• Town Estate charity does not carry out criminal record checks on park workers, despite advice from the Charity Commission to do so.  

   

• Mrs Cumbers is also concerned at the lack of Criminal Record Checks on park workers. It follows the jailing of a park kiosk attendant, Michael Bonshor, for sexual grooming of two underage schoolgirls.  

   

• Inside Out has checked and both Melton and Hinckley & Bosworth councils check their staff, as do other councils which employ park staff in Leicestershire.  

   

• Under current legislation, unless an organisation is undertaking a ‘regulated activity’, there is no requirement for employees who do not have responsibility of children and/or vulnerable adults to be CRB checked.   

   

• This is continually reviewed alongside the Town Estate’s policies and procedures as legislation dictates.  

   

• The Town Estate are committed to ensuring that all children and vulnerable adults are protected and kept safe from harm whilst engaged in activities organised by the Town Estate, and as far as is reasonable practicable on its grounds (sic).  

   

• In the specific case of Michael Bonshor (now deceased) during the recruitment process his references were excellent, and his character appeared to be unblemished. The programme provided no evidence that a CRB check would have revealed anything untoward.  

   

• We understand that some authorities undertake job specific CRB checks against an identified risk where employees have a duty of care for children and/or vulnerable people. Town Estate employees are either engaged in ground maintenance or serving at kiosk counters in our parks, unless an organisation is undertaking a ‘regulated activity’, there is no requirement for employees who do not have responsibility of children and/or vulnerable adults to be CRB checked. Ground Maintenance and Kiosk employees do not lead activities involving children and/or vulnerable adults.    

• CRB checking is routine in similar organizations and councils across Leicestershire.  

   

• Melton residents are incredulous that the Town Estate refuses to accord comparable protection to vulnerable beneficiaries in Melton Mowbray. They constantly ask “Why?”  

   

• The paedophile was not officially “leading an activity involving children” at the time he was committing sexual offences against children on Town Estate premises in paid work time.  

   

• The Town Estate has more experience than most of paedophilia. In addition to Bonshor (now deceased), one Peter Cox (deceased), a feoffee and solicitor, was convicted of sexual abuse of young boys.  

   

• It is surprising then that more attention has not been paid to relevant Charity Commission Guidance such as Reporting Serious Incidents and Vicarious Liability of trustees.  

   

• March 2009 the Town Estate Board finally approved its first Child Protection Policy which was an inadequate document which omitted essentials as defined by the Charity Commission Guidance “Safeguarding Children”. Of particular relevance to the Town Estate with its history of paedophilia is omission of the specific essential:  

   

• Why should the BBC provide evidence that a CRB check would have revealed anything untoward when the paedophile was employed? But a CRB check might have done so and would have shown the charity took seriously its duty towards vulnerable beneficiaries.  

   

• CRB checking might well reduce the possibility of employing another paedophile. Voluntary CRB checking for trustees, whilst not a legal necessity, could possibly prevent having another paedophile feoffee/townwarden.  

   

• Another Town Estate paedophile could cause the charity, immense, irreparable damage.  

• Town Estate is “an institution where two of the first women elected claimed to be sidelined”.  

• The Town Estate reaffirms equality of treatment between people and rules out discrimination between members of its personnel (trustees or employees) on account of age, sex, race or religion, as one of the basic principles of its personnel policy. When the Scheme of Arrangement for the Town Estate was last reviewed (1989) it records that Mrs Margaret Routen was a serving trustee. Since 1989, Mrs Dinah Hickling, Mrs Rinah Wall and Mrs Dinah Rudman have also served as Feoffees which have all preceded Mrs Sue Gowans and Mrs Pat Cumbers as trustees.  

• Mrs. Gowans and I were bullied, verbally abused, physically threatened, locked out, excluded from information, sexually harassed, subjected to an unmerited court case, censured, subjected to kangaroo courts, there was an attempt to suspend me, the Town Estate website wrongly reported that I was suspended and I was wrongly barred from standing for election in October 2009.  

   

• We both had a lot to contribute but we never felt properly included. The above Town Estate reaffirmation regarding equality of treatment is untrue.  

   

• 1988 Mrs. Routen was elected as the first female feoffee. She had been employed by the Town Estate, was wrongfully dismissed by the then Senior Townwarden, then reinstated continuing in her position for a period before finally ceasing employment by the charity. Mrs. Routen served for two years only as a feoffee.  

   

• October 2002, It was reported that Mrs. Wall (ex-employee) and Mrs. Hickling (apparently a colleague of then Senior Town Warden D Whitehouse), were both elected for one year only, which contravened the 1989 Scheme of Arrangement. (Mrs. Wall was apparently elected for a normal period of 4 years in 2003)  

   

• October 2003, Dinah Rudman, wife of feoffee John Rudman, was elected but resigned from the Board before completing her four year term.  

   

• October 2005 Mrs. Gowans was the first independent female feoffee, she was not an ex-employee nor was she a work colleague of, nor related to, an existing feoffee.  

   

• October 2007 I was elected as the first ever female Senior Townwarden. My election was bitterly resented by some feoffees and I believe they decided to drive me from the Board.  

   

• 4^th December 2009 the Charity Commission rejected the proposed new Scheme of Arrangement for reasons including the lack of diversity. The Charity Commission panel noted:

   

• Within the Town Estate there was a clear lack of understanding of diversity and equalities issues – not helped by there having been no relevant training for feoffees.  

• The Town Estate, which is supposed to be democratic, does not allow public scrutiny of its meetings.  

   

• Everyone in Melton should have a vote in how the Estate is run  

   

• Some in the town have called the Town Estate a “men’s club” where they are unwilling to listen to the opinion of people in the town.  

   

• One café owner said: “Basically their attitude is, we’re going to do what we want so stuff the lot of you. Nobody seems to have any say in what’s done”.   

• The Town Estate is not a public body but a charitable trust for which the 14 trustees have legal liability and accountability to the Charity Commission for its proper management and sustainability. The 14 trustees have equal responsibility and liability for the management of the charity. There also seems to be a misinterpretation of the Scheme of Arrangement; that decisions of the Trustee Body must be subject to vote at the Annual Town Meeting. This is not the case, the Scheme of Arrangement clearly states that it is the trustees, who have equal responsibility and liability for the management of the Charity. The Scheme of Arrangement places sole responsibility in the running of the Town Estate with the trustees.  

   

• The Scheme of Arrangement requires that a majority from the trustees present at a meeting shall agree any motion or policy, for it to be passed, this is a fundamental part of how the Town Estate is run; through democracy.  

   

• The Annual Town Meeting reports to the people living in the area of benefit with the specific objectives to deliver the annual report and accounts, appoint the Auditor for the ensuing year and to elect trustees to any vacant positions.  

   

• While public meetings of the Town Estate may be held to learn the views of those people in the area of benefit, the trustees are solely accountable for the decisions.  

   

• It is also important to recognise the channels open to the residents of Melton Mowbray to voice their opinions upon the goings on in the Town Estate. They have the Town Estate Office, where they can write in to ‘voice’ their opinions/concerns. They have the Town Estate website, where there is further information regarding the Charity, and e-mail from the website in the ‘Contact Us’ section. During the year, there are channels open for people from the area of benefit to contact the Town Estate on issues of concern, regarding the progress of any of the projects etc. The people in the area of benefit influence how the Town Estate is run through those elected to the office of trustee. Decisions upon changes and alterations to Town Estate parks are not taken without consideration of public opinion  

   

• The Town Estate believes that the view of the café owner is not reflected by the vast majority of the town centre business community which is regularly sounded out by the Town Estate Manager  

   

• The Chris Burnett report canvassed the people of Melton Mowbray regarding changes that people wanted to see in the parks. At a great deal of time and expense, the Town Estate canvassed public opinions of what was wanted in the parks, this was reported in the Chris Burnett report (2002) Where park users were canvassed of what they felt was needed to improve the facilities on offer by the Town Estate. Some of these recommendations have come into fruition, under the Big Picture Appeal, and these improvements (since 2006) have come through donations i.e. at no expense to the Charity, and no expense to the tax payer.  

• The Town Estate is a members’ charity, accountable to members of the public, i.e. the membership and other stakeholders .   

   

• It appears the Charity Commission agrees with the BBC and the members, suggesting that the annual meeting and “channels” do not provide sufficient opportunity for public scrutiny.  

   

•   4^th December 2009, The proposed new Scheme of Arrangement was rejected by the Charity Commission for various reasons including the lack of Accountability:  

   

•  Openness and communication with beneficiaries and other stakeholders should be routine but sadly, that is not the case with the Town Estate.    

   

• The café owner’s opinion is shared by many traders in Melton Mowbray.  

   

• The Pork Pie Fair has caused much harm to local trade and businesses since it started in 2007. A 2008 survey (independently verified) showed 74% of traders believed the fair had caused a reduction in trade. The local newspaper conducted a poll and the majority of respondents said the fair should be scrapped. It appears that the opinion of the traders in 2009 was unchanged. Other examples of lack of consultation which caused annoyance to members include the following:-  

   

•  The Chris Burnett Report.  The Chris Burnett Report was commissioned jointly by the Town Estate and Leicestershire County Council as a requirement for a lottery bid which was unsuccessful. The Report was thorough but was produced in 2002 – over seven years ago. Users of the parks were interviewed for the Report and other stakeholders were consulted.   

   

•  Nevertheless without consulting members, in 2007 a 10 year contract was agreed between the Town Estate and Dreamweaver UK for the provision of “amusement attractions”. 

• Melton Mowbray’s Town Estate was set up in medieval times and its operation could be said to belong to a feudal society. 

• The Scheme of Arrangement was last changed in 1989. A revised version that will ensure the management of the trust accords with current expectations and guidance of the Charity Commission is presently being appraised by the Charity Commission following a period of public consultation.  

• It appears the Charity Commission does not agree with the above opinion of the Town Estate’s proposed new Scheme of Arrangement because the Commission has decided the proposed new scheme will not be allowed to go ahead.  

   

• The Commission is not satisfied that the proposed scheme would further the Commission’s statutory objectives particularly those relating to public trust, confidence and accountability.

  To read the full Decision Review of the Charity Commission, 

  (The Charity Commission review is in "PDF" format.  If you can't view it, then  to download the free Adobe PDF Reader)

• Ever since a woman was elected to a senior position on the estate, it has been mired in controversy  

   

• Pat Cumbers, a former Mayor of Melton, found her authority removed by the Town Estate three days after she was elected  

• The 14 trustees have equal responsibility and liability for the management of the charity. The Scheme of Arrangement requires that a majority from the trustees present at a meeting shall agree any motion or policy, for it to be passed, this is a fundamental part of how the Town Estate is run; democracy rather than a dictatorship.  

   

• The 14 trustees have equal responsibility and liability for the management of the charity. The appointment of Senior Townwarden is titular and bestows no additional executive responsibility upon the holder other than that which may be devolved to the Senior Townwarden by consent of the majority of trustees.  

• 1^st October 2007 I was so proud and excited to have been elected to be the first female Senior Townwarden. I already loved the charity and its history.  

   

• 3 days later, without bothering to contact me, a special Board meeting was called and I was not welcomed to the Board in the way new trustees are usually welcomed. I believe the decision had already been made to “drive me off the Board”. The “Townwarden Powers” which so recently had been regularly used by Senior Townwarden, John Southerington, were transferred from me to a sub committee – it was alleged that I did not have -  

• 7^th January 2008 the Board confirmed that the committee would continue until such time : 

• 13^th March 2008 – Mr. Saunders informed the Charity Commission that my election had caused problems because - 

• In addition a complaint to the Charity Commission about me including the following :  

• The above examples demonstrate clearly that when I was elected in October 2007 I had indeed been elected to a senior position which was not titular and the Senior Townwarden had “authority” – in fact I was expected to take over “day to day management”
  

   

• Please note that I believed I was as well qualified as any existing feoffee. My employment and voluntary sector background included :  

BUT it later transpired that Senior Townwarden Duties, and Senior Townwarden Powers, had not existed for more than 18 years although apparently the feoffees had not noticed
 

• In December 1989 the Charity Commission approved a new Scheme of Arrangement for the Town Estate which did not include Townwardens powers so they ceased to exist - the fourteen feoffees were meant to be equal. BUT the Senior Townwardens continued exercising Townwarden powers until I was elected in October 2007.    

   

• I gradually realised that the “Townwardens Powers” had disappeared in 1989 and it appeared that the other feoffees began to realise that too – all 14 feoffees are equal.  

   

• Without doubt, if Mr. Southerington had been re-elected in October 2007 he would have continued exercising those powers although they no longer existed.  

   

• The powers did not exist in December 1989 and did not exist in October 2007 – but apparently nobody had noticed. So the Senior Townwarden position was definitely not believed to be titular in October 2007 by the Board of feoffees nor by the members. But the feoffees and the members were mistaken.  

• The locks were changed on the Town Estate offices so she could not look at the books  

   

• Mrs. Cumbers could not look at the books.  

• Trustees have free access to the office during business hours.  

   

• There is no requirement for a trustee to have access to the office at other times without prior arrangement with the Town Estate Manager who is responsible for the security of the building.  

   

• The locks to the Town Estate office were changed following a breach in security, where it was discovered that the offices had been accessed by parties unknown without authorisation  

   

• Mrs. Cumbers was able but declined to look at the ‘books’ during normal business hours, where ALL policies, procedures and paperwork is (sic) available for viewing by trustees.  

• When first elected to be Senior Townwarden, in accordance with normal practice, I was given a set of keys in order to enter the Town Estate office as I wished during office hours.  

   

• It’s untrue to say I declined to look at the “books” during normal business hours. I had regular meetings with the Town Estate bailiff to discuss the workings of the charity and I occasionally visited the Town Estate office at other times, to collect my mail and to read files and to look at the books, some at my request or some at the Bailiff’s suggestion.  

   

• Apart from the mail which was left in a particular place for me, I never once picked up a piece of paper without asking if I might.  

   

• I never once attempted to access the office outside of office hours. ( And I would have been unable to access the office out of hours as I did not possess the alarm code.)  

   

• Chairman Ken Saunders had no authority to change the locks.  

   

• Why did chairman Saunders punish me because “parties unknown” had accessed the office? And of course he had no authority to “punish” me. He was not “in charge”. As already pointed out in the Town Estate “Response”, the 14 trustees are equal.  

   

• Then I was told :  

Please note that the letter from Mr. Saunders contained no mention of any alleged :

That is a new allegation which has just surfaced. Clearly I was not unauthorised - just who were the “parties unknown” who burgled the Town Estate office ? Presumably the matter was reported to the Police and the Town Estate insurers but for some reason the feoffees were never told what had happened and clearly they should have been.
 

• Mrs. Gowans and I were denied access to information ( to which we were entitled) on a number of occasions including the following :  

• Suspension of Mrs Cumbers  

   

• The Charity Commission later told the Town Estate they did not have the power to suspend her.  

• At a meeting of the trustees on Monday 10^th November 2008, the trustees voted on the motion to ‘suspend’ Mrs Cumbers as a consequence of her actions (that were considered to undermine the best interests of the Charity). The trustees voted by a significant majority to ‘suspend’ Mrs Cumbers from further meetings until the end of her term of office in October 2008.  

   

• However, following a meeting with the Charity Commission on the 10^th December 2008 the Commission advised the Chairman of Feoffees that- ‘there are no provisions within the government document that allow the Feoffees to suspend a Feoffee’. This ‘ruling’ by the Charity Commission was adhered by and Mrs Cumbers continued in full, her duties as a Feoffee (trustee).  

• My duty to the charity being paramount I made public some of the problems within the Town Estate. The problems included the Town Estate Board not having adopted a Child Protection policy despite the Town Estate history of paedophilia and specific advice from the Charity Commission.  

   

• The meeting on Monday 10^th November 2008 was a “ kangaroo court” and the “evidence” against me included deliberate untruths. -    

   

• I was never suspended because there was no power to suspend me which was confirmed to feoffees on 18^th November 2008, (i.e. prior to the 10 December 2008 mentioned above).  

   

• The Charity Commission “ruling” was not “adhered to”. For nearly two months after the 18^th November, the Town Estate website continued to report that I was suspended and the Town Estate refused to remove that report until threatened by solicitors with a legal injunction.  

• Another woman who was elected as a “feoffee” or trustee on the Town Estate was Sue Gowans. She says she was not allowed in the Town Estate offices  

• All trustees, without exception, are entitled to access the Town Estate Offices during normal business hours 

• I was routinely denied “access” during “normal business hours” and was allowed no further than the reception area which is open to the public.  

   

• In January 2008 I submitted a statement to Leicester County Court (in respect of the claim made against me by the Town Estate) which included the following wording :  

• My statement to the County Court was accompanied by a Statement of Truth which is a formal declaration to the court that the person signing has an honest belief that the contents of a document are true. A person who signs without an honest belief commits a contempt of court which may be punishable by fine or imprisonment.  

   

• A copy of the statement was passed to John Southerington. My statement to the court was never challenged by Mr. Southerington or Mr. Cooper despite several opportunities to do so. My statement was true. I was not allowed in the Town Estate office.  

• Mrs Gowans also alleges she was told the price of hiring the stalls for a charity Christmas fair depended upon how she voted in a Town Estate meeting.  

   

• Mrs Gowans voted against a commercial deal and then found the price of stalls had tripled in price from a previous agreement  

   

• The estate (Town Estate) took her (Mrs Gowans) to court and lost.  

• This was an allegation made by Mrs Gowans at a trustee meeting but it was unsubstantiated and denied by the person alleged to have said it.  

   

• Stall charges for external ventures are made on the same basis, using tariffs on a per stall basis. The charges for the Christmas Fair (Victorian) were made on the same basis as other commercial ventures that hired stalls.  

   

• The Trustees were advised of their duty to recover justifiable costs due to the Town Estate and proceedings were instituted through the small claims court. It was not a consideration of the judgement that Mrs Gowans was a trustee of the Town Estate . ‘Inside Out’ also neglected to mention that the Town Estate tried to instigate mediation with regard to the dispute on no less than 3 occasions, but Mrs. Gowans declined to do so.  

• The allegation was first made in December 2006 to a Town Centre partnership meeting at which Andrew Cooper was present. ( The partnership was an umbrella organization over town events) He did not deny that the words about my voting intention had been spoken but was certainly embarrassed when he said ‘Well, you know what John’s like’.  

   

• That non-denial was witnessed by several independent people. In fact there was a certain amount of commiseration for him with one person stating that they did not believe Andrew was the person to be blamed!  

   

• John Southerington denied that statement but nevertheless he had used those words – the allegation was not unsubstantiated - it was true and was witnessed by several people – not one of whom has denied that those words were spoken.  

   

• October 2006 -John Southerington said the stall price would depend on how I voted at the November feoffees meeting.  

   

• November 2006 – at that feoffees’ meeting, I voted against John Southerington’s proposal for more commercial fairground.  

