Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) voted 22 to 12 on Tuesday, 28th March to approve a motion from Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to prevent his predecessor being selected for Islington North. Corbyn has been MP for this rock solid seat for 40 years.

In a statement, Corbyn said:

“The NEC’s decision to block my candidacy for Islington North is a shameful attack on party democracy, party members and natural justice.
“When I was leader of the Labour Party, I was determined to build a member-led movement that gave hope to a new generation.
“Today’s disgraceful move shows contempt for the millions of people who voted for our party in 2017 and 2019, and will demotivate those who still believe in the importance of a transformative Labour government.
“Now, more than ever, we should be offering a bold alternative to the government’s programme of poverty, division and repression.”

Corbyn concluded: “I will not be intimidated into silence. I have spent my life fighting for a fairer society on behalf of the people of Islington North, and I have no intention of stopping now.”

Many have interpreted this as a hint that Corbyn may contest the seat as an independent.

Starmer’s move is also the clearest indication yet that he is determined to complete the rightward shift of the Labour Party to convince big business that, under his leadership, it will be the pliant second eleven of British capitalism.

Will we see a rejuvenated Corbyn defeat ‘New New Labour’ and open up a space to the left of Labour? Could some kind of Left Party emerge, built on the foundations of the movement around Corbyn? What will happen to Momentum, founded to support Corbyn? Already Jon Lansman has indicated support for Starmer against his former leader. Similarly, will there be much resistance from the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs and the left on the NEC? 12 members of the NEC voted against Starmer’s move.

As yet, it is not clear what the fallout from Starmer’s manoeuvring will be. What is certain is the politics on the Left is about to get very interesting.

I see that Liverpool Labour candidates are reading my blog with enthusiasm.

Welcome to the platform, sisters and brothers.

One such candidate, somebody I have never met, thinks he knows why Labour kicked me out. Unfortunately, he is unaware of the facts so he makes up his own.

Last March I found myself unable in good conscience to vote for £11.7 million of Adult Social Care cuts and the unfair Green Bin charge.

I and a few other left wing Labour Party members were then suspended from membership. The issue was our breaking of the whip.

Of course, if the party could make out the issue was something else, that would help deflect attention from the cuts budget.

A year earlier I had done an interview with a socialist newspaper, the Socialist Appeal. Shock horror, a socialist speaking to a socialist newspaper, something that is rather easier to defend than Keir Starmer writing for the S*n then attending its functions, especially after grandstanding at the leadership hustings in Liverpool that he wouldn’t, but hey ho and on we go.

The Socialist Appeal was not proscribed at the time but, democrats that the Labour leadership are, they banned it retrospectively. Having known about the interview for a year, they were suddenly shocked, shocked they said to know a socialist had spoken to other socialists and expelled me.

I regard it as a feather in the cap, to be honest.

One of the mysteries of the political universe is that in Twitterland, party canvassers always have a good response. There is never any criticism. There are never any tough arguments. It does make you wonder why these parties don’t get 100% of the vote.

Which brings me to the point of this article. Can a left-wing alternative to Labour begin to emerge during the May local elections?

Let’s start with a bit of honesty. It is an uphill task. Labour has a big majority on the City Council. There is a history of voting Labour, though the Lib Dems have controlled the council in living memory so it is not strictly ‘a Labour city.’ I am told by friends that it is fifty years since an out-and-out Independent has beaten Labour in the city, though, before it was disallowed, various Independents with ‘Labour’ in the title did win seats.

Labour has a tried and tested electoral machine, ready access to data through sitting councillors and a body of councillors and candidates who will turn out to leaflet and knock on doors. So far so daunting.

The Liverpool Community Independents group is a year old, stemming from councillors disillusioned with the rightward direction of Labour and councillors thrown out of the party for voting against a cuts budget in March 2022. The group is short on money and some of those who broke with Labour were never going to stand again. On the bright side, Independents have won seats in neighbouring Sefton and Knowsley.

