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
Today’s Part 2 was going to dig deeply into new areas of AMAX
estates but as UKIP Bexley seems to have backed down and removed their website front
page which attempted to link Councillor Fothergill directly with Bexley
Council’s endemic but maybe historic corruption problem, I’m not sure I can be
bothered. I’ll just cover some easy bits.
What UKIP wrote about was not corruption, it was silliness. No, it was extreme nastiness. Blaming an innocent employee for one’s own ‘mistakes’ is more than silly but I doubt it is corruption in any legal or criminal sense.
It wasn’t corruption when Maxine Fothergill fibbed to Marriners Walk residents in 2015 either. Deception and distorting the facts is not corruption.
While Hayley Warnes was under arrest the police told AMAX not to release any ‘incriminating’ documents to the Marriner’s Walk Management Company Limited (MWMCL) .
Without them MWMCL was virtually paralysed and 14 householders were in the process of selling their houses.
Ray Robson, the surveyor, owned a flat in Marriner’s Walk (he still does) and was on the MWMCL Committee. He pleaded with the police to instruct AMAX to release some of the documents they held.
The police relented on 8th May 2015 and said
Although AMAX have been advised not to release documentation they feel is material evidence relevant to this investigation, this does not preclude them providing you with photocopies of any documentation which you might otherwise be entitled to.
Ray told Maxine Fothergill but she ignored him instead she wrote to all the Marriner’s Walk members on 19th May as follows
We have been told categorically not to hand over the files as they are the subject of a criminal investigation.
Ray Robson says he has still not been able to get hold of the files.
Most definitely not the corruption that UKIP Bexley saw but not what decent people do either.
This is the Apology that Councillor Fothergill’s solicitor demanded that UKIP place on their website. I have no idea why he sent a copy to me too.
Her solicitor doesn’t think that Councillor Fothergill uses her elected position for personal gain. He should have gone to Google instead of his law books.
Two years ago Bexley Council’s Code of Conduct Committee found Councillor Fothergill guilty of ‘abusing her position for personal gain’ or as they put it, “to confer an advantage for herself” so it could be argued that UKIP was wrong only in that they had linked their allegation to the wrong case.
Did the current case expose corruption?
Maybe not a lot but Maxine Fothergill’s 31st July 2014 email to Hayley Warnes (Hayley kept hold of everything about which she had misgivings) asks her “between you and I” to contrive that the timings of a quote for new water tanks would allow her own son to get the job at an advantageous price. Is that corruption? Looks a bit fishy to me, same as it did to Hayley.
UKIP is probably on safe ground if they refuse to apologise. Not only is it on the public record (Bexley Council’s website) that Councillor Fothergill has used her elected position for personal gain I have a business document which she signed as a Councillor. (I have mislaid the file but I know where the original document is.)
The current papers show that five different people representing five different housing developments wrote to Ray and Hayley lending support for their defamation claim and relating their own unwelcome experiences. There is also a handful of business professionals, brokers, insurance companies etc. who also expressed various doubts. UKIP Bexley could probably gather up a decent defence if pushed.
Councillor Fothergill has made a lot of bad judgment calls in this case. Getting her solicitor to threaten me when I had so many unpublished papers that would have remained unpublished was one of the worst.
I must get Ray Robson to explain to me again the significance of an allegedly ‘forged’ letter dated 19th January 2014 which he says was handwritten left handed by a right handed author. It might make a good blog if I can get my head around why it was written.