LABOUR PARTY ‘IN – FIGHTING’ : PITTING ORMSKIRK AGAINST SOUTHPORT, AGAIN!

THE SOUTHPORT AND ORMSKIRK HOSPITAL SERVICES MOVES HAVE CREATED A 'CIVIL WAR RIFT' WITHIN THE LABOUR PARTY.

The current Labour conflict arises because the new 2026 decision to bring services back to Southport reverses this 23-year-old arrangement.

Moving children's A&E, etc, back to Southport is supported by the current Southport Labour MP Patrick Hurley, but strongly opposed by West Lancashire's Labour MP Ashley Dalton

Patrick Hurley (MP for Southport) has welcomed the decision, calling it the "end of a hard-fought campaign" to restore emergency care to the children of Southport.

He forgets however to mention that Southport lost its services under his Labour government in 2003. At the time, other Labour MPs went out of their way to tell angry sandgrounders what a sensible decision it was and all done for their own good.

Ashley Dalton (Labour MP for West Lancashire) is reportedly “incredibly disappointed" and has publicly vowed to challenge the decision. This is quite understandable but she now knows exactly how her Labour government left sandgrounders feeling back in 2003.

HEALTH DECISIONS TAKEN BASED ON WINNING POPULARITY WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE?

The Labour Party's popularity is currently at historic lows across multiple major pollsters, following a significant decline since their 2024 general election victory.

The ball is now in the court of the Labour Health Secretary, Wes Streeting. If he approves the move, he loses the trust of West Lancashire and Skelmersdale (a key Labour heartland).

If he blocks it, he makes the new Southport MP look powerless and breaks a major local campaign pledge. 

Streeting and the Labour Party made a prominent campaign promise to restore 24-hour children's A&E services to Southport Hospital.

The 2003 "Screw Up": Southport Loses Out

In 2003, the then-Labour government oversaw a major reconfiguration that stripped Southport Hospital of its vital maternity and children's A&E services, moving them all to Ormskirk. 

THE PUBLIC BACKLASH

This despised move prompted an estimated 4,000 people to march through Southport in protest and a petition with 18,532 signatures was delivered (by CARES) to Downing Street.

The Legacy

For 23 years, Southport parents have had to travel nearly 10 miles along narrow rural roads for emergency paediatric care.

Residents in Ormskirk and Skelmersdale now feel they are experiencing the same "abandonment" that Southport felt in 2003, with some calling the consultation a "done deal" from the start.

Anger in West Lancs is understandable - Campaign groups like "Our West Lancashire" (a local political group) gathered over 2,600 signatures on a petition specifically urging Daltom and the NHS to keep the children's A&E in Ormskirk.

Nevertheless, after the Southport hospital debacle in 2003 CARES delivered 18, 532 names on petitions to No. 10 Downing Steet. The Labour Government simply ignored the pleas of Southport mums and dads.

For the last 23 years CARES have fought hard to ensure Southport families get their services back and despite the recent news we are not home and dry yet! 

More:

https://www.otsnews.co.uk/about-time-too-cares-overjoyed-at-return-of-southport-hospital-services/

https://pat-regan.blogspot.com/2024/04/labour-made-decision-to-remove-our.html 

https://southportcares.yourwebsitespace.com/

ABOUT TIME TOO – CARES OVERJOYED AT RETURN OF SOUTHPORT HOSPITAL SERVICES

 

STATEMENT FROM CARES (COALITION AGAINST REMOVAL OF KIDS EMERGENCY & OTHER SERVICES)

Above: CARES Co-Chairs Cath Regan (left) Ange Creed.(right).

 Ange Creed (Weatherby) and Cath Regan, former co-chairs of the original CARES campaign, are overjoyed at the announcement that children’s emergency services are finally returning to Southport — 23 years after we first sounded the alarm in 2003.

 
It was the ‘Southport Party’ who set up CARES originally.

“We marched with an estimated 4,000 people in August 2003. We delivered 18,500 signatures to Downing Street in February 2004. And for two decades, we never stopped asking: Why must our children travel miles for emergency care?”