   

• 13^th December I received the invoice for an extortionate £2796 and not the contracted £980. I realized the Fayre committee was being punished for my having voted the “wrong way “  

   

• The allegation was repeated at two Board meetings and in eight separate documents which formed part of the official evidence submitted to the County Court which included my Statement dated 25^th January 2008 which was accompanied by a Statement of Truth. Not one of those eight documents was ever challenged.  

   

• There were five people at the October 2006 meeting. The three other witnesses at the meeting on 17^th October 2006, Andrew Cooper, Richard Sage and Mick French, have apparently never denied hearing the words and that includes at the feoffees meetings in March and April 2007. Only one of the five people present at that meeting has ever said those words were not spoken and that was John Southerington himself !  

   

• Mr. Southerington was also asked by the judge at the hearing if he wished to say anything but he declined.  

   

• The Country Fair and the Victorian Christmas Fayre were not commercial and had never previously been treated as such. We paid £10 per stall for the 2006 Country Fair. Andrew Cooper has since confirmed that our fairs were not commercial.  

   

• I note the advice that the trustees had a duty to recover justifiable costs (when making a contract). That is understandable and it was the contracted amount which the Victorian Christmas Fayre committee wished to pay in the normal way that business is transacted.  

   

• The Charity Commission advised the trustees that before deciding on legal action they must also consider the potential cost to charitable funds, whether the possible gain justified expending the charity’s time and resources and any possible risk to the charity’s reputation. The trustees could have taken independent legal advice if they wished.  

   

• Please note that the Town Estate does not always appear to have a duty to recover “justifiable costs”. Proctor and Gamble was allowed FREE use of the Market Place and Play Close for two days in order to promote Bold washing powder!  

   

• “Mediation” was irrelevant – the Town Estate must abide by contract law. The committee wanted to pay what was legally due in the same way that we had paid our other contracted costs. The Town Estate declined to issue an amended invoice for the contracted amount.  

   

• In May 2008 the Judge found completely in favour of me and the Committee. The Judge stated the Town Estate had a right to request leave to appeal, but that he did not believe there was a judge in the country who would disagree with his decision. The judge had considered the same evidence which had been known to all feoffees for many months.  

• Mrs. Gowans says she was also shaken to find a picture of a man wearing only underpants with the words “Caution” emblazoned upon the front.  

• When Mrs Gowans mentioned this at a trustee meeting she was advised to immediately report the matter to the Police. This ‘advice’ was omitted from the programme, as was whether Mrs Gowans acted upon the advice. Wherever the picture came from, the Town Estate was not responsible.  

• That was untrue – there was no such advice given at the Board meeting.  

   

• I had been sexually harassed by a Town Estate person when he had returned a file to me which included a pornographic photograph of himself which I had not requested and did not want. That photograph sickened me and I felt threatened by it, particularly by the word CAUTION displayed on his skimpy underpants.  

   

• 7.1.08 the Board meeting minutes ( at which all feoffees were present) show ;  

The member of the Town Estate was not named. John Wyatt’s words caused much hilarity,
sniggering and jokey talk of flashers and men in dirty Macs. I was very embarrassed and
the uncaring attitude of the Board lacked any understanding or sympathy for me.

• 3.2.08 Pat Cumbers emailed Mr. Saunders, copied to all feoffees, naming the “Town Estate person” who had upset and sickened me with the pornographic picture of himself.  

   

• How could most feoffees believe they had no responsibility for the behaviour of a Town Estate person who had sexually harassed a female trustee on Town Estate premises during office hours? 

• Mrs. Cumbers tried to stand for re-election but they refused to allow her to stand.  

   

• One of the present trustees’ sons was appointed to replace her without a ballot.  

• The Scheme of Arrangement requires only that trustees are elected at the Annual Town Meeting. The manner in which elections are conducted at the meeting is for the trustees to determine.  

   

• The protocol for persons seeking election as a trustee is thus. Persons seeking election as a trustee of the Town Estate declare their intention 42 days prior to the Annual Town Meeting - this is supported by the Charity Commission. Those seeking election as a trustee, collect a nomination pack and submit their intention the stipulated 42 days prior to the Annual Town Meeting.  

