Thanet Watch magazine has received an email claiming Thanet council approached a builder for secret talks about a controversial project on Ramsgate seafront.
The email purports to have come from Mike Stannard, a director of Kent-based Cardy Construction.
In the email Stannard is alleged to have taken a call from “the chief exec” of Thanet District Council, asking for an “off-line chat” about Royal Sands.
“He does not want lawyers or others involved,” says the email, “and felt that me/Cardy and him were the two people in this project that could influence success for the project . Not sure why I have been singled out, but I guess if I can finally pull this one off, I would be Billy Golden Balls.”
The email, addressed to Stannard’s colleagues in Cardy, was received by Thanet Watch in answer to a request for a comment on another matter.
Norman Thomas of TW believes it may have been a simple mistake: “It looks to me like someone hit the “reply” function when they meant to hit “forward”
Cardy claims the email was sent out by an “unauthorised” person.
“Following an investigation by our IT manager,” Mike Stannard told Thanet Watch, “I can confirm that the email was edited and issued by an unauthorised person within our organisation and subsequently we will be undertaking an internal review. This review may well result in disciplinary actions being taken.”
Thomas of Thanet Watch said: “It’s certainly a rather strange email. For example, it refers to the chief executive of the council as a man, when in fact she’s a woman. But it raises more questions about what’s going on with this long-running development which has left Ramsgate seafront severely blighted now for over 12 years.”
The new September issue of Thanet Watch is on sale in newsagents across Thanet now.
Surely you are not suggesting the chief executive has undergone sex change. What skullduggery will you investigative wizards come up with next?
ReplyDeleteMore exceptional journalism from Thanetwatch..
ReplyDeleteOh, hang on..
I have sent an email to Michael Stannard asking him for his side of the story.
ReplyDeletethe date of the original email may shed some light on timescale. We have had male CEO's but not recently
ReplyDeleteDepends what you call recent, in the long running pleasurama saga we have had 2 male ceo's involved.
ReplyDeleteI LOVE that what is clearly a false email is taken seriously by Thanet watch, a scaremonger thinks that someone high up in the company concerned owes anyone an explanation for said false email, and that someone who posted inaccurate BS about the company, that he was subsequently forced to remove, desperately tries to provide some credibility with the use of some innuendo, cloaked in the usual dollop of BS!
ReplyDeleteThanet politics, never changes.
Hiya Hammy. Hope you will be watching the usefully timed broadcast of Channel 4 Blackout.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence have you got that the email is false? You implicitly accept that there is an email so don't deny its existence. And as a pal of yours is wont to point out an email can be traced to source. That brings us to the subject of its contents. Presumably you are saying the contents are false. And implying that this is a matter that would not be of interest to Mr Keegan's lawyers.
But your hypocrisy needs to be emphasised. You, it seems, feel authorized to make potentially libellous statements on blogs. When has Cardy previously been subjected to "Inaccurate BS" ?
So you hypocritically make a statement that you cannot support with evidence and which is potentially libellous (But for the fact your lack of weight would make it difficult for a litigant to pass the admissibility serious harm test ... meaning no one of sense would take you seriously). So it may be that the new libel laws mean that pratts (IE You) can say what they like on blogs but people of weight cannot.
Rick, a certain blogger posted comments about Cardy on a couple of sites which questioned the standing and financial position of that company. Evidently realising that he had got his wires crossed he then deleted all those comments though, as you will know, they can still be resurrected or may already have been copied elsewhere. Deleting them does not change the fact they were written. So John H is alluding to those when he refers to them as inaccurate BS.
DeleteMany statements are made around the blogs which are hearsay, based on rumour, misinterpretations of facts or just plain invention so why just pick on JH. There are others far more worthy of your criticism.
John I wrote to Michael Stannard for an explanation, not because of his position in the company, but because we have had a dialogue about Pleasurama for issues for several years.
DeleteI guess that I am hoping for a reply from him before the email comes into the public domain, perhaps there just isn’t anything he can say.
William I think this may be a case of two Cardys, we have “Cardy Construction, of Canterbury, a well established local company and “Cardy Developments” a dormant company with the same director as SFP, that has recently had its name changed to “Cardy Developments” is still a dormant company without any equity.
