DUTY TO PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES

 

  WEALDEN OWED A DUTY TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC WELL IN LIME PARK, BUT FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE MATTER - ALLEGEDLY - IN THE RUSH TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO POISON THIS UNIQUE WATER SUPPLY

 

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or return HOME

 

 

 

 

What were Area Plans South planning committee thinking of, or rather not thinking of in passing any planning application on this field, without first ensuring that protections were in place to protect the drinking water supply from this historic well. The chair of the committee was Councillor Susan Stedman.

 

 

 

 

POISONING WATER SUPPLIES

 

In the quest to illicit CIL payments to prop up their pension plans, Wealden appear (and it is alleged) to have been criminally negligent, in granting planning consent for 70+ houses in a field near Lime Cross, adjacent to a historic well, that is the only pure water source for a number of concerns within Lime Park, not being fluorinated, but a natural supply. The law is clear as to the duty owed to existing water users, to protect their drinking supplies from threat of contamination. Yet, there is no 106 Agreement as to pesticides and herbicides, or any other form of protection against toxic or carcinogenic contaminants (oil spillages and leaking sumps, gearboxes, etc), in relation to the well that was and remains in operation as a source of highly prized potable water.

 

Whereas, the proposed development includes garages for cars, drainage for foul and gray water, that could leach into the soil, and gardens, where chemicals from gardening would become an issue, as they soaked into the ground, thence into the groundwater that feeds the ancient well.

 

That is right, Wealden District Council, appear to have worked with the developers, by way of conspiring to deprive the users of the ancient water supply, in not putting in place a 106 Agreement to protect the ground water from contamination, or threat of contamination. Also, a violation of the (Human) right to peaceful enjoyment of a historic right. A water right, being both a human right and a possession.

 

 

 

 

 

WD/2018/1584/MRM - Proofs of evidence. We are sure that facial recognition software might identify these workers at the site where a pumping station was installed, to assist the developers, who had not then (at that time) complied with the 106 Agreement, such as to validify the permission granted by Wealden District Council within the limited timeframe allowed. Nor would that have been possible without the South East's water group, leaping to aid and abet the (future intended) commission of a felony. It is alleged this can only have been to help the developers and the council, to develop the site further, with the building of houses. Hence, there was a conspiracy in the matter. A bit like attempted murder, it is attempted poisoning, a lesser offence, except that conspiracy raised the bar to life imprisonment, in certain cases.

 

 

 

STATUTORY PROTECTIONS

 

The Statute protecting the purity of a water supply via the long use of a well is not cut and dried, with a dedicated single Act. But, includes the Prescription Act 1832 and Human Rights Act 1998 (peaceful enjoyment of property), and other Statute. See the extracts of the various Law below as examples.

Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, sections 3, 8 and 23:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2009/9780111480816/regulation/3

 

[(3 (2) (h)(i) [biocides and plant protection products.]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2009/9780111480816/regulation/8


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2009/9780111480816/regulation/23


These section are allied to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In particular see Sections 23 and 24:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/23


[Maliciously administering poison, &c. so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . F1 to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding ten years.]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/24


[Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . F1 to be kept in penal servitude.]

 

 

 

 

WD/2018/1584/MRM - Not so much evidential proof, but an interesting find when excavating around the ancient well.

 

 


Then comes the coup de grâce. Section 2 of the Prescription Act, as follows:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/2-3/71


[2 In claims of right of way or other easement the periods to be twenty years and forty years. No claim which may be lawfully made at the common law, by custom, prescription, or grant, to any way or other easement, or to any watercourse, or the use of any water, to be enjoyed or derived upon, over, or from any land or water of our said lord the King, or being parcel of the duchy of Lancaster or of the duchy of Cornwall, or being the property of any ecclesiastical or lay person, or body corporate, when such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been actually enjoyed by any person claiming right thereto without interruption for the full period of twenty years, shall be defeated or destroyed by showing only that such way or other matter was first enjoyed at any time prior to such period of twenty years, but nevertheless such claim may be defeated in any other way by which the same is now liable to be defeated; and where such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been so enjoyed as aforesaid for the full period of forty years, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, unless it shall appear that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly given or made for that purpose by deed or writing.]

Obviously, nobody granted consent or permission (by deed or writing) to extract the water from the Well; nobody cared. The Well is a historic feature. And, the well is fed directly from the hill (field) rising above the Well. Wealden, thus, will be guilty of the Offences Against the person Act cited above, the same as the developers and the homeowners who allow any noxious substance into the groundwater within the prescribed distance from a well supplying water for human consumption. A crime like this is called Joint Enterprise. Wealden and the Developers owe/owed any water user a Duty of Care to ensure that none of the offences above may be committed.

But, they failed to take proper note of the Well as the only water supply to the adjacent buildings, in determining the Application for 70 houses. Despite, the Well, being visible in the photographs they included in their assessments, and Wealden having knowledge of the well from planning applications and visits from the Environment Agency they instigated in the 1990s, seeking to block at least 2 planning applications from 1997.

Then, given the propensity of gardeners and home owners to use bio/pesticides, and for vehicles to leak oils onto drives, etc., in the ordinary course of enjoying a home. There should have been an exclusion zone of between 100 and 300 meters. To be sure, as one has to be more than a little cautious when protecting human health.

This is one of the main issues, that invalidates the 70-140 house Permissions. 

See: R v Canterbury City Council ex-parte Spring Image Ltd (1993 JPL) and

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html

 

The Wednesbury rule, the duty of a local authority to be reasonable. But, only if the housing development encroaches within the 300 meters of reasonable precaution. And, that rules out roughly half the field for development - at least. With the affordable housing to be built first. Not at all de minimus!

If the development had started in say 2017 and completed before 2021, nobody could have claimed the full forty year protection. Regardless of that, there are still state granted rights, such as the prevention of slow poisoning. Now though, the 40 year absolute rule applies.

 

 

 

WD/2018/1584/MRM - Proposed plan of the housing development as submitted to the Area Plans South planning committee of Wealden District Council. 50 meter and 100 meter circles are shown on the map in thin red ink. It is submitted that the members and officers could be in no doubt at all, that the proposal would contaminate the ancient well, on land adjacent to Lime Park. There were some 35 conditions attaching, not one of which offered or even identified binding protections for the water rights, that they knew about from pictures and written objections from adjacent occupiers.

 

 

WD/2018/1584/MRM - Proofs of evidence. Proposed plan of the housing development as submitted to the Area Plans South planning committee of Wealden District Council. 50 meter and 100 meter circles are shown on the map in thin red ink. It is submitted that the members and officers could be in no doubt at all, that the proposal would contaminate the ancient well, situated on land adjacent to Lime Park. There were some 35 conditions attaching, not one of which offered or even identified binding protections for the water rights, that they knew about from pictures and written objections from adjacent occupiers, supplied to WDC by recorded postal and hand delivery.

 

 

 

FRAUD

 

Such failure to protect the water supply, constitutes a financially quantifiable loss, contrary to the duty to safeguard the users of the well from such loss, as per the Fraud Act of 2006. Hence, we are speaking of major corruption, malfeasance, and misconduct in public office. Any such failure constituting the criminal offence of fraud.

 

We can surmise this, because we know Wealden obtained a legal (barristers) opinion as to the legality of granting the consent. What is not known at this stage, but will become revealed in the course of litigation, or of any criminal prosecutuon, is if WC broached the subject of poisoning the ancient well. The issue here is Procurement Fraud. The act of procuring something of value to another person.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents

 

1 Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are —

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable —

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1the general limit in a magistrates’ court] or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation —

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if —

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he —

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information —

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

4 Fraud by abuse of position

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position —

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

 

The above Sections of the Fraud Act appear to support the allegation that Wealden, and/or any other person working with the developers to secure a planning consent in the field adjacent to the ancient well, failed to safeguard the financial interests of those with water rights in the historic well. The cost of a water supply, being quantifiable as charges levied by Southern Water Company, or South East Water Limited.

 

 

 

 

 

WD/2018/1584/MRM - Proofs of evidence. Another photograph of the field adjacent to the Ancient Well in line for contamination, showing that Southern or South East Water, did in fact construct a foul water pumping station, to aid and abet the Developers and Wealden District council in the commission of crimes various, offences against the person, and loss, as defined by the Fraud Act of 2006.

 

 

 

VICARIOUS LIABILITY & THE ACCESSORIES AND ABETTORS ACT

 

It is alleged that Southern Water, working with South East Water, the developers, and Wealden District councillors and officers, actively assisted the crime of poisoning the ancient well, by virtue of carrying out works in the form of a water pumping station, and piping from that water pumping station situation on land to the south-east, fronting onto Chapel Row, thence to the triangle exiting to the A271, and thence to their treatment plant further north.

 

It is alleged, that in carrying out such works, it was the intention of Southern and South East Water to aid in the procurement of the permission that would enable the 'Developers' to construct houses that would lead to contamination of the Ancient Well, adjacent to Lime Park. Inevitably, affecting the peaceful enjoyment of that water right. In supporting the developers and WDC such, they became party to the offences listed above, as if they had committed the act of poisoning or contaminating the 'Well Water' themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

WD/2018/1584/MRM - A more famous case of groundwater poisoning took place at Hinkley, California, where Erin Brokovich uncovered a conspiracy to cover up hexavalent chromium leaks, that had caused widespread cancer symptoms in many of the local residents.

 

 

 

SUSSEX POLICE

 

In the past, planning crimes similar in nature have been reported to Sussex police, but remain to be investigated. In 1997 a Petition was presented to Wealden, with a Panel set up to look at eleven independent complaints as to serious impropriety and human rights offences, including interfering with family life, discrimination and torture.

 

Lord Richard Newton referred the complaints to Sussex police, who should properly have recused themselves, and passed to an outside force. As in the case of James Ashley. When Kent and Hampshire constabularies declared Sussex one of the most institutionally corrupt forces in England.

 

The fact Sussex police have been complicit in covering up reported planning crimes in the past, prohibits their involvement in the investigation and/or prosecution of Inchoate offences.

 

 

 

 

 

Deliberate exclusion from proper consideration, by virtue of not compiling a Local List

 

 

 

 

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON

 

It is a criminal offence as per the Offences Against The Person Act to threaten to poison, or otherwise contaminate a water supply. Any such conspiracy, constitutes another criminal offence under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

 

HARASSMENT

 

It is also a criminal offence to harass any person or persons, where such rights undermine the local authority, leading to attempts to acquire the well. In the past the person fighting to protect the unique heritage item adjacent to the well, has been the subject of a bombardment of planning enforcement actions, all aimed at bankrupting their victim, by way of a vendetta stretching over 40 years, with over 186 recorded enforcement visits. Five planning appeals, and at least three high court actions. Think of the cost to the taxpayer. Estimates are well over £600,000 pounds. Probably nearer the £million pound mark, including borrowing, to make up for these losses.

 

This is a real live case. A true story, that most people will not believe. Much as with the Post Office Horizon scandal.

 

It's hardly any wonder that the UK is bankrupt, with councils like Wealden pursuing un-winnable agendas, but with an open cheque book policy, hemorrhaging council tax money at a bleed rate that may well see the council die. As in declare bankruptcy.

 

Also, there were Magistrates and Crown court actions. It appears, and it is alleged, all aimed at parting their target from any connection with the premises. Newly seen to be a threat to Wealden's control of land development, where their victim in these matters, has won a number of planning cases against what many would agree, is one of the most corrupt councils in England. Indeed, in 2023, several council officers including Mike Wakeford, attended the Hastings Magistrates Court, Bohemia Road, East Sussex, with no other agenda (as it seems) but to evaluate the presentation abilities of their target. Clearly, if that was why four members of staff had been paid (from your taxes) to attend, they would have reported back to Trevor Scott and the Council's Cabinet, including James Partridge (as council leader) that his cognitive abilities appeared unimpaired.

 

Presumably, that means playing a waiting game; until they are impaired. In which case the 70 house development will be Land banked. Because, Wealden work closely with developers to procure favours, doing all they can to duck inchoate liability. And that may be the key to undoing their vendetta against the former occupier of the old generating station at Herstmonceux. Potentially, time to pay the piper.

 

 

 

There are instances where a substantive offence may not have been completed but nevertheless an offence of a different kind has been committed because of the actions or agreements in preparation for the substantive offence. These are known as inchoate offences. Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates, at sections 44 to 46, three inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed.  These offences replace the common law offence of incitement for all offences committed after 1 October 2008. They allow people who assist another to commit an offence to be prosecuted regardless of whether the underlying substantive offence is actually committed or attempted.

