I have been contacted by a small group that describe themselves collectively, and with no small degree of understatement, as 'The Disenchanted', with a view to their using some of the posts included in this Blog. Not exactly a 'groundswell' but more a ripple, but then isn't that how a tsunami starts, with a ripple?
My experiences with a wide range of organisations and individuals across Exeter specifically, and the UK generally, have been a revelation, most of which haven't yet been touched upon by this Blog. Clearly, my own experiences are/have been mirrored elsewhere across the City and the UK. Perhaps now is the time to expand the remit.
Friday, 9 July 2010
Thursday, 8 July 2010
More Christine Fraser Lies or, to be precise, Recycling of Old Ones
Recent Comment from Christine Fraser to Cornerstone tenant + my responses in blue.
"Your Housing Association (Cornerstone), by the way, is the same one which failed to act effectively over a similar situation in Looe Road a couple of years ago - the drugs family was finally evicted." The eviction referred to was not drugs related and was as a result of other anti-social behaviour. Still, not to worry Christine, you have never been one to let the true facts interfere with your perception of reality, have you.
"but people's lives had been made miserable for 2 years! When we found out, we started to look into it AND managed to get a meeting with Rick Williamson (Chief Executive of the housing association)". Christine, is there no end to the crap that you continue to spout to inflate your ego and feelings of self-importance? Your comments might gain a little credibility (but, given your penchant for lying, I doubt it) if you could at least manage to get the name of Cornerstone's CEO correct. Big deal, you had a meeting with the CEO of Cornerstone. For what it's worth, so have I but, unlike you, I don't feel the need to try and impress people with it. What you failed to mention is the fact that you were informed that the Looe Road eviction was none of your business and, effectively, 'keep your snout out of it'.
It took us (and I'm on Exeter Parks Watch, too) Odd point to make, this one. Given some of the other posts on this blog re Exeter Parks Watch, and your involvement with this 'organisation', you somehow believe that mentioning this is a positive, the council, the police (super) and eventually the housing association to resolve the matter. Presumably, constantly telling yourself, and others, this will somehow make it true. It isn't, you were not instrumental in this eviction. But this won't do. OK, so I managed to get a £1,000 community
award (Bless your generosity of spirit) for the resident who had taken a lead in that battle but that was no compensation for what everyone had been through. Tsk! Tsk! Christine, yet more recycled lies and misrepresentations of the real world and actual events. The £1,000 community award had nothing to do with this eviction. Of course, lying has become a natural part of your rather charmless persona. What you forget is the fact that you need , as is included in the Mythomania post, a good memory to satisfactorily perpetuate your distorted view of reality.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
'Community' Meeting
I attended a community meeting at which Susan Lawrence, Chair of Exeter Parks Watch (EPW) and St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership p(m)uppet/automaton, focused on her main mission in life and, ignoring contributions from others present, attempted to raise the profile of herself and EPW.
Also present at this meeting were husband and wife committee members of a community centre based in a different part of the City to my own. This lovely couple, that have freely devoted many years of voluntary service to 'their' community centre, were expressing concerns re difficulties they may have in paying fuel bills that had arisen due to the prolonged Winter/cold weather. Despite the unanticipated 'cold snap', they had continued to provide the regular bingo etc. sessions for their elderly community and were worried about how they would pay the inevitable additional costs of heating provision.
Not to worry - I'm sure that that they were reassured to hear from Susan Lawrence that EPW had, in their infinite wisdom, raised and spent £50,000 of funding to purchase two (oak?) trees that were used in the creation of a shelter and bench, by the local youngsters, in Heavitree Park.
All very commendable, but....
Susan, your lack of tact and diplomacy is already well documented but, not to worry, I'm sure that you believe that informing this couple, struggling to make ends meet, were absolutely thrilled to hear of this £50,000 expenditure. Sadly, I think that you really believe that informing this genuinely caring couple of this use (waste, some would say) of money was something to be proud of. It isn't.
As per the norm for Exeter, it's more about personal ambition than sensible application.
Also present at this meeting were husband and wife committee members of a community centre based in a different part of the City to my own. This lovely couple, that have freely devoted many years of voluntary service to 'their' community centre, were expressing concerns re difficulties they may have in paying fuel bills that had arisen due to the prolonged Winter/cold weather. Despite the unanticipated 'cold snap', they had continued to provide the regular bingo etc. sessions for their elderly community and were worried about how they would pay the inevitable additional costs of heating provision.
Not to worry - I'm sure that that they were reassured to hear from Susan Lawrence that EPW had, in their infinite wisdom, raised and spent £50,000 of funding to purchase two (oak?) trees that were used in the creation of a shelter and bench, by the local youngsters, in Heavitree Park.
All very commendable, but....
Susan, your lack of tact and diplomacy is already well documented but, not to worry, I'm sure that you believe that informing this couple, struggling to make ends meet, were absolutely thrilled to hear of this £50,000 expenditure. Sadly, I think that you really believe that informing this genuinely caring couple of this use (waste, some would say) of money was something to be proud of. It isn't.
As per the norm for Exeter, it's more about personal ambition than sensible application.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
The Gang of Three
Below is listed the Board of Trustees for Exeter Community Centre as registered with the Charity Commission.
MRS KATHARINE CHANT
MRS PENELOPE DODD
MRS SUSAN ERRINGTON
MS CHRISTINE FRASER*
MR KELVIN LACY*
MSHANNAH REYNOLDS FRSA*
MR ROBERT CORAM
How reassuring to note (not) that the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership 'Gang of Three *) are included. I see that Mr.Robert Coram is also listed. It is no doubt a pure coincidence that Mr.Coram is 'part of' Michelmores the solicitors that issued threats of legal action against me if I continued my exposure of the actions of SDNP and their representatives.
I understand that a Councillor is to be added to the Board of Trustees. Given the amount of support extended to SDNP by Phil and Stella Brock surely one, or both of these Councillors should be given first refusal?
MRS PENELOPE DODD
MRS SUSAN ERRINGTON
MS CHRISTINE FRASER*
MR KELVIN LACY*
MSHANNAH REYNOLDS FRSA*
MR ROBERT CORAM
How reassuring to note (not) that the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership 'Gang of Three *) are included. I see that Mr.Robert Coram is also listed. It is no doubt a pure coincidence that Mr.Coram is 'part of' Michelmores the solicitors that issued threats of legal action against me if I continued my exposure of the actions of SDNP and their representatives.
I understand that a Councillor is to be added to the Board of Trustees. Given the amount of support extended to SDNP by Phil and Stella Brock surely one, or both of these Councillors should be given first refusal?
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Beware Pestilence and Other Things Godly.
Planning response to provision of Community Facility is below. I have added my own comments, in blue.
Council Automaton Response Begins -
Whilst the Planning Service would generally support the provision of new community facilities, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposals by Mr.XXX Wow! This is totally unexpected and comes as a complete shock
Government policy and the Council's Local Plan, against which planning
applications must be determined, both require that development achieve a
context with appropriate materials. A 'portacabin' style building will
not achieve this objective, no matter what the finish. Councils usually
only approve portacabin style buildings for temporary periods pending
more permanent arrangements (Clearly, using them at schools for many years, decades in some cases, doesn't count!) A portacabin is also unlikely to provide
high quality facilities in terms of toilets, services and disabled
access. (The proposed toilet facility fully complies with all Disability requirements. I'm sure that Portakabin would not be particularly impressed with the comment that their units are "unlikely to provide high quality facilities in terms of toilets, services and disabled
access." This is precisely what Portakabin produce.
A location on the Looe Road play area would also be likely to conflict
with local plan policies regarding the loss of open space. In view of
these concerns , it would be difficult to overcome these objections.
While the small site on Looe Road by the sub station is more prominent
in the street scene so I would be more concerned about design, it would
not lead to an objection regarding loss of open space.
The Council would require a flood risk assessment to accompany any
application. This area is likely to be at greater than 1 in 100 per
annum risk of flooding. (Not only a possible 1 in 100 risk of flooding, but have Planning seriously considered possible invasion of locusts, boils, frogs, death of all first-born, darkness etc. It wasn't all pyramids and palm trees in Egypt!). A community centre would be a sensitive use.
The Environment Agency would normally expect a 'sequential approach'
based upon finding a site that is not subject to a 1 in 100 flood risk. (Note the not so subtle shift/sharing of responsibility here?)
A portacabin may be more susceptible to flood risk than a permanent
building. I would normally urge Members to be very cautious about
overriding any Environment Agency objection. (The proposed Portakabin shell is of metal construction and, as a result, would suffer considerably less damage from flooding than a conventional brick/block structure. Perhaps if Planning had taken a few minutes to read the specification that I sent to them they would have been aware of this.)
In conclusion, I would not feel able to recommend planning permission be
granted for a project as Mr XXXXX currently envisages. It remains open
to Mr XXXXX to make a planning application if he wishes and,(swell the coffers of ECC's Planning Department) if there
is any Member support, those Members are entitled to ask that the
application be considered by Planning Committee and not be determined
under delegated powers.
It would seem that ECC Planning Department's view of the 'unsuitability of Portakabin type structures' doesn't extend to the proliferation of 'timber frame' type student accommodation that is overwhelming parts of Exeter. Effectively, these student 'battery houses' are little more than Portakabins type structures constructed/stacked on top of each other.
It is also difficult to grasp Planning's concept/interpretation of "local plan policies regarding the loss of open space". Whilst being used as an argument against my proposal, the much larger 'loss of open space' relating to a recent planning consultation, regarding the construction of houses/flats to the rear of homes in Newport Road, Countess Wear (and no doubt other sites) , seems not to be an issue.
It would appear that ECC's Planning Department are happy to apply the rules as best suits their own agenda.
Council Automaton Response Begins -
Whilst the Planning Service would generally support the provision of new community facilities, I have a number of concerns regarding the proposals by Mr.XXX Wow! This is totally unexpected and comes as a complete shock
Government policy and the Council's Local Plan, against which planning
applications must be determined, both require that development achieve a
context with appropriate materials. A 'portacabin' style building will
not achieve this objective, no matter what the finish. Councils usually
only approve portacabin style buildings for temporary periods pending
more permanent arrangements (Clearly, using them at schools for many years, decades in some cases, doesn't count!) A portacabin is also unlikely to provide
high quality facilities in terms of toilets, services and disabled
access. (The proposed toilet facility fully complies with all Disability requirements. I'm sure that Portakabin would not be particularly impressed with the comment that their units are "unlikely to provide high quality facilities in terms of toilets, services and disabled
access." This is precisely what Portakabin produce.
A location on the Looe Road play area would also be likely to conflict
with local plan policies regarding the loss of open space. In view of
these concerns , it would be difficult to overcome these objections.
While the small site on Looe Road by the sub station is more prominent
in the street scene so I would be more concerned about design, it would
not lead to an objection regarding loss of open space.
The Council would require a flood risk assessment to accompany any
application. This area is likely to be at greater than 1 in 100 per
annum risk of flooding. (Not only a possible 1 in 100 risk of flooding, but have Planning seriously considered possible invasion of locusts, boils, frogs, death of all first-born, darkness etc. It wasn't all pyramids and palm trees in Egypt!). A community centre would be a sensitive use.
The Environment Agency would normally expect a 'sequential approach'
based upon finding a site that is not subject to a 1 in 100 flood risk. (Note the not so subtle shift/sharing of responsibility here?)
