The then Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse, had been supplied with copy photographs and copy correspondence.  Yet the gentleman refused to interview the informants or the suspects to obtain any further substantive evidence in the form of Witness Statements, or to record the reported Crimes.


Do the Police behave in this fashion, just to massage crime figures, or what else lurks beneath their reticence to tackle crime? It appears that the Sussex Police work with other agencies to wheedle out trouble makers. Anyone who challenges the system becomes a target for their attentions. When Nelson Kruschandl upped his campaign against corrupt planning officers to include citizens arrest, that is when they upped their game with an evil plan to tarnish this mans reputation. Once his character had been tainted, from that point on it was thought that nobody would take him seriously.


Surely though, to obtain a conviction of sexual penetration, using a virgin, to mount a complaint was sure to come a cropper eventually. It is alleged that Sussex Police had enlisted the services of a Health Service stooge to look the other way, when during a medical examination, she looked the other way, failing to carry out the correct procedure - in order that this force might prosecute an innocent man. Why? It seems to us, because he was getting too close to exposing Wealden's corrupt practices.


Letter from Paul Whitehouse to Nelson Kruschandl


In the case of a senior Wealden planning officer and his enforcement officer buddy, photographs were used to mislead a High Court Judge, Paul Whitehouse already had sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the senior Wealden officers were liars and that the chief enforcement officer had perjured himself.  Similar fact evidence to demonstrate this is not an isolated incident, came in the form of Chester Hudson's complaint that Wealden's then assistant district planning officer had (dated) colour aerial photographs of Stream Farm, clearly showing buildings extant ten years before an application for a Lawful Development Certificate.  


Wealden District Council did not provide this information to the Inspector, which failure to supply is a criminal act as defined by the Town & Country Planning Acts.  Instead, they supplied a monochrome copy of exceptionally poor quality, without any date attribute.  The assistant planning officer gave his evidence on oath when he told the Planning Inspector hearing the matter, he could not remember where this photograph had originated.  Yet it is a fact that a stickit poster was on the Council's file attached to the colour aerial photograph (and was photographed) saying: return to the named case officer.  To add to the above, the assistant district planning officer (now District Planning Officer) is thought to be a keen pilot in his spare time and is known to make full use of photographic records - except in this case where the evidence was inconvenient to Wealden's refusal.


Another case surfaced where Wealden put two identical photographs before the Crown Court, hoping to persuade the Court they were taken morning and afternoon.  Three well documented case involving Wealden's planning officers and either missing or manufactured evidence!  Yet this is not enough for Paul Whitehouse.  Paul Whitehouse later resigned on another matter involving impropriety.



A subsequent inquiry into Whitehouse's conduct by Sir John Hoddinott, the chief constable of Hampshire 



use GOOGLE  Sir John Hoddinott james ashley you will find a lot of info


Shooting From The Lip  -  Private Eye, 1 - 14 June 2001

The chief constable of Sussex, Paul Whitehouse, has been accused of criminal misfeasance, falsehood and discreditable conduct for his handling of the shooting of Jimmy Ashley in Hastings on 15 January 1998. So why has he still got his job?

Part of the answer lies in the unpublished detail of the confidential report by Sir John Hoddinott, former chief constable of Hampshire. It suggests that the Sussex police authority, which had to decide Whitehouse's future, was prevented from doing its job properly and that it is not only Whitehouse whose future ought to be in jeopardy.

The original charge against Whitehouse was that on the day of the shooting he issued a press release which was thoroughly misleading and made comments to reporters about Ashley which seemed to blacken the dead man's character. Ashley's family made a formal complaint On 12 February 1998 the Sussex police authority considered that complaint and rejected it: Whitehouse was completely exonerated.

A few months later Hoddinott was called in to find out whether senior Sussex officers had been obstructing the Kent detectives who were investigating the shooting. Hoddinott looked again at the "exoneration" of Whitehouse and found several very strange things.

First he discovered something "rather strange and a cause for concern" about one Andrew Ogden, the Sussex police solicitor, who appeared to have suffered a conflict of interest.   He acted as Whitehouse's aggressive legal adviser, sending away Kent detectives with a flea in their ear when they had the impudence to ask embarrassing questions about the press release; he also acted as deputy clerk to the Sussex police authority, offering advice to the members whose duty was to judge Whitehouse in relation to the self-same press release.

Hoddinott discovered that Ogden had himself been involved in producing the press release and had failed to give the authority key facts. Crucially Ogden knew that, before he told the world that all was well with the shooting, the chief constable was already aware of two worrying things: that the dead man was naked and unarmed, and that the officer who shot him had previously had his firearms permit temporarily withdrawn.

