m a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 any day today rss facebook twitter clear clear
Sadiq Khan

Bonkers Blog December 2015

Index: 2011201220132014201520162017

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

Craske saved

30 December - Perceived to be nest feathering. Bring down the shutters quick

This blog is one of several relating to Bexley Councillor Maxine Fothergill and linked from the relevant Index page. Together they cover five different subjects all related in some way to Ms. Fothergill.

• Some cover her Code of Conduct Committee hearing which resulted in sanctions against Councillor Fothergill. It was alleged that she used her position as Councillor to obtain a financial advantage. viz. that she bought a bungalow from a vulnerable Bexley resident at an advantageous price.
No evidence that Ms. Fothergill paid less than the market price ever came to light and the alleged victim did not make the written complaint necessary to cause a Code of Conduct hearing. When Bexley Council was pressed to provide evidence it could only point to a document written by a Member of its own Code of Conduct Committee, Judge and Jury.
The probability is that the Leader of Bexley Council was unwilling to forgive the fact that Maxine Fothergill had brought down the Leader’s preferred election candidate by reporting him to the police for more than one theft. The sanctions appeared to be nothing but retribution. The Leader of Bexley Council is renowned for her ruthless retribution.
The police issued a caution.
• Others show how she was alleged to have conducted her business affairs in a way that some of her associates considered ethically dubious and have almost no link to Bexley Council.
• Councillor Maxine Fothergill fought Sevenoaks Council over an unauthorised house extension and lost. There is again no Bexley Council link apart from it becoming clear that her main residence is not in the borough
• When a resident requested a Judicial Review of Bexley Council’s refusal to state that it would always comply with the law they managed to convince a barrister that he was taking issue with them over the entirely unconnected issue of the verdict given by the Code of Conduct Committee Committee in the Maxine Fothergill case.
Nothing could be further from the truth and there is documentary evidence to that effect that Bexley Council lied to their barrister.
Nevertheless the barrister persuaded a judge to refuse to hear the Judical Review and Bexley Council, dishonest to the last, billed the resident the cost of hiring their tame barrister.
• Councillor Fothergill was sued for libel and lost.

It’s easy to get out of the habit of writing daily blogs and I’m not really in the mood for getting into anything too complicated right now. Most likely you will be feeling the same, however I probably shouldn’t let the old year fade away without giving the Maxine Fothergill saga another outing, she might otherwise think she is forgotten

Probably you are still guessing what she did which resulted in being hauled before the Code of Conduct Committee and ‘punished’ by being sent on a training course. Some details need to be filled in before the full story goes public but unless all the informants change their tunes between now and next week you will get to know that they believe there has been a criminal offence.

Normally when a councillor is on the receiving end of a complaint the public is told who made it, which councillor was allegedly at fault and what they were supposed to have done. Five years ago councillor Geraldine Lucia-Hennis was found guilty of being disrespectful to Bexley resident Alan Thomson and was also sent on a training course. A storm in a teacup but all the gory details went into the Bexley Times.

Earlier this month councillor Maxine Fothergill was afforded total secrecy. I suspect that the difference will be that Geraldine Lucia-Hennis had a minor disagreement and her colleague was engineering “financial gain” for herself and the police might take an interest if a thick veil was not rapidly drawn over the proceedings.

Bexley council has admitted that it used Paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to block anything leaking into the public domain while neatly sidestepping the rules that apply to all Code of Conduct Committees. viz. Openness and honesty.

Here is a list of all the exemptions that could justify that information block.
As paragraph number 1 was used alone and Maxine Fothergill has been named one might assume that it must be the complainant who wished to remain anonymous but there is nothing in paragraphs 1 to 7 which allow the actual offence to be kept secret.

Bexley council is clearly up to no good.

It seems likely that an offence warranting total secrecy must have gone to the Monitoring Officer, Mr. Akin Alabi, for advice. As I understand there were twelve months between the ‘offence’ and the Code of Conduct meeting.

For starters a Freedom of Information request has been submitted aimed at discovering if the complainant requested anonymity.

On Thursday 10th December 2015, Councillor Cheryl Bacon, Chairperson of the Members Code of Conduct Complaints Sub Committee excluded myself and other members of the public, from the meeting by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Advice given by the Information Commissioner's Office, with reference to paragraph 1 - Information relating to an individual, states that in relation to disclosure of personal data relating to members of the public - it would be necessary in most cases to determine whether including the information in the report would be UNLAWFUL or UNFAIR to the person, taking into account all the circumstances involved.

Please provide evidence that the individual who made the complaint against Councillor Maxine Fothergill, did not expect that his or her information might be disclosed to others and that he or she expressly refused consent to the disclosure of the information.

Please also provide evidence that disclosure of personal data would have caused unnecessary or unjustified distress or damage to that person. Please also provide evidence that disclosure of the information would have been unlawful and evidence, that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

I may be wrong but I am coming to the conclusion that if there has been Misconduct in Public Office it will flow from any legal advice that led to Paragraph 1 being abused. Perhaps members of the Code of Conduct Committee were merely following instructions. That is what councillor and chairman Cheryl Bacon did on 19th June 2013. Her mistake then was not following bad advice but lying about it afterwards. councillor Bacon is also the chairman of the Code of Conduct Committee. Councillor Teresa O’Neill’s less than subtle two fingered salute directed at residents.

However it is going to be difficult to make excuses for the very minor sanction imposed if the offence is as described.

Michael Barnbrook addresses the Code of Conduct Committee. 10th December 2015.

It’s nice of Bexley council to provide the material to ensure that BiB is kept busy for another year.


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