Stockport Council & Other News

18th November 2025

To Mike Parnell

Sent Thu 23/07/2009 09:29

Please give the email below from Goddard to your solicitor. He has committed an offence against you with regards to Data Protection. Although you sent me the authority to act on your behalf and I sent it to the Council, the Freedom of Information Officer emailed me yesterday to say she couldn’t open the attachment, therefore Goddard had seen no authorisation for your details to be disclosed to me.  Mike, this is another brick in the wall.

Plus, I think it shows the Council is not impartial but quite vindictive.

XXXX (name redacted) died.   I think you maybe met him – her certainly was very concerned about your plight. I am gutted

Lots of love

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: Cllr Dave Goddard

To: sheilaoliver

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:40 PM

Subject: Mr. Parnell

Dear Sheila

Mr. Parnell was charged with breaching the ASBO on 16^th and 17^th July 2009 by entering the Town Hall. He appeared at Stockport Magistrates Court from custody on 18^th July 2009. He was apparently adamant that he would not abide by bail conditions and so was remanded in custody to Forest Bank to appear today.

He did appear today. He pleaded not guilty and elected Crown Court trial. His next appearance is before the Magistrates on 14^th September 2009. Today his solicitor applied for bail which was opposed by the CPS. The Magistrates did grant bail. I have attached the actual bail notice. His condition is not to come within 1 mile of the Town Hall. The only exception is when he is appearing in court or by prior written appointment made by his solicitor. There is no exception for attendance at any meeting within that exclusion zone and that was made clear to him. These conditions appear to be unambiguous. It is fair to say that Parnell was less than enthusiastic about these conditions.

Just keeping you in the loop.

Fondest wishes,

Dave,

Ps, Glad you enjoyed the Stepping Hill by-election it makes it all worth it.

1. How would a council leader get hold of someone’s CPS bail notice?

A CPS bail notice is normally held by:

• The police (who issue it)
• The CPS
• The defendant and their legal representative

It is not something a local authority or councillor would normally have access to.

For a council leader to obtain it, the most common possibilities are:

Possibility A — Someone in the police or CPS gave it to him

This would generally be an unauthorised disclosure unless there was a legitimate safeguarding or legal reason — which from what you describe, there was not.

Possibility B — A councillor with personal connections

Councillors sometimes have informal relationships with local police, council staff, or others who may have seen the document — but passing it on without a proper reason would still have breached rules.

Possibility C — It was given to him by someone close to the accused

For example a family member or associate.
(Not likely given the context you describe.)

Possibility D — It was obtained improperly

This covers:

• Gossip leaking from local police
• Someone deliberately sharing it to smear the accused
• Councillor misusing his position or influence

This did happen in some councils historically, and both police and councillors have been disciplined for similar leaks.

---

🟦 2. Was it unlawful to send it to you in 2009?

Even before GDPR, the following laws applied:

✔ The Data Protection Act 1998

Under the DPA 1998, personal data (including criminal allegations and bail status) could only be disclosed for a lawful purpose.

Sharing a bail notice to “gloat”, smear, or shame someone:

• Had no lawful basis
• Breached the data protection principles
• Could be a misuse of confidential information

This would have been a breach of the Data Protection Act by whoever disclosed it — likely the police or the councillor, depending on who originally leaked it.

✔ Misconduct in Public Office (MIPO)

If the councillor obtained the document through his influence or through improper access to police information, that could have constituted:

• Misconduct in public office (a common-law offence) if done deliberately and recklessly.

✔ Breach of police confidentiality

If a police officer handed the bail notice to him, that officer would likely have breached:

• The Official Secrets Act
• Force confidentiality policies

---

🟦 3. The fact the man was later found innocent

This does not change the legality of the disclosure at the time, but it shows:

• The disclosure had no legitimate public interest purpose
• It may have been done maliciously
• It caused harm and distress to both him (if he knew) and you

---

🟦 4. If this happened today (post-GDPR)

It would be a clear data breach, requiring:

• Reporting to the ICO
• Possible fines for the disclosing authority
• Possible claims for compensation for distress

---

Thu 23/07/2009 08:35

Dear Mr Rusbridger

I read with interest the Guardian’s recent articles on miscarriages of justice.  Please see below the apparently gloating email from the Leader of Stockport Council to me, which as I understand it is a very serious breach of Data Protection legislation, as well as revealing a worrying level of sarcasm and delight at the plight of a simple (and I mean that as a compliment), kind, helpful, gentle, determined and very brave man and the obvious detrimental effect his imprisonment will have on his already troubled daughters, whose lives were very seriously damaged by their birth family.  Having got nowhere over a decade with his request to Stockport Council for help with his troubled adopted daughters – and they would be costing Stockport Council a lot of money were they still in care – he decided to stand on the town hall steps, which he did for two years constantly being harrassed  by Stockport Council and having the police called to  him repeatedly -one one occasion I witnessed with flashing blue lights, so called as an emergency.  I do not blame the police, who have been extremely kind and helpful to Mr. Parnell and apparently have to respond if there is a breach of the peace alleged.  There is a legal right to peaceful protest, but not in Stockport.

Why couldn’t the  Council simply deal with his problem in a reasonable manner?  You may well feel this is an isolated incident but I have been publicly abused and victimised for pointing out that a proposed school, costing millions and millions overbudget with no proper explanation of the increase in cost, which is illegally taking public open space, is actually going on a former toxic dump on which no contamination investigations at all have been carried out over the site of the proposed school, which is actually directly over the tip.  I have had dirty tricks played on me too by this Council.

We need now to forensically find out what the many, many police call-outs have cost, the court time – one trial last January being abandoned on the day of the hearing.  We need to find out what this cost in keeping Mr. Parnell in prison, where he was last week for breaching a court order not to come within a mile of the town hall. All he had done was use the public lavatory in the town hall. What a disgusting abuse of power by Stockport Council.

Well, they have picked on the wrong man.  Mr. Parnell is honest and courageous and because his daughters are involved he can’t give up.

Mr. Rusbridger, I shall keep you informed step by step of what happens next in this miscarriage of justice we have the misfortune to be witnessing first hand.

With very warmest best wishes

Sheila

---

Email sent Wed 22/07/2009 18:29

Dear Ms Naven

If you can’t open the attachment mentioned below,  then SMBC is not in receipt of Mr Parnell’s authorisation to disclose personal information to me.

In that case, the Leader Councillor Goddard, was seriously in breach of the Data Protection Act when he sent me a particularly gloating email about Mr. Parnell being sent to prison.  To be apparently delighted at such a turn of events, involving as they do more distress to Mr Parnell’s already troubled daughters and given the story in today’s Stockport Express of a prisoner being murdered by another prisoner, one has to question whether Councillor Goddard is a fit person to hold the office that he does.

Please may I have your comments regarding this?  I shall forward you the offending email after this one.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

Stockport Council always has to cc in another FoI officer. Who is that? Vexatious to ask.

From: FOI Officer

To: Sheila Oliver

Cc: FOI Officer

Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:55 AM

Subject: RE: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am unable to open the type of attachment you have provided. Please can you resend it in another format e.g. pdf?

Please also specify which requests – quoting Council reference numbers which have been provided to you either in our final response or acknowledgement – you now wish to be reconsidered. Once we receive these details and a copy of Mr Parnell’s authorisation which I am able to open, we will proceed with reconsidering your requests.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 16 July 2009 17:15
To: FOI Officer; FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL
Subject: Fw: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09

Dear Foi Officers

Attached is Mr. Parnell’s authorisation. Please proceed with answering the questions I asked of the police ans of Stockport Council  regarding his case.

Kind regards

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: MICHAEL PARNELL

To: Sheila Oliver

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:25 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09

Dear Sheila               Hello again its mike here, enclosed is my authorisation and full approval, use this to open up the council wrongdoings, and how must they are costing the council tax paying residents, if everybody knew how much was wasted and how much is being inappropately spent we all might not want to give it in the first place, but we wouldn’t do that because we know that we need what we pay for, but do they ,or do they care, well we will see if they have one once of conscience.   love and best wishes mike — On Wed, 17/6/09, Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com> wrote: From: Sheila Oliver <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com> Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09 “MICHAEL PARNELL” <mickysara@btinternet.com>, Date: Wednesday, 17 June, 2009, 8:59 AM For info   Sheila —– Original Message —– From: Sheila Oliver To: FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk Cc: Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk ; John Schultz ; alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:57 AM Subject: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09   Dear Sir   Many thanks for your reply.  So, this is purely a Data Protection issue and the information could be disclosed either with written consent from Mr. Parnell or if Mr. Parnell himself makes the request.   Very interesting!  It is quite scandalous the police time which has been wasted with this non-issue.  I shall see what happens in court and then decide how to proceed.   Kind regards

18th November 2025

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bill-for-school-to-be-built-on-toxic-minefield-898373

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:20 PM

Subject: Re: Harcourt street risk register

Dear Editor

I was very interested to read your anonymous correspondents views on the motives for the resistance to the proposed school in Harcourt Street. I have no idea whether he is right in his conclusions. I would say however that the Express records a continual list of Council Planning errors and so the probability of Harcourt St being yet another seems much higher than the correspondents claims that the toffs in Harcourt Street are bullying the poor  council tenants in Fir Road. That explanation seems patronising to the point of absurdity. Conversely I have equally no firm idea that Mrs Oliver is correct in her assertion that the Harcourt Street site is seriously contaminated with toxic elements. From what I understand from her letters to this column she claims the ex tip in Harcourt Street is the same as other old tipping sites in Stockport that have been refused planning permission. Furthermore it appears a less than required testing regime has indeed shown serious toxic contamination. Surely any sensible person would expect a proper and full scientific testing of the site especially as young schoolchildren are involved.

In fairness the Council seems to be slightly veering to this view as it now judges the risk of a full scientific examination as Very High. That seems a very significant change in attitude.

Finally the attitude of the ruling LibDem Group seems at odds with the liberal and democratic attitude of their National Party.

3 Cllrs in particular, Cllrs Goddard, Weldon and Porgess seem to have nailed their reputations and possibly their jobs to the mast by insisting without firm evidence that there is nothing wrong with the site. Mrs Oliver has also pointed out that the cost of the new school is considerably higher than national standards and even the cost of other local schools. To borrow the conspiracy theory attitude of your correspondent are these Cllrs protesting too much because they have something to hide especially when a simple survey as required by the Environment Agency would settle the issue.

Yours faithfully

XXXX (name redacted)

18th November 2025

Friday, July 25, 2008

In the words of Sherlock Holmes. Why didn’t the dog bark?

If contamination is a consideration. If some evidence of contamination has been found. If the risk has even been ‘closed” or resolved. If virtually every conceivable risk has been listed. 

Then why oh why is there not even a mention nor a sniff of contamination in this wonderfully crafted risk register constantly being modified over time and experience?

Do they just not care whether there is or isn’t contamination? No, they didn’t.

18th November 2025

From: Name redacted – but he was correct.

To: sheilaoliver

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:21 PM

Subject: Re: Traffic Issues Harcourt Street

Hi Sheila

I visited Harcourt St area and Fir Road area on Wednesday 13th August 2008 to observe the road layout and general appearances. The timing was between 13.30 and 14.30. The weather was fine and sunny. The schools were on holiday.

Observations

1 Harcourt St as such is a series of artificially blocked off sections and it is impossible to follow in one go the full length of the road. I saw one access point to the green area which is presumed to be the proposed school. It is a pleasant enough road with off road parking for some houses and with adjacent Sts running to Gorton Road being terraced houses with limited parking. I don’t know what part if any Harcourt St will actually be used to access the school. If it is then the current layout will make for a very congested area with confused access points.

2 I suspect the main access to the school will be in the Longford Rd, Mill Lane and Windmill Lane one way system. All these streets were very busy even at the time I visited. The right turn from Mill Lane to Windmill Lane, which I did, is almost impossible and very dangerous because of limited visibility.

