Banner
underlay

plinth

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 January 2016

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

6 January - Business interests

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.

Yesterday’s Twitter message asked “who is Maxine Fothergill anyway?” and went on to imply it was a silly name. As I was at school with a John Fothergill the name never struck me as odd but maybe the main question is worth a bit more consideration.

Councillor Fothergill’s Register of Interests is the obvious place to begin any research and it reveals a business in Gravesend, two Erith addresses, a husband and two children. Maxine is Maxine Patricia and the husband of 30 years is Robert Charles Fothergill, another businessman with property interests.

You will be unlikely to be a regular reader of Members’ Interests but if you were you might spot how it changes. For Maxine sometimes no local addresses have been listed and at other times there is a third not on the current list. What is picked out for public consumption appears to be whatever suits the circumstances at the time.

One address was there in 2011 but disappeared the following year. It came back in 2014 and now it has gone again. Does one really move away and have no further interest in a house and then move back to the same address? It’s not illegal but it is strange.

A web search reveals that together Mr. & Mrs. Fothergill have or have had an interest in the following companies…


• Amax Estates & Property Service Ltd.
• Amax Estate Management Ltd.
• Amax Homes & Maintenance Ltd.
• Amax Maintenance Ltd.
• Maritime Gate (Northfleet) Management Co. Ltd.
• Mariners Walk Management Co. Ltd.
• NFRL Professional Training Ltd.
• Sim Plock Ltd.
• Thames Gateway (Kent) Chamber of Commerce.
• Thames Gateway Investments Ltd.
• The Association of Residential Managing Agents Ltd.
• The Maltings TRTM Co. Ltd.
• The Robert Fothergill Hartley Sipp Ltd.


A couple of those appear to be no more than a group of residents who have come together to manage their own block of flats but most are companies in the normal sense of the word. Some no longer exist.

Why several Bexley councillors have a history of slipping into and out of directorships has always puzzled me. It’s almost as if Bexley Council is a club for failed businessmen.

They close companies down and then open another. If the first was a flop why restart one doing much the same thing? It doesn’t seem to be something regular citizens would do.

One of the things not included in the report on what Councillor Fothergill was supposed to have done to a vulnerable old lady was how much money she may have lost. Stupidly I didn’t take notes during a face to face meeting and afterwards (and nearly two weeks later) wasn’t sure I had heard the figure correctly.

Erith & Thamesmead UKIP’s Facebook page has not been so reticent…


Many hold out little hope on getting a just resolution to the numerous corrupt acts in Bexley (most recently a fraud disciplinary process which in fact should have been referred to the police of one of our councillors/estate agent and Gravesend resident who defrauded an elderly person out of hundreds of thousands of pounds).


My recollection is that the offer price was £250,000 although it should be remembered that my informants and perhaps UKIP’s too were not present during the Code of Conduct Sub-Committee meeting. It’s second hand information.

How it is that such a ‘crime’ results in no meaningful penalties is a question much easier to answer than any of the foregoing.

It’s because they all know where the skeletons are. All the bad councillors have something on the other bad councillors. There is Honour Among Thieves and “If I go down I’ll be taking you with me”.

 

Site map Cookie policyReturn to the top of this page