Monday, 14 June 2021

Covid deaths compared to total of burials and cremations in Knowsley


In Oct 2020, the media reported that 254 deaths from Covid 19 had occured in the St Helens and Knowsley NHS area since the pandemic had began. Source: MSN



In a Freedom of information request to Knowsley Council, we asked how many funerals had taken place in Knowsley (burials and cremations) each year from 2015 to 2020. The numbers are as follows

2015 = 248
2016 = 265
2017 = 211
2018 = 249
2019 = 211
2020 = 240

Source: Knowsley Council

So that's 254 supposed extra deaths from a pandemic. Yet there's no noticeable rise in the total number of deaths and funerals over the last five years.

Tuesday, 16 March 2021

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2021 - V40

The latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2021, Version 40.

LINK: Police Officers dismissed/charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2021 Version 40




Wednesday, 24 February 2021

The right to silence, citizen's duties and the Coronavirus Regulations - Neale v DPP

Keith Neale’s conviction for obstructing a police officer was quashed by the High Court, sitting at Cardiff. In an important judgment on the right to silence, the legal duties of citizens and the operation of Coronavirus Regulations, Mrs Justice Steyn and Lord Justice Dingemans held that justices at Newport Magistrates’ Court had erred in distinguishing Mr Neale’s case from Rice v Connolly and in finding him guilty of wilfully obstructing a police constable by declining to give his name and address to a police officer.

On 23 April 2020, during the first lockdown, Mr Neale, a 60 year old man, had gone into Newport City Centre to take his key worker friend’s car for an MOT test. He was sitting on a bench waiting for the test to be done when he was approached by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), who asked him to provide reasons for being in public and to provide his name and address so that a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) could be issued. Mr Neale declined to provide this information. A police officer attended the scene and demanded Mr Neale’s name and address. He refused and was then arrested and taken to a police station despite the risks involved during the height of the pandemic.

Mr Neale was prosecuted under the original Welsh Coronavirus Regulations for leaving home without reasonable excuse and obstructing a police officer by refusing to provide his name and address so that a Fixed Penalty Notice could be issued to him.

Quashing Mr Neale’s conviction, the High Court stated that:

the Appellant was under no common law obligation to give the police his name and address;

the right to silence is not reserved only for the innocent and those beyond suspicion (in Mr Neale’s case he was, in fact, acquitted of the offence he had been accused of);

the Appellant was not under a statutory obligation pursuant to the Coronavirus Regulations to give his name and address to the police – the Coronavirus Regulations do not expressly create such an obligation;

the Appellant’s refusal to provide his details foiled the police officer’s intention to issue an FPN but did not render the legislative scheme unworkable – if there are grounds for suspecting an offence and the suspect refuses to give their name and address they can, pursuant to section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, be arrested, as the Appellant was in this case. It was not therefore necessary to imply an obligation to give details to the police into the Regulations in order for the legislative scheme to operate;

the Appellant’s case was distinguishable from other cases where wilful obstruction had been found – most importantly, none of those cases were about compelled speech;

the right to remain silent is a particularly important part of our law. In addition, an obligation to give a name and address to the police would engage Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

the courts should be wary of expanding police powers by implication – where Parliament has chosen to compel speech it has done so expressly;

the absence of an express obligation to give a name and address in the Coronavirus Regulations powerfully demonstrates that it does not exist;
the Appellant was not required to give his name and address to the police and it follows that his refusal to do so was not wilful;

the justices at Newport Magistrates’ Court erred in distinguishing the Appellant’s case from Rice v Connolly in finding him guilty of wilfully obstructing a police constable.

The judgment was a significant restatement of the position in Rice v Connolly that there is no general common law duty to assist the police and a person cannot be guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer by remaining silent when questioned if there is no legal duty to answer questions. There is no such duty under Coronavirus Regulations.

Separately, Mr Neale’s case raises serious questions about the enforcement of Coronavirus Regulations and may have implications for policing and for those who have been issued fixed penalty notices by the police and/or prosecuted for offences under the Regulations.

Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic. Mr Neale was not placing anyone at risk when he sat on a bench lawfully waiting for an MOT test to be completed. The risk to public health, and cost to the taxpayer, was brought about by his subsequent arrest, detention and prosecution.

Source

Saturday, 20 February 2021

The Food & Drug Administration - Covid 19 'vaccine advice' - (Jan 2021) Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

The FDA is the Food and Drug Administration in USA. They are responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation in USA.

Here is some of their contradictory advice, mixed with facts and confusion.

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19."

"There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19"

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect everyone."

"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19."

"The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown."

