Stockport Council News

From: Councillor Paul Murphy [cllr.p.murphy@manchester.gov.uk]

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:46 PM

To: Sheila Oliver

Cc: Bernstein, Russell

Subject: Re: Official complaint about Stockport Council wasting police time

Dear Ms Oliver

I acknowledge your complaint and in accordance with GMPA procedure will ask our Monitoring Officer, Russell Bernstein, to process your complaint. Thank you for contacting me Paul

—————————————-
Email sent 20/04/2011 17:01

Dear Councillor Murphy

I learn with astonishment that Councillor Goddard is a member of the Police Authority. What on earth is a member of the Police Authority doing being a senior protagonist in a case which has needlessly wasted hundreds of police man hours, court time and probably hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ pounds? I have been asking him since he became Leader to sort out this problem yet he has done nothing – quite the opposite.

All Mr Parnell needs is for the Council to use some of the £600,000 it was given for such cases from the Government for counselling for his daughters adopted from Stockport Council and to stop hounding him for council tax he doesn’t owe. Even if he did, which he doesn’t, this small amount could have been written off by the Director of Finance at Stockport Council. The senior officer responsible, Peter Jones, won’t even reply, which leads me to suspect they are unable to disclose what has gone on as it doesn’t stand close scrutiny.

It is a matter of public record that the police have been called many times to council meetings at which Goddard was officiating as Leader to try have Mr Parnell arrested for such “offences” as trying to leave the meeting before the end and trying to put a public question.

If the abuse of police time continues, I shall report to you and to the press every single instance.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Sheila

Email sent 19 January 2011 18:29

c.c. Michael Parnell; barry khan; STUNELL, Andrew; amelia.gentleman@guardian.co.uk; FOI Officer

Dear Mr Battersby

I merely point out that it is ludicrous of the Chief Constable to cry on the shoulders of a Guardian journalist about not having enough police manpower when for years he has allowed hundreds of hours of police time to be wasted hounding an innocent man, who in all his trials it transpired that his only “crime” was to go to Stockport Council to ask the highly paid panjandrums for counselling for his troubled daughters adopted from Stockport Council.

Khan, the Council Solicitor, and the man who could have sorted this problem out years ago, has now said I can act on Mr. Parnell’s behalf. If the Council tries its usual tactic of delay and losing documents, that will be exposed in the public domain. Otherwise we might obviate the need for police intervention. I tried to act on his behalf before but Clare Naven refused to accept his letter of authority and refused to say why.

Stunell, his lazy local MP, could have acted too but he couldn’t be bothered or wanted to cover up for his corrupt colleagues at Stockport.

I am not making a complaint about Mr Fahey, but I do question his suitability for the job.

Sheila

——————————————————————————–
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:08 AM

Dear Ms Oliver

I refer to your email sent to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police on the 15 January 2011 that you have copied Councillor Paul Murphy of Manchester City Council into. Councillor Murphy is the Chairman of Greater Manchester Police Authority.

I note that you are suggesting that Stockport Council has wasted police time in having police action taken against Mr Michael Parnell and that the Chief Constable has taken no action against the Council.

I shall be grateful if you will clarify whether you are seeking to make a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police or indeed any other officers of Greater Manchester Police, either in your own right or on behalf of Mr Parnell.

If you are seeking to make a formal Police complaint on behalf of Mr Parnell, you will need to obtain his written authority for you to act on his behalf in making a complaint and in this connection, I attach a third party authority form that you will need to ask him to sign and once he has done this, I shall be grateful if you will return the signed authority to myself at the Police Authority.

If you are seeking to make a formal police complaint, it would be of considerable assistance if you could provide me with as full details as you possibly can of the actions on the part of officers of Greater Manchester Police that have been taken against Mr Parnell that you are seeking to complain about together with dates of the incidents in question, if at all possible.

If you are making a Chief Officer complaint, responsibility for dealing with the complaint will remain with Greater Manchester Police Authority under the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002. However, responsibility for investigating complaints against officers of the rank of Chief Superintendent and below rests with Greater Manchester Police and, in that event, I will refer the matter on to the Complaints Manager of the Force Professional Standards Branch for him to deal with further.

I look forward to hearing from you further.

