RICHARD W. SYMONDS (RWS) - INDEPENDENT ANALYST

Next Saturday (Sept 2) there will be a "Protest" outside Ifield Shopping Parade, from 8am to 1pm, organised by Ifield Society members.

Why ?

1. To protest at English Partnerships monstrous proposal to develop an ancient area within the Parish of Ifield, which includes the Ifield Village Conservation Area.

2. To raise public awareness of this monstrous proposal, within the Ifield community and beyond.

3. To advise people on how best to oppose this monstrous proposal, if they wish to do so.

There are some who may be uncomfortable about calling this a "protest". I can understand that, but I can't think of an alternative one-word term for it - can you ?

By law, the police need to be notified if any number of people are planning to meet in a public place. This has been done, and a reference number has been given by them (1980-26082006). The police need to be informed, for good reason (eg traffic/access problems, complaints from shopkeepers, passers-by etc).

The nature of this "protest" is such that there is highly unlikely to be any banner-waving, shouting. or whatever, which could turn the event into a 'breach of the peace".

There will be a few posters put up, leaflets handed out, and people to talk to, maybe a photo-shoot for any media which may turn up - but that's about it. Not quite the stuff of revolution - perhaps another day...

Over the years I have found the police to be friendly, helpful and useful - as long as they are notified formally in advance. That has been done - so no problems are expected next Saturday.

For those of you who still don't like the word "protest", and/or don't like to be part of a "protest", and/or don't wish to be defined as a "protester" (God forbid!), perhaps just come along and sit on another wall nearby.

Here's hoping as many "protesters" and "non-protesters" come along next Saturday morning outside Ifield Shops !

Vive La Revolution ! (Whoops, sorry)...

"The Battle of the Brook" (The Parishioners of Ifield v The Profiteers of Power) has now commenced with a vengeance (on both sides).

The 'Global Dividers-And-Rulers' will be fighting a united Local Parish of Ifield...to the east of Ifield Brook (Crawley Parishioners) and to the west of Ifield Brook (Horsham Parishioners) ; Young and Old, Party Politically-motivated/Non Party-politically motivated, Ifield Society, Ifield Village Association, Ramblers, Dog-lovers, Church-goers/Non Church-goers...THE PEOPLE OF IFIELD PARISH.

Let's take a closer look at CB Richard Ellis (CBRE), acting as agents for English Partnerships regarding Ifield Brook Meadows.

CBRE has 300 offices in 50 countries, and its HQ is in Los Angeles. Its London offices include one at Canary Wharf, and another at Wimpole Street. It's a global giant worth billions.

CBRE provide "Real Estate Services" to clients - "Building Consultants" in my book. I don't know what CB stands for...maybe Construction Building...anyone know ?

Quite why English Partnerships are using the likes of CBRE to act for them, regarding Ifield Brook Meadow, is beyond me...anyone know ?

Let's take a closer look at English Partnerships (EP) - "The National Regeneration Agency" -who 'own' the land on which Ifield Brook Meadows has been for over 1000 years of recorded history (1066 AD) - an ancient meadow which is now under very serious threat.

John Callcutt is EP's Chief Executive, and has been for nearly 4 months (May 2006 AD) . Previously, for 15 years, he was Chief Executive (and later Deputy Chairman) of house-builders, Crest Nicholson - 1991 AD to 2006 AD.

Mr Callcutt was awarded a CBE in the Queen's 2006 (AD) Birthday Honours List, "for services to social housing and urban regeneration".

Crest Nicholson has been named as a possible house-builder for developments "West of Crawley" (eg The ancient Parish of Ifield).......

Yesterday, Saturday (26 Aug), about 40 of us walked round Ifield Brook Meadows - an area owned by English Partnerships, and includes part of the Ifield Village Conservation Area. The whole area is threatened by development. That's why we walked, and that's why we are protesting in Ifield Shopping Parade next Saturday morning (2 Sept).

This morning, I walked the dog around Ifield Brook Meadows again, by myself. It's a beautiful walk, and the more I walk it, the more I know this is worth fighting very, very hard to protect.

As I see it, at the moment, the whole area should be designated a Nature Reserve - Ifield Park Heritage Centre and Nature Trail...something like that - much like Buchan Park is now.

What do you reckon ?

St Margaret's Parish Church is the geographical centre of the huge ancient Parish of Ifield, which dwarfs the Parish of Crawley.

Ifield Parish has been cut in half (North to South) by a river - River Mole and Ifield Brook - which act as the boundary between Horsham District Council (to the West), and Crawley Borough Council (to the East) .

With its half, Crawley Borough Council has built houses right up to its river boundary (except for a strip of protected land by the river, which includes Ifield Village Conservation Area).
With its half, Horsham District Council has not built houses - it remains rural up to its river boundary, and includes Ifield Golf Course and a Medieval Deer Park.

But there is a need to build 2500 new houses - but where ?

Horsham District Council were planning to build much of their allocation of houses in their half along the river - but these plans have been put 'on hold'...
Crawley Borough Council have already built houses up to their boundary, except for the protected strip of ancient land which includes Ifield Village Conservation Area.

English Partnerships, who own the strip of land which includes the Conservation Area, have put forward a proposal to Crawley Borough Council to build houses on that ancient land.

Unsurprisingly, many people of Ifield are enraged by this - and are vigorously fighting this proposal (including myself as founder member of The Ifield Society).

The fear is that if English Partnerships succeed with their proposal to Crawley Borough Council, this will be a 'green light' for Horsham District Council (across the river) to build houses on their half - plans which were 'on hold'.

The net result if these fears are realised ? Most of this ancient Parish would be buried under concrete and tarmac.

Let battle commence...a battle we, the people, must win.

"The Battle of the Brook" (Ifield Parish/Conservation Area v English Partnerships/CB Richard Ellis) is a clear example that there is no difference between the Local and the Global - they are one and the same.

Things are not looking at all good for the ancient Parish of Ifield - unless, of course, you happen to be a WSCC Tory involved in the West Sussex County Structure Plan - who is determined to bury this ancient Parish under concrete and tarmac.

The West Sussex County Structure Plan, formulated by a Tory cabal at WSCC and elsewhere, has identified an area "west of Crawley" for 2500 new houses. Tory-controlled Horsham District Council (HDC) and Tory-controlled Crawley Borough Council (CBC) have jointly described it as the "West and North West of Crawley Area of Study".

Tories at WSCC, CBC or HDC apparently can't bring themselves to describe this ancient area simply as 'Ifield' - or more specifically the ancient 'Parish of Ifield'. This is hardly surprising because the people of Ifield immediately came out fighting when the Structure Plan was in its infancy years back - and continue to fight the same WSCC plans when they were re-presented by HDC and CBC.

Well, it looks as if the people of Ifield - including myself - are now going to have to fight harder than ever before. Why ? Because English Partnerships (formerly the Commission for New Towns) - who own vast chunks of land in the Parish - have made it very clear that they want the Ifield Village Conservation Area to be included in any future development plans (ie English Partnerships are proposing the destruction of a specially-protected SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Importance) within the ancient Parish.

This is simply outrageous. As well as a monstrous abuse of power, it is also a shocking betrayal of trust by English Partnerships (who appear to be using a Los Angeles 'agent' for negotiations). CBC should throw out this proposal with the contempt it deserves...but what if they don't ? And I wonder who is the appointed property developer...the whole thing stinks.

Anyway, it is a 'open declaration of war' against the people of Ifield, and now also puts the Ifield Golf Club again under serious threat.

I'm still reeling from this news - made public by, ironically, Tory Councillor for Ifield John Denman (see his letter in both Crawley News and Crawley Observer ("Preserve our Ifield") this week - August 16.

There is a meeting at St Margaret's Church at 07.30 this Thursday (24th), and an Ifield Society Ramblette two days later - "You've Got To Walk It To Believe It" - Saturday (26th) at 11.00 to 12.30 outside the Plough in Ifield Village.

What do you think of democracy in West Sussex ? I think it would be a good idea.

Who is pulling the strings of the WSCC, HDC and CBC ?

A South Downs National Park is not wanted by a massively powerful, unelected little cabal affiliated to the West Sussex County Council, via the Lord Lieutenant's Office based at County Hall - such as the Duke of Norfolk (Arundel Castle), the Duke of Richmond (Goodwood House), other aristocratic landowners in Parham House and Petworth House, and other related 'hangers-on'.

Therefore, a South Downs National Park is not wanted by a not-so-massively powerful, elected Tory cabal which form the West Sussex County Council Cabinet at County Hall.

The trouble is, we (the council taxpayer) are bankrolling both the elected and unelected cabals at County Hall - a fact which strangely escapes the notice of those who should know better.

Also, the trouble is, we (the council taxpayer) appear to be funding such leaflets as "It's Time To Have Your Say - The South Downs" (found in the WSCC Crawley Library), which is yet another 'public consultation' about the South Downs - without the word 'National Park' even being mentioned in the leaflet ! 'They' are trying to use this kind of propaganda to try and persuade us, the people, that a National Park is not such a good idea - because 'they' don't think it's a good idea.

The trouble is we, the people, have already spoken - and we have made it very clear to our elected representatives that we want the South Downs to be a National Park.

"The 1949 National Park and Access to Countryside Act provided the legislation to designate National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
From 1958 to 1983, ten AONB's were formally created in the South East, and in 2002 two new National Parks were also designated. The New Forest National Park Authority has now taken on its full powers, and the South Downs awaits confirmation...we now have the New Forest National Park, and are waiting for the Government to confirm the South Downs as a National Park".
(Source : "The Finest Countryside in the South East" - Leaflet produced by The Countryside Agency)(not found in the WSCC Crawley Library).

"National Park Authorities are also responsible for all planning decisions taken within the Park."

And there's the rub...both the elected and unelected ruling elites within West Sussex County Council will lose their planning powers...and will lose much control and many privileges which they have built up and enjoyed, using our money as taxpayers, for so many years.

Well, this 'gravy train' has to stop - not just because there is an inherently undemocratic system operating at County Hall, but because of the monstrous abuse and misuse of its powers over the years - at our expense.

The West Sussex County Council has simply proved itself unfit to govern.

Myself and 'She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed' have taken up cycling. Good idea for her as it helps with her Weightwatchers Diet. Good idea for me as I've been watching my weight, and now look 6 months pregnant with a middle-aged pot-belly.

While cycling around in the Parishes of Ifield and Crawley, with no particular place to go except off the beaten track and away from the main roads, we came across "Little Dell" - a lovely house which has recently been used as a Brothel ("Brothel owner to pay £18,000.../Court confiscates £18k brothel cash", Crawley Observer/Crawley News, August 9).

Elaine (the wife) couldn't quite understand my rush of excitement at this serendipitous discovery. The police and the papers had not disclosed the exact address (unsurprisingly, I suppose, to prevent people from taking a voyeuristic peep - oh, like me!). I thought it was somewhere in Horley or Lowfield Heath.

Ironically, it was very near the path that Sarah Robinson (the Quaker Education Pioneer) would have taken - from where she worked at Lowfield Heath to the Friends Meeting House in Ifield.

That's given me an idea for an Ifield Society Ramblette - how about "The Parish Brothel Walk" ?

I won't charge.

Crawley News has devoted 2 full pages to Metrobus-Fastway this week ("65 accidents but Metrobus says it is one of the safest bus services", Page 4 & 5, August 9 ).

The News "has been given behind-the-scenes access to the company."

I now very much look forward to WSCC's Lieutenant Colonel 'Blimp' Pemberton giving Crawley News "behind-the-scenes access" to County Hall's Transport and Highways Department at County Hall Chichester.

Pigs might fly.


PS Remember : over 80% of the total cost of WSCC's 'Farceway' (operated and monopolised by Metrobus/Go-Ahead) has been paid for by us, the taxpayer.

For various reasons, the Tory Conservative Party of West Sussex were desperate to seize political control of Crawley Borough Council in the last local elections - and they succeeded. (Note : Councils throughout West Sussex are nearly all Blue-controlled, with the exception of Crawley - which has been Red-controlled for many years)

The West Sussex Con Party ran a slick, well-financed, well-orchestrated campaign in Crawley - and they also brought in a professional politician from outside, Mr Michael Weatherley, to ensure victory. A politically-complacent and amateurish Labour Party were out-manoevred and out-played and, helped by an apathetic electorate (60% didn't vote), they shockingly lost - but only just.

To my 'independent' mind, Cllr 'Mike' Weatherley (Con, Furnace Green) made the difference - the local Con Party simply would not have won without him. He has now been rewarded by being selected as Prospective Candidate for the Hove Conservative Party (I honestly thought 'they' were replacing Crawley's prospective Con MP, Henry Smith, with Weatherley to fight the present Crawley MP Laura Moffatt - but I was wrong).

Mike Weatherley lives in Brighton & Hove, East Sussex. He might have recently found himself another place here in Crawley, West Sussex - but essentially his home is among the seagulls on the South Coast.

As I see it, Mr Weatherley can be a Crawley Councillor (Furnace Green) , and also live outside the area. It is probably legally right for him to do just that; but whether it is morally right to do so is quite another matter, of course. But moral issues are of little concern when an election has to be won.

It is Cllr Duncan Crow (Con, Furnace Green), who actually lives in Furnace Green, Crawley - Weatherley's present political colleague and deputy mayor -who is now talking the most dangerous political nonsense; for example :

"So let's not have this left wing attitude of criticising personal success, and wish Mike well..." (Crawley Observer Letter, August 9).

What a prat !

'ONE TENTACLE FROM THE OCTOPUS' CONTROLLED THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :

1. To axe hot school meals to 64,000 children in 242 state primary schools in West Sussex, without proper Consultation and in defiance of Government Guidelines; which resulted in the ripping out of nearly 242 school kitchens, and 550 'dinner lady' redundancies.

2. To sell off state school playing fields in West Sussex to the 'highest bidder' (eg property developers).

3. To orchestrate the removal of the present Crawley MP from office, during the last General Election in West Sussex.

4. The list is as long as my arm...PFI, Fastway, National Park etc.

IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH TO THE LAST TWO UNPALATABLE TRUTHS, THAT TRUTH WILL NEVER BE PUBLISHED IN ANY WEST SUSSEX NEWSPAPER.

THE ESTABLISHMENT PLUTOCRACY CONTROLLING WEST SUSSEX IS JUST A "TENTACLE FROM THE MAIN HEAD OF A GIGANTIC OCTOPUS" WHICH REACHES ACROSS THE WORLD.

Some of the parts, but not all, which make up "the main head of a gigantic octopus" are listed below (and, no, I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist who has lost his marbles - not yet) :

1. Bilderberger Group
2. Carlyle Group
3. Council on Foreign Relation (CFR)
4. Kuhn-Loeb
5. Lazard
6. Lehman
7. Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
8. Rothschild
9. Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka Chatham House)
10.Warburg

ESTABLISHMENT PLUTOCRACY, NOT DEMOCRACY, IS KILLING OFF THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (NHS) IN WEST SUSSEX - AND WE, THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR IT, ARE PITIFULLY UNAWARE OF BEING ROBBED OF IT.

THE ESTABLISHMENT CONTROLS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Andrew Skudder put it well on his Blog ("Skuds' Sister's Brother - Fire Station - August 2 2006") :

"The (West Sussex) County Council want to relocate the Fire Station...The (Crawley) Borough Council Planning Committee have objected to the plans - although I think the final decision rests with Chichester, AND THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, REGARDLESS OF THE OPINION OF CRAWLEY'S OWN POPULATION OR REPRESENTATIVES."

THE ESTABLISHMENT CONTROLS TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS POLICY

Gatwick's 'Farceway' and WSCC's Lieutenant Colonel 'Blimp' Pemberton...no more said.

"Woman's touch for trust - Cunningham : Impossible to keep hospital open" (Crawley Observer, August 2 2006) + "New chief faces up to 'challenge' of troubled trust" (Crawley News, August 2 2006).

