Residents in Romiley and the wider Hazel Grove constituency have raised questions about local issues after local MP Lisa Smart published an article arguing that the government’s new elections legislation “isn’t good enough for a democracy under threat”.
Writing on the political site Liberal Democrat Voice, Smart argued that electoral reforms should go further to tackle misinformation, strengthen democratic institutions and consider replacing the UK’s First‑past‑the‑post voting system with proportional representation.
However, some local residents say that while national democratic reform is an important debate, local accountability also matters.
Environmental concerns
Among the issues raised is the condition of Padden Brook, where campaigners have expressed concern about environmental damage at the W1 protected woodland/protected visual amenity land.
Residents involved in local environmental monitoring say they have been trying for many months to raise the issue with elected representatives and would welcome greater engagement on the matter.
Local campaigners argue that protecting waterways and green spaces should be part of the broader conversation about public trust in politics.
Calls for answers on historic council matters
Questions have also been raised regarding historical council projects dating back to when Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council oversaw development initiatives in North Reddish.
Some residents say they have attempted to obtain clarification about financial figures associated with one past project and whether outstanding questions remain. They argue that transparency on historic decisions is important for maintaining public confidence in local government.
The Gazette understands that requests for clarification have been made during council meetings and through correspondence.
Individual case raised by residents
Separately, supporters of a local resident, Mr Parnell, have said they are seeking attention for what they describe as concerns about the treatment of his case. They have called on elected representatives to review the matter and help ensure it is properly examined.
A wider question about trust
Smart’s national article argues that British democracy needs stronger protections and greater public confidence.
For some residents locally, however, the debate highlights a broader question: trust is built not only through national reforms but also through visible responsiveness to local concerns.
The Romiley Gazette contacted Smart’s office for comment on the issues raised by residents and will update this story if a response is received.
In the meantime, community groups say they hope that discussions about democratic reform will also encourage greater dialogue between elected representatives and the communities they serve.
A Romiley resident is pressing Stockport Council for answers after her public questions to Cabinet were dismissed as “likely to be politically motivated”.
The questions were submitted to the 10 February 2026 Cabinet meeting. As she was not present, written responses were later issued by the Leader of the Council.
In the reply, the Leader confirmed a dossier she had submitted was passed to the council’s Monitoring Officer — the senior legal official responsible for ensuring the authority acts lawfully.
However, the response also rejected her allegations of maladministration and stated the questions were likely politically motivated due to her campaigning activity.
The resident has now written back asking a direct follow-up: what actually happened after the Monitoring Officer received the dossier?
She is seeking confirmation of whether the submission triggered any investigation, whether it was treated as a formal complaint, and whether any breach of council rules or law was identified.
Councils are entitled to challenge criticism, but residents are also entitled to know what becomes of formal allegations once they enter official channels. The Monitoring Officer role exists specifically to separate governance oversight from political debate.
At the time of publication, no clarification has yet been issued.
The exchange highlights a familiar fault line in local government — when scrutiny from the public meets political sensitivity inside the council chamber, transparency becomes the real test.
To: Ms Vicki Bates Assistant Director – Governance, Monitoring Officer Stockport Council
Subject: Response to Complaint Findings – Cllr Roberts / Padden Brook
1. Introduction
1.1 I write in response to your email of 12 December 2025 regarding the findings and decision on my complaints about Cllr Roberts.
1.2 The purpose of this letter is to provide clarification and factual context in relation to the matters raised, including the characterization of my conduct as “vexatious” or “politically motivated,” and to set out evidence of my engagement with councillors and the council on behalf of local residents.
2. Apolitical Engagement
2.1 I am apolitical. While I have engaged with councillors from multiple parties—including Conservative, Labour, Green, and Reform—my engagement has been based solely on their integrity and responsiveness to local issues, not on party affiliation. I can provide supporting emails to evidence this.
2.2 Regarding observations about my limited support for Reform and the Green Party: this involvement has been restricted to leafleting on specific issues and for specific candidates where I considered that they would better represent local residents. This activity was motivated by civic concern, not political bias.
3. Response to Allegations of Vexatious or Politically Motivated Conduct
3.1 I strongly contest the description of my conduct as “vexatious” or “politically motivated.”
3.2 My actions, including questions submitted to council meetings and correspondence regarding Padden Brook, have been factual, evidence-based, and in pursuit of transparency, accountability, and protection of a significant wildlife site.
3.3 I also note that my use of social media has been referenced in criticisms of my conduct. I assert my right to post on social media, both to raise awareness of issues affecting local residents and to exercise my legitimate rights to freedom of expression. Such posts are factual, evidence-based, and intended to inform the community and hold public representatives accountable. Criticism of my social media activity should not be used to characterize my engagement as “vexatious” or politically motivated.
4. Ongoing Padden Brook Issue
4.1 The issue at Padden Brook has persisted from 9 August 2024 to the present day.
4.2 During this period:
Cllr Roberts, Cllr Angela Clark, and Cllr Rachel Bresnahan did not respond to any emails sent by me.
The MP also did not respond to correspondence regarding this matter.
The site, an important wildlife area, experienced ongoing damage on a daily basis.
The only response received—in relation to a council meeting question—was demonstrably untrue, claiming that the site had been improved and tidied up.
4.3 I represent multiple local residents who share concern about Padden Brook. I hold emails from these residents confirming that they too were receiving no responses from councillors or the MP. Copies of these emails are available and can be provided as evidence in court if required.
4.4 I also note that councillors, as elected representatives, hold a position of public trust. Recent cases in Stockport, including the prosecution of a former councillor on multiple charges of rape and sexual assault of an underage girl, demonstrate that allegations of serious misconduct by councillors are real and must be addressed appropriately. In particular, John Smith, a former Stockport councillor and executive member, has faced prosecution on multiple charges of sexual offences against an underage girl, becoming the second executive councillor in Stockport to be caught committing such offences. The failure of elected representatives and council officers to respond to ongoing public concerns—such as those I have raised regarding Padden Brook—underscores the necessity for accountability and timely action. My repeated correspondence was motivated by the need to protect the community and ensure that matters of public interest are taken seriously, particularly given that serious breaches of trust by councillors have precedent in this area.
4.5 I also note that Cllr Angela Clark has deliberately brought grass into the Romiley Precinct area to create the appearance that it had been dug up. Such actions, accompanied by social media posts and photographs, constitute misleading representations of the work of councillors. This further highlights the need for accurate recording and accountability in how councillors communicate publicly about ongoing environmental concerns.
4.6 Any assertion that repeated emails sent on this matter were “vexatious” fails to recognize that they were prompted by the council’s inaction on an issue of clear public importance.
5. Romiley Precinct Interaction (1 November 2025)
5.1 I approached Cllr Roberts at Romiley Precinct to seek factual information regarding Padden Brook.
5.2 My approach was non-threatening and focused on obtaining accurate information. Any interpretation of my conduct as confrontational or politically motivated is inconsistent with the context of this engagement and my ongoing representation of local residents.
5.3 I note that Cllr Roberts has stated that he should not have engaged with me given my previous and ongoing correspondence with the council, and that he attempted to avoid conversation and walk away. He claims that earlier that morning I had posted about him on social media, and that he turned away to leave while I continued to raise concerns, at which point I allegedly said he was being unreasonable and corrupt.
5.4 However, in my account of the interaction, Cllr Roberts’ conduct was aggressive and intimidating. His shrieking was such that my 75-year-old husband felt compelled to intervene, stating, “Don’t you speak to my wife like that.” This illustrates the disproportionate and aggressive nature of his response, which caused distress to both myself and my husband.
5.5 This incident further underscores the need for accurate recording of interactions and fair consideration of all evidence in evaluating councillor conduct.
6. Evidence of Correspondence and Community Representation
Appendix A – Evidence
6.1 Timeline of Correspondence:
Date
Recipient
Summary
Response Received?
9 Aug 2024 – present
Cllr Roberts
Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook
None
9 Aug 2024 – present
Cllr Angela Clark
Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook
None
9 Aug 2024 – present
Cllr Rachel Bresnahan
Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook
None
9 Aug 2024 – present
MP [Name]
Emails regarding ongoing damage and public concern
None
Council Meeting Question
Submitted formal question regarding site management
Response received: inaccurately stated site was “improved and tidied up”
6.2 Volume of Correspondence:
Over 500 emails sent to councillors and council officers regarding Padden Brook since August 2024.
Emails were factual, requesting information and action to prevent ongoing environmental damage.
6.3 Community Representation:
Emails from residents confirm lack of response from councillors or the MP.
I act on behalf of these residents in raising concerns with the council. These email can be provided.
6.4 Context of Council Inaction:
Repeated follow-ups were required due to council’s failure to respond.
