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.

LibDem Corruption in Planning??
Asbestos and damages liability
209 trial pits and 104 boreholes at the Adswood Sister Site
Sister sites treated so differently
July 2006 cost of school £2.4m over available funding
They didn’t bother to investigate under the football pitch, so have not complied with BS 10175
Gas boreholes deliberately sunk not over the actual old tip
The old tip – just where the school was put
Excellent local MP even mentions the contamination on the site in Parliament
Birchfield Drive – Is this in store for North Reddish too?
I have written to the Chair and Board of Sport England
Money spent on Vale View School so far
Majothi needs to set the record straight
Sustainable drainage system Vale View School
Famous Alan Dransfield on Khan’s case
Anyone who asks about the toxic waste dump school is deemed “vexatious”
Further snippets
Lord Goddard. Letter to Eamonn Boylan, Chief Executive, Stockport Council
Lord Goddard. No for sale sign
Andrew Gwynne looking into why Harcourt Street Recreation Ground land is being fenced off
Drainage, Harcourt Street Field
Contamination report
What the Council should be doing on FOI
Lib Dem Councillors do listen to the public? No, they don’t
Roberts says I am vexatious to raise this issue. Why?
They never listen, they just bulldoze through illegalities
Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy
Hill never provided evidence that other village green applicants were asked to pay £344 for a £5 map, like I was
Refusing to accept a village green application – not legal!
How did SMBC get away will oppression and illegality to this degree?
Sigh, yet more LibDem dodgyness
Documenting the dodgyness
More dirty tricks from Stockport Council endangering the lives of young children
Dirty tricks regarding the compulsory purchase of the Harcourt Street land
Dirty tricks by SMBC regarding the village green application
Lord Goddard. Please don’t knock down our nursery

so they could build housing on the site

Fraud by false representation
No response from Majothi over failure to comply with fraud policy
Still ignoring the Fraud and Financial Irregularities Policy
Risk Register – more evidence of corruption
Defamation of people who stand up to them; well it’s better than being imprisoned which can also happen
Fraud and Financial Irregularities Policy
Corruption in planning – public hostility to this dangerous proposal
“Vexatious” to have asked how they propose to monitor the landfill gas from a school site?
Dodgy consultation exercise (another one!)
In the end they were £6million short, as I predicted
How Stockport Silences Dissent
Worried about contamination and missing £ms? Don’t be vexatious.
My Appeal to Mr John Schulz (stoney ground)
No public open space is safe in LibDem Stockport
Compare and contrast how SMBC treats contamination when they do and when they don’t stand to make money
Eventually I forced an explanation out of them for the massive rise in costs
£5.5m to £9.9m and it is vexatious to ask why
The more sensitive contamination receptors (but not kids of non-LibDem voting parents eh)?
Is there going to be ongoing monitoring for the toxic waste dump school? Don’t be vexatious Sheila
I’m banned from asking about longterm financial implications. Vexatious
Why didn’t they just do proper contamination investigations at the outset?
When local people forced them, they did half-hearted contamination investigations
Local people forced them to do contamination investigations
School site contamination investigations did not comply with BS10175
If the lying LibDems had complied with BS 10175, they would have found the contamination at the outset.
Safety Standards Tank Under LibDems
Majothi said this was “vexatious”
Offence under the Fraud Act 2006
“Vexatious” to ask why there are no replacement playing fields.
Mr Majothi says “vexatious” to ask this too
Mr Majothi, who branded me “vexatious”
Back in 2006 they knew the school would be too small. Why build it then?
Slapped on the legs by Herr von Schulz
“Sports facilities for community use”. Where are they then?
More traffic problems for residents, but they don’t vote LibDem, so who cares?
Traffic problems for residents, but “vexatious” to mention it
Meeting with Cllr Weldon and Donna Sager to show them school site contaminated
It is even in the newspaper, but “vexatious” of me to mention it and it still is
I had told him so many times about the financial irregularities he called me “vexatious”
Bigger, cheaper school years down the line
£6.9m was to come from the sale of redundant land. In the end only £1.6m did
It is impossible to raise financial irregularities at Stockport Council
Former Leader Lord Goddard says I have failed to provide details. I had done so dozens of times
“Obvious concern over funding”, but I am still “vexatious” for raising the matter
By March 2008 the cost was £10m. Why? Vexatious to ask
5 months later the cost is £8.2m. Why? Vexatious to ask
£5.5m to £7.5m in 2 months. Why? Vexatious to ask
Vexatious to question missing millions of pounds
A hugely expensive, ugly and unsafe primary school
The Toxic Waste Dump School Risk Register
Project Manager of dodgy development investigates herself and declares it “vexatious” to mention.
It is our missing £5m, so why can’t I question the Stockport LibDem Executive?
Suddenly the £2.4m shortfall has disappeared. How? It is “vexatious” to ask
Informing Secretary of State Pickles
And yet more architects fees for NPS for the shoddy school
But I paid NPS architects fees for the Vale View School in 2010 too.
I keep paying NPS architects fees. Why?
Stockport Council Audit Cttee made aware of financial irregularities regarding the school – did nothing though
Costs rise from £5.5m to £10m over 2 pages of a document, yet it is “vexatious” to question this.
There won’t be traffic gridlock, Mrs Oliver. There is traffic gridlock say the police.
School costs risen from £5.5m to £9.94m but vexatious to question it.
Tney knew all along it was too small, so why spend £10m on it?
How much do I pay Steve Houston a year to turn a blind eye to financial irregularities?
Steve Houston should have replied in 10 working days regarding financial irregularities – still waiting 5 years later
No Fraud and Financial Irregularity Policy under Mr Steve Houston
Project Manager telling me there was no concern over funding – Donna Sager
But the school land isn’t selling, I said. Don’t be vexatious they replied and they still do.
£1.8m to be found from prudential borrowing for the school
May 2008 the school is now £9.94m and the £2.4m shortfall has disappeared. How?
Stockport Council’s Fraud and Corruption Policy – not in use
By May 2006 the cost was £8.2m. Why, I asked. Don’t be vexatious, they replied
Don’t ever question the actions of a LibDem
Costs rise from £5.5m to £10m over a few months. Why?
Financial irregularity of £201,750.
Definition of Fraud
Why the hell did the dodgy LibDems go ahead with this scheme? Kerchinnnng.
The Council knew all along about the contamination but tried to pretend it wasn’t there
They did better contamination investigations 30 yrs ago than the corrupt LibDems did for a primary school
In fact, when I showed them this video of the non-removal of brown asbestos they said I was “vexatious”.
At the Adswood site they were worried about asbestos, but not at the primary school site
At the Adswood toxic dump they were worried about Carbon Dioxide – not at the primary school site though.
At a sister site at the same time
In 2004 the local MP and local people made them do contamination investigations – they did one borehole
They knew the land was contaminated but thought they could get away with it.
We were telling the LibDem Executive the site for the school was contaminated
They decided not to look for contamination under the football pitch – most of the site
Chidren shouldn’t be exposed to over 0.5% v/v carbon dioxide for more than 8 hours according to Stockport Council’s experts
Stockport LibDems put new primary on sister toxic waste dump site to this one
£6.9m was to come from capital receipts, in the end only £1.6m did
“Obvious concern over funding” and how much goes before the Project Board
September 2007 they say it will cost £8.5m but by March 2008 it is £9.93m. Why?
I tried really hard
And the corrupt LibDems at Stockport wouldn’t listen
The toxic waste dump site contractors only needed liability insurance of £5m – the same as you need for a market stall
Deadly brown asbestos left in situ and it is “vexatious” to mention this to corrupt LibDems
Concern that the lower level of the tip had not been tested, but not at the primary school site
Concern about the longterm safety of the gases? Not at the primary school toxic waste dump site
Landfill gases being vented out in play areas – no danger of that at the primary school then…
Risk to site users – why take the risk and build a primary school there then?
There remains a danger to building users – why take the risk for a primary school?
This second contamination report found 50% of toxic hotspots – all ignored
Most of the investigation points are not where the toxic waste was known to be
The school went directly over the rubbish infilled claypits
Some of the serious issues raised with Stockport Council over the toxic waste dump school.
GMGU are not experts – why use them then?
Bent Council fails to inform planning committee not to decide application
GMGU complied with national standards on contamination investigation? No, they didn’t or they would have found it the first time
Still, vexatious to mention asbestos to the corrupt LibDem run council

and it turned out to be brown asbestos, particularly lethal which has been left on the site, and it is vexatious of me to say this

Sports facilities available for community use.” Where are they?
Never trust a LibDem with your loved green spaces
The existing formal sports facilities will be retained. Where are they?
Any loss of public open space would have to be compensated elsewhere. Where? None has been provided.
Vital local open space removed illegally in this built up area
The pitch was to be up and running before the school opened.
Again, who trousered the money because there are no facilities there?
Ensuring the recreational facilities at the new school are enhanced significantly for the community.
The site was local open space, so there should have been a public inquiry before its development
There should have been a replacement public football pitch. Where is it?
Stockport LibDems claim it is “vexatious” of me to raise drainage issues
Raising financial irregularities repeatedly with LibDems
“Vexatious” to look into LibDem planning corruption
Council knew primary school site was an old tip, so why no contamination investigations initially?
My complaint to the ghastly Mr Majothi – all ignored
£200k spent on drainage for this project? Corrupt LibDems claim so
No doubt the corrupt Stockport LibDem Executive Councillors will consider this request “vexatious”.
Illegally applying political pressure on councillors to put primary school on still gassing former toxic waste dump
Vexatious to ask corrupt LibDem councillors about drainage issues
Is Stockport Council’s Head of Freedom of Information operating in a corrupt manner?

https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/2015/05/31/jill-barlow-at-stockport-blocking-information-pertaining-to-fraud-1661