Saturday, 2 March 2013

The Sandy Ezekiel fraud verdict and sentence initial thoughts.

 The key here is that the ex leader of Thanet District Council and the ex Conservative group leader has been found guilty of fraud and his co-defendant found guilty for aiding and abetting fraud.

The Gazette’s lead article says there will be further investigations by the police, see http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/net-widens-Thanet-wake-Ezekiel-trial/story-18287724-detail/story.html#axzz2MIC7nb7n I take this to mean that we can expect the exposure of more fraud within the council. 
 Personally I don’t think the sentence is appropriate, I don’t want to have to contribute towards the fifty grand cost of locking him up when he doesn’t present a physical threat to members of society.

I would much rather see him pay a substantial fine, and this money invested in local projects, say here in Ramsgate something to redress economic decline caused by all main council owned properties becoming derelict. Obviously I would add to this I wouldn’t want him to hold public office of any sort ever again, but would think this is a forgone conclusion. 
 In the past enquires to councillors about why this and that had happened that seemed detrimental to Thanet, produced answers varying from council incompetence to spite from a Conservative administration to a town with predominantly Labour councillors. Now we have to consider the possibility that there may have also been some aspect of fraud, where members gained financially from this state of affairs.

This post is a bit of a work in progress, partly because unlike others I was surprised by both the verdict and the sentence and partly because my bookshop is very busy today. The illustrations come from a book published in 1828 by W H Ireland. Ireland is most famous for producing fake Shakespeares of his own authorship. More book details at http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/kent_s_topographer__a_new___complete_history_of_the_isle_of_thanet_from_the_earl.htm

One aspect of this is how to deal with existing problems and council liabilities relating to the period where our council was run by someone who we now know was a criminal.

I will use Pleasurama as an example here, only because it is the local issue that I am most familiar with, over the years of dealing with this issue there have been times where decisions seemed to defy common sense.

The most notable one under Cllr Ezekiel’s leadership was the 2009 cabinet decision to continue with SFP as a developer, this was made against officer advice and took the council from a position of having little or no liability in terms of litigation from SFP to the situation where officers now say that there is a very real risk of SFP suing the council for millions if they try to pull out.

I have considerable correspondence with various officers and councillors relating to this decision, but no real answer as to why they went ahead when the secret documents look dubious.    







The pictures below relate to a comment






115 comments:

  1. I have to agree with you regarding the sentence, although three months or more was necessary to disbar him from holding public office. I would have preferred the three months plus a hefty fine plus community service in Thanet plus proceeds of criminal action confiscation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He should be locked up for ten years, nasty nasty man!

      Delete
    2. Anon presumably then you would be prepared to make some sort of contribution to this, personally as taxpayer I wouldn't want and can't afford to contribute to the half a million pounds or so this would cost.

      Delete
    3. Is it any wonder that the Thanet Conservative's shadow Cabinet have allowed the homophobic hate criminal Gregory and the Drunk Driver Tomlinson to remain members of their council group, after all these are the same people that served under the convicted criminal leader Sandy Ezekiel... this is why they have such a repugnant value system

      Delete
    4. Roger 'Guyz & Gals' OBE Latchford now has a lot of questions to answer!

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 6:23pm

      Since when has being a "nasty man" a crime. There are some who may well consider you a nasty man. Should you therefore be locked up?

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 2:09PM,

      And Perchance do you have a lot of questions to answer and is this the reason you hide behind the skirts of anonymity.

      Delete
  2. According to the KM report he will return to court on June 7 for a confiscation hearing. The prosecution will decide within seven days whether such proceedings will also be held in respect of Emanuel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The trouble with fines is that the poorer you are then the harsher it is. At least locking people up is equal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it is not, Peter. I have known well to do villains sail through their prison terms whilst their nearest and dearest continue to live in luxury. The dependents of the incarcerated poor are left to manage on benefit handouts so it is far from equal. In any event, judges invariably take ability to pay into account when awarding fines.

      Delete
    2. OK, point taken Tom. But no person convicted of major financial wrong-doings should get away with just a fine. I know he hasn't been charged or even officially accused of other crimes (yet), but there can't be many people - police & judge included - who doesn't believe he's done similar things in the past.

      Now, where's the comdemnation of his crime from Moores, Wells, etc?

      Delete
    3. I agree with Tom, if the person convicted is a Conservative Councillor supported by a senile MP, he should only get a fine. But all the lower class scum should get locked up!

      Delete
    4. Anon, I never said he should not be locked up, but was responding to Peter's statement that prison is equal for all. Similarly I do not share your opinion of the lower classes being scum. What an obnoxiously unpleasant person you must be.

      Delete
    5. Tom I genuinely think that criminals who engage in fraud and other non physically intrusive or violent crimes shouldn’t be locked up, but they should be given the choice of paying back the community or being locked up. Confiscate their assets by all means, but using money raised by taxation to pay for incarcerating people should only be done where those people represent a physical danger to others or themselves.

      Delete
    6. This isn't just a punishment for him, but a deterrent to others..

      Delete
    7. If the Judge agreed to let Sandy out every month to attend meetings, in order to vote with Bob Bayford, I am sure that Blobby Bobby would let him back in to the group. He could sit on the same bench as the drunk driver of hate mail criminal

      Delete
    8. See you noticed the missing full stop as well, Peter. He does try poor dear but so recognisable.

      Delete
  4. It's great news. At last, the arrogant councillors and officers can see that they cannot do just as they please.

    My initial thoughts revolve around the responsibilities of other people. We now know that Ezekiel was involved in the Pleasurama renegotiation and that this has turned out to be a disaster; not least because the council of which he was Leader failed to check the financials. We know that this was reported to the Council but that it was put on pink paper. It looks as though the decision to put it on pink paper had nothing to do with commercial confidentiality and everything to do with "protecting the Council's interests." We know that anyone who was a councillor in 2009 knew about this but that they ALL decided that the public weren't entitled to know what had gone on.

    In the light of Ezekiel's conviction I wonder how shamefaced these councillors now feel. If any one of them had taken it upon themselves to speak out it seems entirely possible that Ezekiel would have been brought to heel and would not then have been in a position to commit fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with anon. I am a councillor and I tried to publish pink papers on my blog site only to be threatened by the Council with legal action. So much for accountability and transparency in public life

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you not have the balls to name the people in whose direction you sling mud Driver? You published, and went to great lengths to tell everyone you would be, simply so TDC would stop you, and you could try to promote yourself as a result, as has proved to be the case!

      Name the names if you can prove your case, put up or shut up Driver.

      Delete
    2. "So much for accountability and transparency in public life"

      Why do you not allow uncensored posting on your blog Driver, is it simply rank hypocrisy, or do you have something to hide from being challenged by the electorate?

      Delete
    3. What are these pink papers that I often see mentioned: are they a gay equality thing?

      Delete
  6. Are you really a councillor, Ian Driver? I am really impressed, you must be very important

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike myself, I should add.

      Delete
  7. Disagree about the sentencing. Ezekiel held high public office and abused that position - a clear message needs to be sent out to those who take on such responsibility that the community will not tolerate this kind of behaviour. The same principle applies to police officers and others who hold public office.

    Society has to be able to trust Councillors to make decisions without favour or self-interest and I believe the sentence is completely appropriate.

    Of even greater concern is the fact that highly respected people (Roger Gale/Frank Thorley) seemed to be so keen to speak up on behalf of an individual who had clearly committed a serious offence of fraud. I suspect many people will not actually view the actions of Ezekiel as 'immoral' although they may agree that technically it was 'illegal' - and many of those such people will be councillors

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know all that for certain do you, 6:34? As for people giving evidence to character at a trial, the defence would not call people who thought you were a bounder, would they? It could also be argued that at the time such evidence was given, he had not been convicted and was, therefore, still innocent under our law.

      I wonder if you would be so quick to condemn if it was a Labour councillor in the dock and spoken highly of by his friends. Somehow I doubt it.

      Delete
    2. He wasn't found guilty of fraud, that charge was dropped. But what about the bankers and the Government that defrauded us all, put people out of work and closed businesses, yet still manage to make a loss and receive bonuses for doing so?

      Delete
    3. Anon I won’t bore you with the legal details here, just ask you to consider that his co-defendant was found guilty of aiding and abetting fraud, I guess you can work it out from there.

      Delete
    4. Michael, I won't bore you with facts but his co-defendant was found guilty of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office. I was at court.

      Delete
    5. Anon I bow to your superior knowledge, but. Yes. In this instance, while I wouldn’t want to put you to too much trouble, as you were there, please bore us with the facts.

      Delete
    6. anonymouse 10:36am,

      According to the News Michael is correct. By the way, I'm sad to learn that you were also in court - did the Judge go lenient on you?

      Delete
  8. Yes Peter Dillion we do know who spoke up for Ezekiel, it was reported in the local press and on the excellent twitter feed from MargateAchitecture. From the local thisiskent article:

    "Thanet North MP Sir Roger Gale led the tributes with businessmen Frank Thorley of Thorley Taverns and Ken Wills of China Gateway International giving glowing references to the court."

    Or if you prefer a more colourful version take a look at EastCliffRichards blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with the comments that Ezekiel shouldnt have got away with it if other Tories had any backbone and stood up for what was right? Think there are some more skeletons in the cupboard to come out ...Bradgate. Hurrah for Bertie Biggles and Richard Eastcliff they started the campaign against Ezekiel's corrupt practices but both were forced off the screen!
    Where is Laura Sandys' condemnation of the actions that took place in her patch,Ezekiel is a Councillor in one of her Electoral wards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where's Worrow? Surely he has nothing to lose being an ex-Tory yet even he hasn't said anything.

      Delete
    2. 11:13am

      He could be hiding amongst the anonymice.

      Delete
  10. Changing the subject for a moment, is that top image in the location of Margate Winter Gardens?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, under the proviso that Ireland’s history is noted as much for its errors as its accuracies, combined with the information that he probably never visited Thanet; he says: Kings Gate the landing place of Charles II after the restoration.

      Delete
    2. I meant the very top large photo Micheal, surely you / he is referring to the top small photo?

      Delete
    3. Sorry Peter my mistake, the picture is titled The New Baths at Margate, I went into the further depths of my library and found the book in question, have photographed the relevant parts and added the pictures to the post.

      My assumption is this was Clifton Baths, I will reread the relevant part of the book in the hope it sheds more light on the subject, the oldest map I know of, that shows this is about 1852, and doesn’t extend further along the coast I think.

      All pictures may expand when clicked on compulsively

      Delete
    4. Thanks Michael, I thought so. That tunnel still exists by the way, or at least part of it; it was used to let stars such as The Beatles and Danny La Rue escape further down the promenade away from the Winter Gardens crowds, though these days it's only used to store things.

      Delete
  11. I see Moores has finally commented, claiming that "I'm as shocked and surprised as anyone else". Presumably he never read ECR's and Bertie's blogs then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's more than a little evidence in circulation that suggests that Cllr Moores had some involvement with the somewhat surprising replacement of Cllr Ezekiel with Cllr Bayford as Leader of TDC. I think Messrs Biggles and Richard may well be able to shed some light on this murky area.

      Delete
    2. In light of subsequent happenings I find it difficult to see how the replacement of a group leader can be termed a murky area. Perhaps you could explain what you mean, 1:14, always assuming you know yourself. As for Biggles and Richard, other than guesswork, how would they know anymore than the rest of us. Do you, for example, believe everything about Ian Driver that John Hamilton exposes, just because it is on a blogsite or is it, as I suspect, simply those things that gel with your own warped suspicions that you accept as gospel.

      Delete
    3. Afraid you'll just have to carry on disbelieving. If you knew Ezekiel at all you will know of his favoured expressions "JDI" and JFDI"; the latter was much in evidence as he used his influence to try and bury the Tescos Bag incident.

      Delete
    4. What do the letters stand for?

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 2:17PM,

      Your comment though a trifle arcane is none the less and immense contribution to the debate on this subject. You may also wish to consider the part played by BS and NAAFI. Neither should you neglect to take into account the well publicised Iceland Suitcase mystery.

      Delete
    6. JDI means Just Do It. I'll leave you to work out the JFDI yourself

      Delete
    7. Thank you, and the why could you not have said this in the first place. Nope, I still have no idea of your acronym JFDI. All your nudge, nudge, wink, wink is rather tiresome.

      Delete
    8. You got it Peter but unlike John I wasn't willing to drop into Anglo-Saxon on a blog that Michael's children read.
      John, I said JDI etc because that's exactly what Ezekiel used to say. Not Just Do It but JDI.

      Delete
    9. Peter,

      Thank you. I'm slowly getting there. What does 'effing' mean.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 7:20pm

      On reflection my earlier posts to you were gratuitously unpleasant, for which I apologise. It's just that I find all these the nudge-nudge, wink-wink comments on this topic rather tiresome.

      Your reminder about Michael's children admonishes me for asking Peter the meaning of 'effing'; well at least it does if Peter replies, which he won't.

      Delete
    11. OK, Peter. Let me know when you're done.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Peter John over the last few weeks I have remove about thirty comments containing the most extreme obscenity relating to the royal family, the pope and most recently Cllr Ezekiel.

      These are often followed by innocuous comments copied from here or from other blogs to which a few obscenities have been added.

      Frankly now if I see a comment with the F word in it I zap it without even bothering to read it.

      Delete
    14. Sorry Michael, but I tried to say that "F" stood for "Effing" or "Sexual Intercourse" but the idiot didn't understand.

      Delete
    15. He understood Peter.

      Delete
    16. Peter,

      That's a rude word, Peter. I know, 'cos I've seen it written on toilet walls. Please tell me that it waz knot you wat writ it.

      Delete
    17. Sorry Peter, I've been playing with you, as you should surely have realised. I will not interrupt you again as I'm confident that you have better things to do.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous 8:37

      I can guess who you are.

      Delete
  12. Isn't that always the way though Peter, just concentrate on the Bigger Picture rather than admit and deal with past mistakes arising in your own back-yard. What a very Superior Man indeed.........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't your comment, by its dismissal yet judgement of a fellow human being, also make you a very superior man, Solo Gays?

      Delete
    2. No Tom, I am here to go with the flow to get to the truth behind Pleaurama.

      I find it distasteful that here we have someone among us who obviously knows more that he is prepared to divulge, trying to divert us from this cause.

      Delete
    3. I think a seed sown by others has taken root in your mind. Simon Moores is one of the few councillors to regualarly comment on local issues, both council and of interest, and it is purely assumption that he knows more than he is telling on the Pleasurama issue.

      His blogsite, Thanet Life, reflects his right of centre views, but he makes no secret of that, whereas Michael's reflects his left of centre outlook, though he has a tendency to dispute that, usually by seeking to justify his perceived failings within the Conservative group thus adding to his anti-Tory propoganda.

      On the Pleasurama issue there may well be councillors, past or present, who have a stake in this offshore developer, but it does not necessarily follow that others know who they are. You should also remember that when this deal was set up and negotiated it was done so originally by a Labour administration and, since there is little love or co-operation across the political divide in Thanet, it would be even more unlikely that any Conservative councillor at that time would have inside information.

      Cards on the table, I am no lover of Labour, but, equally, I find Cameron not at all to my liking. Locally I think Thanet has often been poorly served by its council, of both flavours at times, but I do not subscribe to the notion that most of the councillors are villains. Most in fact try to do their best.

      It is easy for the anonymous trolls to shout from their hideaways and throw around their accusations of brown envelopes as it is for the attention seekers to hint at, but never prove, their claims of skullduggery in high places. The real way is for the electorate to demand of their ward councillors, for action groups to lobby on specific issues and, if still not satisfied, run for office.

      Meantime, let the police investigate dealings within the council for they have the skills and they know that there must be evidence, not just allegations or innuendo based on personal or political likes and dislikes.

      Delete
    4. I'm not saying that Moores was involved in Ezekiel & co's (alledged) shady dealings, but his "I'm as shocked and surprised as anyone else" comment is about as believable as some of Richard's wilder conspiracy theories... I certainly hope that ECR's and Biggles' blogs make permanent comebacks, we need them more than ever right now.

      Delete
    5. Tom
      To be reasonably impartial I don't think he knows that much about the Pleasurame saga anyway. He wasn't a councillor when it accidentally burnt down (I really had to struggle to resist the speech marks there!)and his various pronouncements during his tenure as Planning Csar lead me to think that it didn't feature much then either. Indeed, as a reasonably perceptive soul he may well have realised that it was an area best avoided if at all possible.
      As I have said before, I was on the clifftop an hour or so after the fire started (on my way home from work in Dover; the fire could be seen from there)and the smell of petrol was overpowering. Of course, this might have come from a car nearby with a leaking fuel tank but I have to confess that my opinions on what has happened since are clouded by this.
      "On the Pleasurama issue there may well be councillors, past or present, who have a stake in this offshore developer, but it does not necessarily follow that others know who they are". Surely they have to declare an interest; after all isn't this one of the charges that ex-Cllr Ezekiel is now in prison for?

      Delete
    6. I am sure you are right, and depsite what I see here as attempts by individuals to reach some sort of consensus, ultimately it is down to focus groups such as the newly formed Ramsgate Seafront Action Group, and the Police to investigate. My own interest has clearly been stimulated by the archives created here by Michael, and by Cllr Ian Drivers questions' put to TDC on our behalf.

      Delete
    7. Tim, I said there may be, not that there are, and, yes, they should declare an interest. The niggle in my mind is that, since it was Labour who set up this deal, would they have done so if they thought any Tory was likely to benefit.

      As for the fire, I find that all a very strange thing along with the amusement arcade on Margate seafront. Where were the insurance investigators, after all, such companies are not reknown for their generosity towards arsonists, if such were the case. A mystery indeed, for if the fire brigade, police and insurers did not smell a rat (or petrol) at the time it must have taken a conspiracy the size of Rick Card's imagination to cover up the plot, if such it was.

      Delete
    8. Peter, do not put too much faith in Bertie or Richard for, if you recall, was it not Bertie who, on his Thanet Strife blog, predicted that Ladyman would retain Thanet South in 2010. If you can get one thing wrong why should one assume you are right on others.

      I am with, Tom, on it being easy to accuse. It get's a lot harder to prove.

      Delete
    9. Ren. You could reverse your stance and say if you got one thing right then it must be assumed that you got everything else wrong. I don't know who Bertie or ECR are but by God they got Ezekiel right from Day One.
      Tom. I took the kids down to the seafront the next day (rubber-necking, I know) and had a chat with one of the firemen who was tidying up. He was from Faversham and he said that he had smelt petrol as well. The official enquiry blamed an electrical fault, as it did with the Rotunda. Hard to pin the Scenic Railway on electricity so that one went to an unknown arsonist, as did the amusement arcade. You make your own mind up.

      Delete
    10. Tim, I am with you, but just wonder why all the different agencies came to a different conclusion. By the way, did you notice on Driver's latest published 'secret' document, the spelling mistake of Ezekiel's name he made in his subject heading is then reproduced several times in the said document. I reckon even a 'Snowdrop' on an RAF station barrier somewhere could work that one out.

      Delete
    11. ooooooerrrrr, I see councillor Moores has had a hissy fit and closed the comments section on his blog!?

      He seems to have a lot of faith in the Monitoring Officer for answering questions!? I have already put in complaints about this officers' lack of accuracy in recalling events (which then obviously prevents him from taking an objective view with appropriate follow-up actions).

      Delete
    12. You have no chance Solo, they see gays as part of the problem, and ignore criminals

      Delete
    13. No chance of what 2.46?

      Myself and quite a few others would quite like to know how long Mr Patterson has been around, and the circumstances surrounding his appointment?

      Delete
    14. Why are you so quick to condemn Simon Moores for closing comments on his latest posting when you have never said a word about Ian Driver's blatant censorship on his blog. As for all these trolls with their accusations of Conservatives being anti gay, it took a Conservative led government, after thirteen years of inactivity by Labour, to introduce Equal Marriage legislation.

      Delete
    15. Tom
      I must admit that I had assumed that he had painstakingly typed the whole lot out. As Michael confirmed earlier, that document has been around for a while; Michael said that he has seen it several times. As for conclusions, I think you have to look at the common factor behind the pyrotechnical displays; especially in relation to recently-failed planning applications and thwarting of plans. If you want further clues think of high-density housing on the Dreamland site.
      Can you slander/libel the dead Michael?

      Delete
    16. In the weeks or months I have been following the main Blogs Tom, this is the first of its kind I have noticed from Mr Moores. All must monitor blogs according to what is thought appropriate at the time I suppose.

      I continue to watch and learn, and will consult further as to whether I should open my blog up to a greater or lesser degree, and connect with various organisations. Blogging I can see can be interpreted as having many different functions or uses, but yes, I would thought, if you were also a councillor, then you need to think very carefully about how you listen and respond to residents in this arena.

