Remember Channel One Television? Go on, you must, surely. No? Oh well, it was the brainchild of the Oldham Echo in the late 90s. Its output was, at best, ditchwater-dull. At worst, it was execrable; "local, much-loved celebrities" -- such as Billy Butler -- were regular faces on it (there's some gruesome clips on YouTube, but I won't inflict them on you).
Alas, Channel One had the plug pulled a few years back -- just as well, perhaps, given its dire output & unfortunate ability to attract the attention of the Independent Television Commission (ITC) (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/itc_publications/complaints_reports/programme_complaints/show_complaint.asp-prog_complaint_id=417.html ).
Like most local cable TV stations, Channel One was very much a 90s phenomenon; the advent of the web rendered such ventures obsolete. However, it seems such technological changes haven't been explained to Ofcom (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/08/14/frank-mckenna-and-phil-redmond-in-beauty-contest-for-right-to-run-new-liverpool-television-channel-100252-31621228/ ).
The notion of Frank McKenna & Phil Redmond engaged in a "beauty contest" to decide who should broadcast a mixture of mediocrity, parochialism & nostalgia disturbingly questions that commonly accepted definition of the term beauty. As the photograph* above shows, McKenna is the sort of individual who is keen to promote his, erm, appearance as well as his renowned business acumen. Redmond, sorry, Professor Redmond has contributed greatly to the cultural heritage of the city...hasn't he?
Two aspects of this silly season story are baffling. Firstly, surely Ofcom would have heard of the web by now. Secondly, who in their right mind would consider these two characters as leading contenders to provide a "local" TV channel?
*Photo courtesy of the Liverpool Preservation Trust.
Nobody familiar with Liverpool needs to be informed about its historic buildings. However, some are more famous than others. Largely & mystifyingly overlooked in terms of architectural distinction is India Buildings on Water Street (http://www.india-buildings.com ).
However, a recent stroll through its main concourse provoked concern rather than civic pride. Once a bustling hub of businesses & commerce, it now looks & feels empty, each sound made echoing eerily around the place. Indeed, you could be forgiven for thinking you were in an empty church, each step & voice amplified disproportionately.
It makes you wonder what sort of future the building's owners, Green Property Ventures (http://www.greenpropertyltd.com/portfolio.html ), envisage for the complex.
The question of ownership regarding India Buildings has been a relatively secretive affair over the last few years (http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/2725-liverpool-s-india-buildings-changes-hands.html ). A little clarity on the future of one of Liverpool's finest buildings would be appreciated both by those who work there & the rest of us who enjoy visiting it.
Shame, really. He was doing so well, wasn't he? Nice But Dim Tim Leunig last week demonstrated a less than enviable ability to take one step forward, two steps back when engaging with the world outside his ivory tower.
It appeared a Damascene moment of sanity had descended upon academia's accident-prone guy just a couple of months ago when he penned a piece for the Guardian's Comment is Free page on the ConDem's "welfare reforms" (http://condensedthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dim-tim-finally-gets-it.html ). Great, we thought, all those ivory tower shibbloeths have been dumped & Tim can really engage with the rest of us.
Alas, alas, alas, 'twas not to be.
Tim returned to the Comment is Free site last week with what he clearly thought was a great idea in response to the latest rise in rail fares: standing-only carriages. Yep, read it & weep (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/train-fare-rises-standing-only-carriages ):
"A low-cost commuter network would have carriages designed for standing room only. People take up a lot less space if they stand up. Call it third class if you like. If enough people are willing to stand, we need fewer carriages, and less power to haul the train."
What happened, Tim? Oh well, hope you've still got that Liverpool mug.
Almost completely overlooked, or possibly ignored, over the last month has been an article by Ed Platt in the New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/07/liverpool-recession-spirit-scouse ).
Platt delivers a brief historical guide to the city, from the growth of the port in the 19th century to the present day. However, his assessment of Joe "Tea & Sympathy" Anderson's vision for the waterfront is distinctly cool:
"Anderson claims that the expanse of derelict docks and warehouses stretching between Pier Head and Seaforth has the same potential as Canary Wharf, yet it is hard to see where the shops and businesses to fill the development will come from. It seemed to me that Peel was proposing a boom town without a boom, hoping to inspire economic revival by constructing offices and shops for which there is no demand."
The final sentence in that quote is pretty damning, isn't it?
A regular refrain from those who hail the arrival of Grosvenorpool & other retrograde developments in the city centre is that such cases prove that the city is heading in the right direction. That particularly bogus contention is met head-on in Platt's piece by Professor Sam Davies of Liverpool John Moores University: " 'The centre of town is the focus for everything and everywhere else has suffered,' says Professor Davies. 'Some parts of the north end of Liverpool, around Anfield and Everton, are worse than ever: there's no work; a lot of housing has been demolished and not replaced...There are parts of Liverpool where, if you don't know the area, you would be foolish to walk into a pub.' "
There will doubtless be some who will take offence at Professor Davies' final remark; the sour & sobering reality, however, is that it's true.
He might even pose with a copy of The Sun, too.
Fancy having a stab at this writing business? Not blogging necessarily, but trying your hand at fiction (no Oldham Echo jokes, please), perhaps. Well, the people at Writing on the Wall are looking for a writer in residence (http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e3d1202a9c3b33a74182d0f28&id=51d34a39a3 ).
Email: info@writngonthewall.org.uk or phone 0151 703 0020 if you're interested.
First, Ringo reminded everyone how sad & irrelevant he was with his lame efforts to explain his quip on Jonathan Ross, & how he still loved his birthplace. Now, Sir Thumbs-Up himself is happy to pose with a Sun scribe. It'll be interesting to see how McCartney's people spin this one out. The Echo's kept schtum about this photograph, despite the fact that it first appeared last week (no surprise when you think about it, McCartney is still viewed as good copy on Oldham Hall Street & his appearances in the city are treated like the Second Coming).
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.
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.
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/ ).
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 ).
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.
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.
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.
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 ).
It's nice to see that Boris Johnson & David Cameron continue with at least one public school ritual.
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.
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.
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.
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.
