Stockport Council News

Dear Mrs Oliver

Further to your letter of 6^th October 2009 and e-mails of 29^th September 2009, 5^th October 2009 and 13^th October 2009.

I have referred your request for Freedom of Information to the relevant unit and you will hear from them in due course.

Mr Parnell has Defence Solicitors who are representing him in these proceedings and any request for further information in relation to the Criminal Anti-Social Behaviour Order or the evidence and process of prosecution in the case should be directed to them so that they can raise these issues on Mr Parnell’s behalf.

Yours sincerely

Cheryl Hramiak

Branch Crown Prosecutor

Salford/Stockport/Trafford Branch

Dear Mrs Oliver

Further to your e-mail of the 28^th September 2009, sent at 19.22, and as covered in earlier e-mails, the Magistrates’ Court imposed the criminal anti-social behaviour order not that the Crown Prosecution Service.  The legality of such an order is to be considered at the appeal hearing.

My lawyers and caseworkers are informed that they must not discuss cases openly in court in the presence of members of the public.

Yours sincerely

Cheryl Hramiak

Branch Crown Prosecutor

Salford/Stockport/Trafford Branch

Dear Mrs Oliver

Further to your e-mail of 28^th September 2009, I note the contents.  The original  CCTV did not cover the scene of the incident.  Mr Parnell was convicted after the Court heard evidence from the witnesses involved in this incident.

Yours sincerely

Cheryl Hramiak

Branch Crown Prosecutor

Salford/Stockport/Trafford Branch

“to ensure that evidential tests are met” maybe they should have allowed the CCTV exonerating him to have been show in court – just a thought.

Dear Mrs Oliver

Further to your e-mail of the 29^th September 2009 the subject of the legality of the ASBO and the evidence which was put before the Court, which led to Mr Parnell’s conviction, will be considered by the Crown Court as part of Mr Parnell’s appeal.

The Crown Prosecution Service continually review cases against all defendants to ensure that the evidential tests and public interest tests are met.  At this stage it is our intention to proceed on the assault charges.

Yours sincerely

Cheryl Hramiak

Branch Crown Prosecutor

Salford/Stockport/Trafford Branch

Did this Hramiak person actually bother to look at what had been going on? I wrote as suggested they just denied everything.

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your emails.

I have passed your correspondence to Mr John Holt, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Greater Manchester. He will arrange for a reply to be sent to you as soon as possible.

I trust that this assists.

Yours sincerely,

Correspondence Unit

Crown Prosecution Service

50 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7EX

Tel: 020 7796 8500

Fax: 020 7796 8680

www.cps.gov.uk 

---

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 13 September 2009 18:46
To: strawj@parliament.uk
Cc: Complaints; barry khan; BAKER, Norman; Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk; Cllr Dave Goddard; Cllr David White; Cllr Mark Weldon; Cllr Stuart Bodsworth; cllr.sue.derbyshire@stockport.gov.uk; John Schultz; martin.candler@stockport.gov.uk; Anwar Majothi; cleggn@parliament.uk; STUNELL, Andrew; cablev@parliament.uk; camerond@parliament.uk; browng@parliament.uk
Subject: Banned from the town for a sneeze and sent to prison twice

Dear Minister for Justice

Mr Parnell, our gentle, peaceful town hall protester, got nowhere over a decade in dealing with the truly useless complaints department of Stockport Council regarding counselling for his troubled adopted daughters, so he stood on the town hall steps for two years in a peaceful protest.  He was continually harassed by some council employees, who called the police to him 90 times.  He had a court case dropped on the day of the hearing, was then arrested 12 times, spent 4 nights in a particularly nasty Manchester prison, appeared in court charged with assault with a sneeze (pre swine flu) with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold.  There is no evidence of this on the CCTV footage, which was not allowed to be shown in court.  He then got a CRASBO (criminal ASBO).  He was not allowed to enter the town centre. He was again arrested for using the town hall public lavatory and the police were called by the Council as an emergency for this, as the blue lights were still flashing on the police car later when I arrived at the scene.   This weekend, due to an incident with his troubled daughters, he wanted to attend the police station and was reported as being in breach of his bail conditions apparently by a council employee.  Mr. Parnell’s wife has heard nothing from him since and is at her wit’s end.  How can anyone go to prison for the alleged offence of sneezing?  How can they be sent back to prison for entering the police station?

Stockport  is a corrupt LibDem council where dissent from council taxpayers is stamped upon with a vigour which would make the Stasi blush.  We had the poor lady from Stockport – Alison Davies – who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9 -year-old autistic son.  We have another 18 year old just jumped off a tower block to her death after the Council was unable to assist her following her leaving care.  Mr. Parnell, his wife or his troubled adopted daughters could easily be the next suicide statistic.  Andrew Stunell, his local MP, pontificates in the press about the wrong people being put in prison but is useless in offering Mr. Parnell any assistance.

Please reply, Mr. Straw.  This is just as bad as the case of the poor football fan you have recently helped in such a magnificent fashion.  We will be dealing with suicides here if this goes on.  How utterly, utterly ludicrous for the council to have persecuted Mr Parnell in this fashion. Why couldn’t the Council just have provided him with counselling for his two troubled daughters which was what he wanted  and who had a truly terrible time with their birth parents and adolescence is bringing out understandably bad behaviour in them.  I must point out that Mr. Parnell says the police have been helpful and respectful and it is obvious they are being used a puppets by this corrupt council

How much has all this lunacy cost the taxpayer? 

Please, please get back to me.

Yours

Mrs S J Oliver

Stockport’s Freedom of Information Campaigner

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

********************************************************************* This e-mail is private and is intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients. If you are not an intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. Activity and use of CPS Connect systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is monitored to secure their effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. *********************************************************************

Email sent – Wed 10/12/2008 18:36

Dear Ms Naven

This is raising more questions than it answers.  What if the vexatious council taxpayer is proved to be right by external agencies?  Then she or he was correct to continue questioning and we have to acknowledge that people who have something to hide don’t want to be questioned about it.

Take me for example – as I point out to my husband I am always right.  I was right in that John Schulz had to publicly apologise to me in the Express, I was right in the Harcourt Street contamination was not carried out sufficiently – the Environment Agency have demanded more investigations.  I was right when I got 22 lorry loads of contaminated waste removed from the Trident Foams site.  The council had to apologise when they didn’t tell the Environment Agency until three days before the planning meeting about the school they are proposing to build on a still gassing toxic waste dump and I had a hand in exposing that, the Department for Children’s Schools and  Families laywers are worried that SMBC did not consider the human rights of local residents at Harcourt Street, which I pointed out, I will be shown to be right about the waste of millions of pounds at Harcourt Street and I have the backing of hundreds and hundreds of local people, as I have repeatedly shown. So you see, independent review by a senior council officer doesn’t really cut the mustard does it?

I look forward to your comments.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: sheilaoliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:23 PM

Subject: RE: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379 – Additional response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing further to your additional request for information below.

Please find attached the Council’s ‘Policy on unacceptable actions by complainants’. You may also find the information at the following link helpful:

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/09CC656B2B98A12A9905CAADA055ACAA

This takes you to ‘Getting the Best from Complaints – Social Care Complaints for Children, Young People and Others’. This is guidance which supports the Regulations governing children’s complaints and in Annexes 4 and 5, pages 45/49 it outlines actions that may be considered by Councils in dealing with persistent, unreasonably persistent complainants and on unacceptable behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 09 December 2008 21:40
To: FOI Officer
Cc: Peter Devine
Subject: Re: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379 – Response

Dear Ms Naven

Thanks for your reply.  We will ignore the housing people, but I appreciate they too might be simply trying to get through the brick wall of the Council’s complaints procedure.

I am a bit mystified as to how SMBC can have banned people from communicating with the Council and from entering all Council properties (excluding schools) if you don’t know who they are, or am I missing something here?

What I suspect is that over the decades SMBC has banned possibly hundreds of people with legitimate concerns and has never troubled to un-ban them.  Where this leaves SMBC with its current vexatious complaints protocol is anyone’s guess.  Could you send me a copy?  Many thanks if you can.

I need to have a big think about all this.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: sheilaoliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:43 PM

Subject: RE: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379 – Response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1379). I apologise for the delay.

You have not defined ‘…currently banned council taxpayers…’ in a way which enables us to respond fully to your request. We cannot comment on or make reference to any individual cases in our response. Information which relates to and identifies living individuals is personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998. The disclosure of personal data under these circumstances would be unfair and would contravene the first data protection principle; therefore it is exempt under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act).

Your subjective statement could clearly incorporate a large number of different circumstances for different people; therefore when considering your request, we have defined this as relating to instances where the Council:

o  has barred all forms of communication from an individual and banned them from all Council premises (excluding schools); or

o  has taken other action that might, for instance, allow conditional access to premises e.g. with prior arrangements/agreement with appropriate personnel but still continue to allow communication.

With the above in mind, our response is below:

There is no central Council ‘register’ of people who fall into the above categories. If we were to attempt to provide this information, it would involve substantial amounts of work and investigation to compile information in a format not currently held. If restrictions such as those above are in place, these are likely to be done on a case-by-case basis, the details of which will be contained within individual correspondence and/or complaint files. To provide this information would require every individual team and service to read through all files which may be relevant to see if any individual falls within the above category. This also means that any figure provided has the potential to be inaccurate. Such a substantial exercise is likely to exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 i.e. 18 hours’ work (s.12 FOI Act).

In addition to the above, the Council currently has six injunctions in force which ban people from Council buildings. These are all Housing injunctions where the conduct of an individual:

a. is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a specified person (resident of a housing estate/member of staff); and

b. directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord.

We are unable to provide any further information in relation to your request in its current form.

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review, contact foi.officer@stockport.gov.uk in the first instance.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

www.ico.gov.uk

01625 545 745

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 04 November 2008 18:35
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379

Dear Ms Naven

Thanks for your reply.  I am happy to discuss how we deal with this one – I am always willing to oblige. 

For example, I presume people are banned because they present  a real danger to council employees and  maybe the fabric of buildings, and not simply because they are asking questions that might embarrass the Council.  So, there must be a list somewhere of currently banned people,  in case they turn up so the security staff can be vigilant.  There should be some system, in such a well-run council, of rescinding these bans – or  do they always last a lifetime?  I know, please let me see the written protocol for this.

Shall we say all currently banned council taxpayers who are prevented from entering council buildings in the way it was employed against – plucking a name at random – Mr. Parnell?  I am not interested in schools or colleges, as I can see there might be genuine reasons for banning people from them.

If we are talking about huge numbers here, I am happy to re-define my request.  If we are talking about huge numbers here, there is something very wrong.

Lots of love

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: FOI Officer

To: sheilaoliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:43 PM

Subject: RE: Banned council taxpayers – Ref 1379

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1379).

We are unable to respond to your request in its current form; however if you are able to refine your request we may be able to provide some relevant information. For example: How do you define ‘banned’? This could include those where the Council has withdrawn its permission for them to enter certain buildings; it could also include those who are excluded by the terms of an injunction or those who have entered into an undertaking not to enter Council buildings. Similarly, how do you define ‘Council building’? This could include civic buildings, Council offices, schools, housing offices etc. You have also not specified a time-period to which your request relates. Consequently, your request could incorporate a vast amount of records and circumstances which means we cannot answer it as it currently stands.

If you are able to refine your request, please do so. If we do not receive this clarification within 20 working days we will assume you no longer wish to proceed and will close your case.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: sheilaoliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 08 October 2008 20:35
To: FOI Officer

Subject: Banned council taxpayers

Dear Ms Naven

Please may I know under the FOIA how many council taxpayers have now been banned from council buildings by this Kafkaesque council?  I believe the lovely grandma with the autistic grandchild has been banned as well as Mr. Parnell.  Are there any more?

Lots of love

Sheila

**********************************************************************
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.query@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system.

Thank you.

http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1765 – Release Date: 11/3/2008 4:59 PM

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1839 – Release Date: 12/9/2008 9:59 AM

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.16/1841 – Release Date: 12/10/2008 9:30 AM