Most importantly, the Liverpool Labour brand is tainted. The party has presided over huge waste and alleged corruption. Most obviously there was the Caller Report highlighting unacceptable practices in three council departments, resulting in the removal of Mayor Joe Anderson. There followed a process to elect a new Mayor that saw three potential candidates blocked by Labour and another J Anderson selected.

Cue the writing off of £230 million of debt, the multi-million pound energy bill scandal, the only one of its kind in the country, the revelation that the ACC arena owes the council £7 million, land given away to property deals, landlords getting away without paying council tax, a property developer failing to pay rent on a city centre car park for thirty months and the latest scandal, fourteen Labour councillors using a back-door route to have parking fines rescinded.

Labour will hope its recognisable brand, low voter turnout and the fact that many people don’t follow these scandals closely in the news will see it through, but there are warnings. In a by-election in the rock-solid Labour seat of Warbreck the Lib Dems almost won last year. In another north Liverpool stronghold Fazakerley, the Liverpool Community Independents polled a remarkable 632 votes from a standing start.

The main opposition, with the resources of a national organisation is the Lib Dems, but the party is distrusted because of its support for the Tories in the coalition years.

The Greens and Steve Radford’s Liberals have cooperated with the Community Independents in the council chamber a number of times.

The Liverpool Labour brand is beginning to fail, discredited by waste and allegations of corruption. Will it fade fast enough to allow socialist Independents to win and others to take substantial numbers of seats? We will know in May.

Yesterday, Councillor Steve Munby cited the work of the Beautiful Ideas North company, claiming it was “innovative” in how it brought in “£500,000 of inward investment for the city.”

Half a million pounds. That is a big claim., especially from one of three city councillors who barely broke cover to face scrutiny in the history of Beautiful Ideas (BICo).

Innovative is defined as: “introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking.”

Maybe Councillor Munby is referring to the innovative collection of takings at north Liverpool car parks without numbered tickets, proper accounting and governance and reconciled accounts.

Not my words. This verdict comes from three Liverpool City Council internal Audit reports.

Here are some of the relevant comments:
“However, some weaknesses have been noted with regards to the administration of the collection of income.”

Love the understatement.

“There are no reconciliations performed or recorded by the Flanagan Group, therefore a recommendation has been made, in addition to the reconciliations related to income noted above, that reconciliations are regularly performed that trace the funds held from the financial system to the bank account.”

Oops.

“In addition, it was noted that income received via BACS from Liverpool Football Club for the guaranteed use of 137 spaces within the car park could not be found on the financial system print outs provided.”

Oh.

“However approval or reference to approval, for expenditure totalling £7,488 could not be found.”

Oh…dear.

“There is a lack of an audit trail to enable the identification of recipients of “free” spaces which reduces transparency with regards to obtaining value for money from the operation of the car park.”

Can this be right?

“There is a lack of transparency and accountability regarding the use of car park generated funds”

Oh, that kind of innovation.

That’s just 2015. Well, surely things improved by 2017. Not quite.

“During the review it was identified that the PAMS team does not routinely receive information from BIC to confirm that it is maintaining proper records of accounts.”

So where’s the innovation?

“At the time of audit no business rates have been paid.”

Oh, there it is!

“BIC have stated that none of the £32,521 net income from this car park has been distributed for re-investment in the local community.”

Collecting the money then not distributing it. Ah, now that’s innovation for you.
“The review identified that the BIC collected £96,085 of car park takings from the site (for the period 17/10/16 to 3/9/17). This was exclusively in cash. From these takings the staffing and expenses payments (of £20, 725) were made leaving net income of £75,360. HMRC VAT threshold for 2017/18 is an annual turnover of £85,000. The gross income for BIC is in excess of the threshold and it should be registered for VAT.”

What, not registered for VAT? Is that even legal?

“However, there was no evidence to confirm that the takings had been independently verified and reconciled to the number of vehicles parked on each match day.”

So how do we know how much was collected and where it went? We know at least some of it didn’t go to the good causes promised.

Yes, but an innovative company would surely have got its act together by 2019. I mean, come on.

“Specifically, the record keeping of the car park income was very poor and in need of improvement.”

Dear me.

Oh, hang on, I’ve found the innovation.

“One of the companies analysed: Kazimier Productions CIC went into insolvency on 21st September 2018. In addition to this, Mayfair home furnishing and PAO Collaborative Kitchen are also no longer trading. The total investments for these three companies is £77,000.”

There’s more of this innovation stuff here:

“The total income available to the BICo from the collection of car park use totalled £653,915. No information has been provided that specifically monitors the funds raised from car park activity and how they have been utilised. However, records provided by the BICo indicate investments from funds generated by the car park and match funding totalling £403,300.”

Still no half a million figure though. I’m confused.

“One of the companies analysed: Kazimier Productions CIC went into insolvency on 21st September 2018. In addition to this, Mayfair home furnishing and PAO Collaborative Kitchen are also no longer trading. The total investments for these three companies is £77,000.”

So is insolvency the innovation?

“These payments (Stanley Park) contravene the statement made by the BICo Board that their directors are ‘ineligible to apply for investment for the fund.”
Maybe contravention of rules is the innovation?

Or is it lack of transparency: “there is no paper audit trail that all of the investments were made in a transparent manner.”

At least the reports highlighted all the worrying innovations.

What’s that?

Some of the money went to the north Liverpool suburb of….Salford….and Oldham.

What? There was a third car park.

Blimey. This innovation lark is something else.

On Wednesday evening, as expected, Liverpool Labour councillors voted to reject an independent investigation into the Beautiful Ideas CIC company (BICo).

The Liverpool City Council Monitoring Officer Dan Fenwick had hours earlier said that there wasn’t enough evidence to act against a number of councillors.

It was said that the failures identified in three internal Audit reports were ‘general.’

But how general were these issues?

The same 2015 report found, for example, “approval or reference to approval, for expenditure totalling £7,488 could not be found.”

General?

One city councillor, Nick Small, was director, signing off the company’s operation.

Two others, Ann O’Byrne and Steve Munby, were advisors.

The 2015 report says: “There is a lack of transparency and accountability regarding the use of car park generated funds.”

Takings were in cash without numbered tickets.

This seems serious and specific for the councillors acting as director and advisors.

Two years later, in 2017, had things improved?

The second report says: “During the review it was identified that the PAMS team does not routinely receive information from BIC to confirm that it is maintaining proper records of accounts.”

So same old, same old.

Then this: “At the time of audit no business rates have been paid.”

Vat was not being paid.

And this: “BIC have stated that none of the £32,521 net income from this car park has been distributed for re-investment in the local community.”

And this: “However, there was no evidence to confirm that the takings had been independently verified and reconciled to the number of vehicles parked on each match day.”

So how many cars, how much money, where did it go, how do we know?

Was the company getting there?

Well, not quite: “Specifically, the record keeping of the car park income was very poor and in need of improvement.”

So council tax payers still couldn’t be confident in the company’s procedures.

BICo associated companies were going out of businesses.

“one of the companies analysed: Kazimier Productions CIC went into insolvency on 21st September 2018.”

“In addition to this, Mayfair home furnishing and PAO Collaborative Kitchen are also no longer trading. The total investments for these three companies is £77,000.”

There were further problems:

“The use of car park income to award seasonal bonuses may be considered to contravene the agreement with the Council that profits would be reinvested in the local community.”

And with pitches for funds:

Regarding the Dragons’ Den pitches to receive funding from the BICo Board: “No written records of the event kept, to evidence how the successful organisations ‘won’ over others that were not awarded any investment money.”

“There was no scoring system adopted during the process to demonstrate this. In any selection process if key information is not retained or recorded this could present a risk of allegations of actual bias in the selection process.”

“This award was made outside of the Launchpad timeframe and criteria.”

And:

“In addition to those payments, prior to the ‘pitch’ sessions, £20,000 was awarded to Stanley Park CIC to support the ongoing work to develop it as an open air events venue….This amount was paid to Hestia Careers….”

This sounds like a company with endemic problems.

The reports specify responsibility:

“Most of the payments were authorised by Councillor Nick Small, in his capacity as the LCC representative on the BICo Board.”

And Liverpool City Council kept coughing up:

“it is to be noted that the BICo have received over £141,243 in grant funding for various projects from the Council for the period between February 2016 and March 2019.”

There were more irregularities:

“These payments (Stanley Park) contravene the statement made by the BICo Board that their directors are ‘ineligible to apply for investment for the fund.”

Revenue was lost, large amounts of it:

“There are also concerns that at least three of the organisations that the BICo invested are no longer trading and as a result these investments may not be repaid and this revenue (£77,000) is lost.”

Four years after the first internal Audit report:

“the records relating to the scoring of pitch events are insufficient as there is no paper audit trail of how awarded companies were chosen over the others.”

What, still?

And money wasn’t going to the promised good causes:

“Possible poor investment decisions relating to financially unstable companies including companies no longer trading and therefore unable to provide monetary repayment of any kind.”

So the Monitoring Officer’s verdict, delivered hours before the debate on an independent inquiry can’t be said to have ended the need for scrutiny, far from it.

The internal reports detail long and continuing failures in this council-linked CIC.

However, nobody is to be currently held to account. Nothing to see here. These things just kind of happened…like the weather. Move on.

Except we can’t move on.

We now know there was a third car park operating, in Whittle Street. Paul Lloyd, managing director of Fast Growth Homes, has said that his company granted land on Whittle Street in Kirkdale to BICo in 2017.

He said: “Fast Growth were disappointed not to hear back from BICo about the community projects supported as we agreed to allow BICo to work at this site as a gesture of good will. Following the release of the council’s audit reports we were disappointed to read about the issues with BICo.
“We were also disappointed with the lack of transparency around how the money was used to help local groups in the north Liverpool community.
“We were met with a wall of silence and will be interested in the outcome of the council-led investigation.”
In addition, BICo funds, intended in the company’s original statements for north Liverpool companies, appear to be funding Salford enterprises.

So just as some right wing Labour councillors were jubilantly celebrating clamping the lid on the whole affair, lo and behold, further questions are asked.

As usual, the Liverpool Labour propaganda machine tries to distract. It’s just people trying to smear for political ends, they say. Well hardly. The first murmurings of concern came from a former Labour councillor and CLP chair Frank Prendergast. More came from former Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle in his blog. Vice-chair of Liverpool Walton CLP raised concerns with the Labour Group Chief Whip.

None were taken seriously.

The BICo affair rumbled on.

The Liverpool Community Independents secured a debate at a City Council Extraordinary meeting, backed by other opposition groups. We were duly voted down 50-21 by the ruling Labour group. Many know they were voting against their consciences, but in Labour politics party interests come before principles.

The questions about BICo continue to surface. Ultimately, the truth will come out. Those Labour councillors, orchestrated by Liverpool organiser Sheila Murphy, will have egg on their faces.

Watch this space.

Scrutiny of the Beautiful Ideas company was not on the agenda of this evening’s Audit Committee (October 26th).

“I made this statement objecting to the decision.

Part of the remit of the Audit Committee is to review the assessment of fraud risks and potential harm to the Council from fraud and corruption.

It is in this context I submitted seven questions about the running of the Beautiful Ideas Company (BICo) well in advance of today’s meeting. I was assured by the Chair of the committee that they would be discussed in his report.

I was advised some days later, after he took advice, that this would not now happen and there would be written answers instead. I still think the specifically Audit issues should have been discussed today and I made that point in a meeting with the Chair and senior council officers this morning.

When it took the intervention of the Information Commissioners’ Office to force publication of the 2015, 2017 and 2019 internal Audit reports to light, there are clear flaws in the way scrutiny is conducted in this council. A full reset of its culture is required so that the errors of the past don’t happen again.

I and the Liverpool Community Independents group will be pursuing full, rigorous transparency at the Emergency Council meeting on November 23rd. I believe the way the company was established and the way it ran with un-ticketed cash taken, failures over business rates and VAT, poor auditing and governance, possible nepotism in appointments suggest it must be subjected to investigation with an independent element.

I am assured there is no obstacle to BICo returning to the Audit committee as early as the November meeting.

Questions about BICo will not go away and nor will those councillors committed to the fullest transparency and open governance in this council.”

I have just received the answers to my questions to Liverpool City Council’s Audit Committee about the Beautiful Ideas Company (BICo).

The company was meant to channel proceeds from two Anfield car parks into good causes, including three city council wards.

Those wards have yet to receive a penny.

Part of the remit of the Audit Committee is to review the assessment of fraud risks and potential harm to the Council from fraud and corruption.

Here are some of the things I have gleaned from the answers to my questions.

An issue remaining from the three internal Audit reports into BICo is that record keeping was inadequate. Given that cash was taken without numbered ticketing that is a big inadequacy.

Business rates were initially not paid and only paid after the council issued two bills. This does not suggest a properly run company.

There were weakness with governance. How does this reflect on the conduct of the three councillors involved in BICo?

The risk of cash takings remained at the time of the third Audit report. How does this reflect on the councillors’ conduct?

The company was not initially registered for VAT. When it did register it was not advertised to customers of the car parks.

When I raised the lack of evidence of verification of numbers of cars and lack of paper Audit trails, a key issue, I received the same answer that internal Audit identified weakness but did not provide comment on individuals. This was the same answer given when I asked about monies not distributed to the community, to payments at Stanley Park contravening the statement by the BICo board that their directors are ‘ineligible to apply for investment in the fund.”

The same answer was given to my questions about the ‘Dragon’s Den pitching to receive funding and possible nepotism in appointments.

In response to my question about the conduct of Councillor Small as a director, LCC representative and holder of the ‘Golden Vote I was told this was not the subject matter of Internal Audit’s report. The same answer was given to my question about the Flanagan Group receiving nine acres of City Council land free while Julian Flanagan was a BICo director?

At the time of writing I am due to meet the City Solicitor Dan Fenwick this morning to raise my concerns about the removal of BICo from today’s Audit Committee and the status of the promised investigation into BICo, as reported in the Liverpool Echo on September 15th.

After four years of opaque proceedings at Liverpool City Council I am not convinced we are on the path to transparency.

The hour-long debate secured by the Liverpool Community Independents at full council is essential.

One thing you can say about Lib Dem leader Richard Kemp, he always manages to get the wrong end of the political stick.

Well, this is the party that propped up Tory austerity.

Allegations of corruption have been swirling around the Beautiful Ideas CIC (BICo) for years. Questions have been asked about the involvement of three Liverpool City Councillors associated with the company, director Nick Small and advisors Ann O’Byrne and Steve Munby. F

Former councillor Frank Prendergast first highlighted concerns about the use of two car parks to raise money for good causes, asking if the funds were being properly allocated. Ultimately, he left the Labour Party in protest. Journalist Matt O’Donohue and a group of concerned citizens kept digging. An internal Labour Party report was produced, reproduced on former Walton MP Peter Kilfoyle’s blog. The Vice-Chair Membership of Liverpool Walton Labour Party raised it with the Labour Chief Whip only to be told, ‘we know about it.’ As far as Labour was concerned, nothing to see here, it seems.

It took a reference by Matt O’Donohue to the Information Commissioners Office to force Liverpool City Council’s hand.

So who did not pursue transparency? Got it in one. It was Richard Kemp, who now attacks the way the Liverpool Community Independents group have acted, requisitioning an Emergency Council Meeting on November 23rd, referring the matter to Action Fraud, calling for an independent inquiry and the suspension of the councillors involved.

In other words, he chooses to attack councillors continuing the work of those who tried to bring BICo to light. Shouldn’t his target be the leadership of the Labour group who have effectively suppressed BICo for years? But no, he speaks out of two sides of his mouth, trying to claim credit for the recent upsurge in interest in BICo while also saying the Liverpool Community Independents ‘blundered,’ permitting Labour to use the excuse of the Emergency Council meeting to take BICo off the Audit Committee, in Kemp’s view the right place to ensure transparency. To be absolutely clear, only Steve Radford’s Liberal and Independent group has backed LCI’s call, despite all opposition groups being contacted.

Now this is curious for a number of reasons. The Audit Committee failed for years to ensure transparency and openness. There were three internal Audit investigations which remained hidden from public view until the ICO intervened. Secondly, the Chair of Audit is Liberal Democrat Kris Brown. Perplexingly, Brown wrote in an email to LCI Deputy Leader Alan Gibbons that questions could be aired at the Committee: “But at the end of the day it’s on my Chair’s update to of course ask ‘me’ questions.” So the Audit Chair’s advice was that this was not a blunder and there could be a discussion at Audit Committee. Do the Lib Dems not talk? Do they not have a collective line? Odd for the main opposition. 

What’s more, if Kemp was so keen to use Audit to bring BICo to light, why is it that every single question tabled to the Committee came from….the Liverpool Community Independents?

BICo had been suppressed for years. The actions of the Liverpool Community Independents, building on the efforts of many other people, are dragging it blinking into the daylight. The debate at full council will mean it can’t be hidden. What’s more the Independent councillors are challenging the decision to remove the debate from the Audit Committee. Of course it was a tactical decision to call the Emergency Council debate. A small opposition group can’t ensure Labour does the right thing, but it can subject them to scrutiny if they do the wrong thing.

The protestations of Kemp are full of sound and fury and signify nothing other than an attempt to distract from his party’s years of failure as the main opposition to expose BICo. He should join the efforts to end this shameful episode, act in the interests of the people of Liverpool and ensure the full story of BICo is finally told.

Liverpool Community Independent Councillors Alan Gibbons and Alfie Hincks this morning wrote to the Liverpool City Council Chief Solicitor, Mayor, Commissioners and Labour group Chief Whip, expressing concern over the findings of three reports released after a ruling by the Information Commissioners Office.

The councillors have called for the suspension of three councillors associated with the Beautiful Ideas CIC pending the conclusion of the investigation promised by the Mayor on September 15th.

The letter reads:

In a statement released to the press on September 15th, Mayor Joanne promised: “a thorough investigation to identify any behaviour in this report which demonstrates a breach of procedures or codes of conduct” and promised that appropriate action would be taken.

The 2015 report, released yesterday, highlights weaknesses with regards to the administration of the collection of income, inconsistencies in records of money banked, the lack of an audit trail to identify recipients of free spaces, a lack of reconciliations, performed or recorded by the Flanagan Group, lack of transparency and accountability regarding the use of car park generated funds, and conflicts of interest regarding LCC officers.

The 2017 report highlights the lack of proper records of accounts, failures to pay business rates, a failure to pay moneys to community causes, cash payments giving cause for concern, lack of VAT registration, takings not independently verified and reconciled and a lack of signed declarations for audit review.

The 2019 report highlights poor record-keeping, lack of information on monitoring of funds raised from car park activity, use of car park income to award seasonal bonuses in possible contravention of the agreement with the Council that profits would be reinvested in the local community, lack of written records of pitching events, a failure to distribute money to communities, organisations receiving funding going out of business, lack of paper audit trails, the possibility of money spent without proper scrutiny, insufficient controls to abide by HMRC rules and possible poor investment decisions.

In terms of transparency, it seems strange that the three councillors associated with the Beautiful Ideas CIC are not named and that there are a number of redactions. Are they related to this?

