If Fu Manchu’s policy was to ‘..always tell the truth’; did Devon’s rights of way goons cross the line, the Waters Margin at Five Fords, the interface of three significant streams (from Prescott, Craddock and Culliford direction) that join the River Culm, by flooding the area’s history with a witty rhetoric nonsense: foolishness from a vessel; but how to decide; was/is it bad faith calean in a caldron; or a most slippery dark Pandora’s box resembling a sweet jar, where naivety sought to ransack, or despoil much factual substance, the delicious products of our local (Devon’s) heritage, by replacing the truth of Uffculme Manor with all manner of adders, ladders, snakes and toads? Did DEFRA’s agent provocateurs know their subject area; an area of evil activity recorded in the Saxon Chronicles? Devon County Council (Devon CC) foolishly affronted:
A mid ninth century gift to Glastonbury from a king; the place where the angry, ordinarily mild, King Stephen sent army to siege, hit and subdue the Lord of the Manor Bampton; to quell the Anarchy incited by the barons, at Exeter; thereafter did burn the vill of Uffculme.
In 1840 two tithe districts were created because of an ancient park’s existence – granted by Edward III in 1336 two hundred years after the aforesaid burning. ─Did Michael Jenkins’s goons lose their way, if their intent was stealing the tithe mapping truth during changes to the Definitive Map, and assisted by Planning Inspectorate (PINS) fraudsters at Bristol?
─Was County Hall, Exeter the only training centre for expropriation and stealth; a ‘Boot-camp’ for public rights of way (PROW) frauds, its creation too close to DEFRA’s creation?
If the abuse of the county’s heritage by the custodian of the records: Devon County Council absorbed the dross off the top of the substance in the caldron of vicarious liability; is there an action upon the case if Mr Michael Jenkins retired in April 2013(?) after threatening me and appears to have either mismanaged and bungled the integrity, if he approved the illicit activity of trespass by the Devon County Council public rights of way officers?
Did he; wilfully oversee stealth and corruption emanating from within County Hall Exeter; was he equally involved in the covin activity; did he wilfully tort the private cony warren of the barton of Uffculme, ─and incite the cankerous advancing stealth? Or he, shrieking and seeking, lacking objectiveness at all times; -does he believe himself to be a victim: that I’ve the audacity to express my belief that public rights of way should be protected, not created by unlawful activity, an overt conspiracy to defraud, political agenda?
See Turner v. Sterling (1671) 2 Vent 24; Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and another v. Peko-Wallsend Limited and others (1986) 162 CLR 24; R v. Moses and Ansbro (1991) CA; R v. Doran 6th July 1999, Bristol Crown Court; Jasper & Others v. The United Kingdom; 16 Feb 2000.
In due course a video or narrative will follow the following 1976 Mash-Up; it will attempt to show with parallel lines how Devon County Council left the rails of the Culm Valley line to deceive the local community where the centenary of Culmstock Primary School passed in 1976, and the Culm Valley Light Railway did not, missing its own centenary by a year.
The ‘The Water Margin – A 1976 Mash-Up’ demonstrates how the Japanese language of the drama is worked by the BBC, to enable its British viewers an enjoyable moment:
The documentary explains how a forensic change took place to substitute Japanese words with English of a dissimilar type, i.e., totally different, but would be least noticeable by the British viewer, probably pass unnoticed such was the innocent trick. ~ To restructuring by DEFRA:
Ordinarily a public inquiry’s purpose is to proximate a rational understanding of the truth of the chosen subject matter, issue* before it. [*The point in question, between contending parties in an action, when one side affirms and the other denies.]
Unlike the BBC’s experts; the Travelling-forum appear to have worked hand in glove with the Planning Inspectorate to twist the appearance and acceptance of the original language of the documents, change the intrinsic facts. One (the former) is acceptable according to the Fraud Act 2006; not because the said Act is a recent thing (it did not exist during the 1970s), but because the latter involves bad faith and contrivance: evil.
I don’t think all of DEFRA’s inspectors are bent bias. But whilst the BBC synchronization (sync) editor appears competent in their purpose, the integrity of the Travelling-forum’s very absurd rhetoric appears supported fabulously by the credulity, slippery bias bent of especially chosen inspectors whose dark art is to exploit the feeble multitude of evidence abuses with the logic of Pollock CB in R. v. Exall (1866): the principles of comprehending circumstantial evidence.
One should not underestimate the artisan nature of the Travelling-forum during the overt public inquiries. Technically they pulled off a great cartwheel fraud, but it’s one that would have sent Lord Justice Woolf howling; from the clear nature/subject matter of his Reports, written because of the abuses he sought to eradicate the skulduggery & injustice; he sought to change the trend of unaffordable justice.
Would Fu Manchu turn in his grave at the thought of either deception, ─or he chuckle with the spirit of Sun Tzu and his ‘art of war’; or perhaps he would send for Monkey because the complex fraud, the monkey business that has taken place, primal chaos a difficult business to resolve; was Monkey’s speciality.
[*https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2018/01/31/tv/1970s-japanese-tv-series-monkey-magic-never-matched/ “Monkey,” an adaptation of a Chinese literary classic, “Journey to the West” … “The Water Margin” appeared on the BBC in 1977. It too was based on a Chinese classic novel and recounted the heroic exploits of outlaws in rebellion against a corrupt government. And like “Monkey,” it was dubbed like a comical spaghetti Western into entertaining if slightly incongruous English.]
Thankfully we need not digress to any thought of them. Justice will be done, however; when forensic abuse does appear a most certain thing, and its appearance during the last quarter century (25 years) flags a necessity to understand how so many primary facts, the basic ‘law of evidence’ mistakes could occur and prosper, how?, without the appearance of corruption and bias they can actually/factually prosper.
The creation of the Institute of Public Rights of Way (IPROW) draws a controversial and gloomy picture, it appears to be the epicentre – the medium (a communication centre) between all that evil injustice Lord Justice Woolf disliked, and sought to change, and the wayward pestilence thriving and polluting truth: the Planning Inspectorate a large Petri-dish for breeding immorality and vice.
─The furtive nature of bias and predetermination, a complex conspiracy to defraud and its evil nature, has a foundation of targeted stealth and an illicit bias: absolute corruption. ─DEFRA’s creation in 2001 is twenty years after the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the “20 year rule”, is carried from within from the Highways Act 1980, raising the question of whether “20 years on” DEFRA’s creation was necessary to facilitate, enable and manage, the plethora of fraudulent discoveries in order to satisfy political purpose?
..please─enjoy The Water Margin – A 1976 Mash-Up, for the forthcoming video or narrative in the pipeline will provide greater understanding, will follow the educational nature of the BBC: