Not Such A Court Jester

An intriguing political aspect of the London Olympics has been the supposed popularity of the city's mayor Boris Johnson. His bumbling buffoon persona has been judged by some observers to be a vote-winner not just in London, but perhaps nationally, too. Here on Merseyside, however, we view Johnson a little differently. Back in 2004, as well as being a backbench Tory MP, he was editor of the Spectator magazine. He approved an editorial, penned by Tory right-winger Simon Heffer, about Liverpool which rehashed all the old stereotypes about the city. The then Tory leader Michael Howard tried to minimise the fall-out by telling Johnson to visit the city & apologise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3749548.stm ).
Johnson being Johnson, his utterances only made matters worse for Howard.
They say you're judged by the company you keep, so it's telling that Johnson is now receiving the support of Rupert Murdoch as a possible Tory leader (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/02/rupert-murdoch-boris-johnson-prime-minister ). 
The fact that Johnson would have to be elected as a Tory MP again is evidently seen as a minor & irritable detail.
Against this somewhat surreal backdrop, a well-timed article appears on the Guardian's Comment is Free pages (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/sonia-purnell-boris-johnson-not-prime-minister-material ).
Far from being the haphazard character he appears to be, Johnson is as cunning & calculated as Cameron.

From Catalyst To Cock-Up Merchant

Spare a thought for Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson. No, really, spare a thought for the guy. There he was just a week and a half ago with a warm, contented glow. He'd become Mayor Anderson on the vote of the people (let's leave aside the abysmally low turnout for a moment) & had just been the subject of a puff piece in the Oldham Echo, courtesy of our old friend Paddy Shennan (hello, Paddy!).
Paddy's fawning article (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/in-the-mix/2012/07/16/behind-the-scenes-joe-anderson-liverpool-s-first-elected-mayor-100252-31401115/ ) quoted Joe as declaring, "When I go to David Cameron's mayoral committee I can speak powerfully -- having been elected by the people with a thumping big majority.
"And if we show competence and confidence in what we do we will be able to negotiate more and more powers."
As I said, let's gloss over that turnout figure of 31.7%, although Paddy, to be fair, does give it a mention. Moreover, it does seem a rather quaint notion that if Joe & Co. implement enough Tory cuts they'll be rewarded with "more and more powers" from a ConDem government which is notable, inter alia, for its centralising impulses.
Joe also exhibited a refreshing degree of modesty when asked by Paddy about his legacy: "It won't be one individual issue. I want people to remember the rebirth of the city. We've got a great past but an even better future. We have got so much to look forward to and I want people to say of me, 'He was the catalyst for the rebirth of the city'. "
Got that? Joe doesn't want much in the way of adulation, he just wants to be known as the "catalyst" for Liverpool's renaissance.
With that in the bag Joe had every reason to think that he really had Oldham Hall Street in his pocket. Er, no, he hadn't.
A series of embarrassing stories began to appear in the Oldham Echo, much to Joe's chagrin & he made clear his unhappiness about it, as noted by David Bartlett (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2012/07/liverpool-mayor-joe-anderson-h.html ).
It wasn't meant to be like this for Joe. He needed the best possible spin as he implemented the Tory cuts he insisted he himself loathed. Anything rather than the reality of a future for cities like Liverpool which holds out the demeaning prospect of hand-outs at food banks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/food-banks-on-hand-outs ).
Joe's mood wouldn't have been lightened by the revelation that security for the Mathew Street Festival will be supplied by those reliable chaps at G4S (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/07/19/olympic-security-fiasco-firm-g4s-will-provide-crowd-control-at-mathew-street-festival-100252-31425415/ ).
Perhaps it was the Olympic link, allied to a sense of grievance which prompted Joe to tweet a little message in the direction of the capital earlier today. Realising that it didn't exactly reflect well on both his office of mayor & the city he likes to champion to a wider audience, Joe deleted it. Ah, but wait. The web can be an unforgiving place. Deleted tweets can return to haunt you just when you think all is well & said tweet has now been preserved for less than noble posterity. Warning: it does contain a good old Anglo-Saxon term as well as a piece of shoddy grammar: https://p.twimg.com/Ayz-UY8CYAEOYLX.jpg .
It isn't clear what Joe was referring to when expressing the hope that London didn't, well, make a mess of things. However, it could be a reference to culture year, something Joe & his cohorts have always insisted was an unalloyed success. Or perhaps it could be a reference to the civic disfigurement of Liverpool's waterfront that Joe has shamelessly championed.
Whatever it refers to, one thing is certain: Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson has said far more about himself in one deleted tweet than in a whole series of sycophantic  pieces in the Oldham Echo.

21.10 UPDATE: David Bartlett is reporting that a member of staff in Joe Anderson's office has been suspended over the deleted tweet (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2012/07/liverpool-council-employee-sus.html ).
If someone else did, ahem, compose the offending tweet, it would certainly explain matters. However, it does raise the question of online authorship. Does Mayor Anderson always instruct his staff to tweet in his name? If so, it still reflects badly on the mayor. Twitter, like Facebook, is supposed to be about self-expression & openness, not PR.  

Return Of An Old Favourite

Eighteen months after More4's ridiculous decision to drop daily transmissions of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, it's nice to see it return to UK TV viewers. From last night the Comedy Central Extra channel (Virgin Media channel 185, Sky channel 128) began showing nightly episodes at the show at 10.30pm.
Last night's show took a wry look at the G4S security shambles for the London Olympics & delighted in juxtaposing some old stereotypes about England with the current reality of a capital in less than secure lockdown (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-how-does-london-have-so-many-pre-olympics-security-problems/ ).

MacKenzie Confronted Over Hillsborough Lies

Last night's edition of Any Questions on BBC Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgvj/episodes/player )  was enlivened by Owen Jones' comments. Particularly pleasing was his trenchant condemnation of fellow panellist & well-known liar Kelvin MacKenzie over Hillsborough.
"Let's not forget how Kelvin MacKenzie treated the families of the dead," Owen declared.
MacKenzie was audibly rattled, mumbling about the need to wait until the release of the Hillsborough documents in September before making any judgement, an stance clearly at odds with his penchant for smears, hearsay & invention.
Owen also challenged him to name his source for the Hillsborough smears. Not surprisingly, the reptile refused. Just for the record, the lies were transmitted to MacKenzie by the then chief constable of South Yorkshire police, Peter Wright, a former chief constable of Merseyside police, Kenneth Oxford & a Tory MP for the Sheffield Hallam constituency at the time, Irvine Patnick.
MacKenzie's comments throughout the programme cemented his reputation as the arch-practitioner of sewer journalism. By the end of the programme, he must have privately wished he hadn't appeared. MacKenzie had already chickened out of an interview with the BBC's Nick Higham about Leveson the previous day (https://twitter.com/highamnews/status/225893486241673216 ).

Liar To Appear As Panellist On Any Questions

BBC Radio 4's Any Questions hasn't always possessed the spark & spice of its TV counterpart Question Time, although it has had its moments over the decades. This Friday's edition will be worth catching (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kt7m6 ), seeing as the panel will include writer & blogger Owen Jones. Also on the panel will be the man who is to journalism what G4S is to efficient organisation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/17/g4s-nick-buckles-shambles ), Kelvin MacKenzie.
Moreover, Owen will be donating his fee from the programme to the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/ ).
MacKenzie, by crushing contrast, will pocket his fee from the BBC & then feel free to denigrate the corporation itself & call for the licence fee to be either lowered or scrapped altogether.
The programme will be repeated on Saturday afternoon at 1.10pm & will then be followed at 2.00pm by Any Answers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qmmy ); phone: 03700 100 444; email: any.answers@bbc.co.uk; tweet @BBCRadio4, using hashtag #bbcaq.
The programme's format will probably prevent Owen from exposing MacKenzie for the liar & bigot he is. However, one can but hope.

Dust Bowl Balladeer

It seems strangely apposite that the centenary of Woody Guthrie's birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie ) should take place in a US election year. Many (understandable) grumbles about Obama's first term should be set against the "alternative" that Romney & his rabid Republican rump offer.
Bruce Springsteen (whose magnificent Manchester gig I attended a few weeks back) appeared with Pete Seeger in January 2009 to perform what should be viewed as the authentic US anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiEAcZhqojk .
It also seems gloriously apposite & topical to recall a song Guthrie wrote called Jolly Banker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdyLb7ouXUU .
Happy birthday, Woody. 

Murdoch's Contemptible "Offer" Revealed

The lid that Leveson has lifted on the press, & particularly the venal practices at News International, has been both illuminating & sickening for many observers. Long-held suspicions about the subterranean depths to which Murdoch's lackeys would stoop have been confirmed; celebrities & "civilians" have related their stories about press intrusion & a pattern has been possible to discern: of all the media groups, Murdoch's has been the by far the most brazen, Janus-faced & sociopathic.
However, it wasn't until today that the Leveson Inquiry turned its attention to an event which can be seen as a relatively early example of collusion between the police & Murdoch's rags, Hillsborough.
Margaret Aspinall, chairman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, has submitted written evidence to the inquiry about the Sun's despicable "offer" to the group (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/12/1 ):
" 'The offer that was put to us...came with conditions: if we allowed the Sun to publish that we, the Hillsborough Family Support Group, accepted the Sun's apology then they, in return, would help us in any way they could get to the truth about Hillsborough, wrote Aspinall.' 
" 'They also said they would help us to perhaps build a sports centre for children in Liverpool, or anything else we might need,' she added."
This shamelessly offensive "offer" may well have been the bastard brainchild of disgraced & discredited Murdoch lieutenant Rebekah Brooks. As for their offer to "get to the truth about Hillsborough", we already know enough about what happened & the aftermath, in which that rag, as the Guardian article reports, claimed "that Liverpool fans had contributed to the deaths, urinated on the dead, pick-pocketed bodies and prevented police officers from giving the kiss of life to fans caught in the crush."
Leveson's remit wasn't intended to consider the Sun's lies about Hillsborough so Margaret Aspinall's written evidence is a welcome reminder of how a despicable rag conspired with South Yorkshire Police to cover up the force's failings, as identified in the Taylor Report, & libel the fans.  

Culture Of Capital

Visitors flying into Liverpool arrive at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. Once they arrive in the city centre they're reminded at every opportunity that the Fab Four hailed from these parts. Should they venture down Mathew Street, the overkill may well overwhelm the unprepared. Even the nostalgia apologists admit that the Beatle legacy is milked for all its worth in Liverpool.
Given that, you'd think a city which based its pitch for culture year almost exclusively on John, Paul, George & the one who did Thomas the Tank Engine would welcome & encourage live music in its public spaces. Right?
Wrong.
The unelected, unaccountable Business Improvement District (BID) group, with the not-so tacit backing of the city council, has this week imposed a list of prohibitive measures on all street entertainers in the city centre (http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/Culture/Ged-Gibbons-v-Johnny-Walker ).
According to the LC piece, all street entertainers will now have to:
" *Prebook their pitches
   *Shell out for a £20 permit
   *Pay up to £100 for public liability insurance
   *Perform only in designated spots around the city."
Liverpool Confidential's article features a video of an exchange between Jonny Walker, a regular busker, & Ged Gibbons, CEO of BID, on Church Street. Mr Gibbons is the archetypal suit. Mr Walker, who trained as a barrister, the busker who holds his own. During the exchange Mr Gibbons states that no one under the age of 18 should perform in public spaces such as Church Street. Mr Walker replies that George Harrison joined The Quarrymen at the tender age of 15.
Opinions will always vary about street entertainers; it isn't always subjective. Some can be highly talented. Others can be bloody awful. However, this isn't about street entertainment per se. The real issue is the arrogant assumption of the major stores that they can dictate who, if anyone, can perform in what is a public space.
The street entertainers have launched their own website (http://keepstreetslive.com ) &, acting upon advice from the Musicians' Union that the conditions are restrictive, have also organised an online petition (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/keep-spontaneous-street-performance-alive?utm_campaign=petition_page&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition ).
Liverpool appears to be the only UK city which wishes to apply such restrictive conditions on street entertainment. The "Home of the Beatles" evidently values the Culture of Capital over any authentic cultural legacy from its musical past. One can only surmise that if, say, a world-famous singer/songwriter wandered up to a local busker & offered to join in, the city fathers & their business allies would take a far less enlightened stance than their counterparts in Copenhagen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQzpefkdPl0 ).   

Quantitative Easing

It's nice to see that Boris Johnson & David Cameron continue with at least one public school ritual.

The Final Word

This blog is always ready to excoriate sloppy, poorly-researched, casual, take-it-or-leave-it "journalism". However, such damning adjectives could not be used in relation to the Word music magazine. Sadly, faced with falling circulation figures, the magazine will soon fold (http://wordmagazine.co.uk/content/an-announcement-about-the-word-magazine-0 ).
Unlike other music monthlies, the magazine wasn't afraid to explore wider cultural issues & genres. It employed writers who didn't treat readers like idiots. Nor did assume that devoting whole issues to "heritage" acts (Beatles/Dylan/Stones) amounted to music journalism.
That said, the effect of the web & the wider economic climate combined to produce a perfect storm for the magazine, as the Guardian notes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/29/magazine-word-to-close ):
"The Word's demise is symptomatic of the extremely difficult environment for paid-for music magazines, which face a squeeze from an increasing number of free titles and the music industry's falling advertising budgets. In the last six months of 2011, all paid-for rock music titles experienced year-on-year falls in circulation, according to the ABCs."
Word magazine won't be the only victim of the current climate & future trends, far from it. However, it's a title which doesn't deserve this fate.

Addressing The Jobs Issue

Throughout the Liverpool Waters saga there has been a repeated refrain from the scheme's supporters, namely, that it will create jobs in an area suffering from chronic levels of unemployment. Taken in isolation, it's a seemingly compelling argument. No one on Merseyside can be in a state of ignorance about both present levels of unemployment & the "structural", ie., historical levels; many of those made redundant in the 80s found themselves unemployable, their children & now grandchildren growing up in households where joblessness was the norm. The absence of a bread winner (& role model) created an environment where large numbers of the working class became the underclass over three decades.
Given that historical background, it's scarcely surprising that those eagerly backing Peel's plans cite the jobs issue. That's understandable. What's less understandable, however, is the seeming promise of many long-term jobs arising from the scheme from those who should know better.
It's a myth which has persisted for too long. How, ironic, therefore, that the myth has been exposed, at least partially, by Oldham Hall Street (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/06/20/liverpool-waters-exclusive-how-many-local-jobs-99623-31221958/ ).
Just one in ten of the construction jobs on Liverpool Waters will be allocated to people in the most impoverished north end wards of the city (Anfield, County, Everton & Kirkdale) as stipulated in an agreement between the city council & Peel. To take the case of Everton ward, the article spells it out starkly:
"Unemployment in Everton alone is 40% of the population, almost twice the Liverpool average."
Bear in mind that's the official figure.
As for Mayor Anderson's response, it was less than reassuring:
"Mayor Anderson said: 'These figures have not been run past me. It will be more.
" 'We are sending a clear message to every developer that we will be expecting them to deliver local jobs.' "
That sounds more like a vague hope than a specific commitment.
It also begs the question how the council can renegotiate that paltry 10% figure with Peel in the hope of increasing it when the agreement already signed is legally binding.
Yes, the north end of Liverpool needs jobs. Badly. However, what's on offer from the Liverpool Waters behemoth is no more than a mirage.

Tory Gets The Paxo Treatment

It's been a while since Jeremy Paxman really sank his teeth into a hapless & hopeless politician. However, last night's Newsnight provided a real red meat moment for Paxo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTzc ).
 Junior treasury minister Chloe Smith had already been in a bruising encounter with Krishnan Guru Murthy on Channel 4 News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Tkocd8njY ). Nothing, though, could prepare her for the Paxman treatment (the interview starts on 6'19). Woefully out of her depth, Smith made the fatal error of thinking that a stream of cliches & soundbites would be enough. Paxo soon disabused her of that notion & memorably concluded the interrogation by asking: "Do you ever think you are incompetent?"
Smith had been well & truly Paxo'd, her ministerial career in tatters. 

UNESCO's Jolt For Joe

Yelping like a scalded dog, Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson has called UNESCO's decision on Liverpool's World Heritage status "premature" (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/06/27/world-heritage-committee-places-liverpool-on-list-of-world-heritage-in-danger-100252-31268539/ ).
The reason for Joe's shrieks of indignation? Partly a dawning realisation that UNESCO aren't messing about & mean what they say, & partly the fact that Whitehall has yet to approve the Liverpool Waters behemoth (just savour the irony of a Labour leader -- a Labour leader! -- invoking the ConDem cutters to justify his position). Just read through this cliche-ridden & defensive missive from Joe's office:
"We also believe the safeguards which were put in place when [Liverpool Waters] was considered by the planning committee will ensure that the World Heritage site is protected.
"The city council is continuing to discuss the plans with the developers and other interested parties and have always firmly believed that Liverpool can retain its World Heritage status while sensitively developing the derelict docklands.
"It is important to note that although this decision has been made, it does not mean that Liverpool is in imminent danger of having its status removed.
"This is a long term development which will take several decades to complete and as it progresses we will continue to work to ensure that we can reach a situation which satisfies all parties."
Wading through such tortuous syntax isn't pleasant, but let's pick our way through it anyway. The first sentence is contradictory; UNESCO have made it crystal clear that Liverpool Waters will mean the end of the city's World Heritage status. Furthermore, the decision by the city council to back the Liverpool Waters project was accompanied by a dismissive quote from Mayor Anderson himself back in January about World Heritage status amounting to no more than "a certificate on the wall in the Town Hall" (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/01/02/liverpool-council-leader-joe-anderson-says-city-would-sacrifice-world-heritage-status-for-liverpool-waters-scheme-in-new-year-report-100252-30044864/ ).
The second sentence continues along the road of contradiction while persisting with the fictitious claim that "other interested parties", ie., those largely opposed to the scheme, are currently being consulted. They aren't & Joe knows it. Moreover, the notion that the area will be developed "sensitively" by Peel is laughable.
The third sentence is driven more by panic than cool analysis.
The final sentence begins with a third-rate attempt to hit the ball into the long grass, as they say, & concludes with a sentiment which is vacuous in the extreme.
The consequences of proceeding with the Liverpool Waters monstrosity couldn't be clearer. Mayor Anderson could at least acknowledge that rather than hide behind hackneyed phrases & dispiriting jargon.    

Stanley Park Stadium Shelved

John W Henry, owner of Liverpool FC, has given the strongest hint yet that there won't be a Stanley Park stadium & that, as widely predicted, the club will remain at a revamped Anfield. Using his Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/Jon_W_Henry/status/217708340678107136 ), Henry has linked to a blogpost by local architect Peter McGurk (http://petermcgurk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Anfield ).
McGurk has presented a detailed description of what a redeveloped stadium would mean for local residents.  

