Doubt is cast on Bexley Council’s allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill.
1 April (Part 1) -
They are Judge and Jury when dealing with the public
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.
The action taken by Bexley’s Code of Conduct Committee against Councillor Maxine
Fothergill had all the makings of a major scandal which might lead to police
action, but it all fizzled out. But not quite. One of the members of the public
who was excluded from the meeting has continued to ask awkward questions.
Bexley Council tried to reject his complaint on the grounds that he made it
more than seven days after the alleged unlawful exclusion because they have set their own rule which
says that complaints about meetings must be made within a week.
I do not pretend to understand all the legal arguments that have ensued but I
have been able to work out that there never was a written complaint from a
member of the public about Maxine Fothergill. This, so the complainant claims,
is contrary to the provisions of the Localism Act.
That Councillor Maxine Fothergill has done nothing worse than create too many
high powered enemies within Council seems ever more likely.
Bexley Council is probably awash with back-stabbers.
The Council’s rejection of the exclusion complaint and their mishandling of
the hearing of the case against the Councillor appears to be heading for Court,
so I will refrain from further comment.