No. You could not make this up. Read on …

Email 1

Email 1. Sent on 9th July 2026

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Paul Cardin
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 08:07
Subject: corrected version – FORMAL NOTICE OF INSPECTION: STATUTORY REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING RECORDS
To: danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk, matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk, Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk
Cc: Basnett, Paula (Councillor) paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk

For the attention of the Section 151 Officer / Executive Director of Finance / Shaun Allen

Dear Section 151 Officer / Executive Director of Finance / Shaun Allen,

I am writing to explicitly set out my statutory inspection request.
To ensure a proportionate approach that places no unnecessary administrative burden on your team, please consider my targeted request set out below.
This request focuses exclusively on core accounting ledgers and active contracts, removing any need for broad manual corporate searches.

Please process the following request under Section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014:
As a local government elector for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, I am writing to exercise my explicit statutory right under Section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to inspect the Council’s accounting records and related documents during the current 30-working-day public rights window.

To ensure this request is strictly proportionate, manageable, and legally compliant with the definitions upheld in Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (2021), I am limiting my inspection exclusively to financial ledger records and active contracts related to specific asset transactions.
Please provide digital access to, or an inspection appointment for, the following specific items:

The Income Ledgers: All ledger entries recording rental income, wayleave fees, or site-share revenue received by Wirral Council from telecommunications operators during the 2025/2026 financial year.

The Associated Contracts: Copies of the underlying lease agreements, pavement permits, or wayleave contracts corresponding directly to those 2025/2026 telecommunications income streams (protected as inspectable “contracts” and “deeds” under Section 26(1) of the Act).

The Insurance Expenditure Records: The Council’s active Corporate Public Liability Insurance policy schedule for the 2025/2026 financial year, alongside the specific ledger receipt/voucher confirming the premium payment made to the insurer.

As these requests pertain directly to financial transaction ledgers, active revenue contracts, and expenditure vouchers, they sit firmly within the statutory scope of Section 26. They do not require broad manual narrative searches, thereby removing any grounds for rejection based on administrative burden.

Please confirm within the next 48 hours when these files will be made available for my inspection so that I may review them prior to the close of the statutory window.

I look forward to your swift response with the digital files and inspection dates,

Yours faithfully,
Paul Cardin

Wallasey
Merseyside

Response 1

The following inadequate response arrived four days later from officer Shaun Allen on 13th July 2026:

———- Forwarded message ———
From: FIN_PublicInspection, <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 09:51
Subject: RE: *corrected version* – FORMAL NOTICE OF INSPECTION: STATUTORY REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING RECORDS
To: Paul Cardin

Good morning, Mr Cardin,

Thank you for your enquiry. We will look into your request, it will take some time to investigate and collate, but we will aim to get the details to you by the end of July. I will advise if there is any delay beyond that date.

Many thanks,

Shaun

---

Email 2

Email 2. Sent on 13th July 2026

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Paul Cardin
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 21:02
Subject: Public Notice of Inspection
To: Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk
Cc: matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk, danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk, Hall, Brenda (Councillor) brendahall@wirral.gov.uk, Shaw, Vicki L. (Wallasey Town Hall) vickishaw@wirral.gov.uk, Basnett, Paula (Councillor) paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk, sarah.l.ironmonger@uk.gt.com

Dear Mr Allen,

Thank you for your response, however, aiming to respond to me at a later date is inadequate.

While I appreciate you looking into this matter, your proposal to delay production of these records until the end of July is legally unacceptable. It would effectively deny me my statutory rights.

The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 mandates that the inspection of accounting records must take place during the strict 30-working-day public rights window. Were you to defer my access until after this window has closed it would prevent me from exercising my right to raise formal objections with the local auditor.

Given the severe compliance risks associated with blocking or delaying statutory access, I have copied key senior officers and oversight figures into this correspondence for the reasons set out below:

• The External Auditor: Copied so they are immediately aware that the Council’s proposed timeline prevents a local elector from reviewing records within the lawful inspection window, directly disrupting the statutory audit process.

• The Chief Executive (Head of Paid Service): Copied to ensure executive visibility over an operational delay that exposes the local authority to legal non-compliance.

• The Monitoring Officer: Copied in fulfillment of their statutory duty under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to investigate and halt any acts or omissions by the Council that risk breaking the law.

• The Chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee: Copied to ensure robust political and governance oversight regarding the obstruction of statutory transparency measures.

• The Leader of the Council: Copied so that the political leadership is fully apprised of executive actions that undermine public accountability.

As noted in my initial request, the scope of this inquiry has been intentionally restricted to transaction ledgers, specific active contracts, and an insurance voucher. As established in Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (2021), administrative convenience or internal resource pressure cannot be used to defeat a statutory right of inspection.

Please re-evaluate this timeline immediately to ensure Wirral Council remains compliant with its statutory duties.

I require written confirmation within the next 24 hours of either a digital release date or an inspection appointment that falls safely within the current public rights window.

In year 2015/16 I successfully halted and froze Wirral Council’s accounts in the area of controversial £multi-million LOBO loans. Given my personal history, your current response could very well be interpreted as unfair, targeted discrimination,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin
about.me/paul.cardin

---

Email 3

Email 3. Sent to Grant Thornton’s auditor on 19th July 2026

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Paul Cardin
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 at 08:22
Subject: Obstruction and delay over statutory accounts inspection
To: sarah.l.ironmonger@uk.gt.com
Cc: matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk, Basnett, Paula (Councillor) paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk

Dear Ms Ironmonger,

I am writing to you in your capacity as the appointed external auditor for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

In the event I have the wrong person, please pass this message urgently to the Grant Thornton accountant dealing with Wirral Council.

I am a local elector for the Wirral area. I am writing to formally report that Wirral Council is currently obstructing and delaying my statutory right to inspect its accounts and accounting documents under Section 26 of the Act.

The Council published its Public Notice of Inspection for the 2025/26 accounts, establishing a strict 30-working-day window for public scrutiny. On 9th July 2026 (see attached email 1), which falls strictly within this active window, I submitted a formal request to the Council to inspect specific background documents, including:

1. The Income Ledgers: All ledger entries recording rental income, wayleave fees, or site-share revenue received by Wirral Council from telecommunications operators during the 2025/2026 financial year.
2. The Associated Contracts: Copies of the underlying lease agreements, pavement permits, or wayleave contracts corresponding directly to those 2025/2026 telecommunications income streams (protected as inspectable "contracts" and "deeds" under Section 26(1) of the Act).
3. The Insurance Expenditure Records: The Council's active Corporate Public Liability Insurance policy schedule for the 2025/2026 financial year, alongside the specific ledger receipt/voucher confirming the premium payment made to the insurer.

To date, the Council has failed to provide access, offering only delays and vague timelines.
I have emailed the Council on 9th July 2026 (see attached email 1) and 13th July 2026 (see attached email 2) in an attempt to obtain these documents yet I am faced with delays or non responses (see below).

As the National Audit Office (NAO) guidance clarifies, this 30-day window is a rigid statutory timeframe that you, as the auditor, have no legal power to extend. By delaying their response, Wirral Council is effectively running down the clock on my inspection period. This prevents me from identifying potential errors, checking value-for-money arrangements, or exercising my subsequent right under Section 27 to frame precise questions or lodge formal objections with you.

Given the severe financial stress and governance concerns highlighted in your recent Auditor’s Annual Report for Wirral Council, transparency during this public rights window is more critical than ever.
I urgently request that your audit team contacts the Director of Finance (S151 Officer) at Wirral Council to remind them of their mandatory duties under the Accounts and Audit Regulations. The Council must be instructed to provide immediate, unhindered access to the requested materials before my statutory window expires.

