CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE?

WHY has the media failed to expose the evil cabal?

Why have they largely ignored the corruption and wrong-doing at Henshaw's city council, despite the current council leader handing a secret dossier last year to the chief constable?

Why have the media been largely silent on the waste of millions of pounds in public money by the current city council and the Culture Company?

Is the answer to any of these questions explained by the ownership of the media?

("You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment," Francis Urquhart)

That's what members of the National Union Of Journalists think anyway.

And it's what many in Liverpool think when they see the cosy deals being done between unholyTrinity Mirror and the Culture Comedians and the local media's failure to hold the Harbarrowboy to account.

Any chance that commercial considerations could be interfering with editorial integrity?

Journalists are today reduced to a cross between call-centre workers and data processors. Stuck at their desks re-jigging press releases. Who knows what corruption, lies, and law-breaking is going on in the corridors of power – no-one has the time to look. Or is even encouraged to delve a little deeper.

Except the occasional brave blogger...

Members of the NUJ descend on Manchester on November 5 to urge their bosses to stand up to greedy media owners.

The NUJ is organising a lobby of the Society of Editors conference at the swanky Radisson Hotel on Peter Street, Manchester.
Union president Michelle Stanistreet said: “The media is owned by a smaller and smaller group of extremely wealthy corporations.
“They make big profits but they want more. So journalists face a constant round of job cuts and dwindling editorial budgets. This means that more and more news is just recycled press releases.
“We want our editors to join with us and stand up to the culture of cuts. If they believe that journalism is important for democracy and for local communities they must take a stand.
“They are meeting on a site that was developed to commemorate the Peterloo massacre. We hope they will take courage from history and seize the moment.”
The Manchester event is one of the focul points of Stand Up For Journalism Day which will involve events all over Europe.
There will be lobbies at the European Parliament and in towns and cities across the UK and Ireland.
In Manchester journalists and their supporters will gather outside the offices of the Manchester Evening News on Hardman Street, off Deansgate at 12.30pm on November 5.
They will march to the Radisson Hotel, on the site of the old Free Trade Hall, to lobby the editors’ conference. There will be a rally in defence of journalism at 1.30pm in the Friends Meeting House on Mount Street.
Michelle Stanistreet and NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear will be among the speakers. For furtherinformation visit http://www.standupforjournalism.org.uk/

'SECRET' PROBE INTO CLUCAS AND IRISH CENTRE CONTINUES....

The ‘secret’ investigation by the Standards Board into Lib Dem Flo Clucas and the Irish Centre continues apace.
The self-styled “watchdogs” have been in and out of Lime Street like Maggie May during the last few weeks.
Indeed, they have become such familiar faces in the city council’s Planning Department at Kingsway House, that staff now regularly offer to fetch their lunchtime butties.
The team of borocrats have even been given their own private office and offered secretarial, admin and photocopying support.
They have demanded copies of the minutes of all meetings, notes taken and all correspondence regarding the Centre on Mount Pleasant.
A number of staff have already been interviewed in-depth by the team of investigators.
They include Planning Chief Nigel Lee, who has been banned from taking any part in discussions or decisions about the Irish Centre because he has already compromised his impartiality.
In particular, the investigators have been interested in any documentation regarding Lib Dem Executive member Flo Clucas’s relationship with Dance Liverpool.
Readers will recall how Clucas used her position as a senior Cabinet Member and city councillor to promote Dance Liverpool’s campaign to take over the Grade 2 listed building.
Flucas is, of course, a Director of Dance Liverpool, but failed to declare her interest in the organisation – which stood to financially benefit from any move – at meetings in which she pushed their case.
Flucas promised Dance Liverpool they could have council taxpayers money and European grants – she is also Chair of the European Objective One committee, which doles out the cash.
Flucas has been interviewed by the Standards Board, and protested that she haS nothing wrong and that she is the victim of a disgraceful attempt to besmirch her good name and reputation as a leading Lib Dem councillor. (Surprise, surprise, eds)
Other senior figures been yet to be called to the wicket, including city council chief executive, Colin ‘Cover Up’.
As is the way with the borocrats, their investigation is now taking much longer than expected, such is the volume of paperwork being examined.
So their final report is not expected before early next year.
Of course, you will not be able to read a single word about any of this in the papers, or hear it on Radio Merseyside, all of which appear to have agreed to maintain a discreet silence about the investigation.
This is unusual - especially since the Standards Board is a public body, using public money to carry out a public investigation into a publicly elected city councillor.
Obviously, the public would not be the slightest bit interested in this investigation.

THE ROTTWEILLER ATTACKS THE UNIONS AT LIVERPOOL DIRECT

THE ROTTWEILLER McElhinney is trying to force Liverpool Direct staff to do whatever he wants.

The dirty doctor has written to the trade unions to try and get a clause in the LDL contract scrapped.

The clause prevents him from forcing council staff - ie, secondee's to Liverpool Direct - to work for any external business.

If the unions agree, it would mean the evil McElhinney could have Liverpool Direct staff answering calls on behalf of his own private interests, such as Corrupt Bastards Inc, or that infamous local company, Evil, thieving, lying Cabal or the legendary TakingthepissoutofLiverpool.com or anyone else, more reputable, who is prepared to pay through the nose.

The move to scrap the clause follows the blog's recent exposure that Liverpool Direct was handling calls about Bernard Matthews's bird flu crisis for DEFRA.

This caused huge ructions for the thieving McElhinney, with protests from trade unions and politicians that calls to care staff were going unanswered while Liverpool Direct staff answered calls about turkeys.

The evil McElhinney is blaming the unions for leaking the story to the blog (wrongly, ed) and is now trying to get them to agree to the clause being scrapped so he can make sure that, in future, he can take money from anyone he likes.

He wants to take the clause out of the contract that states he has to consult with staff and unions on any changes in contracts and then use the staff in anyway he see's fit.

No union in its right mind would give McElhinney carte blanche like this, of course. But stranger things have happened in Liverpool...

In his letter notifying the unions of an official consultation period for removing the clause, McElhinney's motives become transparent.

He first tries to blackmail the unions over jobs, clumsily reminding them that LDL was originally set up as an alternative to outsourcing (in other words, we can always outsource your jobs again lads, unless you agree to this, ed)

He claims that the council wanted LDL to win "third party work" (who exactly is supposed to have agreed to that then? ed)

He then goes on: "You will know that the success of LDL's support to Defra during the recent outbreak of Avian influenza was heralded by the city as a major achievement." (Who was the numbskull 'herald' in this case then, Dr? ed)

McElhinney has clumsily included the bird flu example to anger the unions (who were horrified at what he was doing, ed) and give them a slap in the face about how untouchable he is (along the lines of, 'I can do what I like lads, so get stuffed - like those turkeys', ed)

The evil McElhinney claims 80 new jobs have been created from this so-called 'third party work,' withouthout producing any evidence for his claims. Indeed so flimsy is this particular claim that he has to repeat it twice, (presumably so 'the thickos in the unions' as he calls them, get his point? ed).

Then comes the sting - unless the unions agree to scrap the clause, there will be "the potential risk of redundancy or redeployment."

Crude blackmail.

Of course, McElhinney is hoping the unions will cave in and allow him to continue running his own private enterprise, without any challenge or accountability.

He wants to use council employees - public servants - without being accountable to anyone else. Least of all the unions, or councillors.

No doubt his mates in the ABA, his boxing friends, his jogging pals, websites for members of his family - and any other blonde ladies like very-well-looked-after-employee Sarah Parr (right) who need special 'services' - could benefit again from this nasty, vicious, arrogant little megalomaniac being allowed to do whatever he likes, while he laughs all the way to the bank.

Any hope of the Lib Dems doing anything to defend the interests of the workforce is, of course, absolutely pointless.

Dr David McElhinney

SURPRISE, SURPRISE! City council rapped for hushing things up!

For immediate release

Press release

Date: 11 May 2007

Liverpool City Council criticised for Freedom of Information handling

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has criticised Liverpool City Council over its handling of requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a letter to Chief Executive, Colin Hilton, the ICO cites a catalogue of failings by the council to meet the requirements of the Act and outlines what the council needs to do to improve its performance.
According to the Information Commissioner’s Office the council does not have
adequate procedures in place to deal with freedom of information requests and
failed, on a number of occasions, to provide the ICO with the information required to investigate a complaint under the Act.
A practice recommendation issued by the ICO highlights the council’s ‘symptomatic poor practice in handling freedom of information requests’ and criticises the council’s failure to provide adequate advice and assistance to individuals requesting information under the Act.
The ICO will continue to monitor the council’s information request handling
procedures and performance and will assess its progress against the ICO’s
recommendations in 6 months.
Last year the ICO prosecuted Liverpool City Council for breaching the Data
Protection Act after it failed to provide an individual with their health records held by the Council, despite several warning from the ICO.

ENDS
If you need more information, please contact the Information Commissioner’s press office on 020 7025 7580 or visit the website at: www.ico.gov.uk
Notes to Editors
1. The Information Commissioner promotes public access to official information and protects personal information. The ICO is an independent body with specific responsibilities set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003.
2. For more information about the Information Commissioner’s Office subscribe to our enewsletter at www.ico.gov.uk
3. For a copy of the Practice Recommendation issued to Liverpool City Council please go to http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/notices/liverpool_city
_council_practice_recommendation.pdf

ANDERSON DEMANDS STANDARDS BOARD PROBE INTO CLUCAS AND THE IRISH CENTRE

LABOUR Leader Joe Anderson has called for a full-scale investigation into Flo Clucas trying to waltz off with the former Irish Centre on Mount Pleasant. (see Liverpool subCulture, ed)

Anderson has written to the Standards Board protesting that Clucas's actions breach the national Code of Conduct for councillors.

The Standards Board can fine or suspend Clucas from office if they find her guilty (some chance of that, ed)

Anderson tells how Clucas 'intervened strongly' at a meeting with planning officials on 19 December to promote Dance Liverpool's crackpot scheme to takeover the Centre, which is a Grade 2* listed building.

He says Clucas also offered/promoted:

• Objective 1 European funding for the Centre


• city council support for the scheme and/or


• to slap a CPO on the Centre.

Anderson says Clucas failed to declare an interest - she is a Director of Dance Liverpool, according to Companies House records.

The Labour Leader poses six separate questions about Clucas's conduct, including:

• Has Cllr Flo Clucas used her position as an Executive Member to promote a scheme in respect of which she has interest? (of course, ed)


• Was the City Council’s recommendation to reject the (owner's) Planning Application in 2006 as a result of pressure to support the “Dance Liverpool” proposal from Cllr Flo Clucas? (very probably, ed)


• Was there any reasonable evidence to suggest that the alternative “Dance Liverpool” proposal had any realistic prospect of delivery (the report... clearly identifies a lack of funding...for the scheme) (none at all, ed)

Anderson also asks if it was appropriate for Clucas to "promise/promote that Liverpool City Council would bear the costs of any CPO enquiry (as you will be aware developers normally bear such costs)?" (highly irregular, ed)

and

"Promising/promoting that acquisition costs would be funded by ERDS (Objective 1 European Funding) before any application or approval for such funding has been obtained?"(well, she is Chair of the Committee which doles out the Euro dosh, so presumably she should know whether she was going to give herself the money? ed)

Anderson adds: "You will note from the handwritten notes from a meeting, that Cllr Flo Clucas had explored ways in which pressure could be put on the existing owner (which would have the result of encouraging him to surrender the leasehold interest) and in particular, investigating the condition of the fire safety system and demanding that Liverpool City Council serve a schedule of dilapidations on the leasehold owner."

(This one will run and run, ed)

COUNCIL LEADER BRADLEY AVOIDS ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS ON THE TONY PARRISH INVESTIGATION

A KELLY WRITES.......

I WROTE A SECOND TIME IN JANUARY TO CURRENT COUNCIL LEADER WARREN BRADLEY REGARDING THE TONY PARRISH INVESTIGATION.

MY EMAIL IS IN RED BELOW.

I ATTACHED MY FIRST EMAIL SINCE COUNCILLOR BRADLEY HAD NOT RESPONDED AFTER MORE THAN A WEEK. THIS IS IN BLUE.

AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST, HIGHLIGHTED (IN PURPLE) YOU WILL SEE COUNCILLOR BRADLEY'S RATHER TETCHY EMAIL RESPONSE TO ME,VIA ACTING CITY SOLICITOR MICHAEL KENWORTHY (the bald legal eagle, ed).

PRESUMABLY HE THOUGHT THIS WOULD SCARE ME OFF ASKING ANY AWKWARD QUESTIONS....

SECOND EMAIL

From: a.kelly583@ntlworld.com a.kelly583@ntlworld.com

To: Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council)

Sent: Wed Jan 31 13:30:43 2007

Subject: Tony Parrish investigation

Dear councillor,>

I have not yet received any reply to my email enquiry, which is enclosed below.

Inadvertently, I omitted Councillor Clark from the email although clearly he also has a strong interest and may be subject to any council investigation.>

I should be grateful if you could respond promptly. There are a number of other issues which I may need to raise with the appropriate bodies which govern the behaviour of councillors. I would appreciate a reponse before considering those further.>>

yours>>

A.Kelly > >> >

FIRST EMAIL

From: > > Date: 2007/01/19 Fri PM 03:33:18 GMT> ">a.kelly583@ntlworld.com>> > Date: 2007/01/19 Fri PM 03:33:18 GMT>

To: , >Bradley, Warren (Leader of the City Council);>">mike.storey@liverpool.gov.uk>>

