Knowsley residents protest over blacklisting and green space disposals.

On Mon 5th Sept, a group of local residents protested at the Knowsley Council meeting over plans to dispose of a number of green space sites in Knowsley for development, in addition to the 51% disposal of Knowsley's greenbelt.

The residents were also protesting over the permanent ban of six Knowsley Residents, who were banned for expressing their views over the greenbelt destruction at the Council meeting in Jan 2016.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Merseyside Police Officer 2293 gets a bit hostile at the Knowsley Flower show.

At the Knowsley Flower show, watching the awards with a few friends, one who had a banner out that stated how Knowsley Council blacklists local residents for standing up for their beliefs, when we were approached by a Police Officer, who was quite nice at first. But then got a bit unfriendly when I opened my mouth.

Here's what happened anyway.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

Merseyside Police Officer attacks disabled man

"On the 28th of July 2016 at around 1pm, PC Phillip Towers 8008 of St Anne Street Police Station Disruption Team, suddenly attacks a 7 stone disabled man outside Liverpool Crown Court.

This video is filmed seconds after the man was shoved in the chest, then violently grabbed and pushed to the floor, landing on his back and head.

The officer then jumped on the man 'Towering over him' on all fours.



The Officer 'PC Towers' was appearing in court at the time, and had been returning to court with two fellow officers; also witnesses in the case. They were returning from the shops after being told not to confer.

The case was as an Appeal at the Crown Court and the disabled mans friend was the Defendant in the case. She was appealing her conviction of a Public Order section 5 offence and for assaulting PC Towers and another officer from the disruption team. She maintains she is innocent and he assaulted her and has the evidence and witnesses, but was still found guilty again the following day.

The disabled man was arrested for a PO section 5 despite only talking to the officer a respectful distance away when the officer suddenly and wildly attacked!!

Is this Liverpool's most violent copper?

Did you witness this incident?

Do you know of any other similar incidents?

If so please contact Justicewatch.co.uk or visit at Justice Watch on Facebook"

www.facebook.com/Justice-Watch-906014809508800


Follow @HuytonFreeman

PCSO says - "No filming in Council buildings"

Since 2014, I've filmed Council meetings and interactions with the Council, despite their protestations that I needed their "consent to film". This paid off when in 2015, the Council relented and officially permitted the filming of Council meetings, and they also recognised the right to film in Public places, of which Council buildings are.

It is therefore frustrating, when PCSO's tell members of the Public, that they cannot film. Not because of any particular law, but because there is a sign say 'filming is prohibited'

This is what happened when we point out that the sign has no validity in law.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

UNITE Union Officer is jailed for 12 months for violent disorder

Unite the Union Workplace Organiser and Liverpool Against the Cuts activist Michelle Smith, was today jailed for twelve months for throwing bricks at opposing protesters at a march in Dover this year.

Smith, who is a North West regional organiser for UNITE the union, and describes herself as an 'Anti- Fascist" was sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court.

Smith also seems to be the contact for UNITE's General Secretary Len McCluskey according to this post made on Facebook.

Jeremy Corbyn for PM

The Mum-of-two had travelled from her home in Liverpool to join a left-wing march against racism in the town.But the £37,000-a-year official with Unite The Union was caught on camera throwing rocks at far-right demonstrators.

Judge Adele Williams watched a 14-minute composite video showing the 41-year-old, sporting a Russian-style hat, joining in the battle as police tried to keep the two factions apart.

Smith, of Sheppard Avenue, in Bowring Park, Huyton, was seen on at least four occasions hurling missiles over the heads of officers as people around her shouted obscenities, she was filmed throwing objects at protestors, and at least one also struck a Police officer.

She is finally seen fighting with a woman near the BP garage and later handed herself in to police.

Now she has been jailed for a year after pleading guilty to violent disorder in the town.

Prosecutor Andrew Espley said Smith became involved in what had started as an anti-immigration demonstration and she was part of a counter demonstration.

DC Tom Banks told Canterbury Crown Court police had 500 hours of footage from the clashes on January 30.

He said Smith was seen to throw objects on four occasions before she ended up fighting with another woman.

A senior probation officer, Linda Jaycock, who interviewed Smith prior to sentence, said she had come to Dover as part of an anti-racist demonstration and claimed she came under attack from the rival group.

Jailing her, the judge said she had read testimonies of Smith’s responsible work, which contrasted with her acting highly irresponsible when the violence began.

“The responsible decision would have been to leave the area at once,” said the judge.

“It is a tragedy you involved yourself in these events.”

Michelle can be contacted now at:

Michelle Smith 08/06/1975,
HM Prison Bronzefield,
Woodthorpe Road,
Shepperton,
Ashford,
TW15 3JZ.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

The Chilcott Report - 6th July 2016

The Chilcott report was an investigation into the British Government's decision to use military force on Saddam Hussein.

• Was it right and necessary to invade Iraq in March 2003?

• Could the UK, and should the UK, have been better prepared for what followed?

The Chilcott Report concluded:

• That the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.

• The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.

• The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

Download the full report here:

The Chillcott Report - 6th July 2016

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Man assaulted by Police Officer at football match

A man using his mobile phone to film at a Birmingham v Aston Villa football match was hit with a baton by a Police Officer in a completely unprovoked attack.

PC Paul Knowles struck the man hard with his baton, knocking the phone out of the victim's hands.

The IPPC found that the police officer may have

(a) committed a criminal offence, or
(b) behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.

The victim attended Burton’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust on 23 September where he had an x-ray of his left hand. The medical notes stated he had "sustained the following injuries; a comminuted displaced impacted fracture to the neck of the 3 metacarpal with some palmer angulation noted, with a superficial skin flap abrasion and a small area of bruising to the side."

However, the IPCC concluded that, "having analysed all the evidence, there is no indication that PC Paul Knowles may have committed a criminal offence"

Judge for yourself, here's the video.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council refusing Freedom of Information requests.

I have made a number of FOI requests to Knowsley Council over the last few years. But recently, this Council seem to be making up their own reasons for refusal, charging exorbitant amounts of money to supply simple information and simply contradicting themselves to suit whatever their agenda is.

£34 an hour charge

My FOI request for information about the local plan. Knowsley Council said it would take 20 hours work, at a rate of £34 per hour, a total of £680. Nice work if you can get it.

Contradictions

An FOI request for information about 'Knowsley Youth Mutual', the company that delivers youth services on behalf of Knowsley Council, and which is 85% funded by Knowsley Council, and is made up of 'previous employees' of Knowsley Council.

The Council refused the request by giving this very contradictory response:

"Knowsley Youth Mutual is a public benefit company jointly run and owned by the former staff and youth so is not a public authority and therefore its activities are not subject to the statutory provisions set out under the Freedom of Information Act. I am not aware of any provision that as they receive funding from the Council, this places the Council “under a legal obligation to supply the requested information” so can you please point me to this obligation so that I can consider this matter further.

You may wish to direct your request to Knowsley Youth Mutual, although as they are not a public benefit company they are under no legal obligation to provide this detail. If you would like me to forward your request to KYM for their consideration please advise."

So, KYM are a public benefit company when delivering services on behalf of the Council, BUT, they are NOT a public benefit company if you want information about them.

CCTV Information - EXEMPT

The Council got rid of CCTV that covered the shopping areas in Huyton village, but they still have CCTV cameras on and inside their own buildings. So, I asked, "what are the current annual costs of the 'existing resources' that are used in monitoring all of the Council's CCTV cameras?

The Council's response:

"Having considered what information we hold in relation to your request I am advising that some/or all of your request may be subject to an exemption.

S43 Commercial Interests

We are allowed additional time in which to consider these exemptions and you will receive a further response once a decision has been made. You will receive a response by 22 June 2016."

So, there you go, if you want to know about how your money was spent on the Local Plan, Youth services or CCTV cameras, well, erm, you can't, because Knowsley Council say so.


Follow @HuytonFreeman

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

Here's my latest list of Police Employees and Public Servants sacked, or charged or convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016. It's a long list

LINK: Police Officers charged/convicted of an offence 2009 to 2016 Version 30

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Is Mayor Joe Anderson committing 'purdah' offences?

Liverpool's Mayor, Joe Anderson has made a "second major announcement this week, coming just days after he announced plans to build 10,000 new ‘rent to buy’ homes across Liverpool to help young families get on the housing ladder."

Mayor Joe Anderson has published a letter that he has sent to the Secretary of State, in which he says, "should I be returned as Mayor", "it is my intention to explore a bid by Liverpool to be the host city for the Commonwealth games in 2026"

The pre-election restrictions are governed by Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986,as amended in 1988.

Essentially councils should “not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.”

