KELVIN WILLIAMS - WDC PLANNING DEPT.
The above volume tells of the heartache and hardship, the frustrations of knowing that you are right about something, but where all of those around you believing that you are are not. Many would have crumbled and faded away. Nelson has taken his time and collected the evidence. He has turned the other cheek until he finally has enough to hang the perpetrators of the injustice. He says, "The higher they build their mountain, the stronger I become."
Kelvin Williams is the head of Planning and Environmental Services at Wealden District Council. We do not know how many years he has been working for this council, nor how long he has been the head of planning, but like many of his fellow officers, he appears to be frightened of exposure in that there are no published pictures of him on this Council's website. Why might that be? Surely, if you hold a position in public office, you should operate transparently and be proud of your achievements. The public have a right to know who they are paying to do what. It is called accountability. Councils are accountable to the electorate. That is mostly you who are reading this page. The fact that this Council do not publish pictures of their officers is proof that they have no intention of acting in good faith - and in preparation of being caught out now and again, elect to work anonymously. SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY!
As head of planning in the Wealden District, Mr Williams will know that he has a responsibility to build trust with the public based on being fair and reasonable. In a modern world of Google and Yahoo search engines, impropriety in a backwater like Wealden is read all over the world. Any hint of corruption will soon spread distrust on himself and his department, if when an error is identified, he fails to take steps to correct that error. Obstinacy, or unreasonable refusal to own up to mistakes in case handling will also reflect badly on his council, bringing them into disrepute.
As an officer of the court Williams has as a duty to ensure that information presented to the Secretary of State at appeals, and/or subsequent higher tribunals, is accurate, such as not to fall foul of the Fraud Act 2006. As of 2014 Mr Williams is accused of obstructing and so perverting the course of justice by way of perpetuating a falsehood.
He has been asked to revisit his Council's criminal deceptions regarding Herstmonceux Museum. The Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, has written to the informant, Mr Kruschandl to explain that this is a matter for Wealden DC to check-out and correct. Have they done so? Not on your life, they appear to be running for cover. Why so? Why not simply correct information in their files, and strike out any documents based on inaccurate assumptions.
Mr Kruschandl has provided his information to us as both informant and whistle blower, also to a number of other agencies and media reporters. If you are with the Press and would like sight of documents, etc., please contact us. This council are likely to seek to pressurize Kruschandl to try and stop him revealing the facts. This is the standard operating procedure of most councils when they are caught out and feel that the individual concerned wants the truth to be known.
As many readers of this site will know, we have been covering a long running dispute between Nelson Kruschandl and Wealden District Council. Newly entering the fray in 2014, it appears that Kelvin Williams is writing letters to Mr Kruschandl (above left) as though he was the head of paid services. We find that rather odd. As we have said before elsewhere - to know about officers that have broken the law of the land, and to continue to allow those officers to work in positions of trust in a local authority, implicates all of the staff that allow that situation to continue without blowing the whistle. Blowing the whistle is your duty. We think you may enjoy reading how this Council treated Nelson Kruschandl, who fortunately kept detailed files because he felt this Council could not be trusted to tell the truth - and indeed, from reading of the documents and listening to the recordings, we have formed a similar opinion, that is our right to impart to you the reader, even where this Council will not want such views expressed in public. See: Handyside V UK 1 EHRR December 1976 Series A No. 24
Council's may not employ anyone with a criminal record. If follows that they cannot employ anyone they know who has committed a criminal act or who acts dishonestly during the course of carrying our their duties. It is alleged that evidence to prove allegations concerning David Phillips and J D Moss, is already in this council's archives, but that now that this council are refusing to investigate internally, the matter is to be referred to the Sussex Police (who will no doubt turn a blind eye) thence to an outside force. See the replies from Kruschandl to Williams below. In 2004, Wealden accepted in writing that criticism of themselves as a corporate body is legitimate. See the extract of a Consent Order in Case No: SD16 of 2003. This Order was signed by Daniel Goodwin.
