Stockport Council News

30th March 2007 there was “obvious concern over funding”. Why then publicly brand me as “vexatious” for raising the matter of funding?

This document can be more clearly read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

The costs of Vale View School jumped from £5.5 million to £10 million over 2 pages of a report. It was always “vexatious” of me to question this, and it still is.

These documents can be more clearly read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

In October 2005 Vale View School was to cost £5.5 million. By December 2005 the cost had risen to £7.5 million. Why, I asked? Don’t be vexatious, they replied! And they still do.
These documents can be more clearly read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html

“Insp Alan Clitherow

In reply, 9:30 will be fine,

I will attend at Fred Perry House, GMP customer service counter promptly to avoid any question to whether I am welcomed by SMBC, that I should be there only by appointment, (this comment is made following my meeting with my MP Andrew Stunnell 26/03/2013 that at which he said [“the council don’t welcome myself at any council offices or town hall and he suggests to get any thing done (if i do, it is like a red flag to a bull) I should stay away”.]

2000 to 2005, contact was ongoing with meetings, written, by phone and by emails and nothing got done.

2005 October I was asked to stay away which I did again untill January 2007 nothing again happening. So June 2007, I was told to be patient and wait, which I did starting by my further waiting at Stopford House (I was no longer out of sight and out of mind) and this was when I believe the conspiracy started. There is no legal injunctions applied for or served yet the police were arresting me for breaching a non existent injunction that was taken to be a banning order from the council, just because the council said so. In law there was no such order. When the arrests for non-existent injunctions was not working, this started the fabrication of offences that the council was alleging about myself, and if I attempted to defend myself it was responded to as a counter claim. Counter claims do not get acted upon untill the first complaint is dealt with. Most cases never got to court and some were dropped at first hearing. Those that progressed further as far to appeal were granted and charges overturned and quashed. The further injustice towards myself I believe is a crime and I will continue to try and have my case heard. If crime is not stopped those who get away with it think it ok for them to carry on. Again I say “Dicey, Rule of Law no one is above it”.

Human Rights Act 1998 breaches are to be addressed as offences to the law. App article 2 HRA 1998 the right to have life protected. Article 10 the right to free speech, to be free to report crimes against myself without the fear of intimidation.

Awaiting Tuesday’s meeting

Michael Parnell”

“It was in 2008 that (then) Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that the Police would be rolling out these tactics to the estates to combat “anti-social behaviour”. Anti-social behaviour was Labour’s crime buzzword of the noughties – a term so nebulous it became used much in the same way as the ‘sus’ laws of the 1980s. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (or ASBOs) were used to impose stringent conditions on the behaviour of individuals who were regarded, for whatever reason, undesireable. Breaking these conditions is a criminal offence and thus often criminalises essentially un-criminal behaviour. This particular FITwatcher remembers the tabloid shockers of the time: the suicidally depressed getting ASBOs preventing them from going near tall buildings, Then there were the local police advertising campaigns: billboards and buses bearing the likenesses of supposed ‘offenders’ detailing their ASBO conditions and urging people to grass if the ‘offender’ is seen to break their conditions. In the midst of ASBO-mania, Jacqui Smith heralded the arrival of “Operation Leopard” – a pioneering scheme to introduce Forward Intelligence Team tactics to Essex. Coupled with the 2007 introduction of additional powers for Police to stop people on the street based entirely on suspicion (again, not a million miles away from the ‘sus’ laws), it wasn’t long before it was rolled out to police other areas – such as the estates around East London’s Brick Lane, or that it is still in operation within Greater Manchester at Stockport town hall where the peaceful protester has had harassment following the council’s employee’s circulated malicious chinese whisper !! ( as said at the last recall ), “why dont we let him protest from the top of the building because when he’s there he might fall off and then we’ll be rid of him”.”

Mike

This completely innocent and non-aggressive chap is legally not allowed to go within one mile of the town hall. For what crime? Showing up the oppressive and illegal nature of the LibDem Council.

“Dear Sheila

Hello How are you, hope you are keeping well.

This is just a little bit that was sent to SMBC officers, chief executive, service executives, complaints managers, service managers and council solicitor, this letter was sent hard copy and email.

Sheila dont read it all at once, take a break a few times and have a cup of tea, (ha ha) read and enjoy, we can only try and make it best for all, in not letting those who abuse their leadership authority who dont care and are only working to their own financial gain, and this being at a loss to the public in which we all have paid for so as to be provided.

love Mike”