Publicity is defined as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

Government advice on 'purdah' states:

"It would be inappropriate for the post holder of Mayor to speak on controversial issues or those associated with a particular political party and care should be taken about using photos from such events if any members are standing for election."

"Do not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views on proposals in a way which identifies them with individual councillors or groups of councillors."

"Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published unless expressly authorised by statute"

http://www.local.gov.uk/purdah

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Stock photography by Huyton Freeman at Alamy

A tale of the Knowsley Greenbelt 2000 to 2016

Sixteen years ago Knowsley Council sold off 6 acres of the King George V playing fields in Huyton. Despite telling residents that they would not sell them, under any circumstances.

Sixteen years on, Knowsley's Labour Councillors vote to release 1000 acres of greenbelt, and the Council insist on banning residents who protest and oppose this madness.

It's time the one party state in Knowsley had some opposition in place. The Labour Councillors in place do NOT represent the views of Knowsley Residents.

Knowsley Labour Councillors SAY one thing, and DO another. No different from your current Conservative Government.

This video attempts to show this, and tell the story of how Knowsley Labour are destroying Knowsley's Green space.

Stock photography by Huyton Freeman at Alamy

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Do ALL Security guards need an SIA licence?

Or are some exempt?

Liverpool City Council Enforcement Officers acting as security guards at last night's Council meeting, seem to think they are exempt.



I thought that:

Anyone working in the security industry providing contract security services and in limited cases in-house security services would require a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence.

Difference between in-house and contract security

In-house refers to providing security services with company's own funds, staff and resources as opposed to services being out sourced or contracted out to another company.

Sectors requiring a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence:

Key holders - under contract
Security Guarding - under contract
Security Consultants - under contract
Door Supervisors - under contract and in-house
Vehicle Immobilising - under contract and in-house

SIA.HOMEOFFICE.GOV.UK


Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council Meeting - 23rd March 2016

Knowsley Counci meeting on 23rd March 2016 in Huyton.

A speech from Council Leader Andy Moorehead, and questions from three members of the Public.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

'Guilty' of a 'crime' for feeding the homeless

Today, Amanda and Kim were found guilty of "breaching a dispersal order under s35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014", after Kim had been giving food to the homeless outside the Old Bank, in Castle St, Liverpool and Amanda was seen by Police throwing a sandwich to people who she believed to be homeless, who were occupying the building in May 2015.

After a three day trial in Feb 2016, two others charged with Amanda and Kim, were acquitted. But Amanda and Kim's trial was adjourned until today, when they were both found guilty.

Judge Shaw sentenced Kim to 40 hours community work, £60 victim surcharge and £713 court costs, and Amanda recieved the same surcharge and costs, but was given a curfew (8am to 10pm) and ordered to wear a tag.

In authorising this power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

"An authorisation under s34 of the Act must -

(a) be in writing

(b) be signed by the officer giving it, and

(c) specify the grounds on which it is given.

Where an authorisation is in force under Sec 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation - according to Sec 35:

(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and

(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction.

Two conditions need to be met for a direction to be given:

The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to -

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder."

Neither Amanda or Kim had harassed, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality, nor had they committed any crimes or behaved disorderly. Therefore, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that they had 'contributed' to the two conditions, and the two conditions had not been met. I'd be of the view that their arrests were quite unlawful.

In my view, the only way that Amanda and Kim are guilty of this offence is, if giving food to the homeless, or anyone for that matter is 'anti-social behaviour, then they are guilty.

If giving food to others is not 'anti-social behaviour', as most sensible and compassionate people would surely agree, then they should both have been acquitted.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

98% of Merseyside Police Officers are not injured whilst on duty every year.

Government statistics say 574 Merseyside Police officers were assaulted on duty between 2010 and 2015, with 124 attacks recorded in the 2014/15 financial year.

Top cops say the figures highlight the dangers faced by Merseyside Police everyday, while the Police Federation has called for changes to the law to offer all public servants better protection.

But, hang on a minute. If there are approximately 6000 Merseyside Police Officers, and the figures are over five years.



Then this works out as 120 per year. 120 out of 6000 is only 2%. So, 2% of Officers are injured every year whilst on duty.

Or in other words 98% of Merseyside Police Officers are NOT injured whilst on duty every year.

So, in reality, statistics show, that Merseyside is relatively a safe place for Police Officers to work.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council's unacceptable, oppressive and intimidating behaviour.

It is 5.26pm. I am waiting, quite peacefully, in the Public foyer of the Council building in ‪Huyton‬ for the Council meeting that starts at 6pm.

These people are quite clearly dressed like Police Officers.

Together with ‪Knowsley‬ Council staff they surround and intimidate me, ordering me to leave the building as I am, they say, 'trespassing'.

They call the Police, yes, they call the Police because I refuse to wait outside in the cold for less than 30 minutes, and the Police turn up within 10 minutes to support them.

Where do I live again? Russia?, Korea? Iraq? Syria?

No, Knowsley 2016.

Unacceptable, oppresive and intimidating behaviour? yes I would say so.

How do I go about banning THEM?

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Love Activist supporter on trial said "“What law states I can’t feed the homeless people, please?”"

Amanda Doyle, aged 27 asked Police Officers “What law states I can’t feed the homeless people, please?

Amanda, was seen by Police throwing sandwiches up to occupiers standing on the balcony inside the former bank, the empty building that had been occupied by the "Love Activists", and told officers:

“I’d like to feed them, if that’s alright with you.”

PC Ian Hayhurst, who arrested Doyle, informed her to “be careful”, to which she replied, “why do I need to be careful?

“Am I going to be at risk if I give these guys food? You work for me, for us, for him, her, her, her, her...”

Moments later, Doyle was arrested after police alleged she breached a Section 35 notice for “contributing or being at risk of contributing to harassment, alarm or distress to members of the public”.

That prompted a large melee, the court was shown on video, with supporters shouting “Assault, assault, assault!” and then yelling “police brutality, get your hands off her!”

PC Hayhurst said he felt intimidated after detaining Doyle, of Woolfall Crescent, Huyton, as mobile phones were held up in his face.The officer said: “I felt very intimidated.

Richard Brigden, representing Doyle, suggested to Merseyside Police officers giving evidence that his client’s behaviour had been “polite and respectful”. He claimed police had not correctly followed legal procedures when ordering people to leave the area.

The anti-austerity sit-in started on April 18 and ended weeks later, on May 12 when police entered the premises.

The trial continues.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Lawyers accuse Merseyside Police of "unlawfully arresting" women supporting 'Love Activists'

Merseyside Police were today accused of unlawfully arresting a young woman in the same area as the ‘Love Activist’ protests in Liverpool City Centre last year.

Four women are on trial at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court after being arrested outside the old bank building in Castle Street, on April 30th 2015.

The women were in the area offering support to the activists, who were illegally occupying the building in protest against austerity and lack of support for the homeless.

Prosecutors say women on trial were staffing a soup stand, holding a placard and throwing bottles of water.

Ellie Louise Longman, 19, from Huyton, Ann Cawson, 58, from Walton, Kim Michelle Scott, 39, from Chester and Amanda Doyle, 27, from Huyton, have all pleaded not guilty to one charge of failing to comply with a section 35 direction excluding a person from an area.

The trial continues tomorrow and Thursday.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Merseyside Police Inspector says, "Anyone, can ban anyone, from anything"

Asking a Merseyside Police Inspector, under what law or power of exclusion, can Knowsley Council prevent members of the Public from attending Public meetings.

Bearing in mind, "The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012":

Regulation 4 (5) which states "Without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting, the decision-making body is not to have the power to exclude members of the public from a meeting while it is open to the public."

Inspector Rankine says, ""Anyone can ban anyone from doing anything"

Before you all start 'banning' things, what the Inspector says is not true.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council issue statement on 'banning members of the public'.

Knowsley Council has issued a statement: "Council confirms stance on conduct at public meetings", in regard to the letters they have sent to a number of Knowsley residents, informing them that they are banned from Council meetings for six months.

The statement begins:

"Following disruption at two recent Council meetings, Knowsley Council has confirmed it is taking action to ban a small number of individuals from future public meetings.

After taking statements from attendees and reviewing CCTV and video footage, the Council is excluding six individuals.

Note: I was an attendee at this meeting. I have not made a statement. Nor have I been asked to make a statement by Knowsley Council. Out of all of the residents who also attended this meeting, none of them have been asked to make a statement.

"The evidence showed that the behaviour of these people was disruptive, abusive and/or aggressive and therefore in breach of the standards of behaviour expected at Council meetings. All have been excluded with immediate effect from Council meetings for a period of 6 months, at which time the situation will be reviewed."

Note: I saw residents who were understandably angry and frustrated at the way the Council have dealt with the whole local plan issue. I did not see any residents who were abusive or aggressive. The 'standards of behaviour' that I expect from a Council and their employees was not met in my view, and was more of a criminal standard. The video evidence also shows that a number of Knowsley residents attending the meeting were assaulted by Council security and told they were not allowed to film, as they entered the building before the meeting started. VIDEO LINK

"Councillor Andy Moorhead, the Leader of Knowsley Council, commented:
We welcome reasoned debate and discussion and we know that there will be occasions when our decisions or proposals may meet with opposition from some residents. That is what democracy is all about. But what democracy is not about is allowing people to behave in a way that is simply aimed at disrupting meetings and stopping legitimate Council business from taking place.

Note: Democracy, is "a system of government in which all of the people are involved in making decisions about its affairs". I have not yet, met anyone (apart from Knowsley Councillors and Council Officers) who would agree that this issue has been the subject of "reasoned debate and discussion", or that all of the people were involved in making this decision, far from it. The Council have held token Public consultations and hearings, where members of the Public have given many many compelling reasons why this plan is flawed. The Council and Government Inspector pretend to listen and then go ahead with their plan regardless, and against the wishes of the majority of Knowsley residents. THIS IS NOT democracy. Far from it. Many Councillors have used the mantra that they, "had no choice". But if this is true, then it just confirms the view that the local plan was done and dusted long before the consultations, hearings and voting took place.

"Furthermore, behaviour which is aggressive, intimidating and at times directly threatening and abusive to Council staff, Councillors and other members of the public will simply not be tolerated."

Note: Why was the aggressive, intimidating and directly threatening behaviour of Council security guards tolerated then? A number of Council staff, Leader Andy Moorehead included, as well as two Police Officers, were informed of this behaviour and of the assaults on members of the Public, but this was ignored. I class this as abuse.

"After the Council meeting shortly before Christmas had to be adjourned because of disruption, we decided to reconvene it in order to give people another chance to come along and take part in a constructive and reasoned manner."

Note: This is completely untrue. One member of the Public tried to ask a question that he had not submitted in writing before the meeting, so the Council adjourned the meeting. There was NO disruption. VIDEO LINK

It is also untrue to say that, "we decided to reconvene it in order to give people another chance to come along and take part in a constructive and reasoned manner". The Council promised that questions could be asked at the reconvened meeting, but they reneged on this promise. So people were NOT given a chance to 'take part' in any way, shape or form.

"Unfortunately, a small number of people took this as an opportunity to continue the same behaviour which they demonstrated in December. In fact, it was even worse this time. We are now left with little choice but to take action not only to ensure that future meetings can proceed without disruption but also so that staff, Councillors and indeed other members of the public can attend without fear for their own personal safety and wellbeing."

Note: Very much a libelous comment. As stated, and as the video shows, there was no disruption at the meeting on Dec 16th. So, the people who have been accused of this have a case to sue Council Leader for his comments here. It actually beggars belief the arrogance of this man. I was assaulted by a security guard, I told Andy Moorehead this, and he shrugged his shoulders, and he has the bare faced cheek to talk about people 'fearing for their own personal safety". I was genuinely concerned for my personal safety long before the meeting had started, by the behaviour of staff employed by the Council he is a leader of and this man did not care one bit. It's easy to see how his comments now are disingenuous.

"Whilst this is a regrettable situation, people have a right to attend our meetings without fear for their safety, so we simply have no other option than to proceed with these exclusion notices for small number of individuals. We are also undertaking a full review of our processes and procedures to ensure that future Council meetings can be conducted in a professional and courteous way.”

Note: What is Andy going to do to ensure my safety at future meetings from Knowsley Council security? Is he going to apologise for what happened? Is he going to take similar action on the security guards involved?

Knowsley Council have no powers or jurisdiction to exclude members of the Public from Council meetings, apart from regulation 4 of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations. Only the Police can arrest an individual for 'disrupting' a Council meeting, and only then, at the time and on seeing the disruptive behaviour for him or herself.

The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 PART 2

Admission of public to meetings of local authority executives and their committees states that:

Meetings of local authority executives and their committees to be held in public

3. Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of a decision-making body must be held in public.
Admission of the public to meetings of local authority executives and their committees

4.—(1) A meeting of a decision-making body must be open to the public except to the extent that the public are excluded under paragraph (2).

