m a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 any day today rss facebook twitter clear clear
According to Inspector Knacker, being unfriendly is a crime

Bonkers Blog December 2015

Index: 2012201320142015201620172018

To return from any entry to the top of this page, click any date on the left
To place a bookmark/anchor in the URL bar (for links), click the blog title
To read blogs from other years and months use the menu above
To change the text size click ‘AAA’ or Mobile icon on the menu above
To permanently change the text size click ‘Configure’ on the menu above

Old Farm

23 December (Part 3) - Councillor Maxine Fothergill. Bringing ill repute

The blog below is one of several relating to Bexley Councillor Maxine Fothergill and Bexley Council’s Code of Conduct Committee. This note aims to make it clear that the events reported between December 2015 and the Summer of 2016 whilst accurate reflections of various events, disciplinary hearings and sanctions brought against Councillor Fothergill they are individually insufficient to explain the whole story.

Two members of the Bexley-is-Bonkers team met with Councillor Fothergill at a secret location on 16th September 2016 where she explained to us what had really happened. She was able to convince us that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

There were compelling reasons why Councillor Fothergill should be believed. It seemed likely that the Tory High Command in Bexley had taken revenge on her because Councillor Fothergill had reported one of their associates to the police for theft.

Councillor Fothergill requested that the explanatory note prefixed to relevant blogs (which first went on line a few days earlier) be further strengthened so that readers are fully aware that reported events, whilst accurate at the time, did not reflect her innocence and that Bexley Council’s charge of misconduct and “gaining a financial advantage for herself” was malicious.

This is a modified version of the note Councillor Fothergill asked to be placed here.

Amax EstatesBexley council has belatedly published its sanctions against councillor Maxine Fothergill, for it is confirmed that it is she, for what some people might think is attempted fraud.

The council prefers to use the weasel words of “conferring financial gain or material benefit for herself”. The verdict strongly suggests an offence and not a legitimate business deal.

That verdict should have become public knowledge 13 days ago. It was announced at a public meeting on 10th December, except that there was no public there.

There should have been, three showed up at 10:30 in the morning but were kicked out.

They were told that they would be readmitted when the verdict was announced but as that wasn’t until after five, they were, not unnaturally, no longer there.

Emails requesting the information were either ignored or refused. Certainly against the spirit of the council’s published procedures and probably against the letter too.

However the following has just popped up on Bexley council’s website

The Sub-Committee, having considered the evidence in conjunction with the Members’ Code of Conduct…

RESOLVED that Councillor Fothergill breached the following paragraphs of the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct:

1. Paragraph 3(1) of the Members’ Code of Conduct in that Councillor Fothergill’s actions could be perceived by an ordinary member of the public, as conferring an advantage or disadvantage on any person or act to gain financial or other material benefits for herself, her family, friends or close associates.

2. Paragraph 3 (8) of the Members’ Code of Conduct in that, whilst serving in her public post, an ordinary member of the public could reasonably perceive that she had conducted herself in a manner, which could reasonably be regarded as bringing her office or the London Borough of Bexley into disrepute.


The Sub-Committee considered the range of sanctions as set out in the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct. The Sub-Committee also considered the factors to be taken into account, as set out in the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Sub-Committee Rules of Procedure, prior to determining the sanction(s).


1. Councillor Fothergill should undertake training to be arranged by the Monitoring Officer into potential conflicts of interest between her role as a business person and her role as a Councillor; and

2. a recommendation be made to the Chief Whip or the Leader of the Council that Councillor Fothergill be removed from the Appeals Committee for the duration of the Council administration.

In the new year when people are not so preoccupied with festivities, I’ll let you know what the grapevine says councillor Maxine Fothergill is supposed to have done. Seems outrageous if rumour is true, but then I am not a councillor so uphold different standards to theirs and we all know something of the standards the Code of Conduct committee‘s chairman adopts.

If Maxine Fothergill is ‘Woman of the Year’ she may have brought the entire property industry into disrepute.


Home page Site mapMenu mapContact us
Join Bonkers on TwitterCookie policyReturn to the top of this page