BTCT AGM on Nov 14th

[Joe K]

Hi

Indeed, I started investigating BTCT shortly after Joe started having issues with them. But it was the way Joe went about it that got him banned.

I did try to help him in the early days, but stopped when he turned on me personally. I have always agreed with Joe on the issue(s), just never on his (Joe's) methods.

Thanks
Paul Harries

Barton & Tredworth Community Trust Financial Crisis

'Turned on [Paul] personally'.

This would be the bit where I said that Paul needed 'to wake up to how little influence you have with the committee'. That was my honestly held opinion, based on how little he had actually accomplished (besides 'sorting policies, providing information, being supportive'), but Paul regarded it as an 'insult', and in increasingly strident terms, told me not visit his flat (which I never had attempted to, from that moment) or send him emails. I dismissed the last instruction, as an 'official responder' cannot, in my view, choose to ignore residents, and anyone can judge who, in the exchange of emails below, is being reasonable and open about the facts, or otherwise, but after my last email, at the top, Paul apparently went to the local police and got them to issue a Personal Information Notice to me which conflated visiting his flat with sending him emails, so that it looked on the page as if I had been doing the latter despite being told not to, rather than only the former. I asked the police to rescind this order or clarify it, and they refused, obviously, given that they will not issue Gary with such a PIN, only telling me to block him, which they evidently didn't say to Paul. These are the grounds of my complaint against Gloucestershire constabulary for biased behaviour, which were, of course, dismissed.

The only thing I've removed below is Rachel's email address (as well as Kay's), not her words. To this date, she has never received a response, and still, no newsletter has ever been distributed, which I was told was Paul's job...

Note: on close examination of the email addresses for each email I sent, I surmise that what actually 'insulted' Paul was the fact that I had begun to CC a bunch of other people from the committee, the council and the police when I said it (I had concluded, from July 31st, that a private dialogue was a complete waste of time). I may have hurt his feewings...

Of course, none of this justifies Paul breaking his promise re the 'investigation', and not keeping up the pressure on BTCT/BTD, as I am doing. Is anyone even aware that BTD have now given up the lease of the Barton Community Centre, and sold off the office equipment over a week ago? Are they also going to slip away in the night?



Sun, Aug 4, 2013 7:26 pm

Humour me, Paul. Just who would you report me for 'harassment' to, if it were even true?

Let's be clear about reality. The reality is that you don't tell me what to do, or who I can or cannot send (or receive, since you seem so keen to keep replying) emails. People who (supposedly) refuse to discuss issues with me in any way don't get to make demands of me.

And have you spoken to Rachel yet? Not since the last time she checked her emails, apparently. When you do, I won't need to be involved (though you may not find her as polite as I have been).

And finally, what does 'don't worry - You might not even have that' mean? It sounds awfully much like a threat, which is about as abusive as anyone can get. Are you threatening me, Paul?

Time for you to step away from the computer, I think, before you really get yourself, and the partnership, into trouble.



In a message dated 04/08/2013 17:35:17 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi

You seem to have no idea of reality - you don't even seem to understand English.

I am now reporting you for harassment.

As for Rachel - I don't report to you - you are simply not involved. I only speak to HER.

As for the Street thing - don't worry. You might not even have that.

When I said do not contact me - that means DO NOT CONTACT ME.

Paul Harries


From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 12:42
Subject: Re: A message

Is the truth that unpalatable?

Again, why do you want to join the Streetclub group I created? Am I supposed to approve your request or reject it?

Are you stalking me?

But more importantly,

1. As 'official responder', are you actually going to respond to Rachel's complaint/appeal yourself now?

2. What happened with this Magna Carta tosh? Or, let me guess. You suggested to Phillip Lowery that Rachel should be allowed to 'face her accusers', he said no, and you meekly accepted that. And Tony Ward's whole 'we couldn't have those meetings because you refused to attend (I didn't actually)' claim never happened (although you were there and heard it too).

Reality isn't for you, Paul, better stick to Dungeons & Dragons instead. At least there are no councillors wanting to punch you there...



In a message dated 04/08/2013 02:00:09 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi

Just SHUT UP!

If you enter the premises again you WILL BE ARRESTED.

You have been warned.

As I said before DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN.

Hope that was in plain enough English

Paul Harries


From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2013, 15:11
Subject: Re: A message

You haven't 'sorted' any policy, least of all the complaints policy, your attitude to information is 'I can't say anything just now', and who exactly are you supporting? The Man? You are such a disappointment. Is it really abusive to state that view? Or free speech?

Tell your theories about trespass to the judge. Please.

I have been lied about and lied about and lied about, and no-one, least of all you, will object, in any way that actually changes anything, anyway. A little, or a lot of truth shouldn't hurt anyone who has nothing to hide, should it? And I have been given no incentive to practise your kind of discretion.

But if it's 'goodbye', why do you want to join the Jersey Road Streetclub? Tony Ward would say (testily) that 'has you don't live here, you 'as no right to be a member'. Me, I'm more tolerant (I would, for example, have been happy for new members of the BTCT like Kalsoom Butt to become trustees, as we needed more) but I would like to know what contribution you intend to make...