Dim Tim Finally Gets It

Adding his voice to the opposition that faces the Tories' "welfare reforms" -- or "keeping the peasants in check", as it's unofficially known -- (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-sweeping-welfare-reforms ) is Dr Tim Leunig. Yes, it's nice to see that Nice But Dim Tim has spoken out on the issue. He's expressed his opposition in a piece for the Guardian's Comment is Free site (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-housing-benefit ).
Tim correctly describes the proposals as impractical.  Tim knows all about impractical ideas, of course. I presume he now views his suggestion that areas like Merseyside should be deserted en masse (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/tories-policy-on-liverpool-close-it.html ) by millions of northerners heading down south as, well, let's be kind here, less than feasible.
There is something else that comes to mind with Dr Leunig, namely his involvement with the Lib Dems (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/leunigs-liberal-links.html ).
It's no exaggeration to say that had Clegg & his gang of opportunists not got into bed with Cameron's Tories, such proposals might never have seen the light of day. Still, if Nice But Dim Tim is ready to repent & vow to vacate that ivory tower for good, well, we can slap him on the back & welcome him into the real world.      

UNESCO's Ultimatum

UNESCO have given their response to the Liverpool Waters development & its ramifications for Liverpool's World Heritage Site status (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/world_heritage_committee_places_liverpool_on_list_of_world_heritage_in_danger/ ).
Those who crow that UNESCO hasn't stripped the city of its World Heritage status & has somehow accepted the weasel words of Oldham Hall Street & Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson would do well to peruse the committee's findings at their conference in St Petersburg:
"The committee warned that if [Liverpool Waters] is implemented, Liverpool may entirely lose the outstanding universal value for which it was given World Heritage status."
Translated from the language of UN diplomacy, it means, "Start work on Peel's vanity project & you can kiss WHS goodbye."
Those hell-bent on inflicting this additional monstrosity upon the city's waterfront can't say they weren't warned. 

Schools Threatened By Criminals! Or Are They?

Personal safety. It's a priority, isn't it? Without that, everything else is meaningless. If you're a parent, your child's safety comes first. Obvious, really. So let's commend the Oldham Echo for alerting us to a mence in our midst. Or rather, menaces (plural).
You see, the Echo has discovered, via a Freedom of Information request, that "hundreds" of criminals applied for jobs in schools across Merseyside over the last year (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/06/25/exclusive-hundreds-of-criminals-applying-for-merseyside-school-jobs-100252-31252988/ ).
An alarming thought, for sure.
However, as the Echo admits, none of the attempts by local criminals to work in the region's schools succeeded thanks to the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). The CRB's checks ensured that any applicants with criminal records were flagged up & acted upon. Typically, however, that doesn't stop the Echo from regaling us with the number of such cases & a breakdown of the offences which the CRB detected. Sensationalising the story in a manner which would do the Daily Mail proud, the Echo conveys a dystopic vista of villains, ne'er-do-wells & pond life clamouring at school gates across the region.
Fortunately, some much-required context & proportion is supplied in the piece by Ian Andain from the Liverpool Schools Forum. There is, of course, the possibility that the Echo piece is little more than a thinly-disguised plug for the work that the CRB do. Be that as it may, the paper's hysterical treatment of such matters tells us all we need to know about the wretched standard of journalism which has become its hallmark.
Some of the comments left at the foot of the article on its website suspect so. One commenter, lori, ponders:
"I wonder how many of these people have been forced to apply for jobs by the jobcentre. The staff there don't listen when they make people apply for jobs that they know they can't do. Next thing you know, the Echo is implying that criminals are trying to get into schools!"
Another commenter, andychrist, echoes the more nuanced points made by Ian Andain when he observes:
"Just because someone has a record doesn't mean they will always re-offend, a job is a job and is always a step in the right direction...they will be CRB checked for work with kids anyway so management will be aware of their past.
"Or do we want to keep them jobless and on the dole with a greater chance of re-offending?"
There's a question to ponder. It is, alas, one the Oldham Echo is unlikely to consider for any reasonable length of time.

Sir Thumbs Up

It may have escaped your attention that Paul McCartney (aka Sir Macca) celebrated his 70th birthday earlier this week. Here's a tribute to the man about whom Allan Williams is full of praise from local impressionist Stevie Riks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y5n1iuH2H4 .

With Interest

Recommended reading: a belated plug for a piece Tony Schumacher penned for Liverpool Confidential last month:
http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/Not-Confidential/Rear-View-Mirror-Forever-in-your-pay-day-debt-loans .

Waking Up To Reality

A hazy state of semi-consciousness gives way to the sobering light of day. Half-remembered recollections of intoxicated excess & its attendant claims induce an initial cringe. Then comes the shudder, the mortifying realisation that things were said which owed more to conceitedness than careful consideration. The empty bottles tell their own story. Reality dawns. Too late.
One presumes that a collective shake of the head was in order at Oldham Hall Street today as Alastair Machray, et al, finally understood the ramifications of Peel's Liverpool Waters on the city's World Heritage Site status (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/06/19/unesco-prepare-to-start-process-of-stripping-liverpool-s-world-heritage-site-status-100252-31212104/ ).
Over at the city council, meanwhile, Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson looks in the mirror, a smile on his face as he ponders his attire for that big day at the Palace (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-18460258 ). A minion timorously knocks on the door. Irritated to have his royal reverie abruptly curtailed, Joe brusquely snatches the copy of the Oldham Echo that is proffered by the hapless assistant & reads the comments he's OKed for publication:
"The main concerns raised about heritage issues on Liverpool Waters will not become an issue for several years as they focus on later stages of the project -- they will not be built for at least 10 years -- and detailed plans my be subject to change before then.
"We believe firmly that is is possible to have a world-class development while still retaining our world heritage status."
Joe knows it's hogwash, but he'd rather get back to his day at Buck House (what to say, how to act, perfecting that all-important bow). Never mind the fact that WHS status is now up for review by UNESCO in St Petersburg this weekend (http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/liverpool-to-be-placed-on-unesco-world.html ).
Rewind a few hours & back on Oldham Hall Street the struggle to clear minds isn't easy. Someone helpfully recalls an editorial from last February & its dismissive one-liner about Liverpool's WHS (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2012/02/29/liverpool-waters-plans-must-proceed-100252-30427746/ ):
"It's a great accolade to have, but some things are more important."
There's a tumbleweed moment in the office. Silence is followed by an embarrassed clearing of the throat & a muffled aside about getting on with some work.
Big Al Machray looks bewildered. Then irritated. Then purposeful. He calls together the finest minds at his disposal, an Echo Brains Trust, if you will. Drafting an editorial, they know it has to reflect Oldham Hall Street's new-found sobriety in discussing UNESCO's impending decision (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2012/06/19/don-t-punish-the-city-of-liverpool-unesco-100252-31211961/ ):
"But as [UNESCO] prepare for their discussions, we would ask the committee members to be mindful that this is a city which is constantly evolving and improving -- and the waterfront must be a part of this positive development.
"The last thing this city wants to do is destroy its heritage, and we have no intention of allowing that to happen. We also have no intention of missing out on an exciting and ambitious scheme which aims to revive and regenerate the depressed northern docklands -- providing new hope, new opportunities and new jobs."
Heads are nodded in agreement that the latter point is sufficiently vague & poorly-researched for inclusion in an Echo editorial.
So far, so good. However, a concluding sentence is needed, one that combines a tacit acknowledgement that Liverpool Waters has terminal implications for the city's WHS with a reminder that the Echo is chronically addicted to the press releases issued by the Peel behemoth:
"Trust us to carry on combining the new and the old -- and allow us to retain the status you gave us, while continuing to look to the future."
Will that do, someone asks. There's a furrowing of brows, sotto voce reservations emanate from one or two & Big Al's most loyal lieutenants gaze at their efforts admiringly. Judgment is arrived at. That'll do, is the verdict.
Joe, meanwhile, resumes his thoughts about that day at the Palace. Across the city of which he is Mayor the cuts continue & Peel Holdings wait expectantly for UNESCO to do their worst.