I have attached a full log of my correspondence with the Council’s finance team (emails 1 and 2) for your immediate review.

I have also copied this email to the council leader and CEO in an attempt to encourage them to resolve the errant conduct of junior officers under their charge,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin
about.me/paul.cardin

---

Despite my request for a response by 14th July, six further days have elapsed with no response. I’ve notified the auditor, copied the above prompting email to Wirral Council today – 19th July – and I’m still no further forward. That’s a total of 10 days lost…

---

This process has now taken an unexpected turn…

Response 2

[[[[An email was received this morning (Monday 20th July) from Michael Green of Grant Thornton containing a useful attachment.

Michael Green has taken over from Sarah Ironmonger as Wirral Council auditor. His email also contained the following security caveat …

“Commercial in Confidence”.

This could appear on every one of his emails, OR it may have been done to prevent me exercising a blogger’s customary freedom of speech.

I’ve made enquiries via email and hopefully, the full email will be published here soon.]]]]

---

An important quote from Michael Green’s email:

“…delays you feel you are experiencing…”

I beg to differ, but as stated previously, I could have been granted access to these accounts on 10th July. It’s now 20th July. That’s an obvious, factual, on the record delay of 10 days.

Ultimately, if access is blocked by the council, I’m not sure who to turn to?!

The Citizen’s Advice Bureau is a dead end, and consulting my own solicitor would cost lots of money; money I don’t have access to.

Lack of funds put paid to my last qualifying objection to Wirral Council’s accounts.

Also, it looks like electors can only object to the accounts after inspecting them. And I don’t think that will be permitted to happen. That’s my gut feeling here after blogging on abusive Wirral Council for the last 15 years.

---

Email 4

Email 4. Sent on 20th July 2026

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Paul Cardin 
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 at 21:51
Subject: Re: Re – Obstruction and delay over statutory accounts inspection
To: Michael Green <Michael.Green@uk.gt.com>

Subject: Official Submission of Audit Evidence: Obstruction of Electors’ Rights – Wirral MBC Audit

Dear Mr. Green,

Thank you for your email and for confirming your role as the Engagement Lead for the Wirral MBC audit.

While you state this is not a matter you can help with, I am formally submitting this tracking of the Council’s silence as direct audit evidence. A council obstructing an elector’s statutory inspection rights is a material failure of governance and internal control.

I request that you formally take this obstruction into account as part of your audit under the following specific provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014:

Breach of Section 26(1) (Inspection of Documents): This section gives any interested person the absolute right to inspect the accounting records and all related documents. The Council’s deliberate delay and lack of response constitute a direct obstruction of this statutory right.

Failure Under Section 20(1)(c) (Value for Money & Governance): You have a statutory duty to satisfy yourself that the authority has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in its use of resources. A breakdown in statutory compliance and public transparency directly undermines the Council’s governance framework.

Auditor Powers Under Schedule 7 (Public Interest Reports): You hold independent, absolute powers to issue a Public Interest Report regarding any matter coming to your attention during the audit. The Council’s wilful obstruction of public accountability is a matter of significant public interest that warrants formal reporting.

The guide you attached outlines my rights, but the Council is actively blocking them. As the external auditor, you are the independent safeguard. If a local authority can simply ignore electors until the inspection window closes, the statutory process is rendered meaningless.

Please confirm that this evidence of Wirral MBC’s non-compliance will be formally logged and evaluated as part of your assessment of their governance and Value for Money arrangements.

I initially requested access to the following documents on 9th July 2026:

The Income Ledgers: All ledger entries recording rental income, wayleave fees, or site-share revenue received by Wirral Council from telecommunications operators during the 2025/2026 financial year.

The Associated Contracts: Copies of the underlying lease agreements, pavement permits, or wayleave contracts corresponding directly to those 2025/2026 telecommunications income streams (protected as inspectable “contracts” and “deeds” under Section 26(1) of the Act).

The Insurance Expenditure Records: The Council’s active Corporate Public Liability Insurance policy schedule for the 2025/2026 financial year, alongside the specific ledger receipt/voucher confirming the premium payment made to the insurer.

The Accounts inspection window closes on 10th August 2026.

Please also note: as of today, this matter is with the press.

My failing attempt (through no fault of my own) to exercise my statutory rights and view Wirral Council’s accounts during the July / August 2026 ‘public open access’ period

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin about.me/paul.cardin

26th July UPDATE

Six days later, and as Shaun Allen’s promised ‘end of July’ response date approaches, I’ve had no response at all to Email 4 from Michael Green at Wirral Council’s auditors Grant Thornton.

---

1st August UPDATE

As expected, I’ve received nothing from Shaun Allen (fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk) despite him aiming to respond witth advice before the end of July 2026.

EMAIL 5

From: Paul Cardin
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 at 09:30
Subject: Fwd: *corrected version* – FORMAL NOTICE OF INSPECTION: STATUTORY REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING RECORDS
To: <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>
Cc: <matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk>, <danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk>, Basnett, Paula (Councillor) <paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk>

Dear Shaun Allen,

It’s 1st August 2026 and there is now a delay beyond the end of July.

Will you be aiming to advise me before the end of the accounts inspection window?

Best regards,

Paul Cardin about.me/paul.cardin

---

Response 3

24 days have now elapsed and I’ve got nowhere.

Here’s an email received on 3rd August 2026 from Shaun Allen of Wirral Council:

From: FIN_PublicInspection, <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 10:19
Subject: RE: *corrected version* – FORMAL NOTICE OF INSPECTION: STATUTORY REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING RECORDS
To: Paul Cardin, FIN_PublicInspection, <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>
Cc: matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk <matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk>, Kirwan, Daniel <danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk>, Basnett, Paula (Councillor) <paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Cardin,

I apologise for the delay, I’m just waiting for clarification from a third party before sending the information, but yes we will certainly be responding before the closure of the inspection period.

Kind regards,

Shaun

Email 6

Email received from Wirral Council’s Shaun Allen on 5th August 2026:

From: FIN_PublicInspection, <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 at 09:29
Subject: RE: *corrected version* – FORMAL NOTICE OF INSPECTION: STATUTORY REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING RECORDS
To: Paul Cardin
Cc: Kirwan, Daniel <danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk>, Bennett, Matthew <matthewbennett1@wirral.gov.uk>, Basnett, Paula (Councillor) <paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk>, FIN_PublicInspection, <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Cardin,

Thank you again for your inspection request, and for subsequently setting out your concerns regarding access to the records requested during the public inspection period. I would like to reassure you that there is absolutely no intention on the Council’s part to block, delay unnecessarily, or otherwise deny your statutory rights of inspection. We fully recognise the importance of the public inspection process and the rights afforded to local electors under the relevant legislation.

The timescale previously indicated (31st July) was well within the public inspection period which concludes on 12th August, and reflects the practical work required to identify, collate, review and prepare the information requested. This involves liaising with a number of relevant officers, locating records, and ensuring that any information disclosed is accurate and appropriate for release. There has been a slight delay past the intended return date while we awaited third party confirmation.

Work has progressed as a priority, and I’m happy to attach the following:

1. Ledger transactions (telecoms / insurance);

2. Insurance schedule.

3. Insurance invoices and payments system screens confirming payment.

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide copies of lease agreements or contracts relating to the telecommunications income streams under sections 26 (4) (a) and 26 (5) (a) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, as these are protected on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Thank you for your patience and understanding while this work was undertaken.

Yours sincerely,

Shaun Allen

Senior Finance Manager

There were 6 attachments to the above email:

---

Nowhere within the above insurance documents can any reference be found to insurance cover for electromagnetic radiation, telecoms masts or digital infrastructure.

So this is compelling evidence that the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral is not insured for any claims that may arise connected to its 100+ 3G / 4G / 5G telecoms masts.

In the urgent interests of the health, safety and wellbeing of all 320,000 Wirral residents, I have now been forced to send the following email – detailing my objection – to Wirral Council’s external auditor, Michael Green of Grant Thornton Accountants:

Email 7

From: Paul Cardin 
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 at 18:42
Subject: Formal Notice of Objection to the Statement of Accounts 2025/26
To: Michael Green <Michael.Green@uk.gt.com>
Cc: <danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk>, <matthewbennett@wirral.gov.uk>, Shaw, Vicki L. (Wallasey Town Hall) <vickishaw@wirral.gov.uk>, <Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Green,

Under Section 27, Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014

OBJECTION

I am exercising my statutory right under Section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to formally object to the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Council 2025/26 Statement of Accounts.

I object on the grounds that the Council has failed to maintain proper accounting arrangements, baseline risk entries, and asset valuation metrics concerning corporate land, property, and municipal structures leased or licensed to commercial partners, digital connectivity networks, advertising providers, and infrastructure entities (including, but not limited to, properties under the BAUER commercial lease portfolio or similar digital connectivity frameworks). This omission represents a material governance failure under the National Audit Office (NAO) Code of Audit Practice regarding Value for Money (VfM) arrangements and statutory risk
management.

BACKGROUND

Please note that evidence / sources are available on request.

For the past 3 years, I (together with several other members of the public) have written to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council objecting to applications for telecoms masts. In my letters, I have provided extensive evidence of studies showing harm from electromagnetic radiation.

In all cases, whether an application was approved or refused, the response has been that the NPPF (2024) states that an LPA …“should not ………… set health safeguards different from the International Commission
guidelines for public exposure”

… and that the presence of an accompanying ICNIRP certificate and deemed
safety certificate was sufficient to protect the public from harm. This response effectively shuts down any health concerns raised by the public, many of which are backed by robust scientific evidence.

(NPPF = National Planning Policy Framework, ICNIRP = International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.)

#99 – FORMAL OBJECTION to Auditor for WMBC – FINAL

This raises several issues, which are outlined below.

• Both the NPPF and ICNIRP guidelines are simply guidance. They are not statutory.
• ICNIRP certificates are not issued, validated or endorsed by ICNIRP, OFCOM or an independent body. All ICNIRP Certificates are self-certified.
• No validation is performed by WMBC of the details within the certificates, such as company or individuals named. In several instances, a dissolved company was given as the main declarant of the certificate. This was not a one-off “error”, and in allowing it to be brushed off as simply an “innocent error”, WMBC demonstrated a lack of robustness in its planning process.
• For many applications, no ICNIRP certificates are issued, such as for upgrades to existing masts (even though upgrades usually involve different technical specifications which will affect emissions). 
• As stated by ICNIRP itself, individuals who have metal implants or AIMDs in their body are specifically excluded in the ICNIRP guidelines. This means that even if a certificate is issued, it does not guarantee protection for everyone.

From the information provided during the inspection window, WMBC does not lease any land to telecoms masts, although it has approved several 5G upgrades to masts already installed on roof tops and other land.

The concern is that WMBC …
• has approved mast applications / notifications with / without ICNIRP certificates, despite being informed of the shortfall in protection by ICNIRP and the potential harm.

This opens the door to future litigation which leads to expensive court cases, and potentially lifetime responsibility provided by the council for individuals affected. There have been legal cases which have cost the relevant councils substantial amounts, amounts which then fall to the taxpayer.

This is a risk which needs to be recognised by WMBC.

Health Effects from wireless technology and Electromagnetic Radiation is recognised by reinsurers as a high impact risk with regard to future litigation.
Lloyds of London has refused to insure against health effects from all wireless technology since 2010 (Exclusion 32).

Swiss Re in their Emerging Risks Report (May 2019) state:

“To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely
to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence…”

“As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for
health impairments may come with a long latency.”

The insurance industry clearly recognises that potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency. Cases of Cancer Clusters (and other serious adverse effects) have been recorded in areas in which a mast has been installed for several years.

#99 – FORMAL OBJECTION to Auditor for WMBC – FINAL

Recent studies are providing clear evidence of genetic changes, carcinogenic effects and other adverse effects from living close to masts.

In a patent application, telecoms company Swisscom disclosed the carcinogenic nature of the associated EMF/RF radiation. It also stated that the carcinogenic effects are non-thermal, whereas ICNIRP covers only thermal effects.

“These findings indicate that the genotoxic effect of electromagnetic radiation is elicited via a non-thermal pathway.
……………..Thus it has been possible to show that mobile radio radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular in human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes
changed. This mutation can consequently lead to increased cancer risk. In particular, it could also be shown that this destruction is not dependent upon temperature increases, i.e. is non-thermal.

An ever-growing number of people now suffer with EHS (Electro Hypersensitivity), which is being exacerbated by the ubiquitous nature of masts, hubs, and digital screens in our environment. Symptoms can
range from stressful and unpleasant to downright debilitating to the point of making normal life impossible. This is a recognised condition.

The EMF and Health Working Group (EAHWG) of the UK government’s Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) stated in its minutes of July 2025 “it is clear that there are people
who suffer from EHS (electro hyper-sensitivity), the symptoms of which can be unpleasant and concerning to them and to their families. Sufferers are looking for comfort and explanations, but it is very difÏcult to provide
satisfactory explanations on the basis of available scientific evidence.”

EHS was also recognised by a tribunal court decision in 2022, where the court ruled that East Sussex County Council must secure special educational provision for a child who had electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
EHS sufferers are effectively the modern-day canaries in the coal mines clearly giving out warning signals that EMR does indeed produce adverse health effects.

I appreciate that, as auditor, your role is not to look at potential health effects. The main point, however, is that there are growing sections of the public who are susceptible to the effects of EMR, or who have AIMDs or metal implants in their bodies, thus the risk of future claims is growing by the day.

WMBC insurance is with Maven Public Sector and Aon UK Limited.

There is no reference to EMR or Telecoms masts in the Maven Public Sector and Aon UK Limited documentation sent to me during this inspection window. Furthermore, in response to my Freedom of Information request sent in 2024, which requested:

“Please would the Council send me the exact clause in their public liability insurance that shows that the Council is indemnified against claims on the Council for harm caused by EMF radiation?”

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (without providing any evidence of indemnity), stated: 

“We can confirm that the liability insurance in force covers
the Council in respect of its legal liabilities arising from its business
activities, subject to terms and conditions. The policy documentation does
not identify specific risks or specific scenarios for which it is insured
and therefore policy documentation will not reference cover for
electromagnetic radiation.”

The solicitor for the campaign group “Stop 5G Bath” received a letter from Public Health England’s own solicitors, DLA Piper (dated 08-Aug-2019), which exempted PHE from all liability in the event of future legal action relating to health effects from 5G if their guidance should turn out to be incorrect or misleading. In this letter they state:

“A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance. Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision. If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality.”

“PHE’s lawyers advise public bodies to balance PHE’s guidance with evidence from other sources i.e. not only from ICNIRP. This contradicts the government’s own planning regulations which require local authorities to
adhere strictly to ICNIRP’s guidelines…This gives no choice to public bodies about accepting a potentially catastrophic risk.”

#99 – FORMAL OBJECTION to Auditor for WMBC – FINAL

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

Ground A: Non-Compliance with Asset Impairment Regulations (IAS 36) across Broad Commercial and Connectivity Leases.

Under the CIPFA Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting and IAS 36 (Impairment of Assets), the Council must ensure that its assets are carried at no more than their recoverable amount.

The Council hosts wireless transmission equipment across its broad commercial property portfolio. This spans beyond traditional, standalone macro telecommunications masts to encompass indirect commercial
leases, smart municipal assets, digital advertising panels, and connectivity infrastructure equipped with 4G/5G capabilities.

Standard global underwriting practices apply a strict, universal Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Exclusion (such as Lloyd’s of London Underwriters CFC Wording / Exclusion 32) to commercial public liability policies.

This classification treats telecommunications and radio frequency radiation alongside asbestos as an uninsurable operational exposure.
By hosting wireless, digital, or smart infrastructure carrying an uninsurable operational risk on its land or structures, the Council is exposing public funds to unmitigated liabilities while potentially restricting the long-
term marketability, use, and capital value of these holdings. The Council has entirely failed to declare, review, or calculate asset impairment under IAS 36 to reflect this uninsurable liability status and land-use constraint
on the face of its balance sheet.

Ground B: Unmitigated Counterparty Credit Risk and Indemnity Reliance (IFRS 9)

The Council relies on boilerplate third-party corporate indemnities within its commercial, advertising, and connectivity leases to protect public funds from operational damages and third-party injury claims. Under
IFRS 9 (Financial Instruments), local authorities must actively assess and manage counterparty credit and default risk.

An indemnity clause is a financial instrument only as robust as the tenant’s remaining corporate balance sheet. Major digital, media, and telecommunications operators explicitly state in their investor risk
disclosures that they cannot obtain commercial insurance for long-term radiofrequency radiation (RFR) liabilities.

In the event of a systemic, market-wide, or catastrophic uninsurable claim, a tenant’s corporate structure faces immediate insolvency risk, transferring the ultimate financial liability directly back to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council as the freeholder or site owner. The Council’s accounts fail to demonstrate that any financial stress-testing has been conducted against the insolvency risk of commercial tenants operating with industry-wide insurance exclusions.

Ground C: Structural Failure of the Strategic Risk Register, Uninsured Exposure, and Blanket Dismissal of Public Scrutiny (VfM Breach)

The Council has historically maintained a passive policy posture, blindly following International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) compliance certificates to ignore and dismiss valid public
safety and financial risk concerns raised by residents. This defence is factually, legally, and logically flawed, creating a profound governance void under the NAO Code of Audit Practice regarding statutory Value for
Money (VfM):

1. The Corporate Risk Register: On searching through the WMBC corporate risk register there is no mention at all of EMR RF harm or risk or any stress tests, or risk mitigation metrics concerning uninsurable Radio Frequency (RF) liabilities, digital asset exposures, or global public liability exclusions. By acknowledging it holds no risk entries, the Council confirms it has failed to investigate, quantify, or manage its exposure

2. The ICNIRP Safety & Liability Gap: The Council’s blanket reliance on ICNIRP is structurally flawed because the official ICNIRP 2020 Statement of Principles explicitly admits:

#99 – FORMAL OBJECTION to Auditor for WMBC – FINAL

“Other types are not [considered by ICNIRP], for example, heating of metallic objects in the body, such as prostheses, or an influence on the operation of medical devices such as pacemakers. The latter electromagnetic interference effects are of a technical nature and do not fall within the remit of ICNIRP.”

Because ICNIRP explicitly excludes medical device interference from its safety remit, an ICNIRP certificate does not provide a comprehensive shield against civil personal injury claims. Vulnerable residents with pacemakers or active implants are left entirely unprotected by these guidelines.
3. The Governance Breakdown: If a resident suffers a medical emergency due to interference from equipment leased or permitted on Council-owned land or structures, the Council faces unlimited financial liability under civil law because its municipal insurers explicitly exclude EMR/EMF claims.
Failing to record this identified, structurally uninsurable financial exposure on the Strategic Risk Register — and using ICNIRP compliance to bypass proper executive risk scrutiny and public concern—constitutes a
significant weakness in governance arrangements.

This failure of internal control introduces unquantified financial liabilities arising from universal insurance exclusions on digital connectivity, telecommunications, and commercial infrastructure portfolios (such as the
BAUER portfolio). The Council’s complete exclusion of these material financial threats from its Strategic Risk Register and Annual Governance Statement (AGS) constitutes a direct breach of proper practice under the
CIPFA/Solace framework (Delivering Good Governance in Local Government).

This omission directly violates Principle F (Managing risks and performance through robust internal control and strong public financial management), which legally mandates that local authorities maintain a comprehensive risk framework that accurately captures all vulnerabilities threatening organisational financial resilience. By leaving these localised asset exposures unrecorded, the Council has failed to provide a robust or accurate statutory assurance review.

While the ultimate determination of risk ownership rests with the Council’s executive management, the Appointed Auditor is urged to evaluate whether this omission causes the statutory AGS to be fundamentally misleading. Consequently, I request that Michael Green – the External Auditor – investigates the Council’s methodology for valuing and risk-assessing these technically uninsurable assets and determine whether this non-disclosure constitutes a significant weakness under the National Audit OfÏce (NAO) Code of Audit Practice. Should the Council decline to immediately update its risk registries and amend its disclosures, the Auditor is requested to exercise formal statutory pressure—either by documenting a Significant Weakness within their Value for Money (VfM) commentary, appending an ‘Other Matter’ notification to the final audit report, or issuinga Public Interest Report under Section 24 (Schedule 7) of the 2014 Act to compel the implementation of a lawful risk-management framework.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Council’s failure to log, quantify, and report these uninsurable infrastructure risks constitutes a direct violation of multiple statutory duties and proper accounting practices.

Specifically, the Council is in breach of:

1. Regulation 5 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, which legally mandates the maintenance of a robust, comprehensive system of internal control and active risk management.
2. Principle F of the CIPFA/Solace Framework (Delivering Good Governance), by failing to maintain a transparent, ‘live’ risk register that captures all material vulnerabilities threatening organisational financial resilience.
3. Section 3.4 of the CIPFA Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting, which strictly requires the identification and formal disclosure of open-ended Contingent Liabilities—a requirement directly triggered here because municipal insurers explicitly exclude EMR/EMF civil claims, leaving the
Council with unmitigated, unlimited financial exposure.
4. The National Audit OfÏce (NAO) Code of Audit Practice, under which the Council’s documented risk blindness and lack of operational stress-testing create a definitive ‘Significant Weakness’ in its governance and Value for Money (VfM) arrangements.

#99 – FORMAL OBJECTION to Auditor for WMBC – FINAL

Statutory Action Requested

I request that the External Auditor exercises their statutory powers under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to:

• Inquire into the Council’s method for valuing and risk-assessing assets subject to universal insurance exclusions and technical safety gaps, spanning both direct telecom leases and indirect commercial / digital infrastructure contracts (such as the BAUER portfolio).
• Determine whether the Council’s total failure to log these financial threats on the Strategic Risk Register, alongside its reliance on ICNIRP guidelines to dismiss public risk concerns, constitutes a significant weakness in its governance and Value for Money arrangements.
• Consider issuing a Public Interest Report under Section 24 (Schedule 7) of the Act to ensure the Council establishes proper risk-management frameworks for uninsurable commercial and digital
leasing activities.

I would be grateful for an acknowledgment of receipt of this email and formal notice from both the Council’s financial leadership and the Appointed Auditor,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

---

*BREAKING* | 5G Masts | Urgent Criminal Complaint sent today 29th April 2024 to Paul Morrison, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate

---

Wirral Council’s 2026 “NOTICE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS” document

(my emphasis / italics):

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH 2026
NOTICE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS

The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014
The Accounts and Audit (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Notice is hereby given under Regulation 15 (2 and 3) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 that the unaudited statement of accounts which may be subject to change for the year ended 31 March 2026 will be published on the Council’s website at: https://www.wirral.gov.uk/about-council/budget-and-spending/annual-accounts.

