Sandy sure is guilty

​A unanimous verdict on all counts. Cue lots of tutting, head-shaking and eye-rolling across Thanet and east Kent. Cue many changes of underwear at TDC, as the police widen their enquiries...

---

Former Conservative Thanet council leader Sandy Ezekiel has been found guilty of four counts of misconduct in public office.

Ezekiel, 59, has been on trial at Maidstone Crown Court to answer charges of using confidential information to buy a property for himself , trying to force the owner of a neighbouring building to sell up by instigating enforcement proceedings against him, failing to disclose his interest in two Margate properties to Thanet council and misconduct in public office.

A jury brought back a unanimous verdict of guilty on all charges this afternoon.Co-accused Philip Emanual, 64,of Margate has also been found guilty of aiding and abetting Ezekiel by acting as a proxy buyer for 12a King Street.

The offences took place between September 2009 and February 2011. Ezekiel used inside council information on bids for a12B King Street, Margate, to secure the property for himself.

He then got pal Emanuel, who was best man at his wedding, to act as a proxy buyer for the property, and used his  position to ask for enforcement proceedings be brought against Alan Douglas , owner of 12A King Street, to persuade him to sell that property.

He failed to disclose his interest in 12B  to the council or Mr Douglas until after the sale had been agreed.

It is thought to be one of the first cases of a councillor being convicted of such a charge. Misconduct in public office is a rare offence but sentencing guidelines usually involve a custodial term.

Judge Andrew Nicol has retired to consider pre-sentence reports for the pair with sentencing due later this afternoon [1st March 2013].

thisiskent 1st March 2013

---

Thanet councillors and officials are under investigation in the wake of the trial of former leader Sandy Ezekiel.

Property deals and personal interests of politicians and public servants, past and present, are being probed by police after extensive research and interviews with figures past and present. Several former elected members could face further questioning for undeclared business connections to developers and council contracts.

A Kent Police detective confirmed that officers are gathering evidence on several cases of major planning applications where councillors or officers may have had an undeclared personal interest in a scheme. The council is under increasing pressure to disclose more information about high-profile developments and the expenditure of European Regional Development Fund money.

Separately, the independent Information Commissioner, responsible for openness in public life and data privacy, is investigating claims of a Thanet council cover-up, after the authority has repeatedly refused to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Most senior councillors conduct official business on personal e-mail accounts and therefore communication on matters in the public interest may have remained hidden from view.

A council spokesman said:

"Councillors carry out both TDC public duties, which are subject to FOI, and constituency business and surgeries, which may often be referred to as council business, but as private individuals they are not subject to FOI where any council inspection of these e-mails would be tantamount to hacking."

FOI legislation is clear: information commissioner Christopher Graham said in his 2011 guidance to councils:

"It should not come as a surprise to public authorities to have the clarification that information in private e-mail can be subject to Freedom of Information law if it relates to official business. This has always been the case – the act covers all recorded information in any form."

thisiskent 1st March 2013

Night Flights vote

TDC listened, and said "No" - will Mr Buchanan get the message?

On the face of it, it looks like a straightforward example of democracy at its best.

If only.

A local council is faced with a difficult decision that involves complex technical issues. Quite correctly it takes advice from technical experts - in this case, two separate firms of experts.

The first firm of experts (Bureau Veritas) said that the costs outweighed the benefits. So that's a "No".

The second firm of experts (Parsons Brinkerhoff) said that the costs had been understated and that the benefits had been overstated. So that's very "No".

The local council then asks the local people who will be affected by the outcome of their decision what they think. Three-quarters of them say "No".

So the local council says "No".

As I said, on the face of it, that's fine. However, there were a few patches of turbulence en route to this fairytale ending.

First of all, the leader of the Blue Squadron, Cllr Bayford, moved an amendment to the motion which was more of a reverse thrust than a touch on the rudder. Red Squadron Leader Hart wanted to vote on:

The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the day time operation of the airport but further recommend that as a consultee the Council cannot support the introduction of scheduled night time flying operations between 2300 hours and 0700 hours.

Whereas Blue Squadron wanted to vote on:

The Council confirms that Thanet District Council fully supports the airport and recognises that it needs some flexibility in its night time flying policy in order to realise its full potential and deliver the jobs that Thanet so desperately needs.

Can you spot the difference? Cllr David Green thoughtful this amendment so completely changed the meaning of the motion that it should be disallowed. Legal eagle Harvey Patterson disagreed – I do wonder about legal minds sometimes. We then had an hour and a half of debate and discussion, of very mixed quality.

Red Squadron Leader Hart surprised everyone in the room by revealing Charles Buchanan is "a lovely man". However, this was not going to stop him refusing the request for scheduled night flights.

Blue Squadron Leader Bayford criticised the council's public consultation exercise, but was happy to treat the airport's own (unaudited, unverified) consultation as being valid.

Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston "needs more time". The airport's future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was "astounded and staggered" that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly "for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate".

Cllr Harrison pointed out that the economic downturn that had caused the unemployment that so concerned Cllr Wise would also mean that there would be less demand to use the airport, day or night, passenger or freight.

Cllr Fenner was the first of many to point out the disastrous effect night flights would have on the growing tourism industry in Thanet and Ramsgate. (This is a rock-solid argument that should be presented louder, clearer and more often. East Kent tourism already employs tens of thousands of people, and is growing. It's a diverse sector with a multitude of employers, making it more resilient than a Pfizer-style arrangement where there are so many eggs in a single basket.) She pointed out that a green light for night flights would simply increase the sale price, benefiting only Infratil.

Cllr Ezekiel tried to score points by pinning the blame for the S106 on the Red Squadron, but this backfired when it was pointed out that the Blue Squadron had failed to do anything about the S106 year in, year out. Things went from bad to worse when he managed to corner himself into having to withdraw sweeping statements about Red Squadron's voting record. A bit of a tizzy ensued, when he called the long-suffering general public in the cheap seats "a rabble", and accused us of intimidating him with "hissing and sissing". I was there - nobody hissed. I'm not even sure what "sissing" is, but I expect I would have noticed it. Anyway, Cllr Ezekiel easily won the evening's prize for over-sensitive petulance, but I understand he has a lot on his mind at the moment so perhaps we should cut him some slack.

Cllr Liz Green pointed out that many of the proposed night flights of freight would be coming from third world countries that themselves had the sense to ban night flights.

Cllr Scobie drew our attention to the rather puzzling fact that the Blue Squadron's amendment had been tabled by the very same people who had voted for the motion in earlier committees... so why were they now wanting to vote against it?

[I'll add some more details here later, if I can face the trauma of re-living the dreary horror of it. There were some refeshingly good performances from the Independents, and a quite brilliant shooting-self-in-foot from Cllr Gideon.]

Anyway, the Amendment was voted on, and was voted down. All the Conservatives, plus Cllr Ezekiel, were for; all the rest were against.

The main vote was split into three, and the pattern of voting was identical in each case. Blue vote was the Conservatives plus Cllr Ezekiel, the Red vote was Labour plus all the Independents except Cllr Ezekiel.

1. not supporting night flights between 2300 and 0700: Red all for, Blue all abstained.
2. agree the draft response as the Council's official position: Red all for, Blue all against.
3. authorise Madeline Homer to write to Manston confirming the above: Red all for, Blue all abstained.

The Conservative party had long ago said that it would be a free vote. It is simply coincidence that they all voted exactly the same way, four times in one evening.

---

See the Press coverage.

See the political posturing.

Click to contact ​Cllr Wise

“Cllr Wise showed his mastery of understatement when he said that Manston “needs more time”. The airport’s future depended on attracting night freight he said. He was “astounded and staggered” that anyone would want to deny the area the benefits of night flights between 11pm and 7am, particularly “for the sake of a few votes in Ramsgate”.”

BAWC

OK folks, let's get a grip before hysteria takes hold.

There have been mutterings in the undergrowth for a while, and now ITV Meridian are obediently repeating the carefully leaked PR drivel. BAWC are going to save the whole of south-east England from flight congestion by, er, moving their flights from one part of the south-east to another.

Hmmm... well, first of all, we've been here before. In February 2009, BAWC pounced on an unsuspecting and unprepared TDC and tried to bounce them into allowing BAWC to schedule night flights if they moved their operation from Stansted to Manston.

TDC complied almost immediately, and were left looking a bit daft when BAWC pulled out just a few weeks later in mid-March 2009. It turned out (as some had suspected) that this had been no more than a ploy on BAWC's part to screw better terms out of Stansted - they were re-negotiating their contract at the time. I wonder if it was a three year contract?

Anyway, fast forward three years, and here we are, déjà vu-ing all over again - BAWC are, allegedly, showing an interest in Manston. The talk is of them "moving their operations". Nobody has so far suggested that BAWC would be buying Manston.