"One would have thought," Hoddinott wrote, "that a deputy clerk owed a duty to the authority to have drawn these matters to their attention."

Hoddinott also discovered that on the morning of 12 February, just before the hearing to examine Whitehouse's behaviour, the clerk to the authority, Helmut Cartwright, had received an urgent fax from the Kent detectives. This warned that the officer whose behaviour had been cleared by the press release was in fact likely to be charged with manslaughter; and it drew attention to evidence that the chief constable had indeed tried to blacken the name of the dead man.

Hoddinott found that, although the clerk had told the members of the authority that a fax had arrived, "it does not appear that members' attention was drawn to the very significant contents". And so it came to pass that Whitehouse was exonerated.

A year later, in February 1999, the whole affair went back to the Sussex police authority because Hoddinott had submitted his findings. He reported in detail on the behaviour of its clerk ("puzzling") and its deputy clerk ("concerning"). He also concluded that Whitehouse had been guilty of falsehood, not only in his press release but also in his later dealings with the Kent detectives and with the Sussex police authority itself. Hoddinott said, for example, that Whitehouse's letter of defence to the authority a year earlier had been "unsustainable in any rational sense" and "plainly perverse".

The Sussex police authority says it took no action at all against either its clerk or its deputy clerk on the grounds that it was not any part of Hoddinott's brief to investigate them. It says neither man took part in the meetings to discuss Hoddinott's report. And, even though Hoddinott had found evidence of crime as well as disciplinary offences being committed by Whitehouse, the authority decided simply to issue him with "words of advice", the lowest form of disciplinary sanction.

Now the same authority, with the same clerk and deputy clerk, is to consider the future of the deputy chief constable, Mark Jordan, who has been suspended since February 1999. He is accused of neglect of duty for authorising the firearms operation which killed Jimmy Ashley and of falsehood for lying to Kent detectives who were investigating the shooting.








Many policemen are Masons.  This can lead to corruption at high levels, where fellow Masons, members of the public, might obtain favours, charges dropped, or charges brought against someone, as examples.  The law is quite often used incorrectly (illegally) to further the objectives of private causes. But who is there to investigate? Since many, if not most high ranking officers are Masons, in whichever force, even an outside force is unlikely to identify an officer who will make any effort to investigate a fellow officer.  It's a club, for a favoured few.




Aran Boyt

Chris Sherwood

Colin Dowle

Dave Tye

Jane Rhodes

Jo Pinyoun

Joe Edwards

Giles York

Gordon Staker

James Hookway

Kara Tombling

Keith Stoneman

Ken Jones

Maria Wallis

Mark Jordan

Martin Richards

Neil Honnor

Nigel Yeo

Olivia Pinkney

Paul Whitehouse

Peter Coll

Robert Lovell

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC

Timothy Motram


The above is just a few of a number of persons likely to be investigated in respect of certain cases brought against Wealden Action Group members, on the instigation of known Masons, councillors, or planning officers, many of which are themselves Masons.




Our advice to the public, is to log every complaint to the Police by recorded delivery.  If possible tape record, or even better video record the event.  Believe us, there is no substitute for hard footage to combat the lies of a police officer failing to do his duty and lbe complacent they will be!



Every regional Police Force has its own website which contains information and advice about police activity in the area it serves. You can select your local force, or the force for another region below:  However, you will not find any information as to how to report planning crime.  If you do report a planning crime, the force you have contacted will write back explaining it is a civil matter, despite the criminal sanctions in the Town & Country Planning Act as amended by the Planning & Compensation Act.  If you really push for a crime to be logged, they will tell you they do not have the resources and to take out a civil action.  Clearly, this is a crime in itself as in R v Dytham and R v Bowden - failing to perform one's duty to uphold the law.  Please also see the Police Act and Code of Conduct elsewhere on this site.  Just click the links.


It appears the UK Police Service works alongside a number of Government organisations, masquerading as independents, to stifle planning crime and suppress public outcry.   The best thing you can do if you recognise any of the symptoms, is to lobby your Member of Parliament for a change in the law.  The Ombudsman, District Auditor and Office for the Supervision of Solicitors are all their to preserve the status quo, regardless of the ongoing injustice:-




Hammer Lane, Vines Cross, East Sussex, 3 March 2004



If you have experienced of or been witness to any untoward attention, why not contact the Chief Constable:-


Joe Edwards

Chief Constable

Police Headquarters, Malling House, Church Lane

East Sussex,  BN7 2DZ

Tel.  0845 6070 999

Fax.  01273 404263











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




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. 


For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.



This site is free of Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2018.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary UK Limited.   All trademarks herby acknowledged.