Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog October 2016

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018

10 October (Part 1) - Shifting the legal goalposts

Mr. Watson has asked me not to report on his Judicial Review application which seeks to declare Bexley Council’s decision to ban him from asking questions unlawful. His email account is blocked, however the following information reveals nothing that is not already in the public domain so I should be safe!

The current saga began when John Watson asked probing questions about the Maxine Fothergill affair and discovered that among other irregularities including the conduct of the disciplinary hearing there was not actually a written complaint against Councillor Fothergill as required by law. What the Code of Conduct Committee had was a statement written by a member of the Committee who was sitting in judgment on Maxine. Accuser, judge and jury.

The Independent Person representing you and me did not think there was any case to answer. Nevertheless a punishment was dished out which may or may not have been revenge for Councillor Fothergill reporting one of Teresa O’Neill’s favourites to the police for theft.

John Watson would have taken Bexley’s failure to observe the letter of the law to Judicial Review had he been legally able to do so, but he isn’t. Instead his case is confined to Chief Executive Gill Steward’s decision to cut him off from further contact with Bexley Council and does not refer to the Fothergill case at all.

Bexley Council, either because it seeks only to fight a battle which it would win on a point of law, or because it is incompetent, refuses to recognise John’s court action for what it is. A statement on Bexley’s website says that it is the Fothergill affair which is the subject of a Judicial Review. Totally wrong.
Code of Conduct

 

Return to the top of this page