Good afternoon Phil
I have begun to pick myself up after the outcome of the Referendum, an outcome neither of us desired.
However the result is what it is and I’ve no idea when the Government will set Article 50 in motion.
In the meantime I would welcome any briefing papers you can supply on the on the European funding stream that exist currently
I expect there will be streams we have expected and planned / hoped for and still are working to gain for Wirral and the region.
I say working to gain as I feel we have to start work on this!
With Cabinet coming up on Monday morning I expect you will want to address this, possibly under any other business / urgency.
Thinking on these lines would suggest that a statement to Cabinet, a referral or Motion to Council might run along these lines…
. Council/Cabinet recognises that funding is currently available for a range of projects, training and investments to support our local and regional economy.
Council is, as with many other bodies, is uncertain on how the funding streams might be replaced, and when but believe arrangements must be made to
secure equivalent replacement funding.
Council therefore calls on the present Government to clarify the situation, offer certainty to our region, and continue the programmes as
envisaged. Council asks for assurances that the UK Government and any successor will match pound for pound any funding stream that are now at risk as a result of the Referendum.
Ideally each group on the Council would accept a formula to present a united approach from Wirral and the region. I would be happy to develop the wording in consultation.
. At various times in the recent campaign various ‘Leave’ people suggested that money would be ‘freed’ for the NHS, Agriculture, etc.
I cannot recall seeing whether ‘regional’ aid got the same treatment!
I will be home on 334 1923 on Sunday evening if you would like to have a word.
What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?
There is a form of direct accountability during the audit of local councils when for a short period each year local government electors can inspect information about that financial year such as invoices and contracts.
Here is a legal reference to that right (Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15) which has been a direct form of democratic accountability that in one form or another has been around since Victorian times.
It’s tied in to rights of local government electors to ask questions of the external auditor (which for Wirral Council is Grant Thornton), to make objections to the accounts, to request public interest reports. After all how can you do all that without seeing the information in the first place?
It’s a form of direct democratic accountability.
Unlike making a freedom of information request (time limit of 18.5 hours) there is strictly very little legal limits on what can be requested (well apart from on the insular peninsula at Wirral Council where they have a habit of deliberately shifting the goalposts and coming up with bizarre interpretations of legislation to suit themselves). Last year I made requests under this audit legislation to Wirral Council, Liverpool City Council, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, Merseytravel and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.
The Liverpool City Council request was connected to an earlier FOI request and there’s been a recent decision notice issued in that matter on the 1st February 2016 which hasn’t been published yet by ICO.
Ironically ICO seemed to have met a stumbling block with Liverpool City Council on that one as they asked me for the information that I’d been refused under FOI (happy to oblige). This implies Liverpool City Council weren’t being entirely cooperative with ICO.
I’ve been sent a paper copy of the decision notice through the post, but it’s not published on ICO’s website yet. The reference is FS50591795. It’s a mercifully short eight pages and requires both Liverpool City Council to issue a fresh response with 35 days of 1st February 2016 (or appeal to the Tribunal) and states that Liverpool City Council breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If anybody wants me to I can scan a copy in and publish it here.
Basically LCC’s arguments are that I’m being unfair to barristers by requesting invoices they’ve submitted to LCC. Because as we all know, the purpose of a self proclaimed "socialist" Council like Liverpool City Council is to stick up for downtrodden, oppressed groups on the margins of society like barristers!
Cllr Paul Brant (left) speaking at a recent public meeting of Liverpool City Council (11th November 2015)
Let’s take the example of one barrister (pictured above on the left), a barrister I might point out who is not the subject of the invoices I requested, but who is in addition to being a barrister, a Labour Liverpool City Council councillor called Cllr Paul Brant. He resigned as a councillor in 2013 (although has since been re-elected) after receiving a police caution for possession of a class A drug. He was also the subject of a The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service disciplinary tribunal.
Below are the details.
Defendant Paul Brant (Lincoln’s Inn)
Type of hearing 3 Person Disciplinary Tribunal
Panel members Mr William Rhodri Davies QC (Chair)
Ms Pamela Mansell
Mr Mark West
Paul Brant engaged in conduct which was discreditable to a barrister contrary to paragraph 301(a)(i) of the Code of Conduct in that on a day between the 1st January 2013 and the 21st September 2013 he committed the criminal offence of being in possession of a controlled drug of class A contrary to The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for which offence on the 20th September 2013 he receive a simple caution."
It would be a conflict of interest for Cllr Paul Brant to do work for Liverpool City Council but according to his Chamber’s website he has been instructed to represent Wirral Council in the past (yes Wirral Leaks I can get trees into a story too!):
“Jayne Spencer v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (2008); LTL 1/10/2008 (Highway liability claim, tree root in Port Sunlight conservation area causing personal injury – whether breach of duty. Mr Brant appeared successfully at first instance and on appeal).”
This is an aside but I do remember one year during the audit, Wirral Council weren’t happy with me requesting the invoices for their legal invoices for these sorts of liability claims. “
However there should be some transparency as to who Liverpool City Council are paying! All Liverpool City Council councillors are responsible for budget matters including Cllr Paul Brant.
To give the example of Paul Brant above, it shows he works at Oriel Chambers and was subject to a disciplinary tribunal in September 2014 (the outcome of which is detailed above).
One of my other arguments to the regulator was that Liverpool City Council is under a legal obligation to publish the names of its suppliers for invoices over £500. In fact the guidance they’re required by law to follow specifically states that being self-employed (which is their argument surrounding barristers) doesn’t mean they can keep the suppliers’ name out of the public domain (but Liverpool City Council do).
However the above legislation (surrounding rights of inspection, objection etc) during the audit was scrapped by the government. You can’t use it any more to do this after the 2014/15 financial year.
Instead for 2015/16 financial year onwards it’s been completely watered down.
Previously (apart from information about its own staff) local councils during the audit had to get permission from their external auditor if they wanted to withhold from inspection in the category of "personal information" (which was very narrowly defined). This was a safeguard to prevent public bodies abusing their powers.
Bear in mind however that each time the public body contacts their external auditor it increases what they’re charged.
However this check and balance on misuses of power in local government was repealed (scrapped) by the last Coalition government (Conservative/Lib Dem).
Oh but there’s more!
There’s a rather infamous recent case (well infamous in those familiar with "citizen audit") where a local government elector called Shlomo Dowen requested (during this period each year during the audit) a waste management contract between Nottinghamshire County Council and Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd.
The case reference is [2009] EWHC 2382 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 797, [2010] Env LR 12. Anyway interestingly at that stage a High Court Judge said Mr. Shlomo Dowen should be allowed to inspect and receive a copy of the contract (despite Veolia bringing a judicial review about it).
However Veolia weren’t happy at all by this (in fact if you read through the judgements in both cases you’ll find that even if Mr. Dowen was given the contract they wanted restrictions on him sharing it with other people) and brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2012] PTSR 185, [2010] UKHRR 1317, [2011] Eu LR 172). Veolia claimed that allowing Mr. Dowen to inspect/receive a copy of the contract would infringe that companies’ human rights.
I quote from part of that judgement, “I am not entirely convinced that English common law has always regarded the preservation of confidential information as a fundamental human right”.
Rix LJ, Etherton LJ, Jackson LJ upheld the appeal however.
The irony of all that was that Shlomo Dowen already had access to the information as Veolia’s lawyers did not seek a stay following the earlier judgment.
Interestingly withholding information on grounds of commercial confidentiality, this is a quote from the legislation,
“(5) Information is protected on the grounds of commercial confidentiality if—
(a) its disclosure would prejudice commercial confidentiality, and
(b) there is no overriding public interest in favour of its disclosure.”
is subject to a public interest test.
However there are other changes on the horizon too. Previously the inspection period was 15 days (3 weeks assuming there are no holidays).
When that inspection period was published in a public notice in at least one newspaper in the area and on the public body’s website.
I only have until the end of the 2015/16 local government financial year to get up to speed on these changes as being the Editor here I’ll have to schedule time for responding to the public notices, arranging appointments to inspect, as well as spare capacity for dealing with the moaning of the public sector (example moan last year being, it’s been 7/8 years since someone did this!).
As Wirral Council was somewhat uncooperative last year over the size of my request (only responding to the 10% of it they didn’t deem to be particularly sensitive), I will be having internal discussions here on avenues that can be explored to either embarrass Wirral Council into legal compliance (by censure (not to say that always works) or take more formal action.
Weirdly some of the politician’s expenses that they refused me under the audit legislation and Cllr Adrian Jones refused to make an appointment for me to see, they released in response to a later FOI request.
Which just goes to show that if you ask for the same information three times from Wirral Council (audit rights, a politician, then FOI), you might finally get it! Obviously by the third time, it starts to get embarrassing and seems like they have something to hide. I really don’t like having to ask three times when once should be enough though!
Anyway what was going to be only a short article about local government, barristers, ICO, FOI and audit is now rather on the long side so I’ll draw this to a close and give you an opportunity to comment.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Is the whole price/prize point about Merseyside’s Mayor actually a load of rubbish?
Is the whole price/prize point about Merseyside’s Mayor actually a load of rubbish?
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015 Part 1 of 2
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015 Part 2 of 2
Ged Fitzgerald (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council) tries to explain devolution to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Scrutiny Panel 28th October 2015
You can view what was said at a public meeting earlier this week on the subject of devolution for Merseyside above. It’s openly admitted however that the communications/engagement/public relations side of this has been pretty poor.
I will disagree with something that’s been said throughout this process since it doesn’t make sense (although from press reports Cllr Phil Davies has done a U-turn in favour of a Merseyside Mayor).
It’s been stated (in the video above by Ged Fitzgerald, Liverpool City Council Chief Executive and Mayor Joe Anderson before) and again and again that the price of devolution is a Merseyside Mayor. This whole process based on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill which is wending its way through parliament.
I realise legislation does get amended, but as it’s on its 8th parliamentary stage out of ten it’s going to be eventually (especially as it’s a government bill) mainly in the form it’s now in.
It modifies the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to state:
“107A 15 Power to provide for election of mayor
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for there to be a mayor for the area of a combined authority.
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall not be used as a condition for agreeing to the transfer of local authority or public authority functions.”
In other words what is repeatedly repeated (and perhaps why they’re so bad at communications) doesn’t make sense. The government can’t say we’ll give you this if you have an elected Mayor and the price/prize thing is a load of rubbish. The government can’t do that as the legislation that will underpin this (which has to come into force to trigger the next stage which would result in devolution) makes that unlawful.
With me so far?
The government knows this is going on and I’m sure that it doesn’t make them look favourably on Liverpool when these sorts of political shenanigans to make them look bad, are being played out amongst Merseyside’s more ambitious Labour politicians.
So why would this have got started?
My best educated guess (as trying to make sense about what’s going on with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority with its poor public relations is like wading through treacle) is a certain Labour politician wants (again) to blame something unpopular in some quarters on a Tory government (even if it isn’t entirely true).
Add to this the ambition in some quarters to actually be Merseyside’s Mayor (because once it’s a done deal all they’ll need is the Labour nomination) gives a motive.
So that’s my opinion. The whole price/prize thing is a politician’s way of deflecting the blame knowing that generally the media won’t inquire too deeply and I think readers of this blog can make a jolly good guess as to who wants to be Merseyside’s Mayor.
Once again Labour are blaming something they want (a Merseyside Mayor) on the government, stating an untruth (that it’s a condition of the devolution deal which it’s not because the legislation would make that unlawful) and hoping everyone will believe it?
Well who do you believe? I’ve outlined above the consistent line that they’re trying to spoon feed the Merseyside public and the press whilst deflecting any attempt at scrutiny by politicians by openly refusing to state how the negotiations are going?
There will be an extraordinary public meeting of all Wirral Council councillors (as well as public meetings of councillors in the other areas of Merseyside and Halton) to discuss the devolution deal. Wirral’s will be held on the 19th November starting at 6.00pm in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall.
Isn’t it about time the public were told the truth?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?
Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)
This article in the Guardian about the consultation on the proposals has the opening two sentences which sum things up, "What do you do if you’re part of a government that believes in decimating the fire and rescue service as a means to making "efficiency savings", only to find yourself regularly thwarted by elected councillors who sit on the local fire and rescue authority? Answer: abolish the fire and rescue authority."
It 2012 the Merseyside Police Authority (made up half of local councillors and half of independents) was scrapped and replaced with a Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner. It would seem the Conservative government wants to do something similar to what the Coalition government did to the police authorities in 2012, but this time to the fire and rescue authorities in England.
What happened to the police authorities and their replacement with police and crime commissioners plus police and crime panels was part of the Coalition agreement:
"We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives."
The Conservative 2015 manifesto stated "We will enable fire and police services to work more closely together and develop the role of our elected and accountable Police and Crime Commissioners." but didn’t go as far as stating the fire and rescue authorities would be abolished and their functions transferred to the police and crime commissioners.
