Babara A Kingsford was a tree enforcement officer for Wealden District Council








Barbara Kingsford was involved in the making of tree preservation orders for Wealden District Council against weed sycamore specimens that were known to be a danger to the historic generating buildings at Hersmonceux in East Sussex.


A number of the civil servants at Wealden were involved in this conspiracy, including Ashley Brown, Ian Kay, Rex Pettigrew (tree warden) Tim Dowsett. So too was poor old Stephanie Wallis, but we found that she was honest and not part of the corruption that is the making of these Tree Preservation Orders, that were not to protect specimen trees, but to cause as much harm as it is possible to inflict - using positions of trust - to seek to prevent restoration of a very rare historic building and/or part the then occupier from his occupation to the benefit of near neighbours.


No doubt once Wealden's officers had secured ownership for neighbours in Lime Park, as in Lime Park Estate Ltd, or one of their directors, then once that had been achieved we feel sure that suddenly the objections to restoration or conversion, would have evaporated. In other words it is/was property procurement to order.


We have no idea if this involved any of the Parish Council, where there are property developers on the committee, or family of property developers, or whether some of the Parish Council were good mates with the other residents in Lime Park. The telling facts are that Herstmonceux Parish Council have always voted for enforcement action. Not once has the Parish Council come forward to tell what we think they must have known; that the building they were enforcing against had no reasonable or beneficial use. Oh, and by the way the present occupier is correct, it is the old generating station dating from C. 1900.




1999 - Barbara Kingsford was part of the administration that sought to include sycamore trees in an Order for preservation in the full knowledge that they would threaten the structural integrity of the old generating buildings that they surrounded. This is nothing short of irresponsible and a carry over from the days when this Council thought they had safely masked the originality of the historic asset having tried to seal their lies with third party acquiescence - having lied to the Secretary of State twice and a number of High Court Judges.


Give them their dues, they almost got away with it. If this had been a nobler cause one might have looked the other way at the manner in which their story had been set in stone. Then along came the historians to chisel the truth in fresh masonry untainted with Weadenisms. These civil servants must live in a world that Alice would be proud of - it is so far removed from reality. 


As liars go we'd rate Ian Kay as the lead, with Ashley Brown close behind and David Phillips a close third. Doug Moss is not that good at lying, especially when on the stand on oath. David Phillips simply did not answer the questions put to him - with one Inspector not taking him to task over that. Naughty inspector. He was the Inspector who awarded Wealden costs. We'll get to him later. We'd love to get Victorio Scarpa, Christine Nuttall or Charles Lant on the stand on oath. That would be really amusing, watching them squirm, knowing that they were being recorded for later dissection and reporting. We are sure each party would try to blame the other - or maybe try to pass off their behaviour as just a series of innocent mistakes. Mistakes spanning 30 years. Yes, well, er, maybe that would be stretching the patience of the Judges just a little.




WRITING ON THE WALL - The would be appellant pushed Wealden into making the a threatened TPO so that at some point in the future the Order could be challenged. If he'd not done so they would have sat on their hands for as long as they could get away with it. An Order has to be confirmed or it cannot be challenged. Meantime the trees posed an unacceptable danger to the historic remains that would be best to challenge by pulling their teeth one at a time.


Bear in mind that these trees should never have been in any order at any time. This was part of the vendetta against the then occupier that started in 1983 and is still unresolved in 2018.


What kind of a civil servant bastard must you be to deliberately abuse your position of authority to cause any member of the public such harm. A pretty big one, perhaps abandoned at birth and raised by Nanny (Myra) Hindley. What is needed for residents in Wealden suffering high council taxes is Nanny McPhee.


The closest you can come to Nanny McPhee in Wealden is Nelson Kruschandl. He has a habit of winning difficult appeals for clients. It seems to us that he might look closer to home and win a few more for himself. We are sure that such a determined chap will obtain justice in his own good time.



Wealden's agenda in relation to these Tree Preservation Orders was both fraudulent and discriminatory. Any person who helps Wealden and the responsible executive officers to cover up any fraud is guilty of an offence under the Accessories and Abettors Act of 1861, where they become an accessory to the crime.


That is the trouble with telling the truth in an area of Sussex where cover-ups are routine. The council concerned targets you again and again, in doing so digging themselves even deeper into the mire. All the while spending legitimate ratepayer's money pursuing a malicious course of conduct.


Eventually, cases like this end up getting an airing in court, such as the case of Kelly Davis V Wansdyke District Council, where discrimination by Wansdyle council led to a payout of £790,000. With such sums at stake, officers caught up in the conspiracy will do almost anything to keep their jobs for another few years, to milk the system while the going is good - and then opt for early retirement. Or, as in the case of David Phillips, hang in there doing whatever job is offered to get a retirement package. In Phillips case Wealden voted to give him and enhanced package, presumably, in return for keeping his mouth shut about all of his dirty dealings.


It is not possible that an intelligent officer like Barbara Kingsford would not know when her council was acting above the law. Not once she has read this page and the other pages that this page links to - and we know that she and other officers of this council are reading them regularly.


You are more than welcome to justify your actions Barbara. We will print any comment you would care to make or we will work with you in confidence if you would prefer. Remaining silent will be taken as an admission by ourselves, and we are sure, any other person reading about this Council's antics.


Did you know about the toilet case in the High Court? You must know from working at a council that the Health & Safety Regulations mean that every person in the United Kingdom is entitled to a porcelain bowl and washing facilities.


If that is not enough, take a look at the Bushy Wood demolition or the Petition that was tucked under the carpet with the willing help of Sussex Police and the CPS. The CPS and Sussex Police are riddled with Masons. Just be sure that you are not their next target. Then you will not be so happy about towing the party line.


What we need in England is laws to stop such abuses of authority. We need a special planning fraud squad.





Demolition of Bushywood horse sanctuary, Sussex Express


February 26th 1997 - Ian Kay at the helm once more with the usual supporting cast of David Phillips and Vic Scarpa, using their positions of trust within WDC to bulldoze stables that were lawful at the time, and on appeal, held to be lawfully used. This council deliberately served documents near the Christmas holidays to undermine the rights of the owners Mr & Mrs Punter to a fair hearing. On this occasion the late service tactic was frowned upon at appeal and costs were awarded to the appellants. If any council pulls that dirty trick on you our advice is to cite this case and ask for costs. Or, better still, make a Human Rights claim for the council concerned violating your right to a fair hearing as is a right under Article 6.



Naughty officer. Every person is entitled to a toilet. No. You cannot deprive anyone of washing facilities  Thomas Crapper, Flushed with Pride


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 candidate's 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 as per Article 14 no matter how much their team are out to get any challenging member of the public such as Mr Kruschandl - 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 and then an even dirtier trick until misfeasance becomes malfeasance. 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 your council did and why they did it - and worst of all - your part in the whole sorry affair. Think then of blowing the whistle. It may be your only way out. Blow it sooner rather than later. Is your job worth having with this level of corruption?





When an officer of the court omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office even though it is an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as it may prove to be the case with the missing documents), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence under common law. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR).





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:”

43A Meaning of “protected disclosure”.

In this Act a “protected disclosure” means a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B) which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.

43B Disclosures qualifying for protection.

(1) In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following—

(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the relevant failure occurred, occurs or would occur in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and whether the law applying to it is that of the United Kingdom or of any other country or territory.

It appears to us that Section 43B (b) of the 1998 Act may apply and upon reading the information that you have requested of us, you may come to realise that your Council is acting in a way that qualifies as Malfeasance rather than Misfeasance in Public Office, and so may wish to blow the whistle, with all of the protections that the 1998 Act gives to you in respect of the Public Disclosure that you may care to make.

In the case of a Disclosure, most likely to the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer, District Auditor and Leader of the Council, should you be dismissed or treated in a way that constitutes Constructive Dismissal (that amounts to the same thing, then see section 103A:

“103A Protected disclosure.

An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.”




Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, responsible in part for murdering Saddam Hussein



Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
(formerly) Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311






Shadow Sussex Police crime commissioner blogspot UK 2016 January three new cases to rock the Bill




Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council  


Kelvin Williams, Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin


Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl Douglas Moss 


Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant



Wealden District Council  Wealden District Council  Wealden District Council  Wealden District Council  Wealden District Council


Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Black Julian - Boakes Beverley

Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn

Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford

Lant Charles - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio

Scott Trevor - Kevin Stewart - Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve




Winter snow in Wealden land of discontent and corrupt civil servants. Copyright Photograph  27 February 2018





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.


This site is protected under Articles 9 and and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.