Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




ONE MINUTE THEY DON'T WANT TOILETS, THE NEXT MINUTE - Wealden District Council just cannot make their minds up. For one building and occupier they did not want toilets, in the same location for property developers, they are prepared to ignore the potential shit hazards being created.





Human rights in the Wealden District are routinely ignored, according to the website, a site that features many unsavoury, but nonetheless apparently true stories about Wealden's officer's abusing people's rights, and Sussex police turning a blind eye - in failing to conduct any kind of investigation into such allegations.


They can do this because the UK has no written constitution.


It is claimed that discrimination, an Article 14 violation was routinely ignored in singling out certain members of the community for unfavourable treatment:



Prohibition of discrimination


The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.



In failing to conduct an investigation into no less than 12 complaints in 1997 (by way of a petition), Sussex police violated the Article 6 rights of the complainant's to receive a fair trial. In these cases there were no prosecutions by the CPS, but worse than that, it appears from the reading of a letter to a full Committee meeting, that Sussex police were just a little more complicit in a cover up, where it is alleged that a blank sheet of Sussex police notepaper was given to Wealden's officers for them to write what they wanted the police to say.




If, as it appears, there is a legal system where the police can choose what crimes to investigate, and what crimes to bury under the carpet, then the United Kingdom (effectively) has no redress for the ordinary citizen who may have been wronged.


The common term for such a situation is a "Police State."


Parliament, in its wisdom has given the police the power to decide if a crime should be investigated. The police operate as a closed shop without any transparency or safety nets.


That is why we had the murders of Sharna Grice and Sue Nicholson. They both reported crimes and were both threatened with prosecution for wasting police time.


Other people in Sussex who have reported crimes persistently, have been arrested, had their homes ransacked, and in one case, even been framed by the police for crimes that did not take place, so that they could lock up their victim and discredit him. Shocking, but true! Hence, the police are the criminals in this unfolding drama. They will of course claim incompetence, rather than admit to conspiracy.




NOAH'S ARK - The well adjacent to the proposed development site will suffer contamination if this development proceeds. This picture was taken in 2019. The rainbow is taken as a sign from above, that Wealden will not heed. What are the odds of a rainbow appearing in exactly the same place several times. On other occasions those witnessing the event did not have a camera to hand. The happening has been captured twice.





In the UK and internationally, it is illegal to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of property. Where the proposed development is bound to contaminate the water supply from this historic well, the developers will have violated the Human Rights of the occupiers in Lime Park.


Further, in failing to take note of this right and make reasonable adjustments such that any contamination might be avoided, the build of houses in close proximity, might be construed as a malicious act.


What is reasonable in the circumstances, might be to relocate the proposed housing such as not to come within the 100 meter radius.


That the developers own the land further north, and being closer to the village of Herstmonceux, they have the ability to make reasonable adjustments, to avoid infringing the rights of those who rely on water from Lime Well.


This is seen at Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life



1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


And Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the Human Rights Act 1998 provides:



(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.


(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.



The European Court of Human Rights has indicated that this Article contains three distinct rules ((1) Sporrong (2) Lonnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 85):


(1) The general principle of peaceful enjoyment of property (first sentence of the first paragraph);


(2) The rule that any deprivation of possessions should be subject to certain conditions (second sentence, first paragraph);


(3) The principle that States are entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose (second paragraph).

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions include the right of property (Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330). “Possessions” are not limited to physical goods: in Gasus Dosier-und Fordertechnik GmbH v The Netherlands (1995) 20 EHRR 403 it was considered immaterial that the property in issue was fully owned by the applicant, or whether it simply had a security right in it (retention of title). But to qualify under this Article the right or interest must have an economic value, or be of a pecuniary nature. In addition to property, possessions include:

- Company shares: Bramelid & Malmstrom v Sweden, (1982) 29 DR 64.


- Patents: Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v The Netherlands (1990) 66 DR 70;


- Goodwill in business: Van Marle & Ors v The Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 483;


- Licence to serve alcoholic beverages: Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden (1989) 13 EHRR 309;


- Ownership of a debt (where it has crystallised): Agneesens v Belgium (1998) 58 DR 63;


- An award, of court or arbitration, which is final and enforceable with no right of appeal on the merits:


(1) Stran Greek Refineries


(2) Stratis Andreadis v Greece (1994) 19 EHRR 293 and Pressos Compania Naviera SA & 25 Ors v Belgium (1997) 21 EHRR 301;


- Interests in a pension scheme Wessels-Begervoet v The Netherlands (1986) (Admissibility Decision Application No. 00034462/97 October 10 2000

In Matthews v MoD [2002] 3 All ER the Court of Appeal accepted that a right of action in tort was a possession.



Well water contamination is imminent at Herstmonceux from proposed housing on flood plain


Herstmonceux Museum Ltd Vs Latimer Developments Ltd & Clarion Group Ltd 2021 - A looming case involving a well and potential water contamination, where the property developers Latimer Developments and Clarion Housing Group Limited purchased land at Herstmonceux in East Sussex, from Timothy Watson (possibly via others) with the intention to build houses on a slope directly feeding ground water to the well that is the only and original source of water to a historic site and the occupants of old generating buildings dating from 1909. Where gardens are planned and garages for cars are included, it is likely that pesticides used ordinarily by gardeners, and or oil spills from motor vehicles (and the like) will eventually soak into the groundwater such as to contaminate the water that is used for drinking and washing, etc. Whereas, the state must protect the occupants of the building from a real or potential threat of contamination such as to avoid threatening the continued use of such amenity, but that neither the developer, nor the Wealden District Council, took care to avoid an exclusion zone typically 100 one hundred meters upstream of Lime Well, contrary to Protocol 1, Article 1, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the HRA 1998.




2, 4, 6, 8 DEFECATE - ....





ARE THEY SURE? - Southern Water say these are essential improvements. But are they? Many concerned residents are of the opinion that the village was already overloaded. Meaning that these works are more profiteering from over-development of the countryside. It's hot enough already without raising the temperature of planet earth more!









INCONVENIENCE? - Or interference. That is the question. When does inconvenience become a Human Rights violation? Where the inconvenience causes, leads to, or even potentially sets in motion the means to cause human rights violations, then arguably, Article 1 of Protocol 1 is breached.




AIDING AND ABETTING? - As contractors for the developers who it appears are intent on creating a situation where a water supply become contaminated, Southern Water could be held to be conspirators, to such Human Rights abuses. Hence, we are looking at climate and human rights crimes.





Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site