Resignation from Exeter Parks Watch

Below is a copy of another document (highlighted in blue) presented to Susan Lawrence for inclusion in the minutes of the EPW meeting at which I resigned. Despite several requests to Susan Lawrence to accept this document for inclusion in the minutes, she refused. A copy was given to her and also distributed to others at this meeting.

Despite this post's reference to my resignation from EPW there is still a considerable quantity of information that will continue to be posted on this Blog.

It was also at this time that I resigned my 'position' on the SDNP committee.


Exeter Parks Watch Meeting – Hayes Barton – Friday, 14th March

It is with some regret that as of today I am withdrawing my involvement with Exeter Parks Watch. I feel that, at this time, there are irreconcilable differences and, in spite of trying vigorously to resolve these, I am left with no option but to withdraw, if only for the time being.

I have been concerned for some time about various issues, some of which I raised again at the previous meeting on 8th February. Whilst the points that I raised on the 8th February may have been viewed as critical, if I had been given the opportunity to finish speaking it would have been clear, to all those present, that I was using them as examples to highlight areas where there was scope for reappraisal of ‘working practices’. Unfortunately, my efforts at serious constructive discussion were responded to with open hostility from Christine Fraser/SDNP and, to a lesser degree, Susan Lawrence/EPW. Following the meeting of 8th February, I was asked, by Susan Lawrence, to provide a statement for inclusion in the minutes of that meeting. I provided the statement, as requested, but it was not included in the minutes when they were distributed. This failure is symptomatic of the way Exeter Parks Watch is run by CF/SDNP and SL.

During the interim period between the meeting of 8th February and today (14th March) I have received no information/emails relating to our community from Christine Fraser and only the minutes (incomplete and excluding my first statement) from Susan Lawrence. I have also been excluded from the ‘mailing list’ relating to the 14th March meeting but another attendee did forward a copy of the minutes to me. A clear attempt to exclude me from the information chain. If ‘constructive dismissal’ was applicable to committees then my departure from Parks Watch would, I’m sure, qualify.

In spite of this and, yet again, in an effort to reach a satisfactory solution, I invited Susan Lawrence to my home yesterday for an informal discussion. I asked Susan Lawrence if ‘the ends justify any means’, she chose not to respond. Susan, as always, was not prepared to accept any of my opinions. Susan also commented, "Paul Faulkner is a committee member of Parks Watch and, if Parks Watch pull out of Looe Road Park or are asked to end their involvement, Paul Faulkner goes as well, taking any funding with him. Any requests for funding would then have to be made directly to Exeter City Council". Whilst this comment may be true, the tone in which it was delivered was again typical of the ‘browbeating’ stance taken if anyone has the temerity to raise unwelcome issues. As far as I am aware, Paul Faulkner is an employee of Exeter City Council, and not ‘joined at the hip’ to Exeter Parks Watch. I have always appreciated Paul Faulkner’s commitment and contribution to our community, something I’m sure he is well aware of. It is regrettable that my opinions of Paul Faulkner have since changed, it would seem that Susan Lawrence's threats of the Parks Department's departure with EPW became a reality.

There have been minor successes for which our community is appreciative; this has never been disputed. There have also been many failures and misrepresentations, but it is essential that, as far as CF/SDNP/SL/EPW are concerned, these can only be presented with a positive ‘spin’ or not at all.

Fencing Around Part of Looe Road Park

Following on from a previous post relating to the football pitch.

This pitch is not full-size and had become effectively little more than a dog's toilet and was also used for the annual November 5th bonfire.

The single most significant improvement to Looe Road Park has been the erection of metal fencing around the main section of the grassed area that includes the football pitch, funded by Exeter City Council. This has resulted in a virtually dog-mess free zone that provides a healthier recreational environment for our community and for this we are grateful. A community survey revealed that provision of this fencing was judged to be a high priority by the residents.

I have been informed by two governors of St.David's Primary School that the only reason that this fencing was installed was to enable use by the school because their own playing field could not be used due to ongoing building work that made use of their own football pitch impossible. I have also been informed that considerable pressure was applied to Exeter City Council to provide this fencing for the school's benefit. Clearly, the school children couldn't use the park whilst it presented a potential health risk due to contamination by dog faeces.

