CHRISTINE (CHRIS) ARNOLD

  Council officers who abuse their positions of authoirty should be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006, a pension would then be proceeds of crime and not payable.

WOULD YOU WANT TO WORK FOR THIS COUNCIL? - These two pictures were taken on a site visit in 2013, where Mrs Arnold is clearly holding an enforcement site plan that shows incorrect service on a supposed tool store, where this council had failed to identify buildings and uses correctly. This plan was among documents that were later referred to, to include the original enforcement plan from 1986. This case has cost the taxpayer more than £500,000 already. Is it not about time they stopped the waste of ratepayers money trying to hide the truth? Why do you think Mrs Arnold does not want her picture taken? Come on Christine, do the right thing: BLOW THE WHISTLE. Mrs Arnold confirmed on another local site visit that Doug Moss was still working for Wealden in their policy making department.

It is alleged that Christine (Chris) Arnold, is party to Wealden Council's obstruction and perversions of justice by way of perpetuating a lie - in breach of the:

* Local Land Charges Regulations - keeping data accurate and up to date.

* Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 - failure to carry out a function causing financial loss.

and other Data Protection statute and the common law duties to provide an effective administration and to act reasonably. She has been formally asked to revisit this Council's deceptions regarding Herstmonceux Museum. She can, could and should (at any time) blow the whistle and we here invite her to do so.

We are informed that Mrs Arnold visited Herstmonceux Museum in late 2013 with other persons acting in an official capacity who may need to be called to give evidence. This site visit was recorded so that there could be no doubt as to who was in attendance and what was said. We now hold a copy of that recording and can provide a transcript if necessary.

She was shown around the site to include the rear of the premises. While looking at the rear of the buildings, Christine was shown Enforcement plans dating from 1987, an extract of which is shown below. Mrs Arnold was also shown an Order from the Lewes Crown Court dating from 1998, where Mr Kruschandl's conviction in the Hailsham Magistrates Court in 1988, for breaching a so-called Enforcement Notice was quashed.

The rules regarding service of an enforcement notice are strict. If no notice is served within a four year period, then for example, residential occupation become immune from enforcement to the extent that the development becomes unchallengeable as to lawfulness.

While at the rear the visitors had a chance to compare buildings on the ground with what is shown on the Appeal site plan. Mrs Arnold was asked to note that the "garden tool store" was not in fact a there anymore, and that other buildings, especially:

1. A 2nd World War Anderson Shelter and 

2. An underground building to the rear of the generating buildings, were not identified on the plan.

Mrs Arnold had no trouble in agreeing with these statement while on site and faced with incontrovertible physical evidence, but did not know that she was being recorded. Of necessity, she will be called as a witness and confronted with the recording of the site visit.

Similarly, Mrs Arnold was shown around and into a self-contained studio that was constructed between 2006/7. She was asked to agree that the building was not shown in a photograph dating from 1999 - and once again, she had no problem agreeing with that on site. But when asked to confirm that in writing, back came a letter from Trevor Scott, in effect, saying completely the opposite - denying completely that which was so obvious on site that any reasonable person could not deny the facts. Check out the Google Earth pictures below to confirm that which was presented to Christine Arnold - and the reason that she could not deny what she was seeing.

You would imagine from the above that Mrs Arnold, if she was a law abiding citizen, would immediately have made efforts to check the Local Land Charges register for accuracy. Did she? We'll have to wait for the next legal clash to see.

These two pictures were saved from Google Maps. They are in the same orientation as the site plan above, north is at the top, south at the bottom and so on.  We are using the corner of The Old Rectory as the reference point - or baseline. The left picture is untouched. The right picture has the position of buildings on the appeal site plan shown in red. You can plainly see that the block Wealden refer to as a "Garden Tool Store" is a bare patch of grass covered land. It is also plain that there are other buildings on this site that are not covered by the enforcement site plan, so immune from enforcement. In 1988 the Judge looking at this information (obviously no Google Maps at the time) found in favour of Mr Nelson Kruschandl, in that a substantial building to the north-east that was used for accommodation is not covered by any enforcement notice. Since that time another substantial building has been added to the west for accommodation, that is also immune from enforcement. This fact is also plain from these pictures.

Any officer of this council that is apprised of the facts, but then allows false information to remain on file, must come under suspicion for malfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution. The pictures below are those of the officers of this council who have consistently given false or misleading evidence to Planning Inspectors and the Courts, or who have aided and abetted those who have.

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.

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.