Please post Date, Time, Heading of any news released in any official format by Stanelco than you deem relevant to above proposed report.

Thanks in anticipation.

Greekman.

Quite possibly "procroft" has not registered an email address for the messaging system to forward a message to.

Dunno, but hopefully that's useful

Big Al,

Thanks, obvious really.

Procroft, the appears to be no way to contact you except via this thread.
Please see my previous posts, which I feel explains my feelings.
I do value your suggestion as all who have contributed have assisted in my complaint contents, in one way or another.
But to re-iterate.....Enough is enough. I feel we have been very patient with the management (mainly the old management) but a stand must be made. Deadlines have been passed many times with no or very late updates, Starpol, Cig Filters, Greenseal to name but three.
As previously said, I was willing to give them another couple of weeks, re good solid news. The time will be up Friday.
Thanks again for you message.
Greek.

greekman

It's just a thought, but, do you think that if you were to forward a copy of your complaint to SEO, prior to posting to the FSA, asking for clarification on the relevant points, might get you some satisfaction. Or have you already done so.
Good Luck with your quest.
And thanks for making the effort.

Hi, Patisear,

It did cross my mind but decided not to for 3 reasons.

1 Several previous E-Mails from myself and others have been ignored.
I have never requested sensitive info, only clarification of details promised via dead lines. So I doubt if I did forward a copy,they would reply.

2 If they did reply, I feel it would be the usual spin, fob of updates.

3 If they took my report seriously, it would pre warn them of a possible call from the regulating authority.

But thanks re your post.

You may not have a choice Greekman!
Not certain of the FSA approach to this area, but certainly in retail areas they are very clear that they will not investigate anything until the complainant has put a formal written complaint to the alleged offender and allowed 8 weeks for a the offender to respond and offer (where appropriate) either settlement or justification.
Only when the complainant and offender disagree over justification and settlement will the FSA intervene, and then only if they consider it a breach of their rules. If not they will pass it to another of the regulatory bodies such as the FSO.
Might be worth checking if you need to complain to SEO first.
Alan

Surely it is the Stock Exchange rules that have been breached. SEO are not a 'Financial Service'. Aren't RNS's issued in order that the company complies, as a fully listed company, with the rules of of the SE?

Cant see why the FSA would be interested - SEO haven't supplied a 'financial service'.

From the FSA website:-

'Who we regulate


The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is an independent organisation responsible for regulating financial services in the UK. '

Possibly right Oblo, but the FSA would have an interest as they regulate the SE. It could also be argued that they provided false information, or didn't provide information on which financial services decisions were made.
Murky, but I still think any regulatory bodies first question to Greek will be whether he has addressed his concerns to SEO themselves.

Hi Alan,

Yes you are correct if it is complaints that are personal to an individual or to a body and do not include possible abuse of market rules. So if these rules are breached, every shareholder is effected.
All I am in fact doing is bringing to the attention of the regulator a possible breach of their (the market)rules.
As the regulatory authority are the market regulating body, they will be able to judge if these rules have been breached where as a layman I am not.
As I consider these rules may have been broken, I have been advised the correct complaint procedure is directed to Regulatory Complains Trading Services London Stock Exchange. I received this info by E-Mail from the LSE.

Initially I did think (wrongly) that it was to be made to the FSA, but several posters put me right. Following this I carried out quite a bit of research via the LSE.

If nothing else it is proving a learning process for myself.

No doubt if I am wrong, the regulator will soon put me right.

As a foot note... I think the possibility of my complaint leading to an inquiry is very slim. But no matter what the outcome I will keep everyone informed, ( if only Stanelco had done the same)! I may end up with a serious amount of egg on my face.

EDIT... Slow in typing, so posted the above before I saw the last 2 posts, but I think the above gives clarification.

Cheers Greek.

Thanks for clarifying that, Greek, and the time you've put in.

One thing, if the complaint is thrown out we can at least sleep more soundly in the knowledge we were not conned and the SEO management are a wonderful bunch of people after all! (*!*!*)

The deadline is reached.
I have considered at length my decision of reporting Stanelco, now or to delay it further.
The temptation to delay is always there, but if I do, days could stretch into weeks, weeks into months etc.
I feel we have given Stanelco's management every chance to be straight with their shareholders (the company owners).
I have also, as someone suggested considered (again) informing Stanelco's board of my intention to report, but as I and several others have had E-Mails ignored in the pasts decided against it.
I will not repeat the reasons behind this complaint as they have been aired on this thread many times.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have contributed to this thread, those for and against.
I especially thank, Oilywag, Oblomov and Tonyrelaxes (beginning to sound like an Oscar or Bafta awards speech) all who provided me with information that has not been repeated or indeed mentioned in any form, as some has been sensitive (but legal). This info has been valuable in leading me to other avenues of information generally available that I have used.

The final report has no substantive changes from the draft I posted on 16th June. It has been fleshed out, with certain points highlighted .

It is ready for posting, and if there is no RNS of any substance by market opening tomorrow, the report will be forwarded as stated.

I will confirm posting.

Regards Greek.

To Greek for best speech

and what will you give him for the likely result of his diligence? .... nul points is my bet as, though i have not followed this, i would doubt if there is much (anything) of substance to interest the relevant authorities.

greekman
There is a very interesting post on Interactive Investor by pollock4 regarding Howard White and his son
Take a look before submitting anything to the FSA

cynic 'though i have not followed this...'

You're in no position to comment on it then, are you, so why bother?

Hugybear,

Yes, very interesting. I read it before seeing your post. I was not going to mention anything on that site re the complaint, but after reading the post by pollock4 I have now posted re the substance of the complaint on that site.

Cynic,

I agree that the authorities may not feel there is any substance, and as previously said, I have no problems re opposing views, but as Oblomov states, I find it difficult to see how you can judge without following the plot.
Someone has to try. A line has to be drawn, or do we just shut our eyes to what we feel is injustice.

To all posting 0900 hrs today.

As a foot note, anyone see the article in The Telegraph on Saturday. The LSE state that 1 in 3 takeover deals probably involves insider trading. Not referring to SEO or any other company, but it shows how corrupt the market can be. Us poor PI's don't stand a chance.

i can comment because the same applies in many many instances ..... most often the gripes are based on general disgruntlement because certain people have done their dosh instead of taking the prudent course of cutting their loss ..... for sure some management is (arguably) not as open as it should be, but then any sensible management will not respond with anything of substance to some individual's request for info, because that sort of info should be for public dissemination.

for sure everything is also not Portia clean, but then nor is general business - e.g. the so-called BAE corruption nonsense which is (imo) merely driven by certain (US!) political pressure ...... however, the real question is do you have any solid evidence that would stand up even in a civil court? ...... almost certainly not is my bet

Cynic, you can answer your own questiona by reading the posts and as Greek says 'follow the plot'.

I've personally made two complaints to the financial ombudsmen over the past two years and won both after being told almost unanimously by those who knew I was complaining that I hadn't a chance. The evidence is in the RNS's and what happened afterwards, particularly to the cash raised in the open offer on the basis of the US MMP's.

IMO

i have long thought SEO was a load of rubbish and merely regret that i never shorted it ..... my observations were general ...... if you have indeed succeeded in "winning" on a couple of occasions, though i wonder if there was any financial benefit from that, then good luck to you ...... i don't think the markets are any more crooked than say horse or dog racing, and shares are merely another form of gambling ...... if you don't like the set-up or the odds, then don't bet!

Cynic,

When I invest, I look at the odds, be it on the stock market or race course.
It is when the odds become loaded against me (bending/breaking the rules), I become annoyed. I agree that investing is a form of gambling. One of my portfolio's is a high risk portfolio (SEO are in that portfolio). I except that some companies in this portfolio will fail for many reasons, bad management being one of them. Annoying as this might be, I have to accept it. But rules are there to protect, investors, companies and the market as a whole. I am not so naive that I invest on the premise that these rules are always adhered to but I expect certain parameters not to be crossed. Feeling Stanelco have stepped over the line, was the deciding factor, re the complaint.
Please don't take offense, as I do appreciate all sides of the augment, but feel I have covered most in my previous posts. So please read my previous comments on this thread prior to posting as I do not wish to repeat detail.
If you do read the full flow, I am quite happy to discuss anything not covered.

i never take offense even with the not-at-all-lamented-and-now-sent-to-the-gallows-tcdmt, who reckoned my daughter was fair target for obscene abuse!

by the looks of it, i am just more pragmatic than you, so just avoid companies whose management looks to have more than a little to be desired - e.g. RPT ..... to my amazement, i see that stinker has now gone up 4-fold in the last year