What action has been taken following Crown Court Judge's criticsim of Stockport Council?

Perhaps a copy of this correspondence needs to go to the Judge concerned, with the request that he elaborates?

Are Stockport Local Taxpayers really paying for Ms Naven to do this, or do Town Hall employees and Councillors get together to sub her from their own pockets?

I have it on very good authority, the late and wonderful Mike Wacker, that Ms Naven is a very nice person, which I tried to tell her once. As with the security guards at the town hall protester's trial, the generals in charge at Stockpport Council cause all the problems then leave the footsoldiers to take the rap for them. Fortunately, the Crown Court judge was fully aware where the blame lay and made his feelings crystal clear.

I don't blame Ms Naven for anything that is going on in Stockport.

Shiela

Usually, when a Public Authority or Reputable Company does something wrong, they will go to GREAT lengths to put the matter right and to ensure it doesn't happen again as a LESSONS LEARNED. Unfortunately, the SBC and the DCC do not recognize this ethos.

Therefore,if security,transparency and accountability measures are NOT seen to be working ,it is because they AINT WORKING.

Can children/families who might have suffered from the actions of Councillors/Employees at Stockport sue the pants off the individuals concerned, who have

1. denied them their legal right of access to records,

2. denied them their legal right to accurate records,

3. denied them their legal right to having inaccurate records put right,

4. denied them their legal right to records which do not have large 'retracted' (that means covered up/hidden)parts, where it seems 'professionals' might just have misrepresented the fact (assuming they might know what a fact was),

5. denied them their legal right to fair and honest dealings especially in respect of children and families.

Or do they just have to claim back the large personal debts through Small Claims Court against those individuals?

After all, there is a set down remit for every job at the Council, isn't there?

Where 'professionals' refuse to abide by that job remit, surely there should be some redress?

Perhaps a Class Action would be best?

It could be taken out personally, against the lowliest person who had acted unlawfully: who could then refer it up; and up; and up; and across to where the most senior person had fled to - for better money and to clean his tracks - taking in several other councils along the way, who might need to be informed of such a legal Class Action?

I wonder if that would be a possibility?

Perhaps Ms Naven might consider putting herself forward to start the ball rolling?

I think she would be in a fine position to be the leader of such a Class Action. She must know a lot.

Over to you, Ms Naven.

Mrs Peters-Rock

I was at the council meeting where the Executive councillors voted for financial immunity for themselves, and that went through on the nod, I can tell you!

The Council's insurers don't have to cover illegal or reckless behaviour, so I assume the relevant panjandrums would themselves be financially liable in certain circumstances.

Of course, I am just a typist and not a lawyer.

Kind regards
Sheila