Before looking at any evidence, the panel members said they were right behind the officers - hardly an open minded approach. The Petition panel was chaired by Lord Richard Newton, with Jack Gore and Eddie Powell. (Jack Gore was later discredited in failing to declare an interest in another matter and resigned, Lord Newton declared an interest in a landfill matter and resigned as a councillor).

After much ceremony, the panel gave their officer colleagues a clean bill of health, except only that serious issues (the subject of the complaints) were supposedly handed over to the Police - after Lord Newton wrote to one of the Petitioner's agreeing that the matters complained of were criminal in nature. 

This admission on the part of the Lord Newton should have attracted a full investigation by Sussex Police.

Misfeasance that is covered up becomes malfeasance in public office, transitioning from the civil to the criminal zone.

The serious matters raised by the petitioners were handed to Sussex police, when Detective Sergeant Keith Lindsay failed to conduct any investigation but simply bundled the petitioners complaints on to the CPS, who in the absence of any investigation looked the other way.

In April 2001, one of the complainants again raised his complaint with Detective Sergeant Colin Dowel.

Whereas, the CPS should properly have questioned the lack of interviews by Sussex police. Not one of the officers accused was interviewed and no statements were taken from any of the informants (victims).

The Police then allowed the then Council's chief executive, to write what they wanted their force to say in writing, by providing a blank sheet of police headed paper to the council. 

This ruse convinced other innocent members of the council that they were looking at the result of an full investigation. This also meant that the suspect council officers could continue to defraud the public, remain employed and collect their enhanced pensions.

Such salaries and pensions would of course fall under the category of proceeds of crime.

When the Wealden were challenged as to the truth of the "letter", the replacement chief executive  (the former CEO, Derek Holness, having made a get away on an enhanced pension) refused to allow Petitioners sight of the suspect Police letter.

There is no statutory limitation on such crimes.

A failure to investigate a crime, is a crime. Anyone implicated becomes party to the crime, as if they committed the crime themselves. That includes any police officer who fails to investigate this crime - and that means that their salaries are also (in part) considered to be proceeds of crime.

The law is the law!

Nobody is above the law, and especially not corrupt police officers. There should be zero trust in police officers, where the temptations as to abuse of positions requiring impartiality are concerned.

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!

....

.....

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site