      Delete
    17. Tim, I think the document Michael said had been around for a while was in fact the one Driver earlier published in scanned format on his blog. This latest one pertains to be a minute of a Conservative group meeting but, if such had fallen into his hands, why does he have to type it out. Additionally, would a Conservative meeting minute wrongly spell the name of the then leader. As with the bonfires, one smells a rat burning.

      Solo Gays, Simon Moores operates a literate and informative blog and, like others, applies a system of censorship, normally of the profane or potentially libellous, he does, however, allow comment critical of his own view. Driver does not. Simon Moores also regularly meets with the residents in his ward and very much has an ear for local public opinion. By all means criticise but be fair and do not base too much on the opinion of Peter Checksfield who is banned from Thanet Life.

      Delete
    18. TBH Tom I find both styles of councillors Moores and Driver a little difficult. I have left a couple of comments on Ians' blog because I respect his efforts over Pleasurama, albeit not what we are used to in Thanet!

      Having an informative blog is fine, but if people feel impoverished owing to actions or inactions of a governing group you have been a part of, then you do really need to think very carefully about the questions that are being raised as a result of your presence, and how you deal with them. I gather this was an issue at Mr Moores' Disciplinary hearing. I am afraid you can't be a councillor with responsibility one minute, and just a bloke providing local information of interest the next.

      As far as Cllr Driver is concerned, he attended his hearing and that was that. No further Action or Comment?

      Delete
    19. Tom 3:11pm,

      Further to your point was it not also a Conservative Government that decriminalised homosexuality.

      Delete
    20. Tom it’s spelled ok on the original version, if you email me I can send it to you but I am reluctant to put the unredacted version online. Whatever it is or it isn’t it certainly wasn’t concocted by Cllr Driver.

      I did send the document some time ago, to various Conservative councillors for comment, and I don’t think it ahs appeared on the internet before the typed and redacted version Cllr Driver has just published.

      Delete
    21. Surely, Michael, that is the point. If he had been given a copy of the original document why not just scan it and add it to his posting, as he did with the previous 'secret' document he obtained. Why retype the whole thing in which he has made spelling mistakes and, just maybe, omissions, additions or alterations.

      Delete
    22. Tom I guess the whole point is all through the life of the Conservative administration lead by someone who we now know to be a crook and a friend of the developer’s representative much was taken on trust.

      Prior to the trial I wouldn’t have given that much credence to a document like this, as the trial progressed it became apparent that councillors must have been aware that this previous leader had engaged in criminal activity for some time.

      It also became apparent that there was a scant hope that in some way he would get off, or get off lightly and that some excuses could be made and I guess what tipped it for me was when his barrister was using Ezekiel’s health as mitigating circumstances for a reduced sentence.

      I had a long (about an hour) chat with Sandy in a café about two weeks ago, he turned up on his motorbike, seemed in fine fettle and we had a lively discussion about aspects of the council and derelict council owned properties in Ramsgate.

      I guess now one has to revisit some of the local disaster areas and view them in a new light and I guess the biggest is Pleasurama.

      As I said, if you want the document then email me and I will send it to you, if you don’t trust me with your anonymity then open a gmail account, or you can take my word that apart from minor typos it is a fair copy.

      Delete
    23. Evidently I have a lot less faith in Driver's motivation and credibility than you, but if you say it is a fair copy then I will accept that. It does not, however, explain why he simply could not reproduce the original and why, yet again other than for grand effect, he needs to publish something already available.

      Loved your lengthy diatribe in response to my simple query, demonbstrating yet again your love of exposing the Tories at every opportunity. By the way, I too have met Sandy on a number of occasions and he always came over as polite with a good sense of humour. Mind you, I also once played cricket with one of the Kray's minders and he was a hail and hearty sort in the club house. So much for appearances.

      Delete
    24. Tom a couple of times I have worked in organisations where the person in charge appeared to be a crook, in both cases well after I had left – one doesn’t stay in that sort of setup for long – the police moved in.

      From experience and I would guess you too have this sort of experience, you get three types working under a crooked boss, the really stupid, the people who leave as soon as they realise and the rest - I guess you don’t need a diagram.

      But now the resultant problems need sorting out and as I say, for me Pleasurama is at the top of the list, if you take out the verbal assurances I have had, this means back to first principles, starting with did SFP BVI ever exist? Did the council grant planning consent to an extant company? Would it invalidate it if they did?

      Delete
    25. I too have met Sandy on a number of occasions and he always treated me ok.

      Delete
    26. Always a perfect gentleman to me Peter, ‘tis a pity he’s a crook.

      Delete
    27. I can say the same about Roger Latchford (that he's a gentleman, not a crook!). He always took the time to say hello and shake my hand during my 4 years as a Winter Gardens doorman.

      Delete
  13. Is it any wonder that the Thanet Conservative's shadow Cabinet have allowed the homophobic hate criminal Gregory and the Drunk Driver Tomlinson to remain members of their council group, after all these are the same people that served under the convicted criminal leader Sandy Ezekiel... this is why they have such a repugnant value system

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, John, I wondered when you would pop out of the woodwork.

      Delete
    2. Hello John

      Delete
    3. I do know John and I share a lot of his views, but for you to think that all of us that share his views are him, says a lot about your mind set

      Delete
    4. No full stop at the end of the sentence again, John! It's got your dabs all over it.

      Delete
    5. John Worrow (and we all know it's you), what can you tell us abourt Ezekiel? Were you surprised at the verdict? Had you heard rumours before?

      Or do you only ever have an opinion on people who are (supposedly) anti-gay, with the exception of Roger Gale when you were campaignimng for him of course.

      Delete
    6. Peter. I think you'll find that JW's real hate figure is OBE

      Delete
    7. I don't know why, as he used to hang around him so much that people used to joke about him being a mini OBE! Of course it wasn't him who made the supposed homophobic remarks that made him leave the party, that was someone else who's sadly no longer with us.

      Delete
    8. He hung around the entire Conservative party at one time

      Delete
    9. Roger Latchford OBE, seen here with Jon Worrow:

      http://eastcliffrichard.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/councillors-mini-me-moment-world-photo-exclusive/

      Delete
  14. Tom
    The document that Michael says has been around for a while is indeed the one so laboriously typed out by Cllr Driver yesterday - I specifically asked Michael this question and neither he nor I mistook it for the scanned pink then or now.
    SG. If you want an objectionable blog just look at John Hamilton. I don't mind a bit of messdeck language but I'm afraid his use of the language is just gratuitous. Michael; hope you don't let your kids follow the link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know who John Hamilton is, but he must suffer from very high blood pressure! "Revenge is best served cold"...

      Delete
    2. Indeed. I suspect that he's not unrelated to one political party or the other but he's certainly heading for a coronary. If you wanted an educated guess I would suggest a blog that sprang up during the tail end of the Nottingham affair - that had a bit of a penchant for the coarser words in the English language as well, even in the title.

      Delete
    3. Tom. The relevant conversation starts with Peter's comment at 1502 yesterday

      http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/sandy-ezekiel-has-been-found-guilty-of.html#comment-form

      Delete
    4. Thanks for that, Tim. Now up to speed on the conversation.

      On your theory about John Hamilton being of one or other political party, you may be right, but there seems a strong personal angle as well. One can also understand Thanet Labour's feelings on Driver for he was afforded a safe seat whilst a very good candidate, a local headmaster, was handed the impossible task of fighting for a Tory strong hold ward in Broadstairs. One has to wonder, was the intellectual perceived as too big a potential threat to the tradesman background leader, rather like Nottingham was before.

      The ramifications and sub plots of Thanet politics are not confined to the Conservatives.

      Delete
  15. Have senior local government officers come out smelling of roses ? Are the questions to be asked on trips to China and Wigan, and the various cosy land aquisition companies set up with KCC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, you can bet your last dollar that chummy doesn't know either. Just throwing in his snide two penny worth to smear the officers as well.

      Delete
  16. It appears that there are some on here who delight in kicking a man when he is down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not. He would have done

      Delete
    2. How do you know? Besides two wrongs do not make a right.

      Delete
    3. John H, the lack of a full stop should tell you who you were talking to at 7:05 and his name is John as well.

      Delete
  17. Thanks Tom, I did not notice. So he is judging others by his own standards.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.