The period for the exercise of public rights under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and updated by The Accounts and Audit (Amendment) Regulations 2024,
is required to include the first 10 working days of July.

The accounts and other documents are available for inspection at Council’s offices at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 8ED. Please email Shaun Allen at Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk to make an appointment.

Notice is given that from 1 July 2026 to 12 August 2026 (Inclusive) between 10:00 hours and 16:00 hours on weekdays any person may inspect the accounting records for the financial year to which the audit relates. The accounting records include all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers, receipts and other related documents to those records and they may make copies of all or any part of those records or documents, as required under Section 25 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (The Act), except as provided for in Section 26 of The Act.

Notice is given that from 1 July 2026 to 12 August 2026 (Inclusive) a local government elector for any area to which the accounts relate, or their representative, may ask the auditor questions about the accounts as set out in Section 26 of The Act.

Notice is given any such elector may make objections to the auditor, under Section 27 of The Act during this period, relating to any matter where the auditor could take action under:

• Section 28 of The Act, namely, to apply to the court for a declaration that an item in the accounts is contrary to law; and/or
• Section 24 and paragraph 1 of schedule 7 of The Act, namely, to make a report in the public interest.

Any objection, and the grounds on which it is made, must be sent to the auditor in writing, with a copy to Shaun Allen, Senior Finance Manager, at the following email address Fin_publicinspection@wirral.gov.uk. Any objection must state the grounds on which the objection is being made and particulars of the objection.

Objections should be directed to the auditor, Michael Green of Grant Thornton UK LLP (Landmark, St Peter’s Square, 1 Oxford Street, Manchester M1 4PB
(direct) +44 (0)161 953 6382 email michael.green@uk.gt.com).

• A guide to your rights can be found at: National Audit Office: Local authority accounts – a guide to your rights

30 June 2026

Daniel Kirwan
Interim Director of Finance (S151 Officer)
Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED

danielkirwan@wirral.gov.uk

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

Original Times article exposing Asif Hamid as a criminal: https://wirralinittogether.blog/2026/04/26/a-screenshot-of-the-sunday-times-asif-hamid-criminal-article-saved-here-in-the-event-it-ever-gets-deleted/

---

From: Paul Cardin 
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 at 23:27
Subject: Asif Hamid and Paula Basnett – a public acknowledgment
To: Hodson, Andrew C. (Councillor) <andrewhodson@wirral.gov.uk>, Hall, Brenda (Councillor) <brendahall@wirral.gov.uk>, Basnett, Paula (Councillor) <paulabasnett@wirral.gov.uk>, Onwuemene, Amanda (Councillor) <amandaonwuemene@wirral.gov.uk>, Cooke, Chris (Councillor) <chriscooke@wirral.gov.uk>, Grey, Elizabeth A. (Councillor) <elizabethgrey@wirral.gov.uk>, Bird, Jo (Councillor) <jobird@wirral.gov.uk>, Jones, Tony J. (Councillor) <tonyjones@wirral.gov.uk>, Cox, Tony (Councillor) <tonycox@wirral.gov.uk>, Jenkinson, Gail (Councillor) <gailjenkinson@wirral.gov.uk>, Pitt, Richie (Councillor) <richiepitt@wirral.gov.uk>, Davies, Graham (Councillor) <grahamdavies3@wirral.gov.uk>, Ainsworth, Ann (Councillor) <annainsworth@wirral.gov.uk>, Cameron, Helen J. (Councillor) <helencameron@wirral.gov.uk>, Murphy, Kieran (Councillor) <kieranmurphy@wirral.gov.uk>, Cleary, Pat N. (Councillor) <patcleary@wirral.gov.uk>, Wilson, Vida C. (Councillor) <vidawilson@wirral.gov.uk>, Carubia, Christopher D. (Councillor) <christophercarubia@wirral.gov.uk>, Gorman, Harry R. (Councillor) <harrygorman@wirral.gov.uk>, Davies, George (Councillor) <georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk>, EAGLE, Angela <angela.eagle.mp@parliament.uk>, Laing, Tom (Councillor) <tomlaing@wirral.gov.uk>, Graham, Naomi J. (Councillor) <naomigraham@wirral.gov.uk>, Raymond, Helen (Councillor) <helenraymond@wirral.gov.uk>, Hodson, Kathy. (Councillor) <kathyhodson@wirral.gov.uk>, Wood, Gillian (Councillor) <gillianwood@wirral.gov.uk>, Davies, Angie (Councillor) <angeladavies@wirral.gov.uk>, Sullivan, Mike (Councillor) <mikesullivan@wirral.gov.uk>, matthew.patrick.mp@parliament.uk <matthew.patrick.mp@parliament.uk>, Bennett, Stephen (Councillor) <stephenbennett@wirral.gov.uk>, McManus, Grahame (Councillor) <grahamemcmanus@wirral.gov.uk>, Baldwin, Colin (Councillor) <colinbaldwin@wirral.gov.uk>, Redfern, Mike (Councillor) <mikeredfern@wirral.gov.uk>, Williams, Jerry (Councillor) <jerrywilliams@wirral.gov.uk>, Robinson, Jean M. (Councillor) <jeanrobinson@wirral.gov.uk>, Tomeny, Ewan (Councillor) <ewantomeny@wirral.gov.uk>, Johnson, Jenny (Councillor) <jennyjohnson2@wirral.gov.uk>, Luxon-Kewley, Louise (Councillor) <louiseluxonkewley@wirral.gov.uk>, Mountney, Simon R. (Councillor) <simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk>, Grier, Judith D. (Councillor) <judithgrier@wirral.gov.uk>, Kenny, Brian M. (Councillor) <briankenny@wirral.gov.uk>, Martin, Paul J. (Councillor) <paulmartin1@wirral.gov.uk>, Brame, Allan J.(Councillor) <allanbrame@wirral.gov.uk>, Booth, Max D. (Councillor) <maxbooth@wirral.gov.uk>, Molyneux, Ruth (Councillor) <ruthmolyneux@wirral.gov.uk>, Williamson, Janette (Councillor) <janwilliamson@wirral.gov.uk>, Green, Jeff E. (Councillor) <jeffgreen@wirral.gov.uk>, Gardner, Andrew M. (Councillor) <andrewgardner@wirral.gov.uk>, McManus, Julie (Councillor) <juliemcmanus@wirral.gov.uk>, Lewis, Ian (Councillor) <ianlewis@wirral.gov.uk>, Povall, Cherry (Councillor) <cherrypovall@wirral.gov.uk>, Walsh, Jason P. (Councillor) <jasonwalsh@wirral.gov.uk>, Laing, James (Councillor) <jameslaing@wirral.gov.uk>, Murphy, Tony (Councillor) <tonymurphy@wirral.gov.uk>, Lamb, Ed (Councillor) <edlamb@wirral.gov.uk>, Foulkes, Steve (Councillor) <stevefoulkes@wirral.gov.uk>, Rennie, Lesley A. (Councillor) <lesleyrennie@wirral.gov.uk>, Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor) <philgilchrist@wirral.gov.uk>, Skillicorn, Mark (Councillor) <markskillicorn@wirral.gov.uk>, Cooper, Graeme (Councillor) <graemecooper@wirral.gov.uk>, Stuart, Paul C. (Councillor) <paulstuart@wirral.gov.uk>, Stuart, Kaitlin (Councillor) <kaitlinstuart@wirral.gov.uk>, Jobson, Paul (Councillor) <pauljobson@wirral.gov.uk>, Powell-Wilde, Sue (Councillor) <suepowellwilde@wirral.gov.uk>, McDonald, Craig (Councillor) <craigmcdonald@wirral.gov.uk>, alison.mcgovern.mp@parliament.uk <alison.mcgovern.mp@parliament.uk>

The Nolan Principles (formerly known as the 7 Principles of Public Life)

Selflessness: Acting solely in the public interest, avoiding personal, financial, or family gain. 