 

 

 

WHAT ARE INCHOATE OFFENCES

 

There are instances where a substantive offence may not have been completed but nevertheless an offence of a different kind has been committed because of the actions or agreements in preparation for the substantive offence. These are known as inchoate offences.

ASSISTING OR ENCOURAGING CRIME

Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates, at sections 44 to 46, three inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed.

These offences replace the common law offence of incitement for all offences committed after 1 October 2008. They allow people who assist another to commit an offence to be prosecuted regardless of whether the underlying substantive offence is actually committed or attempted.

Section 50 of the 2007 Act provides a defence to the offences in Part 2 where the encouragement or assistance is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances the person knew to exist or he reasonably believed to exist. Though, poisoning water or otherwise disturbing the lawful use of water rights, is hardly reasonable in any circumstances.

Section 51 of the 2007 Act provides a limitation on liability to the offences in Part 2 where the offence encouraged or assisted was created in order to protect a category of people and the person doing the encouraging or assisting falls into that category and was the person in respect of whom the offence was or would have been committed. This would cover for example a child who encourages or assists a sexual offence of which he or she was to have been the victim.

 

In this present case, there can be no such limitation. The alleged offence is one committed by a land development group working with the officers and members of a council, and a water authority. All aimed at harming the use of an ancient well, so depriving the users of that well, of that right.

THE OFFENCES

Sections 45 and 46 create offences of encouraging or assisting an offence or offences believing it, or one or more of them, will be committed. In determining 'belief' in Sections 45 and 46, prosecutors should refer to the case law on handling stolen goods, as the test is similar.

Belief is a state of mind which is more than suspicious, the word ‘belief’ is a word of ordinary usage and does not require any elaboration Treacy v DPP (1971) 55 Cr.App.R. 113. If elaboration is required, a direction approved in R v Moys (1984) 79 Cr.App.R.72 should be given, confirming that suspicion, in addition with the fact that the defendant shut his eyes to the circumstances, is not enough, although such matters were relevant to the jury’s determination of the defendant’s knowledge or belief.

Though Section 46 allows for the belief by the defendant that one or more offence may be committed, where offences with a different maximum sentence are pleaded in a Section 46 count, separate counts should be included on the indictment for each variation so the sentencing judge is clear as to the basis for conviction under Section 46 - R v S & H [2011] EWCA Crim 2872.

Section 48(3) ensures that a person can only be found guilty of the offence under Section 46 if the offence or offences that the jury find the defendant believed would be committed are specified in the indictment.

Section 53 should be read in conjunction with Schedule 4 of the 2007 Act. In broad terms, Schedule 4 provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction where the defendant does an act capable of assisting or encouraging a crime but does not know or believe that the substantive offence will occur wholly or partly in England and Wales. The act itself may be done inside or outside England and Wales. In relation to offences to which Schedule 4 applies, Section 53 provides that the prior consent of the Attorney General must be obtained before initiating a prosecution.

The general jurisdictional rules of Schedule 4 are without prejudice to any specific jurisdictional rules which already exist for certain offences. For example, offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 already have their own extra-territorial rules. Where this is the case, extra-territoriality is governed by the provisions of the statute which creates the offence, not by Schedule 4 of the 2007 Act.

The Ministry of Justice Circular No. 2008/04 covers Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 providing an overview of the offences and an explanation as to the implementation of sections 44 to 67 of the Act.

INCITEMENT

Section 59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 abolished the common law offence of incitement, with effect from 1 October 2008.

For offences committed before that date, incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:

- They incite another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other; and

- They intend or believe that the other, if he acts as incited, shall or will do so with the fault required for the offence(s) R v Claydon [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 20.

It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited.

The prosecution must show that the person accused of incitement intended or believed that the person incited would, if acted as incited to do so, do so with the mens rea appropriate to the offence.

 

 

SYNOPSIS OF THE MOTIVE

 

In or about 1981/1982, the well in question was re-discovered. It was put into use immediately, as the only water supply to a historic building. Wealden did not want to have to pay grant monies for the restoration of the historic building, not to the then owner. Preferring the premises was in the ownership of other near neighbours in Lime Park, when it would be just a domestic store.

