any day today rss twitter

Bonkers Blog January 2018

Index: 20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019

8 January (Part 2) - The email trail, part three

Apologies for pushing another of these ‘defence stories’ on you so soon after the last one but there are reasons. One of them is that I am due to be interviewed by a newspaper reporter later today and I want to be able to refer him to as much relevant data as possible.

Councillor Maxine Fothergill’s state of mind was giving me cause for concern; her phone calls were not pleasant to hear and I found myself using the phrase “in a state of denial” because of her emails protesting her innocence of libel. Why on earth was she wanting to extend my news reporting by introducing new documents which she had either not shown the Court or which had failed to convince them?

Such was my concern that I sought out Councillor June Slaughter at a Council meeting; I forget which one but it was just after I had drawn the libel news reports to an end.

Councillor Slaughter had been Councillor Fothergill’s friend and adviser at the Code of Conduct hearing two years earlier and I told June that Councillor Fothergill was in dire need of a good friend. Was she being supported I asked because I feared she might do something silly. In my opinion her state of mind did not entirely rule out some sort of self harm and I asked Councillor Slaughter to look out for her.

Mrs. Slaughter told me that Councillor Fothergill had not told her anything about a libel case and she had not read the blog for a few days so was unaware of the situation. She said she would look into it and presumably step in to help if she could.

I think I may not be very good at this harassment lark.

I had a similar discussion with one of Councillor Fothergill’s business associates but found that his compassion pot had run completely dry. After seeing three associates arrested by Kent Police on false evidence he showed no sign of any sympathy whatever.

The last email I had received from Councillor Fothergill was in the early hours of 19th November when she was offering me more documents for publication so that her innocence could be established. They weren’t going to overturn the Court decision so what was the point? I had already decided that the story which had begun with the first documentary evidence on 16th November had run its course and wrote to Councillor Fothergill to tell her so.

12:38 19th November 2017


I made up my mind yesterday that I am not going any further with this one, at least for now.

I have up until now only used documents which are, in the widest sense perhaps, already in the public domain.

Letters that you sent to several people and documents that would be known of or available to anyone who attended the Court hearings.

I don’t believe I have strayed into suggesting dishonesty much beyond the libel where by definition you failed to convince a Court – and separately the police – that what you had said was accurate.

I have re-read what has been said on BiB and would ask you to do the same and I do not believe it goes beyond saying that you were accused of libel, you lost, and here’s the proof.

Other documents are available to me which you probably would not want to be made public and they would require some explanation if they were. My inclination at the moment is not to go there.

As you rightly pointed out on the phone I have a historic grudge against Teresa O’Neill and some of her closest friends for what they have attempted to do to me (have me arrested) but not you or your business interests.

T O’N always seems to escape from personal responsibilities because she has others available to do her dirty work and I would agree that that is sometimes unfair to individuals. Undermining the Council more generally is usually the only course available to me.

As my political inclinations are basically the same as hers T O’N has been stupid to encourage the present situation but that is a whole new subject.

The documents produced in Court represent Phase I on BiB and Phase II can be put on hold unless the newspapers go further than I have. The bundle sent to me has gone to several newspapers and if the story breaks there BiB may be the least of your troubles.

You said you have a document which proves that Hayley was guilty of fraud as you have asserted from the outset. You surely must have argued that case to the police and the Court and they have rejected it. If I see it and find fault in it will that not just make your situation worse?

I have come to the conclusion that it would be in your interests for us not to meet.

You wish to convince me of your innocence when you failed with the police and the Court and at this point in time BiB has not made a judgment on that one way or another, all it has done is report the findings of the Court.

If I was to protest your innocence contrary to the findings of the police and Court (as I did with the Code of Conduct business) I would consider it essential to use the documents that I have so far chosen not to for balance.

At the present time there is no need for balance because all that has been done is to refer to documents.

Do you really want to take that path when screenshots of some of your mobile phone comments which I have would do your case no good at all?

I really do think it is time to pause if not stop reporting. One of your emails to me was probably in itself libellous bearing in mind the Court ruling.

Best probably to draw a line don’t you think?

If you really want to meet someone maybe you could meet with John Watson again. We are not in close contact – I do not even have his phone number – but he may lend you a friendly ear.

Thank you for the attachment, it was included in the bundle sent to me and I excluded all but Page 1 because, well I am not sure, maybe its importance didn’t register with me in the way it should.

I will make the obvious correction.



So as you will see I argued that it was in everyone’s best interests if the news reports ceased. Extending them to cover a fight back by Councillor Fothergill would get far too messy and still not overturn the libel damages. There was simply no point. I had factually recorded the news and where Councillor Fothergill felt the report was inadequate I modified it for her.

My harassment skills are obviously severely limited. I wanted to drop the subject, Councillor Fothergill wanted to extend it. She was back the same evening with another email…

21:31 19th November 2017

Hello Malcolm

Thank you for your email but I’m afraid putting up these blogs without hearing and seeing the true facts has already had a massive impact to my business which I have only just found out about via an email received by one of my staff today where it very much sounds as if your blogs are likely to end up losing us a contact. (Just Google my name.)

I have read what you have put up on your site today and this does not help me as you have still left all the adverse and historical information on your site for all the world to see.

I stated previously I am happy to meet you to give the full facts and show you my proof and evidence to back up my claims, yes I did put out 2 letters without checking as I had to inform my clients we had discovered potential fraud as I had a mortal duty to do this and contrary to your believe, It is a proven fact fraud was found to have been committed and the only reason the police did not prosecute was due to the cost to the public purse which was likely to be over £100k

Re your comments on 17th November where you published the following blog:-
“When the police officer who arrested Hayley Warnes and kept her in suspense for eleven months heard that she had won her claim for damages against her former employer Councillor Maxine Fothergill he sent a brief email congratulating both her and surveyor Ray Robson on “a pretty good result” and said that except that it was frowned upon by Kent Police he would have “used a smiley face”.

Do you seriously believe a police officer would email your informants to say well done, good result! This shows the integrity of your informants!

My offer still stands to meet you on Tuesday and I’m sure if asked John Watson would happily join us. Johns phone number is 07973 xxxxxx.

Anyway regardless of your choice to meet up or not, I am now asking you nicely to please remove all blogs you have written about me since 2015 due to the damage you are causing me personally as well as to my business and my staff.

It may be a bit of a sport to you but it’s has had a long term detrimental effect on my life, my health, my family’s life, my business which I have run for over 15 years without any problems previously and on my staff (I had to make 5 staff redundant last year due to losing business from adverse publicity you published and now it seems history is likely to be repeating itself imminently), and don’t forgot what you put on your blog is out there on the WWW forever unless removed but still serves to cause troubles all the time it remains live as this information can be printed and kept! And please remember with the rise of social media, winning business is no longer about form filling as most companies look at who are they intending to do business with via the interview and google searches before interviews are even made!

I await your urgent reply


Maxine Fothergill

As you will see Councillor Fothergill was still arguing that a meeting would convince me that Hayley Warnes had indeed committed fraud. I was not prepared to extend the blogs by opening that can of worms. Reporting the libel damages and providing the necessary support documents was quite complicated enough for me but contrary to her current harassment allegation, Councillor Fothergill appeared to be goading me into publishing more. Her preferred solution of censoring the news totally was simply not acceptable.

You will also have noted that I stood accused of publishing a lie about a Kent Police officer. I replied as follows…

11:09 20th November 2017


I am disappointed that you think I would publish something that I am not absolutely sure of.

The comment from the police officer is an extract from his email timed at 08:26 on 16th November 2017.

I was in Ray Robson’s office shortly after it arrived on a visit I requested because I wanted to see for myself the documents to which he had been referring. Ray allowed me to see and take copies of everything that I felt to be relevant at that time. Reading the documents provoked further questions and Ray has since sent me more documents in response to those questions.

I do not expect to use them but it was essential that I fully understand what took place and be confident of being accurate. It has not been necessary to take sides, the Court documents revealed so far speak for themselves.

I shall avoid any grey areas that arise due to my lack of understanding of the property business. As I said, I currently do not see any need to go much further at all.

The police email was fresh on Ray’s computer and he showed it to me. I insisted on taking a printed copy.

I have always been cautious about accepting any assurance until I see it in black and white. Phil Pead as he signed himself (no rank prefix) appears to be on good terms with Ray.

You have clearly alleged that Ray told me porkies about the police email and it reflects badly on his integrity – and by inference mine for being suckered by him.

I think Ray may have been surprised by the email but it most certainly exists and if anyone’s integrity is being questioned it isn’t Ray Robson’s.


Councillor Fothergill sent me two more emails but I had decided that no more libel news should be published. I did not open either of the two emails as I was concerned that my patience might snap and be tempted into reopening the subject. Those two emails remain unopened to this day.

Meanwhile Ray Robson continues to send me right up to the early hours of this morning more and more documents that back his case. They are interesting but I am not going to publish them either.

You may not have noticed that at no time did I publish any photograph of Councillor Fothergill. BiB is usually well illustrated but in this case I made the decision to report the news and keep the subject as anonymous as possible in the circumstances.

How can it be harassment when it was always me who was looking to keep things strictly to the point and Councillor Fothergill who was encouraging extension into new areas?

Do her many attempts to persuade me that I should rewrite history in her favour and then the solicitor's letter and the criminal allegation constitute harassment by Councillor Maxine Fothergill?


Return to the top of this page