MRS BEVERLY J BOAKES
Beverley Boakes is a well-paid legal officer working for Wealden and Rother district councils. These councils are said by many member of the public to be two of the most devious and corrupt, so must employ solicitors who will tow the party line and in some cases, lie for their councils. Both Wealden and Rother use similar methods to cover the tracks of a murky past involving institutional corruption and discriminatory policies at a high level, with holidays abroad for senior staff (including tickets for their spouses) paid for by the taxpayer.
It may be that Mrs Boakes is a Trustee for a local Girl Guides or Brownies charity at Burwash, but we are waiting for confirmation on that, unless Mrs B would care to comment and clear this one up?
Zurich Insurance plc is a public limited company incorporated in Ireland. Registration No. 13460.Registered Office: Zurich House, Ballsbridge Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. The UK Branch is registered in England and Wales Registration No. BR7985. UK Branch Head Office: The Zurich Centre, 3000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire PO15 7JZ. Zurich Municipal is part of the Zurich Insurance Group, and one of the leading providers of risk and insurance solutions to Local Authorities, Schools, Charities and the Social Housing sector.
Zurich Insurance plc is authorised by Central Bank of Ireland and authorised and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. Details about the extent of our authorisation by the
Financial Conduct Authority are available on request. Our FCA Firm Reference Number is 203093.
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
We are following the investigations of some members of the public who are willing to provide us with copies of documents that they uncover, or find that certain incriminating documents are systematically being destroyed.
Where there is a live enforcement file, Mr Hudson is correct in his assertion that evidence that has been sent to the council that tends to suggest that the council is wrong about something or has used character assassination to sway a committee or mislead them and the Secretary of State as to material planning considerations, then that information must remain on file for any investigating officers.
In this case where we suspect that certain officials at the top are doing their level best to destroy such evidence, via an agenda to systematically weed out the inconvenient truths, Beverly Boakes has replied to a series of letters by a concerned member of the public to confirm such a policy is in place.
The point here is that in December of 2016 David Whibley was asked to review the enforcement file relating to the Old Steam House at Herstmonceux in Sussex, because it appears from arguments that raged back and forth between Victorio Scarpa as a solicitor to this council and the planning department (including Ashley Brown, David Phillips, George White and Ian Kay) that they knew that their enforcement notice was/is defective way back in time and yet still used the Notice to procure funds from Central Government to pursue an agenda designed to procure a property for and on behalf of near neighbours at an undervalue. Wealden District Council and their officer were thus acting as agents for neighbours in an operation that we think any person would agree was/is institutionalized discrimination gone mad. Be in no doubt that trying to disenfranchise one property owner or occupier is favour of another person is illegal.
This agenda is no different to the Lewes council officers who were buying up property from the old and frail and then grabbing it cheap when they croaked.
That agenda was and is both fraudulent and discriminatory. Any person who helps Wealden and the responsible executive officers to cover up the attempted fraud is guilty of an offence under the Accessories and Abettors Act of 1861, where they become an accessory to the crime.
It therefore appears that Mrs Boakes is in some measure implicated unless she is willing to tell us who gave her or her department the instruction to destroy such files and when that instruction was given! We would also like to know the identity of the officer or officers who drafted a Contravention Notice (incorrectly) aimed at Mr Nelson Kruschandl - who has been a long-term target for the council, not least because he shares information in transparent fashion for publication on this website and other media.
That is the trouble with telling the truth in an area of Sussex where cover-ups are routine. The council concerned targets you again and again, in doing so digging themselves even deeper into the mire. All the while spending legitimate ratepayer's money pursuing a malicious course of conduct. Eventually, cases like this end up getting an airing in court, such as the case of Kelly Davis V Wansdyke District Council, where discrimination by this council led to a payout of £790,000. With such sums at stake, officers caught up in the conspiracy will do almost anything to keep their jobs for another few years, to milk the system while the going is good.
It is not possible that an intelligent officer like Beverley Boakes would not know when her council was acting above the law. Not once she has read this page and the other pages that this page links to - and we know that she and other officers of this council are reading them regularly.
You are more than welcome to justify your actions Mrs Boakes. We will print any comment you would care to make. Remaining silent will be taken as an admission by ourselves, and we are sure, any other person reading about these antics. Did you know about the toilet case in the High Court? As a legal officer you must know that the Health & Safety Regulations mean that every person in the United Kingdom is entitled to a porcelain bowl and washing facilities.
COUNCIL OFFICIAL SAID: "MOVE YOUR HOME AND WE'LL SAVE YOUR STABLES"
February 26th 1997 - Ian Kay at the helm once more with the usual supporting cast of David Phillips and Vic Scarpa, using their positions of trust within WDC to bulldoze stables that were lawful at the time, and on appeal, held to be lawfully used. This council deliberately served documents near the Christmas holidays to undermine the rights of the owners Mr & Mrs Punter to a fair hearing. On this occasion the late service tactic was frowned upon at appeal and costs were awarded to the appellants. If any council pulls that dirty trick on you our advice is to cite this case and ask for costs. Or, better still, make a Human Rights claim for the council concerned violating your right to a fair hearing as is a right under Article 6.
POTTY TRAINING - Using a potty may be a new skill for your planning team to learn. It's best to take it slowly and go at your candidate's pace, about the same pace as a child should do the trick. Being patient with them will help them get it right, even if they sometimes feel frustrated. They should be taught that every person is entitled to a toilet as per Article 14 no matter how much their team are out to get any challenging member of the public such as Mr Kruschandl - and yes we know how irritating it is to be caught out - and yes of course that makes you hate that member of the public more - so that you try another dirty trick and then an even dirtier trick until misfeasance becomes malfeasance. So, if you are going to plan a vendetta, be sure that you don't get caught with your trousers down. Bury your target good and proper - or he or she may come back to haunt you with the inconvenient truth and reveal what your council did and why they did it - and worst of all - your part in the whole sorry affair. Think then of blowing the whistle. It may be your only way out. Blow it sooner rather than later. Is your job worth living with this level of corruption?
MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
When an officer of the court omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office even though it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as it may prove to be the case with the missing documents), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence under common law. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR).
GUIDES TRUSTEE - Charity Number: 305836 - Date Registered: 1964-01-13
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996 & PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE ACT 1998
You may be aware of the tenets of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (Whistleblowing) in respect of victimisation if as a result of reporting any matter to your Council as per “Part IVA Protected disclosures:”
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
LINKS & REFERENCE
Kelvin Williams, Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin
Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.