Morning All,
Trust all had a good weekend. Even though we were i.Patrol-less this
weekend the Forum still stood its ground and did what it was mandated by the
community to do.
On Friday night we had an upgraded neighbourhood watch vehicle, anyone
notice a red BM cruising the streets with the regular weekend patrollers,
Robert, Bruce and boksburg Mike on hand to sort out any problems and for the
rest of the weekend i'm sure many saw the white bakkie keeping things in
order.
A safe thief was apprehended at Fathers house Church on Friday night after
2 alerrt residents spotted a youth climbing through a toilet window and called
the forum phone, and notified one of the pastors. i.BMW was there in seconds and
the suspect was caught red-handed with safe in his hands.
Their is an article in this mornings tabloids concerning my suspension and
the removal of the community sponsored i.Patrol vehicle. This will be dicussed
fully at the upcoming meeting on Wednesday at the Methodist Church Hall, Edward
Street at 5.30pm when Mr John Preller (CPF Chairman) will address us in this
regard.
In another disturbing tabloid report this morning a woman was brutally
mudered right here on the ouskirts of Richmond Hill.
As is common knowledge, acording to my weekly e.mails, the Tulla St
building in question is the same building where these people who know live in
the bush in Albany Road used to stay. Part of what i.Patrol and co did was to
encourage these people not to inhabit vacant buildings in our area. The problems
experienced in that area have going on for years now. This particular topic has
been brought up numerous times at the weekly cop meetings, that we used to have,
but little was actually done about it. At the last CPF meeting I brought up the
subject of these people living in the bush in Albany Road and asked for the
assistance of the authorities to have something done about it.
On numerous occasions have I also approached our Ward 5 Cllr for assistance
in not only this prroblem but also areas like the graveyard as well, to no
avail.
Now I ask the question, what more can we as a community do to keep
ourselves safe, murders on our doorstep while the i.Patrol vehicle stands idly
at the police station, what next.
We have a community that has a large percentage of single parents and young
children that have come to rely on what the community has put together in the
regard of neighbourhood watching and this mornings article about a woman being
beaten to death with a plank is rather disturbing news.
According to the constitutions put in place I can no longer be of
assistance to the community, so the community must decide the way forward at the
meeting on Wed.
See you all there.
Regards
Alan.
Noreen asked me to also post her reply to my reply to this update :)
ReplyDeleteHi Alan
I fully endorse what Sue Hoppe has written and urge every member of our Richmond Hill community to come out in support of you on Wednesday evening. There are many residents who have benefitted - without contribution or participation - from your efforts, and it's now time for all to step up to the plate and fight for our Chairman and our Forum.
The news report was irresponsible in that it informs the public at large, and that includes the criminals, that we are without a designated vehicle or a Chairman. Whoever felt it necessary to inform the Press of these developments should be ashamed.
That our vehicle should be in the temporary custody of SAPS is cause for concern. We have no guarantees that it will be safe there. Similarly a conviction of assault against a citizen who tries to protect his neighbourhood is ludicrous given that police brutality is legendary and often without consequence.
Your Appeal is pending. Until the appeal judgement is given, you remain our Chairman and if we have to change the Constitution, let the community of Richmond Hill do so. Who are these people in Humewood etc who believe that they can speak for us? What gives these 'officials', who do not have a mandate from us, who have not been elected by us and who do not even know us, the right to make decisions for us?
What has gone down has certainly not been in the interests of this community and is nothing more than an attempt to derail the hugely successful efforts of you and your team to keep us safe. Let us not let this happen.
Please circulate this to all on your database and please will all my fellow residents of Richmond Hill come out in force on Wednesday to keep our Forum where it belongs - in the hands of community with Alan at the helm.
Thank you
Noreen Gruskin
Ok well i will repost my reply to this, as well as one I received in reply to my reply. I tried suggesting to Shawn that he emails a proxy so if we vote to leave SCF CPF or whatever, we can vote on his behalf, but the mail bounced back so i hope he reads it here. I suggest that anyone who can't make Wednesday's meeting but who agrees that Alan should continue to run our Neighbourhood watch, even if it means leaving the official structure and setting up an independant neighbourhood watch, should e-mail to this effect or post it here, giving a proxy vote so we can include you in the process.
ReplyDeleteHere is my reply to the update above...
Hi Alan, We are fully behind you and your team and will give the SCF guys a piece of our mind on Wednesday for high handedly removing the vehicle without speaking to the community first. I hope there is a good turnout to support you on this, and that the fantastic work that you and your team have done to turn our neighbourhood around is not going to be derailed due to the beaurocrats getting away with this because of apathy from the neighbourhood.
