Stockport Council News

Dodgy Stockport Council put the names, addresses and signatures of huge numbers of council taxpayers up on the Council website. At a full council meeting on a Thursday evening this was drawn to the attention of the Leader, all the Executive Councillors, all the senior council officers present, and all the other councillors. No action was taken to remove this damaging information until the following Monday when those affected complained to the police and the Information Commissioner.

Over that weekend Mr Parnell was arrested three times for trying to get his name, address and signature (and mine) down from the Council website (please see the video link below)

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/arrested-for-trying-to-report-a-data-protection-offence.html

You can see from the Word document above from Stockport Council’s Freedom of Information Officer that they didn’t even hold any sort of meeting to discuss this serious breach of the Data Protection Act.

This is a truly horrendous council and at that time the Monitoring Officer was the dreadful Barry Khan.

Email to Khan et al sent – 08 June 2011 17:50

You have committed offences under the Human Rights Act against Mr Parnell under sections 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) and 10), and you have committed dozens if not hundreds of separate breaches.

Mr Parnell has good reason to sue you for a fortune. I have no idea if he will or not. I don’t want to fund any damages as a council taxpayer, I don’t see why the Council’s insurers should have to cover such corruption. If they do end up paying out, then I hope they never insure any of you again.

My suggestion is that the culprits at Stockport Council make a substantial offer of payment to Mr Parnell to help him, his wife and his daughters recover from the trauma you have all put him through unnecessarily and in acts of appalling bullying, and make the payments from their own pockets. Khan needs to be struck off a solicitor; I am sure that will happen now.

If you keep arresting him, I shall ask the Chief Constable to arrest Mr Khan for wasting police time.

Sheila

Email sent – 04 August 2011 16:56

Dear Council Solicitor

I shall cc this to the Council’s underwriters.

I am led to believe that the Council Tax Leaflet issued by Stockport does not seem to comply with the required legal content. It has replaced the accurate statement of the obligations of discount recipients arising under Regulation 16 with a different and legally inaccurate assertion.

Could I have your comments please.

Also, I have not had any reply that I can find from Dave Westhead about why they did not enforce the planning condition to board off the toxic waste dump school site, which might have prevented at least some cases of mesothelioma in the surrounding houses. Also, were changes made to the shoddy, tin roof requested at planning? God knows why this cost us so much in architect’s fees – I suspect corruption – I really do. Senior council officers at Stockport should do their jobs properly. This alone could cost your insurers millions in defending actions for damages.

What a badly run ship you, Boylan and Goddard preside over!

Mrs Oliver

06 June 2010 15.12

Dear Mr Khan

Thank you for your letter of 2nd June 2010 regarding Mr. Roberts’s register of interests and may I say what a refreshing change it makes for a highly paid council officer at Stockport to respond to requests from council taxpayers. I am very glad, and Mr. Eric Pickles will be glad, that you appear to have turned over a new leaf.

I drew this matter to the Council’s attention in March 2010. It would have seemed reasonable to have put Mr. Roberts’ register of members interests up on the Internet. Not everyone can get to the town hall to view the actual documents, so to put it up on the Internet would see a perfectly reasonable solution.

Regarding the other two responses you sent me, I have taken them up with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government but I would appreciate a copy of the document regarding Mr. Parnell which you say was put on public display in the town hall. It appears to me that this has injured the resputation of an honest and innocent man. We have to look into whether this was a malicious prosecution by the Council – a tawdry affair which has probably cost the taxpyayer hundreds of thousands of pounds. May I remind you Mr. Parnell was acquitted. I sat in court and saw the appalling video evidence of the actions of the Council’s security guards, swearing, threatening to kick his head in, threatening to kill him. It would not look good for this Council if it were to get into the public domain. And, having been told by the judge to sort out his problems, he is again arrested instead for asking, apparently, for a council agenda meeting document. Still, I am sure Mr. Pickles will get to the bottom of it. I have copied it to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, who doesn’t appear to like the LibDems much.

With very warmest best wishes

Sheila