Twenty-three years of Southport being deprived of children’s A&E services — services originally removed by health authorities under the then Labour government. Despite promises from the Conservative Party upon entering power that they would reinstate these vital services, nothing changed.

 

We remember the years of tears, abuse, sleepless nights, and the countless meetings held and attended — all while data, evidence, and community concern were ignored by health leaders and politicians.

 

We are grateful to those who stood with us throughout the years, to name just a few: Pat & Kyle Regan, Mark Bigley, John Price, Brenda & Ken Porter, Margaret Brown, Terry Durrance, John Lee, Barry & Norma Griffiths, Anne & David Cobham, and the Southport Party.

 

“We remember the pain, the frustration, and the relentless fight. Today, justice is not just promised — it’s arriving. Let’s ensure this transition is swift, safe, and fully resourced for every child who needs it.”

 

We now ask: What has changed after 23 years that the powers that be have decided to return these services? We welcome this long-overdue reversal — but we will not rest until every child in Southport has safe, timely, and equitable access to emergency care.

 

We are fully aware that this change may cause concern and frustration for families in the Ormskirk catchment area, and we sincerely acknowledge their feelings. However, we understand that the new children’s emergency unit returning to Southport will operate 24/7 — a level of service not previously available locally — which will ultimately improve access and response times for all families across the region, including those in Ormskirk who may benefit from reduced pressure on their local services.

 

Our goal has always been better, safer, and more equitable care for children — and we believe this move brings us closer to that vision.

More: 

https://southportcares.yourwebsitespace.com/ 

ALDI AINSDALE - RIGHT STORE, WRONG PLACE, OR...? 'UPDATE 2'

 

As of March 5, 2026, Aldi has launched a virtual consultation for a proposed new store in Sandbrook Road, Ainsdale. 

https://aldiconsultation.co.uk/ainsdale/ 

While many residents view the redevelopment of this "eyesore" site as a positive step, the proposal has several identified flaws and points of contention...

PUBLIC CONCERNS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING...

Traffic Management Constraints: A primary structural flaw is the restriction on vehicle access. Current plans specify no vehicular access from Sandbrook Road itself; instead, all traffic must enter via a new link through to Liverpool Road along the existing Sandbrook Way.

Infrastructure Stress: Local critics argue that the existing road network cannot support a major discount store alongside the £33 million Riverside Housing development currently being built on the same road. Opponents claim there is "no infrastructure" for the combined impact of 130 new homes and a high-traffic supermarket.

Air Quality and Environmental Risks: Due to its proximity to the A565 Liverpool Road—a site already near national air quality limits for Nitrogen Dioxide—planners have warned that any development significantly increasing car journeys could push emissions to dangerous levels.

Residential Amenity Impact: The site is adjacent to existing housing, St John Stone's Church, and the Ainsdale Centre for Health and Wellbeing. The Brookdale Centre for dementia sufferers is also close by. Concerns include noise and light pollution from delivery vehicles and the car park, which may negatively impact upon "sensitive" nearby residents.

Ownership Complexity: The site has historically suffered from "fragmented multiple-ownership," which has delayed regeneration for years. While Sefton Council has moved to acquire these leases, the legal and physical assembly of the land remains a complex hurdle.

 

Ecological concerns: Construction work will also threaten mature trees and wildlife in this peaceful space that is set to become a possible noise - ridden, gridlocked, nightmare for some. Red squirels (a legally protected species) have been spotted in the area. Foxes also run through the area (travelling from the adjacent Woodvale Woodland) into local gardens, as do hedgehogs. In summer bats hunt over the trees. Various birds species utilise the trees on Sandbrook Way for nesting and roosting. 

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is a mandatory requirement in England's planning system that ensures new developments leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than before, with a minimum 10% increase in biodiversity.  

