Lord Mayor Cllr.Rothery & Links to: West Tree Estates Liverpool L8 with Joe Anderson

Mr Bett made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

The request was refused by Liverpool City Council.

To: Lord Mayor Cllr. Anna Rothery

For the record: Cc: Tony Reeves, Chief Executive & Jeanette McLoughlin LCC.

We are Request the following information please.

Last year you and the then Cllr Alan Dean were sent the files on (West Tree Estates) and how they were to become the only “preferred developer” to be awarded the Ducie Street contract.

Now Cllr Alan Dean said “nothing moves within this ward without us been involved.

A] Cllr Rothery did you play any part or have a role in this with the granting of the whole street been awarded to a company that has no track record on developments in Liverpool?

This has took place in your ward, a ward in which you had abandoned for a better life outside “Princes park, in fact many residents who live there say you only come around when its voting time?

B] Will you please give details on the way ‘West Tree Estates’ just came into your own ward and took it over, yet you say nothing, and Cllr Alan Dean now has no comment on this.

C] Has Mr. Joe Farag of G4 Streets Community Land Trust, been promised employment as a consultant by the Ducie Street development company (West Tree Developments ltd)
Where you Cllr Ann Rothery aware of his [ Joe Farag] relationship with ‘Kenneth Guy and Michelle Guy’ and the close relationship to the Liverpool City Council with Mr & Mrs Guy?

D] Cllr Ann Rothery are you aware of the project Percy Street [Eliot group] was this part of your ward?

As Cllr Ann O’Byrne was the main person to make sure that the ‘Elliott group’ won and got the contract, in fact local builders bid on ‘Percy Street’ as well as ‘Ducie Street’ all got nowhere, could you comment on this as, Cllr. Ann O’Byrne and you are remarkably close?
Cllr. Ann O’Byrne had worked very close to one ‘Nick Kavanagh’ you do recall, Liverpool Chinatown, Baltic house, 99 Pall Mall and Cllr Gary Millar, I am told it’s in the hands of the SFO and Cllr Ann O’Byrne last year was going to help the NCA and get back the investors cash has she made any new comments to you in the past year with regards to this matter as you are the ‘Lord Mayor’ and we need to show the world “Liverpool” cares and welcomes inward investment from China and the rest of the world.

Yours faithfully,

Ms. & Mr. Bett and L8

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms & Mr Bett…

 

With regard to the content of your submission, this comprises speculation,
comment and expression of opinion in relation to individuals and seeks
comment from individuals as opposed to information held by a public
authority, for which purpose Freedom of Information legislation exists.
This submission is therefore not a valid request for information in its
entirety.

 

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

 

Warning – Submission of Information Requests with potentially Defamatory
Content

 

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.

 

Regards

 

Information Team

[1]LGT auto sig LIVERBIRD

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links