WHO IS LEADING WHO - Councillor Robert Standley is still the Leader of this Council. How is that possible in a democracy where our Prime Minister and the US President are limited as to terms of office? Any 'Leader' should be subject to a maximum term and the interests of such heads should be the subject of scrutiny as to member finances and interests during such term. The Representation of the People and Local Government Acts have this to say about pecuniary interests and banning from standing at local elections:
Representation of the People Act 1983
- 1983 CHAPTER 2
WOW! - That appears to disqualify a large number of our members from voting, but will the voting stop? We doubt it. Members should be in no doubt that they should leave the chamber when an item they have an interest in is next on the Agenda.
What cost to the country incompetence? Sloppiness, Negligence and the failure of Members and Officers to declare their interests?
IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING RELOCATING TO WEALDEN OR A CAREER IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW MORE OF THE ADMINISTRATION THAN THE COUNCIL WILL LET ON :
* The residents of Wealden District Council (WDC) are obliged to pay one of the highest rate levies in the country.
* This council's Monitoring Officer refuses to report his administrative errors and other reported injustices to the members of the council as required by law. Ignorance is bliss for the councillors and hell for the electorate.
* This council has been found guilty of maladministration several times since 1989.
* This council has been severely criticised by Planning Inspectors, the County Court and the High Court for its unreasonable behaviour.
* The Nolan Committee recommend no council officer serves more than 5 years to prevent cosy relationships forming. In Wealden DC most senior officers have served 15 years or more and enjoy working with outside consultants, who employ ex council officers. Clearly, this is a recipe for disaster.
*The Nolan Committee recommend a new crime: "misfeasance in public office" should be added to the statute books.
* Some cases would be so damaging to this council, if they came into the public domain, this council have obtained gagging orders when settling claims of compensation.
THE WISHES OF THE MANY - In our view Mr Edmonds and the Ministers contacted are justifiably concerned as to Wealden District Council ignoring the wishes of the public and the needs of our wounded soldiers. Council officers are civil servants, not gods sitting on a throne deciding who gets what and the price it is going to cost them. All to often, councils put a legal spanner in the works just to hike up those costs to make whatever the proposal is too expensive to pursue. In this manner they retain their empire and build their part at the expense of the taxpayer who is more than likely not being fairly represented by the members of these councils. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAo-xyIEEkI
Typically, members have conflicts of interest that are under-reported. Wealden is the only council who refused a researcher copy of their register when he found an entry changed with tippex to reflect what should have happened but did not. A totally different outcome was retrospectively logged in the register to that which had actually happened to cover up an officer breaching Sections 94 and 95 of the Local Government Act 1972. Will Sussex Police investigate? Bet they won't - AGAIN!
COMMENT: INSTITUTIONALISED DISCRIMINATION IS APPARENT
Until the safety net is restored with a fully functional Monitoring Officer, so that members may know the true scale of the impropriety within the Planning and Legal departments, ratepayers money will continue to be squandered to cover up the facts, money going to preserve the jobs of professional staff unwilling to admit their mistakes and keen to hang in there for an enhanced early retirement.
Members who challenge officers on any issue will find themselves the subject of embarrassing rebukes, formal letters from officers reminding them of their duties, etc. The plain fact is, the officers work for the Members and the Members represent the electorate. All too often we find cases where officers have accused Members of impropriety in public, to eliminate these members from the decision making process. It works because the Member so accused is then forced to declare an interest and excuse himself. This tactic is adopted when an officer is about to be exposed and is a last resort. However, these tactics are also contrary to the Council's constitution, where such public accusations hardly boost public confidence in the integrity of the Council. It's got to stop!
Read Nelson's incredible story: How this council wasted half a £ million pounds of ratepayers money trying to avoid their duty to protect a valuable historic building and why? This is a revelation as to the level of discrimination, that councils routinely adopt, when their members will not do their jobs as the elected representatives of the people. We are now in possession of a telling transcript of a planning meeting recorded without this council knowing they were being taped. During this recorded meeting Wealden's officers were deceiving the members of a planning committee - just as they had deceived Inspector Dannruether in 1987. In planning terms that is called "nursing a lie." Yup. They lied to the Secretary of State in 1987 and they are still lying to you now.
What of Sussex Police. They have been asked if we can view their Register of Interests, with an especial leaning toward Masons. Do they have such a register? If they do, will it be accurate - and if so will it reveal the links between complainants where fellow masons who are civilians have instigated or at least pushed for the prosecution of another civilian that they have fallen out with.
to the independent research into police Masonry, Martin Short, author of the most detailed account of modern British freemasonry,
'Inside The Brotherhood,' estimates that 20% of London officers belong to Masonic lodges. He says there is cause for concern about this and in December, he gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry of a case he had researched recently in Lancashire which, he told them, “demonstrates just how badly the administration of justice can go wrong when police, Crown Prosecution solicitors and private citizens are all in the same Masonic lodge.”
The Councillors below meet together as a Full Council several times a year. During these assemblies they decide the Council's overall policies and budgets. The Council's Chairman, Vice Chairman and Leader are elected annually. A Cabinet comprising 8 members is appointed by the Leader's recommendation, which group takes major decisions the Council may take. Other Committees are also formed to decide various issues such as waste management and planning control. You may ask a PUBLIC QUESTION if you put in your request in good time and the Council must respond in public and confirm their response in writing.
Policies are implemented through the Chief Executive and six Chief Officers who manage the departments and services the Council provides. Therefore, it is essential that Councillors appoint officers fit to carry out their duties.
The Development Control Sub-Committees (North and South) meet on a four weekly basis to determine planning applications and deal with other development control functions. This Council employs around 600 staff in offices at Crowborough and Hailsham.
Peter the town rat loves to kiss officers behinds. He'll do anything for a pat on the back and a nice little check for his expenses each month. It's the easy life for him. Unfortunately for Peter that is at odds with his duty to represent the people. But what the heck, he's been getting away with it for years and nobody mentions about the tan color of his nose anymore, because there are so many other tan noses about. When a new member joins with his bright pink nose, it's not long before the officers have him nicely trained not to question their dictatorial control. Nuzzle up, you'll soon not notice the odour - but be careful, for thankfully, the public with pink noses can smell the bull.
Citizens have a number of rights in their dealings with the Council. They may ask public questions, enquire of the Monitoring Officer as to the legality of any decision, action or refusal to take action - as in the case of Anne Harris, where this council were found guilty of failing to protect this vulnerable farmer. You may lobby the members and these members, seen below, have a duty to properly investigate issues. You will find some members less than useless, you may get fobbed off, told lies, etc. Occasionally though, you will find a very active councillor. In fact, there are more members than ever, prepared to ask awkward questions and get to the truth of a matter - despite officers fudging replies and misleading them.
For further detailed information on how the Council operates download a copy of the new Constitution (pdf file - 236kb) or contact Martyn Garrett, Member Services Manager on 01892 602433 or e mail: email@example.com
PLANNING COMMITTEE SOUTH
COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM 2006
You'll notice that many of these councillors from seven years ago are still in evidence - and those are the members that are most likely to be in the pockets of local developers and of course officers of the council that have struck up cozy relationships with big business, at the expense of the ordinary man in the street who simply wants a fair deal.
Fresh faces will be less likely to have succumbed to the wiles of persuasive officers, such as Ian Kay, who was an officer with this council for over 20 years. In 20 years you can get used to the perks of such a position and come to rely on that level of power. Power of course corrupts.
THIS SITE CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS COUNCIL'S UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR - With thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents. *THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Anti Corruption in Wealden
During the 2nd World War, the Pevensey Levels hosted an underground radar tracking station. The emplacements seen in the photograph above were to protect the early warning station from land attack. The underground installation was flooded the last time our local historian visited. These remains are of historic importance. The above ground buildings on the adjacent hill have been converted to residential use. This is archaeological evidence of the fight against fascism that our forefathers carried to eradicate dictators, that we may enjoy our land peacefully and without interference from local authority with Nazi like agendas.
Historic buildings like the Castle above survive in the Wealden area, despite the efforts of council officers to avoid their duty to the built environment. This is testimony to the grit of the public, rather than the blood sucking nature of an organisation that bleeds taxes to pay staff that are in some cases negligent, power hungry and therefore a liability to freedom of the people from state interference. If such matters are allowed to escalate unchecked, it would not be long before England becomes a Nazi satellite.
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. Let us not forget that the simplest way for councils under attack is to make an allegation against a person who is questioning their authority.