It worth remembering that modern property buyers often prioritise 'green infrastructure.' Removing mature trees lowers the curb appeal and thermal comfort of these units. Thoughtless felling trades long-term property value for a slightly easier construction phase. Trees are a real asset to profit margins rather than an pesky evological obstacle to tractors. By removing established trees, devolopers are creating a 'Biodiversity Deficit' that may cost significantly more to offset off-site under BNG (Biodiversity Net Gain) regulations than it would to simply integrate the existing canopy into the design. Most devepopers know that Off-site mitigation is expensive and logistically difficult.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents 

Above: a Red squirrel in a Sandbrook Road garden only yards away from the proposed Aldi development. 

Above; Several mature trees have existed on the Sandbrook Way area for decades. 

Above: Also, under threat - more mature trees where the planned entrance on Liverpool Road will be to Aldi's proposed store. 

 The main issue at hand remains. Is this a case of the right store in the wrong place? 

Some of us have pushed hard for improvement over many years in this area. Others now pay lip-service to the numerous issues that exist today in a 'johnny-come-lately' capacity. This results in them having to catch up with prior events after they initially jump in at the front of the queue and proceed to throw their weight about, to no avail. 

The Brook eyesore of course must be addressed, and the proposed Aldi store may well be a good idea, yet proper consideration must also be allotted for the native ecosystem.  

See also

https://pat-regan.blogspot.com/2017/02/repair-work-on-woodvales-eyesore.html

The terrible decayed state of properties on the precinct has been an  ongoing problem for years. Wild birds have even required rescuing, after becoming trapped in loose wiring.   

Many residents are asking .... Is Aldi willing to consider the natural green infrastructure and work sensitively around the mature trees, OR will it be a case of ripping through as fast as possible, with zero concern for nature and true responsibilities towards Biodiversity Net Gain? 

Destroying mature trees and replacing with small saplings, that will most likely be vandalised, is in no way conforming with BNG regulations. Of course, most developers know this already and will simply rely on public intransigence and  ignorance to bypass proper regulations. 

Of course, some developers are professional yet, as we can see below, some do break the law on occasion and pay the price... 

 Significant Recent Fines (2023–2026)

Enfield Landowner and Contractor (£255,000): In May 2023, Ali Matur and contractor Robert Bush were ordered to pay over £255,000 in fines, confiscation, and costs. They illegally felled more than 270 protected trees—including oak, ash, and yew—within the Clay Hill conservation area.

Hounslow Developer (£13,000+): In June 2025, a developer in Osterley was fined more than £13,000 for unlawfully felling protected trees in a conservation area. Local residents and councillors flagged the breach, which the council described as a "clear and unacceptable" flouting of rules designed to protect biodiversity.

East Riding Developers (£6,000+): In December 2025, Wayne Low and Richmond Properties were fined a combined £6,600 for damaging a sycamore and felling a healthy pear tree in the Etton Conservation Area. The sycamore alone was assessed to have an amenity value of up to £12,282.

Bradford Developer (£4,600): In October 2024, Khalil Hussain was fined £1,666 plus £3,000 in costs for felling six 100-year-old protected oaks in his garden. Neighbours expressed anger at the relatively low fine (approx. £277 per tree) for destroying healthy, mature specimens. 

GRIDLOCK IN WOODVALE... 

Many residents are rightly concerned about the traffic congestion issue. Therefore, the following letter, or similar, may prove useful to present to Aldi .... 

Subject: Formal Consultation Response: Proposed Aldi Development, Sandbrook Way, Ainsdale

To the Aldi Consultation Team,

I am writing to submit my formal feedback regarding the proposed retail development at Sandbrook Way. While the regeneration of this brownfield site is noted, the current proposal raises significant concerns regarding highway safety, cumulative traffic impact, and the contradiction of local Net Zero objectives.

To ensure this consultation moves beyond "lip service," I require specific answers to the following technical points before the planning application is submitted to Sefton Council:

1. Cumulative Impact Assessment: Has the Transport Assessment (TA) modelled the peak-hour vehicle movements of this store in conjunction with the full occupancy of the 130 new homes at the adjacent Riverside development? Assessing these projects in isolation fails to account for the total strain on the Sandbrook Road corridor.
2. Junction Capacity (RFC Values): What is the predicted Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) for the Sandbrook Road/Sandbrook Way access point during peak Saturday trading (11:00–14:00)? Any value exceeding 0.85 indicates a failing junction; I request that these figures be made public.
3. Baseline Data Accuracy: In what year and under what road conditions were the baseline traffic counts for this proposal taken? Data collected during recent or ongoing roadworks for the 33kv cable installation will not provide a legally robust representation of "normal" traffic flow.
4. Swept-Path Analysis: Please provide confirmation that a standard articulated HGV can enter and exit the site in a forward gear without over-running the kerb or requiring the full width of Sandbrook Road, particularly given the existing residential parking constraints.
5. Net Zero and Infrastructure Irony: Given the 8 proposed EV charging points, has a formal Utility Impact Assessment confirmed that no further disruptive road excavations on Sandbrook Road will be required to upgrade the local substation for this commercial load?
6. Policy Conflict: How does the addition of 117 car parking spaces—designed to draw vehicle traffic from across the region—align with Sefton Council’s "Eco Vision" for Ainsdale, which explicitly prioritises traffic calming and carbon reduction?

I look forward to receiving a detailed technical response to these points rather than generic marketing materials.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Postcode]

Send to - north@consultation-online.co.uk 

More: 

https://pat-regan.blogspot.com/2017/01/sandbrook-way-planters-scheme-moving.html 

https://pat-regan.blogspot.com/2018/11/great-crested-newt-in-woodvale.html 

 

Calls for a UK Caliphate and why it rings alarm bells

 Back in 2014 the BBC presented a small list of ordinary Muslim opinions regarding a possible caliphate in the UK. Some were indifferent to the possibility, yet some were in favour of implementing this strict Sharia law - ruled system. 

Here are to just two examples 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-28774984 

This was a snapshot of ordinary muslim opinion from 10 years ago. 

So what does a UK caliphate actually mean? 

The BBC also stated: 

Many of those who want a caliphate today compare it to having an Islamic superpower - "an America for Muslims". It would also be a place to live that would be governed by Sharia law, the Islamic legal system. 

However, the term 'caliphate' apparently sounds alarm bell within the UK Government's security forces. Their prescribed listing of terrorist groups that support a repressive Sharia law - oriented type system of caliphate include the following.

Al Ghurabaa - Proscribed July 2006

Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM) - Proscribed October 2005

Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas) – Proscription extended November 2021

Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (Bangladesh) (HUJI-B) - Proscribed October 2005

Hizb ut-Tahrir - Proscribed January 2024

Imarat Kavkaz (IK) also known as the Caucasus Emirate - Proscribed December 2013

Islamic Army of Aden (IAA) - Proscribed March 2001

Indian Mujahideen (IM) - Proscribed July 2012

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) also known as Dawlat al-‘Iraq al-Islamiyya, Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Dawlat al Islamiya fi Iraq wa al Sham (DAISh) and the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham - Proscribed June 2014

Jamaat ul-Ahrar (JuA) - Proscribed March 2015

Jaysh al Khalifatu Islamiya (JKI) which translates as the Army of the Islamic Caliphate –proscribed November 2014

Jund al Khalifa-Algeria (JaK-A) which translates as Soldiers of the Caliphate - Proscribed January 2015

Saved Sect or Saviour Sect - Proscribed July 2006

Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP) also known as East Turkestan Islamic Party (ETIP), East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and Hizb al-Islami al-Turkistani (HAAT) – Proscribed July 2016

The list forms a non-exhaustive selection of proscribed terrorist groups, 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version 

Based on the above, two important questions seem to arise herein.

Is a Sharia - governed caliphate compatible with a democratic UK society ? 

Is such a system a threat to the UK's national security? 

WHICH PARTIES SUPPORT THE BARBARIC RITUAL OF RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER (RS)?

 

A land of ‘animal lovers’ they say – well let’s see…

The RSPCA is actively campaigning against non-stun slaughter, including within the halal industry, arguing it causes significant pain and distress to animals. While UK law generally requires stunning, an exemption permits religious slaughter (halal and kosher) without it.

The RSPCA advocates removing this exemption and implementing mandatory, clear labelling for non-stun meat.  

The public consequently have a right to know which political parties are in favour of causing animals “significant pain and distress” to basically satisfy fundamentalist fantasies of what a blood-thirsty Abrahamic godhead apparently demands.

 

THE FOLLOWING PARTIES ARE MAINLY IN FAVOUR OF RITUAL SLAUGHTER…

Labour: Starmer’s government has overtly STATED IT WILL NOT BAN RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER, citing respect for the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared according to their beliefs.

Reform UK: THE PARTY'S OFFICIAL STANCE UNDER NIGEL FARAGE IS THAT IT WILL NOT BAN HALAL OR KOSHER SLAUGHTER.

Conservative Party: The party leadership has consistently confirmed there WOULD BE NO BAN ON RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER.

LibDems: The party believes in the protection of religious freedoms and generally OPPOSES AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON NON-STUN RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER (HALAL AND KOSHER). 

Green Party: The official policy is to SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER (HALAL AND KOSHER), viewing it as an aspect of religious freedom.

 Plaid Cymru: There is NO EVIDENCE OF A PARTY-WIDE BAN ON HALAL, and some members have advocated for improving the availability of halal products for communities. 

Democratic Unionist Party: they are NOT ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING FOR A TOTAL BAN ON ALL MEAT CERTIFIED AS HALAL. 

Sinn Féin: There is presently NO EVIDENCE THAT SINN FÉIN PLANS TO BAN HALAL SLAUGHTER IN EITHER IRELAND OR NORTHERN IRELAND. The party’s official policy focuses on protecting religious freedoms.

SNP: the Scottish National Party (SNP) has NO OFFICIAL POLICY TO BAN HALAL SLAUGHTER. The party generally supports current legislation that allows for religious exemptions to pre-stunning requirements.

Social Democratic and Labour Party:  They have not announced plans to ban halal slaughter.

APNI: The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI) has no stated policy to ban halal slaughter. 

Your Party: There is no evidence that Jeremy Corbyn's  political movement, Your Party, intends to ban halal slaughter. 

Workers Party of Britain: There is currently no official policy or public statement from the Workers Party of Britain indicating an intention to ban halal slaughter.

 PARTIES THAT OPENLY OPPOSE RITUAL SLAUGHTER

 UKIP: Historically, UKIP was the FIRST BRITISH POLITICAL PARTY TO PROMISE A BAN ON SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING.

Restore Britain: Launched in February 2026, THE PARTY PLEDGES TO OUTLAW BOTH HALAL AND KOSHER SLAUGHTER ON "DAY ONE" OF ITS GOVERNMENT.

Advance UK: The official stance of Advance UK, apparently ADVOCATES FOR A BAN ON RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER WITHOUT PRE-STUNNING.

Consequently, there we have it. Only three parties that will clearly oppose causing ‘significant pain and distress to animals.

 SO – ARE WE REALLY A NATION OF ‘ANIMAL LOVERS’?

Fundamentalist extremism and brutality based on hand-me-down manmade religious fantasies is no excuse for animal torture. It’s high time that humanity ditched 'all' the destructive Abrahamic fables and grew up.  

More: 

KFC all Halal - claim Politicalite 

https://pat-regan.blogspot.com/2019/10/kfc-all-halal-claim-politicalite.html

Ritual slaughter of suppressed species for a ‘loving god’ or to keep religious fundamentalists happy?

https://pat-regan.blogspot.com/2014/09/ritual-slaughter-of-suppressed-species.html 

In Pictures: Today's event at the Red Brick Church Hall

 

Time flies when you're having fun. 

Pictures from our indoor car boot/flea market event in Birkdale - 21st February 2026. 

Please check the following link for our next events... 

https://southport-crafts-and-events.jimdosite.com/