Click on any of the links at random in these 5 related postings and you will see issues raised in the public interest. Not one of them was vexatious.

Again, no political pressure put on councillors, no siree
But the boreholes weren’t situated in accordance with national guidelines
LibDems, stroppy or what?
Ex LibDem Councillor Mark Weldon
Midland Rd site/Vale View School
Lethal Stockport LibDems
Stockport LibDems put new school on sister site to this contaminated one
Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer Stockport Council, says asking questions about missing community facilities is “vexatious”.
Is Vicki Bates, Monitoring Officer at Stockport Council, guilty of offences under the Fraud Act 2006?
Vicki Bates, Stockport Council Monitoring Officer, at ease with financial corruption.
LibDem planning corruption at Stockport – Monitoring Officer fine with this.
Vicki Bates, Stockport Council Monitoring Officer – contamination questions are “vexatious”.
Further attempts to shut me up.
LibDem Executive Councillor Weldon was informed of everything all along and completely ignored all the documentary evidence. Could he, should he run a whelk stand?
Other former Jackson’s brickworks in our area had problems. Of no concern to our very complacent LibDem councillors involved though.
A former Jackson’s brickyard with still gassing, rubbish infilled claypits pre 1970 when no records of what was tipped were kept is a “lovely place to build a school” according to now defenestrated LibDem Councillor Mark Weldon.
They suggested planting prickly bushes to keep primary school children away from lethal contamination. To speak out against this ludicrous option was and is “vexatious” according to LibDem councillors.
It was “vexatious” to ask the suspect Stockport LibDems why contamination investigations had not complied with the required British Standard.
It was “vexatious” to ask the iffy Stockport LibDems why carbon dioxide levels of 14.7%v/v were accepted by them despite their own council guidelines of 0.5%v/v.
When I started asking questions about their suspect planning, the LibDems had to try to shut me up.
You will see from the previous post why the LibDem councillors hated my freedom of information requests -they exposed their dodgy dealing.
The LibDems hadn’t had proper contamination investigations carried out this second time, as there were no investigations on the football pitch, which covered most of the site and was where the new school was going.
LibDem strange behaviour at the still-gassing, toxic waste dump primary school.
Obvious concern over funding – Donna Sagar (DS)to look at other possible funding sources, but she and the LibDem Executive councillors were still claiming my questions on the subject were “vexatious”, and their pals at the Information Commission were not inclined to back down.
Cost in February 2006 £7.5 – £8m. Funds available £5.8m plus another possible £600k.
Strangely, Stockport Council have and do allow me to ask FOIA questions on any subject except the corruption pit that is the toxic waste dump primary school.
Should this proposed school be reconsidered, I asked, in view of the spiraling costs and the fact that no consideration has been given to contamination remediation costs?
Why has the cost of the proposed school gone from £5.5m to £7.5m in just two months, I asked.
The Stockport LibDems and the missing millions of pounds.
The LibDems disturbed brown asbestos fibres (using the bin bag and stick, high tech method of dealing with this lethal substance), and exposed all these people living round about to danger.
LibDem Councillor Weldon sits young children down on a site he knows to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos for a photo op with him. And then he digs into the contamination.
LibDem Councillor Porgess wrote to the Stockport Express citing his standing as a Chartered Chemist to rubbish my assertion that the site was contaminated.
After all my efforts to get the contamination removed, I fell at the last fence.
The Environment Agency told them to do more contamination investigations, which even then they didn’t do.
They were the children of non-LibDem voting parents, so who cared?
I tried so hard to make them understand what a contaminated site this was for the school. Not once did they listen.
Traffic lunacy at the very outset for the new toxic waste dump primary school.
Drainage problems at the new toxic dump primary school site.
Missing Sports Facilities – £650,000 Sport England planning condition ignored.
School not big enough – “stress the need for confidentiality”.
An offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act to deliberately cause someone (the council taxpayer) a loss. Why build the new school knowingly too small?
Stockport Council knew at the time the birthrate was rising sharply in the area, so why did they deliberately build a school too small
I asked a council meeting question on the subject. Refused as “vexatious” under the Freedom of Information Act, but the question was not asked under the FOIA.
There was a brief window of opportunity when the LibDem Council did respond to FOIA questions on the subject of the toxic waste dump school.
New toxic waste dump school deliberately built too small, an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.
Nobody sees anything untoward.
Financial Procedure Rules – quite clear how they should behave.
I kept trying – no-one involved in this project at Stockport Council could claim ignorance
But, it turned out they couldn’t sell the redundant land.
So, they intended to close two schools in North Reddish, the Fir Tree and North Reddish School, sell the land off for building and build a new school on an old tip which in the intervening decades had grassed over and become important local public space.
I tried to bring the financial irregularities to the notice of the Audit Committee, but they had a majority of LibDems so couldn’t have cared any less.
Rise in cost of the new school from £5.5m to £10m (plus ignored contamination remediation costs) explained in a back of a fag packet document.
Not only was there a financial irregularity of £4.5m (the rising cost of the school) but also another financial irregularity of over £220k in their explanation of that rise.
Because I was/still am banned from asking questions on the subject, I resorted to asking the Finance Executive councillor in the council car park. Fortunately, he had some degree of honesty.
And another council meeting question refused under the Freedom of Information Act, although not asked under that.

https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/2021/05/17/yet-another-council-meeting-question-refused-under-the-freedom-of-information-act-although-it-was-a-council-meeting-question-and-not-asked-under-that