All I want for Christmas is the Meadows

He never does reply. He sent a leaflet round Wavertree suggesting speed bumps. I wrote back ( at the council's expense in freepost envelope) asking how much it was going to cost. Not only did he not write back, I no longer receive any any fliers from the council any more and didn't even receive a Christmas card when everyone else in my block of flats got one! Cheap and petty minded!

This is nature drjonmillett.net/…/DSC_0441-001.jpg… this is a lawn surrounded by trees. www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/…/5ZE0_M.jpg…

It isn't nature, it is 'green lung' so important to cities. Like common land. Real nature is impassible, dirty and dangerous. Your keenness to see The Meadows built upon seems ostentatiously dog-in-the-manger-ish, Brad lad. It's as if you are going out on a limb simply to annoy people.

nice pics JB, don't disclose where it is, Mr Blobby will only want to build on it.

Green lung a meaningless phrase, in the middle of a built up area with no park it may be useful and pretty but no it just the tug boat to Sefton Parks pretty girl.

Objecting to the building of exec. des. res.s on The Meadows is the same principle as objecting to the selling-off-and-building-on school playing fields. It is wrong and short-termist to most responsible citizens' sensibilities. Though as school playing fields are not generally open to the public it is inevitable that there will be more objections in this case from people who see The Meadows as part of their communal open space.

No not really a school playing field has a dedicated use and has to be in the proximity of the school. There are used regularly. The meadows is largely unused and creating another green space of equal size somewhere else in the city, somewhere with less park land, would be a viable replacement on one of the cities much mentioned Brown field sites.

I can't remember anyone voting for a coalition government. The result was a hung Parliament, manifesto's were discarded, a new compromise between two power seeking parties ensued. If we were in the dire straits we were in, then why didn't they form a government of National Unity, or is that too simplistic?

People took part in the election and what happened is the natural result of that election. The country isn't in Dire Straits, the gov has decided to push the pain into areas like Liverpool, rather than its own heartland. Liverpool and lots of other places are being put in dire straits.

We know lots of areas are having problems, we also know Liverpool is at the sharp end of severe cuts, so why is it Joe is squandering reserves on dubious projects with people who have no pedigree. why is it that he continues to shout from the roof tops, yet is not prepared to curb his own excesses, why hasn't he confronted the enigma of LDL, has he succumbed like the rest of the would be crusaders.

He did send Arty Fog into LDL but nothing has been seen of him since. Which dubious projects and how much cash?

There's the VAT building for a kick off, £25M to a developer with no pedigree in the industry, £13M for Finch Farm, which incidentally was being marketed for £2M in previous years. Then there's the Cunard building, not a bad idea in itself, but one that could have waited for a more favourable economic climate, but even that scheme is unlikely to benefit anyone other than the wealthy. He indulges his whims, what happens to Millenium House and the soon to be vacated other council buildings, the suits that manipulate Joe are laughing all the way to the bank. Joe's contribution is to give the people of Toxteth two Christmas trees and some wooden plant pots, As for LDL, Katie 54 has already put you in the picture about that debacle, as has your pal Chucklebuuty.

"chucklebutty", it might of been Chucklebeauty, but I'm not in a generous mood.

Don't know about the Finch Farm 2m but if the rent is more than the interest that the money would have earned in what ever investment it was in as part of the reserve then probably a good deal. Similar with the Cunard building, buy at the bottom of the market is a good idea it is a matter of efficiently investing the reserve. We will see on the VAT building. As for LDL Joe didn''t set it up and it looks like the previous admin where the ones who got us tied up in a legal contractual nightmare. I'd still like to know why Arty Fog after being placed on the board as been so quiet. SUrely his interest is best served blowing the whistle but he seems to have disappeared of the radar..

I know Joe didn't set it up, it's academic who set it up, what's required is for Joe to sort it. I for one haven't questioned Joe's integrity, although I can't vouch for the hired help that surrounds him. What they have in Joe is a bellicose, belligerent mouthpiece who is fielding all the flak on offer, whilst they trouser megabucks. That suits them fine, however it does not suit the good people of this city, we have been a cash cow for far too long. As for Foggy blowing the whistle, forget it, Joe would get more credibility if he were the one to do it.

John, just by the way of illustration, have a stroll down to Rodney St. You'll find a building site that is presently idle, the company doing the alleged building have gone into administration. That was another Council freebie.

I know about St Andrews, it may be a council freebie but what was the alternative clear the site and sell it?

We've come full circle JB, not so long ago you laboured the premise that we should make decisions regardless whether they were right or wrong. The people currently in office are not passed getting it wrong, you only have to cast your mind back to the tram fiasco. Hopefully they will get it more right than wrong, in the meantime they would do well to right the wrongs, not venture into future alliances that are questionable and possibly doomed to failure. Larry Neild, Rex Makin, Joe Riley and a host of other observers have called for more scrutiny, maybe that wouldn't be a bad place to start............All the best.

I wasn't suggesting we make deliberate wrong decisions. There is an element of risk in all decisions. The cost of eliminating all risk is greater than the cost taking some risk. The ST Andrews tale isn't over yet. Hopefully it will be finished by another company, and then the big losers will have been this developer. I'm all for full and open scrutiny but that is something the council has failed at many many times. That scrutiny has to come from the public as politicians have vested interests in big up the mistakes of others. There have been several calls for increased scrutiny of Rex.

Have good orbit Nuff.

At last we've agreed on something.....more scrutiny.....I'll put your name down.......As for Rex, you're on your own......I wouldn't want to look too closely.....He's been around awhile.........Fly me to the moon, let me play among the stars. Let me see if Joe is on Jupiter or Mars.......I bet he's shifted a few of them in his time.

I did offer my service scrutinisimg their IT and suggested a group of volunteer IT professionals would be a good idea as a scrutiny group. So far no answer and FOI questions produce at best nonsensical answer.

He won't give you a straight answer, but put simply, it's because Joe Anderson wants it and Joe Anderson is always right in John Bradley's eyes

I don't think that it is aesthetically nice, it has all the charm of Wavertree playing fild but without the utility. I used to walk across it regularly and wonder what it had been as it looked like a cleared site. I though it may have been part of the Girls Grammar school, at the best of times there would only be a single dog walker on it with me. The fact that the arguments put up to support keeping it are normally nonsense, nature reserve etc, just make me think the people opposing oppose everything. Increasing the council tax base in Liverpool is vital for the future this bit of land offers the best return and the smallest loss of amenity.

I think we should only build on any green land when all the empty properties in Liverpool are brought back into use. The only reason Joe Anderson wants to build on Sefton Park Meadows is money. Snobs don't want to live in run down areas, so we have to accommodate them. We've got about 60,000 empty properties in Liverpool that no one wants, bring them back into use and stop vast tracts of the city looking like slums.

and where do you expect to get the money to bring these properties back in to use? and the people to live in them? There has never been any dispute about it being for money.

Erm... How about the rich paying their taxes for a start?

People are allowed to differ, hence the debate, you JB by your own admission consider the land to be of little use, so why make waves as though you are the avenging archangel on a subject that matters little to yourself. Your passions lie elsewhere, perhaps with photography or HSR2, I don't know, I don't presume to be the oracle on those subjects, nor do I feel compelled to write deriding the efforts of those people who have an interest on those particular subjects, but unfortunately you do, sadly I remain confused by your inconsistency, it might be more fruitful and gratifying if you were to adhere subjects that are worthy of your considerable knowledge.

Like I said you won't get a straight answer. Firstly, it was about aesthetics, and now it's about money, tomorrow it will be something else. If the argument doesn't fit the facts, you just move it along and hope no one notices; all good politicians do it.

That was a perfectly straight answer, it just doesn't suit you. The people who oppose it shout about how many people the support, with no evidence of that support, they take the moral high ground, when the ethics of their argument are questionable. I live in this city, it isn't like I went out looking for this the antis have both implicitly claimed my support and actively sought to put their POV in my face. Take the earlier anonymous comment about the rich & tax. The council doesn't have the power to collect more tax, so can do nothing. We have a host of people claiming to be groups, all claiming to speak for silent majorities.

Erm.. Giving tax breaks to Amazon is nothing to do with the council?

A minute ago it was the rich, now a company. If you object to doing what it takes to get jobs in the city what else do you object to. No tax break, no job.

I heard a wonderful true story today, miserly old Mr. Anderson flung open his window and bellowed to the balding urchin below "boy what day is today?" The urchin replied "whatever day you want it to be Mr Anderson! could I possibly come in to lick your boots?" and that boy, that nobody liked his name was John Bradley.