Blogger Bullied

Every so often a story appears which makes even acerbic bloggers re-read the details, so as to confirm the arrogance & stupidity of those responsible for it. In this case it concerns the local council for Argyll and Bute in the west of Scotland. The pathetic bureaucrats have bullied a nine year-old girl into discontinuing a blog she's kept about the quality of the school meals she & her fellow pupils have been offered (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/15/girl-photos-school-meals-blog ).
The blog by Martha Payne (http://neverseconds.blogspot.co.uk ) is impressive, doubly so when you consider her age.
If you would like to let Argyll & Bute council know about your views on their reprehensible & ultimately counterproductive actions, you can (http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/phone-numbers/contact-us ).

14.50 UPDATE: The idiots responsible for intimidating a nine year-old schoolgirl have been forced to back down (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/15/school-meals-blogger-council-ban ). 
  

Reward For Failure: £900,000

The fall-out from the Leveson revelations has gone beyond the venality of Murdoch's empire. Other proprietors have blinked uncomfortably in the glare of what have been relatively mild questions from Leveson himself & the QCs at the inquiry. Overlooked in all this has been the record of Trinity Mirror, the Oldham Echo's parent company.
Its chief executive Sly Bailey looked distinctly rattled when questioned about the company's modus operandi. 
Bailey had intended to depart from Trinity later in the year. However, sensing the contempt in which she is held by most of the company's staff (there were cheers in the Mirror newsroom when she announced her departure), Bailey has decided to sling her hook with immediate effect, as tersely confirmed in a Pravdaesque piece slotted into the Oldham Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/2012/06/15/sly-bailey-leaves-liverpool-post-and-echo-company-trinity-mirror-with-immediate-effect-100252-31190737/).
What isn't mentioned in the Echo's oleaginous article is the £900,000 Bailey will pocket as she vacates her desk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade//2012/jun/15/slybailey-mediabusiness ).
I'm sure the workers that the company has "let go" during her tenure will wish her well & view her payoff as richly merited.
  

Ruritania In The Waves

Those who thought London could never resemble Pyongyang & that the BBC wouldn't offer up a bemusing mix of sychophancy & banality over this extended Bank Holiday weekend may well feel disoriented. 
Certainly, the scant number of Merseyside neighbourhoods which applied for council permission to hold jubilee parties attests to a general indifference towards the Monarchy in these parts. However, that didn't stop the Oldham Echo from banging the royal drum yesterday (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2012/06/04/what-makes-britain-great-100252-31107103/).
A half-hearted stab at populism, its editorial trumpeted:
"There's the fact that we are a proud little island kingdom with an NHS which is still the envy of the world and a belief in fair play and democracy that allows a free press and fierce pressure on the politicians who so often let us down."
Leaving aside the inconvenient fact that Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, et al are hell-bent on policies which will effectively dismantle the NHS, the claim that "a free press" holds the powerful to account is risible, particularly with regard to local politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't get the feeling that Oldham Hall Street has exerted "fierce pressure" on Peel Holdings, Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson, or his much-missed predecessor, Warren "War Zones" Bradley.
Moreover, the supposedly robust media has been conspicuous by its unctuous & tedious coverage of the Windsors' weekend; the Daily Show with Jon Stewart expertly & forensically dissected CNN's coverge (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/05/watch-jon-stewart-rips-queens-jubilee-coverage/ ).
As ex-Echo hack Vicki Kellaway writes in a guest post for Dale Street Blues, there is sufficient local evidence that we live in a very dis-United Kingdom (http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/dalestreetblues/2012/06/vicki-kellaway-forget-rios-inf.html  ).
Adding to this unarguable presentation of a grim reality facing an increasing number of people (including those who once thought they were safe from the vagaries of market forces) is a story from the Guardian which truly warrants the adjective Dickensian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed ).
Those jobless "volunteers" who were forced to sleep beneath London Bridge, told they had to change in public, denied access to toilets for 24 hours & paid the not-so princely sum of £2.80 per hour for their labour would beg to differ with the Echo's contention that "a belief in fair play and democracy" is a defining characteristic of life in Elizabeth Windsor's Britain.

Anfield's Decade Of Atrophy

Alexei Sayle once remarked that, as someone who grew up in the Anfield area, the football stadium seemed to be a squat, unwelcome presence, sucking revenue in while the adjacent neighbourhoods were left to neglect & decline. Such an observation was once tantamount to heresy for many. Sayle's pronouncement, however, is now tacitly accepted by many, including those who are loath to criticise Liverpool Football Club.
The sorry saga of a new Stanley Park stadium has taken on the appearance of a little-noticed & scarcey-viewed daytime TV soap opera; to a wider audience, its irrelevance has deepened with just a miniscule number of followers still hoping that work will eventually begin. It now looks pretty much as if the proposed stadium will remain on the architects' drawing board.
Despite the city council's "ultimatum" to Fenway Sports Group, the club's owners (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/2012/06/01/liverpool-fc-given-council-ultimatum-over-anfield-stadium-future-100252-31091366/ ), it looks likely that the club has already decided to remain at an expanded Anfield (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/may/31/liverpool-new-anfield-stadium) .
David Conn's Guardian piece lays bare the physical reality of a lost decade: "Outside the walls of the ground in which footballers play for multimillionaires' salaries, for a club owned principally by John W Henry, a billionaire in Boston, people are living amid dereliction and decline approaching the country's grimmest."
FSG's revamped plans for Anfield may well make economic sense. Spending £300m on a stadium in Stanley Park which affords the club a mere 15,000 extra seats would have been questionable before the crash of 2008. In today's changed business world it looks financially dysfunctional. However, the residents around the Anfield ground have been kept in the dark about this change of policy by the club, making a mockery of the claim by the club's managing director, Ian Ayres, that there has been a "great dialogue" with those who live in the stadium's shadow.
There is also the question of financial assistance/compensation for the residents whose properties will be demolished.  Conn reports the comments made by Liverpool City Council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, who says that "homeowners will be paid the market rate plus 10% 'loss of home payment' but said the council is 'very sympathetic' and he hoped this would be enough."
Doesn't sound completely reassuring, does it?
Like most parts of North Liverpool, the Anfield area has long been a festering eyesore & bereft of real economic growth. The wider Liverpool Walton constituency has the highest benefit claimant count in the whole city at 8.5% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/17/unemployment-and-employment-statistics-economics ) & the decision to remain at the current stadium will do nothing to reverse the neighbourhood's long-term decline (Conn refers to the area around the ground, a good deal of which is now largely uninhabited, as "sunken", a brutally candid assessment).
So has anyone gained from this depressing saga? Well, yes, there is. Step forward David Moores, the former club chairman, who, as Conn reminds us, pocketed a cool £89m from the sale of the club he professed to love to Tom Hicks & George Gillett. When it became clear that Hicks & Gillett were a couple of con artists whose business methods have since been excoriated by the courts, Moores bleated to the local media that he felt dismayed & somehow betrayed by them. However, Moores donated not a single penny of the £89m he made to the cost of the campaign to get Hicks & Gillett out of the club. The Spirit of Shankly group invited him to address one of their meetings. He declined.

Plus Ca Change (Plus C'est La Meme Chose)

Observation of the month: Elvis Costello's remark that you normally know you're getting older when police officers look younger than yourself. In his case, however, it was when Tory Chancellor George Osborne reminded him of Noddy ("and not in a good way"). His comments prefaced a blistering performance of Tramp The Dirt Down during his superb gig at the Empire a couple of weeks ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1emSMioJsg ).
 

A Loathsome Layout

Family paper, the Oldham Echo, isn't it? Yep, you can rely upon those who remain at Oldham Hall Street to cover stories in a manner which isn't sensationalist, crass or tasteless. Right? Er, well actually, no. Jeremy Vine, no less, has been prominent in the Twittersphere today, expressing his dismay at the front page of the paper that always likes to claim it speaks for Merseyside:https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/206431182345355264/photo/1 .
Vine isn't alone in deploring this wretched layout & deplorable juxtaposition. 
With its circulation figures in long term decline, the Oldham Echo is demonstrating why its days as a mass circulation daily in the city are a matter of nostalgia rather than present-day reality.

In Deep Water

Never make a mountain out of a molehill, it is said. Quite right, we don't want to get things out of proportion, do we? After all, what possible benefit could there be in distorting stories, particularly when said tales emanate from sources which may be seen as partial. We wouldn't look favourably on such practice at work or with friends & acquaintances.
With the Oldham Echo, however, such qualms & reservations do not apply.
A characteristically breezy & saloon-bar smug Echo editorial last week looked askance at a walk-out by staff employed by services company DHL at Land Rover's Halewood plant.The reason for the walk-out? A laughably trivial one, as far as Oldham Hall Street is concerned: a shortage of water coolers (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2012/03/28/no-time-for-hot-heads-100252-30640151/ ).
The Echo smirked:
"Come on, we know it's been unseasonably warm but this was no reason for anyone to lose their cool and down tools."
It went on to trot out the usual mantra that is obligatory for those with a logic-defying belief that Merseyside can remain immune from wider economic forces & that it's entirely healthy for the Echo to play the role of chief fluffer for Peel Holdings. You know the sort of thing, don't return to the bad old days, lads, when we were called strike-happy, let's not have a resurgence of that nasty Militancy, etc., etc.
So far, so tiresome & tedious.
However, a spanner in the works lurked in the shape of the online commenters below the piece. One in particular, "Flobalob", introduced the Echo to some much-required accuracy. He/she works for DHL at the plant & declared: "DHL have fed the Echo a load of lies, we have water coolers on the site and DHL decided to halve the water order from 140 bottles a fortnight to just 70. They did this going into summer and after taking on an extra 440 workers. So on Tuesday [March 27th] the site ran out of bottled water and we were told by management that under DHL cost-cutting, they have stopped supplying fresh drinking water."
Anyone au fait with employment legislation will know that this is in clear breach of statutory working regulations. We can presume that Oldham Hall Street is either ignorant of the law, or deliberately mendacious. Being a charitable soul, I'll opt for the former over the latter.
Such a gross journalistic failing needs to be viewed in a wider context. The ailing Echo is clearly in long-term circulation decline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation & http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=48861).
Moreover, its owner Trinity Mirror, forced to explain to Leveson its own culpability in questionable practices, is not, as they say these days, in a good place (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2012/feb/02/trinity-mirror-sly-bailey-overpaid & http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/mar/13/slybailey-nationalunionofjournalists).
One can only surmise that the "hot heads" in question dwell at the top of the Oldham Echo's parent company, the heat (alas, no light) from the corporate cranium being dutifully sustained in the paper's editorial office. I'd suggest a cool beaker of water for each of them. Assuming there's enough to go round.  

