This post makes only one (sort of) complaint against Devon Youth Services (DYS) and this relates to the age restrictions on the service they provide. I do understand that the 'clue' is in the inclusion of 'Youth' in the job description so, whilst disappointed, I see the reason for certain decisions.
DYS were encouraged by EPW to participate in the ‘regeneration’ of our community. Unfortunately, DYS’s remit is for 13-19 year olds, not a great deal of use in a community where 99% of children are aged under 13. There were occasions when local children, wanting to participate in DYS activities, were told they could not join in because they were ‘too young’.
DYS, working with EPW, organised film shows in Looe Road Park. These are, typically, trumpeted as a success by EPW. The truth is that they were a disaster. I raised £800, of the required £1,600, through Councillor Phil Brock’s Discretionary Fund, and he agreed to underwrite the other £800 if necessary. Exeter Housing Society (now Cornerstone) generously contributed £800 so there was no need to accept Councillor Brock’s additional offer of support. Once the funds had been raised no further consultation took place between EPW/DYS and our community representatives. The films were, apparently, selected by the 13-19 year olds that were permitted to attend DYS’s meetings in Looe Road Park. The selection of films, that were supposed to be for family viewing and would include many young children in the audience, were unsuitable and contained foul language. The films shown were –
Hot Fuzz – Rated 15
John Tucker Must Die – Rated PG13
Epic Movie – Rated PG
Night at the Museum – Rated PG
None of these films were appropriate for the majority of children that live in our community.
The film shows were arranged for a Wednesday night because DYS were unable to organise this event for the weekends. A noisy petrol generator was running until past 11pm some nights to power the projection equipment and this resulted in complaints from some residents that had to be up for work early the following day.
As a community we had no details of what films were to be shown, or when, until a few days before the first film show took place. A flyer produced and distributed by CF/EPW, advertising this event, was circulated to a very limited number of the community. Many residents received no notification which, given the ratings of the films, was fortunate. If our community had been consulted properly then the choice of films, and when they were shown, would have resulted in a more satisfactory outcome.
This was a concerted effort by CF/SDNP/SL/EPW to exclude any possible input from community reps that would have raised objections to the choice of films and when they would be shown.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
My Response to 'The Venomous Email'
With my comments added in blue and some names substituted in red
Hi Sue
Just to say that I met XXXX and his wife XXXX. I'm not sure that either of them works or does much around the house. The ashtray outside their house is always overflowing...
XXXX currently has, as far as I am aware, 2 jobs. XXXX also works. XXXX and XXXX smoke outside to avoid exposing their children to any possible consequences of passive smoking.
When I met them they were extremely brusque and 'mouthy'. I know how to deal with these people and just let it ride etc. etc. I have known XXXX and XXXX for quite some time and they don’t do ‘mouthy’. They clearly think they own the area. Other residents (the less ragged end) The less ragged end? Precisely what is a comment like this supposed to mean? I believe it expresses perfectly the attitude that SDNP have towards our community. People had previously told me that XXXX (the power behind the throne) and XXXX were stumbling blocks to getting anything done and a real obstacle when it came to organising things for the kids. Yet another blatant lie from CF. XXXX and XXXX are both very enthusiastic and pro-active about making improvements within our community.
They complain bitterly about their own (very unprepossessing) children being bullied. CF hardly knows these youngsters. I have had considerable contact with all of XXXX and XXXX children for quite some period of time and have always found them to be very polite and well behaved. XXXX and XXXX have every right to be proud of their children. XXXX and XXXX are naturally concerned about the well being of their children and will obviously respond as necessary if they are victims of bullying. They complain that they have not had information (I put at least 2 questionnaires through their letterbox IN PERSON): (I would take this comment with a very large pinch of salt. Personal experience has shown that CF can be very economical with the truth when it suits her. CF informed me that she had collected all of the completed resident survey forms within her chosen area. This turned out to be untrue. For several weeks after I had completed the analysis of the surveys, and presented the results to EPW, residents were returning completed forms wanting to know why they hadn’t been collected) .what they really mean is that they want to be 'in control'. This comment is rather ironic from someone that seems to be determined to control everyone and everything. Named Council Representative has now elevated them by taking them to London and they are really swaggering around - and telling the other residents that they are going to get £1,000. Utter nonsense. XXXX and XXXX hadn’t even been nominated for an award. It had been Named Council Represenative’s intention to nominate XXXX in the next round of applications but, unfortunately, the scheme closed. This has been confirmed by Named Council Representative.
Named Council Representative has not helped the situation. Precisely how has Named Council Representative, “not helped the situation?” I have got to know him very well over the past 18 months and have found him to be very hard working and dedicated in his job. He is always prepared to go ‘that extra mile’ for a satisfactory resolution with any issue. CF should not be permitted to ‘rubbish’ his valuable contribution across the City. Neither should CF make ‘promises for action’ by Named Council Representative without any consultation with the Department that were expected to fulfil these ‘actions’. Unfortunately this behaviour is typical of CF. During my contact with EPW I came into contact with dozens of people and I can honestly state that there wasn’t anyone that CF didn’t ‘bad-mouth’ at some stage) I had a meeting with Named Police Representative (which I'll tell you about) and he mentioned how frustrating it had been getting the trouble-makers evicted (stop-start etc). And they do know all the issues down there. For my part I think it needs real 'community' policing and a regular/constant presence rather than the arrival of cars with sirens responding to (and therefore adding to the excitement of) another incident. I fully agree.
If I were chairing the meeting on Friday, Sue, I would welcome Named Council Representative and say that, as this is the first meeting of Exeter Parks Watch he has been to this year (!!!) I hope we can bring him up to speed!! I'd say how much we had missed him at meetings etc. etc. and glad that he has now returned. Make a show of welcoming him - and making it clear that he has been absent at the same time!! It would be good to have that Minuted, perhaps? As I understand it, Named Council Representative stopped attending EPW meetings because CF and SL weren’t interested in anything he had to contribute. His input was, I’m told, was constantly ignored. Experience has shown me that this is common practice for CF/SDNP/SL/EPW
Attendance: fortunately, XXX will be there. Clearly I was ‘flavour of the month’ at this time! I would suggest that, as a further counterweight, you might like to invite (or get me to invite) XXXXXX (the large lady who came to the March open meeting). She is a toughie (but positive) and should be able to help keep things in balance. She could be invited on the grounds that she attended the March meeting and made a strong contribution - unlike XXXX and XXXXXX who probably ignored the leaflet or lost it amidst the detritus of their hallway (or what I saw of it) or just couldn't be bothered. (Mmm, I think we can see a pattern developing here)
It will be an interesting mix but very good to have the main players round the table. I hope you won't mind but I'm going to bcc this to XXX as a courtesy so that he is fully in the picture, he is preparing the Questionnaire analysis which no doubt XXXX and XXXXXX will rubbish....? In reality, XXXX and XXXX were embarrassingly impressed by my analysis
(Many of the people I talked to in collecting the questionnaires - or having to fill them in on the doorstep - said that it would be good to have the park upgraded but it would be trashed by the Looe Road 'thugs' in no time. Clearly the deeper issues have to be addressed. Be interesting to know just who is responsible for co-ordinating all the agencies and addressing the problems. It can't be Named Council Representative surely? A good question for Exeter City Council, perhaps? (It could have been Named Council Representative perhaps, if CF and SL had given him, and our community, the support that they constantly offer and publicise but frequently fail to deliver.
Hi Sue
Just to say that I met XXXX and his wife XXXX. I'm not sure that either of them works or does much around the house. The ashtray outside their house is always overflowing...
XXXX currently has, as far as I am aware, 2 jobs. XXXX also works. XXXX and XXXX smoke outside to avoid exposing their children to any possible consequences of passive smoking.
When I met them they were extremely brusque and 'mouthy'. I know how to deal with these people and just let it ride etc. etc. I have known XXXX and XXXX for quite some time and they don’t do ‘mouthy’. They clearly think they own the area. Other residents (the less ragged end) The less ragged end? Precisely what is a comment like this supposed to mean? I believe it expresses perfectly the attitude that SDNP have towards our community. People had previously told me that XXXX (the power behind the throne) and XXXX were stumbling blocks to getting anything done and a real obstacle when it came to organising things for the kids. Yet another blatant lie from CF. XXXX and XXXX are both very enthusiastic and pro-active about making improvements within our community.
They complain bitterly about their own (very unprepossessing) children being bullied. CF hardly knows these youngsters. I have had considerable contact with all of XXXX and XXXX children for quite some period of time and have always found them to be very polite and well behaved. XXXX and XXXX have every right to be proud of their children. XXXX and XXXX are naturally concerned about the well being of their children and will obviously respond as necessary if they are victims of bullying. They complain that they have not had information (I put at least 2 questionnaires through their letterbox IN PERSON): (I would take this comment with a very large pinch of salt. Personal experience has shown that CF can be very economical with the truth when it suits her. CF informed me that she had collected all of the completed resident survey forms within her chosen area. This turned out to be untrue. For several weeks after I had completed the analysis of the surveys, and presented the results to EPW, residents were returning completed forms wanting to know why they hadn’t been collected) .what they really mean is that they want to be 'in control'. This comment is rather ironic from someone that seems to be determined to control everyone and everything. Named Council Representative has now elevated them by taking them to London and they are really swaggering around - and telling the other residents that they are going to get £1,000. Utter nonsense. XXXX and XXXX hadn’t even been nominated for an award. It had been Named Council Represenative’s intention to nominate XXXX in the next round of applications but, unfortunately, the scheme closed. This has been confirmed by Named Council Representative.
Named Council Representative has not helped the situation. Precisely how has Named Council Representative, “not helped the situation?” I have got to know him very well over the past 18 months and have found him to be very hard working and dedicated in his job. He is always prepared to go ‘that extra mile’ for a satisfactory resolution with any issue. CF should not be permitted to ‘rubbish’ his valuable contribution across the City. Neither should CF make ‘promises for action’ by Named Council Representative without any consultation with the Department that were expected to fulfil these ‘actions’. Unfortunately this behaviour is typical of CF. During my contact with EPW I came into contact with dozens of people and I can honestly state that there wasn’t anyone that CF didn’t ‘bad-mouth’ at some stage) I had a meeting with Named Police Representative (which I'll tell you about) and he mentioned how frustrating it had been getting the trouble-makers evicted (stop-start etc). And they do know all the issues down there. For my part I think it needs real 'community' policing and a regular/constant presence rather than the arrival of cars with sirens responding to (and therefore adding to the excitement of) another incident. I fully agree.
If I were chairing the meeting on Friday, Sue, I would welcome Named Council Representative and say that, as this is the first meeting of Exeter Parks Watch he has been to this year (!!!) I hope we can bring him up to speed!! I'd say how much we had missed him at meetings etc. etc. and glad that he has now returned. Make a show of welcoming him - and making it clear that he has been absent at the same time!! It would be good to have that Minuted, perhaps? As I understand it, Named Council Representative stopped attending EPW meetings because CF and SL weren’t interested in anything he had to contribute. His input was, I’m told, was constantly ignored. Experience has shown me that this is common practice for CF/SDNP/SL/EPW
Attendance: fortunately, XXX will be there. Clearly I was ‘flavour of the month’ at this time! I would suggest that, as a further counterweight, you might like to invite (or get me to invite) XXXXXX (the large lady who came to the March open meeting). She is a toughie (but positive) and should be able to help keep things in balance. She could be invited on the grounds that she attended the March meeting and made a strong contribution - unlike XXXX and XXXXXX who probably ignored the leaflet or lost it amidst the detritus of their hallway (or what I saw of it) or just couldn't be bothered. (Mmm, I think we can see a pattern developing here)
It will be an interesting mix but very good to have the main players round the table. I hope you won't mind but I'm going to bcc this to XXX as a courtesy so that he is fully in the picture, he is preparing the Questionnaire analysis which no doubt XXXX and XXXXXX will rubbish....? In reality, XXXX and XXXX were embarrassingly impressed by my analysis
(Many of the people I talked to in collecting the questionnaires - or having to fill them in on the doorstep - said that it would be good to have the park upgraded but it would be trashed by the Looe Road 'thugs' in no time. Clearly the deeper issues have to be addressed. Be interesting to know just who is responsible for co-ordinating all the agencies and addressing the problems. It can't be Named Council Representative surely? A good question for Exeter City Council, perhaps? (It could have been Named Council Representative perhaps, if CF and SL had given him, and our community, the support that they constantly offer and publicise but frequently fail to deliver.
Monday, 16 November 2009
More Venom
Part of St.David's Community Centre is occupied by a small cafe that is run by people with learning difficulties under the supervision of suitably qualified staff.
Christine Frasers comment re this cafe? "They'll be the first to go when we (SDNP) take control and we'll get someone in that can run it properly". Oh dear, Christine, you let your caring sharing mask slip again.
During my involvement in community matters I have met many, many different people, both caring individuals and members of a wide variety of organisations. With only one exception, CF has 'bad-mouthed' every single one that I had any contact with at some time. Even her closest 'colleagues and allies' are not immune from her hypocritical and 'two-faced' nature, 'nicey, nicey' to ones face but clearly 'what you see on the tin, ain't what's inside the tin'! The email copied below is only one example that illustrates this perfectly.
EDIT: This cafe is now closed.
Charles Dickens (1812-1870) wrote, "With affection beaming in one eye, and calculation shining out of the other". How appropriate.
Christine Frasers comment re this cafe? "They'll be the first to go when we (SDNP) take control and we'll get someone in that can run it properly". Oh dear, Christine, you let your caring sharing mask slip again.
During my involvement in community matters I have met many, many different people, both caring individuals and members of a wide variety of organisations. With only one exception, CF has 'bad-mouthed' every single one that I had any contact with at some time. Even her closest 'colleagues and allies' are not immune from her hypocritical and 'two-faced' nature, 'nicey, nicey' to ones face but clearly 'what you see on the tin, ain't what's inside the tin'! The email copied below is only one example that illustrates this perfectly.
EDIT: This cafe is now closed.
Charles Dickens (1812-1870) wrote, "With affection beaming in one eye, and calculation shining out of the other". How appropriate.
Friday, 13 November 2009
The Venomous Christine Fraser - A 'Taster'
Below is a copy of an email sent to Susan Lawrence, Chair Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) by Christine Fraser (CF) (Committee member of St.David’s Neighbourhood Partnership and Exeter Parks Watch) and copied to me. The mail refers to Lower St.David's residents and speaks volumes about SDNP's true attitude/opinions of those it claims to represent. I have edited out the names of the St.David’s residents that the email refers to, and also references to specific Exeter City Council and Devon & Cornwall Constabulary representatives.
To reiterate, I have been informed by what I believe is a reliable source, that CF was originally ‘employed’ as a (paid) adviser re the setup of Exeter Parks Watch. CF decided to ‘continue in the role' when the funding ended. To all intents and purposes CF runs and controls EPW in our community and this can easily be confirmed by other attendees at meetings. In my opinion, based upon my own, and others, personal experiences, there is a definite ‘conflict of interest’ that exists between CFs controlling influence of EPW and SDNP’s anticipated take-over of Exeter St.David’s Community Centre. Unfortunately, EPW is ‘entrenched’ within the City, (EPW is an ‘offshoot’ of Devon and Cornwall Community Watch Association (DaCCWA). I have expressed my concerns via email to the current Chair of DaCCWA and she didn’t even have the courtesy to reply.
