Stockport Council News

How much has all this malicious prosecution of a completely innocent, sick man cost the taxpayer?

Finally, months before Mr Parnell died K McAlinden, Divisional Crown Prosecutor, finally decides to abandon all attempts to prosecute sick, innocent Mr Parnell, yet again, at Stockport Magistrates Court on 21st January 2013.

The police have admitted Mr Parnell was innocent all along. Despite his constantly being on Stockport Council CCTV there was no evidence of him every being threatening, abusive, using insulting words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress or it would have been used against him in his many court cases.

What we need to ask ourselves now is why Stockport CPS colluded with corrupt council officers and councillors to repeatedly imprison a sick, innocent man who was kicked into an early grave aged 58 by their actions?

Mr Parnell, even whilst terminally ill, wanted the case to go ahead so he could prove his innocence.

What on earth has been going on at Stockport Crown Prosecution Service? Are there Masonic links to dodgy Lord Goddard? A certain John Derbyshire of the CPS (any relation to Sue Derbyshire, Leader of Stockport Council?) claimed that Fred Perry House was Ponsonby House re-named (at a cost of £12m) in order to keep on arresting Mr Parnell.

We must get to the bottom of what has gone on here.

Hayley Parkes of the CPS, Mr Parnell was innocent. The Crown Prosecution Service had all the evidence that he was innocent. What on earth were you thinking of in progressing this court case?

Mr Parnell, just a simple, honest man, tried to get a writ of Habeas Corpus against dodgy former Council Solicitor, Barry Khan. The lengths Mr Parnell went to to try to stop corrupt councillors and senior council officers having him arrested. Sadly, he failed.

“Arrested 15/12/09 for BA 76005 .. Arrest by constable for breaking/likely to break bail conditions – this is NOT an offence.

On 15/12/09 at Stockport in the County of Greater Manchester, you were arrested by a constable for breaking a bail condidion, namely to remain indoors between the hours of 08.00 and 20.00 hours daily between monday to friday, activated monitoring equipment at 13.59 hours on 15/12/09, being a person released on 03/12/09 by stockport magistrates Contrary to section 7 (3)(b), (4) and (5) of the Bail Act 1976

Reply – I cant reply without the presence of my solicitor. I wish to reply in front of my solicitor.”

And let’s not forget this chap is now admitted by the police to be completely innocent, so why arrest him in the first place if it is NOT an offence?

Mr Parnell’s affidavit to try to get a writ of Habeas Corpus against Stockport Council Solicitor Barry Khan. “I, Michael Stewart Parnell do swear that this written affidavit is to the best of my knowledge a true and correct statement and thus by almighty god I solemnly do swear it is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Over a past number of years (11), I have been in dispute with a local authority, (Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council) in trying to get appropriate care for two children that were placed with my wife and myself, we were both together recommended and approved by SMBC to be adoptive parents for up to three children, two children were matched and placed with us from the care system (section 31) and the dispute is that SMBC are passing the book (sic) to who they say they think should be responsible for the care of those two children.

In my request for help with these two children SMBC have stated that if I am not happy with the service they have not provided, then I must put forward a complaint to them, this I have done and SMBC in response had unlawfully banned myself from any council property and imposed restrictions on contact, those being written, telephone/email and verbal contact.

The unlawful ban that was imposed and supported by letter was addressed to Mr S Parnell that is only one of the many clerical errors the council have administered, and the unlawful ban has been in place since October 2005, and has meant we are still waiting for my complaint to be followed through. I must now take some form of control and ask by what authority can SMBC put this family through the traumas we have been left to suffer, and why when there is in statute is SMBC breaching the laws of the land, under Adoption and Children Act 2002 SMBC have grossly failed to their statutory duty.

I have stood on Stockport Town Hall steps waiting in my peaceful protest since 26th June 2007.”

Wednesday, 1st April 2009

Two years 8am to 8pm house arrest for a completely innocent man. And LibDem run Stockport Council knew he was innocent. He had never been rude or aggressive. He just asked for his legal right to counselling help for his lovely, troubled daughters adopted from corrupt Stockport Council.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/tagged-but-innocent.html

Exclusion of the Public and the Public Interest Test

To consider whether it is in the public to exclude the public during consideration of the following agenda items which contain information “not for publication”.

It has not been practical to provide 28 days’ notice of the intention to consider exempt information and the Chair of the Corporate, Resource Management & Governance Committee has given his consent to exempt this report from that notice period.