Peel's Press Gang Plan

When someone is losing the argument & won't take no for an answer, despite logic & law being against them, they're usually advised to grow up, or leave the pub & sober up. Unfortunately, Peel Holdings has cast itself in the role of the recalcitrant reveller, adamant it's right & that it won't back down over its plan to use public money for a commercial development (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/19/liverpool-s-pier-head-could-become-a-base-for-cruise-liners-100252-26065361/ ).

Needless to say Warren Bradley & his merry men (they've been drinking in the same bar as Peel) & Oldham Hall Street are back on board, just as they were during their juvenile game of name-calling with Southampton (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/oldham-echo-fight-arranger.html & http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/10/oldham-echo-fight-arranger-round-two.html ).

When the appeal of "port wars" began to wane, accompanied by the heavy hangover reality of business as it is normally conducted (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/public-money-to-pay-for-ports-plan.html ) & the threadbare nature of Peel's case was exposed, the cheerleaders realised the game was up & silently peeled --pardon the pun-- away (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/12/oldham-echo-fight-arranger-licence.html ).

That said, however, I noted at the time: "It would be nice to think that sanity's finally prevailed. Don't hold your breath, though."

Well, the sanity's gone out of the window again & it's trebles all round at the bar for Peel & its acolytes; Peter Elson lost no time in the Oldham Echo to get the party resumed (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/22/shipping-lines-peel-floats-idea-of-transferring-cruise-turnarounds-to-temporary-pier-head-berth-100252-26081623/ ):

"Terrific news from Mersey Docks owner Peel and Liverpool City Council about transferring the turnaround cruises from Langton Dock to the Pier Head cruise liner stage on a temporary basis.

"This is bold new thinking from Peel which, by retaining the same number of cruises as at Langton, hopes not to antagonise rival Southampton port bosses' cries of foul over breaking EU caveats on grants used to fund the new stage. Vital, too, is the tag of it being temporary, while Peel reviews building its own stage to the north."

This "bold new thinking" could well be seen by some as a third-rate sleight-of-hand manoeuvre by Peel. It's intriguing, too, that Elson uses the word "reviews" about Peel's stage north of the Pier Head. That could be read as a non-committal stance by Peel on whether such a stage would ever be built.

Elson's piece quotes Cllr Gary Millar (yes, he's popped back into the bar, too), the council's executive member for local tourism & regeneration, & he further muddies the already brown waters surrounding the exotically-named Liverpool Waters project when he burbles that "it's a wonderful advance by Peel to test the waters. Once a temporary berth is established the public will have a perception that it shouldn't be taken away and hopefully that will focus efforts on finding a long term solution."

So, Peel is testing the waters with this plan, eh? Interesting phrase. It could be taken to mean that Peel is chancing its arm with this plan & that it could present both Southampton & the Department for Transport with a de facto, as opposed to a de jure, cruise liner development which would be sold as a fait accompli, regardless of anyone else's wishes. Moreover, I'm sure Oldham Hall Street will play its part in facilitating the public perception "that it shouldn't be taken away".

Nah, maybe I'm just being too cynical & Mark Thomas is right that this really is a "nasty & vindictive blog". Incidentally, I note from Elson's article that the first cruise liner that left the Langton Dock this week was named Boudicca, a tribute to the ancient leader whose war against Roman occupation of Britain ended in heroic failure, her corpse reportedly being buried on the site of one of the platforms at London's King's Cross station. I'm sure there aren't any parallels with Peel's prospects in its renewal of hostilities.

Yet it seems that Peel does inhabit a parallel universe in believing that if it can't convince government of their case, it'll continue with a crafty nod here, a surreptitious wink there & a rabble-rousing call to base parochialism, elbowing the famous Mersey ferries in the process, as Wayne noted last Friday (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/03/peel-holdings-want-pier-head-stinky-ink.html ).

This is the reality which neither the Daily Ghost nor the Oldham Echo won't even allude to, as outlined by the Southampton Daily Echo (yes, yes, I'm highly aware that Southampton has its own agenda, but its points on the use of public money for a commercial operation are unarguable):

"The Department for Transport (DfT) decided against relaxing its rules on publicly funded competition to allow a full turnaround facility at Liverpool's Cruise Terminal on the grounds that it would have an 'unfair and adverse effect' on the market.

"Now officials from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, owned by developer Peel, are again in discussions with the city council to transfer cruises from its existing turnaround facility, a tatty dock in Bootle, to Pier Head.

"Now, however, Peel says the move would just be temporary, while it presses ahead with ambitious plans to build its own cruise terminal as part of the £5.5 billion skyscraper Liverpool Water scheme. That scheme, the largest urban regeneration project in the UK, is likely to take years, with a planning application not due to be submitted until later this year.

"In a bid to appease concerned rivals they say the number of turnaround cruises would remain the same, but ABP [owner of Southampton docks] is unimpressed arguing if they had wanted better facilities 'they should have invested in them years ago' " (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/business/shipping/shippingnews/5077150._Port_wars__resume/ ).

Indeed. However, that won't stop Peel, Bradley's crew & those in an increasingly Mary Celeste-like Oldham Hall Street from filling up their tankards & demanding a resumption of Cruise Wars until EU rules are tossed overboard, the DfT is rammed & Peel's vessel rules the waves.

*Image courtesy of http://www.e-architect.co.uk/ .

Showing The True Picture

Liverpool's regeneration continues apace, we're assured by the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo. One of the instances cited is the "redevelopment" of the entrance to Lime Street station, a grotesque spectacle. Just across the road from the latest monstrosity to be presented as "progress", lies the old ABC cinema.
Derelict & left to rot over the last decade or more, the cinema stands as a curt rejoinder to the eternally deluded saps who buy the argument from the council & their PR people on Oldham Hall Street that the city is changing for the better. Once a local landmark just as prominent & popular as more obvious ones in the city centre, the cinema, along with Southport's Pleasureland complex, has been in the hands of Urban Splash in recent years. Promises have been made & grandiose plans have been outlined for both sites.
However, in an admission which makes a mockery of the numerous puff-pieces in the Echo declaring the city's immunity to a global recession, Urban Splash have now acknowledged the obvious: all their best-laid plans count for nothing when the perfect storm of the credit crunch & global downturn continues to rage (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/22/urban-splash-committed-to-abc-cinema-and-pleasureland-schemes-100252-26081387/ ).
Urban Splash's Tom Bloxham tries to sound hopeful in the Echo apologia (no byline for the article, surprise, surprise), but sounding hopeful is no business plan. Instead, he talks of something "very special" for both sites. Very special? That should fill any potential investors with confidence, shouldn't it? As the Echo meekly admits:
"In September 2007 it was announced [Urban Splash] had been appointed as the developer for the derelict ABC cinema in Lime Street.
"At the time plans were expected to be submitted to the city in July 2008 with work completed by mid-2010.
"But Liverpool Council confirmed that Urban Splash is yet to submit a planning application for the site."
Bloxham's ambiguity on the fate of both sites indicates that the situation is unlikely to change for the forseeable future. Indeed, he sounds more like a Lottery punter hoping his numbers come up:
"On both we have got lots of ideas that we are exploring and trying to come up with the best solution.
"It's difficult to move forward at the pace we want to."
Whether things are moving forward at any sort of pace is open to question, as even the Oldham Echo anxiously admitted in its editorial (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2010/03/22/city-can-t-be-made-to-wait-for-regeneration-of-former-abc-cinema-in-lime-street-100252-26080650/ ).

Anything In The Name Of Modernity

Recommended reading: a piece by local blogger Joe Moran on the Guardian's Comment is Free pages at the beginning of this week (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/22/modernity-public-sector-paradox-management ). Moran refers to the blogging postal worker Roy Mayall & his brilliantly acerbic account of "modernisation" in his workplace. He also delivers a finely concise assesment of "modernisation" & the motives of those behind it:
"Governments are as susceptible to groupthink as professions. And it is worth questioning the argument that all public sector employees, from postal workers to academics, are equally resistant to "change". The leitmotif of the New Labour era has been the unstoppable nature of such change: doing nothing is not an option; we can't stand still or we will roll backwards. Often this is a way of shutting off argument (who on earth would want to roll backwards?) by claiming ownership over the future and insisting this is the only way things can be - in order for markets to be free, the workers must be incentivised and coralled into line."
Whereas New Labour acolytes can only be incentivised by the lure of a few grand a day.

Not Such A Byers Market

In a week which has seen the truly base & venal nature of certain New Labour politicians --& others-- exposed (excellent investigative job by the people at Channel 4's Dispatches programme), it's worth recalling an incident involving Stephen "cab for hire" Byers & a local female Labour councillor in 2002 (http://news.scotsman.com/stephenbyers/The-night-minister-dropped-his.2339704.jp ).
The incident involving Barbara Corish, then councillor for Litherland Ward in Bootle, is salient not for any prurient or sensationalist motives on my part (other blogs on the web cater for that market), but because it affords a glimpse into the mindset of an arrogant, avaricious & hubristic New Labour luminary. As the saying goes, hubris precedes nemesis, the latter of which duly arrived with his high, & Mittyesque, opinions of himself, as told to the undercover Dispatches journalist (£3,000-£5,000 a day sure beats the minimum wage). Along with Geoff Hoon, who once dismissed manufacturing workers as "metal bashers", & Patricia Hewitt, Byers' fall has been worthy of Icarus.
On a not entirely unrelated note, it's heartening to see that Heather Brooke, who campaigned tirelessly on the issue of MPs' expenses, & whose mother hails from Merseyside, is now getting the credit she merits, as Roy Greenslade obseved this week (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/mar/22/freedomofinformation-mps-expenses ).

