Blog Image

Stockport Council News

LibDem secrecy about all their dodgy dealings

LibDem Councillors Posted on Sun, August 23, 2015 20:21:47

CONFIDENTIAL

(Confidential, because formal status is as minutes for a
group meeting.
Copies to be restricted
to members of the Liberal Democrat Group at the discretion of the Executive
Leader, and to officers on a ‘need to know’ basis at the discretion of
Directors.
Non-sensitive information on
individual items may, of course, need to emerge more widely in the course of
normal Council business or in response to a request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000).

EXECUTIVE BRIEFING MEETING

Meeting: 28 February 2005

At: 3.00
pm

PRESENT:

Executive

Councillor Mark Hunter (Leader of the
Council) in the chair; Councillors Shan Alexander (Education), Martin Candler
(Social Care and Health), Sue Derbyshire (Infrastructure), David Goddard (Regeneration),
Pam King (Leisure and Culture), Hazel Lees (Environment), Brian Millard
(Resources) and Mark Weldon (Community Development).

Officers

John Schultz – Chief Executive

Ged Lucas – Deputy Chief Executive and Director of
Community Services

Ed Blundell – Director
for Education Services

Ted Lush – Director of Finance and Property Services

Elaine McLean – Director
of Environment and Economic Development Services

Nic Cox – General Manager, Stockport
Direct Services

Ken Horton – Strategic Head of e-Services

Carol Summers – Assistant
Director (Corporate Property Services), Finance and Property Services

Len Narborough – Assistant Director (Strategic Housing),
Environment and Economic Development Services

James Newell – Head
of Traffic Services, Environment and Economic Development Services

Dave Bryant – Planning
Policy Manager, Environment and Economic Development Services

Ron Lofkin – Principal
Adviser (Secondary Schools), Education Services

Marcus Bowell – Political
Assistant to the Liberal Democrat Group

David Clee – Committee
Manager, Chief Executive’s Services

Apologies

Apologies for absence were
submitted on behalf of Councillor John Pantall and Andrew Webb.

1. EARLY BRIEFING/GENERAL
BUSINESS

(a) The Future of Corporate Property
Services

Issue

Carol Summers gave a briefing in connection
with the options for the future of Corporate Property Services and updated
Executive Councillors on the work which had currently been carried out.

Outcome

·
Position
noted.

·
Issue
to be considered further at a future Leader’s Briefing Meeting.

(b) Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement

Issue

James Newell gave a briefing in connection
with the preparatory work which had been undertaken prior to the Council having
the legal powers, as from 4
April 2005, to enforce all parking offences within the borough.

Outcomes

·
Position
noted.

·
Leaflet
produced advising members of the public of the introduction of Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement to be sent to all Councillors.

(c) Strategy
and Mechanisms for Tackling the Under-Performance of Secondary Schools at Key
Stage 4 (
See Minute 1 of 7 February 2005)

Issue

Ed Blundell and Ron Lofkin gave a briefing
in connection with raising standards at Key Stage 4.

Outcomes

·
Position
noted.

·
The
Leader of the Council, Executive Councillor (Education) and the Director for
Education Services to meet with secondary school headteachers to discuss
further.

(d) Overview
of Housing Act 2004 and recent Housing Policy Announcements from the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister

Issue

Len Narborough gave a briefing in
connection with the provisions contained in the Housing Act 2004 and other
housing-related announcements made by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
in January this year.

Outcomes

·
Position
noted.

·
Revised
briefing note to be circulated to all Councillors.

2. KEY AND NON-KEY DECISIONS
SCHEDULED FOR 14 MARCH AND
4
APRIL 2005
EXECUTIVE MEETINGS

Issue

·
List
of key and non-key decisions scheduled for consideration at future Executive
Meetings submitted.

·
Briefing
given in respect of:-

Unitary
Development Plan Update and Related Issues – the introduction of Housing
Phasing Policy HP1.5 (RGN 89)

Outcome

Issues to be considered further at Leader’s
Briefing Meeting on 3 March
2005.

3. BUDGET

Issue

Ted Lush reported that a report would be
submitted to the next Executive Briefing Meeting on the implications for
2006/07 of the 2005/06 Revenue Budget, and linking the budget in more detail to
the Council Plan and the consultation which had been undertaken. He further reported that an Efficiency
Statement was required by mid-April.

Outcome

·
Position
noted.

4. COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT/JOINT
AREA REVIEW PROGRESS

Issue

John Schultz reported that the Council was
expecting to be advised by the Audit Commission early next month of the date of
the Corporate Performance Assessment and Joint Area Review.

5. NOTE OF MEETING HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY 2005

Outcome

·
Note
approved as a correct record.

6. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS’ TARGETED
CAPITAL FUNDING
(See
Minute 6 of 7 February 2005)

Issue

Ed Blundell
reported that the Department for Education and Skills had confirmed that
Targeted Capital Funding would be available in 2005/06. A bid would, therefore, be made by the
Council in accordance with the Executive’s preferred option for a new Romiley Primary School.

Outcome

·
Position noted.

The meeting
closed at 5.02 pm.

g:\mnutes.feb\Exec
Briefing 28 Feb



Mr Parnell’s own words about the ludicrous assault with a sneeze charge

Town Hall Protester Posted on Sun, August 23, 2015 19:40:03

The corrupt Stockport LibDems knew there had been no assault with a sneeze. They had the CCTV of the incident which they refused to allow at the trial of Mr Parnell RIP:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA34fyU1eds

Crown Court Appeal

Manchester Crown Court

Minshull Street

Manchester

Appeal against conviction contrary to

Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Common assault by sneezing

Innocent by plea as to the allegation

Case appealed in the interest of
justice

As to being disputed in not proved
beyond reasonable doubt to all submitted evidence

R v PARNELL

contrary to

Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Common assault by sneezing

10th July 2009

Stockport Magistrates
Court

Edward Street

Stockport

I Michael Stewart Parnell appeal the
decision made against me to the allegation of common assault by sneezing with
intention to spread a cold to another

As contrary to section 39 criminal
Justice Act 1988

The reason for this Appeal is in the
interest of Justice and to preserve that right and for the Justice system not
to be abused by those that divert the course of fair justice

In this appeal I will show that an
injustice has been done either by or toward myself from others with their
intent to harm

My main reason of this Appeal is

I am innocent of all allegations made
against me and I will stay true to Justice and uphold the Queens
peace with honour

I pride myself that I respect the law
and will stay strong to that and not commit any offences against any person

How do I intend to show I am innocent

well firstly I give my word

I Michael Stewart Parnell

Do solemnly swear that I tell the
truth to my oath towards myself that I will always be truly honest in that
which I say and do

I Michael Stewart Parnell have not sneezed
on or towards any person and have not in any way intentionally or recklessly
sneezed or blown my nose on any person to cause them any harm alarm concerns or
distress

I have always conducted myself in
ways that respects all people politely and with dignity I am courteous towards
all other peoples needs and if I can will always help out and I receive
gratification from their thanks as my rewards people respect me for what I do
this is what I valve as a good quality

I pride myself of being of good character
that is approved by others and my life has been served to that of helping
others which I do enjoy and get my
rewards by doing

Why are allegations made against me

I believe there are those whose own
wrongdoing puts them to accountability
and their diversions are in their attempts the ways to discredit the way
in which I pursue dealing with those issues

Many people and also police officers
have commented that I have conducted myself exemplary and I am the most peaceful protester they
have ever come across and they complement me on how I behave

The issues with the other parties are
statutory in duty and in their failings not to deal with those issues they have
resorted to criminal acts in their attempts to divert the courts from their
true purpose as to enforce the laws and regulations in the UK

False allegations only serve one
purpose they damage hurt those they are directed towards to discredit our
freedom of rights

In this appeal what are the false
allegation disputed and by who were they fabricated and how do I prove they
acted maliciously

The allegation of the sneeze with the
intension to spread a cold that which was brought about after the failing that
previous allegations failed to have me moved away on that day because I was not
committing any crime allegations must be fabricated if the one making the
allegations knows of a crime before it
is apparent and suggests thats what will happen before it does

Allegation of a sneeze was made by
the two security guards now known to me as Mr Francis Craughwell

Mr Stephen Duggan

The false allegations are made to the police by that
which is now written in the security guards witness statements and also the MP3
and video recordings that have been gathered to support the detection and
prosecution of crime

How can I say that the allegations
made are false

The sneeze or the exhaling under
force down what is alleged to be my right nostril did not and could or would
have happened by me, if those making these allegations could imagine this would
happen from me then in their minds they are capable of fabricating such an
allegation because the possible outcome might be to serve their satisfaction to
discredit my cause and get rid of me once and for all, and is as stated by the
security guards to something that they are working towards

The security guards disrespect for
the law and their comments on tape stating that should be brought before court
as their bad character along with their other unlawfulness and many attacks on
my person under the pretence that they can get away with it only because they
are part of the big organisation and the one individual cant take on those who
have millions behind them