Who selected the 'healthcare boss' Gail Wannell to replace Gary Walker in November ?

Who was responsible for the West Sussex Health and Social Care NHS Trust ?

Who has been primarily to blame for the massive haemorrhaging of NHS money ?

Who is responsible for hospital and school land (including playing fields), and how much is the Crawley Schools PFI Project actually costing us, the taxpayer (£60m, £70m) ?

If you think it's just the 'Government' (ie The Labour Government) you'd be very wrong - and very naive.

But the local media won't tell you the whole truth - why not ?

DEMOCRACY = THE RULE OR CONTROL OF SOCIETY BY ITS PEOPLE; THAT WHICH EXERCISES POWER BY VIRTUE OF THE PEOPLE. FOR EXAMPLE, A GOVERNMENT "OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE".

PLUTOCRACY = THE RULE OR CONTROL OF SOCIETY BY ITS WEALTHY. THAT WHICH EXERCISES POWER BY VIRTUE OF THE WEALTHY. FOR EXAMPLE, A GOVERNMENT "OF, BY AND FOR POWERFUL, PRIVILEGED AND WEALTHY PEOPLE".

WEST SUSSEX IS NOT A DEMOCRACY - IT IS A PLUTOCRACY RUN BY 'THE ESTABLISHMENT'.

WHAT IS 'THE ESTABLISHMENT' ?

The Daily Express Front Page ("Diana Death : New Cover-Up Fears" July 24 2006) makes it very clear what they mean by 'The Establishment' : "Sources say the Establishment is desperate to prove that Diana's death was accidental...The Royal Family, the Government, and MI6...".

As I see it, at the moment, 'The Establishment' consists of 3 inter-dependent parts, which feed off each other :

1. THE MONARCHY - THE ROYAL FAMILY, THE ARISTOCRACY AND THE LANDOWNING CLASSES. Thus we have the 'Royal Prerogatives' (How else did Blair go to war without Cabinet approval?), the Lord Lieutenants Office within County Hall (with 47 Deputy Lieutenants packed with Lords, Dukes, Colonels et al), The Queen's Birthday Honours List (CBE's, MBE's etc).

2. THE STATE - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (eg New Labour/Tory) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (eg West Sussex County Council), THE CIVIL SERVICE, THE SECURITY SERVICE (eg MI5 & MI6), THE MILITARY, AND OTHER VESTED INTERESTS (eg Corporates Developers, Banks, Accountants, Solicitors etc).

3. THE CHURCH (eg 'The Established Church' - Church of England/Roman Catholic).


'The Establishment' is very real, and very powerful - and 'they' are called by other names, such as The Status Quo, The Powers-That-Be, The Cabal, The Forces of Reaction, The Elite, The Master Puppeteers etc.

This Establishment often operate at a 'subterranean level', but they pull the strings in Crawley, West Sussex and Beyond. County Councillors (especially Tory ones) owe their first allegiance to the Crown (The Queen) - to the Establishment - we, the People, are not at the top of the list - except at election time. Small people are ignored (eg children in state schools) because they don't vote - except, of course, the children of parents who have powerful influence (eg in private schools)

Newspapers are corporate businesses, and will reflect corporate interests within the 'Establishment'. It is not a 'free press' - far from it. Any editor will stand to attention when they receive a call from a member of the 'Establishment Club' (or their Agents). Nothing will be printed which will embarrass the 'Establishment' too much - and if any editor 'crosses the line' they soon know about it in terms of 'flak', threatened withdrawal of advertising etc - 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'...

What do you think ?

As I see, News and Information in Crawley and Beyond (especially relating to Education, Health, Planning, Security, Transport) are strictly controlled by the 'hidden hands' of Establishment Power.

What do you think ?

As I see it, there are "Three Unwritten Rules of News" which control the publication of information in local newspapers :

1. Profit orientation and concentrated ownership of the newspaper itself - it is a profit-led business competing with other businesses.

2. Advertising as the primary source of income, and 'Flak' as a means of discipline and control over what is (and what is not) selected for publication.

3. Information provided mainly by business and other 'experts'.