Characterizing these communications as “vexatious” is incorrect and misrepresents the factual basis for engagement.
6.5 Public Interest:
Padden Brook is an important wildlife site subject to ongoing environmental damage.
My correspondence and questions are intended to protect the site, raise accountability, and inform the local community.
6.6 Supporting Documents:
Copies of emails sent to councillors, council officers, and the MP can be provided.
Emails from residents confirming lack of response.
Copy of council meeting question and written response.
7. Conclusion
7.1 My engagement over this period reflects a consistent commitment to civic responsibility, transparency, and representation of local residents.
7.2 It is crucial that such engagement is not mischaracterized as politically motivated or vexatious.
7.3 I remain committed to constructive engagement with councillors and council services in pursuit of the community’s interests.
8. Further Matters – Referral to Police
8.1 I note that, as Monitoring Officer, you have the authority to refer matters to the police where illegal actions are suspected.
8.2 In that context, I would like to formally raise concerns relating to potential fraud and request that you consider whether these matters warrant police involvement. I am prepared to provide full documentation and evidence to support this referral if required.
8.3 This request is made in a constructive and responsible manner, with the aim of ensuring transparency, accountability, and the protection of public interest.
Yours sincerely,
15/12/25 17.43
Appendix A – Padden Brook
Appendix A – Correspondence Timeline
No.
Date
Recipient
Summary
Response Received?
A1
9 Aug 2024 – present
Cllr Roberts
Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook
None
A2
9 Aug 2024 – present
Cllr Angela Clark
Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook
None
A3
9 Aug 2024 – present
Cllr Rachel Bresnahan
Emails regarding ongoing damage and management of Padden Brook
None
A4
9 Aug 2024 – present
MP Lisa Smart
Emails regarding ongoing damage and public concern
None
A5
Council Meeting
Submitted formal question regarding site management
Response: inaccurately stated site was “improved and tidied up”
——————————————-
Appendix B – Vale View School, Bypass Issues and Councillor Paedophilia/Abuses
Document B1 – School places needed just after school opens
Document B2 – Email from Andy McKenzie to Chris Woolard 10th March 2006 stating the new school is too small and that this should be kept secret for the present.
Document B3 – Press insert stating the cost of the school in October 2005 would be £5.5m.
Document B4 – By 12th December 2005 the costs had risen to over £7.5m
Document B5 –Financial irregularity of over £200,000 in this document and it shows the costs had risen to £9,930,000. Document produced 23/3/2008
Document B6 – Agenda pre meeting document 30/3/2007 showing obvious concern over funding and concerns that the school is being built too small.
Document B7 – Heatons and Reddish Area Committee 19th December 2011 – report from police about dangerous traffic situation around the school.
Document B8 – Newspaper article showng that when the Environment Agency told the council not to decide the planning application on grounds of contamination they were ignored.
Document B9 – Sign showing the site was a recreation ground which should not have been developed without a public inquiry given the 800 objectors to the project.
Document B10 – 2 pages of a document produced for the council by their consultants – GVA Grimley regarding the Sport England planning condition.
Document B11 – Planning and Highways Regulation Committee document 13th March 2008 regarding the importance of the Sport England planning condition.
Documen B12 – Letter from Stockport Council showing I ask questions on various relevant issues and their refusal to respond regarding the missing replacement playing fields stipulated by Sport England.
Document B13 Stockport Council letter admitting that all the town’s street lighting was to be funded by PFI bypass funds.
Document B14 –Manchester Evening News story link about the A555 flooding again
DocumentsB15 & B16 –photos of sand leaking from the sand-backfilled structures on the A555. This is not a Highway Agency road, but the liability of the council taxpayers of Greater Manchester.
B17 – Video about the case of the Town Hall Protester.
B18 – Video about the non-removal of brown asbestos fibres from the primary school site.
B19 link Evidence of the Town Hall protester’s custodies, arrests and imprisonments.
Document B20 – Email from Greater Manchester Police admitting the Town Hall protester had been completely innocent. This was admitted posthumously.
Document B21 – untrue and misleading social media post by Councillor Angela Clark
Document B22 Manchester Evening News story about LibDem (not Tory) paedophile Executive Councillor John Smith
Document B23 council log where Lord Goddard and the paedophile councillor John Smith ask why Mr Parnell is being allowed to continue to protest.
Document B1
Document B2
Document B3
Document B4
Document B5
Document B6
Document B7
Document B8
Document B9
Document B10
Document B11
Document B12
Document B13
B14 Manchester Evening News link about the flooded bypass “The A555 Airport Relief Road in Handforth was closed by police last night and has remained shut today.
On Tuesday, the Liberal Democrats teased a “big announcement” that turned out to be little more than a rebrand. But while Whitehall engaged in administrative theatre, a far more serious and costly story has unfolded here in Stockport — one that raises deep questions about accountability, justice, and the use of public resources.
I am talking about the case of Mr Parnell, whose repeated arrests and periods of imprisonment have not only taken a terrible personal toll, but have also carried a very real — and very avoidable — cost to the public purse.
This isn’t abstract. Each arrest, custody period, prosecution and custodial sentence carries a financial burden on taxpayers. And let’s be clear: this was not the result of violent crime or a threat to the public. It was a miscarriage of justice that could — and should — have been avoided.
The Cost of Arrest and Custody
Every time a person is arrested, there are immediate costs: • Police time — including travel, processing, and detention paperwork. • Custody facilities — maintaining staff and cells for every hour a person spends in detention.
Even short stays in custody can cost around £1,000 or more per incident when you add up officer hours, cell space, and related logistics. Multiple arrests quickly multiply those figures.
Court Proceedings and Legal Costs
Then come court appearances. Whether in the magistrates’ court or, in some cases, the Crown Court, the state bears the cost of: • Prosecutors and court staff • Judges and magistrates • Court security • Transcription and administration
A single Crown Court case can run into thousands or tens of thousands of pounds before a single day of imprisonment is served.
Prison: The Largest Single Expense
Once in prison, the cost per year per inmate in the UK is notoriously high, easily exceeding £50,000 a year for housing, feeding, supervising, and rehabilitating someone in custody.
Add all those up — multiple arrests, police custody stays, court appearances, potential bail hearings, and one or more periods of imprisonment — and we’re talking about tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds, spent on a man who should never have been behind bars in the first place.
And the Compensation Question
If and when Mr Parnell’s family seek compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment — as they very well might — that will be an additional cost to the public purse, potentially running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, depending on how the courts assess the harm done.
The Political Accountability Gap
Perhaps the most remarkable part of this saga is that three of the individuals involved in having Mr Parnell repeatedly arrested still hold public office:
Lord Goddard — continuing to serve in public life.
Councillor Shan Alexander — still in elected office.
Councillor Wendy Meikle — currently in charge of Children’s Services at Stockport Council.
These are people who, at various points, played a role in decisions that led to Mr Parnell’s arrests — decisions that ultimately cost us all, in time, money, and trust in our institutions.
Time for Transparency
Stockport deserves transparency about the total cost of this case — not just in pounds and pence, but in the political accountability that should come with it. When public servants make decisions that have such profound and expensive consequences, there must be scrutiny, explanation, and, where appropriate, responsibility.
We owe that to Mr Parnell RIP. And we owe it to ourselves.
The actions they took to remove a sick, innocent, fiercely protective dad from his lovely, young daughters and they did that on behalf of this LibDem Executive Councillor paedophile.
Questions have been raised about how a copy of a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) bail notice relating to a 2009 Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) case came into the possession of the then Leader of Stockport Council.
The case concerned Mr Parnell, who was charged in July 2009 with breaching an ASBO by entering Stockport Town Hall on two occasions. Court records show he appeared at Stockport Magistrates’ Court on 18 July 2009 and was initially remanded in custody after reportedly indicating he would not comply with bail conditions. He later pleaded not guilty and elected trial at the Crown Court. Magistrates subsequently granted bail with conditions, including an exclusion zone preventing him from coming within one mile of the Town Hall, except for court appearances or solicitor-arranged appointments.
An email from the then Liberal Democrat Council Leader, now Lord Goddard of Stockport, circulated at the time stated: “I have attached the actual bail notice,” referring to what appears to have been a CPS copy of the document outlining the bail conditions.
The existence of that attachment has prompted questions about how the document was obtained and whether its circulation followed standard information-sharing procedures.
How Are Bail Notices Normally Distributed?
Bail notices are court documents typically issued to:
The defendant
The defendant’s legal representative
The court
The Crown Prosecution Service
Custody records where applicable
Magistrates’ Court hearings are generally public, and bail conditions are often read aloud in open court. However, copies of official CPS-marked documents are not ordinarily distributed beyond the parties directly involved in the case.
Possible Explanations
Legal observers note there are several potential lawful routes by which a council leader might have been informed of bail conditions in a case involving Town Hall premises:
The council may have been involved operationally in enforcing the ASBO.
Council legal officers may have been notified for safeguarding or security purposes.
Information may have been shared via police or prosecution liaison channels.
There is no public evidence that any unlawful disclosure occurred. At the same time, questions remain about the precise basis on which a CPS copy of the bail notice was circulated outside the immediate court process.
Data Protection Considerations
At the time, personal data handling was governed by the Data Protection Act 1998. Court documents containing personal information would have required a lawful basis for disclosure.
Legal experts note that whether disclosure would have been appropriate would depend on:
The council’s role in the ASBO proceedings,
Whether the information was shared for operational security reasons,
And whether proper authority or consent existed.
Representation Issues
It has also been suggested that an individual seeking to act on Mr Parnell’s behalf was reportedly not recognised as his authorised representative at the time. That has led to further questions about consistency in how information was shared.
No Finding of Wrongdoing
The Romiley Gazette stresses that there is currently no evidence of criminal or regulatory wrongdoing by any individual in relation to the circulation of the bail notice. The matter appears to concern procedural transparency rather than any established breach of law.
The Gazette has invited comment from representatives of Lord Goddard, Stockport Council, and the Crown Prosecution Service regarding historical information-sharing practices in ASBO enforcement cases.
Mr. Parnell was charged with breaching the ASBO on 16th and 17th July 2009 by entering the Town Hall. He appeared at Stockport Magistrates Court from custody on 18th July 2009. He was apparently adamant that he would not abide by bail conditions and so was remanded in custody to Forest Bank to appear today.
He did appear today. He pleaded not guilty and elected Crown Court trial. His next appearance is before the Magistrates on 14th September 2009. Today his solicitor applied for bail which was opposed by the CPS. The Magistrates did grant bail. I have attached the actual bail notice. His condition is not to come within 1 mile of the Town Hall. The only exception is when he is appearing in court or by prior written appointment made by his solicitor. There is no exception for attendance at any meeting within that exclusion zone and that was made clear to him. These conditions appear to be unambiguous. It is fair to say that Parnell was less than enthusiastic about these conditions.
Just keeping you in the loop.
Fondest wishes,
Dave,
Ps, Glad you enjoyed the Stepping Hill by-election it makes it all worth it.
Previously unseen correspondence from 2009 shows that concerns about the treatment of a long-running Stockport town hall protester were raised directly with senior Liberal Democrat figures, including the late Baroness Shirley Williams.
The emails, sent by local campaigner Sheila Oliver, outline allegations of heavy-handed enforcement by Stockport Council and police against a peaceful protester who had staged a demonstration outside the town hall over the welfare of his adopted daughters.
In a response dated September 23, 2009, Ruth Brock, then a parliamentary researcher to Baroness Shirley Williams, confirmed that the peer was a Liberal Democrat but was abroad at the time due to international work on nuclear non-proliferation.
“However, she is out of the country for some weeks as she is heavily involved in international work on nuclear non-proliferation which involves extensive travel,” Ms Brock wrote. “She will be unable to see your email for some time although I will show it to her on her return.”
Ms Brock added that she was “sorry not to be more help at the current time”.
The correspondence followed a series of emails from Mrs Oliver, who described what she said was a decade-long struggle by a local man to obtain help for his adopted daughters, followed by a prolonged peaceful protest inspired by campaigner Brian Haw.
In her email, Mrs Oliver alleged that the protester had been arrested multiple times, subjected to court proceedings, imprisoned, and issued with an ASBO-type order. She argued that the response of the council and authorities was disproportionate and raised wider concerns about civil liberties in Stockport at the time.
Mrs Oliver also criticised the local Liberal Democrat leadership, questioning why senior party figures had not intervened. She copied the correspondence to other Lib Dem politicians, including then party leader Nick Clegg and local MP Andrew Stunell.
The emails form part of a wider archive of campaign correspondence from the period and highlight tensions between local activists and the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport Council during the late 2000s.
At the time, Stockport Council was under Liberal Democrat control, and the party frequently highlighted its commitment to civil liberties at a national level — a contrast campaigners argued was not reflected locally.
Baroness Shirley Williams, who died in 2021, was a prominent figure in British politics and widely respected for her work on education, social justice and international affairs. There is no record in the correspondence of a substantive reply from her following her return to the UK.
However, she is out of the country for some weeks as she is heavily involved in international work on nuclear non proliferation which involves extensive travel, so she will be unable to see your email for some time although I will show it to her on her return. I am sorry not to be more help at the current time.
Yours sincerely
Ruth
Ruth Brock Researcher to Rt Hon Shirley Williams Email: brockr@parliament.uk Tel: 020 7219 5850
Please note: The office is staffed Tuesday-Thursday.
—–Original Message—– From: BROCK, Ruth On Behalf Of WILLIAMS, Baroness Sent: 23 September 2009 11:26 To: BROCK, Ruth Subject: FW: LibDems human rights abuses
—–Original Message—– From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 22 September 2009 17:21 To: WILLIAMS, Baroness Cc: CLEGG, Nick; John Schultz Subject: Re: LibDems human rights abuses
Dear Office of Shirley Williams
Is she a LibDem? I forget. If she is she should know what is happening in Stockport. It is an absolute disgrace!
You have reached the mailbox of Baroness Shirley Williams. If you intended to contact Mr Stephen Williams MP his email address is williamssr@parliament.uk
With kind regards
Office of Shirley Williams
From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com] Sent: 21 September 2009 19:10 To: WILLIAMS, Baroness Cc: STUNELL, Andrew Subject: LibDems human rights abuses
Dear Mr Williams
The LibDems have an appalling human rights track record in Stockport. Our gentle, peaceful town hall protester tried for a decade to get help for his two adopted daughters, who suffered terribly at the hands of their birth parents. When he got nowhere over a decade (and he only asked for some help for them), he stood on the town hall steps for two years copying his hero – Brian Haw – in peaceful protest. The Council called the police over 90 times, he was arrested 12 times, one court case dropped on the day of the hearing, 4 days in prison, a CRASBO (criminal ASBO) for an alleged sneeze, which was not on the CCTV footage of the incident, but this was not allowed to be shown in the magistrates court. He had the police called with flashing blue lights for breaking his ASBO by using the town hall lavatory, was arrested for breaking his bail conditions of not going within a mile of the town hall. He has now been sent to Forrest Bank prison in Manchester till maybe January (which is a frightening place) for breaking his bail conditions imposed for the crime of assault with a sneeze (pre swine flu) with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold. Only in Stockport! Only under these awful LibDems!
Andrew Stunell pontificates in the local press about the wrong people being in prison, yet he hasn’t lifted a finger to help Mr. Parnell.
More than a decade after the death of Stockport Town Hall protester Michael Parnell, fresh attention is being drawn to an unanswered appeal sent to the Crown Prosecution Service while Sir Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr Parnell, who died aged 58 several years after prolonged involvement with Stockport Council, police and the courts, was a well-known protester at Stockport Town Hall. His campaign centred on what he believed was the council’s failure to provide adequate support for his adopted daughters, both of whom had experienced significant trauma prior to their adoption.
In March 2010, campaigner Sheila Oliver wrote directly to Mr Starmer, then Director of Public Prosecutions, setting out a detailed account of Mr Parnell’s treatment by public authorities and asking for intervention.
According to Ms Oliver, police were called to incidents involving Mr Parnell more than 130 times, leading to at least 38 arrests. He spent periods in Manchester prisons and was subject to a Criminal ASBO which restricted him to his home for up to 12 hours a day over a two-year period.
In January 2010, Mr Parnell was acquitted at Crown Court. During that case, Judge Lever criticised Stockport Council for failing to address the underlying issues which had driven Mr Parnell’s repeated protests and criminalisation.
Despite the acquittal, further cases were brought. One related to Mr Parnell’s use of the public lavatory at Stockport Town Hall, despite him holding written permission from the council’s Chief Executive. That prosecution was later dropped following adverse press coverage. Other arrests followed, including after Mr Parnell attempted to ask a public question at a full council meeting and when he sought access to council documents.
Ms Oliver’s letter to Mr Starmer also raised serious safeguarding concerns. She warned that Mr Parnell had attempted to harm himself while in police custody.
The letter referred to other high-profile deaths connected to Stockport Council services and asked whether lessons identified in Serious Case Reviews had been acted upon. It also questioned why a CPS prosecutor involved in earlier cases continued to handle matters relating to Mr Parnell, and how a confidential CPS document came into the possession of Stockport Council’s leadership.
Ms Oliver says she never received a response from Mr Starmer, nor from the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Greater Manchester, despite earlier correspondence indicating that a reply would be forthcoming.
Mr Parnell later died, and Ms Oliver argues that the warnings contained in her 2010 letter were never properly addressed. She maintains that the case illustrates a broader failure of accountability within the criminal justice system and local government, and raises questions about the role of senior officials in responding to serious allegations of misconduct and systemic failure.
Neither Sir Keir Starmer nor the Crown Prosecution Service has publicly addressed the correspondence or the concerns raised within it. Stockport Council has also declined to comment on the historical allegations.
Mr Keir Starmer
Director of Public Prosecutions
Crown Prosecution Service Headquarters
50 Ludgate Hill
London
EC4M 7EX
Monday, March 29, 2010
Dear Mr Starmer
Re: 8680 – Mr Michael Parnell, Stockport Town Hall Protester. Had police called 130 plus times, 38 plus arrests, one court case dropped on the day of his hearing, Criminal ASBO involving 2 years house arrest 8am to 8pm, multiple stays in tough Manchester prison, Crown Court acquittal January 2010 in which Judge Lever criticised Stockport Council for not having sorted his problem out, two further court cases – one using the town hall public lavatory when he had a letter from the Chief Executive specifically giving him permission to do so and when the police were called with blue flashing lights – dropped following adverse press publicity. No attempt by Stockport Council to sort his problem out. Police subsequently called by the Mayor to arrest him following a full council meeting where he tried to ask a public question regarding what had been done to him by the Council. The Mayor, who himself has subsequently been arrested for alleged benefit fraud, claimed apparently he was asking a planning question which was sub judice. He wasn’t. Further arrest for, I believe, trying to obtain a council meeting agenda document. Tried to harm himself in police cell. Further court case pending. His troubled daughters, whom he adopted from Stockport Council and who had a terrible time with their birth parents and for whom he simply wanted to obtain help
I received a letter from C Swallow of the Correspondence Unit dated 8th October 2009 saying Mr. Robert Marshall, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Greater Manchester would write to me about the case of Mr. Parnell, our town hall protester.
I don’t recall receiving any letter from Mr. Marshall.
Please see Mr. Parnell’s details above. Following the death of the lady from Stockport who jumped from the Humber Bridge with her 9-year-old autistic son, lessons were supposed to have been learned from the Serious Case Review and also following the death of the 18-year-old straight out of Stockport Council’s care who jumped to her death from a tower block. The Coroner is rightly worried about what is going on in Stockport.
The Director of Children and Young People’s Directorate, Andrew Webb, and the Executive Councillor responsible for that department, Councillor Weldon – teacher have recently been in the national press over the horrible death of a young boy with asthma and their refusal to hold a review of what went wrong.
The CPS prosecutor who tried so hard to have Mr. Parnell sent back to prison for the only crime Stockport Council have alleged against him – a non-existent sneeze – is now trying to have him tagged again. That prosecutor should not be allowed anywhere near any case to do with Mr. Parnell.
In addition, the Leader of Stockport Council, Councillor Dave Goddard, sent me a confidential Crown Prosecution document regarding Mr. Parnell. How did he get it?
I have tried to raise this issue with the Council’s Monitoring Officer who simply won’t respond.
I hope you will take these issues seriously. Very soon we will be reading in the press of the death of Mr. Parnell or his daughters and crocodile tears will be shed by the crocodiles at Stockport Council.
Yours sincerely
Sheila Oliver
Freedom of Information, Human Rights and Environmental Campaigner
Concerns have been raised about the treatment of local campaigner Mike Parnell, who was arrested while attempting to raise a question at a council meeting despite suffering from serious illness. Mr Parnell was later cleared of wrongdoing after his death, prompting renewed discussion about public accountability and the treatment of vulnerable individuals within the justice system.
Mr Parnell, a familiar face at local council meetings and a passionate advocate for the rights of his young, adopted daughters, attended a full council meeting at Fred Perry House in Stockport on 8 November 2012. According to an email he sent following the incident, he had hoped to ask councillors a question he described as fundamental: “the right to have any life protected, what will be done?”
In the same correspondence, Mr Parnell described being arrested during the meeting under a public order allegation and taken into custody. He stated he was later released on conditional bail, which prevented him from returning to Fred Perry House and required him to attend a court hearing scheduled for 22 November 2012.
At the time of his arrest, Mr Parnell was preparing to begin cancer treatment at The Christie hospital. In his email, he expressed uncertainty about whether he would even be physically able to attend the court hearing due to the seriousness of his condition.
Friends and supporters have since questioned whether sufficient consideration was given to Mr Parnell’s health when legal proceedings were pursued. They say the case placed additional strain on a man who was already facing life-threatening illness.
Following Mr Parnell’s death, it was later established that he had committed no offence, a development which has deepened concern among those who knew him. Supporters argue that his case highlights the importance of safeguarding democratic participation and ensuring that vulnerable individuals are treated with compassion and proportionality.
Those who attended meetings alongside Mr Parnell remember him as honest, gentle, principled, determined, outspoken and driven by a strong sense of fairness.
His death, coming so soon after the events at Fred Perry House, has left lasting questions for some in the community about how residents engaging with democratic processes are treated, particularly when serious health issues are involved.
Mr Parnell is remembered by friends as a man who continued to speak out for what he believed was right, even while facing profound personal challenges.
Along with the LibDem councillors repeatedly taking this action was paedophile Cllr John Smith.
Lord Goddard, Wendy Meikle and Shan Alexander still hold public office.
Shan Alexander, Executive Councillor, was calling the police to sick, innocent Mr Parnell regularly, and was Chair of the Magistrates where he was repeatedly imprisoned for the most ludicrous of offences, such as trying to leave a council meeting before the end. She subsequently faced a prison sentence herself, but is now back as an Executive councillor.
Executive Councillor Wendy Meikle is responsible for Children’s Services at Stockport. Doubts have been raised publicly as to whether these people should still hold any public office.
By the time he sent this email, he had already been subjected to this:-
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 ? “.
More than a decade on, the case of the late Mr Michael Parnell, a Bredbury resident who repeatedly came into contact with police and council authorities before his death, continues to raise troubling questions for members of the local community.
Mr Parnell, who died in 2012, had been involved in a long-running dispute relating to his attendance at Stockport Council meetings, during which police were repeatedly called. Supporters say his attempts to ask public questions and participate in meetings were treated as a matter for enforcement rather than engagement.
Following his death, concerns were raised about the cost, proportionality and justification of repeated police interventions, as well as the role of senior officials responsible for oversight.
In December 2013, a formal complaint was submitted to the Office of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) regarding the actions of the Police Authority’s Chief Executive at the time, Russell Bernstein. The complaint alleged a failure to investigate matters relating to Mr Parnell’s treatment and raised concerns about impartiality.
However, in a letter dated 9 January 2014, seen by the Romiley Gazette, the PCC’s office rejected the complaint.
The letter, signed by Nigel J Battersby, Solicitor to the PCC, stated that no formal investigation had been requested at the relevant time and that the complainant did not have the necessary legal standing under the Police Reform Act 2002 to act on Mr Parnell’s behalf. It also noted that Mr Parnell himself had not made a direct complaint to the Police Authority prior to his death.
The PCC’s office further stated that policing decisions relating to Mr Parnell had been reviewed by a Greater Manchester Police inspector, who advised that officers had exercised restraint in what were described as “grey legal areas”.
On that basis, the letter concluded that there was “nothing that required any further investigation” and that the PCC did not possess investigatory powers over operational policing decisions in any event.
Campaigners and local residents, however, say the response illustrates a systemic gap in accountability, where responsibility is repeatedly passed between institutions, leaving families and members of the public without meaningful redress.
One local resident told the Gazette:
“Every door that was knocked on was closed on a technicality. Oversight bodies say they have no powers, while operational bodies say they followed procedure. Meanwhile, a man is dead.”
Mr Parnell’s supporters argue that the absence of wrongdoing findings does not answer broader questions about fairness, proportionality, and the human impact of repeated enforcement actions against individuals engaging in local democracy.
Since 2017, the role of Police and Crime Commissioner in Greater Manchester has been absorbed into the office of the elected Mayor. Calls remain for historical cases such as Mr Parnell’s to be reviewed under modern standards of transparency and public accountability.
As one campaigner put it:
“This isn’t about revenge. It’s about learning lessons — and making sure no one else falls through the cracks.
Here at the Romiley Gazette, we use Artificial Intelligence to help with things like researching, writing, and formatting articles. It’s a handy tool that helps us get stories out faster and keep things accurate — but don’t worry, everything still gets a proper human check before it reaches you!