As a community we have absolutely no problem with the local primary school using Looe Road Park but, please, CF/SDNP/SL/EPW, do not inform our community or anyone else that the fencing was installed only because we wanted it, because this is clearly untrue. The fencing was installed first and foremost for the benefit of St.David's Primary School pupils, and not for our community, as you prefer to publicise.


It would appear that, despite the additional fencing, the primary school have visited Looe Road Park on only one occasion, and then only very briefly. Could this have been because of the lack of suitable toilet facilities in Looe Road Park for the schoolchilden? St.David's Primary School have had to transport their pupils to an alternative park elsewhere in Exeter that, presumably, had adequate facilities for the youngsters.

CF Decides To Hire Looe Road Park to A Language School

Yet another CF/SDNP surprise announcement at an EPW meeting.
CF/SDNP organised a meeting with a language school, based in St.David's Hill, with a view to the school hiring the football pitch in Looe Road Park for use by their international students.
The pitch hire had been discussed, presumably with the blessing of Exeter City Council's Park's Department, to allow the language school use of this community facility for a fee.
Once again there had been no consultation with community representatives regarding this proposal and it was announced at an EPW as a 'done deal'.

Whilst in principle there was no objection to this proposal, despite the total absence of community involvement re this decision (again!), concerns were expressed to CF/SDNP/SL/EPW as to how this may affect the use of this area by the youngsters of our community. As was becoming the norm, these concerns were brushed aside as irrelevant.

As far as I am aware the pitch was never used by the language school. No doubt this 'exercise in community involvement' would have been publicised as CF/SDNP/SL/EPW 'forging links with other community-based organisations'. The fact that those of the community most affected by this agreement had not been involved in discussions was viewed as of no significance by CF/SDNP/SL/EPW.

'Comisca'....Or Should It Be 'Commisar'?

'Commisar' - As defined in the 'Free Online Dictionary'

"A person who tries to control public opinion", and
"An official ........... in charge of political indoctrination and the enforcement of party loyalty".

Both St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the relatively new Exeter Community Centre web-sites are designed and 'managed' by 'Comisca'. I have been informed, rightly or wrongly, that Comisca is a business managed/owned by Kelvin Lacey, Chair of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership. If this is true it is reassuring to see that there can be no possible 'conflict of interest'. I'm sure that Kelvin will be able to confirm this, or otherwise.

It would also appear that emails directed through the 'Contact Us' link on the Community Centre website, that are posted to admin@ etc., go directly to Kelvin Lacey for his personal attention before, presumably, all being forwarded to the Community Centre staff. Given SDNP's proposals for the future of the Community Centre, is this acceptable? Why isn't there a clear and direct email contact from the Community Centre website to the staff?

Requests to Comisca to change the Community Centre website, so that it includes a direct email contact with the staff, have been ignored.

It should perhaps be noted that much of the information on the Centre website is incorrect and outdated, even the room-hire rates are wrong.

Gina Richards....

....sourced sponsorship, for several football sessions in Looe Road Park, from 3 local businesses. For this our community is grateful, but why were requests for contact details of these valued sponsors, made to Christine Fraser/SDNP and Gina Richards, ignored? Our community requested this information so that we could invite these funders to attend the football sessions so that we would have the opportunity to express our appreciation of their invaluable contribution, if only as a matter of courtesy.
But no, yet again, requests for information were ignored and, understandably, instead of improving relationships between our community and possible sources of ongoing funding provision, the result has had a negative impact. Would you, as a contributor, feel inclined to participate in the future, having received no acknowledgment for what you have already given?

Eviction of Troublesome Exeter Housing Society (now Cornerstone) Tenants

Yet again, Christine Fraser/SDNP and EPW have implied that their 'actions' resulted in the eviction of a Cornerstone tenant in Looe Road. These tenants had been an ongoing problem for their neighbours for 2-3 years.
I have spoken to Cornerstone management regarding this and they have commented, "This is none of their (SDNP's/EPW's) business, and we would not involve them in this matter".
Once again CF/SDNP were enthusiastic to 'exaggerate' their non-existent involvement in an issue with which they had no input.

The Porkies Continue, or perhaps It's The Truth.

Christine Fraser 'toured' our local community with a representative of the 'Community Builders'
funding provider. Also in attendance was Kelvin Lacey, another CF/SDNP puppet. (More on Kelvin Lacey another time)

It seems a little odd that, given my role as Chairman of the local Community Association, CF and KL decided that, despite passing them in the street, I was not deemed worthy of an introduction to, or conversation with, the representative of Community Builders funding provider re SDNP's and EPW's contribution to our community.

No, instead of introducing me to Ray? from Community Builders it was decided to discuss SDNP's and EPW's contribution with another resident.

This resident raised the issue of the poor state of the footpaths in the park to which CF expressed her surprise that these repairs had not yet been implemented. CF went on to say that she had, "received emails from Exeter City Council stating that they (ECC) would carry out this much needed work to the footpaths".

I have contacted local Councillors/ECC parks Department and it has been confirmed that they have not agreed that this work will be carried out and that CF must have the "wrong information"! Mmmm... that's one way of putting it. Another was is that CF, obviously supported by Kelvin Lacey, was yet again misrepresenting the true facts to further the aims of herself and SDNP. Of course, Christine Fraser could be asked to provide the emails that state Exeter City Council's Parks Department are going to do this work. If she can I will offer her an unreserved apology for this misunderstanding.

I Guess That It's Time Exeter City Council Had a Mention

Following Susan Lawrences' personal threats, that Exeter Parks Watch's 'departure' from involvement in Looe Road Park would also result in the exclusion of positive input by Exeter City Council's Parks and Opens Spaces Department Manager, Paul Faulkner, I contacted Paul McCormick, Exeter City Council's Director of Contracts and Services to clarify the situation.

I had a meeting with Paul McCormick at the Civic Centre and expressed my concerns that Susan Lawrence/EPW, in her opinion, was effectively controlling any service provision, in Looe Road Park, by Exeter City Council. He strenuously denied this and a subsequent on-site meeting was organised to discuss the future of the park. At this meeting it was obvious that Exeter City Council's preferred option would be for responsibility of this valuable community asset to be transferred to the residents. The option of setting up a 'Trust' to take control and management of the park was discussed and rejected by the local Community Association. It was agreed, between the Community Association and Paul McCormick, that a 'shared responsiblity' for the park would be a preferred and satisfactory option, to which he agreed.

Unfortunately, Exeter City Council's concept of shared responsibility and that of our community differ. Effectively, the Parks Department do the bare minimum. It appears that Susan Lawrence's threats became a reality.
Our community are willing to enter into any positive dialogue with any ECC department re improvements to our community.

Hannah Reynolds Emailed Response to My Letter Recently Published in the Express & Echo.

Email begins -

Whilst I was grateful to see, from your letter to the Express and Echo, that you continue to support the Community Centre, I was shocked that almost all your facts are completely wrong. Where do you get the idea that doctors are not interested in creating a surgery at the Centre, or that there’s only going to be one community room for hire?

This is absolute nonsense – and peddling it in the newspapers just damages the efforts of other people in your community who have been working unselfishly for years to try and secure the centre for community use.

Why would you write these things without actually knowing what’s going on?

I’m not going to write back in the press – it just gives a semblance of credibility to your comments . If you’d like me to brief you about what is actually happening in the fight to save the centre, please do get in touch. I’m happy to do so.
Email ends.

My Comments -
"Whilst I was grateful to see, from your letter to the Express and Echo, that you continue to support the Community Centre...." Clearly the irony and specifics of this comment were wasted on you. I support the Community Centre, but not SDNP's future involvement in it. I do not believe that SDNP are suitable re the control of the Centre for the benefit of the Comunity. I base these opinions on the negative experiences of myself and my immediate community and your failure to address the questionable activities of your Partnership representatives when concerns have been brought to your attention. Surely as Chair of SDNP you are responsible for your Committee's actions? Or perhaps not, I have brought the actions of Christine Fraser to your attention on several occasions and ech time you have chosen to ignore them.
"I was shocked that almost all your facts are completely wrong". Really? If my facts are 'completely wrong' then I invite you to set out precisely your plans for the Community Centre to clarify the situation. By this I do not mean 'ifs', 'buts', and 'maybes', I mean specifics, not some vague concept of what 'might be' couched in your usual 'best for the community speak'.

"Absolute nonsense"? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Your usual reluctance/refusal to provide convincing evidence to support your proposals offers no reassurance and answer none of my questions.

"I’m not going to write back in the press – it just gives a semblance of credibility to your comments" . Of course you are not, it is nothing more than I, and others would expect, based on the previous actions of SDNP and its representatives.

Finally, for now at least, "working unselfishly for years". If this particular comment wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious. Suffice to say, I will add no further comment for fear of adding a semblance of credibility to this ridiculous statement.

The posts on this Blog details perfectly SDNP's unselfish contribution to the community.

Before I Publish Hannah Reynolds Response to My Letter

Just to clarify -
I have spoken to Hannah Reynolds (Chair SDNP) on several occasions, expressing my concerns re the actions of SDNP, as an organisation, and Christine Fraser as an individual that publicly represents and comments on their behalf.

Hannah Reynolds has attempted to distance herself from CFs behaviour whilst at the same time making no attempt to deal with the lies, misrepresentations, and shabby behaviour of one of her own committee members, who also happens to be a close friend.
Clearly Ms.Reynolds is quite content to permit CF to do precisely as she pleases, as long as it promotes SDNP's own interests.

Ms.Reynolds preference not to respond openly to various questions and criticisms that I and others have raised, both personally and via the local newspaper, expresses perfectly SDNP's arrogance. This said, Ms Reynolds is more than happy to express her personal criticism of my attitude and comments on a face-to-face basis if ever we meet at 'community' events.

My Recently Published Letter to the Local Newspaper

This letter was written in response to yet another article relating to SDNP's proposed takeover of the control of the Community Centre that implied that part of their plans would include a doctors surgery. So far there is no evidence to support SDNPs claims that a surgery will be an integral part of their proposals, despite frequent requests for them to provide adequate confirmation.
Hannah Reynolds (SDNP Chair) responded personally to me by email and it will be copied above in this Blog.

Dear Letters -
Re your article – “Community Centre in Peril Without Funding” (Express & Echo, 3rd November).

Whoever takes control of the ‘Community Centre’ the community loses.
The Exeter Community Centre Trust plans, I note, include a Doctor’s Surgery. Has this been officially confirmed, is it to be a proper full-time surgery, or will it work at reduced hours? Will it provide a full range of medical services to the community as is expected at any Health Centre? My understanding is that prospective GPs had already visited the Centre and clearly expressed their disinterest in being involved. The police also declined a permanent stationing of officers at the Centre. I would be more than happy to be corrected on either of these matters.

St.David’s Neighbourhood Partnership’s/Exeter Community Centre Trust’s original plans only allowed for one single room for community hire, the majority of the building being effectively for startup businesses and ‘hot-desking’. I have also been informed that the existing playgroup are hoping to take over the only room that would be availabe for hire, as a new site for the playgroup and, presumably, this will effectively make the room unavilable for daytime hire usage by other groups. Assuming SDNP do take control, precisely what space will be available for community hire? The Community Centre is beginning to sound considerably more like a Business Centre than a true Community Centre. These are serious and relevant questions that need to be answered.

If the Community Centre is sold for redevelopment perhaps a condition of approval for the Planning Application could be the inclusion of adequate facilities for the Playgroup? Perhaps the building could be converted into single/multiple occupancy social housing units, there is certainly a definite shortage of such accommodation. Student accommodation could be another option.

Rest asured, whatever the outcome, I will continue to offer the same level of support that I always have.

I Know What to Do, I'll Try and Build Some Bridges!

Hope sprung eternal! - In an effort to pour a little oil on troubled waters I contacted Christine Fraser - below are the relevant emails.

Christine - Perhaps we should get together and try to sort out our differences.
Hannah (Reynolds) has agreed to supply tea and act, if necessary, as mediator/referee!!

Her response -
Thank you for your email. This has of course been passed to my legal adviser for his opinion. You will understand that I am therefore unable to meet with you at this time.
Christine

My response to her response
Christine,
Hmm..I see, clearly you are not interested in my proposal. I look forward to hearing from you and/or your legal adviser in due course.

Oddly enough, I never did hear from Christine, or her legal adviser.

Whoopee! New Chidrens Play Equipment for the Park, Nearly

An Exeter City Council staff member created plans for, if I recall correctly, £48,000 worth of new equipment for the childrens Play Area in Looe Road Park. Christine Fraser criticised the Council's plans and when I asked her, "What are they like?", she responded,"I have no idea, I haven't even seen the plans, but no doubt they will be their usual rubbish". I see Christine, you have not even seen these plans and yet you decide that they are rubbish. Surely this was a decision for the community to decide, not for you to once again 'claim to represent the views of the residents and users of the park' without discussion. Yet again your personal arrogance and interference went too far. We didn't get the new play equipment.

Logos - Will we, won't we?

Logos are an important aspect of any organisation's image and their partnership organisations.

I produced and distributed flyers on a regular basis around our community to keep them informed of many different issues and CF/SL/EPW insisted on including the logos of the various ‘partnership’ organisations. Not a problem, only in that frequent requests for specific logos, made by myself to CF/SL/EPW, were ignored and this caused a great many delays in the production and distribution of flyers.

I was then told by CF, “not to bother to include some of the logos, as long as EPW and Exeter City Council were included the rest were unimportant”. This approach was typical of EPW, something that was 'insisted on', one day, could be ‘discarded’ the next.

This made it very difficult to know precisely what protocols should, or shouldn’t, be followed. Eventually I realised that the only protocols that existed were at the whim of CF/SL.

EPW Chair, Susan Lawrence refused, on at least two occasions, to include written statements, from myself in the minutes of meetings. I specifically requested, several times, that these statements be included in the minutes and each time SL refused, stating that, “these matters have already been dealt with”, which was untrue. Other attendees at these meetings can confirm this.

Gina Richards - My Request for Support

By this stage in the 'game' I ,and other community reps, had serious concerns relating to how CF/SDNP/SL/EPW conducted themselves, particularly CF who was determined to create a 'make-believe' presence of SDNP in Looe Road Park from 2003.

I had accummulated a considerable amount of information supporting our community's concerns re CF/SL/EPW and passed a copy to Gina Richards, another Bonhay Road resident, requesting her support in putting an end to the actions of those already named. Gina Richards returned the paperwork to me, posted through my letterbox, with a note stating, "I do not wish to read this".

I would, through this Blog, like to know why Gina, a member of the Looe Road Working Group, and an EPW member and, presumably having the welfare of her own community as her basis for involvement, refused to support my concerns? Gina Richards was subsequently refused membership of Lower St.David's Community Association based on relevant section(s) of the Association Constitution and is now an active member of St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership. It is also my understanding that Gina Richards retains her position as a member of the EPW Looe Road Working Group despite having no contact with anyone in the Lower St.David's community including Lower St.David's Community Association and the residents of Looe Road.

Negotiations with Network Rail and First Great Western for community funding

The link between Network Rail (NR) and Looe Road is that some of the cottages were once occupied by railway employees.

Christine Fraser, myself, and another Bonhay Road resident, Gina Richards (more about Gina Richards to follow in another post), met at St.David's Railway Station with a NR representative to discuss the possibility of Network Rail providing some funding for improvements to our community, or so I had been led to believe by Christine.

This meeting discussed nothing more than NR providing funding for a piece of 'modern art' outside the front of the Railway Station.

This was not what I had been told this meeting was for. To raise funding,Yes, but given the many other more important things that need attention, a sculpture, no!

No doubt the installation of a sculpture outside the Station carried more kudos for CF/SDNP/SL/EPW than implementing other more mundane improvements.

Express & Echo Article

Subject: Full/Half Page Article in the Express and Echo

Various emails, starting with one from myself to CF/SDNP and SL/EPW + others.

Hi All – I have persuaded the Express and Echo to do a full/half page feature re Looe Road Park and its surrounding community. The article will include the input from various partnership organisations particularly Exeter Parks Watch and the Parks Department. I particularly want to include some input from Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

Response from Christine Fraser/SDNP -

Hi Bob Well done. I saw your picture in today's edition, so it looks as if you are taking up residence in that journal! Happy to do whatever (within reason!) is required...!
Christine

Response from Susan Lawrence/EPW -
Hi Bob Happy to help to promote Looe Road Park and the work of Parks Watch.Regards Sue

Sorry Bob. Forgot to give you my number: XXXXXXXXXX.See you next Friday. Susan


Another email from Susan Lawrence/EPW, following on from her previous message.

Hi Bob do be careful about this link with E&E. I have been down this avenue with the E&E before and one discordant word and the E&E will splash it over everywhere and the voice of reason will be forgotten. Also everyone has to be careful that they do not give their views which then appears to be the views of Parks Watch. I don’t want PW to lose all its credibility that PW and other local residents have worked hard to achieve in their own particular parks throughout Exeter, hard work that has gone on for 6 years. Believe me it can happen. Been there – done it and don’t want to do it again!
Emails end.

It would appear from SL's second email that she shares SDNP's concerns about 'losing credibility'. What both organisations are unable, or unwilling, to see is that any credibility they have lost is because of their own actions, not those of anyone else.

Because of inaction from CF/SDNP/SL/EPW on this matter I took the initiative and arranged for a comprehensive article, re Looe Road Park, to be published in the Express & Echo. I thought this would be an ideal opportunity to 'sell ourselves/involved organisations' and what we are all trying to achieve within our community'. I also thought, by raising our profile, it may help raise awareness of the need for funding.

Christine Fraser/SDNP/Susan Lawrence/EPW were originally very receptive and positive towards the idea (see above). However, approximately a week before the Express and Echo journalist was due to contact various members (listed at the start of this paragraph + others) of involved organisations and specific individuals, I was contacted by SL who expressed her reluctance to being involved, in spite of originally expressing her support for the article. Because of SLs concerns I requested a copy of the article from the E&E before publication to ensure there would be no negativity included. The article will be (was) published but any contribution from EPW only relate to 'generalities' rather than the specifics of Looe Road Park. My main concern was that this reluctance from EPW to be involved could affect important opportunities in the future and may have already done so.

CF also commented that she and SDNP, “Don’t get involved in this sort of thing”. It was agreed, between the Express and Echo and myself that, in view of Susan Lawrence’s and Christine Fraser’s and, of course SDNPs reluctance to be involved, that they would not be asked to contribute to this article. The subsequent article gave a very positive overview of what we, as a community are trying to achieve, despite EPW’s/SDNP’s refusal to participate.

It was also unfortunate that Paul Faulkner, Manager of Parks and Open Spaces was 'unable to attend, but he did at least send one of his staff to represent his department.

In conclusion - Whilst I appreciate that some level of 'monitoring' is probably necessary, any personal initiatives are generally frowned upon and discouraged. I appreciate that Sue Lawrence works and is therefore limited in the time and energy that she can/wants to devote to our community but this is surely sufficient reason alone to delegate some of the responsibility. The work restrictions on Sue Lawrence’s time also allowed Christine Fraser to do more or less as she pleased, which she generally did/does anyway.

So much for supporting our community. Whilst CF/SDNP/SL/EPW refused, yet again, to support initiatives and contribute to the article focussing on our community, "because they don't get involved in this sort of thing", they are more than happy to use the local press in other matters when it suits them.

Statement Specifically Requested by Susan Lawrence for Inclusion in EPW Meeting Minutes Part1

Below is copied some of my original statement,specifically requested by Susan Lawrence for the inclusion in the Minutes of an EPW meeting. Parts of this statement have been excluded from this message but will be included at a later date and in greater detail.

Final paragraph from my original statement presented at the Looe Road Parks Watch meeting 08/02/08.
"This is not a ‘witch-hunt’, and it is never my intention to ‘step-on toes’, but this is perhaps a good opportunity to review procedures so that initiatives can move forward more smoothly. Because of the infrequency of meetings and reluctance of the Chair to delegate anything other than minor responsibilities I am concerned that future opportunities for support/funding may be missed".

Firstly, I would like to apologise to all those present at the meeting for my angry response directed mainly at Christine Fraser. This was not without provocation from Christine, who chose to direct a personal verbal attack against myself and my motives for involvement in our local community. Yes, I am passionate about this work but I resent her comment that I am a "martyr to it". Since this disagreement Christine no longer keeps me informed of any information that relates to what is, or isn't, occurring in our community. Clearly Christine and Susan have taken the original statement very personally and responded or, more to the point, not responded, as she (they) see fit. I draw your attention to the first paragraph of this statement.

Some of the other issues raised in my original statement are dealt with below; others will be published elsewhere on this Blog.

To Add a Little 'Balance', The Oft Trumpeted 'List of EPW Achievements' -

How impressive is this? There is, needless to say, a difference between the claims and actual 'reality', something that EPW/SDNP are particularly skilled at. Some of these 'successes' have already been covered in this Blog and those that haven't, will be in due course. Meanwhile, I have added a few comments below, in blue, to the 'hallowed' list and will be commenting on them all on this Blog, plus many other 'achievements' they obviously thought unworthy for inclusion.

This list of achievements is 'touted' around by EPW/SDNP to various authorities, organisations, and funding providers and used as, basically, a 'didn't we do well by this community' PR exercise to, yet again, promote their own self-seeking aims. As always, SDNP and EPW like to imply involvement even if their contribution is zero/minimal. No, actually you didn't do as well as you would like people to believe.

LIST OF ACHIEVEMENTS IN LOOE ROAD MARCH TO OCT 2007 (As published by EPW)

It should be noted that the views expressed by EPW do not necessarily agree with reality or those of the community.

Look what has been achieved:

· Park cleaner (Debatable)
· Grass cut (Yes)
· Summer Film Programme delivered with partnership funding (Already covered)
· Devon Youth Service Bus visiting weekly (More details to follow)
· Links now establish between EPW and St David's Primary School (These links are?)
· Children installing their new goalposts (Yes)
· Soccer Workshop programme started (More details to follow)
· Funding bids prepared and achieved by local people for film programme and soccer sessions. (Films already included on this Blog. More on the Soccer in due course)
· Partnership between EPW and Exeter Housing Society established (More on this to come)
· Community survey (More on this to come)
· Action Plan created - and being delivered (Think positive, you know it makes sense!)
· New substation and cover organised for Jan 2008 ( It's nearly 2010, still no new cover, but this will be carried out when the redevelopment of the Apollo site commneces.)
· Special Bulk collection Oct to prevent illegal bonfire 5 Nov (More details to follow)
· Negotiations with Network Rail and First Great Western for community funding (link is Looe road were railways cottages) (Negotiations for what, a sculpture? More to follow)
· Football pitch to be marked out with young people for Half Term (More to follow)
· Railings to be Painted with young people/parents for Half Term (More to follow)
· Funding research and applications being undertaken by EPW volunteers ( True, up to a point)
· Housing Corporation Bid submitted (I was informed that, "this bid was so badly presented that it, 'didn't stand a cat in Hell's chance' of succeeding".)
· Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator appointed. (Really? A NHW Co-ordinator was already in position before any involvement of CF/SDNP/SL/EPW.)
· Stronger links established with PCSO, Community Patrollers. (If you say so, it must be true!)
· Community engaging with City Tree and Woodlands consultation process. ( No community reps were aware of this)
· Tree Planting on EHS triangle being considered. ( Details to follow)
· Discarded boat/rubbish on triangle actively being removed (needs notification of possible owner) (A triumph! We had a selection of abandoned vehicles instead, that have subsequently been removed since SDNPs and EPWs exit from involvement)
· Possible use by community of empty Apollo Warehouse until development starts being discussed with owner. ( Always a non-starter, given the very dilapidated state of this building and the massive financial implications of renovation to even a basic level. This building has been subsequently demolished).
· Art Workshop – ‘Design Your Park Sign’ – plus Creative Play day with City Playrangers booked for December 2007 (More on this to come)
· Reports of significant reduction in anti-social behaviour (True)
· Ongoing…….. (Precisely what is 'ongoing'?)

Christine Fraser, SDNP, Susan Lawrence, and EPW are truly impressive, if only in their ability to exagerate their actions.

The Promised Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) Check

Much of my work revolved around involvement with the youngsters of our community. Sadly, over a period of time this had raised questions, from a few residents, relating to my 'interest' in the kids. As an individual I am unable to apply for a CRB check myself.

Amid increasing concerns for my personal reputation I raised the CRB matter at an Exeter Parks Watch meeting and was reassured that, "it will be sorted out". Despite raising this same issue, several times over the following months, no action had been taken and I stated that I was reluctant to continue my involvement without the appropriate CRB check. Susan Lawrence said that she would deal with it through EPW and her connections with Devon & Cornwall Community Watch Association - she didn't. Christine Fraser said that she would organise it through SDNP - she didn't. Kelvin Lacey, SDNP and Governor of St.David's Primary School said that he would arrange it through the Primary School - he didn't. I even offered to pay any costs involved myself to any organisation that could resolve this matter so that they would not be out of pocket.
Promises of support made and subsequently ignored, again.
I eventually achieved satisfactory vetting from Devon & Cornwall Constabulary.

SDNP and 'Community Funding' - A Question

I would be interested to know precisely how much of SDNP's subscription fees have been contributed towards community initiatives. No, I'm not referring to sources like 'My Neighbourhood' or, possibly, Devon & Cornwall Constabulary funding etc, I mean your 'Partnerships' own money, derived from subscriptions. Have you actually contributed financially to anything within your own community that didn't revolve around improving your image and your anticipated takeover of the Community Centre?

Freedom of Information Act. Mmm...If only!

In view of the somewhat unpleasant nature of the email previously detailed on this Blog I thought it may be appropriate to make a formal request to Susan Lawrence (EPW) , using the Freedom of Information Act, for copies of emails exchanged between herself and Christine Fraser.
Exeter Parks Watch is classified as a 'public body' and, therefore, is required to fulfill requests made using the FOI Act. This was confirmed by Exeter City Council's Freedom of Information Department and the relevant Central Government Office.

A request for specific information was emailed to Susan Lawrence and followed up with a 'Recorded Delivery' hard copy to ensure that she received it. Email can be so unreliable at times.

A written response was received from Susan, stating that, "she did not have to provide the requested information and would not enter into any further communication with me". I was not particularly surprised at Susan's response, it merely confirmed that, perhaps, some of the requested emails may have been less than positive/complimentary, not only about myself and community reps but also various other positive Exeter City, Devon County, and Devon & Cornwall Constabulary staff.

The simple fact is that copies of the requested emails were not really necessary at this particular time, both Christine Fraser and Susan Lawrence have consistently 'shot themselves in the foot' in 101 other ways.

The Christine Fraser/SDNP 'Time-Line' Chart.

I attended an Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) meeting at which Christine Fraser presented a 'Time Line' Chart that 'detailed' St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership's (SDNP) 'involvement' in the Lower St.David's community from 2003. Yet another blatant misrepresentation of the true facts by CF. The earliest involvement of EPW/SDNP was not until late 2006/early 2007. There had been a not so subtle shift shift from EPW to EPW and SDNP involvement in Lower St.David's. It was clear that Christine Fraser was determined to create a non-existent (SDNP) presence in Lower St.David's from 2003 when this was clearly untrue. No doubt this 'perceived' involvement would have improved SDNPs funding opportunities to take control of the Community Centre and was all 'part and parcel' of the caring/sharing rebranded SDNP.

I questioned CFs misrepresentation, as did other community representatives, and she commented that, "It (the chart) would need 'beefing up' a bit". From this comment I, and other community reps, deduced that further lies would be included to enhance the reputation and exaggerate the real contribution of SDNP. Susan Lawrence (EPW Chair) chose to ignore the concerns expressed by community reps at this obvious misrepresentation.
I was concerned that this 'self-serving' offering would/could affect future plans for our community. CF soon realised that she would get no support from our community in the 'SDNP self-promotion' cause based on her 'Time Line Fiction'.
By questioning the motives of Christine Fraser and those of Susan Lawrence, who supported CF, I only added to the increasing disenchantment that was becoming the norm at EPW meetings.

Oh Dear! Toes Getting Trod On ...and the Consequences.

EPW meetings have, by now, descended into little more than farce. Lots of 'important' meetings and 'action plans' that focus more on 'talk' and less on 'action'.

Hi Susan Lawrence (EPW Chair), my future posts will include a few more details of the 'promises' of support that never materialised and, coming shortly, a copy of the statement that you requested, for inclusion in the minutes of the meeting, but you refused to accept. Tsk! Tsk! You request a statement and then promptly ignore it because the contents highlight your own, and Christine Frasers, inadequacies and appalling attitude. No doubt Christine Fraser was, as ever, 'pulling your strings', you puppet!

Dared I mention CRB checks, the Express & Echo article, Christine Fraser's SDNP/Lower St.David's 'Time Line' chart re our community, Logos, personal comments re our Council representative (another of Christine's 'valuable contributions'), EPW and SDNP's support for 'a closer working relationship with Social Housing Residents Committee', Section 106 funding, Christine Fraser's opinions re Bury Meadow Residents Association, the fencing around part of Looe Road Park, non-collection of completed survey forms etc. etc? Not forgetting to include Christine's choice words re Kelvin Lacey's 'performance' at a meeting and her comments re your own involvement in Lower St.David's community matters.

Sue, you are, of course, welcome to respond to any of the comments on this Blog, as is Christine Fraser and any of her/your cohorts.

Lets Put On Some Film Shows for the Kids

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.