Yours sincerely

Nigel J Battersby

Solicitor

Greater Manchester Police Authority

Salford Civic Centre

Chorley Road

Swinton

Salford

M27 5DA

Tel: 0161 793 3040

Email sent – 15/01/2011 10:28AM

cc: “MICHAEL PARNELL” <mickysara@btinternet.com>, <toby.helm@guardian.co.uk>, <ballse@parliament.uk>, <millibande@parliament.uk>, <bonep@parliament.uk>, <carswelld@parliament.uk>, <hollobonep@parliament.uk>, <percya@parliament.uk>, <recklessm@parliament.uk>, <cashb@parliament.uk>, <pritchardm@parliament.uk>, <jenkinb@parliament.uk>, <patelp@parliament.uk>, <cllr.sue.derbyshire@stockport.gov.uk>, <cllr.iain.roberts@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr Stuart Bodsworth” <cllr.stuart.bodsworth@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr Martin Candler” <martin.candler@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr Mark Weldon” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr Kevin Hogg” <cllr.kevin.hogg@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr John Smith” <cllr.john.smith@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr John Pantall” <cllr.john.pantall@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr Helen Foster-Grime” <cllr.h.foster-grime@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr David White” <cllr.david.white@stockport.gov.uk>, “Cllr Dave Goddard” <cllr.dave.goddard@stockport.gov.uk>, “CLEGG, Nick” <CLEGGN@parliament.uk>, “Cllr Ann Smith” <cllr.ann.smith@stockport.gov.uk>, “Councillor Paul Murphy” <cllr.p.murphy@manchester.gov.uk>, “Stockport CPS” <Stockport@cps.gsi.gov.uk>, “Andrew Webb” <andrew.webb@stockport.gov.uk>, “barry khan” <barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk>, <eamonn.boylan@stockport.gov.uk>, “Leader” <leader@stockport.gov.uk>, <michael.white@guardian.co.uk>

Subject: Further disgusting waste of police time by LibDem Stockport Council – will charges of wasting police time be brought against the Council?

Dear Chief Constable

I have told you many times of the waste of police time by Stockport Council regarding Mr Parnell and you did nothing. I shall cc this to Michael White of the Guardian and several MPs who have concerns about the LibDems and their actions.

Mr Parnell emailed me this today – you will see he is a simple man who needs help:-

“Tue 4th January 2011 this was the first day the Fred Perry House was opened to the public, i walked passed and the council phoned the police and they were searching for me,
the next day i stopped outside to talk to someone who told me about the day before then within 5 minutes the police came and arrested me 2 oclock three police vehicals they took me to cheadle heath police station held me until 23:45 hrs released no charge but on police bail to go back 19th jan, on tue 11th went into fred perry house to contact welfare rights office and was again after only 5 minutes being there arrested at 1 oclock released 19:30hrs police taking no further action when will the council stop victimising me with their disability,they say in this their film this building is to be accessable to all people,…”

I have sat through most of his trials – he didn’t commit the assault with a sneeze alleged against him by Stockport Council by guards who admitted in court they had threatened to kill him and said when the Croation supports came to Piccadilly they would kick their f*cking heads in and pretend they were kicking him. This is all in the trial transcripts. Then we had the £10,000 per day 3 day trial where he was accused of nothing more than going to Stopford House (Stopford House, you may know was the location for the corrupt 1970s police station in Life on Mars – yes, quite!)

I don’t know whether there is any Masonic issue here with the Council, the Police and Stockport CPS – I don’t know what else would explain the lunacy in persecuting this man. The Coroner has criticised Stockport Council for repeatedly driving vulnerable people to suicide and in the Serious Case Reviews of those tragedies Stockport Council said it would help people who came to them asking for help with vulnerable children. Barry Khan, Council Solicitor, Councillor Weldon, Councillor Derbyshire, Councillor Goddard, Eamonn Boylan and Andrew Webb are all paid huge sums of money to sort out problems like Mr. Parnell’s. Imprisoning him is not a solution. They need to get off their backsides and do their jobs and stop wasting police and court time and hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The LibDems pretend they are concerned about human rights and control orders. They are, as everyone is finding out, liars.

I would like some sort of response from you.

Yours without much expectation of any sensible response.

Sheila

09 September 2013 15:23

Sheila,

I spoke to Mr Parnell shortly before he was due to go into hospital. He hoped to be well enough to see me in 3/6 months after the operation and I am waiting for some sort of update as to his health.

As I said to him when we spoke his health and recovery are far more important than his complaint – which spans numerous years – and I am more than happy to give him an update when convenient.
I have not contacted him or emailed him as he gave me the distinct impression there was a real risk of him not surviving the surgery and I wanted to wait to see that he did and still wanted updates regarding this.

I did ask for some confirmation from Mr Parnell as to how he would like his complaint finalising and have information for him should he wish. Please pass on my best wishes, I am happy to discuss this with him further.

Thanks for your email

Alan Clitherow

Insp Alan Clitherow
J1 North INPT
X 69701
Mobile 07795 811575

——————————————————————————

Email sent by me Inspector Clitherow – not sure of date but have email copy

Mr Parnell is paralysed with a spinal tumour and dying and you have still done nothing. His family is very bitter about what has been done to him by the presumably Masonically linked Council, Police, CPS and Magistrates’ Court. What has gone on will be broadcast as widely as I am able.

Yours in disgust

Sheila

PC Panda would do a better job than you.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:35 PM

c.c. Alan Clitherow, Anwar Majothi

Councillor Roberts

For your information as you suggest I can only do what is requested by procedure but what obstacles from SMBC employees are causing the injustice from failures to receive or record reports.

Tweeting by yourself on issues of reporting hate related crimes in the real world does not follow the virtual world of the internet, but it is a good tool for communication as enclosed you will see attempts to your suggestions don’t always work by ordinary people of no standing, a democratic society appoints those to act on behalf of the electorate to their needs and rights

Is there anything you could do?

Thank you michael parnell

Copied and pasted IPCC communication of complaint investigation being dispensed with as below:-

Independent Police Complaints Commission
Reference number 2013/004375
Your letter date 18 March 2013

You inform me that Greater Manchester Police Professional Standards Branch have applied to dispense with the need to investigate my complaint, on the grounds that it is more than12 months since an incident that give raise for the complaint.

You instruct me to provide good reason for (if there is any) the delay in submitting the complaint.

The complaint is made following my 999 call on the incident date, following which the attending Greater Manchester Police Officers (GMP) instructed me the issues were not police matters and these matters should be reported to the local authority Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC), these directions from the officers then backed up in a letter, that the GMP were not taken any action (no offence committed) led to on the same day as receiving letter from GMP (no delay first chance) submitting the complaint to SMBC, their investigation also upheld no offence no evidence, and complaint progressed to the Local Government Ombudsman York (LGO) complaint in progress still no delay,

Following the LGO’s investigation and on receipt by letter the complaint was not within their remit and the incident as directed was a matter for the police, on receiving the LGO findings 17 October 2012 the complaint was then forwarded to GMP professional standards no delay complaint come full circle (Greater Manchester Police to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. to Local Government Ombudsman York back to Greater Manchester Police and now passed to Independent Police Complaints Commission, same complaint no delay’s by myself in submitting complaint, only that the misdirection from GMP officers has contributed to the time active investigations by all bodies involved in the same complaint).

Further information if there is any delay then why on the 8th November 2012 was I arrested following receipt. of a letter from GMP professional standards branch dated 6th November 2012 over the issues of the incident in 2009 (if my complaint can’t be investigated then would it be proportional not to be arrested for submitting my complaint).

On this application, I request to apply The Rule of Law to the investigation into my complaint, and give notice to breaches of The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 by Local Authorities to act compatible with the agreed rights.

I do not believe I have delayed my complaint the question, open to further complaint if required “is there any delay to process the complaint which came about any action of the Local Authorities”, it is in my understanding that the IPCC only investigate police Misconduct (GMP officers in their delay by mis-guidance “this is not a police matter and guidance to put any complaint elsewhere is subject of misdirection and failure to protect those to un-lawfulness and injustice.

Further information the GMP Professional Standards Branch informed me that they could not investigate while trial was pending for the arrest 8th November 2012 with hearing date 21st January 2013 no trial date revived discontinuance, the Greater Manchester Police, The Crown Prosecution Service and Stockport Magistrates Court give no information to when a hearing or trial date is to be heard (breach art 6 HRA 1998).

Please consider my request not to dispense the need to investigate my complaint, as this is required to bring about a stopping of the harassment victimisation and suffering, also associated losses, time and finances.

Yours respectfully M S Parnell.

31 March 2013 09:43

c.c Cllr Iain Roberts

Sheila,

The external police line at Fred Perry house is 0161 8569502. This is staffed by support staff between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday. I’m sure you can appreciate that the nature of our job means we have to be out of the station a lot and the public want us to be out patrolling. There is a voicemail facility on this line which we will always pick up and reply to within 24 hrs.

I am more than happy to discuss specific issues to do with the police however would ask that you refrain from copying me in to emails of the nature of the below. Mr Parnell’s complaint is a matter for Mr Parnell and I, and although I’m happy to deal with concerns raised in a constructive manner I do not expect to receive emails containing spurious allegations and threats.

Thank you

Insp Alan Clitherow
J1 – Stockport Central NPT
X 69701
Mobile 07795 811575

———————————————————————

Dear Councillor Roberts

I have Mr Parnell’s written authority, submitted to the Council, to act on his behalf.

Having sat through his 3 day £10,000 per day acquittal at the Crown Court, I know that if he enters Fred Perry House he will face 5 years in prison as punishment for a crime of which he was acquitted! The Police, now established at Fred Perry House, are well known for not not answering the phone. Therefore, I ask you to act to sort out the deplorable situation this completely innocent man finds himself in. All the Executive Councillors were full aware of what was being done to him and sneeringly condoned it, as were Majothi, Khan et al.

