This is the biggest, most serious criminal incident (potentially) around these parts. It involves Wirral Council, four ex-employee complainants, their MP Frank Field, Council Leader Phil Davies, Deputy Leader George Davies, ex-Leader Steve Foulkes and ex-Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour. Wirral Leaks have now produced the most comprehensive analysis of these very complex issues. Despite the twists and turns this story has taken over the last four years, the clearest aspect is that there has been a deliberate tactic of attempting to conceal criminal behaviour, which is yet to be acknowledged, investigated properly and addressed. Watch this space.
However little did we think that 4 years later we would still be waiting for the biggest scandal ever in Wirral politics to be fully exposed. Call it our spectacular naivety in underestimating the power that 4 politicians hold locally but it is astonishing to us that this particular 4 x 4 is still on the road. So , for those of you unfamiliar with the Wirralgate story , which for a start off means you’re not a regular reader of Wirral Leaks , we’ll break it downfor you. It goes a little something like this :
4 Wirral Council complainants have a recorded telephone conversation involving the Deputy Leader of Wirral Council where he…
Liverpool council has been accused of “intercepting” emails between a resident and an elected councillor.
Liberal Democrat councillor Andrew Makinson received an email from community campaigner and former councillor Josie Mullen, but not before it has been seen and added to by a council officer.
Cllr Makinson has described the move as “extremely disturbing” and said everyone should be entitled to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without “council snoopers” looking over their shoulder.
But the city council said it has been forced to treat Ms Mullen’s contact with the authority in a specific way because of her “scattergun” approach to raising concerns.
Ms Mullen – a former Liberal Democrat councillor who has also campaigned for the Green Party – had contacted Cllr Makinson with emails that raised concerns about developments in the city – including the failed New Chinatown project – as well as questioning the actions of the…
Virulent instances of workplace mistreatment often involve an eliminationist intention on the part of the chief aggressor(s). Two years ago I wrote that the eliminationist instinct may express itself in several ways, including workplace bullying and mobbing behaviors. It often reflects a desire not only to eliminate an employee from the workplace, but also to undermine the individual’s livelihood and health even after departure from the organization.
This year I’ve also been thinking a lot about the roles of lead aggressors vs. roles played by other organizational actors in work abuse situations, especially from a systems theory perspective that examines how human roles and interactions culminate in systems that produce certain results. In May I wrote:
Thus, a typical campaign of severe bullying or mobbing at work involves multiple players, including but hardly limited to:
“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me.’” ― Philip K. Dick
If ever Americans sell their birthright, it will be for the promise of expediency and comfort delivered by way of blazingly fast Internet, cell phone signals that never drop a call, thermostats that keep us at the perfect temperature without our having to raise a finger, and entertainment that can be simultaneously streamed to our TVs, tablets and cell phones.
Likewise, if ever we find ourselves in bondage, we will have only ourselves to blame for having forged the chains through our own lassitude, laziness and abject reliance on internet-connected gadgets and gizmos that render us wholly irrelevant.
Indeed, while most of us are consumed with our selfies and trying to keep up with what our so-called friends are posting…
MORE than £16 million in donations to charities for survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire has still not been distributed to them, it was revealed yesterday.
Only £2.8 million out of a £18.9m pot has been given to bereaved families and survivors so far, two months after the tragedy that happened on June 14, data released by the Charity Commission shows.
Organisations behind the fundraising drive said that much of the raised cash was being held back until talks could take…
A child abuse survivor and journalist who founded children’s charity Dot Com, Sharon accuses the Inquiry of trying to stifle concerns about the way the investigation was being run so that Theresa May could be pushed into office as Prime Minister.
Ms Evans also said that there was no independence whatsoever at the Inquiry, and that the confidentiality clause which all panel members had to sign, effectively prevented her and others from exposing the truth.
She goes on to allege that Ben Emmerson QC, who was lead counsel for the Inquiry at the time, warned her that if she made her concerns public, she would be discredited. Sharon tells Talk Radio:
“I was taken to one side and it was made clear to me, I was…
Readers will recall an official complaint we made to the Metropolitan Police, amongst others, back in early June 2017.
It concerned an election broadcast featuring both Conservative and Labour party leaders, recorded and put out live on the evening of 2nd June 2017 from the City of York. Our complaint alleged that during this programme, Theresa May committed a breach of the Representation of the People’s Act 1983 i.e. she committed a criminal offence.
Theresa May had made a clear reference to Labour’s Diane Abbott MP intending to “…wipe the details of criminals and terrorists from the UK DNA Database”, in the event she became Home Secretary after the 8th June 2017 Election.
Our initial complaint to the Met Police and their acknowledgment of it was coveredhere.
Yesterday, at long last, following an investigation – which included a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service – we received a response to our complaint. Here is the email:
So Jim Morrison didn’t open any Doors, or break on through to the other side.
Crucially, within the Act, it appears allegations of any breaches of Section 106 must refer to the personal conduct or character of the individual referred to, as opposed to their political conduct or character.
We have no legal training or qualifications, but it appears to our lay mind that the Representation of the People’s Act Section 106 as it stands permits any and all dreamt up fabrications to be made about the political conduct or character of opponents, as long as the protagonists do not stray into personal criticisms. But surely isn’t it political conduct or character that is relevant here?
Precisely why have personal criticisms been targeted? And what have personal criticisms got to do with “Representation of the People”? Answers on a postcard please.
We’d suggest that because the Tories have enjoyed the sympathy and backing of Murdoch, the BBC, and a huge proportion of the UK media for many years, the Labour Party, their chief opponents, will always be playing catch up.