Integrity: Avoiding obligations to outside individuals or organizations that might inappropriately influence official duties and declaring any conflicts of interest. 

Objectivity: Making decisions impartially, fairly, and on merit, using the best available evidence without bias or discrimination. 

Accountability: Being accountable to the public for decisions and actions and submitting to appropriate scrutiny. 

Openness: Acting and making decisions in an open and transparent manner, withholding information only for clear and lawful reasons. 

Honesty: Being truthful in all professional dealings. 

Leadership: Promoting and supporting these principles, challenging poor behavior, and treating others with respect. 

---

Note: for further essential information, please click on the contained hyperlinks in the following text:

Dear Wirral MPs and Councillors,

I write to you in full awareness of the Nolan Principles of Public Life—standards of integrity, selflessness, and accountability that must guide all public office holders. Should any doubt exist regarding their relevance, I urge a renewed commitment to these foundational values as you represent the people of Wirral.

This correspondence concerns Mr. Asif Hamid, CEO of TCCL Realisations Limited (formerly The Contact Company), The Contact Specialists, and Tower Wharf Limited. On 29 March 2026, the Sunday Times published a detailed exposé revealing Mr. Hamid’s criminal history, including:

Fleeing to Pakistan in 1990 after defrauding a Burnley hotel and BBC Children in Need of £4,500 through fraudulent fundraising, later surrendering in 1996 and serving a ten-month sentence at Burnley Crown Court

Convictions at ages 19 (possession of an offensive weapon) and 20 (deception via a falsified benefit cheque)

Association with three companies—TCCL Realisations Limited, The Contact Specialists, and Tower Wharf Limited—that have collapsed, collectively owing £6.2 million to HMRC, with liquidators stating recovery is unlikely

Alleged misappropriation of pension contributions from over 1,300 staff at his Birkenhead contact centre during 2024, reportedly reimbursed by public funds 

My primary concern is Mr. Hamid’s longstanding and close business relationship with Councillor Paula Basnett, Leader of Wirral Council. This association raises serious questions about governance, transparency, and adherence to the Nolan Principles—particularly selflessness, integrity, and accountability. 

Despite the gravity of these revelations, three weeks have passed with no coverage from the Liverpool Echo or Wirral Globe, nor any public statement from Councillor Basnett. On the evening of 20 April 2026, I attempted to seek clarification outside the Floral Pavilion but was met with evasion—Councillor Basnett turned away, engaged in a feigned conversation with Councillor Angela Davies, and was swiftly escorted to safety by former Council Leader Steve Foulkes.

To Wirral Councillors

I urge you to consult the Nolan Principles collectively, confer with one another, and adopt an official position. You must then use the council chamber despatch box to formally demand that Councillor Basnett issue a public statement on this matter. Silence is not an option when public trust is at stake. 

As it stands, a number of pressing questions regarding nepotism / cronyism / suspicious activity have previously been publicly raised on the business conduct of Councillor Paula Basnett. This has become exacerbated following her successful elevation to the position of Council Leader.

Further concerns regarding cronyism and financial oversight persist, including unanswered Freedom of Information requests about the annual £438,050 Business Support Grant to Egerton House and the Wirral Chamber of Commerce—organisations in which both Councillor Basnett and Mr. Hamid have held significant influence. 

To Wirral MPs

I call upon you to invoke the Nolan Principles, coordinate among yourselves, appoint a spokesperson, and raise this issue at the House of Commons despatch box. Demand a full inquiry into:

A. The roles of Mayor Steve Rotheram, Managing Director Mark Basnett (Councillor Basnett’s husband), and the former Local Enterprise Partnership that awarded Mr. Hamid a £1 million grant in 2014—despite internal Labour Party warnings being ignored

B. How Mr. Hamid, with a documented criminal past, passed vetting procedures and was awarded an MBE in 2017 for services to small and medium enterprises.

The public deserves transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership. I expect a response from a nominated representative to advance these urgent matters,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin
Wirral Residents Association

Paul Cardinabout.me/paul.cardin

---

The original Sunday Times article (with paywall removed):

https://archive.md/UtQy9

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

---

Homepage

---

Chint Group

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

…34 minutes, and then my phone’s battery packed in…!

---

Sign the petition against UK carbon capture schemes here:

Stop CCS

---

Another carbon capture petition:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/739490

John Egan is the CEO of Peak Cluster Ltd. He leads the project, which is a collaboration between four major cement and lime producers—Holcim, Tarmac, Breedon, and Buxton Lime—aimed at decarbonising the UK’s cement and lime industry through carbon capture and storage. 
 The project, supported by the National Wealth Fund and storage partner MNZ, will capture CO₂ from manufacturing sites in Derbyshire and Staffordshire and transport it to permanent storage beneath the East Irish Sea. John Egan has emphasized the project’s importance for securing jobs, supporting regional prosperity, and advancing the UK’s industrial decarbonisation goals. 

---

Interestingly, here’s some information picked up from an AI chatbot this evening. See my question to John at [31:12] in the above video:

“Dear AI, what environmentally safe alternatives are there to the traditional methods of manufacturing cement and lime, preferably ones that either do not create CO₂ or create much reduced amounts?”

AI CHATBOT: Several environmentally safe alternatives to traditional cement and lime manufacturing are emerging, significantly reducing or even eliminating CO₂ emissions:

Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3): This blend replaces up to 50% of traditional Portland cement clinker with limestone and calcined clay, cutting CO₂ emissions by up to 40%.  It uses lower-temperature processing and is compatible with existing infrastructure.

Geopolymer Concrete: Made from industrial byproducts like fly ash or slag activated with alkaline solutions, geopolymer concrete emits up to 80% less CO₂ than conventional cement.  It requires no high-temperature kilns and enhances durability.

Alternative Clinkers: New clinker types like Reactive Belite-rich Portland Cement (RBPC), Belite-Ye’elimite-Ferrite (BYF), and Carbonatable Calcium Silicate Clinkers (CCSC) reduce emissions by 28%–42% by lowering calcination temperatures and limestone use. 

Magnesium-Based Cements: Derived from magnesium silicates (MOMS), these cements react with atmospheric CO₂ during curing, sequestering carbon instead of releasing it.  They offer a pathway to carbon-negative construction.

Carbon-Free Calcium Silicate Cements: Companies like Brimstone use calcium silicate rocks (abundant globally) instead of limestone, avoiding CO₂ release during calcination.  Their process also passively captures atmospheric CO₂ through magnesium content. 

Electrified Cement Production: Innovations like Sublime Systems’ electrochemical process produce cement without fossil fuels or high-temperature kilns, using electricity to drive chemical reactions—enabling near-zero emissions when powered by renewables. 

AI-Optimized Cement Recipes: Researchers at the Paul Scherrer Institute developed an AI model that rapidly designs low-carbon cement formulations, accelerating the discovery of high-performance, low-emission alternatives. 

These technologies, combined with clinker substitution using industrial byproducts (fly ash, slag) and carbon capture (e.g., Fortera’s ReAct Cement™), are key to decarbonizing the cement industry. 