 

Wealden District Council (WC) knew the building was of historic importance, as noted in a secret closed session Enforcement Report to the Area Plans South Committee from 1983 to 1985. A witness to the discrimination was Mr Chester Hudson, who was granted sight of that Report by accident, immediately furnishing WC with a Statutory Declaration, by way of a sworn witness statement. But this sighting of the Enforcement Report was after many years of WC denying the historic value of the building in several appeals to the Secretary of State. Where WC failed to follow the correct protocols in an officer led conspiracy to defraud the occupier of any beneficial use.

 

In 1997, WC sought to unlawfully empty the building of fittings and fixtures required to comply with the Health & Safety Regulations, such as toilet and washing facilities. When this failed, they attempted to use the costs generated by the SLAPP action to bankrupt their target.

 

In 1998 the truth of the historic value of what is a significant heritage asset, was uncovered and verified by the Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society. In June of the same year a further planning application was made by the then occupier, offering WC the chance to correct their maladministration, turned into malfeasance (misconduct in public office). They refused the application stating in open session that they did not want to give consent to "this applicant".

 

That meeting in June 1988 was recorded by the same Chester Hudson, who was by then very suspicious of WC's motives. Since his own criminal complaint to the Petition and thence to Sussex police was not investigated. Indeed, it transpired that Sussex police had provided blank headed paper for Ian Kay (assistant district planning officer) and presumably other executive officers and the Cabinet at that time, to compose a reply for the police, to exonerate their council of any blame. Thus, the conspiracy deepened and broadened. Tainting any new staff and councillors that came to know of the matter, but then failed to blow the whistle.

 

WC had already blighted the heritage site with a Tree Preservation Order, that backfired, adding to the inchoate crime element, as a series of SLAPP actions, comprising a course of malicious conduct. Where they knew it was unlawful to seek to protect weed trees in close proximity to a historic building. Their ploy hinged upon the building not being recognised for it true origins.

 

Then between 2003 and 2006, Trevor Scott and Daniel Goodwin, sought to sweep all WC's past misdeeds under the carpet, with an Agreement by Consent in the Eastbourne County Court. It was agreed that WC would pay to apply for planning permission, using an Independent Report, complied by London University (Archaeology South East). That 'Report' confirming that WC had conspired to deceive at least 3 planning inspectors and another 3 high court judges. In not revealing what they knew about the heritage asset, as confirmed in the 1983-1985 secret reports to committee.

 

To cap it all, David Phillips, chief enforcement officer, had written to solicitors Butters Olien, acting for Peter and June Townley, to say they were the preferred owners of the historic asset. This letter was contained in the working file belonging to Ian Kay, and officer who (it is alleged) the Inspectorate said should have been replaced.

 

WC reneged on their Consent Order, looking for other ways to duck the inevitability of discovery of their wrong doing, presumably that key offenders could make off with enhanced pensions, and distance themselves from their crimes.

 

In 2015 a planning application by Tim Watson, a friend of Susan Stedman of many years, who was now chair of Area Plans South planning committee, was withdrawn and resubmitted in identical terms by a property developer. The occupiers of the historic building objected in strong terms, citing the ancient well as their only water supply. These valid concerns were ignored, much as the history of the heritage asset had been ignored from 1983 onwards, as part of a malicious campaign. The objective being to bury the heritage asset in housing and to poison their water supply. So debasing the asset and giving credence to their efforts to discredit the asset and the former occupier.

 

That is the motive, as alleged.

 

 

SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE

 

The case of David Purseglove and Pear Tree Well, a water supply matter is cited as similar fact evidence. His land at Uckfield situated opposite land controlled by WC, as a competitor to their ambitions. SLAPP actions were used to prevent Mr Purseglove from beneficially enjoying his well water.

 

BLOW THE WHISTLE

 

Will anyone blow the whistle. Does the new Economic Transparency law have any real bite. We will have to wait and see : )

 

If you'd care to check the facts with Cllr. Partridge, here are his details:

 

Mobile: 07415 131002
Email: cllr.james.partridge@wealden.gov.uk

 

Be warned, Mr Partridge as the Liberal Democrat leader, has probably been bribed not to reply to any legitimate concerns. If you don't get a reply, you will know that he has been warned off. And, that probably means Wealden are Liable. They will have pulled up the drawbridge, closed their shutters, or in Star Trek terms: "shields up."

 

And that means they are taking money for not providing a service.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/inchoate-offences

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/inchoate-offences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site