Nick Peet Gets Facebooked

It's been a while since Nick Peet was let out to scrawl his juvenile sentiments in the Oldham Echo. This has been bad news for Paddy Shennan (hello, Paddy!), as Peet's efforts made Paddy's contributions look cerebral. Now it seems that the "writer" who thinks it's a bit of a laugh to throw bottles at concerts (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/oldham-echos-mood-music.html ) has attracted the attention of some less than enamoured souls who have formed themselves into a Facebook group, "Nick Peet Should Be Removed From Writing For The Echo" (http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=365427618025&ref=nf ).
Cheer up, Nick, I'm sure someone rates your copy, I mean, Big Al must surely......um, well.....I'm sure your mum reads it from time to time.

Sabotaging Sub Judice

It was inevitable that the tabloids would salivate over the news that Jon Venables had returned to jail. True to form, they have gloried in their largely self-generated hysteria over the story.
There was, however, a welcome note of sanity & perspective in yesterday's Guardian editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/06/jon-venables-james-bulger-editorial ):
"The tabloids are waving the principled banner of the public's right to know, but are trading speculative accounts of where Venables is, what he looks like -- even what he is eating -- while damning the government for 'betraying James' by 'sickening' details of Venables' latest misdoings. No matter that there is no presumption for disclosure, still less an automatic press release, at this stage with recalls, the red-tops -- backed by a Conservative Party whose 'rehabilitation revolution' now seems almost forgotten -- suggest the justice secretary [Jack Straw] is being soft by refusing to publish the details. This show of populist strength is a dangerous game which could self-defeat, even in its own terms. There are rare occasions when casual spraying about of information can frustrate justice, most obviously before a criminal trial. Even if Venables has committed a serious new crime, and even if the aim is to make him suffer as much as possible, it will not be served by prejudicing proceedings against him to the point where the courts rule themselves unable to establish guilt."
Those are points Mark Thomas would have done well to consider before writing about the case on his blog (http://www.ldpeditor.merseyblogs.co.uk/2010/03/we_have_right_to_know_why_jame.html ).
As an aside, I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but I suspect I'm not the only person to find this observation by Thomas in dubious taste:
"If I had been asked to have a wager on which of them [Thompson or Venables] might get into further trouble in their adult lives, my money would have been on Thompson".
Considering such a question in terms of "a wager" is jarringly incongruous. It is also an insult to the memory of James Bulger.

Beneath Contempt

I once bumped into Michael Foot. He was leaving the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the 1983 Labour Party Conference one late evening to take his dog for a walk. I was on my way in to join the throng at the hotel bar. Brief pleasantries were exchanged, though I never spoke to him again. I was reminded of his willingness to chat amiably to complete strangers when his death was announced last Wednesday.
Charles Moore, on the other hand, is an individual I've never met, nor would I wish to. Moore pens his "thoughts" for the Telegraph, or, as the blurb on his webpage gushes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/ ): "Charles Moore covers politics with the wisdom and insight that come from having edited The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator."
Moore's take on the tributes paid to Foot reveal all you need to know about the character (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7377111/Was-Foot-a-national-treasure-or-the-KGBs-useful-idiot.html ).
Citing the discredited ex-Soviet agent Oleg Gordievsky, Moore relates the claim that officials from the KGB would visit Tribune's offices when Foot was the paper's editor, & leave £10 notes (£250 in today's terms) in Foot's jacket. Even if this claim is true, it clearly didn't affect the line Tribune took during that period, something that Moore is clearly aware of as he frantically attempts to row back from the point where he could declare Foot's Soviet allegiance:
"It is important to understand that Foot would not have known that he was considered an agent. That was an internal classification of the KGB -- a scalp for the bureaucracy. There is no evidence that he passed on state secrets. He probably considered that he was simply keeping the Soviet Union well informed in the interests of peace.
"It is not clear why Foot took the cash, but he probably did not blow it on himself. Most likely he used it to pay petty bills for Tribune, accepting the tainted money because he thought it was all in a good cause. You could not say he was a Communist traitor."
Moore goes in for the classic nudge-nudge smear tactic with this third-rate Oxbridge scrawl, making his claim all the more despicable. There is, of course, the added factor that the dead can't sue. I daresay that if Foot did indeed pocket the money, he would have thought to himself, more fool them, I'll use this for the paper; an example of putting "tainted money" into a paper which wasn't afraid to condemn Stalinism.
Moore is said to be a devout Catholic. That being the case, he'll be familiar with the Biblical phrase about being judged by the company you keep. Moore was an enthusiastic supporter of the Pinochet regime in Chile & campaigned for his release when he was arrested in Britain ten years ago. Indeed, such was the butcher's gratitude to Moore that he sent him a Christmas card every year until his death in December 2006 (http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/comment/00-01-19bv.htm ).
When it comes to journalistic integrity, Moore is merely an upmarket version of Kelvin MacKenzie.

Believe It Or Not, This Band Came From Liverpool

Among the comments that are thrown at those of us who condemn what's being done to the city of Liverpool (& I'm referring to the more repeatable ones here) is the contention that Liverpool has to move on & change with the times; Wayne gets that sort of thing quite often from commenters lacking the courage of their convictions to ditch the "anonymous" tag.

So when yet another part of what is still titled a World Heritage Site is defaced in the name of progress & modernity, it is accompanied by the claim that Liverpool can't live in the past. We need to move on, says Oldham Hall Street. Hmmm, OK, let's go back through the editorials in the Oldham Echo over the last week which reflect that attitude.

Ah yes, got one here, I think. Here it is: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2010/02/25/why-liverpool-needs-to-do-more-to-make-the-most-of-the-beatles-100252-25909501/ .

The Oldham Echo editorial begins predictably:

"There are still those who insist that Liverpool somehow overplays the fact that it gave birth to the four lads who shook the world.

"The Beatles, as they say, moved on from the city - and it's time the city moved on from them.

"Some even suggest there is little real demand for attractions connected to John, Paul, George & Ringo.

"All of which is nonsense."

Apart from the shameless lifting of the phrase Arthur Dooley chose to accompany his sculpture in Matthew Street (no attribution, surprise, surprise), this well-worn trudge along the Merseybeat Path lives down to expectations. It's said that Paddy Shennan (hello, Paddy!) pens most Echo editorials. If so, this isn't of the same standard as his normal Pulitzer-worthy efforts.

So yes, apparently we don't commemorate The Fabs anywhere near often enough. Presumably, there should be at least half a dozen Matthew Street festivals throughout the year. Indeed, the Echo would probably relish the idea of the city council changing the city's name to something like Beatle City, or Beatleville. Warren Bradley could claim that, 400 years on, the band are as popular as ever. We could also encourage everyone to wear mop-top wigs & ill-fitting collarless suits while David Fleming stands outside the monstrosity that is the new Museum of Liverpool & sings Money (That's What I Want). Warren Bradley could sit at the top of Grosvenor-pool, crooning Fool On The Hill. Jason Harborrow could make a surprise guest appearance & perform a duet with Lee Forde on the classic Fabs song, I Should Have Known Better.

Yes, it's all starting to fall into place now. All we now need is for Phil Redmond to talk about planting tangerine trees & cellophane flowers along Water Street.

The Echo concludes:

"It's surely time for Beatle City to stage a Beatle Summit, during which the main players in the tourism and Beatles industries can get their heads together to help make the most of one of this city's greatest draws."

Absolutely. What greater sign could the city send out to demonstrate its forward-looking, twenty-first century approach?

Taking A Figure Out Of The Equation

Tucked away in this morning's Oldham Echo was a dutiful piece, penned by Neil Hodgson, about Trinity Mirror's trading figures (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/04/trinity-mirror-results-ahead-of-expectations-100252-25961631/ ).
It reads like the sort of thing Pravda would run about tractor production figures in the old Soviet Union. Missing from Hodgson's docile dispatch, however, is the circulation figure for the Echo. According to the latest ABC figures, as Ronnie de Ramper commented on a previous post, it's dipped alarmingly by 9.5% to 88,000.
Must have been edited out due to lack of space, eh, Neil?

Missing An Open Goal

It's laudable that the Spirit of Shankly group should organise a billboard campaign around the city, drawing even wider attention to Hicks & Gillett's ruinous reign at Anfield (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/03/liverpool-spirit-of-shankly-campaign ).
However, it's counterproductive for the group to dismiss any possibility of cooperation with those Manchester United fans protesting against the Glazers continued presence at Old Trafford. We all know about the rivalry between the two sets of fans, so much so that it's long been tiresome to many. However, some measure of cooperation is not just desirable, but necessary in both campaigns; the wider issue of football club ownership cannot be addressed as long as normal rivalries supersede the realisation that there is a common concern for both sets of supporters.

Down By The Riverside

Recommended viewing: John Harris takes a trip around the Liverpool Riverside constituency, notable in UK terms for having an extremely low turn-out for recent general elections (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/mar/01/labour-liverpool-harris ).
There isn't much in Harris' video which will be revelatory to anyone on Merseyside. However, it is interesting to see that Harris shows the side of Liverpool which is now completely ignored by the Fib Dem council & a complacent local Labour Party. Ringo's childhood home in Madryn Street (now boarded up) is featured &, in a moment of Beatlesque surrealism, the Magical Mystery Bus turns up on cue.

