MRS JUSTICE STEEL
HOME | CASE STUDIES | LAW | POLITICS | RIGHTS | SCANDAL | SITE INDEX | WHISTLEBLOWING
HIGH COURT ORDER - This was in London, England only some 50 years after the allies defeated Nazi Germany, an Order was made that denied one person in England the right to relieve himself using modern toilets. Please note the wording on this Order, we wonder if Mrs Steel was tempted to insert: "if you disobey this Order you may be stood against a wall and be shot by a firing squad."
It was during the cold winter of 1997, when Wealden District Council under the lead of Derek Holness, with the assistance of Christine Nuttall, David Phillips and Rex Pettigrew, hatched their evil plan to ask the High Court in London to remove just about every modern convenience from Oakwood at Herstmonceux, the former generating station built by Charles de Roemer at the turn of the century C.1900.
In order to seek to remove toilets, washing and canteen facilities these deviant civil servants had to continue the deception first concocted for Inspector Raymond Dannreuther for the Secretary of State by their comrades George White and Thomas Hoy, namely that the generating buildings were not the generating buildings - which of course they are - but that was not provable at the time by the Defendants. Hence, this very naughty Council were able to pursue their extermination objectives in very Gestapo fashion, we can imagine with the council's officers wearing long black coats and leather jack boots and maybe wearing a swastika pendant under their vests, or is that tunics.
The fact is that a lot of tax payer's money was spent putting together a case that was based on a two lies:
1. The first lie was that the generating building has been replaced in about World War Two with another building on the same site.
2. The second lie was that the Court could order removal of facilities that were needed by any occupier to comply with Health & Safety Regulations.
As a layperson you may not know that no Court in the land can take away a State Granted Right such as the 1992 Regulations. You'd expect that a council employing specialists in London and a barrister who would appear from them in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court would know this, but they did not. Nor did the barrister appearing for the Defendant. It was then up to the Defendant to appeal in person to the Court of Appeal when he got an audience before a slightly more reasonable Judge, no less than the famous Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.
Dame Elizabeth is very bright and must have realised immediately that Mrs Justice Steel was either barking mad, or had been led up the garden path by a very naughty three to five council officers. Doing what she could to protect the reputation of the Court, she steered a very fine line indeed, that must have seemed like a plausible compromise at the time, but on reflection we are sure that even she will agree how absurd it is to punish someone for doing what they were entitled to do. Come on Maam, if you are brave enough let us hear your confession. Everybody likes an admission, even from a High Court Judge and nobody will feel any the less as to your other great achievements.
LORD NOLAN'S SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
WHAT A RELIEF - Toilets in a German concentration camp. Even the Jews were allowed to defecate using some kind of modern convenience - but not so for Nelson Kruschandl. No, Mrs Steel was not having any of that. No toilets, no showers and no canteen facilities for the victims of Vealden District Counzil, unt nein toilet paper. Ve muzt exterminate all resistance for nice Herr Phillips unt Frau Nuttall. Fortunately, while still maintaining injustice in terms of costs and refusing to allow the appellant to aduce a letter from the Health & Safety Executive, or indeed the 1992 Regulations, Dame Butler-Sloss admitted that once the Order of Mrs Steel had been complied with then toilet facilities could be refitted to comply with the H&S Regulations.
We understand that Mrs Steel was more interested in getting to a hairdressing appointment than looking into whether or not her Order was reasonable. How about is Mrs Steel, how do you feel knowing that Wealden lied to you on several different levels?
LINKS & REFERENCE