The costs of Vale View School jumped from £5.5 million to £10 million over 2 pages of a report. It was always “vexatious” of me to question this, and it still is.
These documents can be more clearly read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html
In October 2005 Vale View School was to cost £5.5 million. By December 2005 the cost had risen to £7.5 million. Why, I asked? Don’t be vexatious, they replied! And they still do.
These documents can be more clearly read at http://www.sheilaoliver.org/financial-irregularities.html
 |
The full document can be read more clearly here – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/andrew-webb.html
How could it take 84 hours to take out all the secrets from a file on a new primary school? Another whopping lie by Director of Children’s Services Andrew Webb. The Information Commission says files must be kept in reasonable order. I had already seen the documents some time earlier and just wanted to re-read them and read any new documents on the subject. Is Andrew Webb a fit person to hold public office? I often wonder.
Mr Webb, of course, is the official who had a legal duty to sort out Mr Parnell’s simple problem. His failure to do his job properly in that respect has cost the taxpayer probably hundreds of thousands of pounds – http://www.sheilaoliver.org/town-hall-protester.html
One of the statutory objections received was from a householder who believed they had a decade long interest in the land to be compulsorily purchased for the toxic waste dump school, so by law a public inquiry should have been held. Stockport Council knew it would have lost such a public inquiry, so they lied to the Secretary of State regarding the nature of the objections.
If only anyone at the Council or NPS had read this.
They tried to leave all this contamination in situ, despite being fully aware of the nature of the contamination because in 1974 the Council refused three planning applications for the site because the site was too contaminated to build on. The LibDems don’t mind poisoning children and babies, though. They said I was “vexatious” for correctly pointing out this school was contaminated, and they still do.
LibDems – don’t trust them with your money, your vote or your children’s safety.
The Chair of the Executive Committee says my questions about why there are no playing fields, as was a condition of the Vale View School wending its dodgy way through planning, are “vexatious”.
 |
 |
What has happened to the £600,000 set aside for this and where are the external changing rooms? Why are there no white lines or goalposts? Vexatious of me to mention it. Naughty, naughty me!
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/no-playing-fields.html
Dear Mr Khan
May I suggest /recommend that your FOIA Manager, Mr Oldfield, be sent on a FOIA training course because he is seriously lacking understanding of the basic FOIA 2000 requirement ref section 14(1) for Vexatious decisions.
Yesterday, your Mr Oldfield sent me a refusal of my FOIA request #6930, which is available at the whatdotheyknow website quoting section 14(1) VEXATIOUS. However, in the same refusal notice he attached the Lightning Test Results for Vale View school. Hence, I am having some difficulty understanding how this was a refusal.
A refusal under section 14(1) of the FOIA 2000 means exactly that i.e., refusal. Your Mr Oldfield is also having difficulty in the understanding of motive blind and applicant blind.
As Legal Advisor to SMBC, I am sure you will appreciate the paramount importance for SMBC to be seen having transparency, accountability and security (TAS) at their FOIA Department and perusal of the WDTK website ref FOI 6930 yesterday will confirm the SMBC TAS is NOT seen to be working.
I have submitted a FOIA request today at the WDTK website for a copy of the Lightning Risk Assessment(LRA) for both the Fred Perry House and the Vale View School, and the reason for the latter is because of my serious concerns for public safety at the Vale View school after receiving the Lightning Test results yesterday. I am not required to make this statement under the FOIA 2000 but I am merely showing you my concerns for 1) public safety 2) the TAS at the SMBC FOIA Department.
I fully appreciate these austere times requires the SMBC to be mindful of legal costs; hence, I am more than willing to attend your offices and give a short seminar on the correct use of section 14(1) FOI 2000 for expenses only charge.
Look forward to receiving your response.
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield.