Calculating The Cost Of A Cracked Covenant

Liverpool in 1963: Merseybeat was at its peak, Everton won the league & across Stanley Park, Shanks was turning his recently promoted squad into a major footballing force. It was a heady time, reflected in the singing of Merseybeat hits on the terraces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEutB0xZSIA ).
Oh & another thing, the Mersey Docks & Harbour Board sold the land on which Mann Island was situated to the then Liverpool Corporation. It wasn't a big issue then.
It is now (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/02/24/revealed-tax-payer-funded-national-museums-liverpool-paid-out-750k-for-spoiling-a-waterfront-view-100252-25901760/ ).
Yes, indeed, remember all those imbeciles who dismissed concerns at the mutilation of the waterfront? You're living in the past, we were told. Well, the past has returned to give these characters a kick where it hurts most -- the pocket.
Of course, it's all a big shock to the Oldham Echo, which splashes Ben Schofield's article on its front page this morning. To summarise Schofield's anguished piece, National Museums Liverpool (NML) has paid Downing, the owners of the Port of Liverpool building (one of the Three Graces) £750,000 because the new Museum of Liverpool (you know, the one Roger McGough insisted was ours) blocks the view of the Pilotage Office from the Port of Liverpool building. This breaks a covenant dating back to the sale of the land 47 years ago, as Schofield confirms:
"The covenant dates back to 1963 when the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board -- which then owned Mann Island and the Port of Liverpool building -- sold the land the museum now stands on to Liverpool Corporation.
"It kept hold of the imposing port headquarters but wanted to protect its view of the Pilotage Office at the entrance to Canning Half Tide Dock.
"It insisted nothing was built within 40ft of the river and any new buildings would not be taller than 40ft.
"The new Museum of Liverpool breaks both parts of the covenant."
Lifted your jaw from the floor yet? OK, let's try to ascertain the whos, whys, whens, wheres & hows of this farce, shall we? Oh sorry, forgot for a moment that when a cock-up on this scale emerges, Oldham Hall Street doesn't do finger-pointing. That said, Schofield does offer this nugget of potential culpability:
"It only came to light partway through the museum's planning stage and stunned NML's trustees because it left them vulnerable to a compensation claim by the Port of Liverpool's owners, Downing.
"At first NML lawyers said if the case went to court, the settlement would be around £70,000.
"But desperate to keep the project on track, NML director Dr David Fleming and then chair of trustees Loyd Grossman chose to pay £750,000 up front -- and up to 10 times over the odds."
Fleming's record has been less than impressive, as Wayne has consistently pointed out (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com ). As for Grossman, it beggars belief that a TV celebrity should have been in a position to sanction such a move. Grossman was on the panel which awarded Liverpool its Capital of Culture status back in 2003. Did this entitle him to occupy his position with NML?
In contrast to Catherine Jones' fawning piece earlier this month, Schfield openly admits that the project "is now months behind schedule."
He also sketches a picture of complacent/ignorant lawyers acting on NML's behalf who blithely insisted that it wouldn't be such a big deal & quotes a source who ruefully recalls:
"Everyone was steaming ahead and presumably no one did a complete job looking into the rights of the land."
I think "steaming ahead" is somehow supposed to refer back to the port's maritime past. However, it also sums up the approach & attitude of all those guilty of wrecking the character of the waterfront; the "where there's a space, let's build apace" mentality forming a poisonous pincer movement with a council whose leader seems to think the Three Graces date back eight centuries.
An NML spokesman tells Schofield that the covenant amounts to a "restriction". Interpreting the covenant in that way reveals NML's disregard for the waterfront area. He also fails pathetically in trying to put the best possible spin on the spending of £750,000 of our money to Downing.
Incidentally, the claim by NML that knowledge of the covenant "came to light part way through the museum's planning stage" doesn't quite tally with Downing's version of events:
"We were approached at the eleventh hour and did work expediently to accommodate the museum so that the project was not jeopardized."
I'm no expert on these matters, but I can't see how the planning stage would be at "the eleventh hour" of the project. Perhaps Fleming & Grossman (when the former isn't giving soundbites to pliable Trinity Mirror hacks & the latter isn't launching another bloody brand of sauce) could elucidate. What do you reckon?
The Oldham Echo feels compelled to pen an anguished, hand-wringing editorial on the whole debacle (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2010/02/24/750-000-too-high-a-price-for-national-museums-liverpool-to-have-to-pay-downing-100252-25900195/ ).
Typically, however, it keeps its consternation at NML's actions to a minimum, preferring a sense of wounded dismay to scornful attribution. Instead, it won't surprise many that the editorial then seeks to draw Downing into the fray as a villain of the piece:
"And what of Downing? Hard-nosed businessmen and women may point out they are perfectly entitled to benefit from a decades-old covenant, however perverse the outcome may seem to outsiders.
"But what of the greater good? What of the greater interests of the people of Liverpool and the city of Liverpool?
"Does this costly outcome have anything to do with the spirit of resurgence and regeneration currently coursing through the city's veins? It doesn't seem to, does it?
"Couldn't a better deal have been done? Couldn't a compromise have been reached?"
All valid points, of course. It's a pity that Oldham Hall Street didn't consider such wider concerns when putting 100 Liverpool printers out of work as a consequence of moving its printing operations 50 miles down the M62. Isn't it?

Look Who's Back

It's been a while since David Bartlett posted on his Dale Street Blues blog (perhaps Mark Thomas pleaded with him not to dabble anymore with the curse of the blogosphere; it starts out as the occasional Tweet, then the tentative postings on Facebook, & before you know it, you're hooked, blogging from Oldham Hall Street really does screw you up).
Still, it's nice to see that David has spent his time away from the keyboard constructively, as evidenced by this cerebral offering: http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2010/02/poll-gives-new-meaning-to-a-we.html .
We're grateful to David for elevating the tone of local political discourse. Keep it up, David (ahem).

Celebrating A Carbuncle

Wayne's already fired a well-aimed salvo at the PR spin surrounding of the Museum of Liverpool (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/02/museum-of-liverpools-opening.html ), in particular the piece Catherine Jones wrote for today's Oldham Echo.
However, it's also worth casting an eye over an article she penned for Friday's Echo, just hours after the official handover of the carbuncle from the contractors to NML (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/02/12/five-hundred-fundraisers-celebrate-the-official-handover-of-the-museum-of-liverpool-to-nml-100252-25818601/ ). The occasion was marked by "a fundraising dinner" [hasn't the monstrosity already been paid for, largely through our money?] &, judging by Jones' breathless prose, some observers might unkindly suspect that she herself had what the aristocracy still like to term "a good meal".
Thursday night's festivities were graced by the presence of Phil Redmond, whose "thoughts" in the Daily Ghost must surely warrant an entire section of Private Eye's Pseud's Corner. Redmond was in expansive mood as he declared to a clearly-rapt Jones:
"It was a great night and provided our supporters from the business and cultural community with their first opportunity to view the museum's spaces, and it previewed what will undoubtedly become one of the best vantage points in the city through a magnificent 80ft picture window."
Ah yes, that view, can't argue with Redmond's use of the word "magnificent" to describe it, can we? It'll afford an unparalleled view of Professor Chucklebutty's upturned caravan, aka, the Mersey Ferry terminal building, & the almost cancerous cluster of high-rise "developments" around the Three Graces [not bad-looking for 800 years, btw, eh, Warren?], not to mention the burger stalls which will adorn the west entrance to the Liver Building.
Jones enthuses in her apologia for journalism:
"[The Museum] will boast four main themes - port city, creative city, people's city and global city."
OK, let's break this down into manageable portions of effluvia, shall we? The port of Liverpool still exists, of course, but presenting it as a museum artefact confirms the view of many that it'll be another exercise in nostalgia, a piteous pining for a Golden Age that never was [my grandfather worked on the docks when those who got work for the day were picked out from pens containing their not-so fortunate colleagues].
As for the "creative city" theme, we all know the talent & originality that's emanated from Merseyside down the years. So what makes me suspect that it'll be dominated by four Liverpool lads who split up over 40 years' ago?
And then, of course, we have the "people's city" theme. NML must have a twisted sense of humour to call it that; a "people's city" would have been consulted, at the very least, about the Botoxification of the entire waterfront. Incidentally, it's an open secret that NML were going to include a section on Hillsborough under this theme. Crass & insensitive are two of the more printable words that come to mind.
Liverpool's development & history as a port means that calling it a "global city" is intellectual tautology. Its maritime links, moreover, hark back to an era which ended, roughly, in the early twentieth-century.
Anyway, I'm sure that such matters didn't concern the revellers on Thursday night. Among their number was Roger McGough who, as Jones, trilled, "is writing new verse to add to the museum's exhibits."
You just know something is inherently naff when a local poet agrees to scribble some doggerel about the city, don't you?
It's a shame, really. Roger's done some good things in the past... like the, erm, Scaffold [remember "Lily the Pink"?], but his ringing endorsement of the monstrosity is cringe-inducing:
"As a Liverpool lad, the museum belongs to me as much as anyone, and I'm happy to be lending my support in the ways I know best, through art and poetry.
"I encourage others who hold the city close to their hearts to get involved with their new museum with continued support and a passion for the arts, history and culture."
So the museum "belongs" to us, eh, Roger? It's our museum, is it? Now that's what I call creative writing.

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today

Nelson Mandela's release from jail on this day 20 years ago is one of those "where were you when..." moments. I recall it as a cold February Sunday afternoon on my 27th birthday. The BBC's normal current affairs programme scrapped its format for the day & transmitted live pictures from South Africa.
Of course, much has changed since then, a good deal of it inimical to those like Mandela who dedicated their lives to the struggle. That discussion can, however, wait at least a short while.
Here's a clip I saw on Channel 4's "The Tube" back in 84 of Jerry Dammers & chums, produced by Our Declan (Elvis Costello), performing one of the songs which became the soundtrack to the final push for apartheid's demise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxENtgItiH8 .
Twenty-six years on it still works as a powerful calling-to-arms.

The History Man

I made a mistake in my previous post regarding the rental income for the city council from Grosvenor-pool, as a commenter pointed out. However, those who may be wondering, & with good reason, whether Warren Bradley really did say that the Three Graces went as far back as the Charter for the city in 1207 may be interested in watching the clip I mentioned:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=QOYvo7bdiOc . *

I'm out on my maths. Warren's completely out on his history.
*[Acknowledgements to Wayne.]

Putting The Con Into Confidence

Welcome to the weird & wonderful world of Warren Bradley. Cllr Bradley never tires of telling us, via his PR agents on Oldham Hall Street, what an unalloyed success story Grosvenor-pool has been for the city. He was at it again this morning in the Daily Ghost (love the "relaunch", btw, Mark, how long have you been given?) , rhapsodising about the council's handover of the land colonised by Grosvenor (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/02/08/city-in-liverpool-one-deal-with-grosvenor-92534-25784604/ ).
Alan Weston was the one to draw the short straw & put the best possible gloss on a shabby stitch-up. However, his valiant efforts were pitifully transparent as he briefly described the general outline of the arrangement:
"Under the terms of the lease, Grosvenor will own the 42 acres of land occupied by Liverpool One for the next 250 years, in return for which the city council will receive 5% of the rental value -- now standing at £1.7m a year.
"But with the complex not yet fully occupied and discounted rent deals for some stores coming to an end, that figure is sure to rise in future years."
Hmm, so let me get this straight. The council's take from the arrangement will be 5% of £1.7m: £85,000. Right, I see. That's what I call good business. Another fly in the ointment is to be found in Weston's breezy assurances of sunlit uplands & eternal happiness for the retail behemoth. He undermines the faux feel-good factor later on in his piece with his admission that "More than 95% of the 1.6m sq. ft. scheme is currently let".
Not much scope there for extra revenue from the complex, eh? There's also the distinct possibility that retailers will respond to the end of the discounted rent scheme in the way they did at the Albert Dock two decades ago, ie., leave. The recession may be technically over, but retailers know as well as shoppers that its effects are still taking place.
At which point, let's consider the words of local soothsayer & saviour, Warren Bradley. Bear with him here. After all, he did once say in a TV interview that the Three Graces were as old as the city itself (btw, the Cavern started as a Cavalier hang-out for King Charles' troops in between civil war battles for Liverpool Castle). Anyway, speak up, Warren, take it away:
"Liverpool One has brought real confidence back to the city centre, and just as importantly, to those outside the city centre."
Ah yes, Warren, you can really see that "confidence" in the rising number of empty retail spaces on Church Street. What's more, the residents in Dingle, Belle Vale, Speke, Croxteth, Kirkdale, etc. really exude that "confidence" because of Grosvenor-pool. What happens in their own neighbourhoods is strictly secondary, isn't it, Warren? Any other pearls of wisdom, councillor?
"The council is now seen more as a company than as a local authority, and we have conducted ourselves in a way that is appropriate to a major development."
Absoluteley! Why think of yourselves as heading a council when you can tell yourselves & others that you're really a crack team of business people; that deal with Grosvenor confirms how business-savvy you are, right? Anything else to add before we bid adieu?
"The 42 acres now occupied by Liverpool One were previously low grade and didn't offer anything. What we have now represents a good deal for the city council, and we should be grateful to Grosvenor for having the confidence to do it in Liverpool."
Perfect, Warren, perfect. Yes, "confidence" is the word; just add the term "trick" & you have the summation of the Fib Dems' Bread & Circus approach to running a major UK city. Oh, btw, the original Chavasse Park wasn't exactly Edenesque. Nor, however, was it "low grade". I seem to remember that it formed a natural amphitheatre for one of the main stages during the Matthew Street festival. So are you slighting a festival you normally praise ad nauseam? Surely not, eh, Warren? That would affect "confidence", wouldn't it?

His Evolution Was Not Televised

Recommended reading: Sean O'Hagan's piece on the return of Gil Scott-Heron in today's Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/07/gil-scott-heron-comeback-interview ).
Scott-Heron has brilliantly covered Robert Johnson's "Me & the Devil" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OET8SVAGELA ).

A "Fair & Balanced" Response To Fox

Despite the best efforts of some on the Right, the "culture wars" largely remain a US political phenomenon; the homogeneity of the leaderships to be found in New Labour, the Tories & the Lib Dems extends to a general consensus regarding the issues that fuel the fires of the US Right. Last week saw the Daily Show's Jon Stewart venture into the Lions' Den, aka, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News' studios in Manhattan. Stewart was the "guest" of Bill O'Reilly, a strident populist who fits the bill for a network which once tried to copyright the "fair & balanced" tag with which it flatters itself.
To be "fair", as Stewart himself noted, O'Reilly is not the network's worst offender; one of his colleagues, Glenn Beck, last year accused Obama of racism against white people.
Stewart stood up to the barbs that were thrown his way, countering with a few well-considered ripostes, including this observation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/jon-stewart-bill-oreilly_n_446372.html ): "They [Fox] have taken reasonable concerns about this president and this economy and turned it into a full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao."

Establishing The Truth

Justice delayed for 20 years, but it's to be hoped that it won't be denied for much longer. The eight-person panel which will oversee most, though not all, documents surrounding Hillsborough has its first meeting in Liverpool today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/03/hillsborough-disaster-liverpool-documents ).
David Conn, whose work on this as well as many other football-related investigative matters has been exemplary, quotes Home Secretary Alan Johnson: "I believe that the independent panel has an historic opportunity to bring healing to those affected by the tragedy, and that its establishment can help to begin to bring an end to the grievances strongly felt by many."
The panel can certainly begin to address the issues, but Johnson is complacent to think that "healing" can be delivered when too many individuals won't have to answer for their actions & statements.
It's a point inadvertently raised by the chief constable of South Yorkshire Police, Andy Holt: "There is a good deal of suspicion from the families that a cover-up took place, and the panel will provide transparency, an assurance that the release of our documents is above board and being done with integrity."
It seems odd to see the word integrity used in connection with South Yorkshire Police; that there was a cover-up isn't a "suspicion", it's a fact.

Treacherous Waters

Liverpool Waters. The name sounds so nice, doesn't it? Perhaps saying the name often enough produces a soothing, soporific effect. The reality is that you'd need to be in a stupor to swallow the effluent served up by Peel Holdings. Maybe that's why their pals on Oldham Hall Street are so keen to persuade us that it will transform the north end docks with a piece by Neil Hodgson which reminds us why associating Trinity Mirror with investigative journalism is just as risible as associating John Terry with fidelity (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/02/03/massive-public-backing-for-peel-s-5-5bn-liverpool-waters-scheme-100252-25748917/ ).
Yes, you've read that correctly, Hodgson does, indeed, claim that there is "massive public backing" for the latest round of mutilation a supposed World Heritage Site faces (all the journos on Oldham Hall Street write their own headlines, the sub-editors have long gone).
Hodgson's panegyric to Peel's plans begins in a manner which provokes astonishment & hilarity in equal measure:
" 'When can you start?' was the reaction of most visitors at developer Peel Holdings' Liverpool Waters public showing."
And it gets worse, much worse, as Hodgson's puff-piece for Peel plumbs hitherto unchartered depths of subterranean sychophancy. We're told that the "public showing" was a "consultation", that the plans are a "redevelopment" (such a nice, warm euphemism), that the event was "a huge hit" with people who attended (in their "hundreds", apparently), & that "early analysis of almost 300 questionnaires revealed that 99% were in favour of the 30-50 year scheme."
If, say, three of Peel's lackeys are roped in to make positive noises, but one of them hesitates before giving assent, I guess that counts as a 99% level of support. It also places Peel & the Oldham Echo in good company: North Korea's regime often claims 99% support from the people, too.
Keen to give the impression that they're a reasonable & flexible bunch, Peel's spokeswoman tells a clearly smitten Hodgson that they're interacting with the public on this plan, & that they are ready to "make amendments to the scheme as appropriate." Note the "as appropriate" bit, btw, it's their wafer-thin charm offensive fleetingly exposed.
There are more honeyed words from Lindsey Ashworth, the development's "director" for Hodgson to scribble down. This is in stark contrast to Wayne's encounter with Ashworth (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/02/liverpool-waters-glass-pie-in-sky-we.html ), during which he sneered: "We don't have to put this show on" & charmingly declared: "We are doing you a favour."
And what aroused such contemptous arrogance from Ashworth? Merely the wholly reasonable objection that the entire plan should be the subject of a public inquiry. Yes, they want the public's views, all right, as long as they tally with their own. Oh, & remember this, they're doing us a favour. Isn't that nice of them?

