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.