Blog Image

Stockport Council News

C’mon Cllr Jake Austin, LibDem mayoral candidate for Manchester, speak to me about this

Uncategorised Posted on Thu, April 11, 2024 19:01

Stockport Council was given over £2m for a new school/new school places in North Reddish. They spent it on something else, which is not illegal, but they then had to replace that money.

There were two possible sites for the new school – on without toxic waste in situ, with no dangerous traffic problems and with plenty of room for expansion. They sold that off for housing – The Fir Tree site. The other site was a still-gassing toxic waste dump. It was a Jackson’s Brickyard. When they stopped making bricks they filled in the claypits with rubbish at a time when no records of what was tipped were kept. In the early 1970s, the law on tipping changed. They couldn’t meet the new safety standards, so the land was grassed over and became public open space, local sports facilities and a recreation ground. There were terrible, existing traffic problems at the location even before the new 500 + pupil school was built. Obviously, the totally LibDem executive committee decided to put the new school on the toxic site.

Stockport Council (again)

Stockport Council Meetings, Uncategorised Posted on Tue, November 30, 2021 18:52

Disabled man’s carers let him pay for their food – despite him being ‘very vulnerable to financial exploitation’

Stockport council has been ordered to reimburse him

Carers of a disabled man let him pay for their food despite the fact he lacked the mental capacity to manage his finances.

Stockport council has been ordered to reimburse him for any meals he shelled out for over a 12 month period – and also ensure others have not been treated similarly.

It comes after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) upheld a complaint against the authority from the disabled man’s father.

A report from the ombudsman notes how, in January 2020, ‘Mr D’ complained to the council about staff eating meals at his son’s expense.

The disabled man – referred to as ‘Mr E’ in the report – was living at a 24-hour supported housing unit, and was supported by two carers when out in the community.

The council responded that it would be ‘difficult to investigate’ the complaint without evidence of the dates and times this was alleged to have happened.

It added that staff brought their own food – which they ate with tenants at meal times as ‘good practice’ – so needed proof to back up Mr D’s claim.

However, the council later changed tack and chose to treat the issue as a safeguarding referral, rather than a complaint.

In a letter to Mr D in May 2020, the council confirmed that ‘Mr E regularly bought meals at fast food outlets for himself and, on some occasions, paid for food and drinks for the staff who supported him’.

It said the spending was in line with the care providers’ current policy, so there was ‘no evidence of financial abuse and this was therefore not a safeguarding matter’.

Mr D was invited to raise the matter ‘as a complaint rather than a safeguarding matter’ if he continued to have concerns.

However, in a withering assessment of its handling of the complaint, the LGSCO found ‘fault in the council’s actions’.

The report states: “The council accepts that Mr E lacked capacity to manage his finances. He was very vulnerable to financial exploitation.

“I therefore do not understand why the council thought it was acceptable to have a policy which said that support staff could use Mr E’s money to pay for food without consulting Mr E’s parents or without any decision that this was in Mr E’s best interest.

“At the very least, the council should have informed Mr D and Mrs D of its intention and should have invited them to a best interest meeting so that a decision could be made on how this type of expenditure was dealt with.”

The LGSCO report goes on the highlight an inconsistency in the council’s claim that Mr E’s spending on carers’ meals was in line with the provider’s policy.

This, it points out, is at odds with the initial reponse which suggested that it would not have been acceptable – and evidence was needed to back up claims it had.
And the ombudsman also finds fault with the council’s response to Mr D in May 2020.

The report reads: “I agree that the matter may not have been a safeguarding concern if there was no evidence of financial abuse by the staff.

“However, that did not mean there was no fault in the actions of the care provider and the council’s complaint response should have addressed this.”

The LGSCO found further fault with the communication of Mr E’s care plan – which it transpired should provide him with 38 hours 2:1 care each week to allow him to access the community.

The ombudsman found it was ‘not clear, from the plan, how many hours of support Mr E was entitled to and how the budget was calculated’.

And it also criticised the council’s complaint response dated February 2020 as it ‘said the care plan did not specify the hours of 2:1 support, which was not true’.

A breakdown in communication on behalf of the care provider also led to a delay in administering medication, meaning Mr E suffered blocked ears and dry skin longer than he should have.

The council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the ombudsman’s decision:

• Apologise in writing to Mr D and Mr E for the faults.

• Check Mr E’s records for 2019 and find out the incidents when Mr E’s money was used to pay for staff members’ food and drink and reimburse Mr E with this amount.

• Pay Mr E £150 to reflect the injustice suffered by the poor care provided in relation to the medication.

• Contact any other resident/their representative who has been affected by the policy (payment of staff members’ food and drink) and inform them of the Ombudsman’s decision and ask them whether they wish to make a complaint.

Stockport council has been approached for comment.

And again, Andrew Stunell takes your breath away with his sheer cheek.

Uncategorised Posted on Sun, May 23, 2021 10:43

c.c. Leader;;;;; John Schultz

Email sent – Tue 21/07/2009 17:28

Dear Mr Stunell

I note your recent comments in the press about people being sent to prison unnecessarily. I wonder if you would like to comment regarding the three days spent in HMP Forrest Bank by Mr. Parnell, our gentle, peaceful town hall protester who has being trying to get corrupt LibDem-run Stockport Council to give his troubled adopted daughters some help for over a decade without success.

Come on Mr. Stunell, use that overstaffed, overclaimed for office of yours and send a reply.  Please feel free to fold it on the £9,000 folding machine claimed on expenses.


Mrs Oliver

LibDem councillor spouts the corrupt council version without checking anything

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester, Uncategorised Posted on Sat, May 22, 2021 07:55

Dear Councillor White

There was no spitting incident as I understand it  and no evidence of mucus on the security guard.  We shall see how the court case pans out and get the transcript under the FOI if possible.  If the Council drops it again further wasting police and court time, I assume there will be no doubt it was all lies and compensation payments will large.

You seem to treat political opponents, whom I assume don’t agree with you, with contempt in the local newspaper.

Can you justify the police having been called 64 times to Mr. Parnell, once I believe in response to his making a comment from the public gallery at a full council meeting that Councillor Derbyshire had sneezed and should be arrested?  No-one from the Council would even wait after the meeting for the police arrive and Mr. Parnell had to wait alone outside for the police to come to explain why they had been called, so as not to further waste police time.

I think as an Executive Councillor of a Council which has been unreasonably harassing a peaceful protester and who was informed twice at public meetings what was going on, then, of course, you are involved.

I hope to obtain evidence from the police and the courts under the FOIA of this utter and malicious waste of police and court time, and will hopefully expose this in the press.

As further evidence of this rotten borough council, when it was pointed out at the last full council meeting that the names, addresses and signatures of questioners had been up on the Council’s website for months, no action was taken to correct that Data Protection abuse and remove those details till the following Monday afternoon, and even then this was only done because a council taxpayer affected contacted the police and the Information Commission.  At that meeting were all the senior council officers, executive councillors – even one who worked in a senior position at the Data Protection arm of the Information Commission, yet no-one took anything seriously because basically no-one senior at the Council ever listens to the public.

I think the contempt I feel for LibDem councillors and MPs, always spouting their concern for the environment yet simultaneously wanting to put a £1billion bypass through the Goyt Valley, is very justified.

With warmest best wishes


—– Original Message —–

From: David White

To: ‘Sheila Oliver’

Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:54 AM

Subject: RE: Mr Parnell


Having heard the Security Guards view of the event I am disgusted by this “inflicting and a cold”, my description would be very different and Council staff should not be subjected to this.

Spitting on someone is not a “gentle, peaceful” act.

If he has been arrested, I have neither been involved or partaken in the event.  Let justice take its course.

Like yourself you are entitled to your opinion but you treat people who don’t agree with you with contempt and never listen to them.


David White

From: Sheila Oliver []
Sent: 01 May 2009 20:46
To: David White
Subject: Re: Mr Parnell

Dear Councillor White.

How can they lack one thing among many? 

I sent you masses of evidence over Harcourt Street – I don’t suppose you bothered to read any of it.

I asked at the Executive meeting twice about him. Maybe you had nodded off.  I gave all Executive councillors the chance to condemn what was being done to him.  Not one did.

He has had the police called to him 64 times.  He is in court on May 14th charged with assault with a sneeze with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold. He has been taken to court before by the  Council only to have the case dropped on the day it was to be heard.  He is a gentle, peaceful man.  I don’t suppose you have ever taken the trouble to actually talk to him.  A High Court judge has ruled that he mustn’t have his case heard by magistrates, as they won’t be impartial.  So his case is to be heard by a judge.

Suicide is a possibility for him and his daughters – the compensation costs would be massive, never mind the toll of human misery.

Take the trouble to find out – I pay you enough.



—– Original Message —–

From: David White

To: ‘Sheila Oliver’

Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:21 PM

Subject: RE: Mr Parnell


Your emails always just lack one thing, among many.

I don’t know about Mr Parnell, my only dealings with him have been his appearing at my Area Committee asking a public question.



From: Sheila Oliver []
Sent: 01 May 2009 20:11
To: Cllr Dave Goddard; Cllr Mark Weldon; David White;;;;;
Subject: Mr Parnell

Dear Executive Councillors

I have twice in the past drawn your attention to what is happening regarding Mr. Parnell. All of you refused to express any concern whatsoever.

Please see the attached. I would appear there is a legal right to peaceful protest.  I think the damages the Council will have to pay Mr. Parnell will be huge for the 64 times the police were called and his repeated stay in police cells.  I assume your insurers won’t cover this illegal activity, as they have financial problems of their own, and that this compensation will have to come from council taxpayers’ money.

What a shame none of you acted to stop this abuse within reasonable timescales.

I hope neither Mr Parnell nor his daughters commit suicide, which is a possibility; in that tragic eventuality the Council will have to pay out tens of millions of pounds.

Yours in disgust at what you allow to continue in this rotten borough.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG –
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.12/2090 – Release Date: 05/01/09 06:17:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG –
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.13/2091 – Release Date: 05/01/09 17:52:00

Yippee, the LibDems are not taking back control of Stockport. Faces like smacked bottoms though ;o)

LibDem Councillor Mark Hunter, Lisa Smart LibDem PPC, Uncategorised Posted on Thu, May 20, 2021 19:29

How much did all this cost in police, court, CPS, barrister man hours?

Uncategorised Posted on Thu, May 20, 2021 17:05

Constable Cub outside Fred Perry House. If Mr Parnell was arrested by the LibDem councillors calling the police and was taken to the police station in Fred Perry House, he faced a possible 5 years in jail for entering Fred Perry House – a completely innocent man framed by the Stockport LibDems.

Uncategorised Posted on Wed, May 19, 2021 17:13

Can’t question what senior council officers are up to.

Andrew Webb, CYPD, Anwar Majothi, Barry Khan, Eamonn Boylan, Ged Lucas, LibDem Councillors, Stunell MP, Sue Derbyshire, Town Hall Protester, Uncategorised Posted on Tue, May 18, 2021 17:33

Next »