Councilor Wendy Simon and her 67.3 visitors to Liverpool per year was it all lies?

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai Liverpool City Council fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

Dear Liverpool City Council,
Latest figures show Liverpool City Region’s Visitor Economy is now worth over £4.9bn, last year welcomed 67.3m visitors to the region and supports over 57,000 jobs.
These findings are contained in the latest independent research for 2018 commissioned by the Visitor Economy Team at Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

Deputy Mayor and Cabinet member for culture, Councilor Wendy Simon, said: “Our cultural events programme is a hugely important part of the continued success of the city’s visitor economy.

1. Are these a misleading statement: falsehood and ‘Tsunami of untruths?

2. Can the Cabinet member for culture and tourism: Cllr, Wendy Simon, explain why she and Peter Sandman has misled the public and overseas investors in 2016 by making fake claims that Liverpool has over 61 million visitors per year and in 2018 it was 67.3 visitors?

3. Richard Caton, of Pinnacle, said: “Liverpool’s population has more than doubled over the last few years, with demand for high quality accommodation surging as young professionals move to the city.

4. Mr. Caton had told a Liverpool Echo reporter “Josh Parry” to create and write up a fake news story and would tell the readers and would-be overseas investors that the ‘population had doubled’ in Liverpool. Furthermore ‘Pinnacle Alliance of Manchester and Hong Kong’ had said the numbers were given to them by the LEP - Cllr Wendy Simon, along with the number of visitors over 61 million that came to Liverpool each year. Will the LCC explain how she came up with these 61 million visitors?

This is also a fact and a statement on LEP and the websites of the LCC as a fact, what was the LEP the LCC along with Cllr Wendy Simon, doing working with Pinnacle Alliance and Mr. Tony Freeman, when the Manchester police had over 89 complaints about his company from (Hong Kong) and investors in the north west who had been ripped off?

5. Did Cllr Wendy Simon make up these misleading figures knowing them to be all lies (Tsunami of untruths) and did she know along with Cllr Gary Millar that this data would be misused to scam overseas investors and to mislead overseas governments into thinking Liverpool was a boom city and a good city to invest into, will she explain her role in this?

By: Josh Parry Senior reporter
23 MAY 2016 St James Court, a new residential development with 157 apartments is the latest in a string of developments in the city’s most up-and-coming area.

Conman Tony Freeman was jailed in 2006 for 18 months for defrauding his charity fundraising firm of £450,000 days before they went bust.

Here are the rankings of the top 10 global destination cities of 2015/16

• Bangkok: 22.78 million.
• Paris: 19.1 million.
• London: 19.09 million.
• Dubai: 15.93 million.
• Singapore: 14.67 million.
• Kuala Lumpur: 13.79 million.
• New York: 13.6 million.
• Istanbul: 13.4 million.

Will the LCC and Cllr Wendy Simon explain the 67.3 visitors per year to your city of Liverpool as its a public interest story now?

Yours faithfully,

J. Dickerson APW

Liverpool City Council

With regard to the content of your submission, in the first instance the
majority of your submission comprises comment, speculation and expression
of opinion which are not valid submissions under Freedom of Information

In relation to the comments and speculation you make relating to
individuals -

Warning - Submission of Information Requests with potentially Defamatory

It is our assessment that the content of your statements within your
request are in whole or part potentially defamatory in nature, that these
identify or refer to individuals and are being published by yourself
through the use of a public website forum to third parties.


We would further advise you that the defamatory statements made by
yourself either directly or through recognised aliases and contained
within the information requests referenced above fall within the meaning
of Article 14(1)(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Under the
law of England and Wales, a defamatory statement is one which tends to
lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society
generally (Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237).


We would further advise that a defamatory statement is published at the
place where it is read, heard or seen, and is not where the material was
first placed on the internet. In internet cases, therefore, provided a
small number of people have access to the material on the internet in
England, the English courts will have jurisdiction to hear the claim
against a foreign defendant (Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987]
A.C. 460).


We would therefore advise that you take prompt action to remove or
disabled access to the Offending Webpages.


In the event that this confirmation is not received, the individuals named
directly or by implication within the above referenced information
requests and publicly displayed on the Offending Websites shall reserve
the right to issue proceedings against you seeking relief for defamation.


The remedies that may be available to the these individuals include an
injunction restraining further publication of the Offending Statement
[pending trial], damages, legal costs and interest.




Information Team

This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Liverpool City Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Liverpool City
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.