The Romiley Gazette

22nd June 2026

NAO report: Estimating and monitoring the costs of building roads in England

National Audit Office (published March 2007)

It looked at motorway and major road schemes in England and found:

• Around £3 billion in cost overruns across nearly 200 road schemes
• Average cost overruns of about 40% on many projects before later adjustments
• Systemic problems with early cost estimates and optimism bias in forecasting
• The Treasury had to revise how it accounted for costs because estimates were consistently too low

A notable line from the findings was essentially that poor cost control across schemes had created a multi-billion pound overspend burden for taxpayers.

26th April 2026

Based on reporting by Nataly Anderson

A controversial new report is raising serious concerns about how family courts handle evidence — and whether decisions affecting children’s lives are sometimes made in spite of it.

In a powerful article titled “Case Notes: When the Evidence is Missing but the Control Remains”, writer and campaigner Nataly Anderson alleges that courts can disregard expert testimony, children’s wishes, and documented safeguarding concerns — while still enforcing life-altering rulings on families.

The piece centres on a deeply personal account of international custody proceedings, where Anderson claims that key evidence — including professional assessments and allegations of coercive behaviour — was sidelined or dismissed. Her central argument is stark: power within the system does not depend on evidence, and can persist even when that evidence is weak, contested, or ignored.

Among the most serious concerns raised are allegations that children were returned to a parent against their clearly expressed wishes, and that court-appointed experts and judicial authorities failed to properly assess or weigh critical information. The article also challenges the use of “parental alienation,” arguing that it is sometimes deployed to discredit abuse allegations and silence protective parents.

The consequences described are not theoretical. The account links court decisions to significant emotional distress in the children involved — including anxiety, fear, and the trauma of enforced separation from a primary caregiver. Concerns are also raised that medical and developmental evidence was not given proper weight in decision-making.

While the article reflects one perspective within a complex legal dispute, it echoes a growing body of criticism directed at family justice systems in the UK and across Europe. Research and lived experience increasingly suggest that victims of abuse may feel minimised or disbelieved in child contact proceedings, while courts prioritise maintaining parental relationships — even where safeguarding concerns are disputed.

Calls for reform are intensifying. Campaigners argue that transparency, accountability, and proper evidential scrutiny are urgently needed — particularly in cases involving allegations of abuse. Others maintain that courts must balance competing claims under difficult conditions.

But the question remains:

If evidence can be ignored, what is left to protect the child?

26th April 2026

A new international call for evidence is shining a spotlight on how women and children are treated in UK courtrooms, raising serious questions about whether mental health labels are being used to undermine credibility in legal proceedings.

The initiative, led by the International Institute for Trauma & Abuse Studies (IITAS), is inviting women aged 18 and over—from anywhere in the world—who have been involved in family, criminal, or private law court cases to share their experiences.

The research focuses on what it describes as the “pathologisation” of women and children, examining how psychiatric language or mental health histories may be used during court proceedings, particularly in sensitive cases such as domestic abuse, sexual violence, stalking, and child protection disputes.

According to the call, the study aims to understand how often such framing occurs and whether it impacts outcomes by affecting how individuals are perceived in court. Organisers say the findings could help inform future legal reform, professional training, and government policy.

Participants are not required to be based in the UK, reflecting the global scope of the research. However, the themes raised are likely to resonate locally, as family court processes and safeguarding cases remain a key concern for many residents across areas like Romiley and the wider Stockport borough.

The project highlights ongoing debate within legal and advocacy circles about balancing mental health considerations with fair treatment in court, and whether current systems adequately protect vulnerable individuals.

Those interested in contributing can find more information and take part via the IITAS website.

As discussions around justice, safeguarding, and fairness continue, this latest initiative adds to growing calls for closer scrutiny of how courts handle some of the most complex and sensitive cases in society.

24th April 2026

A pair of council by-elections this week has delivered a sobering reality check for the Liberal Democrats, with disappointing performances in both Salford and Cornwall highlighting ongoing difficulties in maintaining relevance beyond traditional strongholds.

In Salford City Council’s Barton & Winton ward, the party once again failed to make an impact, securing just 94 votes (4.9%) in a contest dominated by the surging Reform UK, which narrowly took the seat from Labour Party.

The by-election itself was overshadowed by controversy, coming just weeks before scheduled local elections and following the death of long-serving councillor David Lancaster MBE. However, turnout collapsed to a meagre 17.82%, underlining widespread voter disengagement—and offering little comfort to a Liberal Democrat campaign that failed to cut through.

While Labour’s dramatic drop in support drew headlines, the Liberal Democrats’ continued inability to capitalise on such volatility will raise deeper concerns within the party. Finishing behind not only Labour and Reform but also the Green Party of England and Wales and the Conservatives, the result reinforces a pattern of marginalisation in many northern urban areas.

The picture was equally troubling in Cornwall Council, where the Liberal Democrats entered the Newquay Porth & Tretherras by-election in a relatively strong second-place position. Expectations of a serious challenge quickly unravelled as the party slipped to fourth place, overtaken not only by the Greens but also by an Independent candidate.

Despite historically stronger performances in parts of Cornwall, the Liberal Democrats saw their vote share fall by nearly 10 percentage points to just 16.3%. The result leaves the party trailing a fragmented field, with Reform UK retaining the seat and smaller challengers carving out significant support.

What emerges from both contests is a growing concern for the Liberal Democrats: while parties like Reform UK and the Greens appear able to rely on a consistent baseline of support, the Liberal Democrats increasingly depend on highly targeted campaigning just to remain competitive. Where that infrastructure falters, so too do results.

The broader trend suggests a shifting political landscape in which traditional assumptions no longer hold. In Cornwall, the two historically dominant parties—Labour and the Conservatives—finished fifth and sixth respectively, an extraordinary outcome that underscores the fragmentation of the vote. Yet even in this volatility, the Liberal Democrats were unable to position themselves as the primary alternative.

With further elections looming, these results will likely prompt difficult questions about strategy, messaging, and whether the party can rebuild a durable national base rather than relying on isolated pockets of strength.

For now, the message from voters appears clear: in an increasingly crowded political field, the Liberal Democrats are struggling to be heard.

24th April 2026

Concerns are being raised across the country over the past legal work of Richard Hermer, with critics questioning how it relates to the treatment of British military veterans.

Before his appointment by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer worked as a barrister involved in cases connected to allegations against UK troops during the Iraq War. Many of these cases were brought through mechanisms such as the now-defunct Iraq Historic Allegations Team.

While some investigations identified wrongdoing, a significant number of claims were later withdrawn or dismissed, leading to strong criticism from veterans and their supporters. Campaigners argue that the process placed undue stress on service personnel, many of whom faced years of uncertainty over allegations that did not ultimately lead to prosecution.

Veterans’ groups have long maintained that the system allowed unsubstantiated claims to proceed too far, damaging morale and reputations. For them, the issue is not simply legal process, but the principle of standing by those who served.

“People who put their lives on the line for this country shouldn’t be left fighting legal battles years later over claims that don’t stand up,” said one local resident with family ties to the armed forces.

Supporters of Lord Hermer point out that barristers act on behalf of clients within the framework of the law and do not determine the validity of claims themselves. They argue that legal scrutiny—even when uncomfortable—is part of maintaining high standards and accountability.

However, critics remain unconvinced, saying the balance has tipped too far against those who served. The debate has reignited calls for stronger protections for veterans against what some describe as “lawfare” stemming from overseas conflicts.

In Romiley, the issue has struck a chord with many residents, reflecting a wider national sentiment that while accountability matters, so too does fairness to those who served on the front line.

As discussions continue, the question remains a difficult one: how to uphold the rule of law while ensuring that British veterans are not subjected to prolonged and ultimately unfounded legal challenges.

24th April 2026

Comments by former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies have sparked renewed debate over fairness, inclusion, and how community sport events record participation.

Davies, a long-time advocate for female-only sporting categories, criticised the UK’s Parkrun system in a widely shared social media post. She argued that because Parkrun UK publishes times and finishing places, it functions as a competitive event and should therefore include clearly defined categories.

Among her suggestions were the introduction of additional categories for transgender participants and a reinstatement of records, alongside maintaining a distinct category for women based on biological sex.

Parkrun events, which take place weekly in parks across the country—including Greater Manchester—are free, volunteer-led 5km runs designed to encourage participation rather than competition. While finishing times are recorded, organisers have consistently described the initiative as inclusive and community-focused.

The issue of categorisation in sport has become increasingly prominent in recent years, particularly following discussions around gender identity and fairness in competition. Supporters of Davies’ position argue that sex-based categories are necessary to ensure equal opportunities for women, especially in activities involving physical performance.

Others, however, emphasise the importance of inclusion and accessibility. Advocates for current policies say Parkrun’s model allows people of all backgrounds and identities to take part without barriers, which is key to its success in encouraging grassroots participation.

Davies also raised questions about public funding, noting that government support for grassroots sport has, in part, aimed to increase female participation—something she believes requires clearer measurement through defined categories.

Locally, opinions among Romiley residents appear divided. Some runners expressed support for maintaining simple, inclusive participation, while others said they would welcome clearer categories for tracking performance.

“It’s about why people take part,” said one regular runner. “For most, it’s personal fitness and community—not competition.”

Another added, “But if results are published, then fairness does matter to some people. It’s not an easy balance.”

As debates over sport, identity, and fairness continue nationwide, Parkrun remains one of the UK’s most popular grassroots initiatives—bringing thousands together each weekend, even as questions about how best to balance inclusion and competition remain unresolved.

21st April 2026

Talk of rejoining the EU — and even the euro — is back on the table, but critics say the latest Liberal Democrat arguments are long on idealism and short on reality.

Fresh calls from Liberal Democrat circles to rejoin the European Union are already facing sharp scrutiny, with opponents arguing the proposals ignore both political reality and the lessons of the past.

An article circulated on Lib Dem platforms makes the case for renewed EU membership, downplaying complex economic arguments in favour of broad claims about growth and cooperation. But critics say this approach glosses over the very real difficulties that defined Britain’s previous membership — and could make any return far more complicated than advocates admit.

Among the most contentious points is the suggestion that rejoining the single market would deliver clear economic benefits. Detractors argue this is far from guaranteed, pointing out that Britain’s earlier time in the bloc was marked by budget disputes, unpopular policies like the Common Agricultural Policy, and long-running disagreements over contributions.

There are also warnings that any attempt to rejoin would come with significant strings attached. Unlike before, the UK would be applying as a new member — requiring unanimous approval from all existing EU states. That opens the door to demands that could prove politically toxic at home, including potential pressure to adopt the euro.

For many, that alone would be a red line. Handing over monetary control to the European Central Bank remains deeply unpopular with large sections of the British public, and critics argue that any political movement ignoring this reality risks repeating the same disconnect that fuelled Brexit in the first place.

The article itself appears to shift ground, ultimately conceding that the case for rejoining may be more political than economic. It highlights cooperation on defence and shared “European values” as stronger arguments — but again, opponents say this raises further questions about sovereignty and control.

There is also scepticism about how such a policy would be delivered democratically. With Brexit decided by referendum, many argue that any move to reverse it would require a similar public vote — something that remains uncertain in current proposals.

More broadly, critics see the renewed push as part of a wider pattern: a return to arguments that failed to convince voters before, now repackaged with less detail and greater reliance on broad claims of benefit.

With public opinion still divided and trust in political institutions fragile, the suggestion that rejoining the EU could be straightforward — or widely accepted — is already being challenged.

For now, the Liberal Democrats’ vision may appeal to committed pro-Europeans. But beyond that core support, it risks being seen as politically tone-deaf — and detached from the realities of both past experience and present public sentiment.