arranged, through PETER MANDELSON, for TONY BLAIR to be the leader of the ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP, whom DERRY IRVINE [as Shadow Lord Chancellor, the latter day Cardinal Wolsey to the autocrat dictator, Henry VIII] believed he could control. Now MICHAEL LEVY (11/7/44) of Chase House, Nan Clarks Lane, at Mill Hill, London NW7 4HH believes the same.

Did he not inveigle himself into the very heart of ‘THE LABOUR PROJECT’?
Did he not inveigle himself into the very heart of ‘TONY BLAIR’?
Did he not inveigle himself into the very heart of ‘CHERIE BOOTH/BLAIR’?
Did he not inveigle himself into the very heart of ‘CHEQUERS – AND ITS TENNIS COURT’?
Did he not inveigle himself into the very heart of the ‘LABOUR PARTY TREASURY - DONATIONS or is it quasi ‘LOANS’ (with no intermediaries – TONY blackmailed?)?

So very easy for a good political party to be TOTALLY CORRUPTED?


TONY BLAIR nominated MICHAEL LEVY as Envoy in the Middle East (appointed on 14/5/2004).
Yet, is there not a slight question of a Conflict of Interest for him to be nominated as a British Envoy in the Middle East?
Does he have NO training in diplomacy?
Would he be accepted by both parties in the Middle East to broker a dispute, to be seen as Impartial?
Is there not also a question concerning ACCOUNTABILITY?
…and a question of TRANSPARENCY?

Who, after all, is the Official Treasurer of the LABOUR PARTY?

JACK DROMEY (21/9/1948) sits on the NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (NEC) of the LABOUR PARTY as (Official Labour Party) TREASURER – the husband of HARRIET HARMAN MP (20/7/1950) of 1 Winterbrook Road, London SE24 9HZ who is a LABOUR PARTY Minister in the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) responsible for Elections and ‘Crown’ (the Illusion/Perception/not the Reality) matters (“How ironic ‘Harry’, seeing as you worked in Brent Law Centre as a solicitor and knowing so well your staunchly Republican views? We even spoke about them, in private…”) ‘under’ CHARLES LESLIE FALCONER (19/11/1951) of 34 Alwyne Road, London N1 2HW from Fountain Court Chambers (TONY BLAIR’s ex flat mate) OR is the REAL Treasurer the UNOFFICIAL TREASURER (the qualified accountant – M&G Records etc.) MICHAEL ABRAHAM LEVY (who has direct access to the PRIME MINISTER with no intermediaries) – Mr LABOUR PARTY LORD ‘CASH-POINT’?]

WHY target VULNERABLE tenants?

To target vulnerable tenants is the most deliberate and evil scheme that any person or entity could activate in order to socially engineer an incapacitated vulnerable class which suffers daily STRESS, ANXIETY and ADVERSE HEALTH.

The LABOUR (PARTY) Government SOCIAL EXCLUSION DEPARTMENT maintains very close contact with NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, the LSE and the ODPM Research Department.

SOCIAL EXCLUSION – this is no Freudian slip – this is DELIBERATE.
This is UNCONSCIONABLE!
This is WICKED!
This is VILE!
This is EVIL!

A genuine CARING COMMUNITY would focus on SOCIAL INCLUSION but NOT the LABOUR PARTY.

LABOUR are DEVIOUS
LABOUR are CONFRONTATIONAL
LABOUR are WICKED
LABOUR are EVIL

This was no mistake.

This coming week more vulnerable NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST tenants will be deliberately targeted by the EVIL EMPIRE.
The management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST waft off in a drunken or is it a smoked insensibility laughing to their exclusive wine bars in Hammersmith!

The more the Evil from NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – the more ‘THE (GOOD) HIDDEN HAND’ will knock out the Evil of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

If the EVIL is increased, this WILL result in the END of the Evil Empire.

Is this WISE?

We want BALANCE not POLARISATION in POLITICS!

BUT we will react – to the EVIL that attacks us.
We know who YOU ARE.
We know where YOU LIVE.
We know you are CORRUPT.
We know you DECEIVE.
We know you are out to SUBVERT DEMOCRACY.
We know you are out to SUBVERT the LAW!

So, the legal Beneficiaries of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are known by the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST simply as mere ‘Customers’.
These so-called ‘Customers’ are not receiving ‘a service’ but are the unconditional and lawful inheritors of the Wills of the many testators and the Beneficiaries of substantial government largesse.

The pretext as an aim of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST Charity is for “Key Workers”.

Why would “Key Workers” be the recipients or the cause of a Charitable Trust? Surely that does not fall within the scope of the 4 (four) classic heads of what does constitute a Charity. [The four heads of Charity being: i) Relief of Poverty, ii) Advancement of Education, iii) Advancement of Religion, iv) Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community, not falling under the other heads.]

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has paid some 24 BILLION [£24,000,000,000] of unaccountable taxpayers money through the unaccountable HOUSING CORPORATION which falls under the responsibility of the Right (Dis)Honourable JOHN PRESCOTT, and such taxpayers money is then paid into REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS (RSLs) otherwise known as HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (HAs).

The REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS (RSLs) or HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (HAs)
are given their quality rating by the unaccountable and non-transparent entity called the AUDIT COMMISSION which also falls under the responsibility of the Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). The responsibility of the Right (Dis)Honourable John Prescott.

The Department (ODPM) is described in independent authoritative reports as ‘dysfunctional’ and in a way that its management is ‘incompetent, and inefficient’ and acting like a ‘pantomime horse’, with a total ‘lack of accountability and waste.’
WHY?

In order to facilitate the provision of housing for non indigenous citizens who in their gratitude [MAY] vote for the LABOUR PARTY.
But what of the Indigenous citizens?
BLAIR, PRESCOTT, KELLY, SAWYER, SOLEY, RAYNSFORD, LEVY, POWELL (Jonathan, brother of Charles – and Dame Sally Ann (Vickers) Powell (2/10/1955) – ex Cabinet member of Regeneration on the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham of 30 Coverdale Road, W12 8JL one of only 2 LABOUR PARTY Councillors on the National Executive Committee (NEC), wife of Iain Coleman the ex LABOUR PARTY MP for Hammersmith and Fulham), SLAUGHTER, LEMOS, DAVIES, appear to care not a Jot!
The Dysfunctional Dictator appears to care not one Iota.

Just HATE, GREED, HOSTILITY and WAR.
Has George Orwell’s (‘Eric Blair’) ‘1984’ arrived – the imagined date of the elective (evil) dictator (B.LIAR)?

‘The flagship’ Registered Social Landlord/Housing Association is NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

The records of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST [‘the flagship’ Registered Social Landlord (RSL) in this country] [a bastion and citadel that favours LABOUR PARTY policy] speak volumes, as do the records of ‘the flagship’ Borough in this country. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham that has doggedly supported the LABOUR PARTY [whatever the politics of central government and its OFFICERS continue today to doggedly pursue LABOUR PARTY policy]

Thursday, 4 May 2006 was a turning point across the country – LOCAL ELECTION TIME!

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST tenants ACTED decisively!
WHY?
Because
THE CHAIRMAN
THE DIRECTORS
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
THE COMPANY SECRETARY
Did they not all support the LABOUR PARTY?
The LABOUR PARTY showed, by their actions, that they hated ALL indigenous tenants.

The evidence indicates clearly that the LABOUR PARTY despise indigenous tenants.
The LABOUR PARTY despise patriotism. They try to call it “RACISM”.
The LABOUR PARTY wanted to destroy good respectable tenants who are British.
The LABOUR PARTY insist on MULTICULTURISM taking PRIORITY.
The work of the discredited GERARD LEMOS – ex Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – revolved around social engineering - using NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST tenants.

Similarly, the senior OFFICERS of the London Borough of HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM did they not also all support the LABOUR PARTY? The Implied Term of the Employment Contract?

Can the London Borough of HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM not unlawfully INHIBIT or stop the Housing Benefit of tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST when they want to, to the assent of their LABOUR PARTY friends at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, just as a tap of water is turned on so it can be turned off? The only difference is that ‘the water’ is not water but ‘Housing Benefit’, to pay rent for NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST flats. Both the London Borough of HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM and NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are inter-connected.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST can decide the Rent levels - £40 per week or £400 per week for the same studio/bedsit flat?

‘RENT RE-STRUCTURING’ has been imposed on NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST [if it wants to implement it - in its discretion] by the LABOUR PARTY which is a scam to massively increase rents to market rents to hit Council tenants and Registered Social Landlord (RSL)/Housing Association (HA) tenants.
This was ALL put in place by LABOUR PARTY LORD, CHARLES LESLIE FALCONER?
WHO IS HE?

Is he not TONY BLAIR’s ex flat mate who lives in his own private home and his ex flat mate was TONY BLAIR who nominated him as LABOUR PARTY LORD CHANCELLOR – to place him in charge of all laws, all courts, all judges (their appointment, promotion and dismissal), all magistrates (their appointment and dismissal), all law officers (their appointment, promotion and dismissal) and all law staff (their appointment, promotion and dismissal) in the UK?
Oh, and he is in charge of the House of Lords as a Parliamentary Chamber (Legislature), the House of Lords as the highest Court of Appeal in the UK (Judiciary) and perhaps the most senior (and sane?) person in the Cabinet (Executive). With control over ALL three arms of Government! [And not forgetting, in charge of CROWN and CONSTITUTIONAL issues and has responsibility to oversee the three (3) British so-called places of lower taxation or ‘tax havens’ where Cherie (and Leo) have been known to enjoy the beach and the hospitality for good measure – all at taxpayers expense (staying ‘in private’ at Government House)? Is it not also a good place to organise some off-shore Banking, Cherie? Particularly in one of the Channel Islands (where no attempts have been made nor will ever be made to socially engineer any of the people – vulnerable or otherwise)? Why not educate TONY about REAL ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’ (before it is too late?)!]

So much for TOTAL control of the Elective Dictatorship.

Similarly, Central Government is closely inter-related with Local Government. Is that not the reason why Jonathan Buchanan was nominated to the Board of Directors/Trustees of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – the man from the LABOUR Government Intelligence Service [whose duty it is to spy on others – as tenants of the Trust - at the will of the LABOUR Government] was he not ‘planted’ on to the Board of Directors/Trustees as a Director/Trustee?

Is that not why each and every Director/Trustee appointed to the Board of Directors/Trustees of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has a specific contribution to make in order to oversee the direction of the Evil LABOUR PARTY policies, in order to target good, respectable tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST who have raised legitimate complaints to the management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.

It is clear why there is no response.
It is clear why various agencies support NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST with enthusiasm!

This is all LABOUR PARTY B.LIARISM at its high water mark!

This is the LABOUR PARTY DESTRUCTION OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY at its high water mark!

This is ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP at its high water mark!

Is this not the way of DYSFUNCTIONAL cowards and bullies in Cabinet and in the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST Board of Directors/Trustees at its high water mark?

We believe in the rule of LAW.
We believe in DEMOCRACY.
We believe in ACCOUNTABILITY.
We believe in TRANSPARENCY.

We believe that those who govern as ‘the AGENTS’ of us THE PEOPLE or ‘the PRINCIPALS’ – those ‘AGENTS’ can be removed at OUR WILL – and it SHALL be so!

Recently, on 27 April 2006 the Company Secretary of NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP, acting on the advice of the Board of Directors/Trustees [are they not ‘the Puppets’ of the LABOUR political party?] attempted to seek the removal of legitimate truthful comments of good respectable tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST posted across the Internet [in many world wide jurisdictions beamed in to the UK] in order to suppress the truth in an effort to try to compromise “freedom of speech” in a democratic and accountable society governed by the rule of law.

Ms IBIJOKE OLOLADE ESO (15/3/1970) of 160 Norfolk Crescent, Sidcup, Kent DA15 8HY is the Chartered Secretary to the Board of Directors/Trustees of NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP. She has been the Company Secretary since March 2004.