   

• In 2008, Mrs Cumbers followed the protocol by submitting nomination forms and was elected to the position of Junior Townwarden. Mrs Cumbers voted in favour of this process and was present at the meeting in December 2008 when the Charity Commission said it supported the declaration of intention, prior to the Annual Town Meeting.  

   

• Mrs Cumbers collected the nomination pack and she had every opportunity to declare her intent to stand for re-election in 2009 having collected the nomination pack in good time to give 42 days notice  

   

• Five nominations had been declared 42 days prior to the meeting and there were five trustee vacancies. The five positions open for election in October 2009 were that of Senior Townwarden, Junior Townwarden, and three positions for Feoffees. The outgoing Senior Townwarden Mr Sage collected a nomination pack, declared his intention to stand for the position of Senior Townwarden and being unopposed was appointed to the position of Senior Townwarden. The outgoing Junior Townwarden Mrs Cumbers collected a nomination pack but did NOT return the nomination pack prior to the meeting. Consequently, when Mr Johnson (having collected and returned a nomination pack) declaring his intention to stand for the position of Junior Townwarden, he was appointed unopposed to the position of Junior Townwarden (the position previously held by Mrs Cumbers). Three people submitted their intentions to stand as Feoffees 42 days prior to the Annual Town Meeting. Dr Williamson, Mr Rawson, and Mr Southerington, all 3 had proposers for the positions as trustees, and all 3 had been seconded and were subsequently appointed at Feoffees.  

• The Scheme of arrangement is clear that Feoffees and Townwardens will be elected, the only qualification being residence in the Area of Benefit. 

• I had attended an interview in 2008 because I mistakenly believed it was necessary  

   

• Since then, on several occasions the Charity Commission has made clear that, whilst they do not object to a selection process, a member might also be nominated at the annual meeting without having gone through any selection process  

   

• At 5^th October 2009 that position remained unchanged because the Scheme of Arrangement remained unchanged.  

   

• I should not have been barred from standing for election.  

   

• I note the assertion that I and other candidates should have declared an intention to stand for election 42 days prior to the annual meeting (which I dispute).  

   

• I also note the assertion that five nominations had been declared 42 days prior to the annual meeting.  

   

• That appears to be another untruth.  

   

• How was it possible to have given 42 days notice ? The advertisement was published 27^th August 2009 and it stated that packs were available from 27^th August 2009. There were only 39 days between 27^th August and 5^th October 2009, the date of the Annual Meeting !  

   

• In addition, how did the “successful” candidates know that 42 days notice was required ?  

   

• 42 days notice was not mentioned in the advertisement.  

   

• 42 days notice was not mentioned in the election pack  

   

• The advertisement included a closing date of 11^th September 2010  

   

It appears that the Chairman Ken Saunders had decided that there would be no elections in contravention of the 1989 Scheme of Arrangement – he preferred to choose “his” feoffees:

• The Town Estate has refused to take part in the Inside Out film despite several requests over the past 10 months  

• As a result of advice given by the Charity Commission in December 2008, following complaints by Mrs. Cumbers and Mrs. Gowans the Trustees declined to participate in the programme. They had every right and genuine reason not to do so.  

• This was another untruth as confirmed by the Charity Commission.  

   

• It is untrue that advice given at the meeting or in the letter following the meeting could have indicated that the Town Estate should decline to participate in the documentary.  

   

• In December 2009 the reasons, for the Commission’s rejection of the Town Estate’s proposed new Scheme of Arrangement, included the refusal to participate in the BBC film .  

   

• 7^th January 2010 the Charity Commission confirmed to Third Sector Online that they did not advise the charity not to take part in the programme. The Commission also confirmed that “This matter was not discussed with the charity” To read more    

   

•   Why do the Town Estate not explain their “genuine reason” for their refusal to take part in the Inside Out film about the Town Estate members’ charity ?