A portacabin may be more susceptible to flood risk than a permanent
building. I would normally urge Members to be very cautious about
overriding any Environment Agency objection. (The proposed Portakabin shell is of metal construction and, as a result, would suffer considerably less damage from flooding than a conventional brick/block structure. Perhaps if Planning had taken a few minutes to read the specification that I sent to them they would have been aware of this.)
In conclusion, I would not feel able to recommend planning permission be
granted for a project as Mr XXXXX currently envisages. It remains open
to Mr XXXXX to make a planning application if he wishes and,(swell the coffers of ECC's Planning Department) if there
is any Member support, those Members are entitled to ask that the
application be considered by Planning Committee and not be determined
under delegated powers.
It would seem that ECC Planning Department's view of the 'unsuitability of Portakabin type structures' doesn't extend to the proliferation of 'timber frame' type student accommodation that is overwhelming parts of Exeter. Effectively, these student 'battery houses' are little more than Portakabins type structures constructed/stacked on top of each other.
It is also difficult to grasp Planning's concept/interpretation of "local plan policies regarding the loss of open space". Whilst being used as an argument against my proposal, the much larger 'loss of open space' relating to a recent planning consultation, regarding the construction of houses/flats to the rear of homes in Newport Road, Countess Wear (and no doubt other sites) , seems not to be an issue.
It would appear that ECC's Planning Department are happy to apply the rules as best suits their own agenda.
Urban Myth? You Decide
Extract from ‘Communities and Local Government Website'
I have added my own comment at the end of this post.
About Communities and Neighbourhoods
We are working to help people and local organisations create strong, attractive and economically thriving communities and neighbourhoods.
Our aim is to ensure that they are given all the support they need to make the best of their communities and overcome their own difficulties. These are problems like community conflict, extremism, deprivation and disadvantage. We want to make sure communities are equipped to respond to challenging economic, social and cultural trends.
We have a number of initiatives to help us achieve this. In this section you can find out more about:
- Neighbourhood Renewal which aims to improve the quality of life of people in the most deprived areas to ensure that no-one is disadvantaged by where they live
- Creating Cleaner, Safer and Greener communities by improving the way we plan, design, manage and maintain our public open spaces and buildings
- Community Empowerment which is about giving people and communities more of a say on the services they receive and where they live
Bulls**t.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Special Thanks to Peter.....
....for making my day. Peter works for a large organisation and, shock horror, has a sense of humour.
I won't name the organisation that Peter works for otherwise he too may become the focus of legal bullying/intimidation and anonymous attempts to discredit him.
I won't name the organisation that Peter works for otherwise he too may become the focus of legal bullying/intimidation and anonymous attempts to discredit him.
Friday, 12 March 2010
Another Freedom of Information Request....
.... is to be issued in the next 7/10 days. It will be interesting to see what response there is to this request.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
The Phantom of the Doctora.... with apologies to Andrew Lloyd Webber
I have been informed this past week that the inclusion of a Doctor's Surgery in the 'Community' Centre is, well, umm... excluded for now.......... but will be given 'serious consideration in due course'. Odd, this comment, if it's true. It was my and others understanding, that the presence of a local GP facility always formed part of the main argument for funding acquisition and, presumably, was an important part of the 'robust business plan'
Of course, St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership/Exeter Community Centre Trust are best placed to confirm or deny this statement and I will be happy to post their response/clarification.
Of course, St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership/Exeter Community Centre Trust are best placed to confirm or deny this statement and I will be happy to post their response/clarification.
Friday, 26 February 2010
My Response to the Legal Eagles
Below is copied my email sent to Community Builders that have agreed to the provision of £1.2M of funding to Exeter Community Centre Trust. I have included some information already published on this Blog to put my response (6th Paragraph) in context.
Dear Mr.Sheath,
Copied below are extracts from documentation sent to me by solicitors representing St.David’s Neighbourhood Partnership and Exeter Community Centre Trust.
"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to Community Builders on the 26th November 2009".
"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."
"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact Community Builders immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."
"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".
As requested in the third paragraph above I am contacting you to inform you that I have no intention of ‘withdrawing these statements’ or offering SDNP an ‘unqualified apology’.
In fact, further documentation has recently come into my possession that reinforces what I have already stated.
Also, for your information, I am involved in voluntary work for Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them. To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have offered my resignation and it has been refused. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. It is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.
In conclusion, the roles included at the end of this message are merely to express my commitment to community matters and do not imply these organisations support for the contents of this communication.
Kindest Regards –
Chair – Lower St.David’s Community Association
Member – Devon & Cornwall Constabulary’s Police Volunteer Programme
Home Office Community Crime Fighter
Neighbourhood Watch Office Manager for Exeter.
Dear Mr.Sheath,
Copied below are extracts from documentation sent to me by solicitors representing St.David’s Neighbourhood Partnership and Exeter Community Centre Trust.
"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to Community Builders on the 26th November 2009".
"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."
"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact Community Builders immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."
"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".
As requested in the third paragraph above I am contacting you to inform you that I have no intention of ‘withdrawing these statements’ or offering SDNP an ‘unqualified apology’.
In fact, further documentation has recently come into my possession that reinforces what I have already stated.
Also, for your information, I am involved in voluntary work for Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them. To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have offered my resignation and it has been refused. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. It is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.
In conclusion, the roles included at the end of this message are merely to express my commitment to community matters and do not imply these organisations support for the contents of this communication.
Kindest Regards –
Chair – Lower St.David’s Community Association
Member – Devon & Cornwall Constabulary’s Police Volunteer Programme
Home Office Community Crime Fighter
Neighbourhood Watch Office Manager for Exeter.
An Offer You Can't Refuse....Can You?
If CF/SDNP have an issue with what is posted on this Blog (and clearly they do, having threatened legal action) can I propose that we meet and discuss them further? Perhaps the Express & Echo would like to observe? Other Community Association Representatives? Who knows, such a discussion may even attract the attention of a wider media audience?
Please, disregard the first paragraph of this post. I'd momentarily forgotten that I have already given CF the opportunity to explain her actions, but she failed to attend. Sometimes it's what isn't said that speaks volumes.
Please, disregard the first paragraph of this post. I'd momentarily forgotten that I have already given CF the opportunity to explain her actions, but she failed to attend. Sometimes it's what isn't said that speaks volumes.
Yet Another Document.....
......has come to my attention.
For now, at least, I will not be posting it on this Blog. Suffice to say, it is again breathtaking in it's lies and misrepresentation of the true facts.
For now, at least, I will not be posting it on this Blog. Suffice to say, it is again breathtaking in it's lies and misrepresentation of the true facts.
Mythomaniacs
Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.
Some characteristics
1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how well-intentioned you might be, this will probably not be effective. It is threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.
3. They "construct" a reality around themselves and don't value the truth. If you question them on a lie and they are backed into a corner they will act very defensively.
4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whoever is in their favour at the moment.
5. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).
Some characteristics
1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how well-intentioned you might be, this will probably not be effective. It is threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.
3. They "construct" a reality around themselves and don't value the truth. If you question them on a lie and they are backed into a corner they will act very defensively.
4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whoever is in their favour at the moment.
5. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).
Friday, 19 February 2010
Clayton Road
The residents of a property in Clayton Road have been evicted today as a consequence of the sheer hard work and determination of the Lower St.David's Community and Devon & Cornwall Constabulary.
I was a little bemused at the presence of Christine Fraser/SDNP in the Magistrate's Court during the proceedings.
Not wishing to make any assumptions, of course, but it will be interesting to see (as we inevitably will) CF/SDNP's 'slant' on things.
Pure conjecture on my part, but will this be yet another 'success' attributed to CFs/SDNPs 'input' into something that, well, umm.. their input was actually nil?