[The law might be different in Ms IBIJOKE ESO’s country of birth. An elective dictator may rule in her country of birth? She may not know about OUR rule of law? She may not know that “freedom of speech” is uppermost in a democratic and accountable society with transparent government, governed by the rule of law. The administrators in this country are our ‘Servants’ of ‘the People’. Our elected representatives and their cohorts are also our ‘Servants’ of ‘the People’!]
[Our Prime Minister has a LEGAL DUTY to be our ‘Servant’ of ‘the People’!]

Only one other company has Ms IBI(JOKE – a JOKE?) ESO and her husband directed. But that company was obliged to be dissolved after just 3 (three) years.
WHY?
The husband of Ms IBI(JOKE – a JOKE?) OLOLADE ESO (15/3/1970) is Mr OLADAPO OLADIPO ESO (1/3/1966).

But why would NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP appoint to the Board of Directors/Trustees a Company Secretary that is vastly inexperienced to run an entity with some 19,000 (nineteen thousand)+ properties worth over £4 BILLION [£4,000,000,000+] receiving unlimited unaccountable taxpayers money from the ODPM and its unaccountable entities?

Is it not easier to commit a CIVIL wrong [known as a TORT] or worse, a CRIMINAL WRONG [a CRIME] and the entity that commits or the entities that commit such a wrong is deemed to be a CRIMINAL [or CRIMINALS], by employing an inexperienced Company Secretary whose only claim to fame is to direct their own [husband and wife] company that has ended up in dissolution?

Is it reasonable for the major ‘flagship’ Registered Social Landlord (RSL) in the UK to employ a massively INEXPERIENCED senior officer as COMPANY SECRETARY to run and to delegate the affairs of such a major entity to others?

What about the issues of Corporate Accountability?
What about the issues of Trust Accountability?
What about the issues of Transparency?
What about the issues of Consultation?
What about the issues of Good Communication?
What about the issues of Good Governance?

The evidence indicates NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is a vehicle for:
i) Fraud,
ii) Deceit,
iii) Criminal activities,
iv) Unaccountability,
v) Non-Transparency,
vi) Third Class Management,
vii) The Perpetrator of Intimation and Harassment, and
viii) The Perpetrator of Major Breaches of Trust?

Is that why NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is hurriedly trying to re-brand the unaccountable entity?

Why no consultation?
NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP can not avoid legal liability for its many breaches of Trust.

The Company Secretary appears to come not from Europe but from foreign parts – in line with LABOUR PARTY dogma – to try to divide the British people and for an ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP to take control and to DICTATE?

Was this a wise course of action [for purely political individuals to impose political dogma in breach of Trust]?

Yet, there appear to be very good reasons for such a perverse policy which has nothing to do with good, accountable, transparent, governance, involving the pursuance of upholding LEGAL DUTIES of the vulnerable Beneficiaries. i.e. the 50,000 (fifty thousand) good, respectable tenants.

All the evidence - documentary, oral and real - suggests other reasons:

FRAUD?
GERRYMANDERING?
DECEIT?
CORRUPTION?
BREACHES OF TRUST?
ON AN ASTRONOMICAL SCALE?
THE ENRON OF THE UK?

Is it the case that NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP is nothing but a political sham – to gerrymander political constituencies for the next general election? All the evidence suggests that is the reality, as the perception is given by the so-called “Charity Shopper” who appears to be none other than a member of management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP? Otherwise, why would a person [“Charity Shopper”] incite the breaking of the law on the spurious ground of: “some picky reason that doesn’t really matter that much”?

This makes sense why so many NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP tenants are living in unlawful conditions and why they have to obtain Injunctions with a power of arrest, against NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST management, and even a power to arrest the Chief Executive of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST, Ms KATE DAVIES.

No, “Charity Shopper”, upholding the law really does matter! As does, amongst other things, upholding trading standards, as does not trading with broken steps to trip up potential customers, as does breaking Tort law, as does breaking Contract law, as does breaking Consumer Protection and Fair Trading law, as does breaking Housing law, as does breaking Criminal law, as does breaking Charity law, as does breaking the very strict law of Trusts.

Try saying that to any NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST tenant that upholding the law does not really matter, as NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST [‘the flagship’ Registered Social Landlord (RSL) in this country - with over £400 MILLION (£400,000,000+) of assets in cash lying dormant in reserve – why? - and the majority of the properties of the Trust are in a disgusting and UNLAWFUL condition not fit for human habitation, many properties are damp to the core and infested with vermin and UNLAWFULLY not fit to live in, with lights DELIBERATELY extinguished in the common parts of many of the NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST properties.

This fact is supported with overwhelming documentary evidence and witness statements from furious complaining tenants who are Beneficiaries of a Charitable Trust that have been languishing in limbo. Too many tenants have made legitimate complaints to the senior management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST and those incompetent and third rate senior management who act unlawfully to good respectable tenants do not even respond with an acknowledgement letter, whilst the poor tenants suffer and fester in slum properties of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST that are unlawfully, yes, UNLAWFULLY in disrepair – the evidence is out there to be seen]. Stress, anxiety, and bad health of the good tenants deteriorate whilst the Personal Injury claim of the good respectable tenant increases in severity.

The next time a tenant - of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - is KILLED by a defective NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST heater after numerous complaints to the senior management - the response – nothing – remember, such deaths have happened before. This indicates a complicit senior management who act UNLAWFULLY. Therefore, think very carefully “Charity Shopper” or you too will be supporting and even inciting the growth of the new [Peter] RACHMAN or slum landlord [from NOTTING HILL] – who eventually ended up in front of the civil courts and the criminal courts [and he was sent down with a long custodial sentence - his name has become a byword for slums, lies and deception – not unlike the usual methods of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST]!

Take note, LABOUR PARTY DICTATORS THAT ARE THE ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP in the UK. The LABOUR PARTY DICTATIRS have been working on social engineering, as GERARD LEMOS [the ex Chairman of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST] who was assisted by the research undertaken by the LSE, which appears to go hand in hand with that conducted by the ex LABOUR PARTY Councillor of HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL and later LABOUR PARTY Housing Minister NIC RAYNSFORD who has undertaken research on these issues, as has the ODPM. They know that the evidence is a MAJOR SCANDAL – it would discredit a banana (ELECTIVE) DICTATORSHIP (even the fourth richest country in the world)!

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has become a byword for living in a slum supported by confrontational landlords who do not care to consult nor communicate as reasonable landlords.
The attempt to enslave us all under the elective dictatorship of the deeply flawed COMMUNIST inspired ideology of LABOUR LORD, TOM SAWYER, PETER REDMAN, GERARD LEMOS, KATE DAVIES, NIC RAYNSFORD and their cohorts, as epitomised and underpinned by the blood RED flag and blood RED livery that abounds in, on and around ‘the flagship’ London Borough of HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM which these past 38 [thirty eight] years [from 1968] has trampled over all our hard won freedoms, liberties and rights, destroyed by every hard left thinking LABOUR government, which was enthusiastically endorsed by ‘the flagship’ London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST was always carrying out Central Government diktat or more correctly the diktat regulated from GROVE HOUSE, 27 HAMMERSMITH GROVE, LONDON W6 OLJ, the REAL ‘SECRET’ Government entity, tucked discreetly away in the very heart of leafy Hammersmith [how DEVIOUSLY CLEVER]!

It appears that NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is totally immune from prosecution?

Why was there no prosecution by the DPP when the 45+ exclusive properties of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST that were held in Trust as part of the housing stock that were earmarked for vulnerable tenants were misappropriated and no prosecution was ever launched by the DPP for FRAUD?
WHY?

Who is the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) – head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – the person responsible for determining which individual or entity to prosecute in this country [by the two basic tests:
i) the Evidential Test, and
ii) the Public Interest Test]?

Is the DPP not KEN MACDONALD?
Was KEN MACDONALD not the senior tenant of Matrix Chambers in Gray’s Inn, a very good friend of Cherie Booth/Cherie Blair?
Did not CHERIE BOOTH a.k.a. CHERIE BLAIR, recommend KEN MACDONALD to TONY B.LIAR as DPP? [Does not pillow talk work wonders?]

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST certainly has friends with platforms in the highest echelons – LABOUR LORD, TOM SAWYER, LABOUR LORD, CLIVE SOLEY, LABOUR LORD, CHARLES FALCONER, LABOUR PARTY MEMBER, TONY BLAIR.

Just look at the composition of the Board of Directors/Trustees of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST.
There lies the clear evidence.

Ask again, what exactly is a Ms IBI(JOKE – a JOKE?) ISO (15/3/1970) of 160 Norfolk Crescent, Sidcup, Kent DA15 8HY doing advising the Board of Directors/Trustees of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST as Company Secretary?

On Thursday 4 May 2006, the blood RED flag and all it stands for FELL over the Town Halls of: i) Hammersmith, and ii) Fulham, in the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham – ‘the flagship’ Borough in the UK.

Is it not an implied term of the contract of employment of all employees of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham that all prospective employees of the London Borough are members of one extremely (symbolically RED) leaning political party?

Yet, make no mistake, we the tenants of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST are not stupid.

We do not want a hard LEFT wing government.

We do not want a hard RIGHT wing government.

We the vulnerable tenants want a BALANCE!

We want the door OPEN!

We want complete CONSULTATION.

Otherwise LABOUR – without the SUPPORT of vulnerable tenants - is consigned to the WILDERNESS!!!

WE WILL DECIDE WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!

As from Thursday 4 May 2006, ‘the flagship’ London Borough of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is comprised of 33 CONSERVATIVE Councillors and 13 LABOUR Councillors.

The Labour Party has been rocked to its core. The ‘flagship’ Borough has FALLEN!

Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY LORD, TOM SAWYER predicted!
Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY LORD, NEIL KINNOCK predicted!
Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY LORD, CLIVE SOLEY predicted!
Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY LORD, MICHAEL LEVY predicted!
Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY MEMBER, NIC RAYNSFORD predicted!
Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY MEMBER, TONY BLAIR predicted!
[There is ONE missing… the ‘4’ + the ‘3’!]

Worse, far worse than LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS ALL thought.

Yet – all of them – were warned by ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’.


Just as ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ prophesied that TOM SAWYER would be discredited.

Just as ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ prophesied that GERARD LEMOS would be discredited – so he was! He ran off to the People’s Republic of China with his ‘Little Red (COMMUNIST) Book’.

Just as ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ prophesied that the flawed DYSFUNCTIONAL ex COMMUNIST CHARLES CLARKE and PATRICIA HEWITT would have to go – ‘BLACK WEDNESDAY’ proved ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ right!

‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ prophesied ‘the FLAGSHIP’ London Borough would FALL – it DID!

BUT the stupid fools at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST would not LISTEN or ACT to SUPPORT vulnerable tenants or ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’.

DISRESPECT vulnerable tenants and ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ at your PERIL.

Vulnerable tenants and ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ can SUPPORT any POLITICAL PARTY.

Vulnerable tenants and ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ SUPPORTS VULNERABLE tenants.

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST has a choice.


IT LEADS…! Do you remember those words - KD? They will come back to haunt you for EVER!


NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST will DEFINE ITS POSITION and thereby seal its FATE!

FOR GOOD or FOR EVIL???

If NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST unreasonably PLAYS with the lives of VULNERABLE tenants and treats VULNERABLE lives as mere ‘VEGETABLES’ – to try to DESTROY – ‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ will employ its powerful two-edged sword…

‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ never threatens.

‘THE HIDDEN HAND’ WILL PROMISE and DELIVER on that promise...

Ever thought of living in a drugs factory - now you can.

Courtesy of Notting Hill Housing Trust.

A Housing Association you cannot trust.

It appears to receive an immunity from Criminal Prosecution.

Why no Criminal Prosecution?

It appears to receive immunity from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Why no Investigation?

It appears to receive immunity from the local Police.

Why no Investigation?

ABUSE CONTINUES

Why is 26% of all tenants rent spent on Housing Management?

The highest admin bill in the whole country in order to manage a registered social landlord?

What it is to have so much unlimited unaccountable money - spend it like water!!!
The belief of the Chief Executive?

Give the properties to the tenants - that way the management would not act irresponsibly on a champage lifestyle in the wine bars around Hammersmith on a vastly inflated unlimited unaccountable spendthrift Harrods Gold Card and an AmEx Platinum card lifestyle...
Perhaps that lifestyle sounds far too familiar to Kate Davies, the Chief Executive whose only non contribution is to be signally uncommunicative as she is well known for never engaging with any of the tenants nor does she answer any of their letters nor does she consult with any of them, so why do the job - the pots of money - can a person become so corrupt when the carrot of lucre is dangled in front of a person's eyes - neglect the kids and go for the big money - the capitalist in some hypnotises some from their maternal duties.

Get a robot without a brain - thats what all the tenants say - it would be far cheaper.



bev.

WHY - WHY - WHY -

THE UK HAS TURNED INTO AN ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP THROUGH THE GUISE OF TERRORISM - ALL DONE THROUGH ELECTIVE DICTATOR BLAIR

BLAIR DECEIVED GEORGE W. BUSH & LAURA BUSH

WHY?

I'M A TENANT OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

THE TRUST HAVE ABUSED ME

THEY KEEP PUTTING ME UNLAWFULLY IN RENT ARREARS WHEN MY RENT IS PAID IN FULL BY HOUSING BENEFIT

YET THE LOCAL AUTHORITY DO WHAT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST TELL THEM AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSE ITS TENANTS THROUGH NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

IT'S LIKE AN UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT HOUSING DEPARTMENT
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST IS AN UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT QUANGO!

IT'S ONLY ACCOUNTABLE TO BLAIR, PRESCOTT, BLEARS, & CO.
PARLIAMENT CERTAINLY HAS NO SAY IN ANY OF THIS
THAT'S WHY IT WAS SET UP IN THIS WAY BY THE BLAIR GOVERNMENT
THAT EXPLAINS THE HARASSMENT, NEGATIVITY OF MANAGEMENT & THE CONFRONTATIONAL HOUSE STYLE OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
THEY NEVER LISTEN - THEY JUST IMPOSE

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY ON JUNKETS -
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST LAVISH MONEY ON LUXURIES -
MOST NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST PROPERTIES ARE IN MASSIVE DISREPAIR

ONE OF MY NEIGHBOURS IS A DISABLED TENANT - SHE COMPLAINED IN WRITING - THEY PUT A TENANT FROM HELL NEXT DOOR TO HER

WHEN MY NEIGHBOUR COMPLAINED AGAIN, THE MANAGEMENT OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST SUPPORTED THE DRUGGIE NEXT DOOR AGAINST MY NEIGHBOUR

IF ANY DISABLED TENANT COMPLAINS IN WRITING MORE THAN ONCE THEY PUT YOU IN RENT ARREARS THROUGH THE COUNCIL HOUSING DEPARTMENT - THEY CALL IT AN INHIBITION - THIS STOPS YOUR HOUSING BENEFIT

MANY OF THE TENANTS OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST ARE TAKEN TO THE COUNTY COURT FOR EVICTION BASED ON LIES AND FALSE RENT ARREARS
IT'S THE BIGGEST CON IN THIS COUNTRY - WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEING INVOLVED IN THIS MASSIVE SCAM

IT'S A WAY OF SELLING OFF THE EXPENSIVE PROPERTIES FOR MAX PROFIT AND GETTING THE VULNERABLE TENANTS TO ACCEPT CHEAP HOVELS IN DISREPAIR

IF YOU GET A LAWYER - DON'T TRUST THE LAWYER - MOST SEEM TO GET KICKBACKS FROM NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST?

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST GET MILLIONS IN UNACCOUNTABLE MONEY FROM THE UNACCOUNTABLE HOUSING CORPORTATION [SADDAM MIGHT HAVE GOT 23 BILLION FROM THE US + UK GOVERNMENTS BUT HOW MANY BILLIONS HAVE NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST GOT SALTED AWAY IN SECRET BANK ACCOUNTS? NINETEEN THOUSAND HIGHLY DESIRABLE PROPERTIES IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE AREAS OF LONDON - TWENTY ONE CHARITY SHOPS - ONCE THEY'VE EVICTED TENANTS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THOSE POOR TENANTS TURNS UP IN THE CHARITY SHOPS!].

WHAT'S MORE - NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - IT'S AUDITED BY THE UNACCOUNTABLE AUDIT COMMISSION
MEANING ITS CONTROLLED BY THE EXECUTIVE OF TONY BLAIR & CO.
PARLIAMENT IS IRRELEVANT - TO NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
PARLIAMENT IS KEPT IN THE DARK - IN RELATION TO NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE - PARLIAMENT'S WATCHDOG - IS KEPT IN THE DARK

THE TAXPAYERS ARE BEING CONNED BY THE UNACCOUNTABLE QUANGO'S

TAXPAYER'S ALLIANCE NEED TO START INVESTIGATING

NEWSPAPERS NEED TO START INVESTIGATING

BBC IS CONTROLLED BY BLAIR - BBC IS A TOOTHLESS PUP
ITV IS NOW CONTROLLED BY A LABOUR SUPPORTER - MR WINOGRADSKY GRADE

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE
THOSE WHO HEAD UP NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST MUST BE CORRUPT?

WHY PUT INTELLIGENCE MEMBERS OF MI6 ON THE BOARD OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST TO CONTROL AND TRY TO SILENCE ANYONE WHO COMPLAINS? JONANTHAN BUCHANAN ON THE BOARD WORKED/WORKS FOR MI6

OTHERS ON THE BOARD OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - LIKE 'BEVERLY' ARE ON THE BOARD AND A COMMISAR OF THE HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM LAW CENTRE IN KING STREET, HAMMERSMITH - DON'T TRUST HER - SHE IS A COMMISAR OF THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL INEQUALITY - AND A COMMISSAR OF THE LABOUR PARTY

I'M A SUPPORTER OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY - SNP - WE FINISH OFF CORRUPTION - WE WILL SEE THE END OF THE LABOUR PARTY PUPPETS IN SCOTLAND

LABOUR PLACED US SCOTS OVER THE ENGLISH SUBJECTS - AS THE ENGLISH ARE THE SLAVE SUBJECTS OF US SCOTS

WE WANT INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND - AS ENGLAND STOLE OUR OIL - AS WAS DONE IN IRAQ - SECOND BIGGEST OIL DEPOSITS IN THE WORLD

GORDON BROWN IS A SCOT
ALISTAIR DARLING IS A SCOT
JOHN REID IS A SCOT
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER IS A SCOT

WE DON'T WANT ENGLISH NUCLEAR CRAP IN OUR FAIR COUNTRY OF SCOTLAND
BILLIONS OF POUNDS OF OUR TAXES ARE BEING FRITTERED AWAY ON NUCLEAR NIGHTMARES

THE MAIN NUCLEAR BASES ARE IN SCOTLAND - LIKE AT FASLANE - ON THE CLYDE -
THIS IS THE 300th ANNIVERSARY - THE ACT OF UNION - BETWEEN SCOTLAND & ENGLAND IN 1707

51% OF SCOTS NOW WANT INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND
MAY LOCAL ELECTIONS ARE CLOSE
WE ARE OVER 8 POINTS AHEAD AND GAINING GROUND
EDUCATION, HEALTH & PRISONS ARE NOW FOR US IN SCOTLAND TO DECIDE
THAT'S WHY THEY HOUSED ME - THEY WANTED TO GET MY VOTE

JACK McCONNELL - THE FIRST MINISTER - THE PUPPET OF LABOUR - LINKED TO THE BRITISH COUNCIL - HE HAS CO-OPERATED WITH BLAIR - AS HE IS THE BLAIR PUPPET IN SCOTLAND

SNP-LIB.DEM WILL CHANGE ALL THIS [THAT'S WHY THE'RE SO MANY BAD STORIES ABOUT LIB.DEMS IN THE ENGLISH MEDIA!]

LABOUR WILL BE THRASHED

THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO GIVE US ID CARDS - TO CONTROL US

SCOTS WILL DECIDE OUR FUTURE

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WILL NO LONGER CONTROL MY VOTE

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST WILL NO LONGER DICTATE TO ME OR ABUSE ME

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST NEEDS TO BE CLOSED DOWN

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST AND ITS EVIL COMMISAR PUPPETS ARE A DIABOLICAL DYSFUNCTIONING DISGRACE

LABOUR WILL BE THRASHED FROM THESE SHORES

POLITICALLY CORRECT CRAP - RACIST PEOPLE - MULTI-CULTURISM - ALL LIES!

GIVE PEOPLE THEIR OWN HOMES

GIVE TENANTS THEIR HOMES THAT ARE NOW BEING HELD IN TRUST

TENANTS NEED TO START THEIR OWN HOUSING ASSOCIATION THAT LISTEN, CARE AND RESPECT THEM

SACK THE COMMISARS OF THE LABOUR PARTY THAT ARE NOW IN POWER

SACK THE CHAIRMAN - THE ALAN COLE VIEW,
SACK THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE - THE KATE DAVIES VIEW,
SACK THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VIEW - WHO APPEAR TO ACT IRRESPONSIBLY AND DO NOT WANT TO LISTEN - THEY APPEAR TO ENDORSE A HOSTILE MANAGEMENT CULTURE - THEY APPEAR TO HAVE NO CARES - THEY APPEAR TO ONLY THINK ABOUT THEIR BLINKERED DEVOTION TO THE GLORIOUS LEADER OF BLAIR - WHO IS SINKING FAST

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - DESTRUCTION OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY

WHY THE MASSIVE PROBLEMS WITH NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST ?

THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ARE ALL BLAIR CRONIES

COLE, DAVIES, ARMSTRONG & EVEN POOR MISGUIDED BABA-TUNDE!!!

THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT LIARS - LIKE (GIVE ME ANOTHER KISS ROBIN GEE - I'M PRINCESS TONY - IF ONLY I WAS AS HONOURABLE AS MY BROTHER WILLIAM) BLAIR, JOHN (EX CATERING STEWARD ON P&O CROSS CHANNEL FERRIES - LOVER OF TRACEY TEMPLE HIS DIARY SECRETARY - MORE LIKE HIS DAIRY SECRETARY WHOM HE REGULARLY MILKED) PRESCOTT, RUTH (CHICKEN RUN FOR A SAFE CONSTITUENCY FROM "BOLTON WEST" TO "BOLTON SOUTH EAST" AFTER SHE RAN DOWN THE NHS - BUT "BOLTON SOUTH EAST" IS FOR PHILIP - OUR GLORIOUS LEADER'S SPEECH WRITER - NOT FOR THE SMELLY KELLY, GIVE BRIAN IDDON AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETIRE FROM "BOLTON SOUTH EAST" SMELLY) KELLY, HAZEL BLEARS (BLEARY-EYED BLEARS) & JACQUI (THE CHIEF WHIP OF 12 DOWNING STREET) SMITH, (FATTY) CHARLIE FALCONER, PETER (IT'S A LEGAL WAR - OH YES...) GOLDMITH, JONATHAN (THE SNAKE) POWELL & ALL THE DISCREDITED BLAIRITES AT 10 DOWNING STREET!!!
[MILBURN & DARLING - WHO ARE THEY?]

ALL MEMBERS OF THE DISCREDITED LABOUR PARTY


ALL MEMBERS OF A CORRUPT IDEA THAT HAS TRULY FIZZLED OUT

WE HAVE ALL SEEN THROUGH YOUR DECEIT LIES & CORRUPTION

IT WAS ALL BASED ON LIES CORRUPTION FRAUD AND DECEIT?

YET ALL THE NAZI COMMISARS BOUGHT THE FRAUD!

THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY WAS BOUGHT OFF AND PACKED WITH TOKEN "UNCLE TOM'S" LIKE "BEVERLY" THE UNQUALIFIED COMMISAR MANAGERESS AT THE LAW CENTRE IN KING STREET HAMMERSMITH IS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR IS IT BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT NOTTING HILL HOUSING GROUP OR IS IT NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST OR IS IT NOTTING HILL HOUSING CARE SERVICES OR IS IT NOTTING HILL HOME OWNERSHIP OR IS IT SOME ENTTY THAT NEVER DID EXIST IT ONLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN SOME DYSFUNCTIONAL PERSON'S CRAZED MIND JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMITTING SOME DECEIT?

REVEREND KENRICK HOW YOU WOULD PULL YOUR HAIR OUT TO SEE WHAT HAS BECOME OF YOUR DREAM - HELPED BY FUNDING IN GOOD FAITH FROM OUR BLACK FRIEND WINNIFRED ATWELL - TO GET RID OF RACHMANISM IN THE HEART OF THE ALL SAINTS ROAD IN NOTTING HILL - RACHMANISM WAS SHORTHAND FOR MURDER, VICE, PROSTITUTION, DECEIT, FRAUD, CRIME AND EVIL IN THE VERY HEART OF NOTTING HILL - ALL NOW RUN WITH THE SUPPORT OF TONY BLAIR FROM 27 HAMMERSMITH GROVE, GLENTHORNE ROAD AND KING STREET - ALL IN THE HEART OF HAMMERSMITH.

EVIL TRANSFERRED FROM A PRIVATE EVIL TO A STATE SPONSORED EVIL

TRANSFERRED TO THE BOSOM OF LABOUR PARTY POLICY TO GERRYMANDER A POLITICAL SYSTEM TO TRY TO WIN POWER AGAINST ALL THE ODDS

TONY BLAIR SUPPORTS NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

THE SUBJECTS ARE BECOMING CITIZENS AND NO LONGER SUPPORT TONY BLAIR

THAT MEANS THE SUBJECTS WHO ARE BECOMING CITIZENS NO LONGER SUPPORT THE EVIL NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST OR THE COMMISARS THAT RUN IT

THE MANAGEMENT OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST NEED TO REALISE THAT NEGATIVITY, HARASSMENT AND CONFRONTATION IS NO LONGER THE RUGHT WAY TO LEAD IN 2006

THE CHAIRMAN ALAN COLE
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE KATE DAVIES

BOTH NEED TO GO

THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT NEED A GOOD CLEAR OUT TO START THE NEW YEAR

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST is in reality run by TONY BLAIR

BUT the wheels are coming off Blair's waggon.

The intelligent ones deserted long ago.

The dumb ones like the senior management of Notting Hill Housing Trust have no idea as to what's in store.

Lets look at the freebies Blair prised out of his "fair- weather" friends:

GEOFFREY ROBINSON
[villa in Tuscany, north west Italy]
[closely associated with the discredited Robert Maxwell of Mirror Group Newspapers]

DAVID KEENE
[villa in the south of France - Saint Martin d'Oy-des in the Ariege region]

ALBERT RENE
former Marxist President of Seychelles - one of Notting HIll Housing Trust's fellow travellers as Marxists
Use to film lthe porn. film "Emmanuelle"

GIROLAMO STROZZI
law lecturer - Tony Blair needs far more lectures in basic principles of law!!!
[lives at Villa Cusona near San Gimignano, Tuscany]

VANNINO CHITI
[president of Tuscany, north west Italy]
[stayed at Italian state-owned Villa del Gombo]
500,000 pounds of Tuscan taxpayers money was spent on the villa's refurbishment to host the Prime MInister's freebie
Blair was immediately dubbed "Lo Scroccone" - the scrounger
[If Mr Blair was called "the Scrounger" - what would Mrs Blair be called???

CLIFF RICHARD aka RICHARD WEBB
[to Barbados]
[Interest also to lobby for copyright issues]

ALAIN-DOMINIQUE PERRIN
lives in the Lot region of south-west France

GAMAL OMAR
[property speculator - not unlike the discredited NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST]
Egyptian hotel owner villa in the Red Sea resort at Sharm el-Sheikh
ANTHONY BAMFORD
son of JCBamford ('JCB')
[to Barbados]

SILVIO BERLUSCONI
[head of Mafia?][Controls Italian media]
["friend" of David MILLS the husband of TESSA JOWELL in charge of awarding licenses for super-casinos in the UK - as "Culture Secretary" - to arrange for "Mafia"?]

ROBIN GIBB
[Miama Beach, Florida]
["married" to Dwina Murphy - the Druid Priestess]
[Dwina loves women]
[Robin loves men]
[Princess Tony has a bent streak]
[Robin's interest also to increase copyright protection for musicians]

TONY BLAIR is like senior management at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST having a ball of a time committing lies and deceit like the management do at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST do ALL on expenses - new vehicles, new luxuries, free perks, more make-up, more handbags, more junkets, more abuse of dumb vulnerable disabled subject tenants as they're treated well - like SHITE

Thank you DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT

THANK YOU UNACCOUNTABLE HOUSING CORPORATION

NEW LABOUR - PETER MANDELSON - TONY BLAIR - GEOFFREY ROBINSON - NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

At a time of what seemed like unrelieved gloom, the political scene at Xmas was suddenly bathed in bright light. All of a sudden, without warning, a central pillar of New Labour turned into dust and blew away.

Was it NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST - that CORRUPT entity at 27 HAMMERSMITH GROVE. NO...

PETER MANDELSON was New Labour in essence.

His book, The BLAIR REVOLUTION, which he wrote with one of the founders of the late unlamented SDP, Roger Liddle, argued that a New Labour government could provide social justice without interfering with the free flow of capitalism. The book is full of familiar cliches about the irrelevance of public ownership, the importance of reducing the influence of trade unions and the need to get to grips with outdated universal benefits. On page 127, the authors address 'one of the greatest sources of unfairness'-- 'the different prospects of couples setting off in life with a flying financial start from their parents and grandparents and those who have no such backing'. This unfairness inspires Mandelson and Liddle to one of the more radical proposals. Poor couples looking for housing should, they say, get a £5,000 sub from the government to help them with their mortgage. Where will the money come from? Why, from the inheritance taxes the Tories were threatening to abolish.

The authors are quick to reassure conservative critics that the mortgage bonus would only be available to people whose families could not afford it. It would not have been available, for instance, to Peter Mandelson, who was racked by house hunting problems at almost exactly the same time as he was writing his insipid little book. He was living in a perfectly presentable des res in Clerkenwell, with a pleasant three storey retreat in his constituency, Hartlepool. He was not satisfied, however. He was upwardly mobile. His bad years, when JOHN SMITH led the Labour Party, were over. JOHN SMITH, an old fashioned right wing social democrat, LOATHED MANDELSON. He regarded him as 'ALL FROTH AND PUBLIC RELATIONS' [like the senior management of NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST] and banished him from the inner circle to which he had been promoted by Neil Kinnock.

Smith's death in 1994 and his replacement by TONY BLAIR brought Mandelson scurrying back into Labour's ruling clique. Blair made a beeline for the rich, and recognised Mandelson's supreme quality-- flattery. Mandelson is, above all else, a courtier, who loves the company of the rich and knows how to flatter them. The rich are always inclined to interpret flattery as perspicacity. Before long, with Blair's seal of approval on his forehead, Mandelson was flattering his way into the richest boardrooms in the land. The military top brass loved him. He even made friends with the Prince of Wales and his mistress. But his favourites of all the rich and famous were the media barons.

He personally persuaded Tony Blair that RUPERT MURDOCH was a profound political thinker whose papers needed to be courted. Murdoch's daughter and most likely successor became a close friend of Mandelson. Clive (Lord) Hollick (Express, Anglia TV etc) worked with Mandelson in Labour's election unit at Millbank. John Birt, director general of the BBC, was Mandelson's old buddy at London Weekend Television (LWT). How could this high flying courtier hope to keep up with all these rich and powerful friends from a dowdy flat in run down Clerkenwell? Something much grander was needed.

His greedy eyes turned to NOTTING HILL where his friend, the millionaire writer Robert Harris, entertained so lavishly, and where the former SDP leader Sir Ian Wrigglesworth showed off all the fruits of political compromise. A lovely house next to Wrigglesworth's was for sale, for a little matter of half a million quid. Poor Peter could not begin to raise that much. His salary as a backbencher was a mere £40,000. His flat, already mortgaged, would be lucky to bring in a hundred grand. The Britannia Building Society would only lend him a maximum of £150,000. True, his mother lived in a handsome house in Hampstead Garden Suburb, but even Peter Mandelson could hardly set light to New Labour's great crusade by evicting his mother and selling her house. Even his own proposal-- for a £5,000 housing 'start'-- would not have helped him.

In desperation Peter turned to the only really rich man he knew on the Labour backbenches, Robert Maxwell's former business colleague and Labour MP for Coventry, GEOFFREY ROBINSON happily lent his new young friend £373,000, happily rolled up the interest and happily forgot to insist when, or even if, the loan should be repaid. Hey presto! As soon as Labour won the election, Robinson, an archetypal mediocrity, soared into the government with the grand title, which was not meant to be satirical, of Paymaster General.

When the loan was exposed just before Xmas, the Tory press was bewildered. All hailed Mandelson as an employers' friend, an enemy of trade unions, an opponent of socialism and a moderniser. But few could resist a crack at the old enemy. The result was that Mandelson was assaulted for trivia. Acres of space were given over to phoney indignation about his cheating the mortgage company. But most sensible people cheat their mortgage company. Similarly, the Tory Party in parliament wriggled and jiggled as they tried to spot a 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' between Mandelson as secretary of state at the DTI and a two bit DTI inquiry into some of Robinson's business deals.

All of this missed the point, which was hit at once and in a single sentence by a constituent of Mandelson's who muttered, 'I wish I could find someone to lend me £370,000.' The point was the sheer scale of the money lent, and the ludicrous lifestyle of people who lend and borrow that kind of sum. The man who proclaims the 'fairness' and 'social justice' of New Labour, who suggests a £5,000 sub for young couples looking for a new home, is at the same time borrowing a sum equivalent to 15 years of the average worker's total earnings just to buy a house.

The huge hoax which is New Labour was suddenly and brilliantly exposed. Nothing works on the public mind more than such a blatant example of PERSONAL GREED [like the massive greed of the Chief Executive at NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST]. The whole strategy of 'softening' Labour's image in order to win elections was exposed as a means to propel its soft image makers into the salons of the rich.

Like so many marvellous moments, however, the exquisite delight in the fall of Mandelson may be short lived. Many people who put some faith and trust in New Labour may be plunged into despair. 'They all do it'-- 'They are all as bad as one another'-- 'All politicians and politics are rotten to the core'-- these are all common reactions which have in the past turned Labour voters back to the Tories, or pushed them even further to the right. On its own, triumphalist rejoicing at Mandelson's fall may irritate many Labour voters into rejecting politics altogether.

On the other hand, the sudden vulnerability of New Labour, as its great white hope lies bleeding on the wayside, opens out all sorts of opportunities for setting out an alternative. The New Labour road is plainly blocked. The past failures of Old Labour are partly responsible for the blocking. The methods of greed of people like Kate Davies discredit the Labour Party and ensure lack-lustre management need proper skills not the resorting to
ALL FROTH AND PUBLIC RELATIONS like NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST now always scurry to - as the senior management invariably scurry to PR - as the senior management seem to be totally bankrupt of good ideas!!!

They CONFRONT never CONSULT

They are UNACCOUNTABLE never ACCOUNTABLE

They are UNTRANSPARENT never TRANSPARENT

They act with EVIL intention never GOOD intention

They HARASS tenants never SUPPORT tenants

They are NEGATIVE in outlook never POSITIVE

This MUST all change in 2007 with the END of BLAIR LIES SPIN CORRUPTION DECEIT