I couldn’t possibly claim to have daily contact with Councillors and MPs but
it is very far from being unknown. Yesterday there were two - one of each - but
they are generally not reported. Firstly they are not news and even if they were,
tittle-tattling the contents here would probably ensure I didn’t get any more.
However I am going to make an exception for Councillor Fothergill. Now that the Kent Police has decided to send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service for reporting her lost libel case I no longer consider that I owe her any favours.
Yesterday I quoted from an email I sent to her three days after the first libel document was posted on Bonkers to assure her that no more was planned. She found that to be unsatisfactory, nothing less than complete withdrawal would do.
I stuck to my original plan to do no more but resisted retrospective censoring of news; that I believe is why Councillor Fothergill has retaliated. As you will see if you read on, nothing short of complete censorship will make her happy.
By revealing the Fothergill emails you - and the CPS? - may be able to judge who was harassing who.
Going back two years Councillor Fothergill pestered me into a meeting to allow her to explain how she was the innocent victim of Bexley’s Code of Conduct Committee. She succeeded and BiB has reflected her innocence ever since.
I did not want to be drawn into such a dispute again, the only subject of current interest was the agreement made in the High Court following the lost libel case and the accurate reporting thereof. A rerun of the police’s investigation into Hayley Warne and the High Court libel case is well outside my level of competence. The Judge had done that.
The first official confirmation that Councillor Fothergill - or her legal representative - was due in Court was the listing which the Court published on line. It was reproduced here on the same day, 13th November 2017.
Within hours of it being placed on BiB Councillor Fothergill was on to me by phone to tell me that she had again been a victim of an injustice. She followed up with this email
21:05 November 2017
Re our conversation, as you are aware the business with me formally employing Hayley Warnes and fraud we are aware she committed which the police in the end would not prosecute due to her being a pregnant single mother, has caused me nothing but pain with my health, recent diverticulitis due to stress and the loss of massive amounts of business.
As I discussed with you, the litigation case settlement was a commercial decision made by my PI insurers after 2 barristers reporting to my insurers that if the case went to full trial the cost would be in excess of £1.5m and for this reason it is very rare for litigation cases to ever go to full trial these days.
As you are aware the information passed to you has nothing to do with my position as a ward councillor. I therefore please ask if you can kindly remove your recent tweets and blog about me as I really can’t stand the stress anymore and am at my wits end of this.
Thank you in advance for you agreeing to send me the information you received from Hayley Warnes and Ray Robson on Saturday, as mentioned this information is very important as my solicitor and PI insurers need to be aware ASAP.
I look forward to hearing from you.
As explained elsewhere I did not have an email from Ray Robson because it was part of an attachment which failed to transmit. It took a further three days to reach me.
I asked Mr. Robson for comment on Councillor Fothergill’s email which said that Hayley Warnes had committed fraud and the police dropped the charges against her, not because she was innocent, but because she was pregnant.
Ray showed the email to his solicitor before the next day’s Court hearing and unsurprisingly Mark Lewis said that Councillor Fothergill was repeating the original libel. A libel that Fothergill had admitted in Court.
I was not unsympathetic to towards Councillor Fothergill as is implied by the use of first names and that we know each others home phone numbers and because of that sympathetic view there was no intention to overdo the Court reporting although the complexity of it might require it to be stretched over several days - three as it turned out.
I replied as follows.
21:25 13th November 2017
My further examination of the emails received from Ray Robson at the weekend suggest that they are corrupted in some way and must be incomplete.
I called Ray to voice my concerns or more accurately puzzlement.
He explained to me that he sent them from India and what I have is not what he intended me to have. Far from complete apparently. He is going to resend his emails now that he is back in the UK.
The Court listing is in the public domain and I do not see what advantage there is to removing it from one website when it is visible on another. As I understand it the press both local and national are aware of the listing. The Bexley interest will come from there being so many of your tenants within the borough.
There were three more emails over following days culminating in one in which Councillor Fothergill said she was not happy with my decision to not post any more information about her libel case, nothing short of total withdrawal of the news reports would be good enough.
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.
You cannot censor the news because a Councillor has been friendly in the past or because you have grown to like them. I once reported that I thought something Councillor Danny Hackett said in the Council chamber was among the silliest things I had ever heard there. It was a difficult decision to take but this is not a Labour Party blog and if/when they ever gain power in Bexley I suspect they will come in for regular criticism.
Danny still talks to me. He knows the meaning of democracy and supports electors who may not see eye to eye with him politically.