JB is entitled to his opinion, but just as a matter of record, "you say you live in this City". Are you indigenous?......I was wondering where you perfected your "Kow Tow". It's a rare trait in the real "Dicky Sam"

Yes I was born in and Bred in Liverpool and the bullies and things I'm standing up to are the NIMBYs and the Scallies who have held this place back for years. While balancing massive chips on their shoulders, rejecting any change.

"Massive Chips". You would do well to visit "The Clovehitch" on Hope St. The best there is JB. You get a bucketful and they'll even give you a few bob change. You may wish to avail yourself of a piscatorial breakfast, whilst you are in a superior mood.

I wouldn't call what he does living...

Amazon is a RICH company. and in your words " No tax break, no job." And again in your words "There has never been any dispute about it being for money." So put simply we sell our amenities to give the rich a tax break. Happy New Year!

Not at all we sell our amenities so some can have jobs, health and heat. You mistake the side effects for the main objective.

Why don't you get back in your space ship and fuck off back to lego land.

Now let me get this straight. We lose our amenities, Amazon gets a tax break, and people get jobs with wages below the poverty line and working conditions to rival the 19th Century and this somehow benefits Liverpool as a whole?

John Bradley cites the need for compromise something he himself has never done. Perhaps he could Google the definition of that word?, clearly the amount of time he spends fellating Joe Anderson keeps him too busy to see what's actually going on. Of course there has to be some sacrifice to create jobs where land is concerned that's just the nature of the beast as far as that goes. However considering the amount of luxury housing or student homes that have recently or are currently being built, destroying the meadows smacks of favors being done and brown envelopes passing under door frames. Especially given that being a park the traditional "coincidental" fire that always seems to happen on land someone would like to be demolished can't happen..

You forgot the bit about the council having some cash to spend from the sale of the land and income from the high council tax dwellings. It is unfortunate that Amazon are not good to their staff but perhaps you should take that up with HMG that set the employment laws. Liverpool has to do what it can and doing nothing as you suggest will not provide any benefit to the council or people of Liverpool.

Come on JB, you're not that naïve, they can't collect the council tax from lots of people who currently live here. The bedroom tax deficit spirals by the week, your icon Joe whinges poverty at every opportunity. The reserves are being raided to fulfil the whims of the Mayor, The few bob from the sale of this land is unlikely to be the panacea you describe. You are right Liverpool does have to do something, but Joe is not the man for the job, he is continually moaning "What are the alternatives, You tell me". You are also right about Amazon, and the present government.....They'll get what's coming to them......So will Joe Anderson.

I never painted it as a panacea, hard times, hard choices.

The "they'll get what is coming to them" is very much the Tony Mulhearne and Co's line from the last Mayoral election, he lost his deposit, so as the people of Liverpool have seen through Mulhearne and Co, where is this cumuppence coming from?

Joe will be consigned to the same bin as his predecessors, the same ilk that promised much but delivered nothing of note, as will the coalition. Politicians are a breed apart, the vast majority of ordinary folk are not fools, they know lies when they hear them. Tell lies often enough and they become politics, but do so at your peril, the British public are not the fools politicians believe them to be. They know chancers when they meet them.

Of the ordinary people that voted the vast majority voted for Joe and the coalition. It is that you seem to be in opposition to the Ordinary people. In my experience the real chancers are the ones that claim to speak for groups, everyone, for cities and countries, but never actually consult those people, like the various residents associations with few members.

Calling Joe Anderson a popular choice is a fallacy, he got elected because no one in Liverpool with vote tory, and after the coalition no one will vote for the liberals either

will*

There was always Arty Fog, Greens, Radford etc all. www.bbc.co.uk/…/uk-england-merseyside-17540030…

oh I'm sorry OF THE PARTIES THAT HAVE A SNOW BALLS CHANCE IN HELL...Joe Anderson was the only one people would vote for to avoid a tory mayor add to that if a spud wore a labour rosette in Liverpool it'd get elected.

If Joe was so unpopular people would have got behind Arty Fog as it was it was him who came second.

You're confusing popularity with lack of any real viable opponents.

Genuine unpopularity would have been reflected by more votes for the opposition this demonstrates at worst ambivalence.

In difference is hardly a statement of universal love either, I said repeatedly Anderson was only elected because no one in Liverpool will ever vote Tory or Liberal again and Labour regardless of the shite they turn out will get a vote to avoid either of the other two gaining a foothold. So in essence you're saying I'm right, good lord for the first time ever you've been able to admit someone other than yourself or Joe Anderson made a valid point.

I speak for no-one but myself, nor do I profess to represent any group of people. I believe if there had been a referendum, then none of us would be discussing whether "Spud you Like" should be exercising his undemocratic executive powers.

The only reason we seem to be in anything like agreement is because you have stopped accusing me of being Joe poddle.

I've never accused anyone of being a "poddle".............I've no idea what it is............and what's more, I didn't know Joe had one.......I thought he had a "lackey"..........that's a cross between Lassie and a monkey........I think.........Incidentally were you addressing me or Badley......Must go I need a "piddle"

Badley but Badly.

Ah no he can't admit he admitted he was wrong.

You can try and spin it which ever why you want but as I haven't changed my position 1 iota, if we now have a measure of agreement it can only be because you have changed you position and so where wrong.

" Liverpool has to do what it can and doing nothing as you suggest will not provide any benefit to the council or people of Liverpool." I never suggested we do nothing, I suggested we tax Amazon if you remember? But that's the the point isn't it? You ignore things that don't suit your narrow little world view/arguments. So let's recap; We give Amazon a tax break, sell Sefton Park Meadows and the income generated by the council tax revenue, might come somewhere near to recouping the tax break we give Amazon. Maybe, we should just do nothing, we'll be no worse off. And as for Amazon's working conditions, Joe Anderson is encouraging them, so yes he does share share some of the responsibility

Your eloquence is only matched by your dyslexia.............don't ask which JB, I'm still working on it............It's nice to see you're friends again......Who said the spirit of Christmas waz ded.

Again Anonymous you miss out several benefits, people will have some jobs and the council will have more council tax income from the high banded properties. It is you that ignores things that don't suit your narrow little world view/arguments.

I think I've addressed all the points you mentioned, but you refuse to admit you're wrong. People can read it all above. Now kindly Fuck off!

Yup, they can read it all above and will note you haven't addressed them at all you just spin spin spin. You are too cowardly to put your name to your comments. Now go off to get your latest briefing from Mulhearne.

"Now go off to get your latest briefing from Mulhearne." Just like you do with Joe Anderson. Unfortunately for you I can think for myself. The reason I post as anon is this; you can accept or reject my arguments as you wish and it does not become personal. You have actually agreed with me in the past, but I bet you wouldn't have done if I'd have put my name on it. As for "spin", doesn't Joe Anderson employ a spin doctor

All politicians do, you just seem to have perfected it on a personal level.

It used to be Mulhearn. St Vinnies had one back in the days when it had a brass band, Kevin Mulhearn, nice man, he had a motor bike with a sidecar. Everton had a Mulhearn also, he was a goal keeper, I think he ended up playing for Stockport. Mulhearn Tony, man of principle, guy with plenty of backbone, unlike the invertebrate that passes for a councillor these days.

God you're a bellend Bradley.

You sneak out of bed in the middle of the night to tell us something we already know, then finish mid flow, come on Badly I know you're tired, but that's no excuse, keep hitting him while he's down. By the way I've been meaning to have a word about your bad language to JB......Keep it up.......It's about time you got out of that flock as well.

Sorry anon, it's exhausting arguing with this moron, he's like the black knight.."tis but a scratch" and another apology but he is a fucking bellend.

U2 really do like you spin don't, you keep on saying "we won we won" in the hope that other people will believe you and not notice. Just like infant school bullies. You can say all you like that you have answered a point but just typing some words and claiming to have rebutted something is not the same as having actually managed a rebuttal. You need to go back to bullying children or whatever it is you do for a living.

"U2" ok I admit it, My name is Gary Powers. I was shot down on a mission over Sidney Gardens some years back, I was tortured by the enemy in Edge Hill, I haven't forgotten it. It still rankles, I thought I would wreak some revenge, and for some reason or other your name kept popping up.......Strange that........There was nothing on the box M'lud...........So it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Lighten up John, if we didn't have pillocks like you.......We'd have to invent them.

You really do believe your own PR don't you.

You couldn't create a character like Bradley if you tried...he's too absurd to be seen as real.

"You really do believe your own PR don't you." Unlike you, who believes Joe Anderson's.

Joes PR has little effect on me, unlike you who immediately believe the opposite.

question everything. Or shut up and be a victim of authority

Questioning and knee jerk opposition is not the same thing.

"Joes PR has little effect on me" Just like salt on a slug

Worship without any kind of opposition doesn't do anyone any good.

The person it seems to affect is you Anon, you hear and assume the opposite must be true.

Au contraire, I only take a stand against things I disagree with and ignore the rest. If I disagree with Joe Anderson, it doesn't make it personal, but with you it all about the personal. In the past you've said you despise me, etc I could make it personal and call you Russ Abbott's evil twin brother, but I am above such things

I'm above that sort of thing too, it's what comes of things when you live on the third landing of Stanhope House..........they didn't speak much French there either back in 1950......strange......I don't recall Russ having a twin brother.....Are you sure it wasn't one of the Clarkes, ......well not an evil one anyway.

You slagging of Joe has been pretty personal. If I said I despise you then it likely one of the dishonest members of Mulhearnes gang (Marston or O'Keefe). Either that or Pete Price.

"You slagging of Joe has been pretty personal. If I said I despise you then it likely one of the dishonest members of Mulhearnes gang (Marston or O'Keefe). Either that or Pete Price." This makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise. For the record, I couldn't give a shit about Tony Mulhearne and know little of his politics, he's so far off my radar. I will say this though there are now 2 people posting as anon, so forget about U2 it's more like Oui3. And no, it's not a conspiracy, I don't know who the other 2 are, you just generate that kind of adoration.

Wow 3 people.

I despise you John, Joe Anderson is a mostly useless moron but he has on occasion made a rare positive decision.

There you go again Badly, getting up in the middle of the night, making wild statements, you're not an Evertonian by any chance............Was it a call of nature, best you make an appointment ASAP.

Christ you've offended me more than anything Bradley has ever said! I'm considering legal action for defaming my character! I just work night shifts :P

I take it all back Bads, I was concerned for your wellbeing, I had visions of finding you prostrate wearing nothing but a string vest and a blue and white scarf, it was the bit that said "he has on occasion made a rare positive decision". It caused much confusion and turmoil in the Nonymous household, I mistakenly thought you were referring to the purchase of Animal Farm, once again apologies...........I hope the waterworks get better

See what happens when people threaten litigation, yer bottle goes......Finch Farm.............Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Cupa

More tea Vicar?

man's gotta sleep sometime amos I'll see you in court.

It's not fair to call anyone an Everton fan. The man can type his own name for Godssake!

Not all of the will be footballers.

I doubt any will be train spotters either

You can build ugly houses for vulgarians anywhere and where greedy developers are involved, there will always be the money to do it. To restore Victorian parkland after it has been used to build ugly housing will NEVER happen. Even if there was the political will there'd never be the money. To destroy something that is so irreplaceable just to make a few bob is in most people's opinion rather like taking a knife to the Mona Lisa for a pub dare; though the money would always be found to restore the Mona Lisa.

The Meadows is not Victorian Parkland, it is an empty field, plant trees around the grassed over demolition sites behind Smithdown road.

Too late JB, they're building a school there. They'll knock down Archbishop blanch, the vets, the Nursery, annex the remainder of Crown St, bulldoze the boozer, build on the green patch and the two Uni car parks, and you're getting new neighbours. Falkner Square and Abercromby square are to be car parks, thought that would please you. Then when the Uni has done building, they are going give you some more green space on the corner of Boundary St and Gt Howard St. You will be happy with that, Joe is going to sanction it. Still it's got to be better than walking over meadows in the leafy suburb in the south of the City.

Yes of course all that is going to happen, of course if they do build a school there are plenty of other sites. Though of course it does sound like you are predicting a growth in the city's population which would be good. Do you actually know what a genuine meadow looks like?

Don't say you weren't told...........yes you're right about the growth, there's going to be a great influx of our European neighbours, who will work for Amazon, Joe's building 500 homes in readiness..........as for a genuine meadow, I went to mow one, me and the dog, unfortunately some silly mayor had built on it.