Stockport Council News

Instead of Mr Parnell having to run the gauntlet of the security guards to try to sort out the falsified council tax arrears etc (and the Council refused to let me act on Mr Parnell’s behalf), why didn’t Khan, Council Solicitor, Andrew Webb, Director of CYPD, or Anwar Majothi or Devon Sherwood deal with his simple complaint over the previous decade? They had a legal obligation to help him. The shoulder the main blame; it was their job to sort out his simple problems.

“Dear Sheila

Re: Assault by Stockport Metropolitan Borough
Council SSK security guards,

Wednesday 11:02:2009 14:00 hrs

Arrived
Stopford House, no-one in entrance lobby, entered freely for the purpose to
gather evidence of CCTV signs, took a number of pictures from 4 different angles
that are of and from the inside of the lobby only. I stood and waited and went
no further than the centre of the lobby. Frank, the security guard, came in and
started making suggestions (14:15 Approx) using threatening comments of what he
would do and he got on his walkie talkie and called for Steve. There was a notice
that had been put up that came from GMP about making false allegations and what
can be done during February.
There were also some small cards with on one side
telling you what to do, and on the other side showing the word Liar, what is
this now in the lobby of Stopford House, Frank pointed to this notice and cards
and suggested to me I take one of the cards, which I did and give it to him he
just threw it on the floor, Steve arrived and they both, Frank and Steve started
and ganged up on me and were making comments to my sanity, I quoted “Things must
be done within the law”, they both replied to this Steve first “You think your
Perry Mason” Frank after Steve then said “More like Ironside”, (what I know of
Ironside is he was in a wheelchair) I asked Frank does that mean you are going
to break my legs, Frank said “I didn’t say that but that’s what it means”, third
security guard arrives, and the three stood talking then the fourth and fifth
security arrive, and all five start talking to me at the same time one guard
keeps telling me not to look away from his eyes and keeps repeating why am I
there, why am I there. When I try to reply the others keep interrupting and
giving their answers; the guard who told me to look at his eyes was not standing
for any of this and took me by my right elbow and wrist. Someone tried to take
my bag this contains my life. I held this close to my body – another guard took my
left elbow and shoulder and another guard was pushing in my back, I was
commenting reasonable force to equal resistance we are not going to move
anywhere. Unable to move my arms and activate my personal attack alarm I tried to
stand firm. I felt at this time if they carried me out through the doors they
were going to push me into the hand rail and throw me down the stairs. What
happened next was they forced me down to the ground, with being held by my right
wrist my hand was pushed hard to the floor with the whole weight of that guard
down on it which caused injury of lacerations and stiffening finger joints and
tender wrist. It was then said leave it and call the police, Frank was wanting
more and two female reception staff were trying to calm him down and take him
away. He didn’t immediately take their advice, he wanted to get at me I had got up
and then just stood there waiting for the police to arrive. I saw through the
window to Edward street turning right to Piccadilly a fast response police car
arrive.
The police came into Stopford House, spoke to security guards and
myself and they asked if I would leave. At this time my hand was bleeding, and I
was taking in what had happened, I commented to the officer I would leave, and
in my mind was trying to think how to put to them what had happened. If I was
taken outside, it would again be that I would be told to go on my way. This has
happened before when I was previously injured, and also when my property taken
or when my laptop was damaged. I understand that the officers have to do what
they see is needed, and in me taking time to collect myself together it might
have seemed that I was not moving. The officer told me has he had asked me to
leave but it seemed I was not doing so. He informed me he would have to arrest me
to prevent a further breach of the peace. This I acknowledge and was arrested and
put in the police car and conveyed to Cheadle’s Heath Police Station. I was the
one arrested on what the police had been told by security and what they could
see, and the long standing issues.

it is now about time that this matter is
sorted out, so the police are no longer being used in the council’s unlawful
criminal actions. The council again has acted disproportionately and have
stepped well beyond reasonable grounds. All I am doing is trying to be patient
and wait (the council is sorting things out). I am doing this minding my own
business in the glass entrance lobby of Stopford House,. What is the lawful
restriction imposed legally, I put it to you now there is none, the actions of
the council are all unlawful towards myself. The council is taking the law unto
themselves and imposing their judgement and punishment as only they see fit, and
with no regards to the law.

Gang intimidation, five sledgehammers to crack
one nut, well this nut has now cracked and blood is spilt that is assault by
beating, and it is now required to be reported to prevent further occurrence, or
the event of a permanent injury or loss of my life, by others who are already
acted unlawfully and are getting away with it.

Note:- this is made in
relation to the following question, when myself is being asked to leave, this
when I am asked to leave, I ask why, the answer I always get is you know why, I
do not know why, it is only said to hearsay of a disturbance that could be
caused, I have never caused a disturbance, it is the others trying oppress
myself in uncovering their unlawfulness (whistleblowing on the council
wrongdoings). They have been causing the disturbances in trying to cover up that
which I am uncovering, being asked to leave politely or with a gentle hand of
encouragement on one’s shoulder might be permitted by me (technically an assault)
but 1 plus another 3 Persons with force taking hold of my person is unreasonable
excessive on anyone’s terms and is totally unacceptable.

Wednesday 11:02:2009
14:00 hrs -15:00 hrs Stopford House.

Assault occasioning actual bodily
harm.
Offences against the Person Act 1861 (section 47)
Specified offences
for the purpose of:-
section 224 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
This Assault
is recorded on SMBC own CCTV
Stockport council’s representatives acting in a
gang caused me to apprehend the fear of unlawful violence and the fear of that
with the force of actual bodily contact (assault by beating) has occurred
resulting in a bodily injury to my person, There was 5 other person involved
that caused this assault, intentionally or recklessly against myself, two of
whom are known to me, one I have seen but don’t know, one that I have not seen
before, one also not known that left had been involved in the fear of the act
towards myself, the two security guards known to me are :-

Mr Steve Duggan,
Mr Frank Craughwell,

the third guard I believe is their lead security
officer,

the forth man came in a Solution SK van,

the fifth I don’t know
and don’t know where he came from.

Part of Stockport Metropolitan Borough
Council unlawfulness.

Butterworths STONES JUSTICES MANUAL
PART VI
—– Family Law
6-3195a 1, considerations applying to exercise of
powers
6-3195b 2, basic definitions
6-3195c 3, maintenance of Adoption
Service
6-3195d 4, Assessments etc for Adoption Support Services
(1) A
local authority must at the request of:-
(a) any persons mentioned in
paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 3(1) or
(b) any other person who falls
within a description prescribed by regulations (subject to subsection 7(a))
carry out an assessment of that persons needs for adoption support
services.
The case is that the Local authority keeps telling me to report the
children to the police, how can I do this when I know of their suffering and
what are to their needs, the Council has put me in dispute with them over me
requesting support under the laws of, the Children’s Act 1989, the Adoption Act
1976, and the Adoption and Children’s Act 2002.
I have requested Assessment
of Adoption Support Services.”

07 June 2013 12:10

“Cllr lain Roberts tweeted about achievement!

As an Executive Councillor of Stockport Council, he must be very proud of what the council can unlawfully
achieve…..

The council would much rather cover up their behaviour, but I
will bear all for everyone to see.”

Dear Sir/Madam

Stockport Council has, against all logic, voted in favour of the A6 to
Manchester Airport ‘Relief’ Road, yet Mark Hunter MP is still not happy. He’s
trying to force Cheshire East Council to make a hasty decision on the project,
when they are quite rightly taking time to consider all the elements. That
includes the fact that the road would break the law on two counts. It would
destroy ancient woodland, which has legal protection, and increase air
pollution, which is against EU legislation. It is unbelievable that anyone would
vote in favour of such a scheme. The SEMMMS team has acknowledged that the road
cannot be built with the projected 30% increase in traffic at Disley. To reduce
this to 15% (still illegal) they have devised an ingenious solution. They’ll
restrict the speed limit on the A6 to 30mph. It’s already 30mph for much of its
length.

There are some residents who are hoping this
road will move traffic from their front door to someone else’s; how neighbourly.
One such is Councillor Iain Roberts, who’s now protesting against plans to build
1800 new homes at Handforth because of the extra traffic this will generate. You
couldn’t make it up!

I see the spectre of an extension
of the A555 up to the M60 has returned, so motorway congestion can be eased and
traffic taken instead through valuable greenbelt and flood plains. It’s worth
mentioning here that the proposed widening of the M60 was abandoned by the
Highways Agency because of the effect on air quality. That pollution will
instead be diverted to the countryside, in order to facilitate the massive
expansion of Manchester Airport.

We also need to
address two ‘facts’ that keep cropping up. 1) This road has been planned since
the 1930s. Yes, and there’s a very good reason it hasn’t been built – it creates
many more problems than it solves. Thank goodness we have learned much since
then; many things seemed like a good idea in the ’30s – smoking, leaded petrol,
etc. 2) This road will bring employment. I’ve yet to see evidence of long-term,
full-time jobs actually created, not just moved.

The
case for the road is crumbling by the day. Even if our local politicians are too
short-sighted to accept it’s not an appropriate, sustainable proposition, it
will surely fail at public enquiry.

Yours
faithfully

Kim Barrett
Poynton
PAULA

The whole case against building a School at Harcourt Street is that it was to be built on a past tip with the available scientific information that this could prove a serious hazard to health. This scientific information was being “covered up” or was not being presented truthfully. Indirect evidence of this is that the budgeted cost of the school rose exponentially and it is supposed/alleged that this extra cost was to cover the possible undeclared site decontamination costs after approval had been given but before the school had been built.

In October 2009 they finally did what they should have done all along – carried out a proper investigation in line with BS 10175. When they did (and they were forced kicking and screaming to carry this out) the entire site was found to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. Tragically, they failed to remove the deadly brown asbestos from the site properly:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

When I told them it was not being removed properly, they again branded me “vexatious”.

Email sent by me 0th August 2009 at 06.21

Dear FoI Officer

I have been trying for over a year to see documentary evidence from Stockport Council regarding the further contamination investigation work demanded by the Environment Agency at the Harcourt Site for the proposed 500 pupil school, nursery and children’s centre to be built over the site of a still gassing toxic dump extensively tipped from 1954 to 1974 when no records were kept and over the site of which absolutely no contamination investigation points have been dug.

You have consistently refused me access to this information. I contacted the Heath and Safety Executive on this issue and they told me to get the information from the consultants involved Watts and Co. I made a FOI request to Watts and Co who said Stockport Council refused them permission to disclose this information.

As the footpaths across the school site will need to be diverted, before we go to an expensive public inquiry and put the Planning Inspectorate to great expense, we need, of course, to make sure the footpaths are not being diverted into areas of contamination which will have to be fenced off (which is the proposed method the Council has of dealing with the contamination on the site).

I shall cc this to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate as further proof of the Herculean efforts I have made over a year long period to get this information. I can send her all the other attempts I have made to get this information without success should she need to see further evidence.

The Council has been told by a senior officer at the Information Commission to reconsider the refusal under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (and I did actually quote that legislation in my original request), yet still the Council is refusing to release this information and one has to ask – what is there to hide?

I look forward to hearing from you without much hope of success.

Kind regards

Sheila

Your enquiry has been passed for my attention.

We have a Paul Porgess who is a Fellow and Chartered Chemist.

Hilary White

Membership Team Leader

Membership & Qualifications Department,

Royal Society of Chemistry

Thomas Graham House, Science Park,

Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF United Kingdom

This is the incompetent chemist Paul Porgess who claimed to have looked at all the documents and was convinced the school site wasn’t contaminated. What a dangerous idiot he must be!

Regarding the special report by Jennifer Williams on 08/09/2010:-

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bill-for-school-to-be-built-on-toxic-minefield-898373

it is inconceivable that the school would actually be built following “failure to detect toxics” – the tests were obviously unreliable especially having failed and caused the reckless plans to go ahead. By then the financial aspects of this new project were too great to resist, especially backed by the extraordinary claim by the Council that the old industrial tip site could be made safe and used.

The Council had commissioned soil tests and found no contamination! There was the influence of the Government grant of £2.2 million already in the till and even spent on something else. But more soil tests, only carried out because the Council had to prove to a diversion of footpath public inquiry that the site was not contaminated found a variety of chemicals – lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. What on earth were the previous experts – Greater Manchester Geological Unit – doing to have missed all this or should the question be who was in the pocket of whom?

Contracters then sifted the deadly material by hand – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Come on! How could they recognise the material, especially when the experts couldn’t?

The excellent local MP Andrew Gwynne said they were spending money to save face because the site had to be used.

Councillor Mark Weldon stated the Council had “no responsible alternative”. Well I never! Responsible to whom? Certainly not the council taxpayers.