A Paper You Can Trust

Accuracy, reliability, integrity. We all know the Oldham Echo is rightly renowned for those qualities; Big Al would surely remind us of that while comparing it to the New York Times.
However, every now & again, there is an unfortunate slip-up. Isn't there, Al? What's that, Al? Sorry, didn't quite catch that, must be my hearing, seems you've gone strangely mute.
Anyway, let's allow Simon from the No Rock and Roll Fun blog to explain (http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2010/02/not-all-taylors-are-same.html ):
"The Liverpool Echo has managed to ruin plans for American singer Taylor Bright to do a small gig in the city: the paper erroneously claimed it was Taylor Swift off the Grammys who would be appearing."
The fact that the Grammys, at which Taylor Swift appeared, were held in Los Angeles 24 hours before the supposed gig in Liverpool didn't permeate the dense skulls on Oldham Hall Street.
And the upshot of this typical inattention to detail? Well, would you believe it, they're sorry, as Simon notes:
"The Echo is contrite:
'The Echo regrets the mistake in Saturday's paper and has apologised to the school governors.
'We are making a donation to school funds as a gesture of goodwill.'
" 'and, hey, maybe we should get the kids some tickets to go see Beyonce who we know for a fact is going to be playing Anfield Comp on Thursday, right?' "
Actually, that's on Friday. However, that other Echo article about McCartney joining Pete Price for the Sunday afternoon karaoke session at The Grapes is true. Isn't it, Al?

She Said What?!

People say the strangest things when they're trying to defend the indefensible (just look at Blair's offerings to The Iraq Inquiry today). Sly Bailey, chief executive of Trinity Mirror, publisher of the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo, last week railed against the proliferation of council-run competitors to local papers. She described such competitors as "mini Pravdas" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/21/sly-bailey-council-pravdas-bbc ).
Yes, the woman ultimately responsible for the "content" that goes into the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo had the gall to dismiss council-run efforts as propaganda. Of course, there wouldn't be a need for the city council to compete with both papers, seeing that press releases are republished verbatim, statements by the Fib Dem leaders are quoted unquestioningly & dissenting voices are conspicuous by their absence in Trinity Mirror's rags.
The words, pot, kettle & black come to mind.

Hotel Reservations

Somewhere in the increasingly understaffed & dispirited offices on Oldham Hall Street the penny is finally beginning to drop among at least a couple of hitherto deluded saps about what's happened to the city's waterfront with the blessing of Trinity Mirror.
Typically late to cotton on to a story about possible corruption & fraud concerning the land value of Mann Island, a story that Wayne had previously informed them of (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2010/01/north-west-development-agency-shysters.html ), they've also only just realised that the grotesque botoxification of the waterfront featuring many hotel developments may not be the saving grace for an entire city (their usual editorial line). Instead, & brace yourselves here, a small, still note of doubt has permeated their dense skulls concerning a proposed Travelodge on the Strand, near the corner with James Street (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2010/01/20/liverpool-s-world-famous-waterfront-needs-better-than-another-budget-hotel-100252-25637804/ ).
Its editorial begins:
"It goes without saying that Liverpool is extremely proud of its world-famous waterfront."
Ah, yes, that "world-famous waterfront", whose disfigurement has been presented by the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo as "progress".
It should be noted, however, that the editorial questions rather than openly opposes the proposed development (got to remain "pro-business", eh, guys?).
The piece continues:
"During this time of regeneration [ha!], we have welcomed many new and varied hotels to the city -- but things are looking a little less varied than they could be on the waterfront."
Message to Big Al & his minion Mark: it's nice to see you've finally woken up & smelled the coffee, but I'm afraid the damage is done, & the binge cheerleading you did for "developing" the waterfront has sadly left its mark.
Oh, well, be grateful for small mercies, I suppose; it's the nearest approximation of a mea culpa we'll get from Oldham Hall Street. That said, the editorial can't help concluding on a characteristically "where there's a space, let's build apace" note:
"There is obviously a need for more budget hotels in Liverpool, but surely there isn't a need for another one to be built slap bang in the middle of our World Heritage Site."
Absolutely, let's keep "our World Heritage Site" (when's that next UNESCO inspection, btw?) for the Hilton Hotels of this world, where nightly charges for most of the rooms exceed the average weekly wage on Merseyside.

Rules & Regulations? Irrelevant!

Carbuncle by the Mersey, notorious venue whose management encourage the punters to get legless, overrated, over-hyped barn masquerading as a 21st century conference facility. Yes, the Oldham Echo & Convention Centre has certainly made its mark during its brief existence. It now appears that its genesis was notable for a cavalier disregard of European regulations, which doesn't really surprise anyone familiar with grandiose & dubious projects in the city pre & post-08 (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/01/20/liverpool-council-faces-having-to-pay-back-around-2m-of-funding-given-to-the-echo-arena-and-convention-centre-100252-25637788/ ).
The Oldham Echo's piece (without a byline, btw) sheepishly admits:
"Officials in Europe have raised concern that the awarding of contracts for the complex was 'anti-competitive'."
There seems to be a pattern emerging of local schemes which we're informed will transform Merseyside being mooted &, indeed, embarked upon, without anyone bothering to check if it's all above board. First the cruise liner terminal debacle which fell foul of clearly defined & understood regulations on the use of European money, now this.
At the heart of the Arena & Convention Centre fiasco is the issue of "design & build" contracts. Again, let's leave it to the Oldham Echo to mumble reluctantly what that means:
"The issue arose after the EU Court began to investigate whether 'design and build' schemes could be at odds with fair competition.
"The Arena project is one where the design and construction of the project was undertaken as one contract.
"The council has put £4.1m aside in its reserves for unspecified clawback but admits the final figure is 'unknown'."
The rank incompetence & jaw-dropping ignorance of building projects shown by the council would beggar belief were it not for the dismal track record of Warren Bradley's merry men & women. It also speaks volumes for their inability to adequately manage the city's finances that they can't say with any certainty that the final figure won't exceed four million quid.
There are brave, bullish words from Flo Clucas, clearly, erm, designed to win over the gullible, saying there's enough cash in reserve to pay the money back. However, she undermines her own argument when she says:
"The situation is we did a design and build on the Arena, which was a contractual situation which local government right across the UK does, and it means you know what the thing is going to cost, can say 'that's what we want', agree your design and it goes from there.
"The European Court of Auditors has said that such a scheme is not able to be done in the EU without interference from competition.
"This has meant that the UK is having to reconsider what has happened on those types of schemes and unfortunately the Arena has got caught up in it."
As far as I'm aware (& I'm willing to be corrected on this), no other council in the UK has committed Liverpool's error. Moreover, Cllr Clucas' contention that design & build schemes allow you to keep a check on cost is odd given that she & her colleagues can't say whether a £4.1m bill will be the end of the matter. Oh, & the description of competition as "interference" sits oddly with a council which, through its mouthpieces on Oldham Hall Street, never tires of telling us that it is "pro-business".
Cllr Clucas goes on to tie herself up in even more knots, acknowledging that design & build "did not give other designers a chance", yet maintaining that the council did "shop around" for other contractors, & rounding off her muddled thinking (let's be somewhat charitable here) by declaring that, according to the Echo piece, "she thought design and build was a 'reasonable way' to progress schemes."
She "thought"? She's a councillor. Didn't she get the final word on the matter from the lawyers? Then again, this is the Fib Dem city council with its "let's try it this way & hope no one picks up on it" approach.

History Repeats Itself

Mention Istanbul to most people in Liverpool &, depending on their footballing allegiance, memories will come flooding back of either the greatest comeback seen in any European Cup final, or the biggest fluke in the history of football. I belong firmly in the former camp (nice to see the back of Tom Hicks jnr., btw, for that charming email to a fan -- no more unannounced & unwelcome visits to the Sandon, eh, Tom (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/walk-on-walk-on-right-out-of-pub-mate.html )? -- now if only his dad & Gillett would follow suit). However, I digress.
The University of Liverpool's Impacts08 site (http://impacts08.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/capitals-of-corruption/ ) picks up on an article in the UAE-based The National paper about Istanbul's status as a capital of culture for 2010 (http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100113/ART/701129962/1224 ).
The more you read down Claire Berlinski's piece, the more you find yourself thinking, this sounds familiar. It begins with an observation you'll never find in the Daily Ghost or Oldham Echo:
"As officials at Istanbul's European Capital of Culture Agency know all too well, once you've been named a capital of culture, it's only a matter of time before all the 'capital of corruption' jokes start."
A couple of paragraphs on, the parallels with the Lib Dems' Bread & Circus charade (aka Liverpool08) start to appear with astonishing similarity:
"A study that the international cultural advisers Palmer/Rae Associates prepared for the [European Culture] commission noted that 'almost all cities' selected thus far 'reported that there were problems with their governance structures'. The most commonly noted issues were 'domination of political interests, relationship difficulties between board members and with the operational management team, the absence of representation of cultural interests and the size of the governance structure'. Moreover, it noted, 'personality clashes, communication problems, inappropriate experience of personnel and unclear responsibilities and job descriptions' were ubiquitous."
Berlinski goes on to report that amid claims & accusations of embezzlement & incompetence is the charge "that Istanbul's culture is being destroyed by rapacious development faster than it can be promoted."
Sound familiar?
Then there's this gem with which to compare & contrast Istanbul 2010 & Liverpool08:
"Some of the projects supported by the [Istanbul] agency certainly do leave the organisation open to the charge that the selection process was made with something other than cultural significance in mind. The most notorious has been the nine-million-lira [£3.7m] contract awarded to a residential construction company to re-enact the 52-day circumcision ceremony of the son of Sultan Murad III. Contracts for the restoration of the city's historic walls, it is said, have been given to bidders so unqualified that archeologists are in convulsions; some hint that as a result, Istanbul could be thrown off Unesco's World Heritage List."
I'm not sure about circumcisions, but a growing number of people would happily administer a medical procedure, sans anaesthetic, to the same part of the male anatomy of the chancers, shirkers, propagandists & charlatans whose grandiose claims about culture year's lasting legacy for Merseyside have been shown to be bollo-, sorry, false.

