GEORGE MORHAM WHITE
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 candidates 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 no matter how much their team are out to get any challenging member of the public - 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. 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 you did and why you did it.
This is how to train a child: Children are able to control their bladder and bowels when they're physically ready and when they want to be dry and clean. If that is the case do not move to the Wealden District, and never challenge a Councillor or officer of this council.
Every child is different, so it's best not to compare your child with others.
Bear in mind that most children can control their bowels before their bladder.
According to his 'Proof Of Evidence' dated the 27th of January 1987, George Morham White was the principle planning officer who was taking reports from Thomas William Hoy and most likely reporting to the Members of Wealden District Council's area plans committee in a manner that was designed to ensure that enforcement action was taken, but not based on the factual history of the property concerned, more based on character assassination, when the real issue as to the historic asset were masked, so putting a valuable archaeological find at risk for the next 30 years.
Shame on you Mr White.
Ever been caught with your trousers down
It appears from the evidence gathered over many years, that George White was working with Ian Kay (as assistant district planning officer) later under the leadership of Ashley Brown, Brown who professed to be an amateur archaeologist. We know from Ian Kay's initials on documents going back to 1984 that he was in the background and part of the team - who it appears - had made it their agenda to treat Mr Kruschandl unfavorably culminating in the denial of toilet and washing facilities - despite the fact that statute says that every person in the land is entitled to relieve themselves and keep themselves clean.
It did not begin with toilets, it began with trees. Mr Kruschandl was not to be allowed to trim or remove any trees that would harm the Generating works at Herstmonceux. Other people in the vicinity could of course lop or trim their trees. Is that fair? Hardly. The planning and enforcement team from Wealden pumped up the inconveniences, leading to the toilet episode and David Phillips being flushed with success.
No toilets for Mr Kruschandl. No porcelain and flush, no washbasin with running water and no showers. No. Nelson Kruschandl would have to urinate and perform other just as urgent relief's into a hedge and wash in buckets Victorian style or as you may have been treated in Nazi Germany if you were a Jew. You may ask how such a thing can happen in a modern society? We thought the same, but in fact institutionalized discrimination is nothing new. The Metropolitan Police have been found guilty of it a number of times and so has the NHS.
Councils have also been found guilty of discrimination. Wealden have Knowledge of the decision given in the Bristol County Court in Kelly Davis Versus Wansdyke District Council which was decided before Judge David Ticehurst, as reported in the Times Law Report on the 19th November 2001 £790,000 pay out for race case builder.
Discrimination is something that all councils do their best to hide. It begins at Parish council level, where those in the fold gain consents. Being in the fold may be a relationship with a local builder or landowner - that is not declared. A pattern begins to emerge where other applicants using the wrong contractors are not given consent. Local farmers of standing tend to benefit. New farmers coming into the area do not - and so on.
Strange patterns may emerge where normal duties are ignored. Councils think that nobody will recognise any pattern. They try to prevent the public from taking agenda papers, because they might look back at other decisions and wonder about a decision when comparing it to another.
It may be that some officers, though highly qualified in planning principles, have forgotten what the ordinary person in the street takes for granted. This malaise seems to affect some learned judges also and for this reason those persons may need to be re-trained. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolutely no toilets for Mr Kruschandl for example and it did not stop there.
COUNCILS WHO TAKE HUMAN RIGHTS LIBERTIES - Here are a couple of props that may be used to train some pre Human Rights (die-hard) officers from continuing to think that what they were told they could get away with until the year 2000 is no longer socially acceptable. The Conservatives don't like having to be reasonable so much they are thinking of abolishing human rights and shipping convicts back out to the colonies. The first thing is to get us out of Europe and round up the Europeans. The British invented concentration camps, not the Germans as you might believe. That is is the kind of thinking that still wafts around in Parliament from time to time and that leads to wanting to rid the country of those rules that we are bound to accept if we were to remain in Europe.
New research by the London School of Economics and the Open Society Justice Initiative shows that during a 12 month period a black person was 29.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. The LSE research, based on government statistics, demonstrates that Britain has the worst international record of discrimination involving stop and search and proves that "racial profiling" is alive and well.
The inquiry about the murder of the black Briton Stephen Lawrence concluded that the investigating police force was institutionally racist. Sir William Macpherson used the term as a description of "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people". Sir William’s definition is almost identical to Stokely Carmichael’s original definition some forty years earlier. Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton 1967 were black power activists and first used the term 'institutional racism' to describe the consequences of a societal structure that was stratified into a racial hierarchy that resulted in layers of discrimination and inequality for minority ethnic people in housing, income, employment, education and health (Garner 2004:22).
In Wealden, discrimination is also rife. If we take The Old Steam House in Lime Park as a central point on a map as a reference and draw a few circles around it at 500 meter increments ....... you will find that a number of new houses have been built and a number of conversions made to residential use. Of course this is not allowed where Mr Kruschandl is concerned. No. Everyone else around him can live and prosper, but at the centre of a hub of development there is a veritable black hole of permitted development, a vacuum to balance the torrent of development surrounding the target individual.
You could always blow the whistle and clear your conscience Mr White. We look forward to hearing your side of the story. We'll print what you want to say, just please come out of the closet and reveal the inner working of Wealden. Here is the skinny on that:
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:”
OLD PALS - Of all the council officers we would most like to question under caution, Ian Kay is at the top of the list. He is known to have given information in person at a committee meeting to determine an application from his father in-law - it appears with the full cooperation of the officer sitting next to him: George White, even though George White knew (and it is on file that he knew) about the relationship of the applicant with his fellow officer. Ian Kay is known to have lied on oath to an Inspector during the public inquiry into the application for a certificate of lawfulness by Mr Hudson. He was involved in the Steamhouse fraud (that is an ongoing matter) where this council intentionally denied the history to keep the property value low and finally he is known to have been involved in the Bushywood demolition and gave false testimony during the public inquiry in that case also, to include devious late service of documents and service of an enforcement notice late in December, when they must have known that Mr and Mrs Punter were away on holiday. The MO is one that we now recognise as designed to disadvantage these members of the public.
Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold
Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
The officers pictured above worked with Ian Kay on several cases, including the Bushy Wood demolition from where this website takes its name. Suspected war criminal, Tony Blair, was the prime minister for much of the time during which WAG frauds were committed. Douglas Moss, a senior planning officer also involved in the mix is not shown here, but is known to still be working for WDC, despite his perjury and assisting David Phillips to commit perjury in the High Court, with reference to an Affidavit sworn by David Phillips in an attempt to get another WAG member struck down for costs and more. That makes Mr Moss and Mr Phillips co-conspirators in the falsification of evidence. Hence, they were involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It remains to be seen who else in Wealden Council's offices were involved in this matter?
The objective in gaining costs awards is to blight the land and in some cases, bankrupt the land owner to be able to scoop it up at bargain basement prices and transfer ownership at an undervalue, typically to a well connected neighbour as a favour.
PROCEEDS OF CRIME - Council officers who tow the party line are not only highly paid civil servants, but also stand to benefit from their involvement with underhanded dealings in planning consents in other geographical regions where there may be a "you scratch my back, and we'll scratch yours" arrangement. On the other hand, it could be that insider knowledge can be used legitimately to obtain consents for houses in the country such as this nice little retreat in an out of the way location, that might be termed green belt to the man in the street. If a council officer is paid cash for favours or receives 'in-kind' inducements for what amounts to fraudulent or even insider dealing and they are convicted, their assets could be seized by way of proceeds of crime. Is it worth it? Yes, power corrupts. It always will and those in positions of power will sometimes be tempted - because they know that others in their ring of power will protect them when the brown stuff hits the fan.
MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as did Ian Kay in the Stream Farm matter), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR).
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
LINKS & REFERENCE
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.