29tjh June 2026
By Romiley Gazette Editor
More than a decade ago, MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee criticised some council-produced newspapers, warning that publications funded by taxpayers could compete unfairly with independent local newspapers. The committee argued that while councils have a duty to communicate with residents, official publications should not become vehicles for political promotion or compete directly with the local press.
At the time, concerns were raised nationally about council newspapers carrying political messaging while being distributed free of charge, supported by public money. Regional newspaper publishers argued this distorted the local media market during a period when many independent titles were struggling or closing altogether.
In Stockport, similar criticism was directed at the former Stockport Review. Local campaigners questioned both its frequency and cost, while some residents argued that it disproportionately featured photographs and activities of the council’s then Liberal Democrat administration. Freedom of Information requests published at the time indicated significant production costs, prompting debate about whether taxpayers were receiving value for money.
The issue was not simply about newsletters. It was about accountability.
Independent local newspapers ask difficult questions, scrutinise decisions and provide a platform for differing viewpoints. Council publications, by contrast, are produced by the organisations they report on. Critics argued that this created an imbalance, particularly if official publications resembled independent newspapers.
For some residents, raising these concerns came at a personal cost.
I questioned aspects of Stockport Council’s communications and governance, including the use of council publications. Rather than feeling my concerns were properly addressed, I was subsequently designated a “vexatious” complainant by the council. That label restricted my ability to pursue complaints through normal channels.
Councils have legitimate reasons for applying vexatious complainant policies in cases involving persistent or unreasonable correspondence. However, such powers must be exercised carefully to ensure they do not discourage legitimate public scrutiny or criticism.
The wider principle remains relevant today.
Healthy democracy depends on independent journalism, open debate and the ability of residents to question those in power without fear that legitimate criticism will simply be dismissed. Public bodies should always welcome scrutiny, even when it is uncomfortable.
As local newspapers continue to disappear across the country, communities lose more than headlines. They lose independent oversight of planning decisions, spending, public services and local politics.
The debate about council-funded publications may have faded from national headlines, but the underlying question remains unchanged:
Who holds power to account when independent local journalism disappears?
That question deserves an answer as much today as it did then.
Have a look at all the favourable photographs of LibDem councillors sent to 126,000 houses in the Borough six times a year and tell me I was wrong to question this.
Opinion: When Speaking Up Becomes a Problem
Bin celebration
On the left LibDem councillor Mark Weldon of still-gassing toxic waste dump primary school fame, which illegally developed a recreation ground, tried to ignore lead, arsenic and brown asbestos on this site, created such as dangerous traffic situation around the school that the police immediately complained, the project constituted an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and from which circa £6m at 2009 prices went AWOL. Next to him is LibDem councillor paedophile John Smith.
Another photo of the LibDem paedophile councillor –
A photo including Chief Executive John Schulz, who shut me up for years using various methods, and Lord Goddard (please excuse me whilst I spit on the ground)
Dave Goddard’s New Year Message – just what we all needed to pay for.
And more of Dave Goddard
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 1922).
The total budget allocated is £147,538.
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: 09 June 2009 22:09
To: FOI Officer
Cc: Cllr Mark Weldon; peter.devine@gmwn.co.uk
Subject: Cost of Civic Review
Dear FoI Officer
Weldon mentioned to me last night the massive budget savings the Council must make. What is the annual cost of the Civic Review?
Yours
Sheila
