Stockport Council News

Drazen Jaksic
Chief Executive
Zurich Insurance UK
Head Office
70 Mark Lane
London
EC3R 7NQ

Thursday, 09 January 2025

Dear Drazen Jaksic

Insurers of Stockport Council

Please listen to what I am saying.  Many years ago Stockport Council, ruled almost entirely by the LibDems, put a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump – a former Jackson’s Brickyard – which you may know had appalling contamination histories.  The council refused three planning applications in the 1970s because the site was too toxic to build on.  It was decided to put a new primary school on that site, although there was another, more popular, safer site available with room for expansion.  The LibDem councillors chose to sell that off for housing and use the toxic site instead, which they tried to pretend was clean.  There was more planning corruption/fraud involved than you could shake a stick at, which is all clearly documented here:-

https://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school-.html

When I started exposing their planning corruption they had to shut me up, so they told the Information Commissioner that I was vexatious.  I had to try for years to get them to remove the contamination, which they did after a fashion, but the brown asbestos fibres were left on the site.  There are reference points on the video proving this is that site:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

The school opened in 2011.  Mesothelioma cases, as I understand it, usually take 25 years to develop.  Apart from the school children, the area is very built up.  The brown asbestos fibres they disturbed will have travelled.  When I pointed out migrant labour was removing lethal brown asbestos fibres using a bin bag and stick and that they didn’t understand their task as they took their own respirators off, I was told I was vexatious.  I have the documentary evidence.

When I gave evidence to the Information Commissioner subsequently that I had been correct in every respect, they refused to remove the vexatious branding.

So, I assume you may face potentially huge mesothelioma claims in the future.  I think the insurers of the LibDems and the Information Commissioner will have to pay towards any settlements.  I couldn’t go to the police about the corruption because of the close connection between Greater Manchester Police and Stockport Council, which is shown in the second case of corruption, which might also leave you with huge damages claims.

https://www.sheilaoliver.org/mr-parnell-rip.html

This paedophile –

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/former-stockport-councillor-facing-10-10723666

Lord Goddard and the Stockport LibDem councillors repeatedly/maliciously imprisoned this sick, innocent, fiercely protective father of 2 lovely young girls until he died aged 58.  The same people as were involved with the toxic waste dump primary school.  Two of them, Wendy Meikle and Shan Alexander are still Executive Councillors even today.  What on earth may they be currently up to?  Mr Parnell’s and his family’s life were destroyed, all because he tried to protect his adopted daughters from the above paedophile.  I begged every LibDem Lord, MP, senior official every day to stop what was being done to him.  I said they were kicking him into his grave, which they were.  Not a single response was received from anyone.

My suggestions going forward? Have some sort of contact point for people undergoing these abuses which might leave local authority insurers with huge claims in the future.  Nip the abuses in the bud when they start.  It wouldn’t cost much to set up or run, and the potential savings for your industry could be huge.

There is, of course, the case of Mrs Luba Macpherson and Sunderland Council.  No-one did their job.  No-one listened to a concerned mother worried about her daughter.  How much might that claim cost your industry?

I shall cc this to the rogues at Stockport Council.  If they wish to dispute matters they can, but I have a very large amount of documentary evidence

I hope you listen; I really do

Yours sincerely

Sheila Oliver
Local Authority Specialist Researcher
Citizens 2022 Committee

c.c. Mr John Edwards
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Wilmslow
Cheshire

c.c LibDems
Stockport Council

c.c. Edward Davey
LibDem Leader

Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark
Stockport Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE
By Recorded Delivery

Thursday, 01 February 2024

Dear Councillor Smart/Clark

You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4^th October 2023 to represent me.  My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control.  It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive.  The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions.   I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council.  The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive.   I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse.  I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armchair-auditors-are-here-to-stay

Your reply to me, when it was finally extracted from you, was ludicrous to say the least.  Because this took place in a different part of Stockport you can’t help me?  You promised to represent me – I live in your ward.  The offences were committed by LibDem Executive councillors, some of whom are now back in control of the council.

Financial Irregularities (Part 1)

I was branded vexatious by then LibDem run Stockport Council for raising the issue of financial irregularities.  In October 2005 the Vale View School was said to be costing £5.5million, by December 2005 it had gone up to £7.5 million.  By July 2006 the costs had risen to £8.2million, £2.40 million over budget.  It then rose shortly afterwards to £10 million Why was it considered vexatious of me to raise these matters?

I look forward to your reply.  I shall send this by snail mail as well, so you can’t claim you haven’t received it.

We don’t need another MP happy to turn a blind eye to the corruption of their political cohorts.

Yours

Sheila Oliver

Lisa Smart’s eventual response

Dear Mrs Oliver.

Thank you for the question you submitted to the full council meeting last week. 

It is especially pleasing to hear that our newsletter delivery network is working as it should. We usually rely on party members and supporters to let us know when they receive a leaflet so that we can monitor the effectiveness of our deliverers and I’m delighted that you have added yourself to their number by keeping us informed. Thank you.

Your question related to the questions you have previously submitted to me and I list below the questions I am aware of.

Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 4^th October, 2023

As the questioner was present, both Cllr Angie Clark and I responded verbally to this question. The webcast is available for viewing on the council website should anyone wish to watch it.

Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 16^th November, 2023

I believe that a question was submitted to me but was deemed to be on a matter previously determined as vexatious by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. As the question relates to a site outside the ward I was elected to represent and dates back to matters five years before I was elected, I do not intend to comment further on this topic.

Councillor Lisa Smart/Councillor Angela Clark
Stockport Town Hall
Edward Street
Stockport
SK1 3XE
By Recorded Delivery

Date 10/10/2023

Dear Councillor Smart/Clark

You undertook at the full council meeting at Stockport Town Hall on 4^th October 2023 to represent me.  My questions have been erroneously branded as being vexatious by Stockport Council from the last time it was under Liberal Democrat control.  It was claimed that I had been rude and offensive.  The Information Commissioner decided that I had not been rude and offensive, but was asking too many questions.   I have that evidence, as does Stockport Council.  The Council has no evidence of my ever having been rude or offensive.   I need you to examine the relevant evidence yourself and decide if the questions were rude, offensive, wasting councillor/officer time or in the interests of public safety or the public purse.  I draw your attention to the relevant government advice, which was in place at the time these questions were first raised:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/armchair-auditors-are-here-to-stay

It is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 to act deliberately to cause someone (in this instance the council taxpayer) a loss.

Section 2 – Fraud by False Representation It is an offence to commit fraud by false representation. The representation must be made dishonestly. The person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another.

1.  You are building the Vale View School too small deliberately, I told Stockport Council.  Your question is vexatious and you are wasting our valuable time with your constant questions, they replied.

My question to the full council meeting – deemed vexatious.

• But the Council knew in April 2006 that the school was being built too small, so why was my council meeting question on the subject deemed vexatious in February 2008?

• The birthrate in the area was rising sharply.

The Council stated in the minutes of a meeting on 26^th April 2006 that 555 pupils needed a place at Vale View School, so the above FOI response would appear to be incorrect – also an offence to give an untrue response.

• On 10^th of March 2006 the Council knew the school was being built too small.  “I stress the need for confidentiality.”

After the school opened it was admitted that a share of 81 million pounds would have to be spent on school places in North Reddish.

I look forward to your decision as to whether this was well-researched questioning about which nothing was done, or my being a nuisance to busy and important council officers and councillors.  It is a simple matter for you to read through this evidence.  There will be no need to drag this out over weeks and months and I look forward to your response with interest.

Yours

Sheila Oliver

c.c. Councillor David Meller

Town Hall

Stockport

SK1 3XE

Councillor Smart’s response eventually extracted from her:-

Dear Mrs Oliver.

Thank you for the question you submitted to the full council meeting last week. 

It is especially pleasing to hear that our newsletter delivery network is working as it should. We usually rely on party members and supporters to let us know when they receive a leaflet so that we can monitor the effectiveness of our deliverers and I’m delighted that you have added yourself to their number by keeping us informed. Thank you.

Your question related to the questions you have previously submitted to me and I list below the questions I am aware of.

Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 4^th October, 2023

As the questioner was present, both Cllr Angie Clark and I responded verbally to this question. The webcast is available for viewing on the council website should anyone wish to watch it.

Question submitted to Full Council meeting of 16^th November, 2023

I believe that a question was submitted to me but was deemed to be on a matter previously determined as vexatious by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. As the question relates to a site outside the ward I was elected to represent and dates back to matters five years before I was elected, I do not intend to comment further on this topic.

Should he have at least got someone else to look into it? He is a LibDem so normal standards of decency don’t apply.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/rap-for-council-officers-over-planning-965878