Council Procurement Card Data: Fcuking Dangerous

On Nov 11, when the Council took down the 2019/20, Procurement Card Transaction Data (read credit card data), from their website with no explanation, it naturally created the suspicion that the data was either incorrect, incomplete, or both.

It would have been a wise and prudent to give residents reasons for its removal, so as to allay any suspicion of wrongdoing.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s constitution is its legal framework. Part 8  of the Constitution govern – Officers Rules and Procedures including Delegation to Officers

At page 8/27 – 13.2 Conduct of Public Service, it states:

Clearly, the duty of staff goes further than simply avoiding crime. As the Local Conditions of Service state:

“The public is entitled to demand of a Local Government Officer conduct of the highest standard, and public confidence in their integrity would be shaken were the least suspicion, however ill-founded, to arise that they could be in any way influenced by improper motives”.

Now given that Officers of the Council have claimed via the procurement card data;  meals; alcohol, accommodation, flights and rail travel for example; while away from the office, we do not know how much they are allowed to claim for travel (taxi’s, trains…) and subsistence (food & drink)

We do know what Cllrs are allowed to claim as that is set out in Part 9 of the Council’s Constitution at page Part 9/82 and Part 9/83. But how can we dispel “the least suspicion, however ill-founded” that officers are not claiming more than what they are entitled to, when the amounts they can legitimately claim are not published.

We are not claiming officers have claimed more than what is allowed in the course of their duties. But it is impossible to dispel suspicion, when the amounts they are allowed to claim are not published. So for the sake of transparency and accountability we ask – not accuse – why the Council does not publish this data?

It is clear from the data below that the Council have published three different formats of dates

1 – 25/07/2019

2 – 02/13/2020

3 – 09-Mar-21

On many occasions they have failed to provide a Transaction Description. Where they have it reads Supplier – Wh Smith; Transaction Description – Envelope, Supplier – Subway; Transaction Description – Food for Otterpool site meeting, as two simple examples. Then there is the Net amounts – 30..00 or 67..21, or 100…67. From this it’s clear the data has been manipulated. That much cannot be denied. Also the Council’s procurement card data is not in compliance with the requirements of the Transparency Code 2015 (see Para 30)

As such how can residents confidence and suspicion not be shaken  given the data speaks for itself.

Hence why we call on any courageous Cllr – if one exists – to respectfully request the Council publish its officer’s rates, as they do for Cllrs. By doing so would dispel any suspicion of wrongdoing, and would create more transparency which can never be a bad thing. If they fail to publish the information then the residents of the district may well continue to believe something suspicious is happening. The Council have a choice.

As we said before and as we say again, the data presented by them is dirty data, and manipulated data. This should make us all cautious and wary of what the council are trying to tell us with their data.

Their data and their manipulation of it can only represent a world they wish you to see, not the world as is. We should all be suspicious of their motives for representing their world, via their dangerous data.

But as always we'll leave you to decide that.

The Shepway Vox Team

Not owned by Hedgefunds or Barons


About shepwayvox (1802 Articles)
Our sole motive is to inform the residents of Shepway - and beyond -as to that which is done in their name. email:

8 Comments on Council Procurement Card Data: Fcuking Dangerous

  1. Interesting to note that The Independent Pedaler is right next door to Quinn Estates Office. So who from Strategic Development was visiting him ten days before lockdown in March 2020?

  2. A continued run of what is expected, certain councilors falling in to place by default, others relatively unopposed. Not actually functioning as required in law yet getting away with a grey area of interpretation unable to be challenged in practical terms by the public, from which they feed, does it seem? So, where is the mechanism that oversees this behaviour, has it become cloaked in similar practice? After all, there is a long line of fractures, over many years; all is not sweetness and light. If there were a strong and reliable control over council matters, ( Queen Elizabeth 1 comes to mind in formation of The Cinque Ports Councils), one suspects a gallows erected on The Leas and a line of traitors walking to decorate the tree, might have been a popular entertainment event, perhaps?

  3. Alcohol Free // November 18, 2022 at 10:10 // Reply

    The Strategic Development Team do like a drink or two according to the data. Vinoteca, Three Crowns, Five Bells, Spiritland, Radnor Arms, Coach & Horses, City Pubs, Carluccios and no doubt there’s more.

    • Interesting. I’m being told about claimed instances where people are being brought before the courts by the legal team on information not correctly understood by the originating council officer, it appears, suggesting a lack of understanding pertaining to subject matter. While some matters should not perhaps have been presented at all, incurring costs otherwise avoidable; meanwhile, the appearance of money being generated through the courts to bolster council coffers while others may draw expenses, such as alcohol, might to various people, appear a contrivance: two curious issues here, some might think noteworthy of investigation.

  4. They will never publish the data like we will never know what is the true amount Monk has wasted on his vanity project at Princess Parade and also how much has been wasted by this corrupt Tory Council on Otterpool and the purchase of Westenhangar Castle .
    They know their days are numbered so when the truth finally comes out they will be long and thankfully gone .

    • @ Kevin – Considering we can be tested for drugs and alcohol at work, FHDC appears immune from the law, or is it?

  5. What were FHDC staff doing at the Abode in Canterbury £808 on 5th and 6th March 2020 (or 3rd May and 3rd of June depending on which was the date is formatted) seems a lot given we were in the midst of COVID lockdown during this time.

  6. Immunity from crime promotes more crime, immunity from acting in abuse creates more abuse, immunity from financial abuse creates more financial abuse, immunity from civil law abuse promotes more civil law abuse, avoidance of civil law, financial law and criminal law is much the same.
    A long run of marginal behaviour within civil authority, which is charged responsible for open, transparent performance, might appear a clear indication of authority further up the food chain not wanting to self implicate, indeed, this is a common belief.
    Arrogance emanating from authority is classic for creating unrest, indeed it was recorded when the German navy mutinied, at the German revolution and the two Russian revolutions. Albeit violence began in each case once food shortages caused hunger and death, we are fortunately far from that point, however, there is clearly unrest and frustration that can, and has not, been addressed, by persons fully capable of dispelling public conceptions from the council’s theatrical performance of which we are all unwilling spectators.
    Much information may well be restricted from media attention, regardless, the general public have a long history of correctly interpreting information clearly for themselves,
    Inconsistencies, arrogance, ignorance and perks will have nowhere to hide.
    Recorded or not.
    History records analysis by the common individual as remarkably correct, even Churchill noted this fact, and acted upon it!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: