LIAR, LIAR - BRADLEY'S ON FIRE!!!!

THE story so far....

Council leader Warren 'I'm only a fireman' Bradley has LIED twice about his clandestine meeting with scapegoated Lee Forde.

The fibbing Fireman lied ONCE when he first told the Daily Post that he had not met Mr Forde, just two days after smearing his reputation and good character with the publication of the now discredited Mathew St report.

The fibbing Fireman was then forced to admit that the secret meeting had actually taken place after all, when he was confronted with a huge amount of detail about the meeting - even down to the colour of Bradley's three piece suite, the type of beer supplied (Peroni, eds) and the parakeet in the front room of his home in Wavertree ('whose a silly boy then Warren? eds)

The fibbing Fireman lied a SECOND time when, in a foolish attempt to hide his plotting, he told the Daily Post that Mr Forde had first texted him to arrange a meeting.

This was of course utter bollocks - and Mr Forde has the evidence to prove it.

The fibbing Fireman emailed Mr Forde at 13.49 on November 17th desperately asking for a meeting to discuss 'next steps'. (Bradley has so far failed to deny emailing Mr Forde, eds. )

An examination of Mr Forde's mobile phone bill reveals that Mr Forde first texted the Fireman an hour after those emails were sent.

So it was the fibbing Fireman who initiated the secret meeting with his flurry of emails - not Mr Forde.

No doubt Mr Forde will he happy to supply his mobile phone records to the Standards Board to assist them in their enquiries into the fibbing Fireman's activities.

The only question that remains is this...

Has the Fireman fibbed a THIRD time?

Bradley claimed that he had notified chief executive Colin CoverUp of his secret meeting with Mr Forde 'in the first couple of days after'.

(So CoverUp was part of the same conspiracy then, was he? And what action, if any, did CoverUp take about the Leader of the Council secretly meeting a former employee, Mr Forde, who is currently suing the council for constructive dismissal? This is all highly irregular...)

It remains to be seen now what light CoverUp can shed on the Fireman's claim - and whether CoverUp is now prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

Why does any of this matter? (We were wondering that, eds)

Because it shows that Liverpool is being led by a politician who will happily lie to the media - and therefore to the people of Liverpool - in a desperate attempt to save his own skin.

And that he will also attempt to again trash the repuation of an innocent man in the process.

We are not sure what CoverUp is going to say, if anything.

We are not sure either how the meeja feels about a politician who lies to them.

But we are absolutely certain what the people of Liverpool's verdict will be if it is shown that Bradley has lied THREE TIMES.

Students of American politics (that's us, eds) who have examined the Watergate affair, will tell you that it was the attempted cover-up and not the crime that finally did for Richard Milhouse Nixon.

And so it may yet prove in 'Wavertree-gate'.