Stockport Council News

Email sent – 23 June 2013 07:22

To peter.jones@stockport.gov.uk

Dear Mr Jones

To persecute someone over non-existent council tax
arrears (I have seen the evidence and Mr Parnell doesn’t owe any money) when
they are officially recognised as a vulnerable council taxpayer and whilst in
Intensive Care following a life threatening cancer operation wins you a place on
Stockport Council News, and your actions will be publicised on
Twitter.

I have already informed the Coroner, Dr Pollard,
over what is being done to Mr Parnell, and good man that he is he showed
concern. You may well find yourself dragged into the Coroner’s Court to account
for your despicable actions.

Sheila

This reply is from 2009. The number of authorised applications for Directed Surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is bound to be more now. And whose communications data did the dodgy LibDems access? Mine?

Email received – 02 December 2009 09:53

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2377).

The Council has authorised 138 applications for Directed Surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) since the Act came into force in 2000. No use of CHIS has been authorised since RIPA came into force. We have records showing that the powers enabling us to access communications data have been used three times since 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

An ugly school which deprived local people of their playing fields illegally and access to the back of their own homes. A dangerous school situated on top of a site still gassing up to 14.7%v/v carbon dioxide and a site from which brown asbestos has not been properly cleared. A school deliberately built too small on a site where it couldn’t expand. A massively over-budget monstrosity with senior council officers and LibDem Executive councillors covering up financial irregularities of circa £5.m.

This is the non-removal of the lethal brown asbestos:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Who on earth would put a new primary school and nursery on top of brown asbestos? LibDems.

“High risk of drainage works in excess of allowed Prov Sum”.

Do you think they spent the money they should have done on the drainage for the site, or simply left it as a quagmire? There are no LibDem votes to be lost in North Reddish, so the LibDems don’t comply with planning conditions. Who cares?

The email states that £200k would be spent on the drainage and can be read here:-

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/drainage-problems.html

I’m not sure 200 pence was.

The project manager of a scheme £5m adrift, and deliberately built too small investigates her own scheme and then declares it “vexatious” of me to raise any concerns regarding contamination, dangerous traffic situation, the fraud in spending circa £10m on something not fit for purpose in that it is too small and the astonishing financial irregularities. This is Stockport and this is Donna Sager, Assistant Director of Children’s Services.

http://www.sheilaoliver.org/-6.9m-to-come-from-sale-of-redundant-school-land—oops,-no-it-isn-t.html

Never trust your money, your vote or your children’s safety to the LibDems.

He is paid his councillor allowances, so he should attend.

Dear Mr XXXXX

I am writing in response to your request for information
(ref FOI 20080).

Can you kindly inform me what
the cost of the newly released “Stockport council investing in Stockport” video
produced by SMBC.

The relevant Council Service(s) has searched for the
requested information and our response is as follows:

The cost of the above video totalled
£6,750…

Yours sincerely,

Kerrie Harris

CSS Graduate Development Officer
Business Support – Information Governance

Stockport Council
Town Hall
Stockport

http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/communitypeopleliving/newapproach/