In a message dated 02/08/2013 22:29:09 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi

I've been integral part of much of the work behind the scenes, sorting policies, providing information, being supportive.

And you entered the private property where my flat is located. The fact that the front door wasn't locked is irrelevant - you were trespassing.

And you're doing enough mud dragging for everyone in the ward already. We don't need to add to the pile.

Goodbye
Paul Harries

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: A message

You show me what you have actually accomplished while on the partnership committee, apart from agreeing with everything they say, and I'll re-consider my remark.

And you did say you had too much on your 'plate' to stay on the committee, but perhaps you've forgotten saying that.

Of course it's not up to me, but I can point out when somebody is bringing the partnership into disrepute with reckless behaviour, just as much as anyone else can. I just don't have the power to be heard, while the committee can drag my name through the mud. It's still a bad joke that the chair and secretary won't speak to Rachel directly (as the chair won't speak to the Citizen. Perhaps that's your job, too?). And did you actually send your 'official' email to Rachel at all?

And by the by, when I have I ever been on your 'property'?



In a message dated 01/08/2013 15:31:32 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi

" You need to wake up to how little influence you have with the committee," for a start.

I never said I wouldn't be part of the BTNP - its one of the few good things that I can do for this community. And you seem to mixing BTCT & BTNP issues, again.

As a committee member I AM entitled to act on behalf of the BTNP in certain matters. It is NOT up to you tyo decide what they are.

Please do not contact me again on this matter. I will contact your wife after the nexrt committee meeting.
Paul Harries

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 13:47
Subject: Re: A message

How did I 'insult' you Paul. Did I accuse you of 'criminal activities', for example?

If there's insult here, it's the insulting of our intelligence in suggesting that you might be the conduit for an 'official' response. Unless they (officially) made you official responder? Will you accept that it isn't appropriate for you to make such a claim, just as it's farcical to have a complaints procedure which isn't open to anyone the chairman and secretary don't like, and therefore rule out from making a complaint. Would you agree that every complaint should be heard, or the procedure is a bad joke?

You can't be blamed for your memory, but you can be blamed for your judgement. Seriously, with no intent of an insult, if that is impaired, you should never have agreed to be on the committee again, especially as you told me before the AGM that you didn't intend to. After all your warnings about the risk of financial penalties in being involved with the BTCT, sticking with rogues, fool and 'yes men', showed bad judgement, or just failure to recall what has gone before.

I wish you could remember these words at the next meeting.



In a message dated 01/08/2013 12:58:49 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi

If you keep up insulting me, then I'll just ban you from my contacts and from my property.

Paul Harries
BTNP Committee



From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 12:04
Subject: Re: A message

Seriously, Paul, you're neither the chair nor the secretary, so no, I don't count it as an 'official acknowledgement of the email', and I doubt Rachel will, either.

Unless you are also going to start dealing with the complaints I've made to the partnership about the behaviour of the chair and secretary, and send me a copy of the last full constitution, or even the present unfinished and therefore non-applicable one? Or explain why two policemen saw fit as part of their duties to bar me from attending the meeting yesterday evening when it was not a criminal matter?

You need to wake up to how little influence you have with the committee, Paul. If you had any you wouldn't have been allowed, or probably even wanted to answer, because you'd know what the score is. You haven't even said Rachel will be allowed to attend that meeting in September. Again, pronouncements will be made from 'on high', and with no opportunity to challenge them. No partnership has ever survived as much on the unwillingness of the officers to accept how irrelevant to its community they have become, rather than welcoming the views of everyone in that community. No partnership has had better reason to follow Moreland's and Elmbridge's (and Barnwood's?) into dissolution, but bizarrely does not do so. But we know that without a partnership, an unaccountable, unquestionable quango blocking residents' complaints and queries, the council would be legally obliged to give answers to awkward questions eventually, and that can't be allowed. Well, maybe you aren't aware of this...

But if you think you can speak for the partnership, perhaps you can explain why a meeting which Tim Wood says was not open to the public was advertised to the public on the partnership's Twitter account (albeit with the wrong time given), with an exhortation to '#getinvolved'? Just further evidence that someone more competent needs to manage that account? And other public communications?

Joe

PS remember how confident you were that the newsletter would be sent out before the AGM? How many months ago was that, now? Three years since the last one?



In a message dated 31/07/2013 23:24:14 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi

I've sent the Chair an email regarding the situation and as a Committee Member I can tell you I'm bringing it up as an Agenda item at our September meeting. More than that I cannot say just yet.
(Count this as an official acknowledgement of he email).

I'll send you details as I get them.

Thanks
Paul Harries
BTNP Committee

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 15:36
Subject: Re: A message

Hi Paul,

As you promised, at least two days go, to advise Phillip Lowery that he should have had the courtesy to respond to Rachel's email, and this still hasn't happened, this is a reminder to all that at the last partnership meeting you both agreed that she should have a response if she wrote to the partnership about the way she was treated. I don't think it's acceptable that she should have to wait until the next partnership meeting in September, as it could be a long wait for very little action (will she even be allowed to attend, or will it be like April 19th, when our presence was not required, completely the opposite of when Tony Ward was demanding my presence at premature disciplinary hearings for them to happen, and be minuted, at all?). It's still less acceptable to not receive a reply.

While I'm writing this, a reminder that the police policy panel/Street Reps meeting is happening today, starting at 6pm at the Barton Community Centre. I do mean to attend, if only to establish my right as a resident and as a Street Rep for Gloucester City Homes to do so, and if anyone wishes to challenge this right, they should state their reasons now, as if they do so at the meeting they will be the only ones causing disruption.

As Rachel would like to attend as well, it may be that we won't be able to stay for the Street Reps portion, so apologies in advance if necessary. I should also like to put it on record that I fully meant to attend the previous meeting (for which I would like minutes), but was told by Pat Hurley on my arrival that I was 'not invited', despite the meeting being open to residents. I should also like it put on record that Timothy Wood then backed up Pat Hurley, threatening me with actions, up to and including arrest, if I didn't leave. I am confident, having made enquiries, that this was well beyond his powers, so I don't expect a repeat performance from either individual.

Looking forward, in particular, to hearing of the status of our emergency planning procedure, and what has happed in the two years since I put the notification for it in the last newsletter, over two and a half years ago.

Cheers, Joe Kilker


In a message dated 28/07/2013 11:58:09 GMT Daylight Time, [e-mail] writes:
Hi Paul,

Rachel is still waiting for a response from the partnership to this. Shouldn't she have received one by now?

Joe

From: [Rachel]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Sent: 23/07/2013 03:39:34 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: A message

Dear BTNP members

Paul has assured me if I wrote this message I would be heard.

A while ago now, I was sent a mail of a meeting that took about me
without my prior knowledge. A disciplinary meeting that was held at the
same time as Joe's was. This is not constitutional, and a separate
meeting should have been held. I believe you are tarring me with the
same brush as Joe and this really isn't acceptable. I've taken a long
while to write this email - for many reasons - but mainly because I've
been very upset about this outcome.

I should have been told what I was accused of, and invited to defend
myself. I have done nothing wrong save a heated discussion which both
Pat Hurley and Philip Lowery were also doing, so I take it that reason
cannot be the case. I've also received no minutes for the meeting. I
would also point out that the minutes for the committee meeting of 10th
of April were inaccurate and there were many statements put in that were
opposite of each other!

I would like another meeting where this disciplinary hearing can be held
properly, and I can stand up for myself.

yours sincerely


Rachel Kilker

[Joe K]

'But it was the way Joe went about it that got him banned.'

I got so busy with the matter of 'turning on Paul personally' that I skipped this.

In fact, Paul is taking liberties with the timeline, and even the use of the word 'banned'.

It was at the last half properly organised AGM, which was around 2009, that I was told by Mahmoud Patel that, as I hadn't sent in a written application to renew my trusteeship, I couldn't continue as a trustee but, he beamed, 'don't worry, we'll sort it out at the next committee meeting'. I then heard nothing for weeks and, suspecting something was not right, I visited the office at the Trust Centre and asked the receptionist, Kim Hunt (not 100% sure of that surname) for minutes prior to my being a trustee, and news of my status. Though the committee had not chosen to contact me, 'Hunt' said that as I had originally been 'co-opted' as a trustee, and not elected as was usually the case, the written application had been necessary, but there was no mention of 'sorting it out'. I pointed out that actually, I had been elected at the AGM in 2007, when nominations were invited from the floor, a process which had been approved at the previous committee meeting. I pointed this out again to the committee, by email, but in response, all I got was a letter telling me that I had been 'removed' as a member of the trust, and therefore as a trustee, on various vague grounds. One of these was that I had allegedly described the committee using the term 'Zanu-Labour' in a post to the Gloucestershire Boards. In fact, the term hadn't been used in reference to the committee at all, they were just in the same post.

I clarifed this, and the other 'charges', but was ignored. I took it to the Charity Commission, and they told me I had to discuss it with the trust. When I explained that the trust wouldn't talk to me, the commission tasked the trust with this, and my membership was quickly restored (along with Mahmoud Patel resigning as chair), as it was evident that disciplinary rules had been abused, if not invented on the spot. My trustee status was,however, not restored, despite several emails to Carol Francis, who had replaced Patel as chair (despite the fact that in the almost two years that I had been a trustee, Francis had attended no meetings, and if you miss three without apology, you have to step down).

This is what Paul Harries promised, and was supposed to investigate, except that he seems to think that he's found a way to get around this. Perhaps he will clarify exactly what it was about 'the way Joe went about it that got him banned', when I have never been told about a 'ban', and my removal as a member was reversed? I can see no valid excuse whatsoever for his inaction. He used to say that every technicality should be exploited, and a truckload, including the missed meetings one, were available to anyone who had the ear of the trust. Does he not, anymore?

[Joe K]

I see, looking at the posts again, that Kay used the word 'banned', too. In think that anyone who does use that word should defend its use if they think a 'ban' was justified. I don't think Kay does.

[Joe K]

That should be 'I', not In'.

But I really stopped by to note that the Gloucestershire Boards seem to be down...