My KCC Election Manifesto & Video

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Thanet Council Leader Clive Hart Nobble EKO Enquiry?

I have been contacted by a Thanet Council “insider” who warns me that the Labour Leader of Thanet Council, Clive Hart, might be trying to nobble the ongoing  enquiry into my serious allegations that a senior council officer may have exerted improper influence on a planning application submitted by East Kent Opportunities (see my other posts). 

The management of my complaint is vested in the Council’s General Purposes Committee (GPC). The membership of the committee is made up of  four Labour Councillors including Clive Hart and Michelle Fenner,  four Conservatives, one UKIP and one Independent Councillor Tom King.
Because of the alleged undermining and manipulation  of my complaint by senior staff  and GPC Chair Fenner  (allegations which were set out in  the, now redundant,  Monitoring Officer’s 13 page letter – see my other posts) the Conservative, UKIP and Independent councillors on the GPC  have  begun to vote together to block  any further  possibility of misconduct and to  ensure that my extremely serious allegations  are dealt with in a fair and proper manner.

My informer tells me that a meeting was held very  recently at which Council Leader Clive Hart allegedly asked council officers to advise him how could use his Labour Group majority voting power at next weeks Annual Council Meeting (15 May) to  remove the UKIP or Independent member of the GPC and replace that councillor with a more “compliant” independent councillor who I assume will vote the way he or she might be instructed to do by the Hart administration.

If such  manipulative and undemocratic actions were to succeed this means that the voting at the GPC would be Labour 4 plus the “compliant” Independent = 5 votes , Conservatives 4 plus 1 UKIP or 1 Independent =5 votes. This would mean votes will be tied giving the casting vote to  Labour Councillor Michelle Fenner who the now redundant Monitoring Officer alleged in his letter had engaged in actions which he felt may have undermined a fair and proper investigation into my allegations.
So there you have it, after the powers that be at Thanet Council allegedly tried  to undermine, weaken and ultimately stop  the investigation into a complaint about possible misconduct in public office, the   Leader of Thanet Council is now, according to well placed  sources,  allegedly seeking advice  about how he can use his party’s majority  power to seize control of the GPC. I can only speculate that if this alleged plot succeeds the investigation into my complaint will be well and truly nobbled.

Kim IL Klive North Korean Style Dictator?
In closing I would like to remind readers of this blog that Council Leader Clive Hart’s oft repeated mantra is that Thanet Council is “open and transparent”.  I would like to  hope this is true.  But  sadly it appears to me that Clive Hart is leading a Council at which it appears to be perfectly  normal to  operate in secrecy and prevent councillors from having access to information. Improperly influence  planning officers. Undermine and  cover-up serious allegations of misconduct in public office. Fix committee memberships  in order to  nobble investigations. Dismiss honest, hard working officers who blow the whistle on their less than scrupulous colleagues.
This is no way to  lead a Council, especially a council which has recently been slated by the Local Government Association as being “toxic” and by its own Independent Standards advisers as secretive, out of touch and perceived as being corrupt. Is it any wonder that Thanet residents have no resepect for their North Korean style council.

So Come on Council Leader Hart prove me wrong, Prove to me that you really care about “openess and transparency". You can do this by demonstrating that you have no intention of allowing one of the most serious complaints ever submitted to Thanet Council from being undermined and nobbled. How?  By not applying the dirty  fix  to the GPC which I have been reliably advised you might possibly be considering. To do anything less would speak volumes about your morals.


  1. Cllr - I'm no expert, but doesn't the ex-Monitoring Officer's letter fall under the definition of a "statutory report"? Surely, if it does, then the Council has a legal duty under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to consider it within 30 days. If they don't, then as I understand it, wouldn't they be breaking the law?

    Oh, and who are these more "compliant" councillors - please name and shame so that the electorate can hold them accountable.

  2. Worrow & Cohen. So far in Clive's pocket they play with his loose change

  3. Corruption council and rigging of process. Boycott of tax and meetings needed

  4. The councillors should refuse to prop up Hart's regime: vote of no confidence, call in police and refuse to attend meetings.

  5. How close to implosion is TDC ? Harvey does a shoot n scoot. McG keeps digging and so does Hart. Is there an update yet on interviews under caution ?

    1. The interviews under caution were about an alleged conspiracy to harass on line, with the prime offender being John Hamilton, if indeed he ever existed, and were absolutely nothing to do with council corruption.

  6. Clive went on twitter at 7pm 7/5/2014 to deny these accusations.

  7. At the start of any meeting isn't it normal to have to declare conflicts of interest. Wouldn't this preclude those under scruitiny?