T H E  T I N  S H A C K

 

  BASED ON A TRUE STORY OF GRIT AND DETERMINATION - AGAINST ALL ODDS

Find your way through this real life drama using our MORAL COMPASS to help steer you through the facts of this true story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BULLDOG - Politicians rarely tell the truth. That is one reason the UK's National Debt is so high. A lack of forward planning and reserves, and the inability to read world conditions, has led to the cost of living and climate crises. In this story, our hero is a bull mastiff type of character. A hardy breed, that does not shy from a fight, crossed with wolverine cunning, as the tactics of his opponent is catalogued and analyzed. Their zeal for misdirection, trips them up, when inconvenient facts finally rise to the surface. Finally, The Bulldog began to turn the tables on corrupt planning officials, as he took them on and won appeals for those unable to afford expensive lawyers. Actions speak louder than words. The Colonial became a high profile advocate. The Advocate became a target that must be suffocated, no matter how. The stakes were high.

 

 

 

 

In this true story, based on real events, the "Colonial Bulldog," was charged with sexual offences, as a way of discrediting the planning activist. Political assassination is a common way of wiping out a legitimate opponent, such as a planning activist, who was now winning case after case against the corrupt council. Sussex police also involved in the cover up of planning related crimes, having conspired with Wealden, not to investigate the legitimate allegations of 12 Petitioners, but rather, to give Wealden a blank sheet of police headed paper for Wealden to read out at a full Committee meeting. The letter exonerating Wealden's officers. No surprise there, as there had been no investigation. It is of course a crime not to investigate a crime.

 

The Crown Prosecution Service, (CPS) working with Sussex police and Wealden District Council (WDC), had conspired not only to present medical evidence which they knew to be incorrect, but also to assassinate the character of their victim, by arranging to tell the Jury that he lived in a 'Tin Shack.' The objective being to paint a picture of some kind of nut, adding to the illusion that he "must" then be a sexual deviant - if he lives in a Tin Hut. Deviant, being in the man-made version of nature. We need to be careful here. Man made laws do not always reflect the natural world, such as basic human biology. This is so because humans are intelligent, but not held to be intelligent as juveniles.

 

The Players in this scene are Victor's long term adversary: Ian Kay the assistant district planning officer from Wealden District Council, the CPS, Giles York of Sussex police, his investigators Gordon Staker, Brian West, and Henrietta Paget (barrister). Julian Dale is the barrister from local chambers representing, who has already shown his hand by refusing to challenge the medical evidence. In effect, telling Victor, that he is doomed. Being under represented, an Article 6 violation, in the right to a fair trial.

 

At planning hearings in Crowborough and Hailsham, Ian Kay and David Phillips had used the phrase: "Tin Hut" and "Tin Shack", at every opportunity, to paint a picture of Victor Woolfe, as being on the lunatic fringe, during planning applications. The term was guaranteed to colour the committee members against looking favourably on his planning applications. Ian Kay had employed such tactics in 1984, during closed session reports to committee, and having found this successful, kept on with more of the same. The aim being the same, to character assassinate his target. In this case to avoid his council being liable for a grant, to restore the historic building in question.

 

That was of course fraudulent behaviour. A deliberate deception designed to cheat Victor of monies he would have been lawfully entitled to. No only that, but Wealden would then be able to claim a recharge budget, to keep the Colonial Bulldog at bay.

 

This would be another fraud upon a power. And that fraud continues into 2023, with no signs of abating. Since, there is at present, no Effective Remedy, with Article 13, deliberately omitted from the HRA 1998. And this drafting of civil rights legislation, was designed to overcome the manifold corruptions that the civil servants knew of, and feared would lead to an avalanche of claims. Another reason, to curtail Legal Aid. To disarm the electorate.

 

Can it then be an amazing coincidence, that the police and witnesses during the trial, used exactly the same terms. For exactly the same purpose. Except, that it was not to sway a planning committee, it was to sway a Jury. Whereas, as any hint of bias, voids the proceedings as an abuse of process - per R (The King) v Sussex Justices ex-parte McCarthy 1924.

 

We don't think so. This was nothing less than an extension of the cover up to conceal the frauds between 1984 and 1987. The fraudulent claims for Government funds to keep the fraud concealed. And the need for further action, as Victor had called of an engagement to a Councillors's daughter, whereby Wealden believed they had control of their victim. But, with that steerage gone. Wealden felt compelled to protect all of their officer conspirators, via another smear campaign. And why not groom a vulnerable child and her jilted mother. Ideal for the task. All they had to do was persuade the mother and daughter duo, that Victor was a bad person. 

 

Then Councillor Brian West, had admitted that he had voted for enforcement action as a newly elected district member of Wealden around and about 1995, even though he knew the Area Plans South planning committee were being lied to. He had talked about the use of this terminology, and Ian Kay using it, along with Kay's confederates: David Phillips and Victorio Scarpa.

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

The Gestapo would simply torture you physically, then send you to a concentration camp to be worked to death. Wealden Council, working conspiratorially with Sussex police, will frame you, then make sure the facts of the matter are misrepresented to a Jury, to ensure a conviction.

 

 

 

 

Character assassination in a court of law, constitutes discrimination. Especially, where the facts are all wrong. That means a Jury will make a decision based on untruths, being influenced by that presented in Court. Making their decision ultra vires, after Canterbury City Council ex-parte Spring Image Ltd. 1991.

 

But, in the UK, the State has arranged the legal system (Judiciary) so that there is no way back to a Court of Appeal, except via a Single Judge (within 28 days) or via the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) after 28 days. In the case of the CCRC, they are an organization that by virtue of the decision of three judges in an application for a Judicial Review of the CCRC refusal to refer to the Court of Appeal, are allowed to discriminate. Despite the fact that discrimination is illegal in the United Kingdom as per Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

A referral by the CCRC is the only way back to an Appeal Court as the law stands at present, the British Bulldog appears to be left with only one way to redress the injustice, an audience with the King, as per the 1689 Bill of Rights. Should that fail, the European Court of Human Rights has already shown that they are biased. Being politically swayed. Hence, the International Court at the Hague, might be the last refuge of justice, except that a single complainant, might not be eligible.

 

The UK has no Written Constitution, being a Constitutional Monarchy - presently in disarray. Meaning, that the Head of State, currently King Charles III, can sway the independence of the Courts, using the Honours System. Otherwise known as the Old Boys Act. Judges are routinely awarded gongs, for covering up injustices. It's called "Noble Cause Corruption." But there is nothing noble about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

Please use our MORAL COMPASS to navigate this story, or revisit our LANDING PAGE 

 

 

This website is Copyright 2023 Injustice Alliance.

The views, performance reviews and opinions of the Trust are protected by Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

The names of the main character and some of the supporting characters have been changed to protect their identity. Other characters in this work of fiction, retain their original names, where historical facts are quoted essentially and accurately, with reference to key documents tendered as supporting evidence.

Copyright is asserted as per sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The truth is stranger than fiction.