I have a copy of the very disturbing email trail, will post it shortly.
Warning it contains a word that some might consider to be offensive.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: NEW MAYOR
From: Cllr Rosalind Prowse <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, 10 April 2017 13:13
To: Cllr Humphrey Clemens <email@example.com>,Cllr Graham Price <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Angela Fenne <email@example.com>
CC: pauline Bloomfield <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Cllr Lisa Mayne <email@example.com>,Carol Payne <firstname.lastname@example.org>,gregfenne <email@example.com>
Fine by me and love you to Graham
South West Ward
From: Cllr Humphrey Clemens
Sent: 10 April 2017 13:06
To: Cllr Graham Price; Angela Fenne; Cllr Rosalind Prowse
Cc: pauline Bloomfield; Cllr Lisa Mayne; Carol Payne; gregfenne
Subject: Re: NEW MAYOR
Can we all meet after the annual Town meeting on Wednesday?
From: Cllr Graham Price
Sent: 10 April 2017 12:07:57
To: Angela Fenne; Cllr Rosalind Prowse
Cc: Cllr Humphrey Clemens; Pauline Bloomfield; Cllr Lisa Mayne; Carol Payne; gregfenne
Subject: Re: NEW MAYOR
I do not want to be put forward as the new mayor. So perhaps the contact you have can notify the mean spirited two faced deceitful. bastards. Then they can rest easy in their twisted conscience.
On 10 April 2017, at 11:45, BT <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
We need a meeting to discuss this and the committees as soon as possible.
On 10 Apr 2017, at 11:28, Cllr Rosalind Prowse <email@example.com> wrote:
I think from the conversation I have just had that someone needs to let Linda and John know we are not putting Graham up to stand against Martin.
John Clatworthy and Ted will not be attending DTC if Martin is Mayor. This is as a result of falsehoods that have gone out in print.
South West Ward
Sent from my iPad
So now you all know what it was I was trying to tell you https://dawlish.com/thread/details/45506
See page 2 of today's Dawlish Gazette
It's hardly a surprise though is it.
I'm vehemently anti-tory, but in fairness do we have access to email conversation of councillors who oppose their Tory colleagues in DTC and TDC?
Would they use similar language such as '..mean spirited two faced deceitful.' and 'bastards'?
I'm surprised these emails are allowed in the public domain. And who is themysterious 'contact' mentioned by Cllr Price? It's like the Cold War days...
@Likeablerat how did you come into possession of these emails?
Anyone know what falsehoods have gone out in the press? What more does the Gazette tell us?
It's cause and effect. So what has Cllr Wrigley been up to for his Tory chums to show such umbrage?
Nice to see how they remain on first name terms, and the 'love you too' from Rosalind to Graham is cute, ah...
I am as in the dark as you (and possibly many others as well) as to what the "falsehoods that have gone out in print" are.
Can only suggest that the person who made that statement (Cllr Prowse) is the one who should be asked.
Presumably it is these alleged falsehoods that have upset the Tories.
Needless to say the emails were leaked to me as indeed they have been to a number of other Dawlish residents.
Technically, as the three District Councillors who have contributed to the trail, have used their own Teignbridge email address's the emails would be the property of Teignbridge and perhaps they have also used the IT equipment that has been entrusted to them for business use only which makes it all the more infuriating.
These emails deserve to be made public as it makes it clear that dirty tricks are being planned by the Conservatives to discredit Cllr. Martin Wrigley, who is coincidentally also opposing Cllr. John Clatworthy in the County elections on 4th May.
Treacherous chaps these Tories, the Gazette indicates that Cllr. Price has gone to ground? He's the Chairman of Teignbridge District Council and should be available at all times, after all we all contribute the the handsome allowances he receives.
@Likeablerat i'm all for transparency and thank you for sharing. It's an interesting post but it's weird how a story about the Pethericks and name calling by Tories has been spun as a Tories vs Wrigley conspiracy tale even though I certainly don't trust the tories, locally or nationally and I admit I have even less time for Wrigley.