We all need to rally behind you and show we will not be steamrollered, it is OUR neighbourhood and we are paying to protect it since the cops (who we are also paying, with our taxes, but getting NO value for that
money!!!) have a dismal track record of doing anything here unless we put pressure on them to do it.
I also believe there would be very few residents/property owners who agree with the idea that you may no longer carry on as Chairperson, and if it is unconstitutional then I will propose that we change the constitution, or withdraw from the SCF (lets face it, it is all waffle and no action at their meetings anyway if we are brutally honest) and operate our Neighbourhood watch independently. Is there any legal reason that we can’t do this since it is the neighbourhood who pays to support the whole thing anyway, surely we are entitled to pay whoever we choose to protect us???
I doubt that there is a single cop who has not exceeded his bounds at times when going into a stressful and dangerous situation like you do on a nightly basis, but they cover up for each other, for heavens sake even the Chief of police post seems to be routinely given to crooks, so how they can have the cheek to act like this over a minor misunderstanding is beyond me…..
and Shaun's reply to me:
We are with you 100%.....this is absolutely ludicrous to say the very least. We feel we can leave the so called SCF...why should we not be allowed to run our own neighbour hood watch it is paid by "the people"
and we should have a say. We are unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday night due to working conditions but please let them know we are totally behind this and if possible can you please let us know the outcome.Maybe a petiiton can be drawn up and signed by all the "people" ?
The recent rape by Humewood SAPS of the Richmond Hill Crime Forum is an example of how severe the rot is in the very organisation that is supposed to protect and serve the community.
ReplyDeleteAs Lecturer in Policing Practice I was invited by the MEC for Safety and Security in Limpopo, to initiate and establish CPF’s at ground level throughout the province as well as the Provincial Community Board. This was still in the days of “Community Policing” and there were no guidelines from SAPS. My recommendations on most CPF issues were accepted by Provincial as well as National police management.
From the onset it was obvious that this will be a fragile relationship if the partners are not totally honest and completely committed to the objectives of the partnership. More often than not, CPF’s were established only to be abandoned by one of the partners within a very short period of time. Very few CPF’s were successful because the SAPS was the “taker” and the community the “giver” in this relationship. Mostly the SAPS used the CPF to blame the community for not doing enough to assist them and to prevent crime.
With this background I watched the Richmond Hill Crime Forum with interest to see if it will be any different from the others. With a dedicated Chairman and committed members this is one of the few successful Crime Forums in the country – taken into account that successful forums usually emanates in affluent areas were resources and outsourcing is at the order. In Richmond Hill we have dedication and commitment as the driving forces.
The crime rate actually decreased, not because of but despite of the presence of the SAPS. An interesting dimension was introduced when a sponsor (Williams Hunt) came onboard in the Bay under the auspices of “assisting the community in crime prevention”.
Our Chairman was called to assist in preventing crime more affluent areas, which he duly did, often to his personal and our community’s detriment.
Now he stands accused of a crime in the process of assisting the SAPS with their duty which they neglect. This organisation was quick to arrest their successful “partner”, charge him and strip him of his position in the Crime Forum. Not only have the SAPS destroyed the relationship that was built over a period of three years, they have also exposed the community to criminals.
All this because of prevention-envy.
In addition and more seriously, the SAPS are ignoring the Police Act and Regulations – another show of incompetence by the “officers-of-their-own-laws”.
In view of the above, one cannot help but speculate about the motives of the Humewood SAPS – giving a relative safe and secure community to gangsters and criminals that they, the SAPS themselves cannot restrain. Is there collaboration? Why did they not consult the community as per their Act, Regulations and guidelines? One cannot be blamed for smelling a rat.
PS: This incident questions the commitment of Williams Hunt to crime prevention. The company reacted suspiciously swift on questionable information. Perhaps they have committed a vehicle to the affluent areas where most of their senior personnel are now the targets of criminals and where the incompetent SAPS is their only means of protection? The company may end with egg on the face.
Jan de Klerk
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI Shaun Wingrin of 31 Newington Court ,Nwwington Road,Richmond Hill do
ReplyDeletehereby give you my proxy vote with regards to Alan Mounter staying on
as our Chairman and us withdrawing for the SCF if that is what is
necessary for the residents to retain possession of the I Patrol
vehicle and to run our own crime forum.
Regards
Shaun Wingrin