(2) The public must be excluded from a meeting during an item of business whenever—

(a) it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item, confidential information would be disclosed to them in breach of the obligation of confidence;

(b) the decision-making body concerned passes a resolution to exclude the public during that item where it is likely, in view of the nature of the item of business, that if members of the public were present during that item, exempt information would be disclosed to them;
or
(c) a lawful power is used to exclude a member or members of the public in order to maintain orderly conduct or prevent misbehaviour at a meeting.

(3) A resolution under paragraph (2)(b) must–—
(a) identify the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings to which it applies, and
(b) state, by reference to the descriptions in Schedule 12A to the 1972 Act (access to information: exempt information), the description of exempt information giving rise to the exclusion of the public.

(4) The public may only be excluded under sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (2) for the part or parts of the meeting during which it is likely that confidential information or exempt information would be disclosed.

(5) Without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting, the decision-making body is not to have the power to exclude members of the public from a meeting while it is open to the public.

(6) While the meeting is open to the public, any person attending the meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings is, so far as practicable, to be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report.

To conclude, the only legal reasons under which Knowsley Council can exclude members of the Public is if:

(a) it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item, confidential information would be disclosed to them in breach of the obligation of confidence;
or
(b) the decision-making body concerned passes a resolution to exclude the public during that item where it is likely, in view of the nature of the item of business, that if members of the public were present during that item, exempt information would be disclosed to them;
or
(c) a "lawful power" is used to exclude a member or members of the public in order to maintain orderly conduct or prevent misbehaviour at a meeting.


Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council BAN members of the Public from Council meetings

Knowsley Council have written letters to two members of the Public who attended the Council meeting on 6th Jan 2016, BANNING them from all future Council meetings for six months, unless they sign a commitment to not disrupt in future.

Peter Forrest, one of the six banned individuals, rejected all of the claims.

The letter alleged his behaviour was likely to have ‘harassed, alarmed or distressed’ councillors or staff, and that he failed to stop when asked.


The Council accused him of obstructing the Mayoress on her way out. Peter said: “I’ve done nothing wrong. The threatening letter is a weak attempt to stop people finding out what the council are doing. There’s no transparency. We can’t have a council who people can't ask questions of".

It is believed that the Council intend to ban a total of six Knowsley residents from Council meetings, but as of yet only three people have received letters from the Council.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council (reconvened) Meeting 6th Jan 2016

A controversial and boisterous meeting as Knowsley Councillors vote to release 1000 acres of Knowsley greenbelt for housing developments.

Thirty members of the Public were not allowed in to the meeting by the Council, one resident was barred without good reason he says, and accusations of assault by security guards were also made by members of the Public.

This meeting was reconvened after the adjournment of the meeting on the 16th Dec 2015 - Knowsley Council Meeting 16th Dec 2015

Knowsley Council 'deferred' most of the items on the agenda from the adjourned meeting until the next Council meeting, and used the reconvened meeting just to approve the local plan.

In 2010 the Council consulted on the Knowsley Core Strategy “Issues and Options” Report 26.

The report sought the views of stakeholders on a number of issues, including how the Borough should meet its future development needs.

Three Strategic Spatial Options were presented, which were:

Option A “Urban Concentration” – this option would focus investment in development and infrastructure in Knowsley‟s existing urban areas. There would be no urban expansion into Green Belt land and neighbouring authorities would have to meet residual development needs.

Option B “Focused Urban Regeneration” – this option would also focus development in the existing urban area, with a focus on deprived areas and regeneration opportunities. Residual development needs would also need to be met in neighbouring authority areas under this option

Option C “Sustainable Urban Extensions” – this option would initially focus development in the existing urban areas, with changes to Green Belt boundaries

Knowsley Council voted for option C.

LINK to document

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Council Security guards try to stop members of the public from filming before Council meeting.

Whilst waiting to go into a tonight's meeting of Knowsley Council, we were told by security guards that we were not allowed to film, and a grab was made for our cameras. This is what happened next:



Follow @HuytonFreeman

‎Knowsley‬ Council's meeting in ‪‎Huyton‬ to approve the 'Local Plan' and the release of Knowsley's greenbelt, was cancelled and the vote postponed after Police were called, when members of the Public tried to ask questions that had not been put in writing beforehand.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council VOTE on mass removal of Knowsley greenbelt

Knowsley Councillors meet on Wed 16th Dec 2015 at the Council buildings to vote on the local plan, a plan that wants to remove vast areas of Knowsley from the greenbelt, in order to build houses and business parks.

Please attend this meeting to show your disapproval.

Follow @HuytonFreeman