POTTY TRAINING - Using a potty correctly may be a new skill for your planning team to learn if they keep missing the bowl or forgetting to flush, wet the bed, or maybe even fumble the paperwork. Being patient and firm with them will help them get it right eventually, even if they sometimes feel frustrated. They should be taught that every person in the land is entitled to receive and impart information as a basic Human Right under the provisions of Article 10. This is no matter how much their legal team are out to keep planning consents a closed shop. And yes, we know how irritating it is to be caught out consistently by some members of the public - and yes of course that makes you hate that/those members of the public more - leading you into trying another dirty trick in revenge. But will that lead to more spillages being uncovered? The answer to all bed-wetting is to be persistent and gently keep those in positions of trust from straying too far from statute.
It was the Wealden Action Group (WAG) that forced this Council to make recordings of their own meetings, when on the 14th of September 2000, Nelson Kruschandl attended an Area Plans South committee meeting and openly recorded that session with members of the press present. Councillor Colonel Brian Hubbard was the chairman of the committee at the time.
Although full disclosure can be ordered by any Court in relation to suspected misuse of public funds, in light of this council's history of human rights violations, it might be prudent for members of the public to exercise their Article 10 right to receive information. In this manner you can compare the recording that Wealden has supplied with the recording that you have made to see if their version has been tampered with. We would suggest ordering their version in any event.
You should be aware that when exercising this human right, you do not need permission from the authority that you are seeking to expose. If you have to seek permission, it is of course no longer a right - and the Act says that it is a right. To warn them of your intention may harm the outcome where you need to catch these animals (as in nature) unaware that they are being filmed to witness their true colours.
The then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, encouraged members of the public to make video recordings of meetings in the interests of furthering transparent local government - and this was widely reported in the media.
Ever been caught with your trousers down? Evidence of discriminatory practices is rife in Wealden District Council.
FAO: Martyn Garrett
Fax Ref. 01892 602222
Your Ref. MGG/JC/WD/03/2776/F
Thank you for your letter dated 13 September 2004.
Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Chris (tine) Arnold
Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
ACCUSATION - The above letter from Martyn Garrett was sent to Mr Chester Hudson, the member of the Wealden Action Group who personally drove to Bristol to lodge an appeal application in the case of the Bushy Wood animal sanctuary demolition.
He is not the only member of the public who has experienced difficulty in delivering information to Councillors and his investigations are carried out with the highest levels of integrity as being a prerequisite when dealing with potential corruption in local councils. We would challenge Mr Garrett to provide the name and address of the Councillor that he claims lost papers on that day. Who is the complainant and what did they purport to lose? We might them ask the Member what he lost, or was his name being used as a ruse to put members of the public off from speaking with councillors - who this Council do not want to have contact with the public on any case where their officers may have an interest.
Mr Hudson routinely visits Wealden's offices, sometimes with witnesses. He does this because of the perjury committed by Ian Kay during a Public Inquiry, when Kay was giving evidence under oath and denying knowledge of an aerial photograph that came from his personal file. Kay of course did not know that Mr Hudson would look through this Council's records after the hearing, and did not know that the hearing was being recorded for the purpose of ensuring that any untruths put forward by Wealden's planning and legal officers would be captured. Ian Kay was caught red handed.
Two other members of the public who have been prevented from access to the members of this Council are Lawrie Trill concerning the threat of removal of his agricultural machinery by David Phillips without any hearing at all, contrary to Article 6, and Nelson Kruschandl in connection with lobbying of the members as to the lies being perpetuated at that time as to the origins of the old electricity generating station at Herstmonceux.
In Mr Trill's case the members did take on board what was in the letters sent to them that Geoff Johnson removed from the Area Plans South committee room and handed back. So there Geoff : ) The members did not allow Mr Phillips to abuse the Human Rights of Lawrie Trill on that occasion.
In Mr Kruschandl's case this Council refused to take in letters addressed to the members in sealed envelopes for placing in their correspondence boxes. So much for representation of the people in Wealden. This Council are looking and working more and more like Adolf Hitler's dictator regime with Heinrich Himmler and their Storm Troopers. "Ve vill ask der questions."
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), where police constable Bowden failed in his duty to protect a member of the public.
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.