Oxford's Posthumous Libel

That there was an operation of subterfuge, smear & distraction at the highest levels in the aftermath of Hillsborough is old news to the families of the 96 victims. Their dogged campaign for justice has long been accompanied by the knowledge that the most senior echelons of government & police colluded in a blame game concerning the fans.
What may have shocked those families, however, was today's leaked report to the BBC concerning the role played by Kenneth Oxford, the then chief constable of Merseyside Police (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/mar/15/hillsborough-relatives-liverpool-fans-claim).
Despite the fact that Oxford did not attend the game, he eagerly fed Thatcher's government with additional ammunition in its thinly-disguised plan to denigrate the fans:
"According to the letter, addressed to Mrs Thatcher and headed 'Merseyside Police views on Hillsborough', the Merseyside chief constable told officials: 'A key factor in causing the disaster was the fact that large numbers of Liverpool fans had turned up without tickets. This was getting lost sight of in attempts to blame the police, the football authorities, etc.' "
Oxford's clumsy syntax, if anything, only serves to emphasise the desperation felt by senior police officers in the days following the tragedy; they were terrified that they would be nailed & were prepared to do anything to escape such a fate. What followed ensured that the smears would linger for two decades. Thatcher's government, grateful to the role played by the cops during the miners' strike a few years' earlier, waded in. Bernard Ingham, Thatcher's poodle, aka press spokesman, spoke of "a tanked-up mob" causing the disaster. Then, of course, there was The Sun's contemptible lies.
It's notable that Oxford was keen to embroider his own smear with what he presumably thought would be a passable anecdote: "One officer, born and bred in Liverpool, said he was deeply ashamed to say that it was drunken Liverpool fans who had caused the disaster, just as they had caused the deaths at Heysel."
Oxford didn't & wouldn't identify that officer. Why? Because he didn't exist. He was a figment of Oxford's lurid & loathsome imagination. [As a personal anecdote, I recall the decision to let the fans leave the stadium some two hours after the tragedy. As the fans walked away from the Leppings Lane gates, I overheard a supporter identify himself to a South Yorkshire officer as a serving constable with Merseyside Police. He expressed his disgust, in no uncertain terms, with the force's handling of the day's events.]
The families may wonder why the chief constable of Merseyside Police, their police service, was happy to feed Thatcher with those poisonous lies. An answer lies, in large part, in Oxford's toxic tenure at the head of the local force. The 1981 Toxteth riots gave Oxford a chance to express & demonstrate his almost feudal view of policing, as an Independent obituary of him in 1998 observed (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-sir-kenneth-oxford-1187338.html).
Some may protest that the dead can't answer back. True. However, Oxford's utterances during the riots should be damningly recalled. His reign over the force on Merseyside was marked by rank racism & a level of arrogance that often warranted the adjective autocratic. Think that's harsh? Then consider this shaming passage from a Big Issue piece last year (http://www.bigissueinthenorth.com/2011/07/toxteth-riots-push-people-and-they-will-fight-back/2992):
"Policing in Liverpool was certainly informed by dubious attitudes at the top. According to the then Chief Constable Kenneth Oxford, Liverpool had a problem with 'half castes' who lived 'well outside recognised society'. In testimony to Lord Scarman's inquiry into the riots, Oxford spoke of the 'natural criminal proclivities' of people in Liverpool 8."
Given his open prejudice against one particular part of the city's population, it isn't entirely surprising that Oxford sought to libel Liverpool fans. He can no longer be called to account for his actions but this report & his period at the top of Merseyside Police confirm what has long been felt by many in the city: Oxford was a bully & a bigot who was prepared to lie in order to please his political masters.

Local MP Caught Offside

Last year's parliamentary debate on the Hillsborough disaster was notable for an eloquent & moving speech by Steve Rotheram, Labour MP for Liverpool Walton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlqCCg8pThY).
He spoke for countless people in reflecting upon the day itself as well as its aftermath, & delivered a measured & poignant address at the annual memorial service in 2009 (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/04/appropriate-address.html).
There have, however, been instances when, to put it charitably, his comments haven't been fully thought through (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-suspected-it-wouldnt-be-long-before.html).
You might have concluded that Mr Rotheram had learned a lesson about choosing your words carefully. If he had, it's unfortunate to observe that the honorable member for Liverpool Walton has forgotten it. Hugh Muir noted in his Guardian Diary column the other day that the MP put his foot in it over a tweet he sent on March 2nd (https://twitter.com/#!/SteveRotheramMP & http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/08/hugh-muir-diary-tax-barclays).
Apparently siding with those Liverpool supporters who continue to believe that the club handled the Suarez affair brilliantly, the MP accused anti-racism campaigners of "causing trouble" & that the best thing to do was to ignore them. Not surprisingly, such comments have been countered & rightly so. Mr Rotheram has duly delivered his mea culpa, or act of "evasive action", as Muir puts it. All very unfortunate & oh so avoidable, too had he watched a Channel 4 News report which described how the club privately accepts its failings over the affair (http://www.channel4.com/news/john-barnes-liverpool-is-right-to-back-suarez ).
This episode also draws attention to what is a disturbing ambivalence among many Liverpool supporters over Suarez' incendiary remarks to Patrice Evra in October of last year & the subsequent antics (the proffered & spurned handshake at Old Trafford). It's been said before but bears repeating, blind loyalty is not a virtue & the unthinking, tribal claque who continue to champion Suarez' case just don't understand that. It's sad that an MP who should know better ( & who knows full well about distorted accounts as well as smears) temporarily allied himself with such an ignorant audience.

Decision Day

Cometh the day, cometh the judgement. As Liverpool City Council prepares to vote on the Liverpool Waters scheme, the opposition to Peel's potentially ruinous plans has been noted by a wider audience, Hugh Muir casting his gaze over the affair in today's Guardian Diary column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/05/hugh-muir-diary-liverpool-unesco).
Moreover, the penny has dropped for those local players who have hitherto been less than exercised by the issue. However, it's always welcome to receive a sinner back into the fold of the righteous after he's repented. Take a bow, Larry Neild (http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Crunch-time-looms-for-Liverpool-Waters-after-Peel-ultimatum). Larry has realised that shilling for Aurora Media (formerly October Communications) is no job for a proper journalist; he leaves the PR cesspit sadder, but wiser.
Nonetheless, there remain the siren voices of support for Peel's proposed behemoth &, yes, they largely emanate from Oldham Hall Street. Once again, the Oldham Echo trumpeted its blind loyalty to Peel in a typically sychophantic editorial last week (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/our-view/2012/02/29/liverpool-waters-plans-must-proceed-100252-30427746/).
Trotting out the tiresome buzz-phrases about "the exciting and exceptionally-ambitious Liverpool Waters scheme", "the most radical regeneration of the city's northern docklands" & "a fantastic opportunity for countless new jobs", the piece was heavy on hype & anorexically light on substance.In fact, the Echo went so far as to proclaim that Peel's plan was "a wonderful chance to allow this part of the city to join the Liverpool revolution."
Revolution? It would be more accurate to describe what's been done to the city in the name of progress as a coup d'etat.
Oh yes, that minor matter about the waterfront's World Heritage Site status. Well, the Echo displays all the breezy dismissiveness of a teenager who wants the latest iPad & is willing to ditch the laptop (so last year):
"It's a great accolade to have, but some things are more important."
Yes, like sucking up to Peel & forsaking any half-hearted attempt at investigative journalism.
Joe Riley weighed in with his backing for His Master's Voice a few days later (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/views/liverpool-columnists/joe-riley/2012/03/01/joe-riley-liverpool-waters-scheme-must-be-given-the-go-ahead-100252-30435388/).
Accompanying his, erm, thoughts with a risible PR video for Peel at the top of his piece (warning: it starts automatically), Joe harrumphed:
"It is nonsense to suggest that even skyscrapers of 700ft, placed at such a distance from the Pier Head, would detract from or diminish the symmetry of the historic waterfront."
For good measure, Joe described any one with the temerity to question the Peel line as "stick-in-the-mud whingers." 
There's nothing like informed, intelligent debate, is there? And that was nothing like it.
Joe, Joe, just a quick word: if your definition of "symmetry" involves a future white elephant which creates a grotesquely lop-sided effect for those who view the waterfront from the river itself, I really think you need to consult a dictionary.
Liam Fogarty certainly doesn't share Joe Riley's meaning of "symmetry". The Independent Mayoral candidate for the city is scathing about Peel's architectural record (http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Peel-record-on-architecture-questionable):
"Peel's record at delivering good architecture is questionable. What is proposed for Peel Ports' dock estate in Liverpool is mediocre and soulless. It's just not good enough for our city. We shouldn't be afraid to insist on the highest design standards."
Alas, Peel, Oldham Hall Street &, as seems likely tonight, Liverpool City Council, equate "the highest design standards" with the highest carbuncles to have ever scarred the city's skyline. Never mind the fact that Fogarty describes Liverpool Waters as representing "a discredited global model of property development that died the day Lehman Brothers went bust", the ugly certainty is that, fresh from penning a third-rate epistle for the Guardian's Northerner column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/mar/05/liverpool-electedmayors-joeanderson), Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson will lead his flock to Peel's promised land this evening because, as he so memorably put it in his Guardian piece, "showing strong, effective leadership is what I do best."
Cllr Anderson's "strong, effective leadership" will be toasted by Peel tonight. Hope he's got an invite to the party afterwards. 

Liverpool To Play On Hillsborough Anniversary?

In the world of PR timing is everything, so we're told by those well-versed in that dubious activity. Consider, then, the glorious irony to befall the Murdoch empire yesterday. Choosing to launch a Sunday version of The Sun on the day when 30,000 Liverpool fans would be at Wembley & only too willing to let a global TV audience know just what they thought of Murdoch's rag, the timing of the move only served to remind many of that rag's lies about Hillsborough. The Cardiff City fans also have good reason to view Murdoch's paper with contempt (http://www.criticalfootball.com/2011/09/15/tabloids-mike-dye-death/ ).
That said, cack-handed PR isn't the sole preserve of an Australian billionaire who adopted US citizenship in order to increase his business interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch ). The Football Association, too, can lay claim to the prize for crass, inappropriate & callous decision-making; shortly after the Hillsborough tragedy, the FA demonstrated its empathetic side with a strident insistence that the FA Cup competition shouldn't be derailed or delayed by the minor matter of 96 deaths for which it was partly responsible.
Moreover, it seems possible that the FA could, once again, give the Murdoch empire a run for its money in the race to win the award for Bad Timing decision of 2012. If Liverpool get through to the FA Cup semi-final, the club might be requested to play its fixture on the anniversary of Hillsborough (http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/More/round-dates ).
Of course, any sensible person wouldn't even countenance such a possibility. However, common sense is not something that springs to mind when one thinks about the dysfunctional, ego-driven institution that is the Football Association.  

Liverpool Waters Will Sink The City

The cheerleaders for the Liverpool Waters folly are still sticking their fingers in their ears, despite the reality of the scheme's unpopularity with a growing number of people on Merseyside.
A hitherto imposed "concensus" has started to crack since the Oldham Echo was moved to acknowledge the other side of the argument over the future of the city's north docks (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/01/24/unesco-calls-for-change-to-liverpool-waters-scheme-to-protect-city-s-world-heritage-site-status-100252-30187372/ ).
David Bartlett's piece was keen to stress that "the report does not say what will happen to the city's WHS status if no changes are made to the [Liverpool Waters] project."
Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson popped up to say that he wanted both the Liverpool Waters scheme & a continuation of the waterfront's World Heritage Status. Given Cllr Anderson's belief that he can lead a Labour council whilst inflicting Tory cuts on the people who elected him into office, such contradictory thinking shouldn't raise too many eyebrows.
What was refreshingly different, however, about Bartlett's article was the nature of the online comments. True, there were the usual suspects (Peel trolls?) who called for WHS status to be dumped (Mogger1: "World Heritage Site, time to move on, I think, we have bigger fish to fry." & SteMcK83: "Get it built and let's become a 'Champions League City' for others to admire." To which one can only respond that the scheme would relegate the city to League One status.)
That said, other commenters refused to toe the Echo/Peel line (L_12: "There is no demand for these buildings/office space. A fancy view of the city of Liverpool will not be a consideration in whether companies seek to invest here.....When the business plan fails it will become derelict, run down and a terrible eyesore. If this project is not a success, it will not only blight the city but become a massive expense to the taxpayer for generations to come." & olderndwise: "If an apartment in the new developments is let then an apartment elsewhere in the city will become vacant. If one of the new offices is let then an office elsewhere in the city will become vacant. If someone is frequenting one of the new bars then they will not be frequenting an existing one.")
That latter point is unarguable in its logic.
Bartlett followed up his article with one the following day (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/01/25/unesco-inspectors-attack-liverpool-waters-scheme-100252-30193588/ )which contained this damning observation:
"THE Three Graces would play 'second violin' to the huge £5.5bn Liverpool Waters development if it is approved, Unesco inspectors have warned.
"The inspectors also warned Liverpool's World Heritage Site would be 'damaged beyond repair' if the plan goes ahead."
There can be little doubt that a World Heritage Site which is "damaged beyond repair" ceases to be one. Indeed that was, to all intents & purposes, confirmed by a Unsco inspector late last year (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/11/22/unesco-set-to-strip-liverpool-of-its-world-heritage-site-status-100252-29817930/ ).
The latest development in this saga comes with English Heritage's qualms over the scheme (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/23/english-heritage-objection-liverpool-development ).
Helen Carter's report reminds us of Peel's gradiose vanity project: "It features thousands of flats and hundreds of offices, hotels and bars, as well as the 55-storey Shanghai Tower and other skyscrapers."
Just how Peel intends to find individuals & businesses willing to live & work in the aforementioned flats & offices has never been explained. In truth, it's an illusory business plan. The banks aren't lending to mortgage applicants (assuming they can afford a deposit) & small businesses are equally unhappy with the banks' parsimony. The current economic climate will prevail for at least another four or five years. Both Peel & the Oldham Echo know that, though they refuse to admit it.