I will share this email exchange via my blog with Twitter and Facebook. I have today posted up Mr Parnell’s case on Michael Crick’s Twitter page, as he is asking why the LibDems failed to act regarding Mike Hancock MP. I shall tweet it to Nigel Farage and Rupert Murdoch. Neither of these two is particularly enamoured of the LibDems. You, Councillor Roberts, might find yourself featured in The Sun, and not in a good way.

Of interest, I note from Councillor Goddard’s Twitter account what a close relationship he has with the Police, and I have always maintained the only explanation of what happened to Mr Parnell is one of a Masonic Revenge club.

So, I ask you to look into Mr Parnell’s disgusting treatment at the hands of LibDem-for-a-decade Stockport Council of which you are an Executive Councillor, and will post up any reply on Twitter.

Yours

Sheila

——————————————————————————

15 October 2008 20:35
Thank you for your message – we will ensure that we monitor your areas of concern.

Regards

Jane Bracewell

———————————————————————–

Email sent 15 October 2008 19:37

Dear Ms Bracewell

Many thanks for your reply – it is much appreciated.

I am glad the LSC will meet regularly with the college to keep an eye on things. £42 million of taxpayers’ money is a huge sum. I will keep checking under the FOI as to the outcome.

The areas of concern are:-

1) Contamination

I believe £1.65 million was set aside to deal with this. If things aren’t done properly, then the LSC will have paid a huge sum of money for a college in which parents will not have confidence to send their children. This is why at this stage the contamination issues have to be closely monitored. I am afraid things are done very badly in general in Stockport and it is up to council taxpayers such as me to keep an eye on contamination issues – the Council doesn’t bother (documentary evidence available on request). The planning committee document dated 13/3/08 states:

“A geo-Environmental Report has been submitted with the application ……..The report also asvises that there is contamination above Human Health assessment criteria throughout the site with the most significant hazards being within the existing area of open space to the west of the site. In order to remediate this area it is recommended that the site needs to be excavated to levels of up to 4m below ground to remove the contaminents and then refilled with imported material.”

Local people tell me, and indeed I have seen for myself, that this has not been done. The ground certainly wasn’t excavated to up to 4m below ground.

I have asked for the contamination disposal certificates from SMBC. These should have been in the Council’s possession before building work started. I am not confident that Stockport Council will be able to provide these.

The LSC might like to check for itself at this early stage that contamination remediation has been carried out to the required level to avoid potentially embarrassing facts being revealed in the press at a later date, as mentioned, which might destroy confidence in the safety of the new college.

Of course, everything might have been carried out perfectly correctly, but given that building workers on this site have not had any protective clothing, this is something I have reason to doubt. As I work in a busy cancer centre, I know the misery that cancer can cause and to expose people unnecessarily to risk is unforgivable.

2) Local Open Space

The ground the College is taking is Local Open Space. It states in the town’s Unitary Development Plan that replacement open space will have to be provided for current users. It states in the documents produced by the College for the planning application that there was dog fouling on the land, which indicates the land was being used by dogwalkers. I believe the College fenced it off to prevent people using it in the past, but it didn’t stop them and as this is the only local open space in a very built up area – why should it have done? So, my feeling is that when the college is built, some open space will have to be set aside for the use of local residents, which is not featured in the current plans. The College could face repeated instances of mass trespass of local people and would face huge legal bills in prosecuting them with no guarantee of success, given what is stated in the UDP about replacement open space having to be provided. I think this replacement local open space should be negotiated with the College to avoid future expensive legal disputes or local people simply using the land with the consequent security issues for the college.

3) Playing Fields

Again from the planning committee document 13/3/08:-

“The playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent and better quantity, in a suitable location and subject to the equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the development.”

Again, this is not the case and we cannot rely on SMBC to enforce planning conditions. Local people tell me that the College has prevented the public having access to the playing fields in the past. I do not know if this is true or not but have no reason to doubt local people.

4) Sports Hall

I note from documents seen under the FOI from the LSC that the sports facilities are to be a Stockport resource. Could you please, if you have time, let me know which citizens are likely to be able to use these facilities?

5) Increase in pupil numbers

Apparently because of past planning abuses, the College will not substantially be allowed to increase its pupil numbers. I know from documents seen at the College under the FOIA that the College is struggling financially. I think everything needs to be sorted out at this early stage, as expensive costs to deal with future problems is something the College would appear to have no funds to deal with.

If you have been, thanks for listening.

Kind regards

Sheila