Heaven forbid that the considerable hard work of our community could reach a satisfactory conclusion without the 'last minute' (as usual) intervention of CF/SDNP.
I was a little bemused at the presence of Christine Fraser/SDNP in the Magistrate's Court during the proceedings.
Not wishing to make any assumptions, of course, but it will be interesting to see (as we inevitably will) CF/SDNP's 'slant' on things.
Pure conjecture on my part, but will this be yet another 'success' attributed to CFs/SDNPs 'input' into something that, well, umm.. their input was actually nil?
Heaven forbid that the considerable hard work of our community could reach a satisfactory conclusion without the 'last minute' (as usual) intervention of CF/SDNP.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Street Representatives
Due to the wide variety of issues that need addressing within our community Lower St.David's Community Association are forming a local group of 'Street Reps' to act as the voice of the residents within their own street/road.
The concept is that each street will have its own representatives(s) that will have the opportunity to express their views and concerns, and those of their neighbours, to LSDCA and relevant organisations.
It is anticipated that the valuable contribution made by street reps will enable our community to push forward some much needed changes and improvements.
The concept is that each street will have its own representatives(s) that will have the opportunity to express their views and concerns, and those of their neighbours, to LSDCA and relevant organisations.
It is anticipated that the valuable contribution made by street reps will enable our community to push forward some much needed changes and improvements.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
How Low Can 'Someone' Go?
Very low, apparently.
I am involved in voluntary work for a very large organisation and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them.
To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have, this week, offered my resignation and, thankfully, it has not been accepted. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. However, it is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.
I am involved in voluntary work for a very large organisation and, it would seem, that 'someone' has attempted to undermine my position and credibility with them.
To avoid any possible embarrassment to this organisation I have, this week, offered my resignation and, thankfully, it has not been accepted. I appreciate their vote of confidence.
I have no idea who was responsible for this 'action', and care even less. However, it is unfortunate that, whoever this 'someone' may be, they are clearly happy to question my integrity when, perhaps, in view of their actions, they should be questioning their own.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
What Next? Pistols at Dawn?
Because of 'incidents' that have occurred this week I have decided that today, 27th January, 2010, I would set out a few details of SDNP's attempt to gag my exposure of their disgraceful behaviour. It is clear, both from what is detailed in this Post, and (possibly) other more recent events, that there really are no depths to which SDNP will not stoop in trying to intimidate and discredit me and salvage some degree of credibility for themselves. It perhaps should be noted that SDNP have acquired £1.2 million of funding from the provider referred to below in this Post and this may go some way towards explaining SDNP's 'lack of enthusiasm' for any exposure.
Firstly - an email that I sent to a prospective SDNP funding provider on 26th November,2009.
I am contacting you to express my, and others, ongoing concerns regarding the suitability of SDNP’s involvement in the control of this community facility.
SDNP representatives as potential, if not already existing, ‘trustees’, have shown themselves to be both devious and untrustworthy in the way that they operate and misrepresent themselves as a ‘community’ association.
Whilst I have no doubt that the Community Centre is a valuable local asset, the actions of SDNP and their associates raises serious doubts re their motives.
If required, documentary evidence and personal testimony from other residents can be provided to support my argument.
Secondly - Extracts from a letter sent to me by legal representatives of SDNP. I have ommitted some of the usual verbal diarrhoea normally associated with such documents but would like to reassure you, the reader, that this in no way detracts from its contents.
"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to (Funding Providers) on the 26th November 2009" (copied above in this Post).
"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."
"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact (Funding Provider) immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."
"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".
You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why SDNP have chosen to take this course of action. If, as I recommended in the Mission Statement at the top of this Blog, you have read the previous posts starting at the bottom, you will perhaps understand why I have taken my course of action.
"Substantial damages"? What about the damages to recompense our community as a result of your clients actions? It would be an interesting exchange of opinions.
Firstly - an email that I sent to a prospective SDNP funding provider on 26th November,2009.
I am contacting you to express my, and others, ongoing concerns regarding the suitability of SDNP’s involvement in the control of this community facility.
SDNP representatives as potential, if not already existing, ‘trustees’, have shown themselves to be both devious and untrustworthy in the way that they operate and misrepresent themselves as a ‘community’ association.
Whilst I have no doubt that the Community Centre is a valuable local asset, the actions of SDNP and their associates raises serious doubts re their motives.
If required, documentary evidence and personal testimony from other residents can be provided to support my argument.
Secondly - Extracts from a letter sent to me by legal representatives of SDNP. I have ommitted some of the usual verbal diarrhoea normally associated with such documents but would like to reassure you, the reader, that this in no way detracts from its contents.
"We have been consulted by the St.David's Neighbourhood Partnership and the Exeter Community Centre Trust in connection with the contents of an email sent by you to (Funding Providers) on the 26th November 2009" (copied above in this Post).
"These statements are very serious allegations and are libellous. They have been issued to a third party and therefore are defamatory in nature and our clients are currently considering what further action to take in the matter."
"In the meantime, we must ask you to contact (Funding Provider) immediately and withdraw these statements and forward to us a copy of your letter. Our clients are also entitled to an unqualified apology."
"Finally, we must warn you that if any other statements or correspondence is issued by you to any third party which contains allegations similar to those set out in your email of the 26th November, our clients will have no alternative but to apply, without notice, for a Court Injunction to prevent any further publication and to ask the Court to award substantial damages".
You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why SDNP have chosen to take this course of action. If, as I recommended in the Mission Statement at the top of this Blog, you have read the previous posts starting at the bottom, you will perhaps understand why I have taken my course of action.
"Substantial damages"? What about the damages to recompense our community as a result of your clients actions? It would be an interesting exchange of opinions.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
'Communities First'
Exeter Parks Watch and SDNP represented at Exeter City Council’s Communities First Day (2nd meeting) at St.James's Park (Exeter City Football Club HQ).
Leader of Council asks for update and progress report and congratulates community and Parks Department for their efforts (Mmm.. Interesting comment. At one stage the Communities First Day (2nd Meeting) seemed to be more like the ‘EPW/SDNP Roadshow’.
Christine Fraser invited me to attend this event. My understanding was that this event would provide an opportunity for me to participate in a various 'skill-building' workshops, which is why I attended, and also to 'compare notes/battle scars!' with other community groups.
I attended a workshop, run by Exeter Community Initiative, that offered specific information that I believed would be particularly beneficial to my own community.
I had missed the obvious fact, apparently, that my presence had been "expected to contribute to the promotion of EPW and SDNP". I received considerable criticism from CF for “failing to support EPW and SDNP”.
I can only aplogise to all concerned for my total stupidity in believing that my participation in this event was for the benefit my own immediate community, and not merely to promote and massage the egos of EPW and SDNP.
Leader of Council asks for update and progress report and congratulates community and Parks Department for their efforts (Mmm.. Interesting comment. At one stage the Communities First Day (2nd Meeting) seemed to be more like the ‘EPW/SDNP Roadshow’.
Christine Fraser invited me to attend this event. My understanding was that this event would provide an opportunity for me to participate in a various 'skill-building' workshops, which is why I attended, and also to 'compare notes/battle scars!' with other community groups.
I attended a workshop, run by Exeter Community Initiative, that offered specific information that I believed would be particularly beneficial to my own community.
I had missed the obvious fact, apparently, that my presence had been "expected to contribute to the promotion of EPW and SDNP". I received considerable criticism from CF for “failing to support EPW and SDNP”.
I can only aplogise to all concerned for my total stupidity in believing that my participation in this event was for the benefit my own immediate community, and not merely to promote and massage the egos of EPW and SDNP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
