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
Journalists like to be spoon fed, they don’t have the time to wade through
reams of paper so this is a summary of the key points that led to Kent Police’s
perverse decision to refer Councillor Maxine Fothergill’s harassment complaint
to the Crown Prosecution Service. If you see the opportunity to direct
influential people to it please link to
http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2018/jan/0601.php.
• I first became aware that Councillor Fothergill had agreed to pay
libel damages to Hayley Warnes and Ray
Robson on 21st October 2017. There was no documentary evidence so nothing could
be reported on Bexley-is-Bonkers.
• The first hard evidence of a Court appearance came on 13th November when the case was
listed in the Queen’s Bench Division.
Later that day Councillor Fothergill rang me on my home phone, one of the very
few Councillors I had ever given the number. She asked that I meet up with her
with a copy of an email she believed Mr. Robson had sent me. At 21:05 the same evening
she emailed to ask that I delete that day’s blog which referred to the hearing due next day.
20 minutes later I replied that Mr. Robson’s email had been sent from Dehli and
was totally corrupt on arrival. I also told her that since the Court listing was
publicly available elsewhere there did not seem to be much point in removing it from Bonkers.
At 21:37 Councillor Fothergill emailed again requesting removal of the Court
listing. There were no more emails until 19th November, six days later.
• Following the Court hearing on 14th November neither of the two litigants
provided any information. Nothing was forthcoming apart from a comment by a
third party who was in Court. BiB put out
a
holding blog to that effect.
• The 15th November also failed to bring forth any hard information. Without
documentation to prove the case BiB will not publish anything. Instead it could
only put out another apologetic holding message. It debated the pros and cons of
publishing the news, the balance that must be struck between “troubling”
Councillor Fothergill and “not making her situation worse and [at the same time]
providing solid facts”.
• By late afternoon of 16th November the long awaited litigants’ Press Pack
arrived; it was huge though for reasons unknown failed to include a copy of the
principal libel. A blog was nevertheless prepared.
It began by saying that on balance BiB considered censoring the news was not
acceptable but it was essential everything must be backed by documentary evidence. A
letter from Councillor Fothergill alleging that “Hayley Warnes and Ray Robson had conspired to damage our
[Councillor Fothergill’s] business” was published. It was an important part of
the libel claim although perhaps not the biggest one.
• One of the most disturbing things about this case was that Kent Police were so
very enthusiastic about prosecuting Hayley Warnes on the false evidence provided
by Councillor Fothergill. When Ray Robson tried to warn Kent Police that they
were making a big mistake and provided evidence to that effect they warned Ray that
he might be charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.
The blog dated 17th November was devoted to criticising Kent Police who it
should be said eventually came to their senses. There was no criticism of
Councillor Fothergill in that blog.
• On 18th November 2017 BiB provided
details of the likely Court costs as estimated by the solicitor Mark Lewis.
• On 19th November 2017 I emailed Councillor Fothergill to tell her that I
had concluded the previous day that I regarded the story as complete and it was time to move on.
I stated that I did not believe I had ever suggested she was dishonest, apart from the libel itself
which she had agreed in Court was untruthful. “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?”
In a handful of days there had been three holding blogs which said almost nothing, one listing the
estimated Court costs, another criticising Kent police and just two which
addressed Councillor Fothergill’s libel directly - with supporting documentation where necessary.
Believe it or not I was sympathetic to Councillor Fothergill, she had probably
been abused by the Tory leadership and Bonkers had supported her. I had respected
her request that our meeting on 16th September 2016 be kept secret and the
secondary request not to be seen with her in the Council offices.
All correspondence to and from Councillor Fothergill was very civilised.
Councillor Fothergill replied by email later the same day to again ask for all
the blogs to be removed. She said if we met she would be able to tell me the truth of the matter.
She also suggested I had made something up. I provided the evidence that I had not.
I did not want to be further involved, the property business is complex and the
only thing of interest was the accuracy of the Court reporting. Except that
Councillor Fothergill’s Court agreed apology was
distributed at the end of the month the Fothergill story was finished.
Councillor Fothergill wanted to extend the public discussion
and defend herself with what she called the truth. I was determined
that the news item was ended. Her ‘truth’ had not been accepted in Court. The case had been reported accurately and it was in no one’s interest to carry on.
• It was with considerable surprise that on 8th December I opened a letter from
Councillor Fothergill’s solicitor which at first reading looked to be
threatening. However more careful study showed that not to be the case. It
merely asked for a link to UKIP Bexley’s website to be removed. In the
solicitor’s opinion UKIP’s site was libellous, Bexley is Bonkers was not. The
solicitor recognised that BiB had practiced simple news reporting, It would
appear that Kent Police believes that to be criminal.
• Because Councillor Fothergill had reopened the subject of the dubious behaviour
that had led to the libel claim Bexley is Bonkers posted another blog on
9th December,
10th December and
11th December.
They were not entirely complimentary but nevertheless argued
that contrary to UKIP’s assertions Councillor Fothergill had been foolish, not corrupt.
• On 12th December the subject was closed down for the second time despite a good
deal of unflattering material remaining unpublished.
• Councillor Fothergill chose to go to the police. A month after rejecting BiB’s
first offer to close the subject down.
• It is probable that Councillor Fothergill is attempting to include the reports
of her guilty verdict by the Code of Conduct Committee in 2015. However each of
the reports has long been prefixed by a notice that makes it clear that she was the
unfortunate victim in that case.
The compromise arrangement instituted on BiB’s initiative in the late Summer of 2016
was formally agreed with Councillor Fothergill at a clandestine meeting - where
I bought all the drinks! - on 16th September 2017.
With minor clarifications it (see below) has been there ever since without complaint.
Suddenly it becomes harassment!
The
blog below is one of several relating to Bexley Councillor Maxine Fothergill and
Bexley Council’s Code of Conduct Committee. This
note aims to make it clear that the events reported between December 2015 and
the Summer of 2016 whilst accurate reflections of various events, disciplinary hearings and sanctions
brought against Councillor Fothergill they are individually insufficient to explain the whole story.
Two members of the Bexley-is-Bonkers team met with Councillor Fothergill at a
secret location on 16th September 2016 where she explained to us what had really happened. She was able to
convince us that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
There were compelling reasons why Councillor Fothergill should be believed. It seemed likely that
the Tory High Command in Bexley had taken revenge on her because Councillor
Fothergill had reported one of their associates to the police for theft.
Councillor Fothergill requested that the explanatory note prefixed to relevant blogs (which first went on line a few days earlier) be further
strengthened so that readers are fully aware that reported events, whilst
accurate at the time, did not reflect her innocence and that Bexley Council’s charge
of misconduct and “gaining a financial advantage for herself” was malicious.
This is a modified version of the note Councillor Fothergill asked to be placed here.