---

“Is it possible now or very soon to have any of the above methods working both economically and at scale, and therefore obviating the need for very expensive, unproven carbon capture schemes that may cause environmental and societal harm?”

Yes, several low-carbon cement technologies are now economically viable and scaling commercially, offering a realistic alternative to expensive and unproven carbon capture (CCUS) schemes. 

Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3) is already cost-competitive, with production costs up to 25% lower than traditional Portland cement.  It reduces CO₂ emissions by up to 40% and is supported by new standards (e.g., India’s IS 18189:2023). Adoption is accelerating, with projections of 500 million tons of CO₂ saved annually by 2030. 

Geopolymer cement is experiencing rapid market growth, projected to reach $4.74 billion by 2030 (10.2% CAGR), driven by demand for durable, low-carbon infrastructure.  Though still limited to niche applications due to supply chain and workforce challenges, it offers up to 80% lower emissions and is increasingly used in industrial and precast construction. 

Innovative startups are also advancing toward scale:

Sublime Systems has built a pilot plant producing ASTM-standard cement with near-zero emissions and plans a 30,000-ton demonstration facility by early 2026, with a million-ton plant targeted by 2030. 

Brimstone is developing carbon-free cement using calcium silicate rocks and has secured advance supply agreements with Amazon, indicating strong market validation. 

These technologies are deployable now, avoid the environmental and societal risks of CCUS, and are being driven by tech giants, updated standards, and government funding (e.g., U.S. DOE support).  While full-scale displacement of traditional cement will take time, the path is clear: low-carbon alternatives are technically ready, economically feasible, and beginning to scale—making reliance on unproven carbon capture increasingly unnecessary. 

So it seems the CEO of Peak Cluster got it wrong when he told me in answer to my question that these technologies could not be used at scale, and were not deployable now.

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

---

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

I’m self-employed. I have a wife and two daughters whom I want to provide for, but as we’re all aware, this has been made very difficult by the ongoing cost of living crisis.

I’ve run the https://www.wirralinittogether.blog for the last 12 years. This has exposed serious failures – including disabled abuse, corruption and cronyism at Wirral Labour and Tory-run councils over the last decade.

If elected, my mission is to give people new hope, to restore dignity to public debate and to try and make the council honest and accountable to its people.

I am a Falklands War veteran and a published author. Back in 2003, as a Wirral Council street lighting design employee, I blew the whistle on highly suspect financial activity. The Labour-run council branded me a ‘troublemaker’ and responded with a range of bogus gross misconduct charges which were aimed at dismissing me. I won my case but was forced to resign my position.

My blog later exposed the fact that Wirral Labour’s councillors and their senior officers had plunged local council taxpayers and their children and grandchildren into £202 million of LOBO loans debt which won’t be paid off until the year 2078. The local newspapers never reported on this situation.

Like everyone, I am watching the world around us go through very rapid and uncalled-for changes. As a critical thinker who is not vaccinated against Covid19, I have been troubled over the last three years by the authoritarian, bullying, coercive actions of the UK government, the powerful but unregulated pharmaceutical companies and the inadequate reporting of the media. I believe the threat to life of the Covid19 virus has been overstated and the mRNA vaccine response was forced through for all the wrong reasons. These behaviours have been motivated by the desire for a climate of fear, which in itself has proven to be a serious threat to local businesses, to the fabric of our society and to people’s hard-won freedoms.

This has all been compounded by rising food and energy prices, raised council tax, industrial disputes and government/employer intransigence which threatens everyone’s job security.

Locally, it’s time to return the borough of Wirral to a time where issues are properly debated, a sense of community is restored and elected representatives are there for the people and not to sit idly by, waste our precious time or carve out opportunities for each other. Please make your vote count this time!

Link to my Twitter account and a pinned tweet which contains 101 instances of Wirral Council abuse, corruption, scandal and cronyism. Click below, then scroll down to read:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1641810874649260032.html

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

You’ll find absolutely bugger all here at the Magenta Living home page on this urgent, breaking news story. How strange, readers? 

https://www.magentaliving.org.uk

These are the three Wirral Councillors who earn money in return for sitting on the Magenta Living board – one as a non-exec director.

We are referring here to the former “Wirral Partnership Homes, Trading as Magenta Living”, whose portfolio of 13,000 dwellings, representing Wirral Council’s former Council Housing stock, was farmed out to the money-grubbing, profiteering private sector 14 years ago, during Tony Blair’s hard right power trip and his destructive hollowing out of traditional Labour Party values and the ‘torifying‘ of its policies.

Two of the board are alleged ‘Labour’ councillors, one is a Tory. Two of them – Far Right Foulkes and Green – are former hard right Labour and Tory council leaders, respectively. 

https://twitter.com/Wirral_In_It/status/1119899523743191040?s=19

Here’s a link to the article:

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/association-which-developed-electrical-safety-code-slammed-for-putting-tenants-at-risk-61084

We’ve been in this game a long time, in fact since resigning from Wirral Council 16 years ago and starting this blog 8 years later. 

Long enough to recognise at a glance a contrived puff-piece, reeking of prior concealment, containment, and controlled cover-up.

Not surprisingly, none of this scandal and abject failure has been reported in Wirral Council’s partner media organisations – the captured Wirral Globe and Liverpool Echo – presumably because a commercial decision will have been made privately not to risk alerting / alienating readers – at local election time FFS – many of whom will be readers of both newspapers and expecting to be drip-fed tedious, non-controversial items, masquerading as ‘news’, and whom, if told, may decide to withdraw their support and to not vote for Claughton Far Right candidate Steve Foulkes upon witnessing his reckless behaviour re: tenants’ safety.

No, they can’t be risking that.  So it’s a case of slam the shutters down and say nothing.

If you check here – you’ll be horrified to learn that the local papers don’t report crimes like alleged #racism either, particularly not where prominent Labour Executive members like Far Right Foulkes or George Davies (see the infamous #Wirralgate) are heavily implicated in it. 

We don’t personally rent from Magenta, so we’re fortunate. But if you’re unlucky and have ended up saddled with this dubious trio as your landlords, we’d suggest that no matter what assurances are given in private or public – there’s nothing in the papers, obviously – they simply cannot be trusted not to lie straight-faced.

Their current collective radio silence and the lack of any news in the Wirral rags on this issue should be telling you all you need to know.

Don’t expect to see any stories along the lines, “thousands of Magenta Living tenants could have been burned to a crisp in their beds thanks to our woeful councillors” in the pisspoor Wirral View either. 

Serial bullies are always serial cowards. It kinda goes with the territory.

You may have to take some action yourself. 

---

https://twitter.com/Wirral_In_It/status/1118980274556166144?s=19

---

Finally, if you’re a Claughton resident, and whether you’re renting from Magenta Living or not, do you really think it would be a good idea to vote for the likes of Steve Far Right Foulkes, who is your candidate in the upcoming local elections on May 2nd?

Surely the other options are looking far more attractive now?

Far Right Foulkes was the character who as Wirral Labour Council leader oversaw the theft of £736,756.97 from learning disabled council tenants over a 9 year period – five of whom died – then squandered a fortune in your council tax trying and failing to cover it all up. 

Accountability duly arrived and his punishment was to be chauffeured around Wirral as MAYOR for a year, thanks to a recommendation from his buddy, now outgoing liar, hard right Labour leader and liar (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) Phil Davies. 

Voting for this character would equate to knocking on the doors and spitting into the faces of your friends and neighbours. It’s not going to make you a very popular person around Claughton.

Just don’t do it! 