I have responded to the email below in another document (further up this Blog). The concerns expressed by users of the Community Centre, often featured in the Express & Echo, in my opinion, are totally justified. SDNP may ‘bleat the mantra of consultation’ but the reality is that they (SDNP) have their own agenda and any consultation will be nothing more than ‘lip service’ to achieve their own ends irrespective of public opinion. Whilst I firmly believe that the Centre is a valuable community asset, I’m equally convinced that SDNP, or any of its immediate representatives, are not suitable re the running of the centre based upon my own experiences and those of other residents. SDNP, again in my opinion, view their control of the Community Centre as nothing more than a self-interest exercise for themselves. CF was heard to comment, at an SDNP meeting that, “It was about time she was paid for her contribution to the ‘takeover’ of the Community Centre”. CF also commented that she anticipated that, “£120 per hour for her future ‘voluntary contribution’ would not be unreasonable”.So much for ‘voluntary work’ on behalf of the community!
Email begins -
Hi Sue (Lawrence)
Just to say that I met XXXX and his wife XXXX. I'm not sure that either of them works or does much around the house. The ashtray outside their house is always overflowing...
When I met them they were extremely brusque and 'mouthy'. I know how to deal with these people and just let it ride etc. etc. They clearly think they own the area. Other residents (the less ragged end) had previously told me that XXXX (the power behind the throne) and XXXX were stumbling blocks to getting anything done and a real obstacle when it came to organising things for the kids.
They complain bitterly about their own (very unprepossessing) children being bullied. They complain that they have not had information (I put at least 2 questionnaires through their letterbox IN PERSON): what they really mean is that they want to be 'in control'. Named ECC representative has now elevated them by taking them to XXXXXX and they are really swaggering around - and telling the other residents that they are going to get £1,000.
Named ECC representative has not helped the situation. I had a meeting with Inspector XXXXX (which I'll tell you about) and he mentioned how frustrating it had been getting the trouble-makers evicted (stop-start etc). And they do know all the issues down there. For my part I think it needs real 'community' policing and a regular/constant presence rather than the arrival of cars with sirens responding to (and therefore adding to the excitement of) another incident.
If I were chairing the meeting on Friday, Sue, I would welcome Named ECC representative and say that, as this is the first meeting of Park Watch he has been to this year (!!!) I hope we can bring him up to speed!! I'd say how much we had missed him at meetings etc. etc. and glad that he has now returned. Make a show of welcoming him - and making it clear that he has been absent at the same time!! It would be good to have that Minuted, perhaps? (Clearly, items can be added to the EPW Minutes when it suits CF and SL). Attendance: fortunately, XXX will be there. I would suggest that, as a further counterweight, you might like to invite (or get me to invite) XXXX (the large lady who came to the March open meeting). She is a toughie (but positive) and should be able to help keep things in balance. (This lady never attended another EPW meeting). She could be invited on the grounds that she attended the March meeting and made a strong contribution - unlike XXXX and XXXX who probably ignored the leaflet or lost it amidst the detritus of their hallway (or what I saw of it) or just couldn't be bothered.
It will be an interesting mix but very good to have the main players round the table. I hope you won't mind but I'm going to bcc this to XXX as a courtesy so that he is fully in the picture. XXX is preparing the Questionnaire analysis which no doubt XXX and XXXX will rubbish....?
(Many of the people I talked to in collecting the questionnaires - or having to fill them in on the doorstep - said that it would be good to have the park upgraded but it would be trashed by the Looe Road 'thugs' in no time. Clearly the deeper issues have to be addressed. Be interesting to know just who is responsible for co-ordinating all the agencies and addressing the problems. It can't be Named ECC representative, surely? A good question for Exeter City Council, perhaps.
Email ends.
To reiterate, I have been informed by what I believe is a reliable source, that CF was originally ‘employed’ as a (paid) adviser re the setup of Exeter Parks Watch. CF decided to ‘continue in the role' when the funding ended. To all intents and purposes CF runs and controls EPW in our community and this can easily be confirmed by other attendees at meetings. In my opinion, based upon my own, and others, personal experiences, there is a definite ‘conflict of interest’ that exists between CFs controlling influence of EPW and SDNP’s anticipated take-over of Exeter St.David’s Community Centre. Unfortunately, EPW is ‘entrenched’ within the City, (EPW is an ‘offshoot’ of Devon and Cornwall Community Watch Association (DaCCWA). I have expressed my concerns via email to the current Chair of DaCCWA and she didn’t even have the courtesy to reply.
I have responded to the email below in another document (further up this Blog). The concerns expressed by users of the Community Centre, often featured in the Express & Echo, in my opinion, are totally justified. SDNP may ‘bleat the mantra of consultation’ but the reality is that they (SDNP) have their own agenda and any consultation will be nothing more than ‘lip service’ to achieve their own ends irrespective of public opinion. Whilst I firmly believe that the Centre is a valuable community asset, I’m equally convinced that SDNP, or any of its immediate representatives, are not suitable re the running of the centre based upon my own experiences and those of other residents. SDNP, again in my opinion, view their control of the Community Centre as nothing more than a self-interest exercise for themselves. CF was heard to comment, at an SDNP meeting that, “It was about time she was paid for her contribution to the ‘takeover’ of the Community Centre”. CF also commented that she anticipated that, “£120 per hour for her future ‘voluntary contribution’ would not be unreasonable”.So much for ‘voluntary work’ on behalf of the community!
Email begins -
Hi Sue (Lawrence)
Just to say that I met XXXX and his wife XXXX. I'm not sure that either of them works or does much around the house. The ashtray outside their house is always overflowing...
When I met them they were extremely brusque and 'mouthy'. I know how to deal with these people and just let it ride etc. etc. They clearly think they own the area. Other residents (the less ragged end) had previously told me that XXXX (the power behind the throne) and XXXX were stumbling blocks to getting anything done and a real obstacle when it came to organising things for the kids.
They complain bitterly about their own (very unprepossessing) children being bullied. They complain that they have not had information (I put at least 2 questionnaires through their letterbox IN PERSON): what they really mean is that they want to be 'in control'. Named ECC representative has now elevated them by taking them to XXXXXX and they are really swaggering around - and telling the other residents that they are going to get £1,000.
Named ECC representative has not helped the situation. I had a meeting with Inspector XXXXX (which I'll tell you about) and he mentioned how frustrating it had been getting the trouble-makers evicted (stop-start etc). And they do know all the issues down there. For my part I think it needs real 'community' policing and a regular/constant presence rather than the arrival of cars with sirens responding to (and therefore adding to the excitement of) another incident.
If I were chairing the meeting on Friday, Sue, I would welcome Named ECC representative and say that, as this is the first meeting of Park Watch he has been to this year (!!!) I hope we can bring him up to speed!! I'd say how much we had missed him at meetings etc. etc. and glad that he has now returned. Make a show of welcoming him - and making it clear that he has been absent at the same time!! It would be good to have that Minuted, perhaps? (Clearly, items can be added to the EPW Minutes when it suits CF and SL). Attendance: fortunately, XXX will be there. I would suggest that, as a further counterweight, you might like to invite (or get me to invite) XXXX (the large lady who came to the March open meeting). She is a toughie (but positive) and should be able to help keep things in balance. (This lady never attended another EPW meeting). She could be invited on the grounds that she attended the March meeting and made a strong contribution - unlike XXXX and XXXX who probably ignored the leaflet or lost it amidst the detritus of their hallway (or what I saw of it) or just couldn't be bothered.
It will be an interesting mix but very good to have the main players round the table. I hope you won't mind but I'm going to bcc this to XXX as a courtesy so that he is fully in the picture. XXX is preparing the Questionnaire analysis which no doubt XXX and XXXX will rubbish....?
(Many of the people I talked to in collecting the questionnaires - or having to fill them in on the doorstep - said that it would be good to have the park upgraded but it would be trashed by the Looe Road 'thugs' in no time. Clearly the deeper issues have to be addressed. Be interesting to know just who is responsible for co-ordinating all the agencies and addressing the problems. It can't be Named ECC representative, surely? A good question for Exeter City Council, perhaps.
Email ends.
Meetings - How to Get What You Want From Them
An easy one this, and a strategy used by SDNP and EPW on a regular basis.
1. Crush any 'dissenter' at the earliest possible opportunity and let these 'upstarts' know precisely who is running things. It is, however, important not to discourage the 'rebels' too much, after all, 'cannon fodder' is essential in any battle, as is the necessity to present the 'token gesture of community representation/involvement'.
2. Organise meetings but don't actually tell anyone but the 'inner circle'.
3. Requests to arrange meetings, so that crucial contributors can be present, must be ignored, particularly if they are failing to follow the EPW/SDNP ' mission'. Exclusion must extend to Councillors and representatives of relevant Exeter City Council departments or any other organisation that might question the 'mission statement' or the behaviour of those that seek its implementation.
4. With particular reference to Exeter Parks Watch - Refuse to acknowledge any complaints re the way they conduct themselves, even if this means excluding written statements from the 'disenchanted', that are specifically requested to be included in the minutes of the meetings. Shame on you EPW and SDNP, so much support offered that was little more than 'lip-service'.
5. Discourage any personal initiatives. The only good ideas have to come from the Chair or their 'allies'.
Initially I felt some sympathy for Susan Lawrences' (Chair EPW) situation. It appeared to me and other community reps that she had reluctantly become involved in Looe Road Park and would subsequently suffer the 'fallout' from the actions of, specifically, Christine Fraser and, generally, St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership.
However, any sympathy that I was experiencing soon disappeared following Susan's visit to my home to discuss my 'concerns' and a 'satisfactory resolution'.
Tsk! Tsk! Susan Lawrence, browbeating and threats, and in my own home, shame on you! You said, basically, " Toe the line, or else". How disrepectful and irresponsible. It turned out that your threats were not 'idle' ones. If by chance you read this Blog it will become clear that your actions, and inactions, will be exposed.
Do you recall the 'Film Shows in the Park' that EPW claim were such a success? Your failure to satisfactorily engage/consult with our community regarding the choice of films? Oh dear, not quite the success that you are happy to have everyone believe, was it? I will be subsequently posting more information re this event. You even have the audacity to list this fiasco as an EPW achievement.
1. Crush any 'dissenter' at the earliest possible opportunity and let these 'upstarts' know precisely who is running things. It is, however, important not to discourage the 'rebels' too much, after all, 'cannon fodder' is essential in any battle, as is the necessity to present the 'token gesture of community representation/involvement'.
2. Organise meetings but don't actually tell anyone but the 'inner circle'.
3. Requests to arrange meetings, so that crucial contributors can be present, must be ignored, particularly if they are failing to follow the EPW/SDNP ' mission'. Exclusion must extend to Councillors and representatives of relevant Exeter City Council departments or any other organisation that might question the 'mission statement' or the behaviour of those that seek its implementation.
4. With particular reference to Exeter Parks Watch - Refuse to acknowledge any complaints re the way they conduct themselves, even if this means excluding written statements from the 'disenchanted', that are specifically requested to be included in the minutes of the meetings. Shame on you EPW and SDNP, so much support offered that was little more than 'lip-service'.
5. Discourage any personal initiatives. The only good ideas have to come from the Chair or their 'allies'.
Initially I felt some sympathy for Susan Lawrences' (Chair EPW) situation. It appeared to me and other community reps that she had reluctantly become involved in Looe Road Park and would subsequently suffer the 'fallout' from the actions of, specifically, Christine Fraser and, generally, St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership.
However, any sympathy that I was experiencing soon disappeared following Susan's visit to my home to discuss my 'concerns' and a 'satisfactory resolution'.
Tsk! Tsk! Susan Lawrence, browbeating and threats, and in my own home, shame on you! You said, basically, " Toe the line, or else". How disrepectful and irresponsible. It turned out that your threats were not 'idle' ones. If by chance you read this Blog it will become clear that your actions, and inactions, will be exposed.
Do you recall the 'Film Shows in the Park' that EPW claim were such a success? Your failure to satisfactorily engage/consult with our community regarding the choice of films? Oh dear, not quite the success that you are happy to have everyone believe, was it? I will be subsequently posting more information re this event. You even have the audacity to list this fiasco as an EPW achievement.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
A 'Very Important Person!' All Part of the 'Master Plan'.
A V.I.P. Yes! That was me! Not only did I attend regular meetings of Exter Parks Watch, but also some (minimal) SDNP meetings. It soon became obvious that the only opinions that really counted were those of the 'chosen' few, heaven forbid that anyone outside the 'inner circle' would dare use any initiative without approval from 'on high'. I also became a Committee Member of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and rose to the 'dizzy heights' of SDNP's 'Membership Secretary', how impressive isn't that? It soon became clear why SDNP meetings were so poorly attended, the only opinion that really mattered was if it related to improving their (SDNPs) chances of taking control of the community centre.
My 'role' as Membership Secretary involved, or was supposed to involve, maintenance of SDNP's membership database and collection of subscriptions. Frequent requests to the Chair of SDNP, Hannah Reynolds, for the details of existing membership (and prospective new members), were always ignored and were never received. I soon realised that this was the 'norm', both for SDNP and EPW. Whilst both organisations 'welcome' voluntary contribution of time and resources, it has to be on their terms. As a 'foot soldier' you are 'permitted' to participate but, whatever you do, 'toe the party line or else', it's their way, or 'no way!
Naively, at this time, I still hoped that SDNP and EPW's remit was 'community focussed'. This very rapidly changed and I soon began to realise that EPW's involvement in Looe Road Park, and specifically that of Christine Fraser, was a 'damage limitation exercise' to improve SDNP's image as a 'caring/sharing' community organisation. SDNP's focus was on taking control of the Community Centre, whilst effectively ignoring the remainder of their 'community'. This attitude I believe, led to their (SDNP's) past failures in gaining funding for their proposed take over and refurbishment of the Community Centre.
As previously mentioned, appeals from various organisations for a wider community participation by SDNP were constantly refused. SDNP, at this time, had no involvement with social housing within their catchment area, despite previous frequent requests, from Exeter City Council, to widen their 'community perspective'. In fact, SDNP were very selective about who would or, more importantly, wouldn't be part of their activities, and this included many streets/roads on their own 'doorstep'. Suddenly the 'penny dropped', and SDNP realised that it was imperative that they became involved in community matters that didn't revolve around their taking control of the Community Centre if they were to improve their chances of obtaining funding. Suddenly, all of the community organisations that formed the basis for most of SDNP's complaints were 'welcomed' into the SDNP 'fold'.
My 'role' as Membership Secretary involved, or was supposed to involve, maintenance of SDNP's membership database and collection of subscriptions. Frequent requests to the Chair of SDNP, Hannah Reynolds, for the details of existing membership (and prospective new members), were always ignored and were never received. I soon realised that this was the 'norm', both for SDNP and EPW. Whilst both organisations 'welcome' voluntary contribution of time and resources, it has to be on their terms. As a 'foot soldier' you are 'permitted' to participate but, whatever you do, 'toe the party line or else', it's their way, or 'no way!
Naively, at this time, I still hoped that SDNP and EPW's remit was 'community focussed'. This very rapidly changed and I soon began to realise that EPW's involvement in Looe Road Park, and specifically that of Christine Fraser, was a 'damage limitation exercise' to improve SDNP's image as a 'caring/sharing' community organisation. SDNP's focus was on taking control of the Community Centre, whilst effectively ignoring the remainder of their 'community'. This attitude I believe, led to their (SDNP's) past failures in gaining funding for their proposed take over and refurbishment of the Community Centre.
As previously mentioned, appeals from various organisations for a wider community participation by SDNP were constantly refused. SDNP, at this time, had no involvement with social housing within their catchment area, despite previous frequent requests, from Exeter City Council, to widen their 'community perspective'. In fact, SDNP were very selective about who would or, more importantly, wouldn't be part of their activities, and this included many streets/roads on their own 'doorstep'. Suddenly the 'penny dropped', and SDNP realised that it was imperative that they became involved in community matters that didn't revolve around their taking control of the Community Centre if they were to improve their chances of obtaining funding. Suddenly, all of the community organisations that formed the basis for most of SDNP's complaints were 'welcomed' into the SDNP 'fold'.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
SDNP - A Caring/Sharing Partnership? You decide
SDNP had been 'taken to task' several times due to their reluctance to seriously involve themselves in 'community issues'. Several approaches by an Exeter City Council representative, requesting SDNP's support and a more inclusive attitude in addressing a 'wider variety of community matters' were always rejected. A local Housing Association, the tenants of which were the subject of frequent complaints from SDNP, were also refused any support. SDNP's focus has always been to take control of St.David's Community Centre, purely in the 'interests' of the community, you understand. Both the ECC representative and the Housing Association gave up trying to engage with SDNP
Given the considerable amounts of finance/funding required for the Trust's anticipated refurbishment of the Community Centre it soon became obvious that SDNP needed to implement a radical change in their approach if they were to be successful with any funding applications.
Given the considerable amounts of finance/funding required for the Trust's anticipated refurbishment of the Community Centre it soon became obvious that SDNP needed to implement a radical change in their approach if they were to be successful with any funding applications.
A Little More Re Exeter Parks Watch and SDNP.
Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) is, to all intents and purposes, 'run' by Christine Fraser (CF) who also, at the same time, was a committee member of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership (no conflict of interest there then. My understanding is that CF is now a 'shadow trustee' of the trust that has been formed to takeover St.David's Community Centre. Whilst Susan Lawrence is the 'Chair' of EPW, she is nothing more than one of several 'puppets' of Christine Fraser. CF commented to me that, "Susan Lawrence had made it clear to her that she was not very keen to take on Looe Road Park", believing that EPW were already sufficiently committed to other parks in Exeter. Susan Lawrence submitted to pressure from CF to add Looe Road Park to the EPW 'portfolio'. This pressure was probably applied to Susan Lawrence purely for altruistic reasons. Yeah! Right! Of course it was.
Paul Faulkner, Exeter City Council's 'Manager of Parks and Open Spaces' also sat on the committe of EPW although, to quote CF, "Not that he really wants to participate but he has been ordered to by his 'Lords and Masters'!". There will be more revelations re Paul and his departments contribution in further posts.
Paul Faulkner, Exeter City Council's 'Manager of Parks and Open Spaces' also sat on the committe of EPW although, to quote CF, "Not that he really wants to participate but he has been ordered to by his 'Lords and Masters'!". There will be more revelations re Paul and his departments contribution in further posts.
Monday, 9 November 2009
A Stroke of Luck
I had chance meeting with Christine Fraser (Committee Member of SDNP and EPW) and she invited me to participate in EPW's recently started involvement in Looe Road Park. I expressed a little concern and reluctance, never having been previously involved in community matters. CF reassured me that she would, "Show me how the games was played", or at least the way she played it! I finally agreed and attended my first meeting at the St.David's Community Centre (SDCC).
At the second EPW meeting, again at SDCC, I was asked by CF to fill some kettles with water for tea/coffee making. I was unfamiliar with the building and wandered around until I found a member of staff to show me where I could fill the kettles. The staff member asked who it was for and when I told her that it was for an EPW meeting she informed me that a meeting was a meeting booked for SDNP not EPW. SDNP had themselves decided that they should not pay for room hire because of their ongoing intention to take control of SDCC and, "Didn't see why they should have to pay for room-hire". CF claimed that these two meetings were for SDNP discussions when in fact they were for EPW. Frequent requests, from the Centre for EPW's contact details to allow a room-hire invoice to be issued were always ignored. Clearly SDNP and EPW thought it acceptable to deprive SDCC of deperately needed revenue. CF told me, "Keep your mouth shut and keep it zipped in future". What a charmless and manipulative character CF really is, and this was only a taster of what was to follow.
At the second EPW meeting, again at SDCC, I was asked by CF to fill some kettles with water for tea/coffee making. I was unfamiliar with the building and wandered around until I found a member of staff to show me where I could fill the kettles. The staff member asked who it was for and when I told her that it was for an EPW meeting she informed me that a meeting was a meeting booked for SDNP not EPW. SDNP had themselves decided that they should not pay for room hire because of their ongoing intention to take control of SDCC and, "Didn't see why they should have to pay for room-hire". CF claimed that these two meetings were for SDNP discussions when in fact they were for EPW. Frequent requests, from the Centre for EPW's contact details to allow a room-hire invoice to be issued were always ignored. Clearly SDNP and EPW thought it acceptable to deprive SDCC of deperately needed revenue. CF told me, "Keep your mouth shut and keep it zipped in future". What a charmless and manipulative character CF really is, and this was only a taster of what was to follow.
Exeter Parks Watch and St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership - A Very Convenient Arrangement
There will be many references to Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) throughout this Blog, particularly referring to specific individuals and their disgraceful behaviour, most of which can be supported by personal comment from other community representatives involved and also documentary evidence. Various emails will be copied to this Blog to expose these charlatans in their 'true colours', but first, a bit of 'background' re EPW.
EPW was originally formed to operate along similar principles to Neighbourhood Watch, the concept being that members of the public, living near or overlooking Parks, would report 'anti-social' incidents' to the Council or the police. EPW 'falls under the umbrella' of Devon and Cornwall Community Watch Association ( DaCCWA). Susan Lawrence, currently the Chair of EPW, was the Chair of DaCCWA until 'handing this position over' to the current Chair, Julie Dowton.
EPW extended their remit to implementing? improvements in Park facilities (well, some parks at least).
My understanding is that Christine Fraser (CF) (EPW/SDNP ) was originally paid by Exeter City Council to advise in the 'setting up' of EPW and, when the funding ended, she (CF) decided to continue her contibution on a voluntary basis. Christine Fraser has commented to me that, "She anticipates being paid £120.00 per hour for her 'voluntary' contribution towards the running of St.David's Community Centre if the newly formed, by SDNP, 'trust' gain control".
How reassuring to know that Christine Fraser and her ilk truly have the interests of the community driving them on.
EPW was originally formed to operate along similar principles to Neighbourhood Watch, the concept being that members of the public, living near or overlooking Parks, would report 'anti-social' incidents' to the Council or the police. EPW 'falls under the umbrella' of Devon and Cornwall Community Watch Association ( DaCCWA). Susan Lawrence, currently the Chair of EPW, was the Chair of DaCCWA until 'handing this position over' to the current Chair, Julie Dowton.
EPW extended their remit to implementing? improvements in Park facilities (well, some parks at least).
My understanding is that Christine Fraser (CF) (EPW/SDNP ) was originally paid by Exeter City Council to advise in the 'setting up' of EPW and, when the funding ended, she (CF) decided to continue her contibution on a voluntary basis. Christine Fraser has commented to me that, "She anticipates being paid £120.00 per hour for her 'voluntary' contribution towards the running of St.David's Community Centre if the newly formed, by SDNP, 'trust' gain control".
How reassuring to know that Christine Fraser and her ilk truly have the interests of the community driving them on.
St.David's Residents and Business Association AKA...
.....St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership (SDNP). Unfortunately, I was getting nowhere in attempts to implement changes within my community. Clearly, as an individual, I had insufficient 'clout' to make any significant improvements, so I decided to request the support of the then St.David's Residents and Business Association (SDRBA), believing that they could add some 'weight' to my cause. How wrong I was! Several requests for support, made to Hannah Reynolds, the Chair, were refused. However, she did condescend to, "Consider our community for affiliation if I formed a Community Association". Such generosity!
I must confess to a degree of naivety in community matters at this time and, due to pressures of work, I 'gave up' any hopes of making significant changes.
Several years later, by pure chance, it was my misfortune to become involved with Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) and the 'transformed/renamed/rebranded St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership. More specifically, Christine Fraser (SDNP Committee) and Susan Lawrence (Chair of EPW).
I must confess to a degree of naivety in community matters at this time and, due to pressures of work, I 'gave up' any hopes of making significant changes.
Several years later, by pure chance, it was my misfortune to become involved with Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) and the 'transformed/renamed/rebranded St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership. More specifically, Christine Fraser (SDNP Committee) and Susan Lawrence (Chair of EPW).
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Starting at the Beginning
Having moved to Exeter 13 years ago, and realising that this area of Exeter had clearly been neglected for many years, I contacted Exeter City Council (ECC) with a view to introducing much needed improvements.
Their response? That good old 'stand by' excuse.....
"Lack of Resources". Amazing isn't? Years pass and, despite massive hikes in Council Taxes, Lack of Resources is the continued excuse.
Given ECC's 'lack of resources', I was somewhat suprised to receive a letter from Paul Faulkner, Head of Parks and Open Spaces, complaining about the small quanity of building materials that I had placed to the rear of my house on the grass verge in Looe Road Park. These materials left the footpath clear and were laid on, and covered with, heavy-duty polythene and had not been used because of the continuing wet weather. Given that these materials had only been 'in situ' for 2-3 days I was more than a little surprised to receive a letter threatening me with 'removal by ECC staff and subsequent invoicing for the cost' from Paul Faulkner (ECC's Head of Parks and Open Spaces). It would seem that whilst ECC 'lack the resources' to address the ongoing dog mess, and many other problems, there are sufficient 'resources' to waste on 'browbeating' letters to the taxpayers of this community.
Watch this Blog for news of my, and others, (failed) attempts to enlist the support of St.David's Residents and Business Association (now St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership). A perfect example of a misnomer!
Not wishing to be seen to exclude anyone, I shall also be including my experiences relating to Exeter Parks Watch, both as as an organisation and specific individuals and their connection with SDNP and their falure to support our community.
Their response? That good old 'stand by' excuse.....
"Lack of Resources". Amazing isn't? Years pass and, despite massive hikes in Council Taxes, Lack of Resources is the continued excuse.
Given ECC's 'lack of resources', I was somewhat suprised to receive a letter from Paul Faulkner, Head of Parks and Open Spaces, complaining about the small quanity of building materials that I had placed to the rear of my house on the grass verge in Looe Road Park. These materials left the footpath clear and were laid on, and covered with, heavy-duty polythene and had not been used because of the continuing wet weather. Given that these materials had only been 'in situ' for 2-3 days I was more than a little surprised to receive a letter threatening me with 'removal by ECC staff and subsequent invoicing for the cost' from Paul Faulkner (ECC's Head of Parks and Open Spaces). It would seem that whilst ECC 'lack the resources' to address the ongoing dog mess, and many other problems, there are sufficient 'resources' to waste on 'browbeating' letters to the taxpayers of this community.
Watch this Blog for news of my, and others, (failed) attempts to enlist the support of St.David's Residents and Business Association (now St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership). A perfect example of a misnomer!
Not wishing to be seen to exclude anyone, I shall also be including my experiences relating to Exeter Parks Watch, both as as an organisation and specific individuals and their connection with SDNP and their falure to support our community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)