Kingsway Square- Cllr Kennedy in Spain- Echo reporter- Emilia Bona cover-up

song Li made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Liverpool City Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Liverpool City Council,

Councillor Joe Hanson
Councillor Lisa Gaughan
Councillor Malcolm Kennedy
Subject: The state of the failed and abandoned development building site in the Vauxhall ward.

1. Why has both Cllr Hanson and Cllr Kennedy not responded to the poor state of the following failed sites in Vauxhall.

2. Eldon Grove in which the Liverpool Echo has promoted over six times in 8 years along with London sales agents “Aspen Woolf” who now has pulled out of Eldon grove, Cllr Hanson for the past 2 years now has said he would address this issue and find out what was the delays will he now come forward to explain if this site is going ahead?

“The Tannery next to Eldon grove has been in the Liverpool echo as stunning views looking into wales,

'The Tannery' is set to open next year - with plans for a breath-taking roof garden
By Emilia Bona Weekend Editor
14 MAR 2019

Please note Emilia Bona is an inexperience reporter and admitted she was fooled by the PR company, one week later she admitted several buyers called the Liverpool Echo, over been misled, and it then was pushed under the rug. She would not report this to the SFO or the LCC.

The Metalworks on Leeds/ Vauxhall Rd been left to rot now for over 3 years, yet Cllr Hanson called it a gold mine, and Mr Antonio Garcia needs to build more in Liverpool, he backed it and said we need more Garcia’s in this city to move forward, he was aware of the link to ‘Samuel Beilin and partners’ and Bond PR who was working with Peter McInnes and taking orders from McInnes in the UEA. Bond PR has an inward link to “Sue” at the Liverpool Echo and can get “good or bad news in, depending on the fee”

Cllr Hanson would not and could comment no more and said “Better to pass this to Cllr Kennedy.

3. Could the council please state does, Cllr Kennedy now live in Spain, and at the same time still a Liverpool paid councilor on full pay?

4. Could now the planning offices in the Liverpool council explain as how on the 21st September 2020 construction work has started on “Kingsway Square” in Blackstock Street off Vauxhall Rd?

This according to the sales agents Kingsway, has been approval of the Mayor’s office and Cllr Kennedy in Spain, there will be several shops to cater to the residents in Vauxhall and over 289 construction workers on site.

5. Will the Liverpool council ask Cllr Kennedy is he a part of this new project and if he was told it belongs to the same crew from all the other failed and scam project in Liverpool linked to NPG Ltd, the Tannery, 99 Pall Mall, Baltic house Liverpool Chinatown, Metalworks?

6. Would then Cllr Kennedy call in the SFO to further investigate his own ward and the number of cowboys failed sites?’

Kingsway Square’ will rip off more and more overseas buyer and both Cllr Hanson and Cllr Kennedy have been told about this.

Both are not fit to hold public office and the SFO needs to investigate matter.

Yours faithfully,
Song Li investor

Liverpool City Council

 
Dear song Li
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Thank you for your request received on 21 September 2020. Your request is
rejected for the reasons detailed below.
 

Notice of Application of Section 14 (1) - Vexatious Request - applied to
this entire request

Liverpool City Council would advise that Section 14 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 allows a Local Authority to refuse what is deemed to
be a vexatious request with reference to the worthiness of the request as
placed against the impact it would have on the Local Authority.

Consequently the City Council feels that the application of Section 14 of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is appropriate in these circumstances
and would refer you to Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council &
Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) in which the Upper
Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word
vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a
request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding
that request.

In further exploring the role played by circumstances, the Tribunal placed
particular emphasis on the issue of whether the request has adequate or
proper justification. They also cited two previous section 14(1) decisions
where the lack of proportionality in the requester's previous dealings
with the authority was deemed to be a relevant consideration by the First
Tier Tribunal.

After taking these factors into account, the Tribunal concluded that
'vexatious' could be defined as the '…manifestly unjustified,
inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.' (paragraph 27).

Officers within the City Council, while always adhering to their
responsibilities and obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
should not be expected to be subject to such levels of public scrutiny of
their performance and the City Council considers this type of request to
be bordering upon an abuse of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
there is no justification for Members officers to, in practice, cease
their everyday activities and review all records in a manner disruptive to
the conduct of operational legislative duties solely to satisfy a request
such as this which comprises hearsay, speculation, leading comments and
potentially libellous and defamatory statements.

The City Council considers this is a request specifically designed to
cause disruption to the relevant Members, Officers and Service Areas
identified by generated additional administrative and bureaucratic work
and, consequently, it will not be providing the information asked for in
this element of your request.

While the Act can, indirectly, ensure officers are held to public account
the City Council already has such processes in place and there is no
requirement for members of the public to feel they need to assume this
role, either on behalf of the City Council or other members of the public.
It is on this basis that the City Council considers that the application
of Section 14 (1) is entirely appropriate to the requests concerned.

The City Council would further advise that any requests of the same or
similar nature received will again be viewed in the context of a Section
14 (1) exemption and no responses provided.

Warning - Submission of Information Requests with potentially Defamatory
Content

We turn now to those elements of your request which make statements,
comments and unsubstantiated speculation in relation to various
individuals named within your request and  which we have not reproduced
within this response for the reasons stated below.

It is our assessment that the content of your statements made within your
request in whole or part 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.

_______

 

 
Yours sincerely,
 
Information Team
Liverpool City Council
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER
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.