Dear Liverpool City Council,
Under the Freedom of Information Act
Liverpool city council please provide the following:
1. Moore Media has said work has started on Liverpool Chinatown project with 'Great George Street Developments' so do GGSD Ltd, now have the planning permission to go ahead from the LCC?
2. Does ‘Moore Media’ also work with the LCC the Mayor’s office, and the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, besides Mr. Tomlinson and GGSD Ltd, Sue Grindrod, and Nick Kavanagh?
3. Does Agent Marketing have any LCC contracts due to Moore Media or Jayne Moore?
Jayne Moore works in the same office as “Kerry Tomlinson” (Primesite) declared bankrupt with over £39 million outstanding and may now be investigated.
Moore Media has only a turnover of less than £59,000 per year, however, may have seven full-time staff working for her company, her rent we are told has been getting paid by “Kerry Tomlinson”.
4. Moore Media now acts for GGSD Ltd so will the LCC now after six years explain what is going on with Liverpool Chinatown site, and has Moore Media told the LCC work has now stated on this £259 million site?
Moore Media will not give out any statements, whatsoever without permission from “Kerry Tomlinson”.
Sue Grindrod has just disappeared and gone underground from GGSD Ltd, we are told over £14.3 million has been collected by GGSD Ltd in the form of Bonds?
5. Yet £6 million is still outstanding to 'Hong Kong investors' from 2015 from the same site and 'Cllr Ann O’Byrne' has still not come forward with' Moore Media' to explain this matter would the LCC explain this as to Cllr O’Byrne’s silence and has she in any way passed over her files on Chinatown to the Police/ SFO/ NCA?
Note for your records both 'Cllr. Mumby' and 'Cllr Small' was made aware of this both blanked it.
Cllr Mumby took an active part in 2014/15 in the [Liverpool Chinatown] project knowing that PHD1 & NPG Ltd was behind this FAILED SITE, as did Cllr Millar, Cllr O’Byrne, and Kavanagh, along with Mark Kitts and others.
'Property companies linked to Kerry Tomlinson now being 'investigated’.
Strand Plaza Ltd and Certa Invest Ltd were both part of the Primesite group of companies.
By: Tom Duffy Liverpool Echo Reporter - Sunday 21st March 2021
Please see attached our response to your information request.
In relation to your comments relating to City Council Officers, Liverpool
City Council as a responsible public authority and employer similarly has
obligations to our employees. As such, and in the event of the continued
use of public forums for the submission of requests accompanied with
commentary, speculation, innuendo and opinion designed to harass or
otherwise impact on City Council employees when undertaking their
employment for the City Council, we will assess and respond to such
Any requests which are accompanied by commentary, speculation, innuendo
and opinion designed to harass or otherwise impact on City Council
employees will be considered with due regard to Section 14 which allows a
public authority to decline to respond to a request which may be assessed
as vexatious in terms of its content and impact. To the extent that you
comment relating to individuals both Councillors and Officers –
Warning - Submission of Information Requests with potentially Defamatory
It is our assessment that the content of a number of the 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  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 
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.
Liverpool City Council
LCC autosig LetsGetVaccinated
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now