A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation
A Martian tries to understand the incredible Lyndale School situation
Marvin the Martian from Disney’s Looney Tunes
The below is a fictional interview with Marvin the Martian about Lyndale School. Marvin the Martian is trademarked to Warner Brothers Entertainment. Our legal team point out their trademark doesn’t actually cover its use on blogs but in case they try to argue this blog is an “entertainment service”, it isn’t, so no laughing! Yes I mean it, not even a smile! We also point out it’s not an infringing use of class 9 of this trademark as that refers to its use on goods rather than virtually.
JOHN BRACE: Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed about Lyndale School.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: You’re welcome. We have watched your news broadcasts about this school and are frankly confused. Back on Mars we would be asking our politicians to resign if they behaved as yours do. Why do your politicians think they can get away with being like this?
JOHN BRACE: Well they don’t operate under Martian law for a start. British law gives them wide latitude to do what they like within reason.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Well our politicians always tell us they’re on the side of the people, how come yours aren’t?
JOHN BRACE: Well that’s difficult to say. The yellow, blue and green politicians have said they are. The red ones are being careful not to express an opinion.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: “Not to express an opinion”! If we had politicians like that it would spark a revolution!
JOHN BRACE: We’re too polite for revolutions here, the most the British tend to do if they’re cross is write a grumpy letter.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Does that work?
JOHN BRACE: Sometimes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So getting back to Lyndale, can you explain it simply in terms we can understand?
JOHN BRACE: If someone could they would have. Money is taken off the people in the form of taxes. These taxes are then used for services such as education and schools such as Lyndale.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Yes, we have schools for our young Martians too.
JOHN BRACE: The politicians decide how the money is spent and what on. They’ve decided to spend it on Lyndale this year, but have yet to make their minds up about next year.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what’s changed?
JOHN BRACE: Well, there’s been a consultation about closing the school. This is because of lack of money, but everyone’s also been told it won’t save any money and could in fact cost more.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: That sounds very confusing.
JOHN BRACE: It is. The other reason given is that the school is small.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s the problem with small schools then?
JOHN BRACE: Seems the bureaucrats don’t like them. More schools means more problems for them.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So this is being done to suit the bureaucrats?
JOHN BRACE: Well no, the politicians decided on this.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why?
JOHN BRACE: Because the bureaucrats told them too.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: These bureaucrats sound like they have more power than the politicians.
JOHN BRACE: Well we’ll leave that discussion for another day. The bureaucrats blame it on the government.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s “the government”?
JOHN BRACE: Another set of politicians.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So let’s recap, one set of politicians “the government” is used as a reason by the bureaucrats to persuade another set of politicians to close the school?
JOHN BRACE: Almost right, but “the government” deny that they want to close the school.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I’m confused again.
JOHN BRACE: So am I.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wouldn’t it be easier if we just invaded Wallasey Town Hall and promised not to close the school?
JOHN BRACE: Maybe it would, but sadly as you’re a fictional character it won’t happen.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: A shame, I was looking forward to invading your planet. So going back to Lyndale, apart from confusing arguments about money and its small size is there any other unstated reason why they want to shut it?
JOHN BRACE: Well the person in charge of special educational needs left and a new guy came in. Some people don’t like him.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why don’t they like him?
JOHN BRACE: For a wide variety of reasons I won’t go into because it’ll probably lead to another libel threat.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What’s that?
JOHN BRACE: Where Wirral Council threaten to sue you for telling the public the truth.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Can they do that?
JOHN BRACE: No they can’t, our laws don’t allow it but sometimes they get a little cheesed off with me.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would they have issues with someone telling the truth about them?
JOHN BRACE: Because they have been known in the past not to tell the truth, if the public hears two mutually contradictory versions of the same thing they tend to assume Wirral Council is lying.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why would they lie?
JOHN BRACE: The less the public know about what goes on, the easier it is for them to do things. If the public do find out they can get quite grumpy and ask the politicians to do something about it.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, so the public have been asking the politicians to do something about Lyndale?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So if the red politicians are so gung-ho about closure that must mean lots of people have asked them to close it?
JOHN BRACE: No, quite the opposite the majority of people have told the red politicians not to close it.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I’m confused again, I thought the politicians were supposed to be on the side of the people.
JOHN BRACE: Well you’d hope so, but not always. Generally the public don’t get a say in political decision-making, it all gets carved up by the establishment.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And who or what are the “establishment”?
