Banner
underlay

plinth

m a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 any day today rss facebook twitter clear clear
Sainsbury's sell melted ice-cream

Bonkers Blog May 2016

Index: 2011201220132014201520162017

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

Sidcup Place

24 May (Part 1) - Another long winded quest for the truth

The following blog relates to unspecified allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill for which Bexley Council found her guilty of obtaining a perceived financial advantage for herself (not an actual one you will note) and bringing Bexley Council into disrepute.
Over time it became apparent, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that the case against Maxine Fothergill was in every respect a dishonest attempt to pervert the course of justice. A wholly fabricated allegation without any foundation whatsoever which circumstantial evidence suggests was instituted by Council Leader Teresa O’Neill in connivance with Councillor Cheryl Bacon, already on record with supporting documentation of being a serial liar. Bacon is Chairman of Bexley’s Code of Conduct Committee and currently being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service for a charge of Misconduct in Public Office.
The motive was almost certainly revenge for Councillor Fothergill’s refusal to overlook criminal activity within the Conservative Party which the Leader had decided to cover up.
No one made a written complaint against Councillor Fothergill, it was manufactured by Bexley Council. There have been reports that the complaint was the work of a member of the Code of Conduct Committee which heard and judged the case against Councillor Fothergill.
Bexley Council has refused to reveal any information that would indicate that Maxine Fothergill committed any sort of ‘offence’ beyond conducting her property business in a perfectly normal manner. Those who have questioned the Council’s abuse of the law have been banned from making any further contact. The action of an organisation with dark secrets to hide.
All the circumstantial evidence points to Bexley’s corrupt Council continuing an unjustified vendetta against Councillor Fothergill.
The following blog has been retained because it contains none of the allegations against Councillor Fothergill which later proved to be entirely false. Other blogs which suggest otherwise have been withdrawn.

A big thank you to the various senders of support with the ongoing battle against the corruption endemic in Bexley Council and the Metropolitan Police. I dearly wish I could reveal some of the information that trickles down to me from the Daniel Morgan Panel. If that ever gets into the mainstream media it will blow the Metropolitan Police apart. Hillsborough is nothing by comparison.

I rather liked the Facebook comment; “Time to get the popcorn out”. It’s true that for most of the time BiB rumbles on with a succession of B movies and then just as I despair of finding something more long running, along comes Bexley Council in some shape or other and produces a Blockbuster. The last one concerned Councillor Fothergill and her conviction by Bexley’s Code of Conduct Committee of bringing the Council into disrepute. (Links to Council website.) The case, rather than the Councillor, shows every sign of doing just that.

Since Councillor Cheryl Bacon (still with the CPS for alleged Misconduct in a Public Office) chaired that infamous Code of Conduct Committee meeting on 10th December and found Councillor Fothergill guilty of obtaining a financial advantage, a number of people have tried to get at the truth. Michael Barnbrook asked 14, I think it was, questions and learned almost nothing.

Bexley Council never has been happy with the concept of residents knowing the truth about how it operates so most enquirers have been fobbed off, given up asking and fallen by the wayside - but not John Watson.

WatsonMr. Watson’s case revolves largely around his assertion that Mr. Akin Not A Proper Solicitor Alabi, Bexley’s Head of Legal has confirmed to him that there was no legitimate complaint against Councillor Fothergill. Nothing was in writing. If Mr. Watson has sent me the proof of that I cannot find it.

Having perhaps got a little too close to the truth for Bexley Council’s liking, the Acting Chief Executive Paul Moore said he was closing down the correspondence and if Mr. Watson wrote to him again he would be declared vexatious.

Mr. Watson was not deterred and appears to be going for Bexley Council’s jugular. Someone has to try to bring these criminals to account, obviously you cannot rely on a subservient police force to do it.

His letter, sent by email and displayed here in a format more suitable for the web, sums up the present situation and sets out what is likely to happen next.


THE QUEEN V LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY


Unsatisfactory conduct

• With further reference to your email of last Friday 13th May 2016, I have to say I am very disappointed at its contents.
• Having now carefully considered the contents of that email, I am wondering whether it was in fact drafted by you because it appears to me to be written in the writing style of Lynn Tyler.


Accountability

• However, at the end of the day, what you say is in black and white and it has been sent and signed by you. Thus you are personally accountable for all the untrue, misleading statements and the serious misrepresentations your email under reply contains.
• I am concerned that your email is infested with such diversionary, irrelevant statements and subterfuge.
• This is not an acceptable reply by a public servant who is being paid from public funds and in your case, very handsomely paid, at the rate of £133,000 odd pounds a year.
• It cannot be right for a public servant to write to a member of the public, from which public you are obtaining your salary, and make untrue and misleading statements and serious misrepresentations in order to avoid properly replying to correspondence.
• It appears to me your email has all the hallmarks of what is known in the vernacular as ‘a Cover-up’.
• Nevertheless, I need to press on with Judicial Review matters but I can assure you I will be addressing in detail all the untrue, misleading statements, the serious misrepresentations and the threats you make to deprive me of my human rights in your email under reply.


Summary of Bexley Council’s current position.

• You know that the only way you can obtain power to deal with allegations against Councillors is by complying with section 28 (9) of The Localism Act 2011.
• You know that section 28 (9) of The Localism Act 2011 specifically provides that allegations against Councillors must be made in writing.
• You know that no such written allegations were made by the alleged elderly lady Complainant.
• You know that without properly laid allegations under section 28 (9) of The Localism Act 2011 you have no powers to pursue allegations against Councillors.
• You know that if you act beyond your statutory powers you are acting illegally and/or unlawfully which provides a cause of action.
• You know that you have admitted that the allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill were not made in writing by the alleged elderly lady Complainant.
• You know that you have admitted that the allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill were not made by the alleged elderly lady Complainant.


Rule 2.1 of The Procedure for Dealing With Complaints Pursuant to The Members’ Code of Conduct

• You know that the only way the Members' Code of Conduct Complaints Sub-Committee can obtain power to deal with allegations against Councillors is by there being full compliance with Rule 2.1 of The Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Pursuant to The Members’ Code of Conduct.
• You know that Rule 2.1 of The Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Pursuant to The Members’ Code of Conduct specifically requires that “A complaint should be made in writing, by letter or email, to the Monitoring Officer…”
• You know that no such written complaint was made by the alleged elderly lady Complainant.
• You know that Rule 2.1 of The Procedure for Dealing With Complaints Pursuant to The Members’ Code of Conduct specifically requires that “A complaint should be made in writing, by letter or email, to the Monitoring Officer within 7 days of the alleged breach(es) of the Members’ Code of Conduct”.
• You know that no complaint was made by the alleged elderly lady Complainant against Councillor Maxine Fothergill “…within 7 days of the alleged breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct”.
• You know you have admitted that the allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill were not made in writing as required by Rule 2.1 of The Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Pursuant to The Members’ Code of Conduct.
• You know you have admitted that the allegations against Councillor Maxine Fothergill were not made “..within 7 days of the alleged breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct”.
• You know that if the Members' Code of Conduct Complaints Sub-Committee acts contrary to Rule 2.1 of The Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Pursuant to The Members’ Code of Conduct it is acting illegally and/or unlawfully which provides a cause of action.
• You know I have tried to meet with you at least four times to seek ways of resolving these issues but you have repeatedly refused to do so.
• You know you have sought to justify your unfair, unreasonable, illogical and unlawful conduct by writing to me in Alice in Wonderland language and refusing to treat my correspondence with respect.


What I state above shows you to be acting in a way that is unfair, unreasonable, illogical and beyond your powers. I now anticipate that the conduct of Bexley Council that I refer to above will form the basis of my Judicial Review claim.

As the person with ultimately responsible for the Members' Code of Conduct Committee and the Members' Code of Conduct Complaints Sub-Committee, will you please let me know to what extent you were personally involved in connection with the prosecution of Councillor Maxine Fothergill. For example, were any matters referred to you in connection with her prosecution and, if so, what were those matters.

I believe there is still a possibility that the situation you are in could be resolved by our meeting for this purpose and I would again ask you to reconsider doing so after you have reflected on your position as set out above. If I do not hear from you within 7 days with your proposals in this regard, I will assume you are still refusing to have a meeting.

John Watson


Index to related blogs.

 

Home page Site mapMenu mapContact us
Join Bonkers on TwitterCookie policyReturn to the top of this page