A veteran witness versed in the ways of sleight of hand. A master forger with a serpentine tongue






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.


This is how to train a child: Children are able to control their bladder and bowels when they're physically ready and when they want to be dry and clean. If that is the case do not move to the Wealden District, and never challenge a Councillor or officer of this council.


Every child is different, so it's best not to compare your child with others. Bear in mind that most children can control their bowels before their bladder.

* By age one, most babies have stopped doing poos at night.
* By age two, some children will be dry during the day, but this is still quite early.
* By age three, 9 out of 10 children are dry most days – even then, all children have the odd accident, especially when they're excited, upset or absorbed in something else.
* By age four, most children are reliably dry during the day.

It usually takes a little longer for children to learn to stay dry throughout the night. Although most learn this between the ages of three and five, up to one in five children aged five sometimes wet the bed.

you can't force your child to use a potty. If they're not ready, you won't be able to make them use it. In time, they will want to use one – most children won't want to go to school in nappies any more than you would want them to.

In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to encourage the behaviour you want - such as not discriminating against anyone. Be fair and reasonable and try not to violate Articles 6 and 14 - unless it is the only way. Of course, find a judge who does not really know what they are doing. Believe us there are quite a few out there.

Most parents start thinking about potty training when their child is between two and two-and-a-half, but there's no perfect time. Some people find it easier to start in the summer, when there are fewer clothes to take off and washed clothes dry more quickly.

Try potty training when there are no great disruptions or changes to your child's or your family's routine. It's important to stay consistent, so you don’t confuse your child or if you are instructing your planning officers, don't tell them to get the "Bastard" at all costs, or they are bound to cause your council trouble for the future when Dame Butler-Sloss explains that the toilets can go back, after they have been removed to make you council feel it was worth squandering all of that ratepayers money.



According to his 'Proof Of Evidence' dated the 27th of January 1987, George Morham White was the principle planning officer who was taking reports from Thomas William Hoy and most likely reporting to the Members of Wealden District Council's area plans committee in a manner that was designed to ensure that enforcement action was taken, but not based on the factual history of the property concerned, more based on character assassination, when the real issue as to the historic asset were masked, so putting a valuable archaeological find at risk for the next 30 years.


Shame on you Mr White. 



Caught with his trousers down


Ever been caught with your trousers down



It appears from the evidence gathered over many years, that George White was working with Ian Kay (as assistant district planning officer) later under the leadership of Ashley Brown, Brown who professed to be an amateur archaeologist. We know from Ian Kay's initials on documents going back to 1984 that he was in the background and part of the team - who it appears - had made it their agenda to treat Mr Kruschandl unfavorably culminating in the denial of toilet and washing facilities - despite the fact that statute says that every person in the land is entitled to relieve themselves and keep themselves clean.


It did not begin with toilets, it began with trees. Mr Kruschandl was not to be allowed to trim or remove any trees that would harm the Generating works at Herstmonceux. Other people in the vicinity could of course lop or trim their trees. Is that fair? Hardly. The planning and enforcement team from Wealden pumped up the inconveniences, leading to the toilet episode and David Phillips being flushed with success.


No toilets for Mr Kruschandl. No porcelain and flush, no washbasin with running water and no showers. No. Nelson Kruschandl would have to urinate and perform other just as urgent relief's into a hedge and wash in buckets Victorian style or as you may have been treated in Nazi Germany if you were a Jew. You may ask how such a thing can happen in a modern society? We thought the same, but in fact institutionalized discrimination is nothing new. The Metropolitan Police have been found guilty of it a number of times and so has the NHS.


Councils have also been found guilty of discrimination. Wealden have Knowledge of the decision given in the Bristol County Court in Kelly Davis Versus Wansdyke District Council which was decided before Judge David Ticehurst, as reported in the Times Law Report on the 19th November 2001 £790,000 pay out for race case builder.


Discrimination is something that all councils do their best to hide. It begins at Parish council level, where those in the fold gain consents. Being in the fold may be a relationship with a local builder or landowner - that is not declared. A pattern begins to emerge where other applicants using the wrong contractors are not given consent. Local farmers of standing tend to benefit. New farmers coming into the area do not - and so on.


Strange patterns may emerge where normal duties are ignored. Councils think that nobody will recognise any pattern. They try to prevent the public from taking agenda papers, because they might look back at other decisions and wonder about a decision when comparing it to another.





It may be that some officers, though highly qualified in planning principles, have forgotten what the ordinary person in the street takes for granted. This malaise seems to affect some learned judges also and for this reason those persons may need to be re-trained. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolutely no toilets for Mr Kruschandl for example and it did not stop there.





COUNCILS WHO TAKE HUMAN RIGHTS LIBERTIES - Here are a couple of props that may be used to train some pre Human Rights (die-hard) officers from continuing to think that what they were told they could get away with until the year 2000 is no longer socially acceptable. The Conservatives don't like having to be reasonable so much they are thinking of abolishing human rights and shipping convicts back out to the colonies. The first thing is to get us out of Europe and round up the Europeans. The British invented concentration camps, not the Germans as you might believe. That is is the kind of thinking that still wafts around in Parliament from time to time and that leads to wanting to rid the country of those rules that we are bound to accept if we were to remain in Europe.





New research by the London School of Economics and the Open Society Justice Initiative shows that during a 12 month period a black person was 29.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. The LSE research, based on government statistics, demonstrates that Britain has the worst international record of discrimination involving stop and search and proves that "racial profiling" is alive and well.


The inquiry about the murder of the black Briton Stephen Lawrence concluded that the investigating police force was institutionally racist. Sir William Macpherson used the term as a description of "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people". Sir William’s definition is almost identical to Stokely Carmichael’s original definition some forty years earlier. Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton 1967 were black power activists and first used the term 'institutional racism' to describe the consequences of a societal structure that was stratified into a racial hierarchy that resulted in layers of discrimination and inequality for minority ethnic people in housing, income, employment, education and health (Garner 2004:22).

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, and the public’s response to it, were among the major factors that forced the Metropolitan Police to address its treatment of ethnic minorities. More recently, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair said that the British news media are institutionally racist, a comment that offended journalists, provoking angry responses from the media, despite the National Black Police Association welcoming Sir Ian’s assessment.

The report also found that the Metropolitan Police was institutionally racist. A total of 70 recommendations for reform were made. These proposals included abolishing the double jeopardy rule and criminalising racist statements made in private. Macpherson also called for reform in the British Civil Service, local governments, the National Health Service, schools, and the judicial system, to address issues of institutional racism.

In June 2015, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, said there was some justification in claims that the Metropolitan Police Service is institutionally racist.


In Wealden, discrimination is also rife. If we take The Old Steam House in Lime Park as a central point on a map as a reference and draw a few circles around it at 500 meter increments ....... you will find that a number of new houses have been built and a number of conversions made to residential use. Of course this is not allowed where Mr Kruschandl is concerned. No. Everyone else around him can live and prosper, but at the centre of a hub of development there is a veritable black hole of permitted development, a vacuum to balance the torrent of development surrounding the target individual.


You could always blow the whistle and clear your conscience Mr White. 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. Here is the skinny on that:







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.”




OLD PALS - Of all the council officers we would most like to question under caution, Ian Kay is at the top of the list. He is known to have given information in person at a committee meeting to determine an application from his father in-law - it appears with the full cooperation of the officer sitting next to him: George White, even though George White knew (and it is on file that he knew) about the relationship of the applicant with his fellow officer. Ian Kay is known to have lied on oath to an Inspector during the public inquiry into the application for a certificate of lawfulness by Mr Hudson. He was involved in the Steamhouse fraud (that is an ongoing matter) where this council intentionally denied the history to keep the property value low and finally he is known to have been involved in the Bushywood demolition and gave false testimony during the public inquiry in that case also, to include devious late service of documents and service of an enforcement notice late in December, when they must have known that Mr and Mrs Punter were away on holiday. The MO is one that we now recognise as designed to disadvantage these members of the public.




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


Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold


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




Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending Christopher

Black Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw Clifford - 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






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.





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
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










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 Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.