Wednesday, 1 April 2009

SANDY EZEKIEL DAMAGING THANET'S REPUTATION

Today's Private Eye (Number 1233) on page 11 has a feature on Sandy Ezekiel.. As I have covered previously his conduct fails to meet the standards which we should expect of our leading local representative. Private Eye concludes its article

"It's not the first time Ezekiel has been up before the standards-wallahs. A year ago the carpet shop owner and former boxer was censured for calling the then Mayor of Margate a "f***ing tosser" at a black tie do and threatening another Labour councillor who tried to intervene with the words:

"Come on, just put your face in mine."

Following the committee's verdict, Ezekiel has sent Cllr. Johnston an apology - which she says was all she had wanted in the first place. Shame he had to wait until £30,000 of taxpayers' money had been spent on m'learned friends before doing the decent thing."

Private Eye is read by many influential people, this is very damaging to Thanet. Yet local Conservatives have given Sandy Ezekiel a vote of confidence. I ask again, will one of them come out and explain why?

UPDATE 5.4.09

Here's the sort of impact this has. Alex Perkins Leader of Canterbury Liberal Democrats twittered:

"Respect to leader of Thanet Council. He's been given a rude nickname (Shagpile) by Private Eye after constant inclusion in Rotten Boroughs."

8 comments:

  1. I join you in total bafflement. I am completely lost as to what makes the Thanet Conservatives like Sandy so much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. called having a hold over them and being so ineffectual themselves and that comes from a tory not a labour voter! shame on you all!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because he upsets Iris so much he has got to be a good guy

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is even worse - the local Tories at TDC have just given him a vote of confidence as their leader. - what does that say about them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just goes to show, Councillors can't be trusted to regulate their own behaviour. It's no good claiming that most Councillors are decent upstanding people and that their reputations are besmirched by a few bad eggs. This incident would suggest otherwise. It would suggest that large numbers, possibly a majority, are happy to turn a blind eye to thuggish behaviour for their own political gain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 8.29 I've edited your comment to
    "Matt could it possibly be that our Sandy, simply has too much on his very loyal followers?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. How about making them giving them all a paid position? Perhaps this instills loyalty.

    ReplyDelete