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
blog below is one of several relating to Bexley Councillor Maxine Fothergill and
Bexley Council’s Code of Conduct Committee and linked from
the Index page. 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 signature appears to match the Secretary’s on
the £244,000 cheque but
the printed name beneath it is prefixed ‘Councillor’.
So not only does it look like the Councillor signed a cheque from one company payable to her own company, which seems to me
a dubious practice, but it is also proved that in a transaction which was
solely the business of her company far away from Bexley she used the title
apparently in the belief it conferred some sort of advantage for herself.