While Plymouth residents face cuts to services and rising council tax, Plymouth City Council has admitted in writing that it's been spending time and resources "assessing" PlymLeaks - our website which scrutinises the authority.
We've obtained an email from John Finch, the council's Information Governance Manager, that explicitly confirms staff have been monitoring this site and using that assessment to refuse Freedom of Information requests.
The revelation raises serious questions about how Plymouth City Council priorities the spending of public money.
The Email That Proves It
On 9 October 2025, Finch sent this to someone who made an FOI request under the name "George Granton":
"We have assessed the Plym Leaks Website, and we believe the two personas on the website to be generated by AI, of which you are one."
Let's break down what this admission means in terms of public spending.
Council staff time was spent:
"Assessing" the website
Analysing writing styles or personas
Theorising about AI generation
Cross-referencing with FOI requests
All on the public payroll.
What Could This Have Cost?
We don't know exactly how many staff hours have been spent "assessing" PlymLeaks, but let's do some basic maths.
If just one senior officer spent five hours monitoring and analysing the site at an average senior officer hourly rate of £40-50, that's £200-250 of taxpayer money.
If it involved multiple staff members - Information Governance team discussion, legal advice, management time coordinating - potentially £500-1000 or more of public funds.
And for what? To theorise about whether a website uses AI and try to identify who runs it.
What Else Could That Money Have Done?
While council staff were "assessing" PlymLeaks, that money could have:
Fixed potholes
Funded youth services
Supported libraries
Maintained parks
Helped vulnerable residents
Actually addressed the issues we report on
Instead, it went toward monitoring a website that holds them accountable.
The Irony
Plymouth City Council's own email proves they're spending your money monitoring the website that reports on how they spend your money.
What The Council Claims
The email states the council believes "the two personas on the website to be generated by AI."
They then said "of which you are one" to the recipient. What does that even mean?
And more importantly: Why does it matter?
Even if we did use pseudonyms - it doesn't change whether the facts we report are accurate.
The facts that PlymLeaks reports on are based on public documents, FOI responses, and the council's own statements.
The council isn't disputing any of that in their response. They're just spending your money theorising about the identities behind the reporting rather than addressing the issues being reported.
The Real Waste
Council spends time on:
Monitoring critics
Analysing websites
Theorising about AI
Trying to identify journalists
Refusing FOI requests from suspected critics
We instead think that time should go to:
Addressing the issues we report
Fixing the problems we expose
Being more transparent
Improving accountability
The Bigger Picture
This isn't just about PlymLeaks.
This is about how local authorities across the UK are increasingly spending public money on monitoring social media for criticism, hiring reputation management firms, legal action against critical journalists, and identifying critics.
All while claiming they don't have money for services.
Plymouth residents are paying for this. You deserve to know about it.
A Message To Plymouth City Council
You've just confirmed in writing that public resources have been spent "assessing" a website critical of your activities.
Plymouth residents are paying for that.
Council staff who disagree with how their time is being spent know where to find our contact details. Perhaps they already have.
The Full Email
For transparency, here's John Finch's email in full:
Dear Mr Granton,
In accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, in order to be able to deal with your request we will need to be provided with evidence of your real name, as I have reason to believe that you have provided a pseudonym. We have assessed the Plym Leaks Website, and we believe the two personas on the website to be generated by AI, of which you are one.
Section 8 (1)(b) of the FOI Act indicates that the real name of the applicant should be used when requesting information and not a pseudonym.
Please scan or post a copy of some cogent proof of identity, e.g. driving licence, or birth certificate.
I refer you to an ICO decision notice, IC-99475-Z8Z1, where a request was denied because of the use of a pseudonym.
Once we receive sufficient confirmation of your identity, we will begin processing your request and respond to you within 20 working days of that date. If we do not receive confirmation, we will close all of your requests.
Yours sincerely John Finch Information Governance Manager
Council staff time. Public resources. Your money.
All spent "assessing" a website that holds them accountable.
Plymouth City Council was contacted for comment but did not respond by time of publication.
PlymLeaks currently operates on zero budget and accepts no advertising or sponsorship. Unlike Plymouth City Council's monitoring operation, we cost taxpayers nothing.
George Granton is the lead writer at PlymLeaks, investigating Plymouth’s public authorities to expose mismanaged projects, wasted spending, and decisions that impact residents.
Plymouth's taxpayer-funded leisure facilities are operating discriminatory swimming sessions that exclude transgender women while providing no equivalent sessions for men, leaked documents have revealed.
Sign up for the PlymLeaks newsletter and get the latest investigations, updates, and insights on public authorities in Plymouth delivered straight to your inbox. Stay informed, stay aware, and help hold power accountable.