Three years ago, the main spin was jobs, with the then Leader of TDC Sandy Ezekiel (whatever happened to him?) repeating BAWC's line that some 200 jobs would be created. This time round, however, the spin and hype is much more grandiose - by moving to Manston, BAWC will free up so much capacity at Stansted that the south-east will have no need of third runways or estuary airports. Marvellous!

Working on the assumption that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is, I had a look at BAWC's use of Stansted. Their online timetables show that Stansted is used for long-haul freight - these are the departures:

STN Monday 08:30 CGN Monday 10:50

STN Monday 08:30 MAD Monday 15:10

STN Monday 08:30 JNB Tuesday 04:40

STN Monday 08:30 NBO Wednesday 00:05

STN Monday 11:35 DMM Monday 21:10

STN Monday 11:35 DXB Tuesday 01:25

STN Monday 11:35 PVG Tuesday 23:00

STN Wednesday 14:35 FRA Wednesday 17:00

STN Wednesday 14:35 ORD Wednesday 21:15

STN Wednesday 14:35 ATL Thursday 02:15

STN Wednesday 14:50 ZAZ Wednesday 18:10

STN Wednesday 14:50 BAH Thursday 04:25

STN Wednesday 14:50 HKG Thursday 18:20

STN Thursday 10:25 CGN Thursday 12:45

STN Thursday 10:25 DEL Friday 06:15

STN Thursday 10:25 HKG Friday 15:45

STN Thursday 19:45 FRA Thursday 22:00

STN Thursday 19:45 PVG Friday 23:59

STN Friday 10:20 DXB Friday 21:20

STN Friday 10:20 HKG Saturday 10:10

STN Saturday 11:50 FRA Saturday 14:15

STN Saturday 11:50 ATL Sunday 00:15

STN Saturday 15:45 FRA Saturday 18:15

STN Saturday 15:45 HKG Sunday 16:55

STN Sunday 03:10 FRA Sunday 05:40

STN Sunday 03:10 ORD Sunday 09:50

STN Sunday 03:10 IAH Sunday 14:05

STN Sunday 17:50 FRA Sunday 20:20

STN Sunday 17:50 DEL Monday 17:15

The arrivals look like this:

America

ATL Thursday 04:15 STN Thursday 17:05

ATL Sunday 02:15 STN Sunday 15:05

IAH Sunday 18:30 STN Monday 09:15

ORD Wednesday 23:15 STN Thursday 17:05

ORD Sunday 11:50 STN Monday 09:15

India/Bangladesh

BOM Saturday 18:05 STN Saturday 22:10

DAC Thursday 00:40 STN Thursday 08:00

DAC Friday 23:40 STN Saturday 07:00

DEL Thursday 04:30 STN Thursday 08:00

DEL Saturday 03:30 STN Saturday 07:00

MAA Wednesday 07:10 STN Wednesday 12:20

MAA Friday 00:40 STN Friday 06:00

MAA Saturday 07:55 STN Saturday 13:05

MAA Sunday 23:20 STN Monday 04:30

Middle East & Africa

JNB Tuesday 19:10 STN Wednesday 11:15

NBO Wednesday 02:05 STN Wednesday 11:15

Far East

HKG Wednesday 20:15 DAC Wednesday 22:40

HKG Wednesday 20:15 STN Thursday 08:00

HKG Thursday 20:20 STN Friday 06:00

HKG Friday 19:15 STN Saturday 07:00

HKG Saturday 12:10 STN Saturday 22:10

HKG Sunday 18:55 STN Monday 04:30

PVG Wednesday 01:10 STN Wednesday 12:20

PVG Saturday 02:15 STN Saturday 13:05

However, and it's a big however, I really don't see how relocating this number of flights from Essex to Kent would remove the (alleged) need for a £50 billion mega-airport in the Thames.

So, dear reader, two little twists of spin to look out for whenever this story pops up:

1. Jobs: 58 flights a week isn't that much more than Manston is currently handling - averaging 38 flights a week in 2011. Manston has told the government that it could handle double the current freight tonnage (and 750,000 passengers) with just 23 extra staff. Promises of hundreds of jobs resulting from BAWC's presence should be taken with a large pinch of salt - it's just as well we're so near the sea and salt is plentiful.
2. Congestion: judging by their timetable, BAWC doesn't seem to be such a large operation that moving it from one county to another would shift the national strategic aviation requirements for the coming decades.

Thanet the Movie: Welcome to the Casting Couch

The Hollywood moguls are salivating and the sets are being built - "Thanet the Movie" is underway. All that's left is the casting.