Frozen Frolics

While the grown-ups have struggled & cursed their way through the elements over the last few days, the kids have taken advantage of the opportunity for some winter sports on Everton Brow, as the Augean Stabletalk blog vividly demonstrates: http://augeanstabletalk.blogspot.com/2010/01/sledging-on-everton-brow.html .

Roads To Nowhere

A couple of the local blogs have reflected the Big Freeze which reduced the flow of traffic out of the city centre yesterday to an imperceptible, sclerotic crawl. Scouse in the House pithily lays the blame where it should be apportioned, ie., the council (http://polcentre.blogspot.com/2010/01/think-politics-doesnt-affect-you.html ). Robin Brown on the Liverpool Culture Blog relates a hair-raising account of his journey from the city centre to Lark Lane, featuring some dramatic photographs, too (http://www.liverpoolcultureblog.co.uk/2010/01/snow-brings-liverpool-to-its-knees/ ). There's also a striking photographic record of conditions on the A Lack of Imagination blog (http://www.alackof.com/photoblog/snow-roads ).
On a more juvenile level, Oldham Hall Street's let Nick Peet out again so he can breathlessly tell us all how he put on weight over the festive break & hates driving to work in the snow (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/liverpool-columnists/nick-peet/2010/01/06/nick-peet-it-s-snow-way-to-start-new-year-100252-25532158/ ).
Nick, you really should have stayed at home.

Self-Congratulation: A Case Study

It may be the start of a new year but you can be sure that the Oldham Echo will continue to work hand in glove with the Fib-Dems on Dale Street in civic delusion. Take today's soft-focus piece by Catherine Jones in which she allows Claire McColgan to deploy the sort of jargon & bollockese that would've made my old English teacher explode (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/01/06/culture-director-claire-mccolgan-liverpool-has-so-much-to-offer-in-2010-100252-25532732/ ):
" 'My role is to steer for the city council but obviously to work in partnership with people,' she explains. 'I'm not the artistic director for the city, I'm facilitating and driving the cultural work which is very different.
" 'It's about making the connections both within the city but also nationally and internationally.' "
Jones serves up yet another wasn't-culture-year-great piece & is happy to let McColgan spew forth even more drivel; clearly Jones forgets the old journalistic rule that a little scepticism should be injected to counterbalance a torrent of PR bilge.
McColgan trills that she wants the city's waterfront to be "the South Bank of the north."
The South Bank may have its weaknesses, yet it hasn't allowed its most distinguished features & landmarks to be overshadowed by vulgar & crass additions.
She goes on to exhume the old cliche about culture year rescuing the city from the dark days of decline & adds:
" 'In 08 we all came together. There was just one voice that came out of Liverpool that said "look at us, we're fantastic".
" 'Nobody who lives in this city wants it to fail. You want it to be the thing that's the success story in the country.'....
" 'Our main job is to engage with that kid in Croxteth who doesn't feel the city centre is for them,' " McColgan opines.
There's so much nonsense in that passage that warrants attention. Firstly, we didn't all come together & pat ourselves on the back; long before Ringo warbled on the roof of St George's Hall some of us were sounding the alarm bells. Secondly, saying that nobody wants the city to fail is such an inane truism that it shouldn't even be uttered. Thirdly, "that kid in Croxteth" has good reason to feel that it's no longer his or her city centre -- look at the monstosity that is Grosvenor-pool. No amount of engagement will alter that.
Jones goes on to reflect in awe-struck tones:
"Capital of Culture is, amazingly, two years ago now."
Yes, Catherine, it is amazing. It may have something to do with the fact that the gap between 2008 & 2010 is, "amazingly", two years.
However, let's leave the final word in this apologia for journalism to McColgan as she says in her cosy chat with Jones:
" 'As a city council first and foremost we need to deliver for the people of the city, that's why we're here.' "
Give me strength.

Snow In January Shock

It's both amusing & pathetic to view the media treatment of weather conditions which are a regular feature of life in other northern European countries. As a few sagacious observers have noted, those who protest about a shortage of salt & grit for the conditions that have turned most of the UK into a giant ice rink over the last couple of days tend to be the same individuals who normally moan about having to pay council tax.
That said, yesterday's tales of traffic chaos all over Merseyside becauseof the snow & ice (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/01/06/snow-brings-merseyside-to-an-icy-standstill-transport-network-falls-victim-to-freezing-weather-100252-25535187/ ) did reveal an alarming level of panic & incompetence from both Merseytravel & the city council.
Merseytravel made no meaningful attempt to inform the widest possible number of commuters about the cancellation of bus services across the whole region. Informing Radio Merseyside is all very well, but thousands of would-be bus passengers were still waiting at bus stops a couple of hours after the cancellation, not so blissfully unaware of the news.
The city council's sheepish mumble that it had run out of grit was of a piece with other cock-ups by the Fib-Dem regime. As a postie based at Copperas Hill said to me today, it's typical of the Bradley administration's faith in a bread & circus approach when it comes to running one of the UK's major cities; no expense was spared for culture year (especially not with the £90,000 Ringo & his entourage got through during their stay), yet the city's thoroughfares are viewed as an afterthought in the midst of adverse weather conditions.

Fancy Another One, Warren?

One can only presume that Warren Bradley has had, let us say, a rather good festive break in order to contend that Liverpool is "outperforming" the rest of the country (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/12/31/warren-bradley-liverpool-is-outperforming-the-rest-of-the-country-100252-25498406/ ).
Quite.
Marc Waddington is the hapless hack on Oldham Hall Street who puts his name to little more than a statement of self-congratulation by Cllr Bradley. He even claims credit for the "superb" GCSE results in the city [the Oldham Echo refers to them as GSCE - sic].
Most of the comments on the article see Bradley's feel-good rhetoric for what it is.
His mentor Mike Storey chips in with his own novel take on the local economy:
"We are living in an unprecedented economic period but Liverpool has always shown a sturdy resilience to recession and I'm sure this will continue."
Seems the Christmas spirit has been flowing copiously in the Storey household, too.

Rancour Amidst The Revelries

Spare a thought for those who have to work this evening (& tomorrow morning), grimly tolerating the idiots who believe tonight allows them carte blanche to abdicate their senses. In particular, consider the job facing paramedics over the next 24 hours. Two years ago I highlighted the blog written by London paramedic Tom Reynolds (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/12/jumping-gun.html ). Tom's still blogging (http://randomreality.blogware.com/ ). All the best, mate.

Denial & Delusion Over Oldham Echo Arena

This is the time of year when the post-Christmas topor sets in, Grosvenor-pool reveals its true state of desperation at unsold stock, the sales notwithstanding, & slow news days predominate in the media. But, hey, don't let that deter the Oldham Echo; taking as its cue the amount of hogwash that's spoken at this time about New Year resolutions, the Echo decides to augment the mountainous edifice of bilge, self-congratulation & self-delusion (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/12/28/liverpool-s-echo-arena-celebrates-another-fantastic-year-of-events-100252-25477840/ ).
Gary Stewart really must have drawn the short straw at the Christmas party to find himself penning this turkey. It opens disingenuously:
"Two years on, we reflect on the stunning success story of the ECHO arena".
Yes, you read that correctly, he did write the words "stunning success story".
Warming to his themes of self-delusion & parallel universes, Stewart describes the last 12 months as "another fantastic year to celebrate."
Ah yes, the memories come flooding back, just as the booze often threatened to flood the arena itself with predictable regularity.
However, let's not interrupt the, erm, flow of Stewart's novel contention that the arena is synonymous with successful events. Do continue, Gary:
"July was its most musical month this year with 18 gigs, including the legendary Leonard Cohen, Jools Holland and the Pet Shop Boys.
"Bob Prattey, chief executive of the arena, said: '2008 was an incredible opening year and in 2009 we raised the bar even higher....
" 'Our aim is to make sure Liverpool is the best host city for any event or concert and people come back in the future.' "
Stewart glosses over the scenes of drunken punch-ups that disfigured the Leonard Cohen concert. He also, of course, makes no mention of the Morrissey debacle at the venue. Additionally, if Prattey thinks that such antics "raised the bar" in 2009, I can only surmise that it wasn't raised high enough to deter at least some of the drunken idiots who have made 2009 such a "stunning success story" for the venue. Dealing with a persistent public order problem by indulging in self-delusion & denial will ensure that increasing numbers of people do not "come back in the future."

