Gilbey slams the gutless

But there's no hint who he might be talking about. Or what they've done.

At the recent Executive meeting, Canterbury Council Leader John Gilbey laid into someone or other. He was clearly disappointed that they weren't there to take their medicine - maybe their invitation didn't arrive in time.

OK, well I'm going to say something else now which I'd like recorded. I think it's quite clear that there are people who are quite prepared to go out to Twitter, they're prepared to email newspapers, they're prepared to cause unending sorts of trouble and worry to all sorts of residents by misrepresenting, and by having things out there that are simply not true, and they have no guts in not appearing here tonight to ask the questions.

Hear these words.

So what's actually happening here?

The Council as a whole is effectively a mechanism for rubber-stamping the decisions from the Executive. The Executive is chosen by the Leader. Thus the Precious Leader, Joniji-il Bi, enjoys a position of sweeping authority.

It would appear that someone displeased Jonji. He could have used Twitter to rebut their their arguments, or emailed the newspapers himself to put his side of the story. However, he has used (abused?) this public democratic forum to indulge in what is little more than posturing.

It's safe to assume that the rest of the Executive knew what, and who, he was talking about - he was grand-standing to a small and carefully chosen crowd. In my mind's eye, I can picture them nudging each other "Go on, Jonji, stick it to 'em... that's telling 'em". It may have played well to the Chosen Few, but it was a waste of breath.

If someone is "misrepresenting" an issue, the simplest and most effective remedy is to represent it accurately. If someone has displeased the Precious Leader, how are the rest of us to avoid repeating their error, unless we are told Who Did What?

Unless we know what is forbidden, we cannot be appropriately obedient or respectful.