We already have a number of front runners, as you can see below, but we would like your help with some more suggestions. You can find more pictures of TDC counsellors here, Kent councillors here and here, you can add suggestions in the comments below, and you can send us pictures (jpegs) of your suggested lookalikes here.

Please don't restrict yourselves to Councillors - every notable character in Thanet and East Kent will have a role in this blockbuster!

Cllr Clive Hart: George Clooney

Cllr Bob Bayford: Timothy Spall

Cllr Chris Wells: Brian Blessed

Cllr Sandy Ezekiel: Bob Hoskins

Cllr Jack Cohen: David Niven

Charles Buchanan: Michael York, Jonathon Meades, Jerry Springer

Sandy Ezekiel is innocent

unless and until...

---

Former Thanet council leader Sandy Ezekiel has been arrested on suspicion of fraud and misconduct in public office. Mr Ezekiel, who represents Cliftonville East ward for the Conservative Party, was arrested on 5th October. He was interviewed by police at his home.

Mr Ezekiel, 58, said he was unable to discuss details of the allegations for legal reasons, but confirmed he had been aware of an issue since May. He said:

"There is no wrongdoing on my part. This is the kind of thing you have to put up with if you are involved in local politics, it's as simple as that."

Another man, aged 63 from Margate, has also been arrested in connection with the same allegations. He is not a public official or thought to be connected with Thanet council in any way. Neither Mr Ezekiel, of Crow Hill, or the other man has been charged with any offence. Both men have been released on police bail until January 25, pending further investigations.

Mr Ezekiel has been a district councillor since 1999. He was re-elected in May's district poll with 1,187 votes – the most in the ward. He was leader of the council for seven years. As well as holding a seat on the council, Mr Ezekiel is a member of the Joint Transportation Board. Mr Ezekiel stepped down from the council's top elected role in March last year.

The reins of power were passed to Bob Bayford, who beat John Kirby in a poll of Conservative members to the post. Mr Bayford confirmed he was aware of the arrest but added:

"It would be totally inappropriate to make any comment at this stage."

IoT Gazette 18th Nov 2011

BA plans cargo flights from Manston

Clipping: thisiskent

British Airways, seen landing at Manston on Wednesday after redirection due to a fluid spillage, could be flying cargo from the airport as easrly as May. British Airways is understood to be planning cargo flights out of Manston from as early as May – a move that will create hundreds of jobs. Thanet council chiefs revealed on Wednesday that night flights over the isle could increase with the imminent arrival of a new freight operator.

The announcement came after Kent International Airport bosses approached the council to negotiate a change to the hours it can run flights because they are trying to secure a "major European airline". Ramsgate Labour councillor David Green said: "It has been strongly rumoured to be British Airways World Cargo." KIA chief executive Matt Clarke said the identity of the airline it was in talks with was "commercially sensitive" and refused to confirm or deny it was British Airways. He said:

"I can confirm that we are in discussion with an international air freight operator about a potential relocation of their operation to KIA but I am unable to disclose who it is for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The discussions are at a sensitive stage and I am not in a position to add to the speculation regarding who the operator may or may not be."

A BA World Cargo spokesman said

"We are in the process of tendering our long haul ground handling operations within the United Kingdom. These operations are currently based at Stansted Airport. However, as part of the tender process, we are considering a number of different airport options within the UK."

Council leader Sandy Ezekiel speculated that if BA did arrive, it could create at least 200 jobs. An extraordinary meeting of full council will take place next Thursday at the Cecil Street offices in Margate at 5.30pm to consider the airport’s request. Its owners Infratil want to be able to run flights for an extra 30 minutes in the evening until 11.30pm and between 6am and 7am. The council is expected to review these changes every six months after the first 18 months of their introduction. It is anticipated that an extra 11 flights a week will happen, though council economy boss Roger Latchford said only a portion of the extra flights would occur in the renegotiated hours.

Council promises 'hard negotiations' with airport

A three month consultation has thrown up a range of concerns from residents in Thanet, Sturry and Herne Bay, that will be discussed with Manston airport owners, PlaneStation. Inappropriate penalties, inadequate noise monitoring, off-route aircraft, and concern that cargo flights may increase, were among the worries voiced. Council leader Cllr Sandy Ezekiel pledged that the local authority would "go into hard negotiations" with the airport owners over a revised Section 106 environmental agreement that will update the original five-year-old voluntary agreement that he described as "rather woolly". He said:

"People have taken the opportunity to put their views forward and some clear messages have emerged that will be taken into consideration as work gets underway on the successor to the 106 agreement. We need to provide better information to the public and noise monitoring needs to be improved."