Don't Call Us, We'll Call You

It's the season to see the best in those we often berate, the time to discern the goodness of the ones we lampoon, the period when we raise a glass in friendly yuletide bonhomie with some whose virtues are overlooked at any other time.
It's also time to have a chuckle at Paddy Shennan's expense (hello, Paddy!).
Merseyside's answer to Jonathan Swift pens an, erm, witty take on round robin letters from the upper middle classes in his Oldham Echo column today (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/liverpool-columnists/paddy-shennan/2009/12/23/paddy-shennan-dear-whoever-please-allow-us-to-bore-you-rigid-100252-25453167/ ), using names so cliched & well-used that you wonder if he spends his time watching DVDs of Terry & June, Till Death Do Us Part, etc.; how about Jocasta & Julius, anyone? No? Oh, come on, Julius, named after that emperor, him, yes.
A commenter on Paddy's piece, ewanmac, spaketh thus:
"Dear Mr Shennan,
you are boring us readers rigid with your 'humorous' take on round robin letters, which were done to death by genuinely funny columnists many moons ago. Can it be that difficult, in a city like Liverpool which has produced so many terrific comedians and has a reputation for witty characters, to find a columnist who can be funny?
Please stop trying to do comedy, it's grimly obvious that you can't."
Merry Christmas, Paddy.

But I Thought The Working Class Couldn't Write

Recommended reading: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/roy-mayall/diary .
Today's Guardian had some warm words for the postie's blog, to which yours truly contributed a comment in a somewhat spirited online discussion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/17/im-praise-roy-mayall-post ).
The blog has been published as a book & is currently being serialised on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pcdpk/Book_of_the_Week_Dear_Granny_Smith_Episode_1/ .
Naturally, it's also recommended listening.

Recriminations But No Regrets

No, just as I suspected, it was too much to hope that sanity would finally prevail over the Liverpool cruise terminal. Both the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo were at it again this morning. David Bartlett scratched around forlornly, half-heartedly sniffing at a scrap here, a bone there(http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/12/17/liverpool-city-leaders-continue-pier-head-cruise-terminal-ship-battle-100252-25411239/ ):
"One option may be to repay the £9m of public money which helped build the terminal and which has been judged an unfair advantage over competitors like Southampton.
"A private partner, such as a cruise company, could be sought to salvage the bid.
"It is understood the council may also seek clarification from European authorities about whether if the terminal were classed as a vital piece of transport infrastructure it could bypass competition rules."
Yes, I know, talk about clutching at straws. However, it's a theme on Oldham Hall Street, it appears, to talk up a scenario so improbable that you wonder if it had its genesis at the Christmas party after a few bevvies.
Bartlett's article quotes Joe Anderson, leader of the city's Labour group, declaring that the decision by government minister Paul Clark shows he's "living in 'cloud-cuckoo-land' ". Joe, I appreciate you want to displace a corrupt administration but siding with said characters, their friends in local commerce & Oldham Hall Street does you no credit whatsoever.
Bartlett's piece also contains this gem which only feeds into the self-pitying Scouse stereotype:
"Tourism leader Cllr Gary Millar said: 'My own view from a political point of view is that once again the Labour Government has snubbed Liverpool.'
"He said it was too early to start talking about a legal challenge to the Government's decision."
In other words, there are no grounds for a legal challenge & Cllr Millar's use of the "too early" to say argument unsuccessfully tries to disguise it. Then again, let us not forget that Cllr Millar has form when it comes to bombast, spin & chutzpah; some of us recall his worried, pespiring presence at the PR fiasco for One Parked Here Without Our Say-So(http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/hugs-from-mugs.html ).
The editorialising on Oldham Hall Street was in full cry, too, with the Oldham Echo leading the charge like a tired & emotional scally on Dale Street at 2am(http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2009/12/17/keep-liverpool-s-pier-head-cruise-liner-dreams-alive-100252-25410778/ ), vowing to anyone who wanted to know that the decision "should not be regarded as the end of the matter.
"We have been defeated, but we should remain defiant and keep afloat our long-term plans to further develop our much-envied, world-class waterfront."
Ah yes, "our much-envied, world-class waterfront" which has been hideously disfigured by the arrival of the eyesores, a development applauded at every stage by those on Oldham Hall Street whose parrot-like cries that more buildings, any buildings, no matter how they look, on the waterfront, equate "progress", making a mockery of the port's World Heritage Status; Big Al Machray & Bill Gleeson, both much loved & respected by their colleagues, I'm told, bear a fair deal of culpability for this act of civic vandalism.
Nowhere in the Echo's swaggering & defiant yell of resistance to reality is there even the hint of an acknowledgement that allowing £9m of European money to be used for an upgraded terminal would have been tantamount to an illegal subsidy.
The Daily Ghost's editorial, written by William Leece, strikes a less populist tone than that of its strident sibling. However, it's still in denial about the inherent flaws in the terminal plans. It concludes (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2009/12/17/comment-time-for-round-two-in-the-fight-to-upgrade-the-cruise-liner-terminal-92534-25410308/ ):
"Even if the worst comes to the worst, perhaps it may be still be best to repay the £9m in Euro-support and have done with it."
However, let's not end on such a dispirited note. Let's hear it from the Oldham Echo to bellow one last cry of parochial protest:
"No one can deny us our proud maritime history, and no one should underestimate our determination to bring back the glory days."
All together now, "In my Liverpool home, in my Liverpool home...."

The Reality That Retail Therapy Conceals

Just got in, have you? What's that, you say, Christmas shopping? Really? Oh good. Where did you go? Liverpool One, eh? Nice to know. Oh, erm, didn't stop to take any pictures while you were there, did you? No, it's just that after that business with the Guardian reporter in London last week (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect ), you can't be too careful.
Sorry, didn't quite catch that, insulting to be suspected of terrorism, did you say? Well, yes, absolutely. It's just that, well, there can be all sorts of misunderstandings, can't there? I mean, take this piece by Anna Minton on the Guardian's Comment is Free pages last night (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/15/public-space-private-property-companies ).
Mmm, yes, she mentions that incident involving Guardian journalist Paul Lewis. In fact, she links it to the place where you've just bought that Beatle Rock Star game (waste of money, btw, learn to play a real guitar):
"This monitoring and surveillance of innocent activities, which does not necessarily require anti-terror-laws, is taking place all around Britain as a result of the growing private ownership and private control of cities. Liverpool One, which spans 34 streets in the heart of Liverpool, is effectively owned by the Duke of Westminster's property company, Grosvenor, which leased the entire site, including streets and public places, from the council for 250 years. Cabot Circus in Bristol, Highcross in Leicester and what promises to be the biggest of all, Stratford City in London, are all owned and run by property companies."
Yes, I know you couldn't give a flying, erm, thingy who owns the place, as long as you get what you want. What's that? Oh certainly, especially at this time of year, Christmas spirit, eh?
What's that you're reading, btw? Oh, you've picked up Minton's article haven't you? Hey, she's got a point in this bit, look, just here:
"In their defence, politicians and developers point out that people like these places and flock to shop in them. But they also raise a challenge to the kind of public life, culture and democracy that has been taken for granted in British cities for the last 150 years. A host of seemingly innocuous activities --skateboarding, rollerblading, even eating in some places-- are routinely banned, along with filming and, of course, taking photographs. So is begging, homelessness, selling the Big Issue, handing out political leaflets, and holding political demonstrations. It's a very different and far less democratic idea of the city and citizenship. In place of the diversity of high streets we are creating sterile, high-security enclaves, policed by private security and CCTV. And rather than making us feel safer, the emphasis on security is a reminder of ever-present dange, fuelling fear of crime."
You've gone pensive, all of a sudden, cat got your tongue? Hey, I heard there's a free sausage roll with tonight's Oldham Echo as part of their Healthy Eating For Kids campaign. Did you get one? No? Shame, it was mentioned in last week's paper, next to that article about the OAP being mugged & how it shows that Liverpool's not safe anymore.
Oh well. Oh look, there's a comment on Minton's article by someone calling themselves Adorno:
"Liverpool City Centre is now partly owned by a private company. You drive in from the north or south of the city, through the likes of Toxteth, Walton or Anfield, and the social deprivation is shocking. Street after street, derelict and empty of life, schools surrounded by barbed wire, half-empty police stations, and the retail outlets that are vey quickly emptying.
"Then you reach the city centre with its 'Urban Outfitters' and other stores, with flat screen televisions on the wall, neon lights on the floors.
"The marginalisation of the poor is now a deliberate local and national government policy. It promotes the right conditions for neo-liberal economics, by driving a social and economic wedge between those who have and those who have not, whilst depriving people of any academic or cultural purpose, and thus leaving only materialistic masturbation."
Hmmph, probably one of those potty-mouthed, smart-arsed, sarky local bloggers, eh?
Anyway, never mind, get the Beatle game out & plug it in, will you? I love that song they covered, what's it called? Ah yes, Money. A One, Two, Three, Four...

Oldham Echo: Fight Arranger, Licence Revoked

Finally, after an inordinately lengthy period of denial, the penny has finally dropped with those on Oldham Hall Street about the cruise terminal affair & their eagerness to arrange some sort of manufactured feud with Southampton (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2009/12/southampton-wins-cruise-war-wi.html ).
It's worth noting, however, that David Bartlett still can't resist using the "cruise war" phrase in his headline. Indeed, such is the inconsistency so characteristic of those on Oldham Hall Street that Bartlett goes on to refer to the "so-called 'cruise war' ", conveniently forgetting to mention that both the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo picked up the phrase & ran with it eagerly at the time.
These characters & the business interests they so assiduously support either display a staggering level of ignorance about European law, or consciously attempt to dupe a dwindling readership into believing that "they've all got it in for Liverpool" again.
Fact: the application to use European money for the purposes of upgrading Liverpool's ferry terminal was always a non-starter because it contravened the criteria for the use of such funds. It would have been PUBLIC money to fund a PRIVATE concern which would have competed against other PRIVATE & PRIVATELY-FUNDED concerns. Got that, guys?
Wayne spelt it out at the time: (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/2009/10/cruise-wars-scouse-wedding-on-sea.html ).
Did Peel Holdings, the MDHC or their lackeys on Oldham Hall Street not stop to think about the implausability of the scheme? Nope, they carried on regardless (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/oldham-echo-fight-arranger.html ).
Even then common sense didn't dawn on the ranks of the befuddled, bewildered & bereft of original thought (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/10/oldham-echo-fight-arranger-round-two.html ).
It would be nice to think that sanity's finally prevailed. Don't hold your breath, though.

Candid Camera

In all the media retrospectives about the last decade recently one particularly toxic legacy of the so-called War on Terror has been largely overlooked, namely, the burgeoning of the surveillance State. Coupled with it has been an erosion of civil liberties via rushed & ill-thought legislation. A spate of incidents involving amateur & professional photographers in the last week or so has thrown the issue into, if you'll pardon the pun, sharp focus. The Guardian's Paul Lewis was filming outside the Gherkhin building in the City of London yesterday morning when a security guard took exception to his presence. The police were called & cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in their insistence on viewing the images Lewis had filmed. What followed was a cross between the farcical & the Kafkaesque:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect .
Anyone involved in a local Flickr group should waste no time in highlighting this disturbing threat to the very civil liberties which apologists for this ridiculously hamfisted legislation claim are under attack from Al Qaeda.

They've Let Him Out Again

Nick Peet, remember him? Yep, he's the Oldham Echo's towering intellectual paragon who opined that it's OK to act like an imbecile at concerts (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/11/oldham-echos-mood-music.html ). Well, it's nice to see that Nick has been let loose with pen & paper again. The result? Well, as it was once said of dodgy tailors, never mind the quality, feel the width (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/liverpool-columnists/nick-peet/2009/12/02/he-ain-t-heavy-he-s-my-brother-in-law-100252-25300010/ ).
Nick happily describes himself as "a fight fan" when recounting his visit to a martial arts show at the Olympia on West Derby Road, which would certainly go some way to explaining his Morrissey piece.
Nice, also, to see the Oldham Echo respect the basic rules of grammar (Nick refers to "brother-in-laws" -sic).

Family Fortunes

Taxing times of late for Peter Kilfoyle, Labour MP for Walton. His attacks on the cronyism of New Labour & Cameron's Notting Hill set have been somewhat undermined by the revelation that a report he recently commissioned, calling for a "super mayor" for the entire region, was produced by his daughter's firm. Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes made hay with the story & last week bumped into the MP. The Independent's Pandora column was happy to provide a ringside commentary on the encounter (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-fawkes-gets-explosive-commons-reception-1832229.html ):
"The Liverpool Walton MP took exception when he was informed that Paul Staines, the man behind the high-profile website, was in the Commons' Strangers Bar on Monday night. Staines, whose notable scalps have included John Prescott and Gordon Brown's ex-henchman, Damian 'Smeargate' McBride, was drinking with two of Kilfoyle's Labour colleagues when the furore erupted. 'I was with the MPs Tom Harris and Greg Pope and I was getting a round in,' Staines tells me. 'Suddenly he's ranting at the barmaid, "It's Guido Fawkes! Get him out!" I didn't want to embarrass the Labour MPs I was with, but I told him I was entitled to be there. It was all a bit childish.'
"Kilfoyle has come in for flack from Staines of late after the latter reported a survey commissioned by the politician was carried out by his daughter's firm. The MP has dismissed the criticism. He now says: 'If I'd had the energy I'd have chucked him out myself.
" 'I don't think people like him should come into this place, listening in on conversations and writing rubbish.' "
You'll notice that the Honourable Member for Walton sees no conflict of interest in having his daughter produce a commissioned report (i.e., paid for) & apparently makes no apology for enabling her to profit from one of his pet Parliamentary causes. Furthermore, his objection to Staines' presence had no validity; as for his gripe that Staines was only there to listen in on conversations & write rubbish, some might well point out that many a lobby hack does just that on a daily basis around Westminster's watering holes.
At the time of the report's publication the response was somewhat favourable from...guess who. Go on, you must know, it's obvious. Oh, alright then, I'll spell it out for you, the Daily Ghost (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2009/11/06/comment-peter-kilfoyle-s-super-mayor-plan-needs-serious-debate-92534-25103865/ ).
Penned by William Leece, the opinion piece warmed to Kilfoyle's call for a "super mayor" for the "city region", not just Liverpool & neighbouring areas, but also spanning Warrington & North Wales. Offering qualified approval for the proposal, Leece wrote that Kilfoyle's "opinions count. And when he backs the idea of an elected mayor....he should at least be listened to.
"It is certainly a far more interesting idea than that simply of a mayor from Liverpool alone. The report he has commissioned refers to the 'in-fighting, factionalism and allegations of unprofessionalism and mismanagement' that bedevil Liverpool City Council, and we would suggest that a directly-elected mayor would simply encounter more of the same."
Nontheless, the editorial concluded by saying that "Mr Kilfoyle has come up with radical proposals, and they deserve serious debate."
The merits of a "super mayor" notwithstanding (I regard it as a dead duck), what also deserves "serious debate" is Kilfoyle's family connection & how his constituents, for whom he was at pains to profess his steadfast support & representation in an Observer piece last month (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/22/liverpool-deprivation-broken-britain ), will view matters.
Liverpool Confidential had already broached the subject before the Observer piece (http://www.liverpoolconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwEjKHqjJlEpNwB6IaqiNwA&mpage=10 ).
[The Independent's Pandora colum also carried a snippet about the hopes of West Lancashire Labour MP Rosie Cooper for Ringo Starr to return to the city & pick up the Freedom of the City scroll he was nominated for back in the 80s. Cooper, Pandora noted, "was behind the idea" back then. Er, Rosie, that may not be such a popular move anymore.]

National Media Ignore Liverpool Again!

The Guardian has been trying to work up some enthusiasm for its retrospective of the last decade (it began with the Millenium Bug that never was & ends with another Establishment inquiry into WMD that never were). Its architecture critic Jonathan Glancey has been casting an eye over the architectural gems of the decade (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/dec/07/best-buildings-noughties ).
For some unfathomable reason, the graceful adornments to Liverpool's skyline, be they Grosvenorpool's aesthetically pleasing contributions, or the delightful new neighbours for the Three Graces aren't included. Shame on you, Jonathan!

A Free Message

Pulsating with every characteristic & odious trait of the Dickensian avaricious philistine who knows the price of everything & the value of nothing, Rupert Murdoch lectured a journalism conference in Washington, DC on Monday. The Dirty Digger sidled his way to the podium & sneered that online payment for news articles, something he wishes to persue for his titles via a paywall, is necessary & normal, declaring that there is no such thing as free news. Well, we all know that everything has to be paid for. However, it has been the cue for another tedious round of BBC-bashing from the Murdoch empire; his son & appointed heir James couldn't get it into his skull recently that we do pay for the BBC's news services via the licence fee.
It fell to Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com/ ), to put Murdoch's myths into the shredder of web reality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/01/arianna-huffington-murdoch-ftc ).
[The full text of Huffington's address can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/journalism-desperate_b_374642.html .]
Huffington observed that "playing nice has suddenly become a one-way street -- suddenly the air is filled with shrill, nonsensical, and misplaced verbal assaults on those in the new media."
What was striking, however, was that there were passages of her address which didn't just pertain to the world's most famous Australian-born US citizen. The speech could well have been considered germane to a certain operation on Oldham Hall Street:
"In most industries, if your customers were leaving in droves, you would try to figure out what to do to get them back. Not in the media. They'd rather accuse aggregators of stealing their content."
Another excerpt which rattles uncomfortably at the doors of the Daily Ghost & Oldham Echo:
"It's time for traditional media companies to stop whining and face the fact that far too many of them, lulled by a lack of competition and years of pretax profits of 20% or more, put cashflow above journalism and badly misread the web when it arrived on the scene. The focus was on consolidation, cost-cutting, and pleasing Wall Street -- not modernisation and pleasing their readers.
"They were asleep at the wheel, missed the writing on the wall, let the train leave the station, let the ship sail -- pick your metaphor -- and quickly found themselves on the wrong side of the disruptive innovation the internet and new media represent. And now they want to call timeout, ask for a do-over, start changing the rules, lobby the government to bail them out, and attack the new media for being...well, new. And different. And transformational. Suddenly it's all about thievery and parasites and intestines.
"Get real, you guys. The world has changed."
The reference to Wall Street notwithstanding, there's an observation which may induce a few sweaty collars in Big Al Machray's fiefdom.
But wait, there's more, oh yes, & it might just cause a fit of the vapours among what's left of the thinking elements on Oldham Hall Street:
"The same people who never question why consumers would sit on a couch and watch TV for eight hours straight can't understand why someone would find it rewarding to weigh in on the issues -- great and small -- that interest them. For free. They don't understand the people who contribute to Wikipedia for free, who maintain their own blogs for free, who Twitter for free, who constantly refresh and update their Facebook page for free, who want to help tell the stories of what is happening in their lives and in their communities...for free."
Alaistair, Mark, you just don't understand, do you? And I'm telling you that. For free.