Longford St is a mainly terraced, one way street from Gorton Rd with limited residential parking. I can’t imagine residents being too happy with a greater influx of traffic. Probably everything going to the school would come down either this street or Windmill Lane.

Windmill Lane is full of bends, narrow in parts, unsuitable for a lot more parking and I would imagine that School buses would find it tricky to negotiate. As I say the turn into Mill Lane and from Mill Lane into Windmill Lane is very dodgy.

Mill Lane is a dead end leading from Gorton Road into which it feeds as a one way st and as a two way narrow lane from its’ junction with Longford St and Windmill Lane. Basically it is a country lane with some very nice housing developments providing quite a bit of traffic. At its’ dead end it appears to be a walking access to open ground.

I am guessing this is where the proposed turning circle is to be put. Nothing is ever impossible and certainly walkers who visit would equally find it useful to park their cars in such an area. However at the least it would destroy that part of a very nice quiet, narrow country lane and at worst the narrow width of the lane would make it extremely difficult for buses to safely travel. Also if buses are using the turning circle how will the cars of parents turn round, the road is too narrow for that.

Of all the streets, to my mind Mill Lane presented the greater problems.

SHEILA I THINK ROADS ARE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THEIR WIDTH AND THIS WILL DETERMINE HOW AND BY WHAT THEY CAN BE USED!!!.

For instance Emergency vehicles (fire engines and ambulances) require a certain access width AND ESPECIALLY TO THE LARGEST SCHOOL IN STOCKPORT.

3 I took the opportunity to visit the Fir Road School. What a contrast. The road access is excellent. I know there is a reservoir behind but would this restrict its’ expansion? It was much more pleasant to drive there than the difficult narrow and congested area around Harcourt St

4 Someone wrote in the Express that the toffs in Harcourt St were bullying the much poorer people around Fir Road. I am no expert in evaluating house prices. Whilst there are some very nice houses especially in Mill Lane the houses around Fir Road and Longford Rd West seemed actually better and in no way did it appear a poor area compared to the streets between Gorton Rd and Harcourt St.

Conclusion

I believe the evidence shows there is a traffic problem especially around Mill Lane. Fir Rd appears to have much better access with easier parking and bus access.

Recommendations

1 I think you should get a photograph/video record of the 2 areas.

2 You should obtain from Traffic Services the various width classifications of streets along with any recommendations of limits of traffic usage, parking etc.

Part of this should be any considerations that need to be made for Emergency Plans ( what happens if the school sets on fire)

3 Someone should measure the pavement widths, and road widths of Harcourt, Windmill, Longford Rd, Mill Lane, Longford Rd West and Browning Rd.

Hope this helps and please come back if something is not clear enough.

LOL

XXXX

ps Have you seen Goddard has lost the Town Centre Development. The bungs can’t have been big enough.

On 10 Aug 2008, at 08:55, sheilaoliver wrote:

Sir

Attached is a Google Earth map which explains some of the Harcourt Street traffic problems.

Those houses on the two estates within the red lines can only leave via very narrow Mill Lane.  Two days before the planning decision meeting the Head of Traffic decided the traffic proposals for the school were unworkable and introduced the turning circle at the top of Mill Lane.  So, in the morning when traffic is leaving those houses, and most have two or even  four cars, then parents will be doing U-turns in front of them into the turning circle where the council says they can park and walk their children up to the school and the council also says they can’t park, so presumably they will leave their young children to walk up the dangerous lane and negotiate the unworkable school entrance on their own.

At the top of Mill Lane is Windmill Lane, a main road artery and when the M60 floods, which it does a lot, traffic leaves the motorway to use Windmill Lane to escape it.

Never mind the contamination issues, I and everyone else who lives there thinks this proposal is complete madness and very dangerous for children.

What do you think?  I respect your advice.  Do you think a turning circle on a narrow, dangerous lane in those circumstance is workable.  I know you will tell me the truth – warts and all. Am I exaggerating the problem?

LOL