JOHN BRACE: People with the connections to make sure the decision-making always goes their way.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Wow, they sound very powerful.!
JOHN BRACE: They are.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why don’t the “establishment” just listen to the people?
JOHN BRACE: Well in public they say they do, in private things are a little more complex. Sometimes different sections of the public ask for two completely different things.
MARVIN THE MARTIN: So they have to use their own judgement on matters?
JOHN BRACE: Yes, but getting back to Lyndale.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh yes Lyndale. You have red, green, blue and yellow politicians who individually don’t seem to understand the “big picture”.
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: And who all say they’re on the side of the public?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The green, blue and yellow politicians all say they’ll do their best with Lyndale knowing it’s only the red politicians that will decide?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: The red politicians are doing this because the bureaucrats told them that they’d have to because of a different set of blue and yellow (but not green) politicians?
JOHN BRACE: Sort of.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But it’s not about money.
JOHN BRACE: Different answers have been given to that one.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what is it really about?
JOHN BRACE: Well the school is for disabled children, some of whom thankfully have a sense of humour and laugh at all this.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Good for them, but it’s no “laughing matter”?
JOHN BRACE: You got it it’s a very serious matter.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So why don’t they just let the children decide?
JOHN BRACE: It’s a novel suggestion, but the red politicians wouldn’t allow it no.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Is there another reason why the red politicians could be doing it this way?
JOHN BRACE: Well another red politician called Alison is in a battle with the blues to carry on as a politician.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So is she on the side of the reds or the people?
JOHN BRACE: She would say both. However it would be breaking the rules to use such issues for party political gain.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But that could explain why the red politicians are keeping quiet?
JOHN BRACE: The red politicians just do what they’re told.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: By who?
JOHN BRACE: The red leader and the Cabinet Member.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why?
JOHN BRACE: Because if they didn’t, they’d be causing trouble and nobody wants to be seen to rock the boat.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So they have to vote for something they may not personally agree with?
JOHN BRACE: Yes.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Sounds strange, I thought they were supposed to represent the people.
JOHN BRACE: At election time yes, but they also represent their party too.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So what will happen about Lyndale?
JOHN BRACE: A solution will have to be found that means the red politicians save face.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: What does that mean?
JOHN BRACE: Well they will need to both blame what’s happened on someone (something they’ve had a lot of practice doing) and come out of it smelling like roses.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But the public think something stinks?
JOHN BRACE: Yes they do, but as I said before the public aren’t the establishment.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: I see, so it’s terribly complicated isn’t it? The blue, green and yellow politicians can say what they like because they don’t make the decisions. The red politicians do make the decision but won’t talk. The bureaucrats have told the red politicians it’s all the blue and yellow politicians’ (but not green politicians’) fault. The shadowy “establishment” always gets its own way and basically the wishes of the children, staff, public are pushed to one side and politely ignored?
JOHN BRACE: In a nutshell, but it’s a little more complicated than that. There’s also a group called the media or press that is powerful too.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, you haven’t mentioned them yet!
JOHN BRACE: Well I’m part of them so I have. The broadcast (TV), print (newspaper), online (blogs) have all decided to side with the school.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why’s that?
JOHN BRACE: Well the media don’t have to give reasons, but they think the politicians are being unfair by picking on people that can’t stick up for themselves.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: But they are!
JOHN BRACE: That’s a matter of opinion.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Only a coward would pick on someone that couldn’t fight back.
JOHN BRACE: Indeed. However the media are powerful because they influence how people think.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh, including the politicians, the establishment, the bureaucrats and the people.
JOHN BRACE: Yes, however there are wider international considerations too. Nobody wants another war.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Why would picking on disabled kids and closing a school start a war?
JOHN BRACE: On its own no, but pandering to society’s prejudices towards the disabled, coupled with the purple party talking about immigration and other factors could.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Ahh there’s a purple party too!
JOHN BRACE: Yes but they really don’t feature in this tale. They have politicians at the European level but not national or local.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Good as we’re starting to run out of colours.
JOHN BRACE: As I was saying, the fragmentation of society by playing off people against each other and scapegoating minorities leads eventually to war.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: Oh dear. Has that happened before?
JOHN BRACE: Yes. Many times which is why measures were put in place to prevent things getting to that stage.
MARVIN THE MARTIAN: So will these “measures” prevent Lyndale being closed?
JOHN BRACE: Who knows? We’ll just have to wait and see.
