You have, of course, contacted me via this e-mail address at least once in the past (as well as advertising this address publicly).
I receive a lot of communications at my publicly available parliamentary e-mail address and I unsubscribe from those that I do not wish to hear from again.
I will of course treat this e-mail address as unsubscribed.
Published Today WINNING HERE My Campaign Memoirs 25% discount available if you buy direct from the publishers:
Enter the code WH118 when you click through to the shopping cart page on Winning Here, to buy the hardback at £18.99 (discounted from £25) or the eBook for £15 https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/winning-here How did the Liberal Party survive in the 1970s? Why were the Liberal Democrats formed? How did the Lib Dems fight off David Owen’s SDP? What was the story of the 13 Lib Dem parliamentary by-election successes between Eastbourne in 1990 and Dunfermline & West Fife in 2006. How did the party grow from 19 MPs to 63? How did it become ‘the second party of local government’ with over 5,000 Councillors? What were Paddy Ashdown’s dealings with Tony Blair all about? How did Charles Kennedy come to lead opposition to the Iraq War and how did the party reach the peak of its electoral successes under him, cope with his health problems and the controversy of his enforced resignation? My insight into all these issues is described in a volume of memoirs stretching from my father’s experience as a wounded POW in WWI, being brought up by my disabled Mum after my father died, orphaned at 16 and having to finish school living in my own flat.
I started running council elections in my teens, was a successful constituency agent at 22, the Lib Dem Director of Campaigns & Elections at 29, a peer at 39, and Chief Executive at 43 when the party was at the height of its electoral successes.
Mr Peter Lewis Chief Executive Crown Prosecution Service Rose Court 2 Southward Bridge London SE1 9HS
Sunday, 18 October 2015
Dear Chief Executive, CPS
I enclose a letter sent to Alison Saunders regarding serious abuses against an innocent, sick man carried out by Stockport CPS. She asked the CPS culprits to investigate themselves, and obviously they didn’t want to.
It isn’t good, is it, given the nature of the issues being raised here. Could I please have a proper response from you?
Yours sincerely
Sheila Oliver
c.c. Alison Saunders, DPP
c.c. The Editor File on Four Radio 4 Broadcasting House London W1A 1AA
Re your attached letter to me. I complained and complained and complained at the time. The CPS allowed the illegal arrests of Mr Parnell to continue. Before I take your refusal to respond properly back up with MS Saunders, Twitter and Radio 4, would you care to provide a proper response to the matters raised with you?
An open letter to Lords Rennard, Carlisle, Ashdown, Steele
By recorded delivery (because LibDems don’t receive letters)
Monday, October 21, 2013
Dear Lords
I wish to draw to your attention the behaviour of your political cohorts at Stockport. I assume you will take no action, but there will be a public record that you were informed.
Mr Michael Parnell died aged 58 after what he and his family believe (with good cause) to have been a prolonged and vicious vendetta against him by the Stockport LibDems. Mr Parnell was asking for a decade for his legal right to help for his lovely, troubled daughters adopted from Stockport Council. What the LibDems did to him – Goddard, Weldon, Stunell, Hunter, Derbyshire, Roberts, Bodsworth, Candler et al means these people are most certainly not fit to hold public office.
This is what Mr & Mrs Parnell set out as their case at an independent meeting held on 9th June 2008. At no time in the previous decade and up until his death in 2013 did they receive any help – quite the contrary!
“Mr and Mrs Parnell’s complaints are that:
1. Stockport MBC has broken the law, they have not performed their statutory duty of a Local Authority, to safeguard and promote the health and wellbeing of children and young people within its borough.
2. Stockport MBC has not appointed a permanent social worker for our children and there as been no continuity between duty social workers.
3. Stockport MBC has not performed any assessments in view of seeing what are the children’s needs in respect towards their adoption, Health, Education, Social, and Support needs.
4. Stockport MBC has no Care Plans drawn up for these looked after children in the care of this Local Authority – as a result the procedures throughout their childhood in relation to their health, education and support have failed the girls as a service not received – no chronology / no information, from or passed between all agencies and partners.
5. Stockport MBC has not supported the family when the children were younger and this has had an adverse effect on the children and their parents wellbeing, so care required now, that’s still not in place and is awaiting to be addressed, minimum help then, maximum required now.
6. Stockport MBC has failed to keep all informed of what is required and has not kept things ongoing, no reviews, just closing cases when going gets tough, professionals should be well trained when dealing with children that are looked after and to all the issues they may have.
7. Stockport MBC has failed to perform requested assessments, that this family has a statutory right to request, in failing to assess, services are not being recognised to those that are required for their best quantity of life.
8. Stockport MBC has failed to recognise the views and recommendations of the placing Borough, Wigan MBC, as to the children’s special needs which are over and above the normal, for which Mrs Parnell on behalf of the children, did receive an assisted adoption allowance that was paid in respect of the Children Act 1989 and was not in agreement to be paid under the 1991 regulations or any amendments of that Act or Regulations. Mr Parnell showed the investigators a copy of a letter from Wigan. The letter states “because of the girls emotional wellbeing, health, attachment etc”, however Wigan refuse to disclose what is the reasons of their needs as this is confidential to the children (and it is to them to be protected). This payment has impacted on Mr and Mrs Parnell’s council tax, this allowance is being means tested by Stockport, and as it is provided to help support financial costs that are over and above the normal required for a family without their given problems, is being taken away only by Stockport, it is disregarded by the Department of Health and Social Security, Department for Education and Skills, Department of Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue, the monies are means tested to the Parnell’s income. Mr Parnell has no income and cant claim any benefits as he caring and sorting out matters concerning this adoption placement. The only income before this allowance is XXXX, only Stockport count the allowance, all other government departments, and that’s after reaffirming that they should be disregarded, they are not counted by them as income.”
