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.

Described as shoddy by the Planning Committee and by local people as looking like a prison block, and far dearer than a later built and bigger school – why, I asked? Don’t be vexatious they replied, and they still do.
Here it is in black and white. Why was I “vexatious” (not me but my questions as they always say) to question this massive rise in costs. No-one should trust a LibDem councillor with their money or their children’s safety.
Public open space since 1976, so why did the Stockport LibDem councillors illegally develop it?
Where is the football pitch? We need honest councillors and council officers. How much was paid for this which does’t exist? “Vexatious” to mention that though.
If Stockport Council is admitting to the traffic problems, then my questions were not “vexatious”. We need an honestly-run council at Stockport.
An outside consultant, Rob Peters of GVA Grimley Fiendisch, suggests putting political pressure on councillors to pass a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump, and no-one bats an eyelash.
It actually did diddly squat for the area – quite the reverse of improving it.
Apart from anything else, it was against the Town Plan. Where are the sports facilities available for community use? All lies.
How on earth did the toxic waste dump school get through the planning process at Stockport, given it was across-the-board unsafe and broke countless planning regulations?
It was public open space – why develop it illegally?
Look at how built-up the area is from which the LibDem councillors and senior council officers illegally took public open space.
Public Open Space means nothing to the LibDem councillors.
The toxic waste dump site was public open space, so why didn’t they act legally and hold a public inquiry into its development?
After the school opened the Council admitted the problems, but my questions on the matter were still deemed “vexatious” – someone who lost a child in a road accident.
After the school opened, the police complained about the dangerous traffic situation, but my raising this issue is still deemed to have been “vexatious”.
Local people and I repeatedly raised the traffic issues at the planning stage.
A mum whose child died in a road traffic accident is pillioried for “vexatious” questions for raising road safety issues around primary school. Beyond offensive LibDems.
Andrew Stunell MP, junior Department of Communities and Local Government minister in the Coalition government, himself investigated the LibDem shenanigans of his political cohorts regarding the toxic waste dump school and found they had done nothing wrong.
Why didn’t I go to the police regarding the toxic waste dump school fraud? Because of what was going on with Stockport LibDems/Stockport Council and the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Magistrates Court regarding sick, innocent Mr Parnell RIP.
Offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to block access to documents pertaining to fraud.
Must just be open space – it can’t be built on say the Council’s own officers who built on it.
LibDem Executive Councillors can and do just ignore recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee – why have a Scrutiny Committee then?
After the Chief Executive, John Schulz, said I had been so rude and offensive I must never contact any council employee again, and then retracted when I threatened to sue him, I was then allowed to read out my own questions in council meetings, which weren’t answered as they were “vexatious”.
What consideration was given to the concerns of local people regarding the loss of public open space?
No Plan B was necessary for a primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump massively over-budget. Why not? Should this man have run a whelk stand?