P CLIFFORD BRADSHAW
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.
P Clifford Bradshaw was a civil servant at Wealden District Council working in the planning department and is known for scrutinizing applications as they are received. His job appears to have been to screen applications to persuade applicants to use wording and change the reasons for the application is such a way as to disadvantage the applicants.
He is alleged to have poorly advised Michael and Valerie Punter when they were making an application for a change of use, or to vary a condition relating to farm buildings at the Bushy Wood animal sanctuary, instead advising them to apply for planning permission, when a condition personal to Gordon Worcester could simply have been changed to reflect the new owner's name in respect of stabling for horses.
This led to the farm buildings that were a permitted development, being bulldozed under the lead of Ashley Brown and Ian Kay. Ian Kay's father in law was Denis Best, a competing local builder and member of the mason secret society.
Shame on you Mr Bradshaw.
Ever been caught with your trousers down
It appears from the letter below that in addition to screening applications that he may also have been the author of other official correspondence.
You could always blow the whistle and clear your conscience Mr Bradshaw. 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. It is in the public interest to know.
CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE - In keeping with the refusal of Sussex Police to provide a copy of their register of Masons, Wealden District Council refused to allow Nelson Kruschandl sight of the secret reports that were put to a committee of members in secret meetings between 1982 and 1986. These Reports were the basis of authority to enforce against a domestic use on the basis that the old generating rooms were not original. Later in 1998 and 1998 evidence surfaced to prove that Wealden's George White and Thomas Hoy had lied to Inspector Raymond Dannreuther in 1987. In these closed session reports the members were told the truth, admitting what the buildings actually were - but the exact opposite information was presented to the Secretary of State's Inspector - not once, but for a second time in 1997 before Inspector Raymond Michael.
Note also that although the officer named as dealing with the matter is Rex Pettigrew, that P Clifford Bradshaw actually signed the letter. This is much the same as using David Whibley's name on letters as a patsy for the recent Stormtrooping by Kelvin Williams in 2017 - once again aided and abetted by Sussex Police.
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:”
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.