There is no criticism of Councillor Maxine Fothergill in this blog.
12 February (Part 2) -
Not held, held but exempt. It all gets too confusing
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.
Perhaps Mr. Barnbrook forgot he was dealing with Bexley Council and not
Thanet where he now lives when he decided to seek a copy of Councillor Fothergill’s grounds for appeal against her
‘conviction’ for Misconduct.
There was never any chance that the secret society would let him have a copy and
I hope he wasn’t too disappointed when they didn’t.
Maybe the grounds for an appeal by Councillor Fothergill are not relevant any more, the appeal hearing scheduled
for 24th April has been cancelled.
Mr. Barnbrook phoned me this afternoon with an urgent message. He said I had misread one of his emails and as a result
part of yesterday’s blog was wrong. It
said that Bexley Council did not hold a copy when in fact it was refusing to
supply a copy. What I wrote was so odd that I should have queried it.
The blog was easily amended by removal of one sentence and an amendment to another but it was a rather
serious error for which I apologise.