Any officer of this council not blowing the whistle, is likely to come under suspicion for malfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution. That is because if you know that your council has presented false information to an Inspector at an Appeal, that important fact nullifies any decision reached - in this case a decision made between 1986 and 1987 by an Inspector who relied on information from this council's witnesses in their capacity as officers of the court. Any deception in a court situation is potential perjury, or the alternative, an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
You can see now why it is so important that councils employ officers that are above reproach in carrying out their duties. This is especially so where denial of a right to use property for residential or business use will cause the affected person a financial loss. For example if you have purchased a property expecting a reasonable and beneficial use, but then are denied that/those uses, then either income generated from rentals, or the inability to enjoy own use - constitutes a loss (peaceful enjoyment)
To proceed to use an instrument obtained in error or by deception - to prevent peaceful enjoyment, is a fraud upon a power, no matter if it was innocent maladministration or the more damning, deception. In either case invoking the Fraud Act 2006. Since, failing to correct or strike a defective document once it has been brought to your attention; is of course fraud by omission. See section 4 of the Fraud Act below.
FRAUD ACT 2006
Section 4 - Fraud by abuse of position [such as a planning or police officer]
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —
dishonestly abuses that position, and
intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
to make a gain for himself or another, or
to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A person may be regarded as having
abused his position
even though his conduct consisted of an
omission rather than an act.
Parliament introduced the Fraud Act in 2006 because they knew that there were many cases where officials were failing to do their jobs to the high standard that being an officer of the court requires. There is an obligation under Article 13 to provide an effective remedy, but in the UK we don not have Article 13 in our Human Rights Act 1998 - a deliberate move by Her Majesty's Government to avoid the consequences of mountains of civil servant and court slip ups. The Fraud Act was designed to plug that gap in part and prevent more build up of the "mountain" of fraudulent acts that they knew were taking place on a daily basis.
Section 10 extract of a Consent Order in Case No: SD16 of 2003, in the Eastbourne County Court. This is an Agreement between Nelson Kruschandl and Wealden District Council, that Mr Kruschandl alleges this council have breached concerning recognition of and the future of Herstmonceux Museum. Certain documents have been provided to us so that we can say to you that these documents are genuine.
MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
Plainly, if any officer of Wealden, or any other Council is found to be covering up misfeasance in public office, the act of covering up the lesser wrong (tort), turns that wrong into malfeasance by virtue of the Fraud Act 2006, although the principle was established in common law after R v Bowden and R v Dytham - it is now enshrined in statute. Thus, the local police authority are obliged to prosecute any offenders,
but at the moment the Sussex Police appear to have granted their chums at Wealden immunity from prosecution - much as it was alleged in 1997-1999 by the Wealden Action Group (WAG), that 12 cases put forward for investigation to a special panel - including Lord Newton - had been dealt with in criminally irresponsible fashion.
In that WAG complaint, Lord Newton as spokesperson for the "panel" found that the seriousness of the complaints should be the subject of investigation by the Sussex Police. Presumably, have stated so publicly, those cases were handed to the Police - but not one of the 12 informants were contacted by the Police for a statement or other supporting evidence. In other words in Sussex where 12 people report a crime relating to Wealden District Council - the Police will do nothing. That smacks of Masonic influence. What other reason can there be for a whole police force to sit on their hands?
THE LAW - OR RATHER LACK OF LAW
The law is though clear, where an instrument was obtained by deception some time ago and limitations may have applied, if that instrument is being used today, then the method by which the instrument was obtained may be the subject of a criminal investigation under the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006. In other words a fraud committed before enactment of the Fraud Act 2006, may be looked at under the provisions of that Act, because the fraud is being committed anew (perpetuated) in 2014.
Kelvin Williams is the latest Wealden officer to come under suspicion in terms of malicious prosecution and malfeasance in public office. Naturally, we hope that he will not get caught up in the years of malicious actions that Kruschandl claims was nothing less than a vendetta against him and his family.