Could you let us know how much progress has been made on the promised investigation and what kind of timescale there is on the release of its findings? Councillors are elected representatives and should be held accountable, particularly when there is any suggestion of misuse of public funds. We believe it would be appropriate to suspend the three councillors involved, pending the conclusion of the investigation.

The Beautiful Ideas CIC was meant to channel the proceeds of two Anfield car parks into good causes. Major questions have been raised about the company’s running. Three councillors, director Nick Small and advisors Ann O’Byrne and Steve Munby were associated with the CIC between 2014 and 2018.

This is the press release our Liverpool Community Independents group of councillors sent to North West media outlets. Only the Liverpool Echo responded in any way and even then did not mention that we had submitted the councillors name to the police Action Fraud unit and called for their suspension pending investigation.

This is the press release most of the media ignored.
Time for complete transparency.

That is the message from Independent councillors who have been campaigning for the findings of an internal audit report into the Beautiful Ideas CIC to be made public.

Three Labour councillors, Nick Small, Ann O’Byrne and Steve Munby, were linked to BiCo in the past. Small acted as a director from 2014 to 2018 and O’Byrne and Munby were advisors.

Everton Councillor Alfie Hincks, who raised the report at the council’s influential Finance Committee, said: “It should not have taken four years for the findings to come to light. Questions were initially raised by then councillor Frank Prendergast about the unticketed collection of money at two Anfield car parks. The persistence of investigative journalist Matt O’Donohue eventually persuaded the Information Commissioners Office to act and force transparency.”

Warbreck Councillor Alan Gibbons said: “We welcome the Mayor’s decision to end the scandalous delay in revealing what is in the report. There was no need for redaction. It is time the council earned a reputation for openness and honesty. There are important questions of governance and probity. The internal audit report, combined with the internal Labour report, raise significant questions. The three councillors should be suspended pending the outcome of investigations.”

Councillor Hincks said: “I have referred this matter to the police Action Fraud unit to determine if there is cause for criminal investigation. There are too many examples of opaque and questionable dealings in this city.”

Councillor Gibbons added: “BICo is the tip of the iceberg. We have seen fractional sales such as the Vauxhall Road development, the Chinatown scandal, the handing over of property for a nominal fee or even for nothing including nine acres of land granted for nothing to Julian Flanagan, then a BICo director, the failure to collect rent from property developer Elliot Lawless for the running of the Beetham Plaza car park, shocking conditions at a property owned by North-West Housing and more. It is time to clean up this city.”

Contact:

Councillor Alan Gibbons: 07889981739

Councillor Alfie Hincks: 07821 128601

Please also see this email from Inspector Hawitt



———- Forwarded message ———
From: Hawitt Christopher Philip <Christopher.Hawitt@merseyside.police.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022, 12:28
Subject: RE: BICo report Liverpool CityCouncil
To: Alfie Hincks <alfiehincks@gmail.com>, Maguire Kath <Kathleen.Maguire@merseyside.police.uk>, Ashburner Katherine Louise <Katherine.Ashburner@merseyside.police.uk>

Hi Alfie,

Thank you very much for your email and apologies for the delayed response, I was away. I have looked through the report and whether there is crossover into the Operation Aloftinvestigation. At time of writing there is not, and it is not something we would be able to look at I’m afraid. We have quite strict parameters around our investigation in relation to what we are looking at, as without this we could quite simply grind to a halt unfortunately given the amount of information and allegations of wrongdoing we have received.

However, as the report rightly points out there are some real concerns about a few matters, specifically the appointment of Rachel O’Byrne and the awarding of payments to Gerard Heffey.

Can I ask, if you are able to, would you be willing to refer this to Action Fraud? The reason being that it then picks up any links or ongoing national issues with any of these people involved or companies and it is then disseminated to the most appropriate force if thought a likely criminal investigation.

The web address to report it is Reporting fraud and cyber crime | Action Fraud

Equally I am happy to discuss further at any point if you want to give me a call and we can go through it.

Many thanks

Chris Hawitt

Christopher Hawitt
D/Insp Operation Aloft
INV Economic Interventions