Stockport Council News

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I note yet again you have not answered any of my
questions.

Regards,

Mark Weldon

—–Original Message—–

From:
“sheilaoliver” <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>

To: “Cllr Mark Weldon” <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>

Sent: 13/09/07 07:00

Subject: Re: Harcourt Street, Stockport proposed school – dangerous site

Dear Councillor Weldon

I will go through it again.

Mr. Dunn attended a public meeting. The gentlemen from Viridor and GMWDA raised
the issue of Adswood Tip. We the public
were asked whether we had any questions.
I did, but not relevant to SHAC, so I asked them outside the
meeting. I as a taxpayer pay Mr. Dunn’s
wages, so I presume I am entitled to ask him questions.

I did not identify the site, as I did not think Mr. Dunn
would know it. I merely stated it was a
former Jackson’s Brickworks clay pit infilled with rubbish – a sister site to
Adswood Tip. Mr. Dunn stated that very
careful site investigations would need to be carried out (the gentleman from
Viridor confirmed this). This would
actually be obvious to anyone with the exception of Stockport Council. This is a school for goodness sake! Mr. Dunn then gave me his card.

I merely stated to the Secretary of State that Mr. Dunn
had stated very careful investigations would need to be carried out. I also mentioned that I didn’t think that
GMGU was qualified to carry this work out.
I cc Mr. Dunn so if he disagreed with what I was saying he had the
opportunity to refute it.

What this exchange of emails is showing is that you
really have no interest in the danger posed to local children from the
inadequate site investigations (not what was promised by the Executive) and the
recent dangers highlighted at a similar site.

Sheila X

—–
Original Message —–

From: Cllr Mark Weldon <mailto:cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>

To:
sheilaoliver <mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>

Sent:
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:57 PM

Subject:
RE: Harcourt Street, Stockport proposed school – dangerous site

Dear
Mrs Oliver,

I note
that you have not answered any of the
questions as to your use of Mr Dunn’s position as Executive Director GMWDA. I
await your considered reply.

Kind
Regards,

Mark
Weldon

From: sheilaoliver

To: Cllr Kevin Hogg ; Oldfield, Simon ; Peter
Devine ; Steve Lamb ; John Schultz ; gwynnea@parliament.uk
; blearsh@parliament.uk

Cc: paul.dunn@gmwda.gov.uk

Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:00 PM

Subject: Harcourt Street, Stockport proposed school – dangerous site

Dear Secretary of State

The above matter is with you for a
call-in decision. The proposed site is a former Jackson’s Brickyard
claypit site which was infilled at a time when no records regarding what was
disposed there were kept.

I fortuitously met Mr. Paul Dunn,
Executive Director, Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Agency this
evening. He told me that for the site to be used for the proposed school
very careful site investigations would need to be carried out. Even the
promised site-wide boreholing has not been carried out, and Mr. Dunn felt that
specialist contractors would need to carry out a detailed investigation of
this site. I don’t believe Greater Manchester Geological Unit has such
expertise.

Given that a similar site had to be
shut this week on safety grounds on account of Methane, I feel it is quite
frightening that Stockport Council intends to build a school on this land
without ensuring the safety of the project. The Planning and Highways
Committee totally ignored genuine concerns about safety which had
been raised by the area committee.

I do hope you will give due
consideration to these important issues.

Kind regards

Sheila Oliver

I attended an Executive Meeting at Stockport Council. Coincidentally, two gentlemen from Waste Disposal Experts firm Viridor were addressing the meeting. After the meeting I approached the gentleman, told them the Council was planning to put a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump, a former Jackson’s Brickyard site. They expressed their doubts to me and pointed out that Greater Manchester Geological Unit were not expert enough to deal with this matter. I don’t think Ex Councillor Weldon felt I as a mere council taxpayer should have been allowed to approach these gentleman. I felt I would know if I was on the right track with my worries if I discussed it with them.

Because Ex Councillor Weldon and his political cohorts refused to listen to how dangerous the site was, I wrote to the Secretary of State, who had to determine the application, explaining the dangers of this still gassing toxic waste dump site for such an end use.

Greater Manchester Geological Unit declared the site safe to develop with minor remediation including the fencing off of toxic hotspots by means of prickly bushes. They didn’t comply with BS 10175 as they should have done, as they didn’t investigate under the football pitch which covered most of the site.

When the Council was forced to do proper contamination investigations in late 2009 because they had to prove to a diversion of footpath public inquiry that the footpaths were not being diverted into areas of contamination, the investigations found the site to be entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.

To confirm my conversation with the Viridor chaps, GMGU admit in an email to Stockport Council they are not experts at dealing with airborne toxic contaminants, such as the brown asbestos which was subsequently found on the site.

So I was correct all along, and all I wanted to do was protect children from this ludicrous plan to put a new primary school on a still gassing toxic waste dump. Weldon snarls that I should write to the Secretary of State correcting what I wrote, when it was correct at the outset.

Sister sites – which is why I was concerned and why the chaps from Viridor expressed doubts:

The LibDem/Tory Coalition Government sold off the Ministry of Defence oil pipelines, which supply fuel to our Airforce and airports, to the Spanish. In order to build the A6 MARR they will have to divert the oil pipeline which supplies aviation fuel to Manchester Airport.

They seem a bit slow in starting this.

Wed 16/09/2015 14:02

Dear
Ms Oliver,

The
team working on behalf of the Bramhall Oil Terminal with respect to the
diversion of the former MOD pipeline are in regular liaison with the A6 to
Manchester Airport Relief project team and continue to work with them on
matters relevant to the diversion of the pipeline, required to accommodate the
new road scheme.

Thank
you for your interest and the information provided.

With
kind regards

Claire Riddlestone MSc

For and on behalf of Fisher German
LLP

01565 757975

07918 677 565

Network Rail delays. ??? Two years???

Before the A6 MARR can open, a Terminal 2 Eastern link road must be built.

CONFIDENTIAL

(Confidential, because formal status is as minutes for a
group meeting. Copies to be restricted
to members of the Liberal Democrat Group at the discretion of the Executive
Leader, and to officers on a ‘need to know’ basis at the discretion of
Directors. Non-sensitive information on
individual items may, of course, need to emerge more widely in the course of
normal Council business or in response to a request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000).

EXECUTIVE BRIEFING MEETING

Meeting: 28 February 2005

At: 3.00
pm

PRESENT:

Executive

Councillor Mark Hunter (Leader of the
Council) in the chair; Councillors Shan Alexander (Education), Martin Candler
(Social Care and Health), Sue Derbyshire (Infrastructure), David Goddard (Regeneration),
Pam King (Leisure and Culture), Hazel Lees (Environment), Brian Millard
(Resources) and Mark Weldon (Community Development).

Officers

John Schultz – Chief Executive

Ged Lucas – Deputy Chief Executive and Director of
Community Services

Ed Blundell – Director
for Education Services

Ted Lush – Director of Finance and Property Services

Elaine McLean – Director
of Environment and Economic Development Services

Nic Cox – General Manager, Stockport
Direct Services

Ken Horton – Strategic Head of e-Services

Carol Summers – Assistant
Director (Corporate Property Services), Finance and Property Services

Len Narborough – Assistant Director (Strategic Housing),
Environment and Economic Development Services

James Newell – Head
of Traffic Services, Environment and Economic Development Services

Dave Bryant – Planning
Policy Manager, Environment and Economic Development Services

Ron Lofkin – Principal
Adviser (Secondary Schools), Education Services

Marcus Bowell – Political
Assistant to the Liberal Democrat Group

David Clee – Committee
Manager, Chief Executive’s Services

Apologies

Apologies for absence were
submitted on behalf of Councillor John Pantall and Andrew Webb.

1. EARLY BRIEFING/GENERAL
BUSINESS

(a) The Future of Corporate Property
Services

Issue

Carol Summers gave a briefing in connection
with the options for the future of Corporate Property Services and updated
Executive Councillors on the work which had currently been carried out.

Outcome

·
Position
noted.

·
Issue
to be considered further at a future Leader’s Briefing Meeting.

(b) Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement

Issue

James Newell gave a briefing in connection
with the preparatory work which had been undertaken prior to the Council having
the legal powers, as from 4
April 2005, to enforce all parking offences within the borough.

Outcomes

·
Position
noted.

·
Leaflet
produced advising members of the public of the introduction of Decriminalised
Parking Enforcement to be sent to all Councillors.

(c) Strategy
and Mechanisms for Tackling the Under-Performance of Secondary Schools at Key
Stage 4 (See Minute 1 of 7 February 2005)

Issue

Ed Blundell and Ron Lofkin gave a briefing
in connection with raising standards at Key Stage 4.

Outcomes

·
Position
noted.

·
The
Leader of the Council, Executive Councillor (Education) and the Director for
Education Services to meet with secondary school headteachers to discuss
further.

(d) Overview
of Housing Act 2004 and recent Housing Policy Announcements from the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister

Issue

Len Narborough gave a briefing in
connection with the provisions contained in the Housing Act 2004 and other
housing-related announcements made by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
in January this year.

Outcomes

·
Position
noted.

·
Revised
briefing note to be circulated to all Councillors.

2. KEY AND NON-KEY DECISIONS
SCHEDULED FOR 14 MARCH AND 4
APRIL 2005 EXECUTIVE MEETINGS

Issue

·
List
of key and non-key decisions scheduled for consideration at future Executive
Meetings submitted.

·
Briefing
given in respect of:-

Unitary
Development Plan Update and Related Issues – the introduction of Housing
Phasing Policy HP1.5 (RGN 89)

Outcome

Issues to be considered further at Leader’s
Briefing Meeting on 3 March
2005.

3. BUDGET

Issue

Ted Lush reported that a report would be
submitted to the next Executive Briefing Meeting on the implications for
2006/07 of the 2005/06 Revenue Budget, and linking the budget in more detail to
the Council Plan and the consultation which had been undertaken. He further reported that an Efficiency
Statement was required by mid-April.

Outcome

·
Position
noted.

4. COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT/JOINT
AREA REVIEW PROGRESS

Issue

John Schultz reported that the Council was
expecting to be advised by the Audit Commission early next month of the date of
the Corporate Performance Assessment and Joint Area Review.

5. NOTE OF MEETING HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY 2005

Outcome

·
Note
approved as a correct record.

6. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS’ TARGETED
CAPITAL FUNDING (See
Minute 6 of 7 February 2005)

Issue

Ed Blundell
reported that the Department for Education and Skills had confirmed that
Targeted Capital Funding would be available in 2005/06. A bid would, therefore, be made by the
Council in accordance with the Executive’s preferred option for a new Romiley Primary School.

Outcome

·
Position noted.

The meeting
closed at 5.02 pm.

g:\mnutes.feb\Exec
Briefing 28 Feb

The corrupt Stockport LibDems knew there had been no assault with a sneeze. They had the CCTV of the incident which they refused to allow at the trial of Mr Parnell RIP:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA34fyU1eds

Crown Court Appeal

Manchester Crown Court

Minshull Street

Manchester

Appeal against conviction contrary to

Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Common assault by sneezing

Innocent by plea as to the allegation

Case appealed in the interest of
justice

As to being disputed in not proved
beyond reasonable doubt to all submitted evidence

R v PARNELL

contrary to

Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Common assault by sneezing

10th July 2009

Stockport Magistrates
Court

Edward Street

Stockport

I Michael Stewart Parnell appeal the
decision made against me to the allegation of common assault by sneezing with
intention to spread a cold to another

As contrary to section 39 criminal
Justice Act 1988

The reason for this Appeal is in the
interest of Justice and to preserve that right and for the Justice system not
to be abused by those that divert the course of fair justice

In this appeal I will show that an
injustice has been done either by or toward myself from others with their
intent to harm

My main reason of this Appeal is

I am innocent of all allegations made
against me and I will stay true to Justice and uphold the Queens
peace with honour

I pride myself that I respect the law
and will stay strong to that and not commit any offences against any person

How do I intend to show I am innocent

well firstly I give my word

I Michael Stewart Parnell

Do solemnly swear that I tell the
truth to my oath towards myself that I will always be truly honest in that
which I say and do

I Michael Stewart Parnell have not sneezed
on or towards any person and have not in any way intentionally or recklessly
sneezed or blown my nose on any person to cause them any harm alarm concerns or
distress

I have always conducted myself in
ways that respects all people politely and with dignity I am courteous towards
all other peoples needs and if I can will always help out and I receive
gratification from their thanks as my rewards people respect me for what I do
this is what I valve as a good quality

I pride myself of being of good character
that is approved by others and my life has been served to that of helping
others which I do enjoy and get my
rewards by doing

Why are allegations made against me

I believe there are those whose own
wrongdoing puts them to accountability
and their diversions are in their attempts the ways to discredit the way
in which I pursue dealing with those issues

Many people and also police officers
have commented that I have conducted myself exemplary and I am the most peaceful protester they
have ever come across and they complement me on how I behave

The issues with the other parties are
statutory in duty and in their failings not to deal with those issues they have
resorted to criminal acts in their attempts to divert the courts from their
true purpose as to enforce the laws and regulations in the UK

False allegations only serve one
purpose they damage hurt those they are directed towards to discredit our
freedom of rights

In this appeal what are the false
allegation disputed and by who were they fabricated and how do I prove they
acted maliciously

The allegation of the sneeze with the
intension to spread a cold that which was brought about after the failing that
previous allegations failed to have me moved away on that day because I was not
committing any crime allegations must be fabricated if the one making the
allegations knows of a crime before it
is apparent and suggests thats what will happen before it does

Allegation of a sneeze was made by
the two security guards now known to me as Mr Francis Craughwell

Mr Stephen Duggan

The false allegations are made to the police by that
which is now written in the security guards witness statements and also the MP3
and video recordings that have been gathered to support the detection and
prosecution of crime

How can I say that the allegations
made are false

The sneeze or the exhaling under
force down what is alleged to be my right nostril did not and could or would
have happened by me, if those making these allegations could imagine this would
happen from me then in their minds they are capable of fabricating such an
allegation because the possible outcome might be to serve their satisfaction to
discredit my cause and get rid of me once and for all, and is as stated by the
security guards to something that they are working towards

The security guards disrespect for
the law and their comments on tape stating that should be brought before court
as their bad character along with their other unlawfulness and many attacks on
my person under the pretence that they can get away with it only because they
are part of the big organisation and the one individual cant take on those who
have millions behind them