Sheila Oliver's Campaigning Website

Dear Ms Oliver,

RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

I am writing regarding your request for information which we received on the 10 August 2009. In that request, you ask for information regarding the cost of Mr Parnell’s trial last January and a further trial which took place at Stockport Magistrates Court last month.

Pursuant to Section 1(3) of the above Act, I will be unable to proceed with your request without clarification of the information you wish to receive. To help us to do so, I will require Mr Parnell’s full name and also further details of the matter which was heard in January 2009. For example details of the offence, the date of offence if possible. This information will enable to me to establish whether we hold the information requested.

Please note if I do not receive appropriate clarification of your information requirements within two months from the date of this letter, then I will consider your request closed.

Yours sincerely

Mrs R Martin

Information Management Unit
*********************************************************************
This e-mail is private and is intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.

Activity and use of CPS Connect systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the
Criminal Justice Extranet is monitored to secure their effective operation and for other
lawful business purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored
and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vicious vendetta against Mr Parnell was always arranged so every Christmas he had the threat of a trial hanging over him.

Sheila,
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.
Evidence!
Dave
David White
5 Harry Road
Stockport
SK5 6TX
0161-474-3379 (Work)
0161-443-1090 (Home)
07891-949266 (Mobile)
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 01 May 2009 20:11
To: Cllr Dave Goddard; Cllr Mark Weldon; David White; cllr.sue.derbyshire@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.shan.alexander@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.stuart.bodsworth@stockport.gov.uk; martin.candler@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.john.pantall@stockport.gov.uk
Cc: cleggn@parliament.uk; lambn@parliament.uk
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.

Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your email below.
I note your comments that you maintain that Cllr Goddard has contravened the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) by disclosing information to you about Mr Parnell, namely information about his Court hearing and bail conditions; however I disagree that Cllr Goddard’s actions in this case constitute a contravention of the DPA.
While it is of course normally the case that the Council would not disclose personal data to third parties without consent of the data subject (Mr Parnell in this case), the information contained in Cllr Goddard’s email was already in the public domain because it had been read out and discussed in open court. Any member of the public or media was free to attend the court hearing, following which they would have been able to report that public information in a way of their choosing, provided that it was not unfair or unlawful.
Cllr Goddard merely reported information which had been made public by the Courts; neither he nor the Council disclosed information to you without authority because authority is not needed to report publicly-available information. Similarly, Cllr Goddard’s actions could not be described as unfair because they reported publicly-available facts, along with his personal opinions about those facts.
Regardless of the above, the Council received Mr Parnell’s authorisation from you on 16 th July 2009 and has since been able to access this. I have now converted this to a Word document which is attached for your information.
I trust this answers your request for comments on this matter. The Council does not intend to comment further on this issue; however if you remain dissatisfied you are entitled to submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 22 July 2009 18:29
To: FOI Officer
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL; John Schultz; Leader; Barry Khan
Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09
Dear Ms Naven
If you can't open the attachment mentioned below, then SMBC is not in receipt of Mr Parnell's authorisation to disclose personal information to me.
In that case, the Leader Councillor Goddard, was seriously in breach of the Data Protection Act when he sent me a particularly gloating email about Mr. Parnell being sent to prison. To be apparently delighted at such a turn of events, involving as they do more distress to Mr Parnell's already troubled daughters and given the story in today's Stockport Express of a prisoner being murdered by another prisoner, one has to question whether Councillor Goddard is a fit person to hold the office that he does.
Please may I have your comments regarding this? I shall forward you the offending email after this one.
Kind regards
Sheila

From: FreedomOfInformation@gmp.police.uk
To: Sheila Oliver
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Freedom of Information GSA 2210/09


Dear Ms Oliver

I have checked my records and do not have a telephone number for you, therefore I am unable to call you. As previously advised, personal data would be exempt within a FOIA disclosure by virtue of Section 40 - Personal Data.

The wording of FOIA requests, and any subsequent disclosures, are carefully considered and due process is given to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act, amongst others. Public authorities are not above the law and would not disclose any data relating to or identifying an individual, neither would they set a precedent by doing the same.

If you would like to contact me for any further assistance or clarification regrading submitting a FOIA or Subject Access Request (as per Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998) please do not hesitate to contact me on telephone number 0161 856 2529

kind regards

Philip Humphreys
Information Access Office

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given reference FOI 2001. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. 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,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 15 July 2009 20:36
To: FOI Officer
Subject: FOI request - Mr Parnell
Dear FoI Officer
How much has the legal advice cost the council taxpayer regarding the prosecutions etc. of Mr. Parnell?
How much has it been estimated his High Court appeal, should it take place, will cost the council taxpayer? I assume someone at Stockport Council has considered the appeal costs.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Sheila
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2001).
I note that Mr Parnell has now provided authorisation for the Council to disclose information about him to you; however as you may be aware, disclosures of information under the FOI Act are, in effect, disclosures into the public domain rather than disclosures to a single applicant. This means that information disclosed to one applicant in response to an FOI request would not usually be withheld from another applicant asking for identical information. On this basis, the information you have requested about Mr Parnell is still considered to be exempt under s.40(2) of the FOI Act because it is personal data and it would be unfair to make this personal data publicly available – Mr Parnell has authorised the Council to disclose information to you rather than to the public as a whole.
With this in mind, the Council will answer your specific questions below in this instance; however please note that this information is provided outside the scope of the FOI Act. The information you requested is as follows:
· How much has the legal advice cost the council taxpayer regarding the prosecutions etc. of Mr. Parnell?
This was a police prosecution; no legal advice was given to the police by the Council on this matter so there was no cost.
· How much has it been estimated his High Court appeal, should it take place, will cost the council taxpayer? I assume someone at Stockport Council has considered the appeal costs.
Any appeal would be against the Court which made the decision; the Council would not have a role in that and no cost.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. 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:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your email below.
As I have previously explained, information about Mr Parnell is being provided to you outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This is because disclosures under the FOIA are disclosures into the public domain and not to a particular requester; Mr Parnell has authorised us to provide you with personal information about him, not the general public, and it would be unfair to disclose this information to the public.
Phone calls to the police under these circumstances do not need to be made by a senior officer; the phone calls will have been made by whichever officer was at the scene at the time.
As we have previously explained to you, once the police have been called the Council has no further involvement in the matter. The police arrest, charge, take to court and put individuals on remand at their discretion and with court approval; the Council is not involved in these decisions. Similarly, any decision to pursue or discontinue any case will have been taken by the CPS; the Council would not be involved.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 09 August 2009 07:28
To: FOI Officer
Cc: compliance@ico.gsi.gov.uk; Cllr Mark Weldon
Subject: Fw: Your request for information to Stockport Council - 'Town Hall protestor' - Ref 1831 - Response
Dear Ms Naven
The persecution of the town hall protester may well cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more. So, we need to know the grade within the Council of the person who decided to proceed with the court case in January, which was abandoned on the day of the hearing, the calling of the police over 80 times, the 11 arrests, the four days in prison, the further trial in September and the possible High Court costs.
I very much doubt these decisions were taken by a lowly security guard. If you won't given me the actual name of the person who made these decisions, then please let me know what grade they were.
I shall cc this to Councillor Weldon who believes all FoI requests are answered by this Council and to the Information Commission.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Oliver
To: FOI Officer
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL ; lt peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Your request for information to Stockport Council - 'Town Hall protestor' - Ref 1831 - Response
Dear FoI Officer
Then without identifying the council officer(s) by name, please state their grade within the organisation. I assume this would be someone of senior position. I may take this issue to the Information Commission, which won't look good for Stockport Council. Maybe we can achieve the same end without getting SMBC even further black marks at the ICO.
Kind regards
Sheila
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dear XXXXX

A very sincere Thank You with the dearest of gratitude for your support on Friday, it will be that with your devoted caring support and your time spent on reporting my case that we will together, along with united others be able to take on the council and uncover their unlawful wrongdoings, the council will not be able to hide behind their cover ups, because together all those who stand up for what is duly right, then justice will prevail above everything else, I’m deeply in your debt for your support both at the trial and your time spent afterwards writing up the report how would I ever be able to repay you for your support and that you have done for me, well if I can be there for you I am here and ready to go, there is one goal we and many others like us have in common that is this council (Stockport MBC Maliciously Brutalizes Citizens) which picks on the defenceless, those who cant object back to how they are treated, the council attacks the young who cant defend themselves, they also attack the venerable because they are easy targets, is this the supportive acting council that we want for our following generations, if when we all get old and become venerable then it would be our younger generation that would support our needs, but if they! were not supported, then how would those in the council who blatantly abused their duty cope if their needs were neglected, how would they feel if they were treated like they treat others, I for myself require little but the need to help others is great, to show this council’s wrongdoing I shall be wearing their honorary order of crasbo on my chest and in their dictatorship of the justice system, then with the judgement of guilt to a phantom sneeze, then as I uphold the law and punishment to be correctly served, then I will have erected outside Stopford House a set of head stocks in which I will place myself to serve my sentence 24 months that the order lasts, the council will not just get away with dictating a financial penalty to which they know that I cant cover and would be left to my dear wife and at a loss to our needy children, I shall without hesitation stand in the stocks to show the council’s wrongdoing well isn’t that what I have already done for the last 2 years I’m sure Stockport Council will welcome being seen nationwide through the eyes of the media as a council that is still in the dark ages who orders it residents to do as it says, because it places its citizens lower than itself, if its treats us fairly then we will all prosper together, treat us unfairly and they give us no other direction than to revolt, if they keep pushing us to the edge of the quarry which they use to where as to place the worthless refuse then there will be a time when in 2012 this council will be forced to recycle its unwanted, how will the council cope when we are given our day we wont treat them the way they treat us, we are not like them we care and have morals, the council will hang it’s head in shame, I hold my head up high, though be it in the stocks but I am proud of that what I have ever done, but shame on them of their allegations to cover up and disguise their actions and their failings.
XXXXX again my dearest thanks, you helped me greatly and from that help will keep me strong, it will be the people when they are shown the truth of that which this council has failed, and it will be them and only them who will to justice demand, that the council be brought to account for their actions.
All my dearest sincere thanks love and happiness
Mike
A GREAT BIG THANK YOU"

--- On Sun, 3/5/09, MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Subject: complaint procedure
To: gettingitright@stockport.gov.uk
Date: Sunday, 3 May, 2009, 1:53 PM

Dear Sheila

               Just to let you know what has happened following thursday questions, I was arrested on friday and held at the police station because the person who I said was going to smash my head in and then kill me was not happy, and he works for the council, the council has asked for me to be arrested, that was friday, I was released saturday and again arrested monday and put before the magistrates court released and then again arrested monday afternoon released tuesday morning again i was arrested tuesday dinnertime released wednesday dinnertime thursday went to manchester to see solicitor, friday arrested again and held at police station to be put before magistrate saturday, in court no charges released, only that stockport council requested to the courts that I was not not to be let  into all council builings, and any meetings in the town hall, which the court agreed  and trial for me to defend is on the 3rd of June so untill then if I do go to any meetings I will be going against the courts, and if I walk on pavements around stockport council owned property, or take photographs or disply any signs naming the council or its employee's I will be again arrested, I have copied you a email that I have sent to the council about complaining to the council, and to let you know that on friday after the council meeting there was on the council's web site our questions and all our details were posted for all to see they were still there monday tuesday and wednesday, they can do these thing to us but it seem's we have no right to complain as to how we feel, our alarm and disstress there is no one to protect us, the police go the side with the local authority. friday I was arrested for putting up my tent on the grass outside stopford house and going inside the tent and closing the front and was just minding my own business and just waiting for the council to go through the council's complaint procedure the police said i cant do this because i would be there forever, the police did force their way into the tent 3 of then dragged me out put me into a van and took me away this was not fair on me there was alot of members of the public watching on as with how do council employee's feel then how do we feel being like this by them. send this email to ever you feel you must you have my consent.

love and all the best keep going
                                                  Mike

Dear Sir or Madam

On friday the 24th day of April in this year of 2009, I sent your an email, through the direct access to the council, and this was from the pc in the contact centre at Stopford House Piccadilly Stockport, this was monitored on the council own CCTV system in the reception area. the email was about a complaint to the council of which in your own policies and procedures I am trying to follow, and in doing so the first thing is I put forward my concerns, then you will reply and confirm the complaint in 5 days ( I have not by email or post had as yet any acknowledgement or correspondence to this matter, delay is indead a matter for  which that complaint can be put to the local ombudmans) and with there not yet being any reply on this day of the 3rd of May in this year of 2009 is at now as it stands is 9 days for you to deal with this complaint in the manner which you tell myself is how you should, if you want to follow the same delays as you have with my complaint that the council was made aware of in October 2005 and is as yet still not acted upon and resolved then I Michael Stewart Parnell do formally complain that to your complaint procedure, you are not following to the guidance that you say is that to how you will perform, (if you perform well I will praise you, do not perform at all or perform poorly then it is our civic duty to complain) you are failing us all and that includes yourselves and this is one issue of my complaint, we all deserve a service that is second to no other and we all should be ashamed that where we dont perform we are coming in last, please tell me if you know of any other council that performs at a lower standard than Stockport MBC ( because I am sure that a lot would like to know  that we have a lower standard than theirs ) please put yourselves in the frame who are you, I know that from the email address you are gettingitright@stockport.gov.uk is this correct or will there be a posted link to that you are gettingitwrong@stockport.gov.uk is this how you would want to be known.

with deepest concerns your sincerely

                                                     M S Parnell




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Oliver

I write in connection with your request for information dated 29th April 2009,  which was received by Greater Manchester Police on 30th April 2009.  Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party.

In some circumstances Greater Manchester Police may be unable to achieve this deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information you request.  If this is the case you will be informed and the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment from you. If you choose not to make payment then your request will remain unanswered.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact The Information Access Team, on telephone number 0161 856 2529

Kind regards

Amanda Ratcliffe
Information Access Officer



"Sheila Oliver" <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
29/04/2009 19:21
To <freedomofinformation@gmp.police.uk>  
cc <RLewis@landmarkchambers.co.uk>, "John Schultz" <chief.executive@stockport.gov.uk>, "John Hill" <john.hill@stockport.gov.uk>, <peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk>  
Subject FOIA request


Dear FoI Officer
 
This is in no way a criticism of the Greater Manchester Police - quite the opposite.
 
The gentle, peaceful Stockport Town Hall Protestor has had the police called to him by Stockport Council, I believe, 64 times.
 
Please may I know under the FOIA a rough estimation of how much police time this has taken up - both with the call-out time and subsequent police time spent filling out paperwork in the police station.  I ask for a rough estimation because I don't want to further add to the police's burden.
 
Also, has any police officer expressed concern about this waste of police time?
 
As mentioned above, this is not a reflection on the actions of the local police, who have, I believe, treated our town hall protestor with kindness, dignity and respect.
 
I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Kind regards
 
Sheila

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

Dear sheila

Just a line to say a heart welcoming thank you for your emails when i see my words coming back from others then this would be our finest tool in our challenge against the council when all they are doing is to silence us and bury us deep and tied up under their pile of wrongdoings and unlawfulness, if they could not get things right in the past and are not getting things right now, then how can we trust them with our future, and the futures of the young that are yet to come, who do not yet know what this council is capable of doing to them, we must protect the future because the past has gone and we cant get it back so we must not forget all we have had, and hold on to that and learn to do better as not to waste that which we have learned, when people work together we feel better for helping others and its nice when someone help us even when things are going wrong you could feel safe when there are people who care, if only we could all be the same rewards are feeling good about what you have done for others,we are alone when we have no one to give our thoughts and hopes too, things will only get better, the wrongs have no place in our trueful hearts, the attachment i have sent is the arrest to prevent breach of the peace, the police dont understand what they are doing and they dont listen.
thank you for listening and sharing your thoughts
all my love mike

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Oliver


Thankyou for your email of 1 August 2009 . In your correspondence you make reference to a Code of Conduct complaint you have made to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council that you say they have not acknowledged or assessed.
The Government has charged the Standards Board with ensuring that the process for the local assessment of complaints against elected members is working fairly and efficiently. To do this we use information which may indicate that legislation or our guidance is not being followed to help us decide whether we should contact an authority. Please be aware that Standards for England will only intervene in matters regarding the operation of the standards framework. The only information contained in your email that falls within our remit is in relation to the assessment of Code of Conduct complaints.

When a complaint is addressed to the authority’s monitoring officer, the monitoring officer should determine whether the complaint should be directed to the assessment sub-committee or whether another course of action is appropriate. If the complaint is clearly not about member conduct, then the monitoring officer does not have to pass it to the assessment sub-committee. Complaints about council decisions or procedures cannot be considered by a standards committee. However, if the complaint does relate to member conduct, the complaint should go before the assessment sub-committee. Our guidance states that this should happen within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.

We are contacting the authority in relation to the acknowledgement and assessment of complaints. Standards for England will not automatically update you on the progress of our work with them unless we consider it relevant to do so. Depending on the outcome of our discussions we reserve the right to consider further steps and may again use the information you have provided as part of the basis of this action.

Thankyou again for taking the time to contact us.

Rosie Wallbank
Solutions Development Officer
T: 0161 817 5300
F: 0161 817 5499
Standards for England
Fourth Floor, Griffin House, 40 Lever Street, Manchester, M1 1BB
lt www.standardsboard.gov.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for additional information below and apologise for the delay replying.
Please see the Council’s original response below. The exemptions stated refer to any information relating to the ‘Town Hall Protestor’ and not to Council officers; I apologise if this was not made clear in the response below. To reiterate, any information which the Council may hold in relation to your request is likely to constitute personal data therefore it is exempt.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 29 June 2009 17:37
To: FOI Officer
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Subject: Re: Your request for information to Stockport Council - 'Town Hall protestor' - Ref 1831 - Response
Dear FoI Officer
Then without identifying the council officer(s) by name, please state their grade within the organisation. I assume this would be someone of senior position. I may take this issue to the Information Commission, which won't look good for Stockport Council. Maybe we can achieve the same end without getting SMBC even further black marks at the ICO.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:08 PM
Subject: Your request for information to Stockport Council - 'Town Hall protestor' - Ref 1831 - Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your recent request for information (ref 1831) in which you requested ‘evidence of any senior council officer's involvement in this case - which is the calling of the police to the peaceful town hall protester around 70 times’. I apologise for the delay responding.
Any information the Council may hold in relation to this request is likely to constitute the personal data of the individual concerned; therefore we are unable to provide the information you have requested because it is exempt information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Section 40(2) FOIA states that information which constitutes personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 is exempt from disclosure if its release would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. Any information held in relation to your request is likely to constitute personal data because it relates to and identifies a living individual. Disclosure of these personal data would be unfair; therefore it would contravene the first data protection principle which requires the Council to process personal data fairly. This means that the information is exempt and will not be provided.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. 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:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.query@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system.

Thank you.

Dear Ms Naven

Could you please explain the reason why my request is considered vexatious? The parents of disadvantaged and disabled children are being treated very, very badly by this Council. Are some driven to suicide as Mr. Parnell could easily have been?
Which council officer decided this appalling case of Ms Davies didn't warrant any report, despite the serious failings of the Council indicated in the Serious Case Review?

Please may I see any documents subsequently produced by the Council showing ways to address the Council's failings documented in the Serious Case Review.
Yours

Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:24 PM
Subject: Your request for an internal review - Ref FOI 1490 - Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of the decision to refuse to respond to your request (ref 1490) on the basis that it was vexatious.
You originally requested the following:
‘Please may I see any complaints lodged by Alison Davies against SMBC. She is the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her autistic son. There is no data protection for the dead - I have checked.’
This is the request which is the subject of the review. The review has been carried out by Donna Sager and is set out below:
Dear Mrs Oliver,
From a review of all pertinent information I am of the opinion that the request is vexatious and that responding to it could significantly impact on the relatives and family of the individual. It is clear from the emails you’ve sent about this matter that you recognise the privacy issues associated with your request and although the Data Protection Act 1998 does not apply to information about the deceased, in my opinion responding to your request is likely to distress relatives of Ms Davies and her son, who have a legitimate right to privacy. This is because as you will know, any response to an FOI request is a disclosure to the public as a whole, not just to you.
I do not consider that requesting information about deceased individuals in this context serves any serious purpose other than to cause distress to those who knew Ms Davies and to harass the Council. The link between this request and the ongoing issues regarding a small number of unrelated official complaints to Stockport Council indicates to me that your request is of a vexatious nature which is requested in order to try to discredit the Council as opposed to any genuine interest in the individual case.
Any information the Council may hold about these very tragic circumstances should not be used for purposes other than those which have previously been dealt with under the serious case review. Any other requests do not appear to have a benefit. I am aware that subsequent emails of this nature simply confirm this view that I am upholding.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of the internal review you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545745
Yours sincerely,
Donna Sager
Service Director (Strategy & Performance)
Children & Young People’s Directorate
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Naven

The review should be carried out by an independent council person - Ms Sager is certainly not that.
I look forward to hearing from you with a revised response.

Yours

Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:24 PM
Subject: Your request for an internal review - Ref FOI 1490 - Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of the decision to refuse to respond to your request (ref 1490) on the basis that it was vexatious.
You originally requested the following:
‘Please may I see any complaints lodged by Alison Davies against SMBC. She is the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her autistic son. There is no data protection for the dead - I have checked.’
This is the request which is the subject of the review. The review has been carried out by Donna Sager and is set out below:
Dear Mrs Oliver,
From a review of all pertinent information I am of the opinion that the request is vexatious and that responding to it could significantly impact on the relatives and family of the individual. It is clear from the emails you’ve sent about this matter that you recognise the privacy issues associated with your request and although the Data Protection Act 1998 does not apply to information about the deceased, in my opinion responding to your request is likely to distress relatives of Ms Davies and her son, who have a legitimate right to privacy. This is because as you will know, any response to an FOI request is a disclosure to the public as a whole, not just to you.
I do not consider that requesting information about deceased individuals in this context serves any serious purpose other than to cause distress to those who knew Ms Davies and to harass the Council. The link between this request and the ongoing issues regarding a small number of unrelated official complaints to Stockport Council indicates to me that your request is of a vexatious nature which is requested in order to try to discredit the Council as opposed to any genuine interest in the individual case.
Any information the Council may hold about these very tragic circumstances should not be used for purposes other than those which have previously been dealt with under the serious case review. Any other requests do not appear to have a benefit. I am aware that subsequent emails of this nature simply confirm this view that I am upholding.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of the internal review you are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545745
Yours sincerely,
Donna Sager
Service Director (Strategy & Performance)
Children & Young People’s Directorate
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Naven

In the interim I have found out the details for myself. Although criticised in the Serious Case Review for failure to document her case, hold joint meetings and liaise with other services which could help Ms Davies, despite this involving the death of a 9-year-old child when his mother jumped with him from the Humber Brige, a council meeting was told that the Council was under no obligation to produce a report on this tragic case.

I shall keep digging and request further information when I have gone through her NHS records.

With warmest best wishes

Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Cc: FOI Officer
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge - Ref 2000 Further response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
As per my previous email, the Council is not aware of any such report regarding Ms Davies. It is clear from your email that you believe such a report exists and was taken to a Council meeting; therefore if you still maintain this is the case, please specify which Council meeting you believe this report was taken to. The response to your request as it stands is that no such report is held by the Council.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 12 August 2009 17:42
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Re: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge - Ref 2000 Response
Dear Ms Naven
We will go into this bit by bit if you wish. Alison Davies from Stockport jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9 year old autistic son. Was there any internal investigation/report regarding her dealings with Stockport Council? I assume the mother of an autistic child would have had some assistance from the Council. I have been told on good authority that a report about the incident was put before a council meeting, and that is was decided that Ms. Davies was suffering from mental illness.
I look forward to hearing from you. However long it takes.
Kind regards
Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: FOI Officer
To: Sheila Oliver
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:06 PM
Subject: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge - Ref 2000 Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2000).
As far as we're aware, no such report about Ms Davies is held by the Council; however if you have reason to believe otherwise, if you are able to clarify your request and specify, for example, which kind of report you are referring to we will reconsider it.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal review. 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:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Claire Naven
Claire Naven
Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 11 July 2009 06:58
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Report put before Stockport Council regarding the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge
Dear FoI Officer
Please send me the report put to Stockport Council regarding Alison Davies, the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9-year-old autistic son.
Yours
Sheila

Email sent by me to the head of the FOIA Dept at SMBC on 18th August 2009 at 07.56

Dear Ms Re


I note the comment below from your recent email, which caused me great offence:-
"to one e-mail account and these e-mails will be checked by a Council officer on a weekly basis."
Who is that person, will they comply with the council customer care charter?

With warmest best wishes

Sheila

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent to the Standards Board 11th August 2009 at 16.36

Dear Ms Wallbank

Many thanks for your helpful and prompt reply.

Barry Khan is the monitoring officer for Stockport Council. He simply doesn't respond to anything. I sent an official complaint in last July with a registered post reminder to him last November. I have raised this issue countless times without success in council meetings and have now been banned from even raising the subject. I have absolutely no confidence in Mr. Khan.

That is very interesting that you state my complaint about the Leader publicly calling me a liar, repeatedly and refusing to provide evidence should have gone before the assessment sub-committee within 20 working days. I have heard nothing whatsoever for months and months despite reminders.

As for what happened regarding Mr. Parnell, I do hope you will take that seriously. There is something very seriously wrong going on here with regards to the treatment he is getting, and as an unfortunate byproduct it may well cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds or even more.

Again, many thanks for your response.

I shall keep you informed should I ever get a response from the very elusive Mr. Khan.

Kind regards

Sheila
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Majothi

Many thanks.

Kind regards

Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Anwar Majothi
To: Sheila Oliver
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Issues you have raised
Dear Ms Oliver,
I am in discussion with the Monitoring Officer regarding the points you have raised with me. I hope to let you know the outcome hopefully within a week. I apologise for the delay.
Regards
Anwar
Anwar Majothi
Improvement & Performance Officer (Complaints)
Stockport MBC
Tel: 0161 474 3182



**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs Martin
FOIUnit@cps.gsi.gov.uk

Many thanks for your speedy response. I will cc this to Mr. Parnell so he can reply to you.  He spent four days in prison last month for using the Town Hall public lavatory at Stockport.  He may well be back in prison at the moment for some other non-offence.  I most certainly do want to proceed with this and will let you have the relevant information ASAP.

We must stamp out this massive abuse of taxpayers' money.

Kind regards

Sheila
----- Original Message -----
From: Freedom of Information Unit
To: sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Freedom of Information Request - Reference Number 1900


Dear Ms Oliver,



RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST



I am writing regarding your request for information which we received on the 10 August 2009. In that request, you ask for information regarding the cost of Mr Parnell’s trial last January and a further trial which took place at Stockport Magistrates Court last month.



Pursuant to Section 1(3) of the above Act, I will be unable to proceed with your request without clarification of the information you wish to receive. To help us to do so, I will require Mr Parnell’s full name and also further details of the matter which was heard in January 2009. For example details of the offence, the date of offence if possible. This information will enable to me to establish whether we hold the information requested.

Please note if I do not receive appropriate clarification of your information requirements within two months from the date of this letter, then I will consider your request closed.

Yours sincerely


Mrs R Martin

Information Management Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 8th August 2009 at 18.11

Dear Councillor Weldon

If I can provide evidence that FoI requests are being refused and the case is not, as you say, that all documents have been supplied, and you refuse to accept that proof, then I would have to say my previous assessment of you is totally correct.
I can name all the documents I haven't received. There is a large number. What exactly would you do if I took the trouble to type the list out? Would you get them for me? If so, I will gladly do so. If not it would be a waste of my time, so why ask? Get the list from the FoI office. The FoI officer has had to supply them to the Information Commission. What a waste of their valuable time that was.

You can route all you like through the FoI Officer. What we need is a council that operates honestly and openly and I shall continue asking questions until the Council realises that all its actions can be gone into in minute detail, so they might as well act properly and without wasting millions of pounds of council taxpayers' and taxpayers' money as they do at present.

With regards to North Reddish, you don't represent the number of people there that I do, and it would seem the LibDems might have used let's say unorthodox methods to remain in power. That issue is bubbling along nicely.

Kind regards

Sheila
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email received from SMBC 7th July 2009 at 09.25

Dear Mrs Oliver,

In response to your message I would advise that the Council do not have specific claim forms for use in circumstances you describe.

If you wish to make a claim please do so in writing setting out the nature of the claim and the loss that it has given rise to, if any.
If you intend to issue proceedings they should be served formally on the Council via the Council Solicitor who is authorised to accept service of any proceedings. Please note that claims against the Council will be defended and costs will be sought against any losing party.

You may wish to consider taking specific legal advice if you are contemplating the issue of proceedings.
Mike.Halsall
Stockport Legal Services
Business Services Directorate
Tel: 0161-474 3211
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email is for the intended recipient(s) alone. It may contain legallyprivileged and confidential information that is exempt from disclosure under English law and if you are not an intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately either by using the reply facility on your email system or by contacting us at the address below. If this message is being transmitted over the Internet, be aware that it may be intercepted by third parties. No contractual relationship is created by this email by any person or partner unless specifically indicated otherwise by agreement in writing via means other than email. If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport Legal Services Business development Unit by telephone to 0161 474 3263.

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 04 July 2009 17:37
To: Mike Halsall
Cc: MICHAEL PARNELL; Leader; Barry Khan; Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk; John Schultz
Subject: Defamation and wrongful arrest
Dear Mr Halsall

Please send me a claim form. I wish to make a claim regarding the publicly and wrongly branding me rude and offensive at council meetings, to possibly thousands of council employees and also with regards to the Leader repeatedly calling me a liar in council meetings. You will, no doubt, be aware of the recent Slough court case which cost £450,000 in legal costs. I am sure the Council's insurers would want to settle rather than go through several such cases. I have first class references from the Lord Mayor of Manchester, the Chief Executive of Manchester City Council and the German Diplomatic Service - I have worked for all of these and would not be suitable for such posts had I a rude and offensive nature.

I cannot speak for Mr. Parnell but my impression is that your insurers will have to pay him a large amount of money for the appalling treatment he has received at the hands of this council. And to have dragged the Chief Constable into this row, who following his predecessor cannot afford any embarrassment, is astonishing.
Please see the attached news report.

I expect to hear from you within 10 working days as per the Council's Charter.

Yours sincerely

Sheila

**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

--- On Tue, 19/5/09, MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Subject: personal details posted on council website
To: mike.iveson@stockport.gov.uk
Cc: Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk, xxxx, sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com, xxxx, casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Tuesday, 19 May, 2009, 1:21 AM

Dear Mike Iveson

As you will see copied from the council's web site on the 18th may 2009 there are still personal details being posted on the councils website, and with the concern over my details being posted, I worry that there are those who could use them in a fradulant way, especialy when they can be found so easily,  I have still not recieved a written apology from this council for my details being posted, but you must be waiting untill you have removed all of my details before you send me one, my details can still be viewed on the council's website posted within the public domain, there is 2,237 pages where I can find these sorts of details, please feel assured that I will not use any of these details inappropriately, but their are others that might if they came across them. the cheif constable of greater manchester police and the information commissioner have already recieved emails stating the concerns that some persons have to:-

Mr Paul Arnold,
Head of Front Line Operations
FOI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner’s Office,

there will be far many others that will be worried if they knew how this council protected their data , we all as council tax paying residents have our details stored on this council's failing system.

enclosed you will find an attachment that contains expired data with their signature and your signature on your reply letter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sheila

              Today I sent this to Mr Khan lets see if he replies or hides his face in shame, he is the legal representative for stockport who should make sure that the law upheld and that they conform to their legal duty.

say hello to family we all need them love mike

--- On Wed, 6/4/11, MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com> wrote:


From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Subject: Fw: Emailing: 1m boost for adoption charity Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
To: barrykhan@stockport.gov.uk
Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 22:26


Dear Mr Khan

        Please read the article from MEN newspaper and then tell me, we as a family have not had problems that should not have been recognised by SMBC and following adoption we needed support as would any other family that was in need, Mr Goddard in our Meeting made comment, have 10,000 got it wrong and is it only i that has got it right, well here is 1,000,000 yes 1 million, to help the things that do go wrong and if we had returned on our problems, how much help would stockport give for the children took back into care in this borough, this council has sold us as a family down a road to ruin without any thank you, to suffer the children if they cost this town money, shame on those with a tidy bank balance whose children are being negleted.

--- On Wed, 6/4/11, MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com> wrote:


From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Subject: Emailing: 1m boost for adoption charity Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
To: mickysara@btinternet.com
Date: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011, 21:43


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- On Fri, 27/1/12, MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Subject: letter of authorisation requested by SMBC
To: mickysara@btinternet.com
Date: Friday, 27 January, 2012, 23:28


Dear Sheila, and all who it may passed too
 
Hello How are you, Michael Parnell here please accept this my full acknowledgement that you may use this correspondence in any way you feel it to be so required.
             
                Re: Letter of Authorisation requested by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and in response this my acknowledgement to that request requires certain protocols to be followed, I Michael Stewart Parnell d.o.b xxxx of xxxx Stockport, do so Agree that I am in full support that you be so authorised to submit any request that whether it is from yourself or by any other resident living or working in Stockport on your or any ones else's own submission, that your requests made to stockport metropolitan borough council about any issue or with reference to myself of how i have been treated or about how much it may have cost the public purse or whether there has been any unlawfulness or illegalities in any aspects, any person who so wishes to submit a request of information does receive my full authorisation and I do so give that Authorisation to those in receipt of this email, Confirmation  I do so Authorise anyone in receipt of this email to submit any request they they feel is so require whether the matter subject is about any issue or whether it is over issue with reference toward i Michael Stewart Parnell,

Reference: for Mrs Sheila Oliver your dedication precedes you as a truly sincere campaigner, I recognise your request submitted to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council on the 10th of January 2012 through www.Whatdotheyknow.com ? website that you have requested information on your own behave as you yourself have concerns how yours or anyone's taxes are spent or even more damagingly wasted and i do so fully back your request for that information, in response to the Annotation added on 19th January 2012 for the request on your own behave i have received a letter from Stockport Council which contains reference to yourself and as set out below that letter is as show,

     STOCKPORT                                         Corporate and Support Services Directorate
Metropolitan Borough Council                   Stopford house, Piccadilly, Stockport SK1 3XE
                                                                                           Telephone 0161 474 4004
                                                                      e-mail jayne.reynolds@stockport.gov.uk
                                                                                              Fax      0161 474 4006
                                                                                   please ask for Jayne Reynolds
Mr M Parnell
xxxx
                                                                                              25th January 2012
Dear Mr Parnell

Official Complaint against Monitoring Officer, Barry Khan

Steve Houston is in receipt of several emails from Mrs S Oliver lodging an official complaint against
Barry Khan

Before Steve investigates the complaint under Stage 1 of the Corporate Complaints Procedure,he has
requested written confirmation, signed by yourself, that you consent to Mrs Oliver raising the complaint
on your behalf.

As Mrs Oliver has raised concerns over how you are to submit this authorisation, please find attached
a stamped addressed envelope.

Once your approval has been received, Steve will aim to provide Mrs Oliver with his decision within 20
working days.

Yours sincerely,


Jayne Reynolds
PA to Steve Houston
Corporate Director, Corporate and Support Services



INVESTOR IN PEOPLE                                            S. C. Houston, BA (Hons), C.P.F.A
                                                       Corporate Director, Corporate and Support Services


this letter was today received 27th January 2012 the postage used was second class 28p and the self addressed envelope has a Christmas 2nd class stamp with an angle on it  i believe you request was originally made some 17 days ago.

if anyone requires further information or further authorisation please contact myself.

yours sincerely

M S Parnell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   

Incompetent and dodgy Stockport Council hides behind Data Protection when it suits them to cover up their wrongdoing, yet abuses the DPA right left and centre in the case of Mr Parnell:-

"Council pays out in race claim

December 12, 2007

A NORTH west council is believed to have paid out around £250,000 after settling two race discrimination claims by a former employee.
The cases involved Justin Idehen, who earlier this year took Stockport Council to an industrial tribunal for a second time. Mr Idehen, former head of engineering services, won damages of £160,000 after alleging racial harassment back in 2001.

In the latest claim, he alleged to an industrial tribunal in Manchester that in May 2006, he had applied for a new position with a council contractor only to be told: ‘You can’t work for Stockport Council in any capacity at all.’

It is understood that the second case has now been settled out of court for a figure believed to be above £80,000. The latest settlement suggests Mr Idehen’s cases have cost Stockport council tax payers around £240,000 in compensation, before legal fees.

An internal council source who asked not to be named, said: “The latest amount, which was offered was £80,000, but it is my understanding that this was rejected by him.

“However, by April all parties agreed on the final figure, which suggests it was much higher than that original offer.
“However, that settlement would take no account of paying barrister’s fees for the preparation work, the three-day hearing involving Mr Idehen’s London barrister and/or the local authority’s own legal bills. The cost to the authority must have been astronomical.”

The settlement came ahead of a three-day hearing in the spring at which the authority was warned a decision due in July could award “exemplary damages” against Stockport council.

Labour councillor Sheila Bailey claimed the case could have been avoided second time around if the people allegedly committing racist acts had been dealt with swiftly.

She said: “If the local authority settles out of court, it is accepting it has a problem, but apart from paying out a huge amount, it a duty to deal with the people at fault. At the very least there should have been an internal inquiry not only to look at this, but at its general policy to make sure it is being adhered to.”

The council has repeatedly refused to comment, claiming to do so would be an infringement of the Data Protection Act. "

Mike got very upset that I was banned from the What Do They Know Website for posting up his details (with his full permission). When an innocent man and his family are being treated in such a  prolonged, vicious way by panjandrums, some drastic action is needed:-

Dear WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer Richard Taylor

Hello How are You, please let me introduce myself my name is Michael Parnell and I am a resident of stockport and in my dealings with the Local Authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council I have had concerns how the council has dealt with my requests, in the need of help and for information of how and where to get that help, with the action of the council in refusing to meet their statutory duty they have unlawfully placed restrictions upon me, which were not legal and never legally backed by an enforceable court order, the council on their own say so, do ban persons who complain or ask questions which the council does not like, in my issue the council blocked my only form of access to them, my request were for the help and towards the needs of two young children that stockport placed with my wife and myself from the care system, the children were under a section 31 care order (Local Authority Care), and with not getting any help I was told to complain, waiting 9 years for a social worker is a long time and it was the children's welfare that was most important, on the 26th june 2007 stockport council told me to be patient and wait so I did on the town hall steps each day during their opening hours, and I attended all council meetings at the town hall each night when they were held, at these meetings I meet with many others that seemed to also have a council's unlawful ban on them, I became aware of Mrs Sheila Oliver and in the council meetings I witnessed certain treatment of her, in a full council meeting the leader of the council called her a liar, which she is not, what she was then saying is only that which the council themselves had in reports, the council's behaviour I believe was defamatory, disgraceful and totally unacceptable in a law-biding society and Mrs Oliver does not deserve that treatment, I must inform you if you feel I am bias to Mrs Oliver this is with good cause she has in the last few years shown more support to the children than that shown ever by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, if bias is from way of support then bias can also be from the unlawfulness of how Stockport Council have behaved, Mrs Sheila Oliver has opened her heart to help and in doing so has opened herself to attack and it deeply upsets me to see the WhatDoTheyKnow .com website has suspended her account, I appeal to you that WhatDoTheyKnow.com reconsider her suspension, she is a lady who is trying to help, in her support I was forwarding to her how I was being treated because I could no longer take the council's assaults, false allegations that they kept putting to the police with all the following arrests and incarcerations while on remand and that all charges have never been brought to trial, I could no longer take the council's treatment and I now stay in my home every day, every week and will be every year coming up now to the start of the second one, Mrs Oliver has attended my home and give me hope to carry on in my life and be it when it is made known how the council has behaved and I can leave my home without the fear what the council might do, Mrs Oliver is an advocate for myself she is only doing that for me that which I could not do for myself, but if I have to I would put My Life on the line to support Her, this lady Mrs Oliver is a good person and she should be cherished, I question the reason why her account has been suspended I have today signed up to WhatDoTheyKnow website and could not find anywhere within the site the terms and conditions of what is a question for information or how the questions are to be asked, as an example if I request information from Stockport Council as to what information does the council hold in its records on the amounts of how many times have council security guards assaulted a customer when the customer has attended a council office to provide information following that at the council's request to do so.
Please can you respond to this my appeal to you to reconsider Mrs Oliver's account suspension, if her suspension is to continue I put it Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council account should be withdrawn and they then be boycotted and blacklisted as an authority who breaches their statutory duty to respond and perform as they should.
Yours sincerely Michael Stewart Parnell

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: MICHAEL PARNELL <mickysara@btinternet.com>
To: "mickysara@btinternet.com" <mickysara@btinternet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012, 15:09
Subject:

Dear Sheila
Mike here i am dropping you a line to let you know what is happening at this end, today i received a letter from our MP Mr Stunell and within that letter it makes reference to; at my request he has arranged a meeting with senior council officials to see what he can sort out, also contained in the letter (this is what is in my mind i am thinking, because he is lib dem and along with the council they might be on the back foot and ready to turn and then be on the run) he makes reference to yourself and as stated reads; "In the meantime I received the attached email from Mrs Oliver" and also is wrote If you intend to re-engage Mrs Oliver to act on your behalf please let me know so that he can withdraw, and then he says "As you know, I am ready to help, but not in competition with Mrs Oliver", Sheila how dare he say that and act in such a way he is to both of us our MP and he has a duty to act on both our behalves to that we have concerns over, You are the only person that has so far given support, you truly care and that is a big part in our wellbeing, you help because you willing choose too, and your help is greatly apriciated with my warmest Thank You, Sheila i back you all the way in questioning the accountability of the council, it is your right as it is mine to question when things go wrong and also question those who have caused it, and that is whether it is those who have suffered the wrong or those who have seen it happening , i am greatly pleased that you are asking questions this helps me and i feel helps us both to question, from just one questioner it cant carry as much response than that which will be given to a community of questioners, please with my backing keep asking all your questions, today i phoned our MP and Steve Houston office and instructed them that your emails, you were asking questions because you have concerns and i back your rights to ask those question and your asking of those questions was on your own behalf and that there could be others that might start asking to same questions, I spoke with Jayne Reynolds from Mr Houston's office and she was taking notes I told her I had no rights to stop you asking any question and i backed you fully in your right to ask any question even if it related to matters concerning myself, and if you requested information from myself I would be freely providing it, sheila thank you many times i'll finish short of all i have to say my pc is running slow and i want to send this before it packs up. catch up later.
Love Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sheila

                   Mike here, Hello how are you, hope you are well,
the liberal security democratic protecters have done it again, so that i couldn't ask a question at the full council meeting last thursday 8th November 2012, they had the police arrest me at 14:23 hrs for a section 4A public order offence and was forcefully put on conditinonal bail ( not to go to fred perry house ) being released the next day at 00:03 hrs 9th November 2012, and conditioned to attend court on the 22nd November 2012, as i have informed you my treatment at christies starts on the 14th November so as yet i dont know if i will be able to attend the trial hearing,
the question i wished to ask in the council meeting was,
" the right to have any life protected, what will be done ? ".

my arrest was at the request that the council's security guard, who was not happy that now the police professional standards are looking into my complaint to them, they are requesting documents i had to copy for the papers in issue to be investigated, these papers taken from my private library account and emails have again been accessed by the council's security, and as before have again by them, my private papers they have copied.
If you wish to know more just get in contact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

05.58 5th March 2013 Tim Farron of the LibDems agrees to investigate this matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sheila Oliver
To: letters@observer.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 4:12 PM
Subject: Not for publication

Dear Letters Editor

Regarding the letter in today's Observer about the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9 year old autistic son, this lady came from Stockport and I am trying to find out if she was classed as a banned and offensive council taxpayer by Stockport Council. People who ask too many questions regarding what is going on here are banned and bullied and I am myself. We have our gentle, peaceful town hall protestor who has had the police called to him 50 times by the Council and is currently awaiting trial on charges of assault with a sneeze with intent to inflict a council worker with a cold - I kid you not. He just wants counselling for his out-of-area adopted daughters and has had his complaint by Stockport Council ignored for a decade.

There are other parents of autistic children who are being similarly branded offensive/banned without any proof being produced. I could put you in touch with all these people.

I am trying to find out under the FOIA if the Humber Bridge lady, Alison Davies, was being threatened and bullied in a similar manner but the Council is refusing to answer. The Information Commission is aware of the issue and has asked the Council to respond further........


Our superb Stockport Express has problems doing stories on this issue because of the sensitive nature of pieces regarding children.

There are some very strange things going on in our "four star" council.

Kind regards
Sheila Oliver

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1076521/lords-post-adoption-support-statutory

From: Mike Iveson
Sent: 21 April 2009 13:59
To: 'Sheila Oliver '
Cc: Janine Watson; John Spittlehouse; Louise Richardson; Barry Khan
Subject: Council freely publishing signatures on their website.
Mrs Oliver,

I refer to your e mail about public questions appearing on the Council's web pages containing addresses and signatures.
A small number of public questions have been included within the folders for meetings at which they were asked and they appeared with addresses and signatures included. I very much regret that the addresses and signatures were not removed or redacted beforehand. All such questions have now been removed and the procedure discontinued.
Regards,

Mike

Mike Iveson
Head of Committee Services
Chief Executive's Directorate
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
( 0161 474 3208
) 07973 319071
Fax: 0161 474 3328
* mike.iveson@stockport.gov.uk
Please visit our website....click here



**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.query@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system.

Thank you.

http://www.stockport.gov.uk

This was a lie (I am sure Mr Iveson was not to blame for the lie). The matter had to be reported to the police the following Monday to get the data protection offence put right.  In the interim Mr Parnell had been arrested three times for trying to get his name, address and signature removed from the Council's website.

Mrs Oliver,
The issue was addressed on Friday morning, following the Council Meeting at which the question was put.
Regards,
Mike
Mike Iveson
Head of Committee Services
Chief Executive's Directorate
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
( 0161 474 3208
) 07973 319071
Fax: 0161 474 3328
* mike.iveson@stockport.gov.uk
Please visit our website....click here

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 21 April 2009 17:52
To: Mike Iveson
Cc: John Schultz; Barry Khan; Leader
Subject: Re: Council freely publishing signatures on their website.
Dear Mr Iveson
I appreciate mistakes can be made - I make some hum-dingers myself. I know you to be an honest and decent man - and boy do you stick out like a sore thumb in the upper echelons of Stockport Council! I accept what you say.
However, when this was pointed out at the full Council meeting last Thursday, action should have been immediately taken to rectify the situation. This should not have had to be chased up the following Monday. That would lead me to believe that our Chief Exec, Council Solicitor/Monitoring Officer, Executive Councillor responsible, senior council officer responsible thought it unnecessary to take any immediate action to rectify the mistake. That is very worrying, given the huge sums they are paid. Do any of them even listen at councillor meetings to what is said? Executive Councillor Bodsworth even works, I think, for the Data Protection authorities. I think a mistake was made - fair enough. But this was compounded by the inaction of highly paid panjandrums. I would like some sort of apology from the Chief Exec, or the Council Solicitor for their subsequent mistake in not dealing with this in an appropriate manner.
Kind regards
Sheila

Subject: councillors signatures onthe council's website

To all councillors copied into this mail,

Your names, addresses and SIGNATURES are openly displayed on the council's website.

In fact ALL stockport councillors, regardless of which party they represent , have their signatures openly displayed on the council's website.

As I have been a victim of signature misuse by stockport council officers , and also recently having my name and signature displayed on the council's website for over FOUR months, I feel it is my duty , to inform you of this breach of data protection by the council.

I am led to believe that signatures are " removed " or " redacted " before being published on the council's website and that the "procedure" regarding signatures on the council's website has been "discontinued".

It clearly hasn't been "discontinued".

Could you please inform all of your colleagues of the issue of their signatures being displayed on the council's website.

I am sure you would all agree that the council have duty to protect EVERYONE, [ councillors and public alike ] , from having yours / their indidviual signatures openly displayed on the council's website.

I believe that ANY information held by stockport council is not in safe hands.

Thank you, Mr M.P. Carroll . Tuesday 19 May, 2009




















                                                Mr M.P. Carroll,                                                                               
                                                        62, Springfield road,
                                                           Gatley,
                                                                  Stockport.

21/4/09                                                            SK8  4PF.

Dear Stockport Express/ Times,
Could you please publish the following letter in your paper?
                    *   Please do not publish my address.  *

"  I was wondering if your readers were aware, that when a member of the public asks a question at any open council meetings, here  in Stockport, that FIRSTLY,  you have to write the question down on the relevant form, and  SECONDLY,,  that you must also sign it.

It is then passed on to  the relevant councillor[s] prior to the meeting starting, so that they have an answer prepared.  

I filled in such a form on December 4 2008, raising a  question at a full council meeting about the actions of social workers here in Stockport, and  countrywide.

I reluctantly agreed to sign the form so that I could ask the question publicly in council chambers..

However I was not aware that the council would then proceed to  publish,  not only my question on its website, but also my name and signature for ALL to see .

I have raised this issue with Mr J.Shultz directly, amongst many other interested people, because I am, quite  rightly , extremely concerned that there is & was a clear breach of the data protection act as well as the possibility of  identity fraud .

I contacted the press office, [ 20/4/09], at the council, and shortly afterwards  ,my signature was subsequently removed from the council’s website.

However, my signature was on display on the council’s website for over 4 months, and was only removed AFTER I contacted them.

I believe  that your readers would undoubtedly  have the same grave concerns as I did at  the  unbelievable, and totally incompetent , actions of Stockport Council  and its  Officers .

Perhaps, Mr Shultz , Mr Goddard , or someone else  from the council may offer some "reassurance"  over  the issue of putting people’s signatures onto their website .

            That reassurance could ,  I believe,   be too,   little, too late.

                                                               Mr . M.P. Carroll  , Cheadle. Stockport "

Mr Iveson was not telling the truth when he said the names, addresses and signatures were removed from the Council's website on the Friday.  They were removed the following Monday when an affected council taxpayer contacted the police and the Information Commission.  I don't doubt Mr Iveson's integrity.  I assume he was fed a lie.

Over that same weekend Mr Parnell was arrested three times for trying to remove his name, address and signature from the Council's website.

Mrs Oliver,

I regret that I do not appear to have received a copy of your e mail dated 10 February, 2010 setting out a question for the Executive Meeting on 15 February (pasted below for ease of reference) -

I note from the excellent Stockport Express that Councillor Foster-Grime has called for the Council to lobby the Government for more funding for Greater Manchester Police. What steps does she intend to take regarding the waste of police time by Stockport Council in repeatedly having Mr Parnell arrested, and indeed even trying to have him arrested following the last full council meeting. The Crown Court judge who acquitted him said the Council should take action to deal with his problem, yet no contact has yet been made. Does Councillor Foster-Grime feel this continuing involvement of the police in a matter which should have been sorted out long ago by Mr Schulz, Mr Khan, Mr Majothi, Councillor Goddard, Councillor Derbyshire, Councillor Weldon or Mr Andrew Webb is a prudent use of valuable police resources?

Had the question been received it would not have been put to the meeting because it raises personal data issues about a member of the public (other than the questioner).

You will note that I am copying this response to Councillor Helen Foster-Grime, the intended recipient of your question.

Regards,

Mike
Mike Iveson
Head of Committee Services
Chief Executive's Directorate
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
( 0161 474 3208
) 07973 319071
Fax: 0161 474 3328
* mike.iveson@stockport.gov.uk
Please visit our website....click here

Dear Ms Oliver

 I refer to your email sent to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police on the 15 January 2011 that you have copied Councillor
 Paul Murphy of Manchester City Council into. Councillor Murphy is the Chairman of Greater Manchester Police Authority.

 I note that you are suggesting that Stockport Council has wasted police time in having police action taken against Mr Michael Parnell and that
 the Chief Constable has taken no action against the Council.

 I shall be grateful if you will clarify whether you are seeking to make a formal complaint against the Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester
 Police or indeed any other officers of Greater Manchester Police, either in your own right or on behalf of Mr Parnell.

 If you are seeking to make a formal Police complaint on behalf of Mr Parnell, you will need to obtain his written authority for you to act on his
 behalf in making a complaint and in this connection, I attach a third party authority form that you will need to ask him to sign and once he has
 done this, I shall be grateful if you will return the signed authority to myself at the Police Authority.

 If you are seeking to make a formal police complaint, it would be of considerable assistance if you could provide me with as full details as you
 possibly can of the actions on the part of officers of Greater Manchester Police that have been taken against Mr Parnell that you are seeking to
 complain about together with dates of the incidents in question, if at all possible.

 If you are making a Chief Officer complaint, responsibility for dealing with the complaint will remain with Greater Manchester Police Authority
 under the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002. However, responsibility for investigating complaints against officers of the rank of
 Chief Superintendent and below rests with Greater Manchester Police and, in that event, I will refer the matter on to the Complaints Manager
 of the Force Professional Standards Branch for him to deal with further.

 I look forward to hearing from you further.

 Yours sincerely

 Nigel J Battersby
 Solicitor
 Greater Manchester Police Authority
 Salford Civic Centre
 Chorley Road
 Swinton
 Salford
 M27 5DA
 Tel: 0161 793 3040



To: <Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk>
From: "Sheila Oliver" <sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com>
Date: 15/01/2011 10:28AM
cc: "MICHAEL PARNELL" <mickysara@btinternet.com>, <toby.helm@guardian.co.uk>, <ballse@parliament.uk>, <millibande@parliament.uk>, <bonep@parliament.uk>, <carswelld@parliament.uk>, <hollobonep@parliament.uk>, <percya@parliament.uk>, <recklessm@parliament.uk>, <cashb@parliament.uk>, <pritchardm@parliament.uk>, <jenkinb@parliament.uk>, <patelp@parliament.uk>, <cllr.sue.derbyshire@stockport.gov.uk>, <cllr.iain.roberts@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr Stuart Bodsworth" <cllr.stuart.bodsworth@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr Martin Candler" <martin.candler@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr Mark Weldon" <cllr.mark.weldon@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr Kevin Hogg" <cllr.kevin.hogg@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr John Smith" <cllr.john.smith@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr John Pantall" <cllr.john.pantall@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr Helen Foster-Grime" <cllr.h.foster-grime@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr David White" <cllr.david.white@stockport.gov.uk>, "Cllr Dave Goddard" <cllr.dave.goddard@stockport.gov.uk>, "CLEGG, Nick" <CLEGGN@parliament.uk>, "Cllr Ann Smith" <cllr.ann.smith@stockport.gov.uk>, "Councillor Paul Murphy" <cllr.p.murphy@manchester.gov.uk>, "Stockport CPS" <Stockport@cps.gsi.gov.uk>, "Andrew Webb" <andrew.webb@stockport.gov.uk>, "barry khan" <barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk>, <eamonn.boylan@stockport.gov.uk>, "Leader" <leader@stockport.gov.uk>, <michael.white@guardian.co.uk>
Subject: Further disgusting waste of police time by LibDem Stockport Council - will charges of wasting police time be brought against the Council?

Dear Chief Constable

I have told you many times of the waste of police  time by Stockport Council regarding Mr Parnell and you did nothing.  I  shall cc this to Michael White of the Guardian and several MPs who have concerns  about the LibDems and their actions.

Mr Parnell emailed me this today - you will see he  is a simple man who needs help:-

"Tue 4th January 2011 this was  the first day the Fred Perry House was opened to the public, i walked passed and  the council phoned the police and they were searching for me,

the next day i  stopped outside to talk to someone who told me about the day before then within  5 minutes the police came and arrested me 2 oclock three police vehicals they  took me to cheadle heath police station held me until 23:45 hrs released no  charge but on police bail to go back 19th jan, on tue 11th went into fred perry  house to contact welfare rights office and was again after only 5 minutes being  there arrested at 1 oclock released 19:30hrs police taking no further action  when will the council stop victimising me with their disability,they say in this  their film this building is to be accessable to all people,..."
I have sat  through most of his trials - he didn't commit the assault with a sneeze alleged  against him by Stockport Council by guards who admitted in court they had  threatened to kill him and said when the Croation supports came to  Piccadilly they would kick their f*cking heads in and pretend they were kicking  him. This is all in the trial transcripts. Then we had the £10,000 per day 3 day  trial where he was accused of nothing more than going to Stopford House  (Stopford House, you may know was the location for the corrupt 1970s police  station in Life on Mars - yes, quite!)

I don't know  whether there is any Masonic issue here with the Council, the Police and  Stockport  CPS - I don't know what else would explain the lunacy in  persecuting this man. The Coroner has criticised Stockport Council for  repeatedly driving vulnerable people to suicide and in the Serious Case  Reviews of those tragedies Stockport Council said it would help people who came  to them asking for help with vulnerable children.  Barry Khan, Council  Solicitor, Councillor Weldon, Councillor Derbyshire, Councillor Goddard, Eamonn  Boylan and Andrew Webb are all paid huge sums of money to sort out problems like  Mr. Parnell's.  Imprisoning him is not a solution.  They need to get  off their backsides and do their jobs and stop wasting police and court time and  hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money.

The LibDems  pretend they are concerned about human rights and control orders. They are, as  everyone is finding out, liars.
I would like  some sort of response from you.

Yours without  much expectation of any sensible response.

Sheila


 




**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. The full text of the Council's email disclaimer is available at http://www.manchester.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Please contact internet.administrators@manchester.gov.uk with any queries.

You can have your say on Manchester City Council budget plans for 2011/12 - if you are a resident your view is more important than ever as there is less money. Visit http://www.manchester.gov.uk/budget and tell us what you think of our spending priorities.

**********************************************************************



DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee.

Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
As a public body, Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.

For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail.  Thank you.

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]

Sent: 19 January 2011 18:29

To: Battersby, Nigel

Cc: Michael Parnell; barry khan; STUNELL, Andrew; amelia.gentleman@guardian.co.uk; FOI Officer

Subject: Re: Further disgusting waste of police time by LibDem Stockport Council - will charges of wasting police time be brought against the Council?

Dear Mr Battersby

I merely point out that it is ludicrous of the Chief Constable to cry on the shoulders of a Guardian journalist about not having enough police manpower when for years he has allowed hundreds of hours of police time to be wasted hounding an innocent man, who in all his trials it transpired that his only "crime" was to go to Stockport Council to ask the highly paid panjandrums for counselling for his troubled daughters adopted from Stockport Council.

Khan, the Council Solicitor, and the man who could have sorted this problem out years ago, has now said I can act on Mr. Parnell's behalf. If the Council tries its usual tactic of delay and losing documents, that will be exposed in the public domain. Otherwise we might obviate the need for police intervention. I tried to act on his behalf before but Clare Naven refused to accept his letter of authority and refused to say why.

Stunell, his lazy local MP, could have acted too but he couldn't be bothered or wanted to cover up for his corrupt colleagues at Stockport.

I am not making a complaint about Mr Fahey, but I do question his suitability for the job.

Sheila

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email received 20/01/11 at 10.42

Dear Ms Oliver

I am grateful to you for clarifying the position regarding your recent email to the Chief Constable. I note that you are not intending it to be read as a formal complaint against him. It would appear that the principal basis of your complaint is about Stockport Council for taking action against Mr Parnell and involving the Police.

Many thanks

Nigel J Battersby
GMPA Solicitor
Tel: 0161 793 3040

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email received 01/05/2009 at 19.21

Sheila,
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.

Evidence!

Dave
David White
5 Harry Road
Stockport
SK5 6TX
0161-474-3379 (Work)
0161-443-1090 (Home)
07891-949266 (Mobile)

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 01 May 2009 20:11

To: Cllr Dave Goddard; Cllr Mark Weldon; David White; cllr.sue.derbyshire@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.shan.alexander@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.stuart.bodsworth@stockport.gov.uk; martin.candler@stockport.gov.uk; cllr.john.pantall@stockport.gov.uk
Cc: cleggn@parliament.uk; lambn@parliament.uk

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.

Sheila

Email received 02/05/2009 at 01.54

Sheila,
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.
Dave
David White
5 Harry Road
Stockport
SK5 6TX
0161-474-3379 (Work)
0161-443-1090 (Home)
07891-949266 (Mobile)
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 01 May 2009 20:46
To: David White
Cc: peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk; cleggn@parliament.uk; lambn@parliament.uk
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.

Yours

Sheila
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email sent 23/01/12 at 10.12

Sheila,

It seems very strange to be reporting me as a former Executive Councillor as I was the Transportation Portfolio holder and as such had nothing to do with this issue.

The fact is that individual Portfolio holder must be allowed to deal with issues falling within their remit.

I left the Executive in February 2011. Almost a year ago.

I had hoped we could work together but sadly, it seems I am forever to be attacked.

David
Councillor David White
0161-443-1090 (Home)
07960-414319 (Mobile)
Email: cllr.david.white@googlemail.com
Twitter: @davewhite1972
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dwhite1972

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]

Sent: 23 January 2012 09:46

To: enquiries@standardsforengland.gov.uk

Cc: David White; DAVID PENKETHMAN; Leader
Subject: Official Complaint about the Executive Councillors at Stockport Council and former executive councillor David White

Dear Sir or Madam

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding all the Executive Councillors at Stockport Council and former Executive Councillor David White.

The complaint is twofold:-

1) the appalling treatment of a completely innocent man. I told and told the Executive Councillors what was going on, Mr Parnell told them too. He attended every council meeting he could and has all the agenda documents to prove his attendance. He stood outside the town hall for two years. They knew exactly what was going on. This is a brief outline of what has gone on, but I have about another four years of daily abuse of him yet to document:-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to_whom_do_i_make_an_official_co#comment-24708
I have video clips of him being beaten, sworn at and illegal action being taken against him. Once you send me the email details of the person dealing with his case, I shall forward those on to you

2) for raising the issue of the inhumane treatment of this gentle council taxpayer, I have been publicly branded by these councillors at many public meetings, on the Internet and to the Information Commission as a vexatious waster of public funds.
I know the Standards Board will cease to take any new cases after the end of January, but it is vital that you look into this one, so that the ongoing abuse at Stockport can be stopped.

I shall cc this to the local paper as evidence that this request was made before the deadline of the end of January after which no new cases can be brought.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Sheila

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4760 - Release Date: 01/22/12

Email sent 23/01/2012 at 10.35

Sheila,

It was not a poor me response but I am not sure the advice was anything like that you were stating and I asked you for evidence many times and you said “All will be revealed soon” and it never was.

The fact is that the site at Reddish is one which was chosen many years ago and the Director and Executive Member were satisfied that measures would deal with the issue
.
With regard to Mr Parnell, well his issue was one which did not first of all was within my portfolio nor was Mr Parnell within my Ward. As for Mr Parnell being arrested, I would say that is a matter for the Chief Executive and the Police.

Not sure what I could do since the issue should have been dealt with by the Leader of the Council, Executive Member for Children and Young People and for Finance. There were discussion behind the scenes and these were to ask the relevant Executive Member to investigate and the Officers looked at the issue. We were assured that all possible actions had been taken.
No idea why this has come now apart from it is your last chance to make this complaint.

David
Councillor David White
0161-443-1090 (Home)
07960-414319 (Mobile)
Email: cllr.david.white@googlemail.com
Twitter: @davewhite1972
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dwhite1972
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 23 January 2012 09:46
To: enquiries@standardsforengland.gov.uk
Cc: David White; DAVID PENKETHMAN; Leader
Subject: Official Complaint about the Executive Councillors at Stockport Council and former executive councillor David White
Dear Sir or Madam
I wish to make a formal complaint regarding all the Executive Councillors at Stockport Council and former Executive Councillor David White.

The complaint is twofold:-

1) the appalling treatment of a completely innocent man. I told and told the Executive Councillors what was going on, Mr Parnell told them too. He attended every council meeting he could and has all the agenda documents to prove his attendance. He stood outside the town hall for two years. They knew exactly what was going on. This is a brief outline of what has gone on, but I have about another four years of daily abuse of him yet to document:-

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to_whom_do_i_make_an_official_co#comment-24708
I have video clips of him being beaten, sworn at and illegal action being taken against him. Once you send me the email details of the person dealing with his case, I shall forward those on to you

2) for raising the issue of the inhumane treatment of this gentle council taxpayer, I have been publicly branded by these councillors at many public meetings, on the Internet and to the Information Commission as a vexatious waster of public funds.
I know the Standards Board will cease to take any new cases after the end of January, but it is vital that you look into this one, so that the ongoing abuse at Stockport can be stopped.

I shall cc this to the local paper as evidence that this request was made before the deadline of the end of January after which no new cases can be brought.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards
Sheila

Email received 08/08/2009 at 16.18

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Please remove me from your email cc list. I have no desire or need to know of your enquiries. One piece of advice. The FoI allows you to ask and receive copies of existing documents. It does not give you the ability to ask public bodies to generate information for you. If such a document does not exist they do not have to produce one for you. - Just trying to help.

Regards,
Mark Weldon

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Sat 08/08/2009 16:43
To: FOIUnit@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Cllr Sue Derbyshire; Cllr Mark Weldon; Cllr David White; Cllr Dave Goddard; MICHAEL PARNELL; Barry Khan; Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk; John Schultz; alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk; STUNELL, Andrew
Subject: Cost of trial of Mr Parnell, Stockport Magistrates' Court

Dear FoI Officer
Following the newspaper reports of the £20,000 cost of a trial of a man found innocent of stealing one banana, please could you let me know - as accurately as possible, although a reasonable assessment would be acceptable - of the cost to the taxpayers of Mr. Parnell's trial last January, which was dropped on the day of the hearing and the further trial which took place last month at Stockport Magistrates' Court. At this trial he was given a CRASBO (criminal ASBO) pre swine flu for assault with a sneeze with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold. I believe CCTV footage of the incident was not allowed to be shown in court for some inexplicable reason.

I look forward to hearing from you. If you need further details, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Kind regards
Sheila


**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.query@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system.

Thank you.

http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************