any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog January 2016

Index: 20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019

There is no criticism of Councillor Maxine Fothergill in this blog.

11 January - A transparency request. Naive or not? Time will tell

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.

As you may have guessed, I have been away. If I had not been there might still have been no blog because apart from the Maxine Fothergill business there is nothing much going on. It would be possible to bring a new Freedom of Information request to your notice every day into the middle of next week but that may become monotonous. I suspect that one or two will be enough.

To me the interesting thing will be how Bexley Council chooses to refuse to answer every enquiry. Every refusal will further emphasise their reputation for being the most secretive and dishonest council in London. No other has a record like theirs.

One of the things I pondered last week was how Bexley Council could have been brought into disrepute by an event the public knew nothing about. A bit like the old conundrum, ‘if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound?’

Bexley village resident Mr. Elwyn Bryant decided to test it out with a simple letter…

Dear Mr. Akin Alabi,
Having read the minutes of the Members’ Code of Conduct Sub-Committee meeting held on 10th December 2015, I find myself somewhat confused by Paragraphs 3(1) and 3(8) which states that I, as a member of the public, could have certain perceptions about actions taken by Councillor Fothergill.

I must put this question to you Mr. Alabi. How can I have perceptions on actions that I know nothing about?

Will you please forward to me by email full details of the actions that Councillor Fothergill took that caused her to be accused of Misconduct and found guilty of breaching the Code of Conduct.

I wish to emphasize that I am not requesting names of any other individuals that may have been involved in the allegation and actions of Councillor Fothergill in this particular case. In granting my request I am sure you will agree it will make the situation much more transparent.

Yours sincerely,

Transparency? I think that is the last thing that Bexley Council will want and probably Mr. Alabi (Head of Legal Services) will have to do what the Committee Chairman Councillor Cheryl Bacon tells him to do, just as former Chief Executive Will Tuckley was forced to support her fantasies the last time she made a big mess as a chairman. And look where that took him? (A criminal investigation - for those who may have been away enjoying Life on Mars.)

Without transparency the rumours will spread. One that reached me says that the old lady who wanted to finance sheltered accommodation from the proceeds of a house sale is having part of the bill paid by Bexley council. The other says the complainant was bunged a large sum of money to keep his mouth shut. I very much doubt the former but gagging clauses are a tactic which Bexley insiders claim has been used before.


Return to the top of this page