Leaked to you by whom? May I ask.
Are you doing this purely in the name of openness and democrcay or are you also linked to Cllr Wrigley and the Liberal Democrats. For the sake of transparency.
You seem far more concerned about Cllr Wrigley than for the Pethericks.
How do these emails discredit Cllr Wrigley in any way? They don't make it clear what dirty tricks are being played at all.
Are you suggesting the name calling is linked to a conspiracy to oust the Pethericks and Wrigley? The emails are disrespectrful, but to claim they're linked to dirty tricks or is conjecture on your part.
Unless you know more, why should anyone believe you?
Elsewhere on this site it has been suggested that without the Pethericks the Tories could outvote Cllr Wrigley for Mayor with their own candidate in an election on May 3rd.
That might be a break from protoicol, but it's within the rules as far as I'm aware, and has been used before to oust Price by the Voices of Dawlish.
In the email trail Cllr Price writes that he won't stand for Mayor. So will Cllr Wrigley become Mayor automatically after all? Who is standing against him? If anyone actually does and why is that a problem?
Are the 3 Liberal Democrat councillors just aggrieved that Cllr Wrigley is possibly being denied the post of Town Mayor?
Is that what this is really all about?
I think the 'dirty tricks' part needs clarification.
In what way is Cllr Wrigley being discredited. The emails divulge nothing to suggest he is being discredited.
I'm wary of any tale that portrays Cllr Wrigley as a victim.
Much as I dislike Conservatives, this seems like spin. I feel for the Pethericks they're the real victims here.
Perhaps Cllr Wrigley is being discredited by way of Cllr Prowse implying that Cllr Wrigley has made false statements in print. But she does not give an example of what she means.
So perhaps she should be asked to enlighten us and then we could all decide for ourselves.
And should Cllr Wrigley indeed end up being mayor it will be interesting to see if Cllr Clatworthy (if re-elected) and Cllr Hockin attend town council meetings.
Perhaps? Right oh.
So Cllr Clatworthy and Cllr Hockin may or may not feel discredited by falsehoods that have gone to print and are linked to Cllr Wrigley according to Cllr Prowse.
Have they stated that they feel discredited?
Has anyone heard anything form Cllr Wrigley? Has he claimed he feels discredited at all?
someone on here called @Likeablerat claims wrigley feels discredited. that's all.
Why and How remain opaque.
@Lynne if we want to be enlightened we'd need to contact cllr wrigley in addition to cllrs clatworthy, hockin and prowse. Or do you already know whatever Cllr Wrigley printed is the truth. If so how?
If anyone has been discredited it's the Pethericks, and what exactly do they have to do with Cllr Wrigley? All the email trail tell us is that the Pethericks were told be told by the Tories that Cllr Price would not stand against Cllr Wrigley as the new Mayor.
It does not inform us that the Pethericks opposed the election of a new Mayor other than Cllr Wrigley. Just Cllr Price.
Who knows whether they supported or opposed Cllr Wrigley becoming Mayor?
The title of this thread is
'Would You Like To Know Why The Two Dawlish Councillors Resigned'
- why is it now about Cllr Wrigley being 'discredited'?
This is just about the petty factionalism in DTC between the Tories and the Lib Dems and their supporters. Psychologically they're stuck in early childhood as the email name calling and other similar spats have shown
No wonder this town has so many problems.
"The title of this thread is 'Would You Like To Know Why The Two Dawlish Councillors Resigned' - why is it now about Cllr Wrigley being 'discredited'?"
Because threads wander off topic quite often?
If readers of this thread wish to contact any of the councillors mentioned in the email trail then they will know how to do so. But I expect all you will get is a resounding silence from all of them.
That said, I do wish Cllr Prowse would let us know what she meant by falsehoods in print.
threads do wander, have you never questioned a thread going off tangeant @Lynne? but this one has been hijacked by the lib dems it should concern 2 decent former independent councillors. it's not even subtle.
By all means expose the Tories, but please have something with more substance to base a credible argument on if trying to take them on; a credible figurehead would help too.
This is now getting tedious.
As I have said, several times now, until any of us know what it is that Cllr Prowse had in mind when she wrote of falsehoods going out in print then none of us know whether there is any truth in it or not. May be even Cllr Wrigley doesn't know what she is referring to and if he doesn't know what she is referring to how can he possibly comment?
Tell you what. There is a hustings on Friday at The Strand Centre. The four candidates standing for election to the county council will be there. So therefore Cllrs Clatworthy and Wrigley will be there. We might even have in the audience some of the other councillors mentioned in that email. So why not ask them about all of this then?
What time? I'd try to talk to them, one of them runs away from me though.
why tedious? most of what i wrote was for @Likeablerat, now there's resounding silence.
BTW If it appears that I have not responded to any other questions of yours it's probably because you have edited your posts after my having initially read them. Nothing wrong with editing or adding to posts of course, as I am doing exactly the same thing now.
Tedious - because I felt I was having to repeat myself.
I don't intend doing it anymore.
I agree with Lynne, Councillor Prowse needs to justify her comments about falsehoods going out in print. Perhaps someone could email her and ask for clarification then let the rest of us know.
Presumably, falsehoods going out in print would be potentially libellous.
So, Indy Scott, you are vehemently anti Tory and apparently not too keen on the Lib dems? Your political allegence is your business, but, we could possibly be kindred spirits?
The email trail that I have posted was predominately to help set the record straight regarding the resignations of John and Linda Petherick, I'm confident that you will agree that another Councillor should not have referred to them as b*****ds in an email. They have been excellent ambassadors for Dawlish and have raised many thousands of pounds for charity they will be sorely missed.
Your assumption that the thread had been hijacked by the Lib dems couldn't be further from the truth, I chose, perhaps, rather misguidedly, to refer to the the first email in the trail initiated by Cllr. Prowse, agreed it had nothing to do with the recent resignations and should have been the subject of a separate thread.
I don't like to see injustice and I felt that Cllr. Prowse was attempting to encourage her Conservative colleagues not to support the appointment of Cllr. Wrigley as Mayor. Cllr. Prowse would be the best person to contact in order to clarify the matter.
@Likeablerat You're backtracing now.
Hijacked - not hacked. and that refers to the topic of this thread. i.e. going off on a tangeant. I know nothing about hacking. It's a computer term right?
How can you write that it is 'further from the truth' on behalf of the Lib Dems, do you speak for all of them?
I agree that the term bastard' shouldn't be used by councillors when referring to one another, or anyone for that matter.
I assume you're a Lib Dem supporter because of your advocacy for Cllr Wrigley. It seems logical. Your political allegience is your business.
Why in your opinion is Cllr Prowse attempting to encourage her Conservative colleagues not to support the appointment of Cllr Wrigley as Mayor an injustice?
1) It is an election - councillors can vote how they see fit.
2) They're Conservatives
3) Therefore- They oppose Liberal Democrats
4) There is a precedent - The Voices For Dawlish opposed Cllr Price from becoming Mayor @HuwMatthews2 shared that on another thread, Was that an injustice?
I asked about the process at the Manor House, and @HuwMatthews2 is correct. A Deputy Mayor usually automatically takes up the reigns as Mayor, but opposition to this although uncommon can and has happened.
What does appear from the email trail that you provided is that an election for Mayor was on the cards before the the Pethericks resigned. Their resignation gives the Tories a majority as @Gary Taylor mentions elsewhere on this site. Cllr Taylor seemed resigned to the fact that the Tories would elect their own, but at least mentioned how he hoped protocol would contine and automatically allow Cllr Wrigley to become Mayor. He didn't call it an injustice.
So yes I assume that you are an aggrieved Liberal Democrat, perhaps closely linked to the Lib Dem councillors.
We need clarification regarding these falsehoods. Until they're resolved doubts remain whether Cllr Wrigley is a fit and proper person to lead the town council.
We do not really know if Cllr Prowse has valid reasons in encouraging her colleagues not to support Cllr Wrigley's appointment as you allege.