---

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

A friend kindly forwarded the following advert to us, spotted recently on the www.local.gov.uk website. 

https://t.co/0Xb38xDpQU

---

KEY

1. “Most Improved Council”.  This was awarded by the media publication arm of the body that acts as the “Trade Union” for local authorities such as Wirral Council, namely, the Local Government Chronicle and the Local Government Association respectively.  So…  when untrustworthy organisations such as these award their paying members (with our cash) worthlesss little badges, proclaiming bogus leaps of progress or wonderful, but in reality, worthless, phantom achievements, we can safely ignore it.  This award occurred 3 years ago.  Since then, it’s been repeatedly overwritten and drowned out by scandal upon scandal – such as the independent OFSTED investigation’s “INADEQUATE” for Children’s Services and the (conveniently secret) Serious Case Review for the Rajenthiram brothers child abuse case.  Despite these failures being overlaid across the top, the term “Most Improved Council” is still emblazoned shamelessly and dishonestly across every email, letter, and JOB ADVERT, (see above) jostling for our attention.

   ---

2. “A Progressive and Driven Partnership Galvanizer”.  No comment, apart from ….WTAF?  The lurch to impenetrable jargon continues apace, and remains a surefire indicator of an organisation with its collective, away with the fairies head rammed firmly up its collective, tight as a duck’s arse sphincter.

   ---

3. “Create a Legacy for Yourself in the Process”.  Here is another  clear insight into the wacky, out of kilter motivations of this basket case.  Forget old fashioned service to the public.  At Wirral, they do things differently.  You can shove all that public service bollocks to one side, and strike out on your own, in your own selfish, corporate interest, carving out your own miserable ‘legacy’.  And we’re here to shield and sustain you in that, and to passionately flourish some palm fronds and beat the path ahead of you in your honour as you proceed…

   ---

4. Transformation.  Do you get it?  Does anybody get it?  It’s another chuckaway term that despite forensic analysis, remains utterly meaningless.  Transformation to what?  Transformation from what?  It echoes the deep insincerity of that old chestnut, ‘moving forward”.  Moving forward from what?  Moving forward to WHAT?

   The next scandal in the pipeline?

    

   ---

THE ABILITY REALITY

The skills and qualities you will actually require…

1. The ability to attend court, molest a bible and bust a religious oath

2. The ability to ‘forget’ inconvenient truths, and instead, to only recall events or details that are advantageous to oneself and the corrupted body corporate

3. The ability to take copious notes every single day as part of your council role, as they will be required in order to successfully achieve 1 and 2 above

4. The ability to state in court “I CANNOT RECALL” and that you were not actually taking notes on ‘that particular day’, because such an admission would have the effect of damaging one’s chances of winning the case and endangering the reputation of oneself and the body corporate

5. Er…

6. 7. 8. 9.  …………….Lots more, but I don’t want to bore you.  You get the picture…       

10. That’s it.

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

http://paulcardin.substack.com

11th January 2017

Following this afternoon’s trial at Birkenhead Magistrates Court, former Wirral Labour Councillor

Jim Crabtree was given a 12 week prison sentence suspended for a year.

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/15016582.COURT__Ex_Wirral_Labour_councillor_admits_making_death_threat_to_colleague_on_day_MP_Jo_Cox_was_murdered/

Crabtree appeared on one count of sending “a message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” to his former party colleague Councillor Louise Reecejones on 16th June 2016. He also received a restraining order banning him from contacting her.

For context – and crucial to the case – is the date of the offence i.e. 16th June 2016 – the same day Jo Cox MP was murdered, stabbed 15 times and shot 3 times, in the street, in her constituency of Batley and Spen.

Her killer, Thomas Mair, had shouted “Britain first” as he carried out the attack before calmly walking away from the scene. Mair was jailed for life in November 2016.

The wording of the message Crabtree sent is chilling:

“You need to pay back the £19,000 bitch, or I will do what happened to that MP today.”

A possible indication of Crabtree’s motivations appears in his Facebook account, details of which don’t appear to have been considered by the court today.

As we can see from the following screenshots, complete with dubious quotations, Crabtree, like Thomas Mair before him, appears to be either a supporter or an apparent sympathiser with the aims of this right wing group.

Leaving aside the disturbing notion that a one-time Labour councillor may have held far-right sympathies, this suspended sentence has implications for current Wirral Council leader Phil Davies – particularly given his and his colleagues’ long term failure to apply any disciplinary restraint upon Councillor Crabtree, who served as a prominent member of Wirral’s “Inner Ring” of Labour councillors – yet at the same time appeared to be a maverick and ‘beyond control’.

Davies had also forced through changes to committee structures following Labour’s / Crabtree’s success in the local elections of May 2012, allowing Labour members to increase their showing, to dominate as chairs and to outnumber their opponents in all the key Wirral Council member committees.

This calculated action – coupled presumably with Phil Davies’ consent – permitted Crabtree to become Chair of the council’s most prominent, high profile body, the Audit and Risk Management Committee in 2013, the low point of which was his chairing of the ARMC meeting of 8th October 2014.

But even before the incident of June 2016, Crabtree had frequently displayed grudging disdain for rules right across the board, be they party, Town Hall, central government or data related, and appeared contemptuous of having to be bound by them.

As the people of Bidston & St James ward were all too familiar, Councillor Crabtree – ‘a man of good character’ – so the court was told, was regularly courting trouble even before this incident.

His conduct both within the council chamber and without keyed in with an apparent unhealthy disregard for the need for calm, respectful, businesslike behaviour in the service of the public.

In other walks of life a tendency to rebel against officialdom might be seen as an admirable trait, but with Councillor Crabtree, the public looked on in horror as his shabby ongoing conduct was either passively endorsed by his seniors’ failure to act … or actively rewarded with swift promotion through the ranks.

There was a clear distinction with Crabtree that was very revealing.  All his apparent grievances and rebellious motivations appeared grounded either in self-interest or in his own self-promotion, rather than any burning desire to help others.

This worked for him personally because up until his alleged deselection in May 2015, despite his atrocious behaviour and the widespread public misgivings, he was never pulled up.

So on he went, queuing behind the rest to be freely bestowed with the trappings of public office by his own party’s protectors and power brokers, Far Right Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor George Davies, and the current leader, Councillor Phil Davies, with the entire circus dancing and cowering by turns beneath the whip hand of ringmaster and controller Frank Field MP. 

Crabtree’s frequent rewards for foul conduct may even have been carried out cynically to deliberately rub salt into the wounds of Labour’s alleged political opponents on the benches opposite.  In fact it’s inadvisable here on Wirral to try to conceive of any other motivation.

This Wirral Leaks article describes how – quite disgracefully – Crabtree was selected to represent Wirral Council by attending a royal garden party on the invitation of the Queen at Buckingham Palace in the spring of 2016. It’s not known whether he made it to London or not.

As hindsight kicks in, which it now must, Crabtree’s one-time controllers and reckless promoters may well be doing a swift double-take and trying to outdo their colleagues by jockeying for position as – whaddya know -‘architects of Crabtree’s downfall all along’.

Whereas in truth, they’re more likely to be regretting how they’d sat on their hands for many years, allowing Crabtree carte blanche to fill his boots, and full scope to get away with …

• The troubling contents of his Facebook page with open support for Britain First – not punished

• The derision he dished out towards politically engaged members of the public – Link 1 below – not punished

• His selfish exploitation of defenceless, special needs children for party gain – Link 2 below – not punished

• His reckless, abusive behaviour in public – Link 3 below – not punished

Link 1 – 62 Wirral Councillors now registered with the ICO – but you are paying

Link 2 – Rotten to the Core

Link 3 – Don’t Stand by, Stand Up!

---

And finally…

---

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

http://paulcardin.substack.com