Sure you are right, Michael, but that only serves to emphasise how careful people should be when making such allegations. Indeed, it is almost certainly that risk of maligning one company because of the similarity of name with another that led to those comments being deleted.
DeleteCard, you are a nutter, that's you dealt with.
DeleteMichael, As you have stated elsewhere, Cardy's have ceased to be forthcoming with you in the recent past, hence as the mail is already in the public domain, I would think they will make statements to proper press sources (not the comic that is Thanet watch of course), if at all. I suspect that they came to the conclusion some time ago that replying to individuals who have a constant stream of barely relevant/irrelevant comments and questions.
And as far as the lies that were posted about Cardy's, James posted them, and was forced to remove them when his usual piss poor investigatory "skills" were bought into sharp focus.
DeleteMichael, there are actually three Cardy companies, Cardy Construction, Cardy Design Build and Cardy Developments. Cardy Development is linked to SFP via its director and shareholder Mr Keegan while Cardy Construction and Cardy Design Build are both linked to Mr Stannard who comfirmed to me back in April that he was director and shareholder of both. Interestingly, Cardy Design Build is also the one which is indirectly linked to SFP via their advertising Royal Sands website. When I asked Mr Stannard whether Cardy wanted to continue to have its name linked to that advertisement he said that "they have indeed been working closely with SFP on the Royal Sands development project" and that "currently [meaning back in April] all communication are being made with TDC." Is it not possible that the email Thanet Watch is quoting might still in the same line of those communications between Cardy and TDC, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it Mr Poole who is still holding up those communications...
ReplyDeleteBet there is also a Christmas Cardy with strong links to a bloke with a red suit and white beard who lives up north somewhere. He gets about all over the place at a certain time of year and has very probably visited Stannard, Keegan, Painter and Poole, usually sneaking down their chimneys. How suspicious is that, I ask?
DeleteDon't you sometimes think this whole Pleasurama business is getting a bit far fetched and, when the wizards of investigative journalism also stick their oar in, it is time to call it a day. The reality is that for a number of reasons a planned development has not materialised, no amount of recrimination is going to change that now and so, perhaps we should all push for a speedy resolution on the impasse and seek a more beneficial use of the site.
Gmandaras I did raise the issue of the Cardy Design and Build with Michael Stannard back when he was still replying to me.
DeleteTo: Michael Stannard
Subject: Another Cardy?
Michael I don’t know whether you wish to comment on the latest in The Royal Sands fiasco as it occurs to me that it may have an impact on your company’s reputation.
Re Cardy Developments Ltd" which was dissolved (reg No NI050796) in 2011
Cardy Developments Ltd" (reg No 06726001) which was originally incorporated as Future Homes On-Line Properties Ltd" in 2008 but renamed to "Cardy Developments Ltd" only on the 4th of April this year.
Future Homes On-Line Properties Ltd" had Keegan as director, when I checked out his other directorships several years ago.
Companies house now say
Cardy Developments Limited is an Active, non trading business incorporated in England & Wales on 16th October 2008. Their business activity is recorded as Buying And Selling Of Own Real Estate. Cardy Developments Limited is run by 1 current members. 1 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is not part of a group.
The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/10/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £0, 'liabilities' worth £0, 'net worth' of £0 and 'assets' worth £0. Cardy Developments Limited's risk score was amended on 26/04/2010.
Current directors and secretaries
Mr Shaun Patrick Keegan
Best regards Michael
As you see his reply was a little terse and over this last issue he hasn’t seen fit to offer me the courtesy of a reply at all.
On 11/04/2013 22:37, Michael Stannard wrote:
Hi Michael
Thanks for your email.
I am however already fully aware of all such information.
Kind Regards
Michael
Frankly with the whole Pleasurama issue nothing would surprise me and in all honesty I don’t think there is anyone involved in the whole issue, cabinet members past and present or the developer’s representatives, who one could go to and get a straight answer to what either the council’s or the developer intends to do about this significant blot on Ramsgate’s prime leisure site.