EUROPEAN CONVENTION

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

HOME  |   CASE STUDIES   |   HISTORY  |   LAW   |    POLITICS    |    RIGHTS   |   SITE INDEX

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT - ARTICLE 10

According to Article 10, every person is entitled to think and to receive and impart ideas.  Many years ago, this website was front page news (Sussex Express 2003).  It was reported in a Sussex Express news article that Wealden District Council were taking legal advice as to how to remove this website. 

Clearly, the information on this site is damaging to Wealden District Council and other Council's around England.  But is it? Could it be that by reporting any council's bad behaviour is actually doing them good. We like to think so because if we catch Human Rights abuses soon enough the reporting of the violation provides some kind of damage limitation - that might otherwise get out of control - as in the case of Nelson Kruschandl, where we think we have identified institutionalized discrimination as a lesson to other councils in the UK, not to go down that route. See Wansdyke District Council v Kelly Davis.

ANY MASONS ON YOUR BEAT? - What of Sussex Police. They have been asked if a member of the public can view their Register of Interests, with an especial leaning toward Masons. The real question is: "Do they have such a register?" If they do, will it be accurate - and if so will it reveal the links between complainants where we know that others masons who are civilians have instigated or at least pushed for the prosecution of another civilian that they have fallen out with. So far they are refusing to make the register available on a voluntary basis. Naughty boys!

Our articles are well researched and accurately reported as to the facts to provide the public and councillors with a baseline. Unfortunately, there are goings on that should be properly investigated and the perpetrator(s) brought to justice.

The modern age of communication is a godsend to honest people wanting to share information.  Clearly, the ease with which other persons experiencing planning problems can find our site and identify with the cases reported, is something of concern to Council's and may be their Achilles Heel. Council's hate bad publicity.  They have whole departments with nothing to do but generate good media releases. The last thing they want is for maladministration or misfeasance they thought was buried and forgotten to be brought back into the public domain.

Now, let us consider Wealden's tactics.  They could not come straight out to get our editor.  Well they could have, but they know his rights are protected by Article 10 and we only print the truth - meaning that there would be no case to answer in anything other than some kind of fit-up.  We know they know this because Charlie Lant, their chief executive told the Sussex Express as much of Article 10.

Wealden also know there is already another case where a Court has ruled that such an action would offend against our editor's freedom of expression (or indeed any other contributors rights).  See: Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd 1992 QB 770.

Nelson Says: "Without any doubt Sussex Police are working with Wealden District Council in what can only be described as institutional discrimination, or a modern eugenics agenda"

So, the only way to have a go at our editor for his sterling efforts, was and is via the back door.  It seems to us that Wealden's current steps to interfere in our editors private life, has more to do with their intention to bring down this website, than any legitimate cause of action. Wealden fund the local police and work hand in hand with them in all such matters. In turn, the police work hand in hand with the Ministry of Justice, and that is where things start to get serious. All they need is an allegation to be able to frame a person - if that is what they want to do. The tactics are similar to council planning officers failing to fully advise members as to material considerations. 

Looking at this in the context of a criminal trial, the police need not investigate an allegation that well to deny a defendant evidence for a defence. Other tactics involve employing junk science and giving a claimant time to perfect a story which is obviously flawed, rather than taking a statement immediately a claim is made. It is only when a statement is taken immediately, that a defendant might trace the development of a false allegation.

Both councils and the police use the media for their own purposes and the media become willing participants where the sale of newspapers and scandal are concerned - completely ignoring the right of a defendant to a fair trial. In the past some newspapers have been fined for libel, or coverage which is defamatory in content. Big deal. That is nothing compared being wrongly imprisoned. Newspaper chiefs should be imprisoned for tampering with justice. We need new laws to that effect.

If you have a legitimate complaint about your local authority or the police, evidence of corruption, or maladministration, why not put up a website about it - it is your right and you are protected by Articles 9 and 10 and other Articles as to peaceful protest.  Email us for a link and maybe the growing number of cases will galvanize our politicians to positive action.

SERIOUS FRAUD - Of particular concern in an age where there is a shortage of affordable housing, is the allegations of property value manipulation and malfeasance in public office. This is important where officers of Wealden District Council have lied to their members, the Secretary of State, and failed to declare interests in land because of conflicts of interest - where such matters constitute serious fraud - possibly as defined by the Serious Organised And Police Act 2005. Make no mistake, that when one authority aids and abets the continuation of fraud - by failing to investigate and prosecute, that granting such immunity from prosecution constitutes ORGANISED crime.