"There is a remote chance that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after getting a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine"

"Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials."

"The Pfitzer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared product."

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine includes the following ingredients:
mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3- phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.

Source: FDA

Sunday, 7 February 2021

Number of UK deaths per 100,000 people every year since 1970 - Simple facts.

The UK Government measure the Covid infection rate by the number of cases per 100,000 people. They use this number as a reason for putting restrictions into place.

If you use the same calculations to measure the death rate in the UK since 1970, you can see that the year 2020, was the 15th lowest for the number of deaths in a year out of the last 50 years.

0.89% (900 deaths per 100,000 people) of the population died in 2020, compared with the highest death rate in 1976 of 1.06% (1065 deaths per 100,000 people)


Friday, 11 December 2020

Coronavirus mRNA BNT162B2 Vaccine ingredients



Pfizer signed a deal worth up to $750 million with BioNTech in March 2020 to co-develop a potential vaccine.

According to the Federal Drug Agency (FDA), the Covid19 mRNA BNT162B2 is an “investigative mRNA treatment for the prevention of Covid 19.”

mRNA = Messenger Ribonucleic acid - “to date there have been no mRNA vaccines licensed for use in humans.”

The UK Government state, "There is a small chance you might still get coronavirus even if you have the vaccine."

The ingredients of the Covid19 mRNA BNT162B2 vaccine are:

Active substance
BNT162b2 RNA
“A type of genetic molecule taken from monkeys that have the virus, it causes cells to manufacture the big “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which the pathogen uses to glom onto a person’s cells and gain entry. The body reacts to this "possibly" leaving you immunized and ready to repel the full virus.”

ALC-0315 – Made up of lipids (fatty acids) including:

Hydroxybutyl acrylate - Brief Profile - ECHA (europa.eu)

According to the classification provided by companies to ECHA in REACH registrations this substance is harmful if swallowed, causes serious eye damage, causes skin irritation and may cause an allergic skin reaction. Additionally, the classification provided by companies to ECHA in CLP notifications identifies that this substance is harmful in contact with skin, is harmful if inhaled and may cause respiratory irritation.

Azanediyl = Derived from Ammonia

Hexane = Derived from Gasoline

Hexyldecanoate = Substance Information - ECHA (europa.eu)
Substances predicted as likely to meet criteria for category 1A or 1B carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or reproductive toxicity.

ALC-0159 – Made up of lipids (fatty acids) including:

Polyethylene glycol = Laxative

Ditetradecylacetamide

Distearoyl

Glycero

Phosphocholine= A molecule found, for example, in lecithin .

And also:

Cholesterol = blood fat

Potassium Chloride = Potassium Salt

Sodium Chloride = Salt

Sucrose = Sugar


Thursday, 19 November 2020

How many people in Merseyside have been fined for not wearing a mask (in a relevant place)?

Source: Merseyside Police

Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable

A Portuguese Appeals Court recently deemed PCR tests unreliable and declared the quarantine of people unlawful.
On November 11th 2020 a Portuguese appeal court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority concerning a lower court decision to declare unlawful the quarantining of four persons.

Of these, one had tested positive for Covid using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure.


The Azores Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation. The lower court had ruled against the Health Authority, and the appeal court upheld that ruling with arguments that explicitly endorse the scientific case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests The court’s main points are as follows: A medical diagnosis is a medical act that only a physician is legally qualified to undertake and for which such physician will be solely and entirely responsible. No other person or institution, including government agencies or the courts, has such an authority. It is not up to the Azores Regional Health Authority to declare someone ill, or a health hazard.

Only a physician can do that. No one can be declared ill or a health hazard by decree or law, nor as the automatic, administrative consequence of the outcome of a laboratory test, no matter which.

From the above, the court concludes that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so.”

In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them. From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.

The court concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test.

“Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”

Citing Jaafar et al. (2020; https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491) the court concludes that
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”

The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

Citing Surkova et al. (2020; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext), the court further states that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that
in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society”.
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:

“Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.”

Tuesday, 17 November 2020

PROTEST is NOT 'Anti Social Behaviour' and is NOT illegal nor unlawful.

In Liverpool City Centre recently, Merseyside Police put in place a 'dispersal order' under Section 35 of the Anti Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 which gives police officers and police community support traffic officers powers to direct people they suspect are causing or likely to cause crime, nuisance or anti-social behaviour to members of the public to leave a designated area.

The Police state that, "the order has been brought in following a gathering last weekend which was in contravention of the Coronavirus legislation. This order has been authorised in order to protect lives, prevent the spread of Coronavirus and keep people safe."

This is both illegal and unlawful. Contravening Coronavirus legislation is not Anti-Social behaviour.

"Anti-Social behaviour" is defined in the Anti Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 as "conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person"

Protesting peacefully, or using a megaphone, chanting or playing music and singing is also NOT Anti-Social behaviour.

Justice Holland, a judge in the High Court in 2007 stated that: “Protest is lawful; the use of a megaphone as an adjunct of lawful protest is itself lawful. The starting point is unfettered freedom to engage in so much amplified protest as is neither intimidating or harassing.” HLS Group Plc v SHAC 2007 WL 919475 [2007] EWHC 522 (QB) QBD.

Section 34 (3) of the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014 clearly states, "In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention."

A number of people were fined, warned and arrested on Sat 14th November for simply being in the area and filming what was happening. This is not Anti-Social behaviour.

If anything, the behaviour of Police Officers, was clearly Anti-Social behaviour and the gatherings of hundreds of Police Officers was certainly hypocritical considering their comments about members of the public gathering to engage in lawful protest.

Tuesday, 10 November 2020

Indoor gyms, fitness studios, indoor sports facilities and other indoor leisure centres for supervised activities for children ARE LEGALLY EXEMPT! from having to close

Police have been going around gyms, fitness studios etc that have refused to close, threatening them with fines that will double on each visit.

However, I notice that Police have been citing "Section 16(1) of the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 which states that "A person responsible for carrying on a restricted business, or providing a restricted service, must cease to carry on that business or provide that service."

The trouble is, that Section 16(3) of the regulations states this, "The requirement in paragraph 16(1)—

(a)does not apply to any facilities provided in criminal justice accommodation, and

(b)is subject to the exceptions in regulation 17(6) and (8).

So, we look at the exceptions in regulation 17(6):

17(6) Regulation 16(1) does not prevent the use of—

(f) indoor gyms, fitness studios, indoor sports facilities and other indoor leisure centres for supervised activities for children

Check it out for yourself. LINK

Saturday, 7 November 2020

Police harass us for walking along the street.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 state that, being outside of the home for recreation is a reasonable excuse.

Today I was out of my home for work and recreation. Taking photographs and video for my YouTube channel, Facebook page and blog, on a recreational visit to the Albert Dock in Liverpool.

On arriving in the City, I came across a march/protest.
Liverpool Freedom march - 7th November 2020

This is what happened next.



Thursday, 3 September 2020

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020 - V39

The latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020, Version 39.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020 Version 39






Tuesday, 10 March 2020

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2020 - V38

Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019, Version 38. Updated and with 60 new entries.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 38




Thursday, 5 September 2019

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 - V37


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019. Version 37.


LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 37


Wednesday, 13 March 2019

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 - V36


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019. Version 36.

PLEASE - only share this original version. DO NOT edit or change this document in any way. I do not consent to any public use of my work, unless in this original state.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 36











Thursday, 24 January 2019

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2098. Version 35.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2019 Version 35








Tuesday, 7 August 2018

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2018


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2018. Version 34.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2018 Version 34







Tuesday, 29 August 2017

Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017


Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017. Version 33.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017 Version 33






Monday, 26 June 2017

R.I.P Councillor Sammy Lee

I am so sorry to hear of the passing of Sammy Lee. Sammy was my local Councillor from the year 2000, until Knowsley Council decided to get rid of the Longview ward.

Sammy was an old school Councillor, the best kind, and one of the only Councillors who would actually have a reasonable and sensible discussion with me, rather than the ones now, who just stare at you and have a pre-conceived (wrong) opinion.


Here he is talking to me in 2013, calling me nuts and crackers. Sammy called me many names, but our discussions were never heated or aggressive because there was a mutual respect.



Sammy knew what I was about, and knew many of my views. Many views that we agreed on, some that we never, but he'd always take the time to chat, every time we crossed paths.

I wish our local Councillors nowadays were like Sammy, sadly they are not. I never see my local Councillors anymore, when I do it's always a hostile environment.

The last time I spoke to Sammy was caught on video strangely enough, by the Knowsley Council leader Andy Moorehead. Sammy was in very poor health at the time, but still took the time to have a chat with me. Andy Moorehead says he filmed us because he was worried about Sammy's safety when talking to me, a resident he had known for 20 years or so. I think that says more about Moorehead, than me.



Sammy will be sorely missed. I'll miss our chats and discussions. Deepest sympathy to all Sammy's family and friends.

Rest in peace mate x

Saturday, 24 June 2017

The bulllying double standards of Merseyside Police and Knowsley Council

Knowsley Council Leader Andy Moorehead seems to think it's perfectly okay to film local residents from behind his office curtains, when he really should have been working on Council business. You know, the usual destruction of 51% of Knowsley's greenbelt, and figuring out how to save all of their skins from bankruptcy.

LINK to video

But when he is filmed at a local election count standing by Knowsley MP George Howarth, he gets Police to back him up, and they do. Even though they haven't got a leg to stand on, and no law to support their oppressive view, they try their best to bully, provoke and intimidate. But they end up looking rather silly.






Monday, 12 June 2017

Constitutional law on hung parliaments

"If she cannot get her Queen’s Speech through Parliament at the first attempt – constitutional law makes Jeremy Corbyn the Prime Minister by default, without the need for him to do the same."

In a 2015 article on the law site Head of Legal, Carl Gardiner looked in detail at constitutional law, how it applied in those four examples and how it would apply to a hung Parliament in 2015. For the detailed legal analysis, read the full article – but his examples and key conclusions are:


1924: then-leader Ramsay MacDonald was immediately invited by the king to form a minority Labour government when the Tories – the largest single party – could not pass its King’s Speech. MacDonald did not have to seek a coalition or demonstrate a functional majority

1929: MacDonald was again invited to be PM, even though Labour had won only 287 of the then-615 parliamentary seats, after Tory PM Baldwin resigned upon being unable to command a Commons majority. Again, MacDonald did not have to demonstrate a functioning majority

1974: Harold Wilson was invited by the queen to form a government after Edward Heath’s attempts to agree a coalition with the Liberals failed. He immediately formed a minority government in spite of stating firmly that he would not seek nor enter any coalition

2010: Then-PM Gordon Brown resigned immediately it became clear that he could not command a Commons majority, even though David Cameron had not yet agreed a coalition with the LibDems’ Nick Clegg. The coalition gave Cameron a functioning majority – but before the deal with the LibDems was finalised, he was summoned to the Palace ‘as a matter of course’.



Saturday, 3 June 2017

List of Police Officers and other Public servants charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence 2009 to 2017 - V32

Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017. Version 32.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2017 Version 32






Sunday, 15 January 2017

List of Police Officers and other Public servants charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence 2009 to 2016 - V31

Here's the latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016. Version 31.

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016 Version 31





Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Knowsley Council Meeting - 14th Dec 2016

The Knowsley Council meeting on 14th Dec 2016.



Highlights include:

Lib Dem Ian Smith opposing the use of 'fixed term tenancies' for social housing, whilst Labour's Graham Morgan berates him for this because Cllr Smith was against the building of new homes on the greenbelt?? (relevant how?)

Knowsley Council don't have any Social Housing, it's owned by KHT.

Cllr O'Keefe moves a 'Healthy weight declaration', and Council leader Andy Moorehead seconds the motion with a politically incorrect comment that he "puts his full weight behind it."

That's a lot of weight then, is my politically incorrect response. :-)

Cllr Smith against the additional position to assign a Cabinet Member Special Responsibility Allowance (i.e. 1.5 x Basic Allowance) pro rata until the end of the current municipal year.

Council leader Andy Moorehead says Cllr Smith is being incongruous and the Knowsley Lib Dem party is crass.

Cllr Murphy accuses Cllr Cashman of not "understanding City Regions"

Cllr Cashman ask the leader for an update on the Prescot fire in Carr Lane, but he gets heckled by Labour Councillors when he tries to ask a supplementary question.

The arrogance of Cllr Morgan, when he states that "over the next four years, this Council will deliver more than 700 new homes......", "am I going slow enough for you (Cllr Cashman)?"

First off, the Council are NOT building any homes, ALL these new homes are being built by PRIVATE companies.

The Lib Dems are against building homes on the greenbelt, and yet the Labour response to this is to try and make the issue about 'vulnerable children'. A bit of emotional blackmail I'd say.

"The building of houses on the greenbelt will bring in a million pounds a year on Council tax, of which we will spend on vulnerable children"

Yes, whatever.

Cllr McGlashan seems to be a professional heckler, and it seems the majority of Labour Councillors will use every opportunity to have a go at Cllr Cashman and Knowsley Lib Dems.

The DISRUPTIVE behaviour of Labour Councillors, who heckle and intimidate Lib Dem Councillors is astonishing, when you consider that residents have been BANNED from attending meetings for much less.

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

April 1990 - Longview Labour Club Memories - "Rock n Roll" Night



Full length video of the "Rock n Roll"' night at the Longy Labour Club back on 25th April 1990.

With thanks to Richard Raisbeck for the video.