Warren Bradley has been shown in a variety of ways, that he lied about a secret meeting at his home with Lee Forde.This it is claimed by lee, was an attempt to get him on side to get rid of Jason Harrowboy.
Bradley has well and truley been caught out and has dug a hole of deciet and lies, he has given so many versions of the event that it is hard to establish if he really knows what the truth is?
Below is the Daily Post's comment in responce to Bradley going public in council chambers, where he claimed the Daily Post were the one's telling lies!
The Daily Post to many Liverpool readers is one of the only local newspapers that actually are not in the pockets of Liberal Democrats, they report the news as they find it.
Bradley has, in going public about his complaint, brought out a powerful enemy.
Political bloggers such as myself and Tony Parrish, will have a field day on this one and now have a new ally to assist in getting the truth out to the people of Liverpool.
RIP BRADLEY AND GOOD RDDANCE
Comment: We stand by our version of events
Dec 13 2007 Liverpool Daily Post
Generic Liverpool daily Post logo _320x160
LIVERPOOL council leader Warren Bradley last night chose to make public a very private issue he has raised with the Liverpool Daily Post.
He chose the forum of the council chamber to reveal that he has complained to this newspaper about our coverage of the secret meeting that he held at his home with the city’s former events chief, Lee Forde.
We accept that his words came in response to a written question from the Labour opposition, but he could have dealt with the issue without his overt and unfair criticism of our journalism.
Cllr Bradley has written two private and confidential letters to the Liverpool Daily Post, insisting that he had never denied to our reporter that this meeting took place. He demanded that we publish a retraction, and suggested that he would pursue a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission unless we did so.
He also said that he would no longer take telephone calls from our journalists, and would only provide written quotes at his convenience in the future.
Last night, Cllr Bradley saw fit to take this issue into the public arena, and we are only too happy to respond in kind.
For the record, our reporter spoke to Cllr Bradley at 6pm on the evening of November 29 this year. We have a verbatim shorthand note of that conversation, which would be admissible in any court in the land.
Cllr Bradley was asked by our reporter about his meeting with Mr Forde, and replied: "Which meeting?"
Our reporter then told him that he was referring to a meeting at Cllr Bradley’s home on November 18. Cllr Bradley’s unambiguous response was: "I never had a meeting with him."
We have pointed this out in a private letter to Cllr Bradley in response to his two letters to us.
Cllr Bradley’s recollection of his conversation with our reporter is quite clearly different, but, unlike us, he does not have a verbatim record to rely upon.
Cllr Bradley is under huge political pressure at the moment, and perhaps it is understandable if his recollection of every detail is not all it might be. Followers of the Mathew Street controversy will recall that Cllr Bradley claimed to have told city chief executive Colin Hilton about the meeting with Lee Forde "in the first couple of days after the meeting". Mr Hilton has made it abundantly clear in a letter to council Labour group leader Joe Anderson that he has no recollection of any such conversation.
In the circumstances, however, it is regrettable in the extreme that Cllr Bradley has sought to publicly challenge the Daily Post, in such a high-profile way, on what was a perfectly fair and accurate report of his two interviews with us.
We will not be issuing any retraction of the articles we have published, and nor will we be deterred from continuing to report on this issue of considerable public interest in the future.