http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to...

For repeatedly bringing the above atrocity to the attention of Stockport Council (and I still have about four years of abuse to document) I was branded vexatious and a waster of public money by Stockport Council. Incomprehensibly, and after an inordinate length of time, Mr Michael Warburton of the ICO agreed with Stockport Council, despite my having provided him with documentary evidence of financial irregularities of cirac £5 million and proof that I was correct in stating that they were proposing to put 550 primary school pupils and 78 babies on undremediated toxic waste - lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. A truly strange conclusion for Mr Warburton to have come to - that raising these issues is vexatious.

I think Ms Cragg should now take steps to rectify Mr Warburton's apparent mistake. And, no dragging those ICO feet for several years as is standard procedure, as the children's body bags might stack up.

The latest, apart from the police's safety concerns, is the blocked ventilation shafts. This school was built on a still gassing former toxic waste dump. Blocked ventilation shafts at such a primary school need immediate attention.

The brown asbestos was incorrectly removed and due to Mr. Warburton's incomprehensible decision, Stockport Council was able to ignore my protests about this danger to children. Two bored blokes with a bin bag and a stick remove tiny lethal fibres - one doesn't even understand the serious nature of his task, as he takes his own respiratior off:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Twenty years down the line, those poor children will be disabled with lung disease or dead due to mesothelioma.

We will see how seriously Ms Cragg treats this matter and if I were her I would refer it upward to the ICO Board, as they might eventually be paying huge damages for this.

Under the Defamation Act 1996 I give the ICO the opportunity to offer to make amends.

A person who has published a statement alleged to be defamatory of another may offer to make amends. The offer may be in relation to the statement generally or in relation to a specific defamatory meaning which the person making the offer accepts that the statement conveys.

An offer to make ammends is an offer to make a suitable correction of the statment complained of and a sufficient apology to the aggrieved party and to publish the correction and apology in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances....

The ICO has publicly defamed me by stating I was vexatious in raising these issues. May I respectfully suggest that the ICO obtains a statement from Stockport Council admitting it deceived the ICO, and then the ICO publish a public correction of the defamatory statement.

I look foward to hearing from you.

Sheila

I have today provided Ms Cragg with documentary evidence regarding the police's safety concerns and regarding the non-functioning ventilation shafts (on a building on still gassing former tip - let's hope the methane doesn't start to build up or whoomph -kids' limbs everywhere!)

It will be interesting to see what action, if any, Ms Cragg takes.

Sheila