It still feels a little uncomfortable to be providing these revelations about
a Councillor who has done me no harm. Up until now all but one of the
Bexley Councillors taken on by BiB have attacked me personally, two of them wanting to see me behind bars.
Can pursuing a Councillor who has seriously wronged a member of the public who does not live in Bexley and who I have never met be justified? After sitting on the fence for a while I made a decision when a solicitor’s slightly threatening letter dropped into my Inbox. Don’t forget that Hayley Warnes suffered the stress of an eleven month arrest without any evidence against her. Kent police appear to be just as prepared to accept the unsubstantiated word of a name preceded by ‘Councillor’ as Bexley’s are.
Councillor Fothergill could have withdrawn her fraud allegations at any time but didn’t. That in my view is despicable.
Arguably John Kerlen set a precedent so the Fothergill revelations will continue. Councillors must be made to realise that there are standards to be maintained.
One of the estates of flats that Councillor Fothergill used to manage was called Chandlers’ Wharf but its management committee took their business away from AMAX estates seeking a better deal elsewhere.
Whether the new block management team was better than AMAX or not doesn’t really matter but AMAX was keen to get the contract back.
It may have helped their cause when someone at Chandlers’ Wharf thought the new block managers were not much good and circulated a hand written letter to all the residents there - anonymously.
Click to read all of the letter.
Why would someone do that anonymously?
The answer is that it would not look too good if the letter was signed by Maxine Fothergill.
The letter writer stepped forward in support of Hayley Warnes with an almost incredible story. She was a right handed Amax employee compelled to use her left hand (to ensure the source would never be known) and take dictation from you know who.
Do you think that can be true? Ray Robson the surveyor must be sure it is because he included the story in the dossier he sent to at least four newspapers.
If it is true it may once again fall short of corruption but the business ethics on display are dubious to say the very least.