Sussex Police are once again invited to investigate - but Kruschandl says that they will do their level best to do nothing at all, because of his membership in the Wealden Action Group - which inaction, makes Sussex Police party to the crime as per R v Bowden 1995 and R v Dytham - and now Section 4(2) of the Fraud Act 2006. There is though no law if the local police will not investigate because they are themselves party to the cover up. In such cases there should perhaps be a National Anti Fraud Task Force. How about it Mrs Prime Minister? Theresa May has been copied in on the latest correspondence.
It is a criminal offence to know of a possible crime, but not to investigate it. Having read this page, Kelvin, you must then do something about it, not just seek to discredit Mr Kruschandl. It is no longer acceptable to turn a blind eye. See the extract of the Fraud Act above and seek your own independent legal advice - then blow the whistle.
Kruschandl tells us that he has seen the closed session Enforcement reports to the then area plans Committee, dating from 1984-85. He explained to us that the decision to enforce was largely based on the officers assassinating him personally - as in character assassination - when they considered personal matters that were prohibited in law from being considered - but of course it was a closed session and Kruschandl knew nothing about that until much later. It should have been the history attaching to the building that was a planning consideration, not who owned that building.
Manipulation of facts that are relevant are cleverly intertwined with other irrelevant factors to prejudice gullible members in such a way that they are actually refusing a planning consent for all the wrong reasons. Councillors need to educated as to what is and is not admissible during their deliberations. Unfortunately, most members become so used to mixing of information that it becomes second nature to them to hear the dirt on an applicant, rather than genuine planning issues.
DELEGATED POWERS - A LICENSE TO KILL
Having a committee consider a matter is at least in theory a layer of public protection that the delegated scheme does not provide. In the delegated scheme dishonest planning officers can write their own ticket with no checks or balances. Check out what happens for real during a committee meeting with the extract from June 1998 below.
The general mindset of this council came through loud and clear in a meeting that was secretly recorded on the 25th of June 1998, a transcript of which was copied to Christine Arnold last year 2013, but about which she did nothing and did not reply to Mr Kruschandl even to acknowledge receipt. Kruschandl says that: "I have given this Council every opportunity to put things right, but it is obvious they want a another fight. This is despite the cost to the taxpayer and our worsening national debt. By way of typical civil servant perversity, they would rather cut off their nose to spite their face." :
TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY 25th JUNE 1998 - WD/98/0996/F
It is clear from these comments in open session in June of 1998, that the Members of this Council have been consistently lied to as to the history attaching to this valuable historic find. Chezel Bird was a hired gun paid to support this councils officers. She was wrong about the historical significance of the building - but that did not stop David Phillips using that misinformation to back up his chum Vic Scarpa.
When or how a person implements a planning consent is not a material consideration. Vic Scarpa has introduced it as a planning consideration. Mr Scarpa was a senior solicitor with this council at the time - also an officer of the court duty bound to apply the law fairly and impartially. The fact that all of these officers worked together to pull off what amounts to fraud - is why we say this was a vendetta.
It is clear from this transcript (a digital recording of which was sent to every member of the Committee present on CD, including Cllr Hubbard - the Chairman) that this Council's were basing decisions on an illusion (fantasy) created by their own officers.
During this meeting David Phillips effectively continues the deception that this council began when they duped Inspector Dannreuther. They paid good tax dollars to a conservation consultant to hide the truth - in the process going from misfeasance to malfeasance in public office.
A building is not put on a Monument Protection Programme without being of significance historically. The fact that David Phillips is able to quote sections from an earlier Decision Letter, also tells us that he had the time and reason to research this matter properly with agencies such as English Heritage - but omitted to do so. That though, is required of him [planning officers generally] according to Government Guidance at the time as seen in PPG15 and PPG16 (now seen in S.128 of National Framework Policy).
An omission of such magnitude in such a long running issue - can only be seen in the context of The Fraud Act 2006 - and in that the omission is deliberate, we are looking at malfeasance in public office - rather that the lesser offence of misfeasance. The failure to admit the errors and put things right when asked to do so, constitutes an ongoing and malicious prosecution.
The Applicant in 1998, Nelson Kruschandl, confirmed to us that the consultant is Chezel Bird. He revealed that she did visit the site and the County Archives in Lewes, but appears to have ignored all the evidence that she was looking at as a trained historian to include the extensive emplacements that were built to mount generating machinery, etc.
Is is not strange that Archaeology South East and the Sussex Industrial Archeology Society had no trouble at all identifying these artifacts? Kruschandl told us that Douglas Moss was at the time more than just a colleague of Chezel Bird (allegedly admitted by JD Moss during a public inquiry) - but that that should not have affected her professional opinion. Chezel Bird also gave evidence at the same public inquiry and is on record as such.
Uppermost in the mind of Nelson Kruschandl, is the future of Herstmonceux Museum, a monument to the early electrical generating industry - and proud part of the history of innovation in Sussex. Kruschandl tells us: "This Council is bound to kick and scream like the spoilt children they are - because they are being caught red handed. I'm sure they will do their very best (again) to try to discredit me. But the facts speak for themselves."
Fraud is any statement or action that deceives another person, and in so doing causes a loss to the victim. Fraud, is also the failure to do something that is required in a position of authority - such as failing to seek advice from the County Archaeologist and English Heritage in accordance with Government Circulars. In this case it is alleged that Wealden only put forward one side of an argument, and that they failed to seek the proper assurances from the experts, as per Government guidance. This is of course a crucial omission on the part of those officers involved in the preparations of: 1. An enforcement report to the Members 2. Prior to service of an Enforcement Notice, and 3. An appeal where an Inspector will be making a decision and needs accurate facts on the table in order to make a decision that is safe. If the facts upon which a decision is based are incorrect (false or have been crafted) then the decision reached is ultra vires (invalid).
This is the header from a Decision Letter concerning what is now Herstmonceux Museum. Note the initials of the council's reference "DM". To our knowledge there is only one officer at Wealden District Council that has those initials: Doug Moss. We should like to know if Mr Moss was working for this council at that time? We know that Ian Kay the officer handling the unlawful Bushy Wood animal sanctuary demolition, was, because we have seen his name and signature on early documents.
Consider now paragraph 17 of the Decision Letter from Raymond Portal Dannreuther in 1987. In this paragraph the Inspector says that: "the foundation of a previous building do not merit special attention." This is a crucial error on the part of Dannreuther, because he has been persuaded that the building he is looking at is not the original generating building, but a building of "corrugated metal construction" built over foundations from another building that has no archaeological merit. This would never have happened if Wealden had done their duty and consulted the experts. Whether or not this was deliberate is irrelevant, as officers of the Court they were obliged to follow the correct procedure. Not to do so is both improprietous and maladministration - but more importantly, deprived the appellant of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 - thus is also a human rights violation - that travels back in time if a Council fail to correct any decision or data entry that is erroneous and carries forward that which is now a violation under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Note also, that Inspector Dannreuther failed to notice that the buildings benefitted from full interceptor soil and rainwater drainage which is connected to the local system. This is an original archaeological feature that any consultation with English Heritage or East Sussex County Council would have revealed. During the site visit Mr Kruschandl was not asked about the drainage or toilet facilities. Subsequently, in an attempt to prevent use of toilets, etc, at the premises, Wealden conducted dye flow tests, which, much to their annoyance, proved that Inspector Dannreuther had been duped on that issue also. This of course has been kept quiet - as was and is the fact that this is the only building in Lime Part to have a fully functional (working) well that is (and was) of course plumbed in to the building. A well is a sustainability feature that provided water for washing and ablutions, those facilities that David Phillips and Christine Nuttall sought to remove in the High Court, but which backfired when on Appeal Dame Butler Schloss confirmed that such facilities could be re-instated - this Council having (once again) duped the Court below into Ordering removal.
The building stands today in all its glory, it is of timber construction - not corrugated metal. The foundations are those of the extant building, not a previous building and no application has or will be made to erect a new dwelling. The incorrect opinions of R P Dannreuther stand to be tested in the knowledge that he was deciding an issue with the next door neighbour an old chum from the forces during World War Two. Lastly, the historical importance of the building is such that it is on a Monument Protection Programme with English Heritage. Rarely have we seen a case where an Inspector had been so completely deceived by a local authority in the exercise of its duty - the only explanation for which, that we can conceive, is that the naval association of the two Hastings/Bexhill residents is likely to have clouded his judgment - no matter how much Dannreuther may have tried to put this out of his mind.
Anyone can see from this recent picture (2013) of Herstmonceux Museum that Inspector Dannreuther was deceived as to the construction of the building. Clearly, it is of wooden construction as revealed in the ESCC Survey from 1999. These are original timbers, untouched. The transcript from June 1998 (extract above) proves that another Inspector was also deceived in similar fashion - the Members too. If the building is not of "corrugated metal" construction, it is like thousands of other rural buildings, in harmony with its surroundings - and not a blot on the landscape. Cock ups like this tell us that it is important to look at the facts, and not to allow personalities in council employment to conduct a vendetta against selected members of the public. Indeed, such activity falls to be considered under the Fraud Act 2006.
Wealden DC had no idea that they were being recorded in 1998, otherwise the hidden agenda would not have come out quite so obviously. The moral of this story is, always record conversations with council officials. They will later deny everything. Chezel Bird told an Inspector that she saw no evidence of any generating use, whereas, the entire building is evidence of that. The whole unit was designed to generate electricity and all the concrete mounts and other architectural features are extant. Chezel, book yourself into Specsavers girl! He put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships." Quote: Admiral Horatio Nelson 1758-1805.
Consider now paragraph 20, where Inspector Dannreuther says: "The building itself, because of its materials and construction is an unattractive feature in the rural scene." Here again, the Inspector has erred in fact, because he has incorrectly assumed that the corrugated metal is the construction method. Whereas, the building is of timber construction (like many other barn conversions) and was merely sheathed in corrugated metal during the WWII hostilities in 1939 as a fire precaution. That metal covering has now gone save one small section currently under repair. The Inspector also denies historical interest, that might warrant special recognition. Wrong. Poor old Dannreuther, perhaps we should book him into Specsavers. PPGs 15 and 16 confirm that if a building has local historic importance that a beneficial use should be accorded.
In a later appeal, another Inspector said that an industrial use would be inappropriate in Lime Park - so, disagreeing with Dannreuther - when faced with residential and commercial uses side by side, residential use is far to be preferred. Dannreuther must have been having a bad hair day. We will be publishing the appropriate sections from other appeals on this site, so that the public may see the inconsistencies in logic for themselves. Other local buildings outside the village envelope have no historical importance whatsoever, have been granted planning consent to convert to residential use. The only reason that we can think of to explain the differences in case handling by this council, is the identity of the applicant.
This section of the Decision Letter from Mr Dannreuther confirms Appearances. This is evidential proof that Vic Scarpa, Thomas Hoy, George M. White, and Richard Mercer were called to give evidence. We also note the Peter Gwyn Langford Townley, the then and current owner of The Old Rectory, was an interested person. Peter Townley gave evidence in support of this Council's contentions that Mr Kruschandl had breached their Enforcement Notice in 1987/88. That allegation was disproved in the Lewes Crown Court.
ROYAL MARINES - What a coincidence! Peter Gwyn Langford Townley was born in 1924, so was four years younger than Raymond Dannreuther, a Royal Navy man. Peter Townley served as a temporary lieutenant in the forces during World War Two and in 1943 is shown in the above archive listing as being in the Royal Marines.
Townley lived in and around the Hastings and Bexhill area, employing solicitors from Bexhill when doing his best to bankrupt the former occupier of the Steam House. Inspector Dannreuther also had family in the Hastings and Bexhill area, in very close proximity to our interested neighbour. We wonder then if the two gentlemen knew of each other. Or, more to the point, how they could not know of each other. Yet this interesting factor was not mentioned during the Appeal inquiry and no interests declared. As you can see from the document extracts. P G L Townley is noted as being an interested person at the public inquiry. He later gave evidence in the Lewes Crown Court appeal in 1988, when a conviction for Breach of an Enforcement Notice was quashed. Peter and June Townley live adjacent to Herstmonceux Museum and have done so since at least 1986.
The above map is a faithful reproduction of the plan attached to an Enforcement Notice from 1986. Anyone familiar with the site will notice that the buildings identified are not all of those in the location and that the fence line is incorrectly shown on the plan as tight to the building. The plot they identify as a 'Garden Tool Store' was in fact an old coal bunker that is no longer extant. Thus, ignoring for now that the Notice was obtained, as alleged, by deception, there are buildings on site that have not been served with an Enforcement Notice since 1986 (hence have become immune under the four year rule as they were being lived in), and that other newer buildings not shown on this plan - have also not been served with a valid enforcement notice - or indeed, any enforcement notice whatsoever. Another glaring procedural error that invalidates the entire proceedings that flowed from defective issue and opens the flood gates to all manner of problems for Wealden and their Insurers (Zurich Municipal) is the fact that no no notice was served on the owner of the unregistered land to the north, or in this case, no advertisement was placed in the media.
These two pictures were saved from Google Maps in February 2014. They are in the same orientation as the site plan above, north is at the top, south at the bottom and so on. We are using the corner of The Old Rectory (P G L Townley) as the reference point - or baseline. The left picture is untouched. The right picture has the position of buildings on the appeal site plan shown in red. You can plainly see that the block Wealden refer to as a "Garden Tool Store" is a bare patch of grass covered land. It is also plain that there are other buildings on this site that are not covered by the enforcement site plan, so immune from enforcement. In 1988 the Judge looking at this information in the Lewes Crown Court (obviously no Google Maps at the time) found in favour of Mr Nelson Kruschandl, in that a substantial building to the north-east that was used for accommodation is not covered by any enforcement notice. Since that time another substantial building has been added to the west, that is also immune from enforcement. This fact is also plain from these pictures. Should Wealden try to deny the accuracy or origination of the above appeal site plan, see the reference and receipt below.
When requesting copy of important legal documents, always ask for a receipt as proof of source - this will help you when the council concerned start to cover up their misdeeds - which you can be sure from our experience - is on the cards. Councils are famous for altering documents after the event, to seek to correct fatal defects. That is of course a criminal offence (falsifying evidence) and Data Protection breaches and other offences relating to Local Land Charges. For example, if a document had been obtained on incorrect information that affects a data subject, then compensation is payable for every day that a council do not correct their records. In this case, it seems obvious to us that Wealden will not be able to falsify their records to be able to do anything other than offer compensation. Any document based on incorrect information is a nullity. That document ceases to exist in law. David Whibley has been asked to check the records for himself. We are waiting to hear if Mr Whibley is going to kiss yet more butt and take it Chaucer style, or if he has finally had enough of towing the party line as the ultimate patsy. Come on David, be a man. Blow that whistle and blow it hard.
LEFT: The above letter from Kelvin Williams proves that Wealden District Council had and have, no intention of doing anything voluntarily that might make them have to admit that they provided incorrect information to Inspector Dannreuther at the Appeal in 1987. Councils will almost never do the right thing. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Courts, or to any other regulatory authority, such as the Information Commissioner. RIGHT: The letter from Dr Andrew Woodcock to Ashley Brown in 1999, was surely Wealden's worst fears coming true. The tide starts to tuyrn from here. Wealden should have conducted similar investigations in 1983-1986, but did not do so, because in those days they knew information sharing was not available - in other words their failure to refer the matter to the proper consul-tees would never be found out. In the age of information, that is no longer true. The letter to A J Brown advising WDC of ESCC's interest led to a Survey which proved conclusively that poor old Inspector Dannreuther was treated like a mushroom by Vic Scrapa and G M White - fed bullshit and kept in the dark. Since receipt of the Survey, it appears that Wealden's planners have been hiding the truth from their Members. The letter from ESCC is marked for the attention of D Moss. You will not be surprised to learn that D Moss writes this Council's policies! Thus is able to steer policies to hide from the public what appears to be nothing less than a vendetta aimed at Nelson Kruschandl. We say that anyone involved in a vendetta against any member of the public should not be in public office.
The pictures below are those of the officers of this council who it is alleged have consistently deceived Planning Inspectors and the Courts, or who have aided and abetted those who have concerning Herstmonceux Museum.
Victorio Patrick Scarpa over 10 years ago - Christine (Chris) Arnold 2013
Christine Nuttall & David Phillips. It is alleged that David Phillips is still working for WDC as of 2014 despite perjuring himself in an official WDC witness statement for the High Court and using photographic evidence (the subject of copyright theft) with incorrect date attribution, so attempting to pervert the course of justice. How many other officers were and are involved? We know Christine Nuttall and Vic Scarpa were the solicitors preparing papers for this council at the time. Christine Nuttall left Wealden some years ago. You can see from the 1987 Decision letter that Vic Scarpa has had conduct of this case, perhaps for many more years than he should have. We can't wait to meet Tom Holman, who may be an honest officer of whistle blowing caliber.
COMMENT - Hmmm, I can't believe it's not butter!
WDC's Planning Enforcement Officers and advertised area of cover. But please note that they like to play in each others area when a case gets too hot to handle - and where does Christine Arnold fit into all of this:
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
WILL THE REAL KELVIN WILLIAMS PLEASE STAND UP?
LEFT: Feb 2014 - Kelvin Claudius Williams (born 29 May 1959 in Carapichaima, Trinidad) is a former cricketer and current head coach of Trinidad and Tobago, a team he represented throughout his playing career. Trinidad and Tobago coach Kelvin Williams is expecting a tough battle against Jamaica in today’s NAGICO Super50 semi-final at Queen’s Park Oval, Port of Spain from two p.m., but is confident his players can pull off the win after fighting hard to reach the knockout stage. Both teams have a lot of respect for each other but go into the semi on the back of contrasting performances. RIGHT: Nov 2013 - TULSA, Oklahoma November 2013 - Police warn residents to be extra aware of their safety following an armed robbery at an East Tulsa home. It happened shortly before 1 p.m. in the 8200 block of East 35th Street. Corporal Kelvin Williams (Oklahoma, USA) said a home owner had been working in his garage and left the door unlocked when an armed man came in. The man heard his garage door slam and went to investigate. When he walked into his kitchen, he found the armed robber.
FEB 2014 - It has been just over a year since Bolivar County Sheriff Kelvin Williams was
sworn in as the county's new law enforcement leader. Williams said he's proud of his crew's accomplishments and for developing a
reputation as a strict crime-fighting department. Originally from Mound Bayou, Williams has an extensive law enforcement resume
that includes positions with the St. Louis Police Department, Mississippi
Department of Corrections and the Cleveland Police Department.
Neither of these gentlemen, also called Kelvin Williams, have any connection with Wealden District Council or East Sussex in the UK. It may be obvious to most people, but we'd just like to make that clear. If your name is Kelvin Williams, and you'd like a disclaimer with a link to your website included here, please contact us. There are many other KWs, to include a boxer, photographer and more ......
There seem to be quite a few officials in the US with the name Kelvin Williams, included here so that they might not be confused with the KW working for Wealden DC. The above picture appears to be linked in some way with an amusing Nigerian scam.
WHY NOT EMAIL A COUNCILOR TO HAVE YOUR SAY
Sexual cannibalism in humans is commonplace where the (UK) state still pays bunny-boilers to fabricate allegations - despite the untenable ratio of false allegations. This is called Noble Cause Corruption, so named because the cause (more convictions of rapists and perverts) is noble, but the means (convicting significant numbers of innocent men) is corrupt. A decent justice system is one where convictions are safe; where an appeal is guaranteed and where the court system does not refuse appellants the evidence for their barristers to perfect grounds of appeal. Unlike most European countries, the right of appeal in the UK in not mandatory and the discretionary single judge paper system is open to startling abuses. This book is based on a real case study, that reveals the fatal flaws in the English justice system. No man in England is safe until these issues are dealt with - it could happen to anyone and you may be the next victim.
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.