A town council meeting where the District and County councillors do not attend for whatever reason is dysfunctional and a waste of taxpayers money.
In addition the conduct of Tory councillors needs to be looked into as does how council email exchanges were leaked to members of the public.
This is serious, what if sensitive information about a member of the public was divulged.
@Likeablerat, you mention these emails were leaked and not hacked. so the trail begins with you.
We are not kindred spirits as I'm not involved in this sort of activity.
@Likeablerat, you've taken a huge risk posting these emails, is it a risk worth taking?
@Lynne, i'l try and make it on friday, yes some re-editing, it's quite a lot to take in. especially as the emails provided are snapshots and not a true trail.
Indy Scott, yes I admit it, I used the wrong word, have now deleted 'hacked' and inserted 'hijacked'
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, we can't all be perfect, hope to see you on Friday.
You can call me Roderick if you like.
That's okay Roderick you sound like a charming man, an unfortunate freudian slip though, given that we're on the topic of hacking/leaking.
I was not aware that councillors have access to IT equipment from Teignbridge, what exactly is entrusted to them for business use?
Going already? I would have preferred it if you'd have responded to my above points (bullet pointed 1-4) about why you think Cllr Prowse's encouragement of her Conservative colleagues to vote in the election of a Mayor is an injustice.
See you on friday, guessing you'll be the @Likeablerat in the corner then.
Look at the mares sorry Mayor's elected in the past, what a shower and what is it worth other than them being called the mayor. I have seen the mentality of those elected and did not have to guess at the mentality of those that elected them into office.
Sometimes I wondered if other councillors were having a laugh as to who they voted for.
Let's not get distracted here, Councillir Prowse needs to specify what the printed falsehoods were. Then we all have the facts and can take an informed view.
If Cllrs clatworthy and Hockin refuse to attend DTC meetings because of these 'falsehoods' they need to clarify the situation and then take action and Cllr Wrigley can take steps to defend his stance and what was put into print.
It's what law courts are there for.
Also this should be made public as we need to decide for ourselves. With an informed view we can decide whether we want to vote for them again or demand they leave office.
If Cllrs Clatworthy and Hockin don't intend to take action against Cllr Wrigley, then conflict resolution needs to occur.
Likewise if these falsehoods are true and serious, then why hasn't Cllr Wrigley made the public aware, we deserve to know the nature of these 'falsehoods'. Corruption? Who knows, we're left in the dark.
If he isn't prepared to do so then conflict resolution needs to take place.
If it's all political spin, then they should be dismissed from office.
If too much damage has been done which I suspect it has, then the situation is untenable and Cllrs Clatworthy, Hockin and Wrigley are wasting time and taxes on allowing local government to become about themselves and their fragile egos and not the public.
The election for County Councillor and the Mayor of Dawlish should be delayed until this chaos is sorted out. The people of Dawlish deserve better.
Better still they could stand down.
Stand down, nah! they are all too full of their own importance to do that.
I see the "Vote for me" boards are going up - let battles commence.
If you want better old age care, don't vote for the tories.
If you want a better fairer education system, don't vote for the tories.
If you want the NHS to provide the service we all deserve, don't vots for the tories.
If you want more affordable housing, don't vote for the tories.
If you want peace of mind, don't vote for the tories
Re email one.
Now that Cllr Wrigley is mayor will Cllrs Clatworthy and Hockin be attending Dawlish town council meetings or not?
@Lynne, well if email 1 is to be believed then cllrs clatworthy and hockin will not attend dtc meetings. best ask Prowse, Clatworthy and Hockin I guess.
I referred to this on 26 apr 2017 19:01
A town council meeting where the District and County councillors do not attend for whatever reason is dysfunctional and a waste of taxpayers money.
And 26 Apr 2017 23:24
It is only one district councillor (Hockin) and our county councillor (Clatworthy) who apparently may refuse to attend DTC meetings.
Cllr Wrigley may not be the mayor that the Tories were wishing to have but that does not make him an unpopular mayor as far as the Dawlishl electorate are concerned.
I know it's just Clatworthy and Hockin.
We have no idea whether the electorate see Cllr Wrigley as a popular mayor as we cannot vote for the Town Mayor. If he's not popular with over half of his co-councillors and how can he work with Hockin and Clatworthy? In practical terms that's important.
If Mayoral posts were elected according to council votes cast in 2015, Cllr Wrigley would not have even been deputy.
Is it in the public domain which councillors voted for and which councillors voted against (or abstained or weren't present) when the vote was taken to elect the mayor?
Surely it would have to have been a majority (even if only by one vote) for him to be elected mayor. So how can you say that "he's not popular with over half of his co-councillors".
It would seem that the opposite is true ie that he is popular with over half of his co-councillors (or, at the very least, those councillors who were present and voted (ie didn't abstain) when the vote was taken.
and another thing.
You seem to imply from the last sentence of your last post (see above) that Cllr Wrigley did not score very well when it came to the number of votes cast for him in the local elections held in May 2015.
He topped the poll in that ward!
These councillors in Dawlish Central all got more votes https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/media/1056/dawlish-central.pdf
As did these councillors in Dawlish SW https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/media/1058/dawlish-south-west.pdf
Dawlish NE has a smaller electorate/ballot papers issued - and this is reflected in fewer seats - 4 in total.
So 12 current councillors won more votes than Councillor Wrigley and another 5 candidates who were not elected won more votes in the Central and SW wards.
@Lynne, you've proven that wrigley won more votes with those in part of northern dawlish and cockwood.
I implied that based on votes cast across all 3 wards Wrigley would neither be Mayor or Deputy, he'd be behind 12 others (11 others now). That still stands.
Seeing as we do not have a vote for the Town Mayor we can't state whether any Mayor is popular with the entire electorate or not, would people in Dawlish Central and SW have voted for him? Who knows? It depends on who else was standing.
@Lynne you implied that cllr wrigley is popular with the electorate. not me.
Being voted Mayor with over half the councillors who didn't abstain in a one-off vote does not mean all co-councillors are pleased with the appointment does it? If all the Tories abstained, that leaves 1 Lib Dem and 4 Independents. Hardly a majority.
I don't think the term popular is appropriate in actual fact, it is whether the councillors can work together or not. I don't care about who likes who.
Can they work together? Time will tell. But can a divisive character then become a unifying leader? Doubtful.
The Tories were considering putting a Mayoral candidate up against Cllr Wrigley in a break from protocol. I don't know how many abstained in the end but to do so means that he's hardly popular with numerous co-councillors.
Given that 7 out of 13 councillors are Tories and the accusations of falsehoods in print, previous discord in the council chamber between the Lib Dems and the Tories and Wrigley's campaign against Clatworthy, etc - I seriously doubt he is popular with 7 out of 13 councillors - which is just over half the councillors.
If you think Cllr Wrigley is popular and that this is an important issue why not start a new thread?
this is beginning to detract from @Likeablerat's dubious email trail and the dysfunctional town council.
Actually I think you'll find that you were the one who made the statement that he was an unpopular mayor. I merely pointed out that that might not be the case.
And as for that email trail that you claim is dubious. It seems the Pethericks had/have no doubt as to its authenticity.
But now I must go.
There's a GE on and I've got lots to do.
I'll clarify - he's not popular with Tory council members who are in the majority at DTC (plus Hockin and Clatworthy - see email trail) given that the Tories considered putting forward a rival candidate, to block automatic protocol, etc. That rarely happens.
If you read my previous post we have no idea whether he's popular with the people of Dawlish, which you seem to imply.
Maybe the email trail is authentic, but it is presented in such a way that it is easily critiqued and dubious. It's amateur-ish.
So the Pethericks' complaint needs to be resolved as do these allegations of falsehoods in print.
The GE is next month, or ar you busy canvassing support for the Lib Dems?
Polling day is next month.
Oh shut up Andrew. Whoops. I mean Indy
With all the chat going on about local councillors on some of the other threads it made me think about this one.
Anyone know of any developments?