Subject: Tony Parrish investigation> >> >

Dear Councillor,> >> >

Please find below a response I have received from the city council to my Freedom of Information request.> >> >
I had asked what questions Tony Parrish had asked the council and what the council's response had been.> >> >
As you will see from the reply, the council has been unable to respond with the information I requested.> >> >
In my view, there are three potential explanations for this:> >> >
1) The council's record-keeping systems and processes are so chaotic and disorganised that they simply do not know.> >> >
2) They are trying to frustrate my enquiry because it will produce information which will only embarrass them further by revealing their consistent and repeated failure to obey the law on Freedom of Information. (Presumably they don't want the council to appear in court again.)> >> >
3) They are trying to intimidate Mr Parrish with their 'ongoing investigation.' (It is also a convenient excuse for refusing to impart such information, isn't it?)> >> >
I doubt whether 3) will work.> >> >
However both you gentlemen should be aware of an apparent "ongoing investigation".> >
Who authorised this?> >
What is its justification?> >
How much has it cost?> >
Who does it involve?> >
What is its purpose?> >
When did it begin?> >
When will it be concluded?> >> >
I am sure that you may wish to put these and a number of other questions to the current chief executive. I should be interested in the answers.> >> >
As a council taxpayer, this seems to me yet more evidence of the unacceptable activities of an officer class within the city council, who are both out of control and unaccountable, as well as lacking in judgement and common sense. It also raises yet again the intriguing question of who is actually running the city council - democratically elected politicians, or unaccountable civil servants? I suspect the answer is fairly clear.> >> >
I can only presume that at the end of the day any "investigation" being conducted by the city council may eventually lead to councillors also being interviewed, leading to the possibility of further action.> >> >
I imagine there will be many people who will be willing to provide additional information. Perhaps you yourselves will be able to shed further light on all these matters in order to assist Mr Hilton in his enquiries.> >> >
In the meantime, I would like answers to my questions about Mr Parrish's questions - and the council's response.> >> >
Perhaps you can use whatever influence you may have to try and resolve this matter?> >> > regards,> >> >
AKelly



BRADLEY'S RESPONSE






From: "Bradley, Warren \(Leader of the City Council\)" Warren.Bradley@liverpool.gov.uk

Date: 2007/01/31 Wed PM 01:48:17 GMT

To: a.kelly@ntlworld.com; "Kenworthy, Michael Michael.Kenworthy@liverpool.gov.uk

Subject:

Re: Tony Parrish investigation
-->

Michael,

I forwarded the original email to you for information and advice on a response.

Can you please advise as to what I should do as a form of response: you will notice that the email is written in a threatening and intrusive manner.

I would appreciate your response by return?

Regards
Warren

Warren Bradley
Leader of Liverpool City Council--------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

LETTER OF JANUARY 19TH TO COUNCILLORS BRADLEY AND STOREY REGARDING TONY PARRISH'S QUESTIONS...

My last post concerned my Freedom of Information request to find out what questions Tony Parrish (pictured, ed) asked and the council's answers.
The council refused to comply with my request.
I then decided - in the interests of open government - to write to the current Leader of the Council, Councillor Warren Bradley and the former leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Storey to ascertain if they could shed any further light on these matters.
This is my letter of the 19th of January....(to be continued)

Dear Councillor,
Please find below a response I have received from the city council to my Freedom of Information request.
I had asked what questions Tony Parrish had asked the council and what the council's response had been.
As you will see from the reply, the council has been unable to respond with the information I requested.
In my view, there are three potential explanations for this:
1) The council's record-keeping systems and processes are so chaotic and disorganised that they simply do not know.
2) They are trying to frustrate my enquiry because it will produce information which will only embarrass them further by revealing their consistent and repeated failure to obey the law on Freedom of Information. (Presumably they don't want the council to appear in court again.)
3) They are trying to intimidate Mr Parrish with their 'ongoing investigation.'
(It is also a convenient excuse for refusing to impart such information, isn't it?)
I doubt whether 3) will work.
However both you gentlemen should be aware of an apparent "ongoing investigation".
Who authorised this?
What is its justification?
How much has it cost?
Who does it involve?
What is its purpose?
When did it begin?
When will it be concluded?
I am sure that you may wish to put these and a number of other questions to the current chief executive.
I should be interested in the answers.
As a council taxpayer, this seems to me yet more evidence of the unacceptable activities of an officer class within the city council, who are both out of control and unaccountable, as well as lacking in judgement and common sense.
It also raises yet again the intriguing question of who is actually running the city council - democratically elected politicians, or unaccountable civil servants?
I suspect the answer is fairly clear.
I can only presume that at the end of the day any "investigation" being conducted by the city council may eventually lead to councillors also being interviewed, leading to the possibility of further action.
I imagine there will be many people who will be willing to provide additional information.
Perhaps you yourselves will be able to shed further light on all these matters in order to assist Mr Hilton in his enquiries.
In the meantime, I would like answers to my questions about Mr Parrish's questions - and the council's response.
Perhaps you can use whatever influence you may have to try and resolve this matter?

regards,

AKelly

COLIN COVER UP IS FOUND OUT.....!

COLIN COVER UP FACES CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
Click here to discover how the city's chief exec has finally been found out:
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=high-court-threat-to-city-chief-over-red-light-row%26method=full%26objectid=18533567%26page=1%26siteid=50061-name_page.html