Corbyn and company have been and will continue to be coming in for a welter of groundless and unwarranted criticism.
But it won’t be confined to everyday politics. As things stand, during election periods, what’s regurgitated on live television to large audiences holds high impact, but will be waved through, allowed to proceed unchecked and will surely influence millions of undecided voters’ minds. So politicians remain “free to fill their boots”.
We’ve issued the following five words a LOT lately.
Since the catastrophic loss of life at Grenfell Tower in North Kensington, inspections of similar, potentially unsafe locations have been underway across the country.
Camden Council in London were very quick to spot the potential dangers and undertook urgent tests. These involved physically taking samples of ‘fireproof’ cladding from tower blocks and sending them to be examined at the Building Research Establishment in Watford.
Camden Council quickly discovered, on Wednesday evening 21st June 2017, that the cladding at blocks on the Chalcots Estate, although commissioned as ‘fireproof’, were in fact an inferior product. In other words, they may have been duped – apparently by the same contractor / sub-contractor combination who fitted the cladding at Grenfell Tower.
Here on Wirral, statements were issued by Councillors Phil Davies (Council Leader) and George Davies (Deputy, Housing and Community Safety) at a Cabinet meeting on 19th June 2017, here:
However upon examining these statements, issued by email on 21st June, we found that there was no mention of reactive, independent testing and that they fell way short of providing instant reassurance to the relevant Wirral tower block tenants.
Eight of Wirral’s total of eleven high-rise tower blocks – not identified by name in the council statements – are run by Magenta Housing, the arm’s length organisation with control of the majority of Wirral Council’s former housing stock.
The remaining three are privately owned – also not named – but one of these is assumed to be Liscard House in Wallasey (see image above), which underwent renovation, including the retro-fitting of insulation cladding in 2011. We were reassured here by Alumasc Facade Systems that the cladding used does not contain the ACM (Aluminium Composite Material) used at Grenfell Tower.
Two senior Wirral members and former leaders of their respective parties sit on the board of Magenta Housing: Councillor Steve Foulkes and Councillor Jeff Green.
On 22nd June, we contacted our local councillor Adrian Jones (Chair of the Audit & Risk Management Committee) to advise him that public statements made so far appeared insufficient and that Camden-style physical testing may need to be undertaken. He promised us he would follow it up. We sent the following email at his request:
Time is of the essence, official information is still sparse and hard to come by, and as tenants await official reassurance, the questions left to be answered now are:
How many Wirral people are potentially in danger?
Which high-rise towers are affected?
Who owns and runs these buildings?
How many more public and private buildings are implicated?
When will the promised “COBRA” meeting take place?
Will Wirral Council / Magenta Housing be commissioning Camden-style physical testing of existing cladding on their own high-rise buildings?
Finally, both Wirral Council and Mersey Fire Authority assure us that they have been undertaking annual safety inspections. We will assume for now that these were successful and the cladding was safe, however…
…as we post this item, Camden Council have started evacuating up to 4,000 of their tenants and the seriousness of the situation has intensified. See the following, which details how all 34 separate cladding tests undertaken by the BRE have failed.
*STOP PRESS* This failure rate has now risen to 60 samples, all failed.
Government confirm this is 100% failure rate – 60 samples sent in; all failed. Hundreds more local authorities yet to have samples tested
Presumably the affected councils may well be evacuating huge numbers of their tenants over into secure temporary accommodation while their homes are made safe:
Cladding on 34 blocks tested so far & every single one failed. Which suggests systematic disregard for build regs. How has his happened? pic.twitter.com/mOmiiF2vUb
More on the Camden evacuation – including gas pipes not boxed in and the potential for exploding boilers:
Up to 4,000 people were given an hours notice to evacuate their home, and it could be weeks before they'll be able to return #Camdenpic.twitter.com/5IGIcydktQ
At the beginning of June we lodged an allegation that the Prime Minister had lied about an opponent during the election campaign. We viewed this as not just unlawful, but serious and potentially damaging because it occurred during a live election broadcast attended by Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. This programme was watched on the BBC by many millions – a large number of whom would not yet have made their minds up on how to cast their vote.
As you can see at the above links we’ve notified four separate regulatory or police bodies whom we felt needed to be aware of a potential criminal offence.
With the Crown Prosecution Service finally replying in an email today, all four have now responded.
This was our first notification email:
Here is the YouTube link again for those interested in watching the alleged offence:
This was the email we received today from the Crown Prosecution Service:
Then our response, also today:
And the CPS came back with the following, also received today:
And the final email in this exchange was sent this afternoon at 5:39 pm:
Not surprisingly, plenty of questionable and contradictory points have been made above by the CPS and we won’t be outlining or challenging these until we’ve received Nick Vamos’ email and got in touch with him.
But rest reassured that this blog post will be updated as and when that happens.
This is an update to the allegation we madeherewhile the UK General Election was underway. We followed it up here.
In the process of reporting this alleged crime – on the part of Theresa May – which is described at Section 106, Sub-section (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, we notified the following bodies:
The North Yorkshire Police (responded, have passed primacy to the Met)
The Crown Prosecution Service (no response yet)
The Electoral Commission (acknowledged, see below…)
Here’s the email response received from the Electoral Commission on 9th June 2017:
And our response:
We accept it’s a bit of a side show when you consider that the Met Police are currently investigating, but for the Electoral Commission to refer us to guidance, and fail to spot a potential crime, it does indicate either a lack of urgency or a tendency to ‘pass the buck’ on the part of the body that was set up to regulate all ballots and elections.
(Drawing by Aaron Maeda, copyright 2016)
