Stockport Council News

It is a shame Stunell wouldn’t act to stop the ?thousands of police man hours being wasted by Goddard, Derbyshire, Weldon, Roberts et al imprisoning a sick, innocent man. LibDems eh? Who’d ‘ave ’em?

Shhh, don’t wake the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner. He doesn’t like to look into things properly.

These documents can be more clearly read here:- http://www.sheilaoliver.org/gm-police—crime–commissioner.html

Mr Parnell attempted suicide at Cheadle Heath Police Station. He told me the care of prisoners there was awful. Mr Parnell, I have to emphasise again, was completely innocent of any crime. These documents can be more clearly read here:-

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/suicide-attempt.html

Email sent – 02 September 2009 06:58

Dear Mr Majothi

Last night Goddard said I should have reported the
financial irregularities and they couldn’t answer them if they didn’t know what
they were.

I asked a council question in February 2008 and he
promised me a reply over the financial anomalies. When I had not received a
reply by July I wrote to Scullion. When by November I had heard nothing I sent a
registered post reminder to Khan. When I got no acknowledgement from him I again
asked Goddard in the full Council meeting and he promised me a response. When I
had heard nothing by February 2009 I again asked Goddard in a full council
meeting and he told me I would never be given an answer. I have sent hundreds
possibly of reminders, which no doubt has led to my being branded now
Vexatious With Knobs On. Your comments please before I take
this to the Standards Board regarding Goddard and Weldon.

Also, please send me the advice the Council claims
to have received from the LGO regarding vexatious council taxpayers. I am
asking this under the FOIA.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information
Campaigner

Email sent – 31 August 2009 07:01

Dear Mr Majothi

From the Fraud Act 2006:-

Fraud

1 Fraud

(1) A person
is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in
subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The
sections are—

(a) section
2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section
3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

(c) section
4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3) A person
who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a) on
summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a
fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on
conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or
to a fine (or to both).

(4) Subsection
(3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months
were a reference to 6 months.

2 Fraud by false
representation

(1) A person
is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly
makes a false representation, and

(b) intends,
by making the representation—

(i) to make
a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause
loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A
representation is false if—

(a) it is
untrue or misleading, and

(b) the
person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation”
means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to
the state of mind of—

(a) the
person making the representation, or

(b) any
other person.

(4) A
representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the
purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or
anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed
to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human
intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to
disclose information

A
person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly
fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty
to disclose, and

(b) intends,
by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make
a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause
loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

4 Fraud by abuse of
position

(1) A person
is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies
a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the
financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly
abuses that position, and

(c) intends,
by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make
a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause
loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person
may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted
of an omission rather than an act.

I think what has gone on over Harcourt Street and possibly over Mr Parnell, who
suffered a financial loss, is covered above.

I look forward to your comments.

Yours

Mrs
Sheila Oliver

Dear
Mrs Oliver,

I
am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 5721).

As
you have previously been informed, your requests for information about the
school at Harcourt Street (Vale View Primary School) are considered to be
vexatious under section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 and manifestly
unreasonable under Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations
2004 and will not receive a response. This decision has been through the
Council’s internal review process and was upheld. It has also been investigated
by the Information Commissioner’s Office at your request, on two occasions; the
ICO upheld the Council’s decision in both its Decision Notices.

Yours
sincerely,

Corporate
Information Services

Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council

http://www.stockport.gov.uk

–—————————————————-

Email sent – 21 May 2012 20:34

Dear FoI
Officer

If this request is
refused, please don’t let your name be on the bottom, as this will be put up on
my website and forwarded to Private Eye. Make sure the person refusing the
request puts their own name to it:-

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/

Why are there no
sporting facilities yet at the Toxic Waste Dump School in North
Reddish?

Please see the
attached documentary evidence in support of the validity of my
question.

Kind
regards

Sheila

Email sent – 22 August 2009 09:33

Dear Mr Majothi

From the Harcourt Street Highlight report for period 15/3/06 – 14/05/20

“Aspirations continue to exceed budget provision and at this stage the scheme is undeliverable if the funding (or Brief) is not revisited.”

Highlight report for period 15/3/06 – 14/5/06

“Funding shortfall will lead to ultimate project failure if not addressed i.e., unable to enter into contract”. This was when the cost was circa £8.6 million – it is now circa £10 million.

From the Fir Tree Consultation with Governors 06/07/05

“There was concern from the governors that families in the Fir Tree area will have difficulty in getting to the proposed new site. The governors felt the outreach work would need to be increased as they felt parents from the school would not walk to the new facilities. The governors supports a new school but would wish the site to be in the Fir Tree community”

How much has the outreach work been costed at?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

I was, of course, being “vexatious” according to Mr Majothi, who just wants a quiet life.

This is the current state of drainage on the site.

Email sent – 23 August 2009 13:06

Dear Mr Majothi

Attached is the Harcourt Street Risk Register – the last one I was allowed to see before the strange ban was put back in place. You will see the high risk of costs and delay (in red) presented by the issue of drainage and contamination remediation.

I asked under the FOIA the estimated drainage and contamination remediation costs, to be told they were impossible to work out at that point. A short time later those figures were put before the Executive Meeting. I asked to see how those figures were arrived at. This was, of course, refused under the strange ban imposed.

What is worrying – especially post Corby – is that not one contamination pit was dug over the proposed site of the school, which is directly over the old tip intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974. The Council states it has complied with BS10175 in regards to this. It hasn’t!

Have the contamination remediation costs been properly worked out or was the figure put before the Executive for drainage and contamination remediation (which could cost millions) merely plucked out of thin air?

I look forward to hearing your comments

Yours

Mrs Sheila Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner