There was lively debate this week in the ever-eccentric world of Lord Bonkers, as the veteran peer’s latest diary entry captured murmurs of discontent echoing through the corners, nooks and crannies of Bonkers Hall.
The Hall—long known for its labyrinthine passages and equally labyrinthine politics—was said to be abuzz with quiet grumbling about the current direction of the Liberal Democrats. The concerns, while expressed sotto voce, were anything but modest.
“We won 72 seats at the last election, but we seem to have stalled since,” was one such observation, reported from an unnamed alcove. Others were more forthright in their anxieties, warning that unless the party’s leadership redoubles its efforts, it risks slipping from prominence altogether.
Particular attention fell on party leader Sir Ed Davey, with one colourful commentator suggesting that unless he “pulls his finger out,” the party could “disappear altogether.” Such blunt assessments are, of course, entirely in keeping with the Bonkers tradition of mixing political commentary with a healthy dose of theatrical exaggeration.
Sir Ed’s fondness for publicity stunts also drew a knowing eye. In one particularly imaginative remark, a critic quipped that should the leader bring his well-known water-based antics to their constituency, they might be tempted to explore the logistics of hiring a killer whale by the hour. Whether this reflects policy concerns or simply a local sense of humour remains, as ever, open to interpretation.
The Bonkers Diary—long a fixture of liberal commentary and satire—has been offering its unique perspective on politics for decades, blending whimsical storytelling with pointed political observation. Liberator magazine has featured the character since 1990, cementing Lord Bonkers as one of the more distinctive voices in liberal circles.
Back in Romiley, residents may be forgiven for wondering whether similar debates are taking place in quieter corners of their own political landscape. But if Bonkers Hall is anything to go by, even the most aristocratic of settings is not immune to a bit of good-natured grumbling—and the occasional killer whale.
By Rosemary Runswick (adapted for the Romiley Gazette).
The proposal to ban social media for under-16s is one of those policies that, at first glance, feels comforting. It speaks to a genuine concern: the wellbeing of young people in an online world that can be, at times, harsh, addictive, and unsafe. But as Liberals, we must resist the urge to legislate based on anxiety alone—because the cure being proposed here is far more dangerous than the disease.
Let’s be clear: a blanket ban on social media for under-16s would not simply “switch off” access. It would require something far more intrusive—mass identity verification across the internet. In practice, that means surveillance. Not state-owned, perhaps, but outsourced to private companies with a vested interest in collecting, monetising, and leveraging our most sensitive data.
This is not a hypothetical risk. Age verification systems already being rolled out for adult content rely on biometric data and official ID. Scaling that up to every young person in the country would create a vast database of personal information—one that would be irresistible to hackers, and immensely valuable to those seeking to influence behaviour, markets, or even elections.
As Rosemary Runswick argues in her original piece, this is not just a privacy issue—it is a national security concern. Once biometric data is compromised, it cannot be changed. You can reset a password; you cannot reset your face or your fingerprints. The consequences of a breach would be permanent.
And yet, astonishingly, many within our own party supported this approach. Sixty-one Liberal Democrat MPs voted in favour of the amendment. This sits uneasily—if not outright contradictorily—alongside the party’s own commitment, passed at conference, to a Digital Bill of Rights that explicitly opposes disproportionate age-gating and champions data privacy.
We cannot claim to be both liberal and paternalistic. We cannot champion individual freedom while endorsing policies that require every citizen to prove their identity simply to participate in modern life.
Of course, the concerns driving this debate are real. Social media platforms can expose young people to harmful content, and there is strong evidence linking excessive use to declining mental health. But a ban does not solve these problems—it merely displaces them. As critics have pointed out, it risks isolating vulnerable young people from support networks, while doing little to prevent exposure via shared devices or unregulated spaces.
The comments on Runswick’s article reflect this tension within liberal thought. Some rightly describe the proposal as “moral panic legislation”—a reaction that prioritises appearing decisive over being effective. Others caution against overstating the risks, pointing to existing protections under data law and warning against hyperbole. Both perspectives are valuable, and both highlight the need for a more grounded, evidence-based approach.
There is also a deeper unease about who benefits from such policies. As one commenter noted, there are growing concerns about corporate influence in shaping the narrative—whether through lobbying, partnerships, or more opaque forms of pressure. Even if one does not accept the more sweeping claims, it is undeniable that data has become the currency of power in the digital age. Any policy that expands its collection must be treated with extreme caution.
So what should we do instead?
A genuinely liberal response would focus on transparency, accountability, and empowerment. That means stronger protections over personal data, ensuring it cannot be freely traded or exploited. It means demanding greater openness from tech companies—potentially including independent scrutiny of the algorithms that shape what we see online. And it means investing in education, equipping young people with the tools to navigate the digital world safely and critically.
Above all, it means trusting people. Not blindly, but fundamentally. Liberalism is rooted in the belief that individuals, given the right information and safeguards, are capable of making their own choices.
A social media ban for under-16s abandons that principle. It replaces trust with control, nuance with blunt force, and liberty with surveillance.
If we are serious about defending both democracy and personal freedom in the digital age, we must do better than this.
A glance at the reaction from party members and readers reveals a deep unease that goes beyond the policy itself and strikes at the party’s identity. Several contributors described the proposal as “moral panic legislation” that risks sacrificing liberal principles for the sake of appearing tough, while others expressed frustration that the party seems willing to override its own conference decisions and the views of younger members most affected. There was also scepticism about some of the more sweeping claims made in the debate—particularly around data use and past political campaigns—alongside concern that overstating the case risks weakening legitimate arguments about privacy and security. Yet even among those voices, the underlying theme was consistent: a sense that the party is drifting from its core commitment to civil liberties, and a growing anxiety that, in trying to “protect” young people, it may instead be undermining the very freedoms it exists to defend.
Why were golden planning elephants handed to the owners of this precinct when they had let it get in this state? They left it like this and the council taxpayers had to pay to take them to court. There were reputable, local developers, but they were frozen out.
A Romiley resident has challenged Stockport Council after her correspondence about environmental concerns at a local site was formally classified as “vexatious” under the Freedom of Information Act.
Sheila Oliver, who describes herself as a local authority researcher and member of the Citizens 2022 Committee, raised concerns about what she says is the destruction of a protected Local Wildlife Site and amenity land around Padden Brook.
Mrs Oliver says she contacted councillors and council officers over a period of more than seven months seeking action regarding what she described as “ongoing environmental damage” at the site. According to her complaint, she received no response for more than 220 days before being told that the activity in question had been described by the council as “improvement” or “tidying up.”
In her formal complaint to the council’s Monitoring Officer, Mrs Oliver said the decision by an Information Governance officer to classify her communications as “vexatious” was unjustified.
She wrote that her correspondence was “fact-based, respectful and driven by public interest,” arguing that the repeated contact was necessary because of the lack of response from elected officials. She said the label had caused distress and risked discouraging residents from raising legitimate concerns about environmental protection.
Mrs Oliver requested a review of the decision, an apology from the council, and confirmation that the environmental concerns regarding Padden Brook would be properly assessed.
In a response sent by the council’s Assistant Director for Governance and Monitoring Officer, Vicki Bates, Stockport Council confirmed that a formal internal review had already taken place.
The council stated that the decision to apply Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act — which allows authorities to refuse requests considered “vexatious” — had been reviewed and upheld.
According to the council, the classification was made in line with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That guidance states that a request may be considered vexatious if it places a disproportionate burden on a public authority, lacks serious purpose or value, or forms part of a pattern of unreasonable behaviour.
However, the council added that each case is considered on its own merits and that such decisions must be “evidence-based and proportionate.”
Mrs Oliver has been advised that if she remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, she has the right to escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the independent body responsible for regulating the Freedom of Information Act.
The council also noted that while the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman does not usually investigate complaints solely about Freedom of Information decisions, it may consider cases where wider issues of maladministration are alleged.
The dispute comes amid wider local interest in the condition and protection of green spaces across the Romiley area, particularly around waterways and designated wildlife sites.
A Romiley resident has raised concerns after sending a large number of emails to local MP Lisa Smart without receiving a any reply.
The resident says they have written repeatedly over the past year about a range of local issues including planning decisions, environmental concerns, and council matters affecting the Romiley area. According to records shared with the Romiley Gazette, dozens of emails have been sent since early 2025, with many asking the MP to “care to comment” on various issues.
However, the constituent says they have not received any response addressing the questions raised.
The issue has prompted wider questions about how MPs manage constituency correspondence and the resources available to them.
Members of Parliament receive public funding through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to run their offices and employ staff to assist with constituency casework. These budgets cover staff salaries, office costs, and other expenses necessary to support communication with constituents.
In recent years, MPs’ staffing and office budgets have increased significantly due to rising workloads and inflation. Across the UK, many MPs now operate offices with several staff members who help manage emails, letters, and casework from residents.
Constituents who feel their concerns have not been addressed are able to follow up with an MP’s office, contact them through alternative channels such as constituency surgeries, or escalate issues through relevant public bodies such as local councils, ombudsmen, or regulatory authorities.
While it is not uncommon for MPs’ offices to prioritise urgent casework, the situation highlights the importance many residents place on receiving acknowledgement or responses when raising local concerns with their elected representatives.
The Romiley Gazette has contacted the office of Lisa Smart for comment regarding how constituency correspondence is handled and whether residents can expect responses to emails sent to the MP’s office.
Residents wishing to share their experiences of contacting their MP are invited to write to the Romiley Gazette.
————————————————————
From Subject Received Size Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Sun 8:17 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Sat 07/03 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Wed 04/03 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Tue 03/03 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Or you Smart of the transparency and accountability police? 25/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 25/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 25/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Ha ha 24/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Good grief, more bad news for the paedophiles and crooks at Stockport Council – Lisa Smart is leading the debate this afternoon in Parliament 24/02/2026 31 KB Lisa Smart Re: Do the LibDems really want the spotlight on you and your past crimes? 24/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart RE: Public Question to the Council 19/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Tweet to Rupert Lowe 12/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Off your bottoms – we have waited long enough. You should be given your P45s 10/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Shame on you 10/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: You can’t keep hiding. You will be exposed publicly. 10/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Lisa Smart lecturing in standards in public office – strewth 10/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Lisa Smart – devoid of any moral compass 10/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: You can’t get away with your appalling actions 08/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: 08/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Stop lying Lisa 08/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Mr Parnell’s daughters should sue Stockport Council – Meikle, Clark, Smart et al for what was done to them. There is enough evidence 06/02/2026 31 KB Lisa Smart Re: Have Roberts, Clark, Meikle & Alexander been booted out yet? 05/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: I have all Mr Parnell’s emails to councillors begging for them to help him. And I told Jackie Pearcey, LibDem candidate in Gorton/Denton 04/02/2026 31 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment 01/02/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Would Mark Weldon care to comment? Don’t try to bring him back. 31/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Alex Ganotis covering up LibDem planning corruption, as an ICO official should he have done that? This had repercussions for the people of Denton 50 yards away. 27/01/2026 31 KB Lisa Smart Re: You have all got to stop lying 26/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 26/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment 25/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Are you going to ignore this too? You should all be removed from public office 25/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 24/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Dangerous lunatics – you should be removed from public office 22/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Don’t bring back unsuitable for public office Mark Weldon 22/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: Sort out the Schweinerei at Stockport 22/01/2026 30 KB Lisa Smart Re: I have evidence that I asked you to address this issue, but Bates took no action. Not good, is it, when Meikle assisted a paedophile but is the lead for children? 20/01/2026 31 KB Lisa Smart Re: Not vexatious at all was it? 17/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: You are corrupt and should not hold any public office. Care to comment? 15/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Substack 15/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Bates, Cullen & Roberts should step down immediately from public office 15/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 14/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 14/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 13/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? I hope Davey doesn’t bang on about peaceful protest in Iran. Stockport LibDems mean he can’t speak out about much now. 10/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Twitter and Substack (Substack is better than Facebook for getting this information to the people who can make use of it) Care to comment? 08/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Smart/clark Roberts – so bent we named them twice 08/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 07/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Has Bates been sacked yet? I get no responses to anything now 06/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Formal Evidence Submission. Alex Ganotis, senior ICO official and former Leader of Stockport Council, was complicit in this. Please investigate this properly 05/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: You won’t get away with planning corruption. 05/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? Corruption has been covered up for years. It has to stop, and those responsible should suffer the consequences 05/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Alex Ganotis, senior ICO official/former Leader Stockport Council (simultaneously) 02/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs informed about Alex Ganotis, then Stockport Council Leader, also covering up this corruption. 02/01/2026 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Private Eye 02/01/2026 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Stop your planning corruption – this will have to go to the Local Governement Ombudsman too 31/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Formal Complaint – leaving brown asbestos in situ at primary school site 31/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Formal complaint – dangerous traffic situation around the Vale View School still classified as Vexatious 31/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Stop lying – this is all going to the Local Government Ombudsman/opposition politicians 31/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 28/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: What ever Smart speaks about she has committed a corresponding offene. She needs to be defenestrated. Fundamentally dishonest woman. 23/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 23/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Nic k Robinson is a big Tory from Cheadle 22/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: care to comment? 22/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 22/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 22/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 21/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to commen? 21/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 21/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Bent and Lazy Lisa Smart 21/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Tweet 19/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Padden Brook is currently being bulldozed inside the W1 protected woodland area 19/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: FW: Padden Brook is currently being bulldozed inside the W1 protected woodland area 19/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Corrupt LibDems exposed on Facebook 19/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Tweet 18/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: I have asked how much the Tarmacing of the Tang in Romiley cost, but this has been ignored. Care to comment? 17/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 13/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Does anyone mentioned object to this going out? 13/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: So, the corruption continues…. 05/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: What the hell is going in Stockport? 04/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Please may I come to read your files on the 20m pound levelling up fund Marple hub 04/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Dodgy Clark again 04/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Shame you don’t care about the kids on brown asbestos 04/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Lies 04/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: You are despised. Why sent a Christmas card to Padden Brook? 02/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: FOI Response – 101007944544 02/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: We don’t want Clark 02/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Crooks 01/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: 01/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Deeper and deeper into the corruption cesspit 01/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: You leave a void and I fill it 01/12/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Credit where it is due – you can teach China, a government known for tight control over public information 01/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Smart/Roberts/Cullen/Clark need to go too. 01/12/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: How corrupt was this? 30/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Any Comment? 30/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Fraud by misrepresentation 30/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Please pass this to Michelle Dodds 30/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 27/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Photo op of the day, but what about Padden Brook? 21/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: All because you wouldn’t lift a finger over Padden Brook…. 20/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: My LibDem MP Lisa Smart criticised you in the House of Commons. She doesn’t actually believe in democracy herself 19/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Bypass corruption – remember I was branded vexatious for raising these issues. 18/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Telling the Chinese not to bother with you. You only do photo ops 18/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: What was that about my being vexatious asking about the bypass. Bent as 9 bob notes you lot. 18/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Again, a sensible question – not at all vexatious 18/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: You are all going to look very corrupt justifying this 18/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: An intelligent question – not a vexatious one 18/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: so much corruption and abuse evidence 18/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Sensible questions the councillors/councillor officers should have been asking 18/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: You don’t have a leg to stand on 18/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Any on and on with the evidence 18/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: care to comment? 18/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 16/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart RE: EIR Internal Review – 101007928232 07/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Complaint about you to the Information Commissioner 07/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint against Cllr Mark Roberts 07/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint against Cllr Mark Roberts 07/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint against Cllr Mark Roberts 07/11/2025 29 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint against Cllr Mark Roberts 07/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint against Cllr Mark Roberts 07/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment on your cover up of fraud? 06/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart RE: Public Question to the Cabinet 05/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: With all the abuse and corruption you have been covering up for years, do you really want to pick a fight with Farage? Care to comment? 04/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: CCTV request 03/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 02/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 02/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment 02/11/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Could you please see LibDem Leader Mark Roberts get this 01/11/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 31/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 30/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 29/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Can’t brush it under the carpet this time – it is all over Facebook 29/10/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 28/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 27/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 27/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Bloomberg – care to comment? 26/10/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment 26/10/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 23/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Question time 16/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Question Time 16/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? A bit misjudged I think, given the support for Reform in Romiley 11/10/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint submitted to the Compliance Officer for IPSA 08/10/2025 29 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 01/10/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? I shall try to ensure your political career ends on the hill that is Padden Brook 01/10/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: Complaint submitted to the Compliance Officer for IPSA 30/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Question for the next Werneth Area Committee 30/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 28/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Questionable MP Expenses 25/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 25/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: I shall stand in Romiley precinct with my Useless LibDem Councillors sign from now until May’s elections 23/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Obscurity beckons after the LibDem conference disaster – time to start representing your constituents for a change? 23/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: You will have to act in the end 22/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment on this Romiley Gazette article? 22/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 16/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 11/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment? 11/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart RE: Digital ID: Keir Starmer wants to spy on you! 09/09/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Tweet 09/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Tweet 06/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Would you like to comment? 06/09/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment on this Romiley Gazette article? 30/08/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: Care to comment on this Romiley Gazette article? 30/08/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: I think voters are realising via Facebook that we need to get you out – you do nothing for local people 16/08/2025 28 KB Lisa Smart Re: 16/08/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: I think this is the end of your career and that of Hatchet-Faced Woman and Body Odour Man, who tried to have me arrested 31/05/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart RE: BR 25/04/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Tweet 23/04/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Lazy & useless Clark & Roberts 22/04/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: 22/04/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: I am not getting any representation from my LibDem councillors. May I reduce my council tax accordingly 01/03/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: I am telling everyone I know that I suspect Smart/Clark/Roberts are taking bungs over the Padden Brook land. What else would explain their inaction? 27/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Land at Padden Brook 24/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: FoI request 23/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Could you please inform Angela Clark/Mark Roberts of this 21/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Bulldozing close to badgers on legally protected amenity land 21/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: FW: Overturning of a digger close to a public pavement 21/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: FW: Stockport Council ignoring dangerous activity 21/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Dangerous activity Padden Brook, Romiley 20/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Protected amenity land at Padden Brook, Romiley FOIA and EIR request 20/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart RE: Response to question submitted to Werneth Area Committee 11/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: FW: Public Question to the Werneth Area Committee 08/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: Could you please this to my complaint about Smart/Clark/Roberts should you ever bother to deal with it 01/02/2025 27 KB Lisa Smart Re: FW: Not read: Potentially huge liability claim against Stockport Council 09/01/2025 27 KB
From Subject Received Size SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: I no longer need any answers to FoI questions about land-banking, empty homes, policies used to determine Hatherlow Sunday School application with regards to housing 30/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: Padden Brook Amenity Land Romiley SK6 – destruction of unique wildlife habitat 30/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: RE: Complaint about planning committee failing to properly consider traffic issues 30/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: Revoke the Hatherlow Sunday School planning permission 30/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: Revoke the Hatherlow Sunday School planning permission 30/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: RE: Complaint about planning committee failing to properly consider traffic issues 29/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Not read: Padden Brook Amenity Land Romiley SK6 – destruction of unique wildlife habitat 28/08/2024 22 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Automatic reply: Padden Brook Amenity Land Romiley SK6 – destruction of unique wildlife habitat 27/08/2024 36 KB SMART, Lisa (MP) Automatic reply: are you going to block me? 08/07/2024 21 KB
Some residents in Romiley have reported receiving a Stockport Council newsletter in the same post delivery as a Liberal Democrat political leaflet, prompting questions about whether the timing was coincidental or coordinated.
Several households said both items arrived together through the letterbox, leading some to wonder whether council communications and party political material were being distributed at the same time deliberately.
In the UK, local councils are required to remain politically neutral in their official communications. Council newsletters are produced using public funds and are intended to provide information about local services, events, and policy changes affecting residents.
Political parties, meanwhile, regularly distribute their own campaign literature to promote policies, local councillors, or campaign messages. Such leaflets must clearly identify the party responsible and include an imprint stating who printed and promoted the material.
While it is not unusual for multiple items of post to arrive together—particularly where bulk mail deliveries are involved—the coincidence of official council information and party literature landing on doormats at the same time can raise questions for residents about whether any connection exists.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, residents can ask the council to confirm whether any public resources—such as staff time, printing contracts, or mailing lists—were used in connection with political party leaflets. Councils are required to respond to such requests within 20 working days.
At present there is no evidence that council resources were used for political campaigning in Romiley. However, transparency around how publicly funded communications are produced and distributed remains an issue that some residents feel strongly about.
Residents who wish to raise questions can contact Stockport Council’s Freedom of Information team to request further details about council mailings and distribution arrangements.
As always, the Romiley Gazette welcomes readers’ views on local issues affecting the community.
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!