Dr Hilary Newport, Kent director of the Campaign for Rural England, said her main concern was over night flying. She said:

"Night flying is a major issue for any airport, but especially for Manston, and it needs to be strictly controlled or it will seriously damage people’s quality of life. The town of Ramsgate is just 1,300 metres from aircraft touching down."

She said that the branch was so concerned about the potential impact of night flying on the residents of Thanet, it commissioned research by acoustic consultants Capita Symons. Noise monitoring was conducted at three locations around the airport. It said that readings taken as jet aircraft took off showed that night flying noise over Ramsgate exceeds Government and World Health Organisation guidelines. EUjet Fokker 100s registered a peak of 84.3 decibels, equivalent to a short blast of a pneumatic drill 30 metres away. Dr Newport added:

"Night flying is not allowed at London City, Belfast, Norwich and Southend airports because of the proximity of housing. CPRE Kent believes that Manston should be classified as a city airport for the same reason. The results of Capita Symons’ noise monitoring only confirm what hundreds of Ramsgate residents already know: aircraft over the town are unacceptably noisy, and they must not be allowed to come and go at any time of night. We need to make sure that night flying will, genuinely, not be part of the long-term plans for Manston. PlaneStation needs to confirm, once and for all, what is happening after September, then the residents of Ramsgate will know what chance they have of a getting a decent night’s sleep in the future."

But Stuart McGoldrick, group commercial director at EUjet, said the company is "very disappointed at the tone and content" of the "highly subjective" CPRE comments that "fail to grasp some of the key points relating to night flights from Manston". He said:

"Kent International Airport is pleased to confirm that it has not requested permission for any night flights for the winter season starting on October 30 as EUjet has received all the flight slots requested from outstation airports. The number of night flights operated this summer will be significantly fewer than allowed under the original 106 Agreement. Kent International Airport is aware of local sensitivity to night flights and has sought to reduce night flying throughout the summer to an absolute minimum. This winter there will be no scheduled night flying at all. The Fokker 100 aircraft – which is the type EUjet operates – is the quietest regional jet in operation anywhere in the world. The CPRE refers to the measurement of noise levels of aircraft taking off – EUjet has only night arrivals at Kent International Airport. In addition, whenever wind conditions allow all aircraft have a westerly flight arrival pattern specifically designed to minimise any impact on the local population.

Kent International Airport originally requested night flights for the summer season only, which resulted in permission to operate to the end of September being granted by Thanet council. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error on our part, the original Section 106 Agreement failed to allow for the fact that airlines the world over operate on a seasonal basis – with the summer lasting from the end of March to the end of October. EUjet is no different. Hence the request that the successor 106 Agreement, the terms of which we are far from taking for granted, take account of this fact of airline life."

Mr Ezekiel added:

"Night flying is an issue that particularly affects those under the flight path and we will look very carefully at the statistics from this summer’s night flights. The public has sent a firm message to the airport owners PlaneStation that they want to know more about the plans for the airport and what it will mean for them. People want to be kept fully informed about the airport’s development and growth. This successor to the original agreement needs to maintain people’s quality of life as far as possible. The council will use feedback from the public consultation to ensure that this happens and I am sure that all councillors welcome the extensive information from the public consultation."

Council chief executive Richard Samuel said the consultation provided a lot of information and that feedback showed strong support for the airport, its continued development and for economic growth of the area. He said:

"People have told us where they stand on this issue and it is most important."

kentonline 18th July 2005

Airport broke night flight rules

Manston airport has been fined £52,000 by Thanet Council for operating night flights that break an environmental agreement. The Section 106 clause specifies that no flights can take off from the airport between 11pm and 07am, but it does allow for a maximum of 12 humanitarian, mercy or emergency flights by relief organisations during any calendar year between those times.

The level of fines on night flights between January and August 2003 from the airport had already assessed. Councillors considered 17 subsequent night flights between September and December last year. Information from the airport operators stated that all 17 flights were humanitarian and that the cargo carried was replacement Iraqi currency, designed to help the country's reconstruction and recovery programme.

Councillors decided that this was not what they considered to be ‘humanitarian’ flights and that payment due under the 106 agreement should be enforced. Cllr Sandy Ezekiel, council leader, said:

“This council is firmly committed to the environmental agreement because it was put in place to help protect local residents. Councillors are determined to enforce the agreement where we believe that it has been breached. Night flights disturb sleeping patterns and cause annoyance. While the council is committed to the development of Manston as an airport, it does not want to see this take place to the detriment of the local environment or local residents."

kentonline 23rd Feb 2004