It is a long and horrible story.
Lord McNally
Justice Minister
102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Monday, October 21, 2013
Dear Lord McNally
Michael Stuart Parnell
Mr Parnell, whom the police admit has never committed any crime, was subjected by the LibDem Council at Stockport to hundreds of custodies, dozens of arrests, repeated incarceration in Forest Bank Prison, sentanced to two years 8am to 8pm house arrest and had court cases hanging over him every Christmas, often dropped on the day of the hearing.
I should be grateful if you could look into what went on in this case and report back with your findings.
Mojothi knew exactly when Mr Parnell was talking about – he had the full facts. That man is not fit to hold public office.
Dear Mr Vali
Mr Parnell’s complaint about what the SMBC security staff were doing to him was exhausted under the Council’s complaints procedure, despite Majothi having been shown the video evidence. Majothi lied about me to the Information Commission.
— On Thu, 16/8/12, Anwar Majothi <anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk> wrote: From: Anwar Majothi <anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Your new complaint To: “mickysara@btinternet.com” <mickysara@btinternet.com> Date: Thursday, 16 August, 2012, 12:20 Dear Mr Parnell, I have been informed by our Contact Centre that you have raised a new complaint. This appears to concern a question you raised at a full Council meeting, and the question you raised along with your signature was put on the Council website where it remained for 6 months. You believe that this constituted a breach of data protection. Please can you confirm whether the above is an accurate summary of your complaint? If so, please can you provide additional information about when the full Council meeting took place and what, if any, action was taken by whom as a result of your signature appearing on the Council website. I look forward to hearing from you within the next 10 days. I will then commence investigation of your complaint. To confirm, your other complaint about the alleged assault on you by a member of the security staff has now been exhausted under the complaints procedure and you would need to raise this particular complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman. Yours sincerely, Anwar MajothiCorporate Complaints Manager Stopford House Stockport Council SK1 3XE Tel: 0161 474 3182 Fax: 0161 474 4006 http://www.stockport.gov.uk Be Inspired in 2012. Visit www.stockport.gov.uk/2012 for more information.
Confidentiality:- This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG – www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3199/6398 – Release Date: 06/10/13
Re your letter to me attached, I list below just some instances when I have raised the treatment of Mr Parnell at the hands of SMBC in an attempt to stop him being bullied to death. There is masses of it and every LibDem Exec councillor knew. Mr Parnell attended all these council meeting to beg for help as you well know. I know you were kind to him at least once yourself. http://www.sheilaoliver.org/begging-stockport-council-for-help.html and I can prove he attended these meetings.
I am constantly raising the issue with the council and constantly hitting a brick wall.
Just stay away from council buildings says the vile Stunell. When council tax arrears are being fabricated and he has to enter the town hall to try to sort them out. Corrupt LibDems won’t let me act on his behalf to stop him being arrested – http://iloapp.sheilaoliver.org/blog/blogging?Home&post=1424
RE: FOI 9036 :RE: Did anyone at all at the Council question the cost to the public purse of what was being done to Mr Parnell RIP?
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 9036).
The information has been prepared by the relevant Council service and is as follows.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council does not hold the data you have requested.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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:
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 08 June 2014 08:30 To: FOI Officer Subject: Did anyone at all at the Council question the cost to the public purse of what was being done to Mr Parnell RIP?
Dear FoI Officer
I constantly raised the issue of what was being done to Mr Parnell, amongst other things the cost to the public purse. Did anyone else at the Council do this?
I enclose a link detailing just some of the abuses carried out on him:-
And these are some of the many times Mr Parnell RIP attended council meetings to beg for help, which I am in a position to prove. For any meetings he did not attend he was either in a police cell or in prison:-
So, did anyone – Goddard, Derbyshire, Weldon, Hogg, Roberts, Pantall, Bodsworth, John Smith, Meikle, Majoth, Boylan, Khan, Candler, Lucas, Mayors or any other official or ruling councillor raise the issue of what this was costing in Legal Aid, Magistrates’ Court time, Crown Prosecution Service time, Police time, Probation Service time, Crown Court time?
Obviously you can answer this question because in no way does it compromise Mr Parnell’s memory or his family to disclose such details.
If none of them did, then I would question their suitability to hold public office.
Thank you for your request for information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which has been given the above mentioned reference number. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date of receipt. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Information Governance
Lower Ground Floor
Stopford House
Confidentiality:- This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 25 June 2014 07:04 To: FOI Officer Cc: Sir Andrew Stunell MP Subject: Stunell/Mr Parnell
Dear FoI Officer
Stunell, Mr Parnell’s MP, admits to him in a letter that he has viewed the videos of Mr Parnell’s shocking treatment at the hands of SMBC.
He was also made aware of every single arrest of Mr Parnell RIP, whom the Police have admitted was completely innocent.
My question is may I see all representations made by Mr Stunell on Mr Parnell’s behalf regarding what he saw in those videos? I hope he was shocked; any normal person would have been. I hope you don’t claim this would be a waste of money – the potential lawsuits here could run into tens of millions of pounds. Mr Stunell himself may be financially liable – who knows!
Thank you for your request for information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which has been given the above mentioned reference number. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date of receipt. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Business Support Officer (Information Governance) Stockport Council Town Hall Stockport SK1 3XE
Need further information? See our Information ManagementFAQs
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 23 June 2014 13:31 To: Chief Constable Cc: Cllr Dave Goddard; Leader; Eamonn Boylan; Parveen Akhtar Subject: FoI request
FOI request
What action was taken by the Police regarding Mr Parnell’s complaint of violence and threats carried out against him by Stockport Council security guards? There is no data protection for the dead. I believe the police were shown video links of abuse and threats; I certainly saw some of those videos in Mr Parnell’s Crown Court Acquittal hearing and shocking they were too. The reference number is: – FWIN 1037 27/4/2012.
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 8379).
The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.
The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of Section 40 (Personal Data) and Section 41 (Confidential Information).
Section 40 relates to personal information, where the disclosure of this information may result in a breach of any of the Data Protection principles. As the records you have requested relate to a deceased individual, their information does not meet the criteria which defines ‘personal information’.
However, the information you have requested may also identify any number of other individuals and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the FOI.
Section 41 relates to information which is confidential in nature and/or which was provided in confidence. The information you have requested relates to sensitive information of another. The Council holds a responsibility to the subject of this data to keep it confidential and protected from inappropriate disclosure. This duty of confidentiality survives death and the release of this information into the public domain under the FOIA would breach this.
Therefore the information you have requested cannot be provided under this legislation.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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:
Need further information? See our Information ManagementFAQs
Confidentiality:This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 18:56 To: FOI Officer Subject: Bispham, Burns, Lees, Corris, Porgess, Grice
Dear FoI Officer
I am detailing, and proof exists, how many times Mr Parnell attended Stockport Council meetings to beg for his legal right to counselling help for his troubled daughters adopted from Stockport Council. Mr Parnell, the Police have admitted in writing, was completely innocent. The councillor mentioned below must have witness him many times being dragged away and arrested for such crimes as trying to leave a council meeting early
Burns and Lees were Mayors during this time. Did either they or Bispham, Lees, Corris, Porgess or Grice ever at any time officially raise the matter of Mr Parnell’s problem with a view to finding out what was going on or to help him? If they did there should be email or written evidence.
I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of FOI 7887.
I have conducted an impartial reassessment of your original request and my findings are as follows.
I can confirm that the original response issued by on 20th November is correct and I uphold the exemptions applied.
It would not be appropriate to disclose information relating to individuals, deceased or otherwise, into the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act.
Although the Data Protection Act defines personal data as relating to a ‘living individual’, this does not mean that once a person becomes deceased information that was previously ‘personal data’ will now become routinely publically accessible.
The Council holds a duty, to both the deceased individual and their families, to protect information relating to individuals from inappropriate disclosure.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 20 November 2013 16:34 To: FOI Officer Subject: Re: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response
Dear FoI Officer
Just tell me any outcome of that meeting. You can redact all you like – just tell me what action if any they decided to take.
This matter is not going away and I shall put your reply up on the Internet.
Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7887).
The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.
The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of Section 40 (Personal Data) and Section 41 (Confidential Information).
Section 40 relates to personal information, where the disclosure of this information may result in a breach of any of the Data Protection principles. As the records you have requested relate to a deceased individual, their information does not meet the criteria which defines ‘personal information’.
However, the information you have requested may also identify any number of other individuals and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the FOI.
Section 41 relates to information which is confidential in nature and/or which was provided in confidence. The information you have requested relates to sensitive information of another. The Council holds a responsibility to the subject of this data to keep it confidential and protected from inappropriate disclosure. This duty of confidentiality survives death and the release of this information into the public domain under the FOIA would breach this.
Therefore the information you have requested cannot be provided under this legislation.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced some guidance on this subject which may be of assistance to you. This can be found at the following link.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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:
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Simon Oldfield On Behalf Of FOI Officer Sent: 25 October 2013 09:26 To: ‘sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com‘ Cc: FOI Officer Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Acknowledgement
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your request for information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which has been given the above mentioned reference number. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date of receipt. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Oldfield
Freedom of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA Coordinator
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 23 October 2013 16:40 To: FOI Officer Subject: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011
Dear FoI Officer
There is no data protection for the dead. Please let me have all documents pertaining to the meeting referred to above, agenda, minutes, outcome, what action Goddard took. If there is any information in there referring to Mr Parnell’s family, please feel free to block it out.
The police have confirmed in writing that Mr Parnell was a completely innocent man. It beggars belief the treatment he received which everyone knew about not least because I told them.
Wow, a reply from Barry Khan, no less! The man (bent official – offenced under Fraud Act 2006) who bears the main responsibility for having an innocent man repeatedly imprisoned decides that he will keep quiet details of his appalling behaviour. Well, well, well – one for Twitter I think.
Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Internal Review Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of FOI 7887.
I have conducted an impartial reassessment of your original request and my findings are as follows.
I can confirm that the original response issued by on 20th November is correct and I uphold the exemptions applied.
It would not be appropriate to disclose information relating to individuals, deceased or otherwise, into the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act.
Although the Data Protection Act defines personal data as relating to a ‘living individual’, this does not mean that once a person becomes deceased information that was previously ‘personal data’ will now become routinely publically accessible.
The Council holds a duty, to both the deceased individual and their families, to protect information relating to individuals from inappropriate disclosure.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 20 November 2013 16:34 To: FOI Officer Subject: Re: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response
Dear FoI Officer
Just tell me any outcome of that meeting. You can redact all you like – just tell me what action if any they decided to take.
This matter is not going away and I shall put your reply up on the Internet.
Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7887).
The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.
The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of Section 40 (Personal Data) and Section 41 (Confidential Information).
Section 40 relates to personal information, where the disclosure of this information may result in a breach of any of the Data Protection principles. As the records you have requested relate to a deceased individual, their information does not meet the criteria which defines ‘personal information’.
However, the information you have requested may also identify any number of other individuals and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the FOI.
Section 41 relates to information which is confidential in nature and/or which was provided in confidence. The information you have requested relates to sensitive information of another. The Council holds a responsibility to the subject of this data to keep it confidential and protected from inappropriate disclosure. This duty of confidentiality survives death and the release of this information into the public domain under the FOIA would breach this.
Therefore the information you have requested cannot be provided under this legislation.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced some guidance on this subject which may be of assistance to you. This can be found at the following link.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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:
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Simon Oldfield On Behalf Of FOI Officer Sent: 25 October 2013 09:26 To: ‘sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com‘ Cc: FOI Officer Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Acknowledgement
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your request for information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which has been given the above mentioned reference number. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date of receipt. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Oldfield
Freedom of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA Coordinator
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 23 October 2013 16:40 To: FOI Officer Subject: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011
Dear FoI Officer
There is no data protection for the dead. Please let me have all documents pertaining to the meeting referred to above, agenda, minutes, outcome, what action Goddard took. If there is any information in there referring to Mr Parnell’s family, please feel free to block it out.
The police have confirmed in writing that Mr Parnell was a completely innocent man. It beggars belief the treatment he received which everyone knew about not least because I told them.
— You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Poynton Against Unnecessary Link roads to the Airport” group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to paula555+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 18 December 2013 17:06 To: FOI Officer Cc: Bailey.Harding; Andrew Gwynne Subject: Re: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Internal Review Response
Dear FoI Officer
Wow, a reply from Barry Khan, no less! The man (bent official – offenced under Fraud Act 2006) who bears the main responsibility for having an innocent man repeatedly imprisoned decides that he will keep quiet details of his appalling behaviour. Well, well, well – one for Twitter I think.
Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Internal Review Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of FOI 7887.
I have conducted an impartial reassessment of your original request and my findings are as follows.
I can confirm that the original response issued by on 20th November is correct and I uphold the exemptions applied.
It would not be appropriate to disclose information relating to individuals, deceased or otherwise, into the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act.
Although the Data Protection Act defines personal data as relating to a ‘living individual’, this does not mean that once a person becomes deceased information that was previously ‘personal data’ will now become routinely publically accessible.
The Council holds a duty, to both the deceased individual and their families, to protect information relating to individuals from inappropriate disclosure.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 20 November 2013 16:34 To: FOI Officer Subject: Re: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response
Dear FoI Officer
Just tell me any outcome of that meeting. You can redact all you like – just tell me what action if any they decided to take.
This matter is not going away and I shall put your reply up on the Internet.
Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7887).
The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.
The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of Section 40 (Personal Data) and Section 41 (Confidential Information).
Section 40 relates to personal information, where the disclosure of this information may result in a breach of any of the Data Protection principles. As the records you have requested relate to a deceased individual, their information does not meet the criteria which defines ‘personal information’.
However, the information you have requested may also identify any number of other individuals and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the FOI.
Section 41 relates to information which is confidential in nature and/or which was provided in confidence. The information you have requested relates to sensitive information of another. The Council holds a responsibility to the subject of this data to keep it confidential and protected from inappropriate disclosure. This duty of confidentiality survives death and the release of this information into the public domain under the FOIA would breach this.
Therefore the information you have requested cannot be provided under this legislation.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced some guidance on this subject which may be of assistance to you. This can be found at the following link.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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:
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Simon Oldfield On Behalf Of FOI Officer Sent: 25 October 2013 09:26 To: ‘sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com‘ Cc: FOI Officer Subject: FOI 7887: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011 – Acknowledgement
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your request for information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which has been given the above mentioned reference number. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date of receipt. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Oldfield
Freedom of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA Coordinator
Need further information? See our Information Management FAQs
Confidentiality: This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 23 October 2013 16:40 To: FOI Officer Subject: Meeting between Mr Parnell and Goddard held 23rd March 2011
Dear FoI Officer
There is no data protection for the dead. Please let me have all documents pertaining to the meeting referred to above, agenda, minutes, outcome, what action Goddard took. If there is any information in there referring to Mr Parnell’s family, please feel free to block it out.
The police have confirmed in writing that Mr Parnell was a completely innocent man. It beggars belief the treatment he received which everyone knew about not least because I told them.
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 7835).
The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the requested information and our response is as follows.
The information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of Section 40 (Personal Data) and Section 41 (Confidential Information).
Section 40 relates to personal information, where the disclosure of this information may result in a breach of any of the Data Protection principles. As the records you have requested relate to a deceased individual, their information does not meet the criteria which defines ‘personal information’.
However, the information you have requested will also identify any number of other individuals and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the FOI.
Section 41 relates to information which is confidential in nature and/or which was provided in confidence. The information you have requested relates to sensitive information of another. The Council holds a responsibility to the subject of this data to keep it confidential and protected from inappropriate disclosure. This duty of confidentiality survives death and the release of this information under the FOIA would breach this.
Therefore the information you have requested cannot be provided under this legislation.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has produced some guidance on this subject which may be of assistance to you. This can be found at the following link.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. 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:
Need further information? See our Information ManagementFAQs
Confidentiality:This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 23 September 2013 09:08 To: FOI Officer Cc: Cllr Sheila Bailey(EXT) Subject: Mr Parnell
Dear FoI Officer
Please may I have details of what steps were taken to help Mr Parnell to sort out his simple problems in the last year of his life. The Council knew he was seriously ill by then. Documentary evidence is requested and, as you will know, there is no data protection for the dead.
Kind regards
Sheila
mickysara@btinternet.com
26/03/2013
to Iain, Alan.Clitherow, anwar.majothi, me
Councillor Roberts
I tried yesterday 25th March 2013 at fred perry house but the police would not receive the reporting of crime about the employee of the council as they would also not do in the past, there is a Rule of Law that no one is above the law, but justice needs to be seen that it is being done or public confidence would be lost, My trust is being eroded where should I turn for any help or should I just give up our rights and not live the life we all deserve. Hate crime can be reported by anyone not just the victims so can you help now that I made you aware and the need to report hate crimes in the community. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
> Hate crime > council employee has expressed issues by expressions that are hate related towards myself as an illegal immigrant and I need to get a job but he says I can’t do that if I have no national insurance number and I am a sad gay old man with no purpose, and a pervert. > The hate related issues that I have been made to suffer by the council employee have by him been disclosed without truth to members of the public who have treated myself in prejudiced by what he has said and is still repeating . > > Reporting hate crime what can you do because I don’t seem to be getting anywhere complaining to the council when will this hurtful hate crimes come to an end can you help? > > Respectfully michael parnell > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
mickysara@btinternet.com
26/03/2013
to Iain, Alan.Clitherow, anwar.majothi, me
Councillor Roberts
For your information as you suggest I can only do what is requested by procedure but what obstacles from SMBC employees are causing the injustice from failures to receive or record reports. Tweet ting by yourself on issues of reporting hate related crimes in the real world does not follow the virtual world of the internet but it is a good tool for communication as enclosed you will see attempts to your suggestions don’t always work by ordinary people of no standing, a democratic society appoints those to act on behalf of the electorate to their needs and rights Is there anything you could do.
Thank you michael parnell
Copied and pasted IPCC communication of complaint investigation being dispensed with as below:- Independent Police Complaints Commission Reference number 2013/004375 Your letter date 18 March 2013
You inform me that Greater Manchester Police Professional Standards Branch have applied to dispense with the need to investigate my complaint, on the grounds that it is more than 12 months since an incident that give raise for the complaint.
You instruct me to provide good reason for (if there is any) the delay in submitting the complaint.
The complaint is made following my 999 call on the incident date, following which the attending Greater Manchester Police Officers (GMP) instructed me the issues were not police matters and these matters should be reported to the local authority Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC), these directions from the officers then backed up in a letter, that the GMP were not taken any action (no offence committed) led to on the same day as receiving letter from GMP (no delay first chance) submitting the complaint to SMBC, their investigation also upheld no offence no evidence, and complaint progressed to the Local Government Ombudsman York (LGO) complaint in progress still no delay,
Following the LGO’s investigation and on receipt by letter the complaint was not within their remit and the incident as directed was a matter for the police, on receiving the LGO findings 17 October 2012 the complaint was then forwarded to GMP professional standards no delay complaint come full circle (Greater Manchester Police to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. to Local Government Ombudsman York back to Greater Manchester Police and now passed to Independent Police Complaints Commission, same complaint no delay’s by myself in submitting complaint, only that the misdirection from GMP officers has contributed to the time active investigations by all bodies involved in the same complaint).
Further information if there is any delay then why on the 8th November 2012 was I arrested following receipt. of a letter from GMP professional standards branch dated 6th November 2012 over the issues of the incident in 2009 (if my complaint can’t be investigated then would it be proportional not to be arrested for submitting my complaint).
On this application, I request to apply The Rule of Law to the investigation into my complaint, and give notice to breaches of The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 by Local Authorities to act compatible with the agreed rights.
I do not believe I have delayed my complaint the question, open to further complaint if required “is there any delay to process the complaint which came about any action of the Local Authorities”, it is in my understanding that the IPCC only investigate police Misconduct (GMP officers in their delay by mis-guidance “this is not a police matter and guidance to put any complaint elsewhere is subject of misdirection and failure to protect those to un-lawfulness and injustice.
Further information the GMP Professional Standards Branch informed me that they could not investigate while trial was pending for the arrest 8th November 2012 with hearing date 21st January 2013 no trial date revived discontinuance, the Greater Manchester Police, The Crown Prosecution Service and Stockport Magistrates Court give no information to when a hearing or trial date is to be heard (breach art 6 HRA 1998).
Please consider my request not to dispense the need to investigate my complaint, as this is required to bring about a stopping of the harassment victimisation and suffering, also associated losses, time and finances.
Yours respectfully M S Parnell. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
If you believe a crime has been committed and the police will not take your report, you should raise the issue with the complaints body within the police. Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner may be able to help if other avenues do not work.
I tried yesterday 25th March 2013 at fred perry house but the police would not receive the reporting of crime about the employee of the council as they would also not do in the past, there is a Rule of Law that no one is above the law, but justice needs to be seen that it is being done or public confidence would be lost, My trust is being eroded where should I turn for any help or should I just give up our rights and not live the life we all deserve. Hate crime can be reported by anyone not just the victims so can you help now that I made you aware and the need to report hate crimes in the community.
> Hate crime > council employee has expressed issues by expressions that are hate related towards myself as an illegal immigrant and I need to get a job but he says I can’t do that if I have no national insurance number and I am a sad gay old man with no purpose, and a pervert. > The hate related issues that I have been made to suffer by the council employee have by him been disclosed without truth to members of the public who have treated myself in prejudiced by what he has said and is still repeating . > > Reporting hate crime what can you do because I don’t seem to be getting anywhere complaining to the council when will this hurtful hate crimes come to an end can you help? > > Respectfully michael parnell > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
— Iain Roberts Liberal Democrat Councillor for Cheadle & Gatley ward Executive Member for Economic Development and Regeneration, Stockport Council 07958 570202 http://iainroberts.mycouncillor.org.uk @cllriainroberts
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Alan.Clitherow@gmp.police.uk
31/03/2013
to me, Iain
Sheila,
The external police line at Fred Perry house is 0161 8569502. This is staffed by support staff between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday. I’m sure you can appreciate that the nature of our job means we have to be out of the station a lot and the public want us to be out patrolling. There is a voicemail facility on this line which we will always pick up and reply to within 24 hrs.
I am more than happy to discuss specific issues to do with the police however would ask that you refrain from copying me in to emails of the nature of the below. Mr Parnell’s complaint is a matter for Mr Parnell and I, and although I’m happy to deal with concerns raised in a constructive manner I do not expect to receive emails containing spurious allegations and threats.
Thank you
Insp Alan Clitherow J1 – Stockport Central NPT X 69701 Mobile 07795 811575
Dear Councillor Roberts I have Mr Parnell’s written authority, submitted to the Council, to act on his behalf. Having sat through his 3 day £10,000 per day acquittal at the Crown Court, I know that if he enters Fred Perry House he will face 5 years in prison as punishment for a crime of which he was acquitted! The Police, now established at Fred Perry House, are well known for not don’t answering the phone. Therefore, I ask you to act to sort out the deplorable situation this completely innocent man finds himself in. All the Executive Councillors were full aware of what was being done to him and sneeringly condoned it, as were Majothi, Khan et al. I will share this email exchange via my blog with Twitter and Facebook. I have today posted up Mr Parnell’s case on Michael Crick’s Twitter page, as he is asking why the LibDems failed to act regarding Mike Hancock MP. I shall tweet it to Nigel Farage and Rupert Murdoch. Neither of these two is particularly enamoured of the LibDems. You, Councillor Roberts, might find yourself featured in The Sun, and not in a good way. Of interest, I note from Councillor Goddard’s Twitter account what a close relationship he has with the Police, and I have always maintained the only explanation of what happened to Mr Parnell is one of a Masonic Revenge club. So, I ask you to look into Mr Parnell’s disgusting treatment at the hands of LibDem-for-a-decade Stockport Council of which you are an Executive Councillor, and will post up any reply on Twitter. Yours Sheila
For your information as you suggest I can only do what is requested by procedure but what obstacles from SMBC employees are causing the injustice from failures to receive or record reports. Tweet ting by yourself on issues of reporting hate related crimes in the real world does not follow the virtual world of the internet but it is a good tool for communication as enclosed you will see attempts to your suggestions don’t always work by ordinary people of no standing, a democratic society appoints those to act on behalf of the electorate to their needs and rights Is there anything you could do.
Thank you michael parnell
Copied and pasted IPCC communication of complaint investigation being dispensed with as below:- Independent Police Complaints Commission Reference number 2013/004375 Your letter date 18 March 2013
You inform me that Greater Manchester Police Professional Standards Branch have applied to dispense with the need to investigate my complaint, on the grounds that it is more than 12 months since an incident that give raise for the complaint.
You instruct me to provide good reason for (if there is any) the delay in submitting the complaint.
The complaint is made following my 999 call on the incident date, following which the attending Greater Manchester Police Officers (GMP) instructed me the issues were not police matters and these matters should be reported to the local authority Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC), these directions from the officers then backed up in a letter, that the GMP were not taken any action (no offence committed) led to on the same day as receiving letter from GMP (no delay first chance) submitting the complaint to SMBC, their investigation also upheld no offence no evidence, and complaint progressed to the Local Government Ombudsman York (LGO) complaint in progress still no delay,
Following the LGO’s investigation and on receipt by letter the complaint was not within their remit and the incident as directed was a matter for the police, on receiving the LGO findings 17 October 2012 the complaint was then forwarded to GMP professional standards no delay complaint come full circle (Greater Manchester Police to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. to Local Government Ombudsman York back to Greater Manchester Police and now passed to Independent Police Complaints Commission, same complaint no delay’s by myself in submitting complaint, only that the misdirection from GMP officers has contributed to the time active investigations by all bodies involved in the same complaint).
Further information if there is any delay then why on the 8th November 2012 was I arrested following receipt. of a letter from GMP professional standards branch dated 6th November 2012 over the issues of the incident in 2009 (if my complaint can’t be investigated then would it be proportional not to be arrested for submitting my complaint).
On this application, I request to apply The Rule of Law to the investigation into my complaint, and give notice to breaches of The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 by Local Authorities to act compatible with the agreed rights.
I do not believe I have delayed my complaint the question, open to further complaint if required “is there any delay to process the complaint which came about any action of the Local Authorities”, it is in my understanding that the IPCC only investigate police Misconduct (GMP officers in their delay by mis-guidance “this is not a police matter and guidance to put any complaint elsewhere is subject of misdirection and failure to protect those to un-lawfulness and injustice.
Further information the GMP Professional Standards Branch informed me that they could not investigate while trial was pending for the arrest 8th November 2012 with hearing date 21st January 2013 no trial date revived discontinuance, the Greater Manchester Police, The Crown Prosecution Service and Stockport Magistrates Court give no information to when a hearing or trial date is to be heard (breach art 6 HRA 1998).
Please consider my request not to dispense the need to investigate my complaint, as this is required to bring about a stopping of the harassment victimisation and suffering, also associated losses, time and finances.
Yours respectfully M S Parnell. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
If you believe a crime has been committed and the police will not take your report, you should raise the issue with the complaints body within the police. Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner may be able to help if other avenues do not work.
I tried yesterday 25th March 2013 at fred perry house but the police would not receive the reporting of crime about the employee of the council as they would also not do in the past, there is a Rule of Law that no one is above the law, but justice needs to be seen that it is being done or public confidence would be lost, My trust is being eroded where should I turn for any help or should I just give up our rights and not live the life we all deserve. Hate crime can be reported by anyone not just the victims so can you help now that I made you aware and the need to report hate crimes in the community. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange —–Original Message—– From: Iain Roberts <iainroberts70@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:28:40 To: <mickysara@btinternet.com><mickysara@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Contact via your ALDC site
Dear Mr Parnell
If you believe you are the victim of a crime, you should report it to the police.
Best wishes,
Iain
Cllr Iain Roberts Lib Dem councillor, Cheadle & Gatley ward Executive member for Economic Development & Regeneration, Stockport Council
> Hate crime > council employee has expressed issues by expressions that are hate related towards myself as an illegal immigrant and I need to get a job but he says I can’t do that if I have no national insurance number and I am a sad gay old man with no purpose, and a pervert. > The hate related issues that I have been made to suffer by the council employee have by him been disclosed without truth to members of the public who have treated myself in prejudiced by what he has said and is still repeating . > > Reporting hate crime what can you do because I don’t seem to be getting anywhere complaining to the council when will this hurtful hate crimes come to an end can you help? > > Respectfully michael parnell > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
— Iain Roberts Liberal Democrat Councillor for Cheadle & Gatley ward Executive Member for Economic Development and Regeneration, Stockport Council 07958 570202 http://iainroberts.mycouncillor.org.uk @cllriainroberts
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG – www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6205 – Release Date: 03/26/13
I spoke to Mr Parnell shortly before he was due to go into hospital. He hoped to be well enough to see me in 3/6 months after the operation and I am waiting for some sort of update as to his health.
As I said to him when we spoke his health and recovery are far more important than his complaint – which spans numerous years – and I am more than happy to give him an update when convenient. I have not contacted him or emailed him as he gave me the distinct impression there was a real risk of him not surviving the surgery and I wanted to wait to see that he did and still wanted updates regarding this.
I did ask for some confirmation from Mr Parnell as to how he would like his complaint finalising and have information for him should he wish. Please pass on my best wishes, I am happy to discuss this with him further.
Thanks for your email
Alan Clitherow
Insp Alan Clitherow J1 North INPT X 69701 Mobile 07795 811575
Inspector Clitherow Mr Parnell is paralysed with a spinal tumour and dying and you have still done nothing. His family is very bitter about what has been done to him by the presumably Masonically linked Council, Police, CPS and Magistrates’ Court. What has gone on will be broadcast as widely as I am able. Yours in disgust Sheila PC Panda would do a better job than you. —– Original Message —– From: Alan.Clitherow@gmp.police.uk To: Sheila Oliver Cc: Iain Roberts Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Contact via your ALDC site
Sheila, The external police line at Fred Perry house is 0161 8569502. This is staffed by support staff between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday. I’m sure you can appreciate that the nature of our job means we have to be out of the station a lot and the public want us to be out patrolling. There is a voicemail facility on this line which we will always pick up and reply to within 24 hrs. I am more than happy to discuss specific issues to do with the police however would ask that you refrain from copying me in to emails of the nature of the below. Mr Parnell’s complaint is a matter for Mr Parnell and I, and although I’m happy to deal with concerns raised in a constructive manner I do not expect to receive emails containing spurious allegations and threats. Thank you Insp Alan Clitherow J1 – Stockport Central NPT X 69701 Mobile 07795 811575
Dear Councillor Roberts I have Mr Parnell’s written authority, submitted to the Council, to act on his behalf. Having sat through his 3 day £10,000 per day acquittal at the Crown Court, I know that if he enters Fred Perry House he will face 5 years in prison as punishment for a crime of which he was acquitted! The Police, now established at Fred Perry House, are well known for not don’t answering the phone. Therefore, I ask you to act to sort out the deplorable situation this completely innocent man finds himself in. All the Executive Councillors were full aware of what was being done to him and sneeringly condoned it, as were Majothi, Khan et al. I will share this email exchange via my blog with Twitter and Facebook. I have today posted up Mr Parnell’s case on Michael Crick’s Twitter page, as he is asking why the LibDems failed to act regarding Mike Hancock MP. I shall tweet it to Nigel Farage and Rupert Murdoch. Neither of these two is particularly enamoured of the LibDems. You, Councillor Roberts, might find yourself featured in The Sun, and not in a good way. Of interest, I note from Councillor Goddard’s Twitter account what a close relationship he has with the Police, and I have always maintained the only explanation of what happened to Mr Parnell is one of a Masonic Revenge club. So, I ask you to look into Mr Parnell’s disgusting treatment at the hands of LibDem-for-a-decade Stockport Council of which you are an Executive Councillor, and will post up any reply on Twitter. Yours Sheila —– Original Message —– From: mickysara@btinternet.com To: Iain Roberts Cc: Alan.Clitherow@gmp.police.uk ; anwar.majothi@stockport.gov.uk ; sheila oliver Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Contact via your ALDC site
Councillor Roberts
For your information as you suggest I can only do what is requested by procedure but what obstacles from SMBC employees are causing the injustice from failures to receive or record reports. Tweet ting by yourself on issues of reporting hate related crimes in the real world does not follow the virtual world of the internet but it is a good tool for communication as enclosed you will see attempts to your suggestions don’t always work by ordinary people of no standing, a democratic society appoints those to act on behalf of the electorate to their needs and rights Is there anything you could do.
Thank you michael parnell
Copied and pasted IPCC communication of complaint investigation being dispensed with as below:- Independent Police Complaints Commission Reference number 2013/004375 Your letter date 18 March 2013
You inform me that Greater Manchester Police Professional Standards Branch have applied to dispense with the need to investigate my complaint, on the grounds that it is more than 12 months since an incident that give raise for the complaint.
You instruct me to provide good reason for (if there is any) the delay in submitting the complaint.
The complaint is made following my 999 call on the incident date, following which the attending Greater Manchester Police Officers (GMP) instructed me the issues were not police matters and these matters should be reported to the local authority Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC), these directions from the officers then backed up in a letter, that the GMP were not taken any action (no offence committed) led to on the same day as receiving letter from GMP (no delay first chance) submitting the complaint to SMBC, their investigation also upheld no offence no evidence, and complaint progressed to the Local Government Ombudsman York (LGO) complaint in progress still no delay,
Following the LGO’s investigation and on receipt by letter the complaint was not within their remit and the incident as directed was a matter for the police, on receiving the LGO findings 17 October 2012 the complaint was then forwarded to GMP professional standards no delay complaint come full circle (Greater Manchester Police to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. to Local Government Ombudsman York back to Greater Manchester Police and now passed to Independent Police Complaints Commission, same complaint no delay’s by myself in submitting complaint, only that the misdirection from GMP officers has contributed to the time active investigations by all bodies involved in the same complaint).
Further information if there is any delay then why on the 8th November 2012 was I arrested following receipt. of a letter from GMP professional standards branch dated 6th November 2012 over the issues of the incident in 2009 (if my complaint can’t be investigated then would it be proportional not to be arrested for submitting my complaint).
On this application, I request to apply The Rule of Law to the investigation into my complaint, and give notice to breaches of The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 by Local Authorities to act compatible with the agreed rights.
I do not believe I have delayed my complaint the question, open to further complaint if required “is there any delay to process the complaint which came about any action of the Local Authorities”, it is in my understanding that the IPCC only investigate police Misconduct (GMP officers in their delay by mis-guidance “this is not a police matter and guidance to put any complaint elsewhere is subject of misdirection and failure to protect those to un-lawfulness and injustice.
Further information the GMP Professional Standards Branch informed me that they could not investigate while trial was pending for the arrest 8th November 2012 with hearing date 21st January 2013 no trial date revived discontinuance, the Greater Manchester Police, The Crown Prosecution Service and Stockport Magistrates Court give no information to when a hearing or trial date is to be heard (breach art 6 HRA 1998).
Please consider my request not to dispense the need to investigate my complaint, as this is required to bring about a stopping of the harassment victimisation and suffering, also associated losses, time and finances.
Yours respectfully M S Parnell. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
If you believe a crime has been committed and the police will not take your report, you should raise the issue with the complaints body within the police. Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner may be able to help if other avenues do not work.
I tried yesterday 25th March 2013 at fred perry house but the police would not receive the reporting of crime about the employee of the council as they would also not do in the past, there is a Rule of Law that no one is above the law, but justice needs to be seen that it is being done or public confidence would be lost, My trust is being eroded where should I turn for any help or should I just give up our rights and not live the life we all deserve. Hate crime can be reported by anyone not just the victims so can you help now that I made you aware and the need to report hate crimes in the community. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
> Hate crime > council employee has expressed issues by expressions that are hate related towards myself as an illegal immigrant and I need to get a job but he says I can’t do that if I have no national insurance number and I am a sad gay old man with no purpose, and a pervert. > The hate related issues that I have been made to suffer by the council employee have by him been disclosed without truth to members of the public who have treated myself in prejudiced by what he has said and is still repeating . > > Reporting hate crime what can you do because I don’t seem to be getting anywhere complaining to the council when will this hurtful hate crimes come to an end can you help? > > Respectfully michael parnell > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
— Iain Roberts Liberal Democrat Councillor for Cheadle & Gatley ward Executive Member for Economic Development and Regeneration, Stockport Council 07958 570202 http://iainroberts.mycouncillor.org.uk @cllriainroberts
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG – www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6205 – Release Date: 03/26/13
Thank you for your request for information submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which has been given the above mentioned reference number. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date of receipt. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Oldfield
Freedom of Information/ Data Protection Officer & RIPA Coordinator
Need further information? See our Information ManagementFAQs
Confidentiality:This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 15 November 2013 16:58 To: FOI Officer Cc: Mark Hunter – MP; cleggn@parliament.uk; Cllr Mark Weldon; Cllr Keith Holloway; Cllr Stuart Bodsworth; Cllr Wendy Meikle; Cllr John Pantall; Cllr Iain Roberts; Sir Andrew Stunell MP; Leader; Cllr Kevin Hogg; Cllr Shan Alexander; Barry Khan; Anwar Majothi; Andrew Webb Subject: Council meeting questions
Dear FoI Officer
This question was asked of Weldon at the Executive Meetin on 8th September 2008 by Mr Parnell. What was Weldon’s response or what action did he subsequently take to assist Mr Parnell with his problem?
Main question – “Adoption & Children’s Act 2002. Under this statutory act you can request an assessment of your adoption needs. Does this Local Authority following a request for an assessment have a time frame in which an assessment is done and then concluded?”
Supplementary question – “Who has the legal duty in this Local Authority to perform this assessment, and if this is not done, then who is responsible to enforce what is passed in law..”
Kind regards
Sheila
PS Obviously the answer or lack of it will be posted up on the Internet.
25% discount available if you buy direct from the publishers:
