greekman
- 07 Jun 2007 07:28
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.
oblomov
- 09 Jul 2007 11:01
- 57 of 101
cynic,
you seem to have a problem with reading - from my post to which you refer:-
'(and I'm not suggesting we are talking 'crime' in SEO's case)'
cynic
- 09 Jul 2007 11:03
- 58 of 101
not shouting at anyone ..... though oblomov now denies he was talking of crime, it certainly read otherwise .... merely stating what i think is the almost inevitable outcome - i.e. if you are lucky, some soothing noises but nothing else ..... i shall watch with great interest
oblomov
- 09 Jul 2007 12:10
- 59 of 101
cynic,
Are you a child?
My post was answering yours in which you said 'i don't think the markets are any more crooked than say horse or dog racing, and shares are merely another form of gambling '
Crooked = crime in my book - its you who bought up crime and my post relates to that point - in general, not related to SEO as I clearly said with '(and I'm not suggesting we are talking 'crime' in SEO's case)'.
cynic
- 09 Jul 2007 15:44
- 60 of 101
can't be arsed to argue semantics with you ...... i shall just wait and watch with interest as to whether the authorities have the remotest interest in taking any action at all on SEO .... my guess is that your real soreness is because you are mug enough to be still a holder
oblomov
- 09 Jul 2007 16:30
- 61 of 101
Cynic - I'm not sore and there are no semantics involved. You're just being a prat, thats all, and looking for an argument.
cynic
- 09 Jul 2007 16:35
- 62 of 101
fine by me if that's your view; personally i have no more view of you than the man on the moon ..... i shall scarcely lose sleep
keep holding them SEO .... you are sure to make your fortune!
greekman
- 09 Jul 2007 16:43
- 63 of 101
Please people, this thread is pointless if things become personal.
My reason for creating this thread was to glean information and help re my complaint. My intention is not to take sides in any debate re hold, sell or buy this share. The SEO thread is more relative to that. It matters not to me what people think re this share. The input up to now has been very helpful in this fact, don't lets allow it to drift to the level seen on other threads/sites.
Not taking sides.
cynic
- 09 Jul 2007 16:51
- 64 of 101
quite right .... smacked wrist accepted! .... lol!
oblomov
- 09 Jul 2007 17:23
- 65 of 101
cynic - I dont need SEO to make my fortune - like many other posters here I've already made it. Stop being silly now.
When people make silly comments after the hours greek put in on this (and myself too) and say they haven't actually been following things it's pretty difficult not to get personal!
If you'd written a book and a reviewer said it was rubbish but he hadn't read it, what can you say?
lol - time to take a walk
greekman
- 19 Jul 2007 18:07
- 66 of 101
Update.
Prior to posting the complaint I contacted the LSE and FULLY explained the basis of the complaint and the company involved. They did not ask where it was listed.
I stated that I was requesting their advice as to whom the complaint should be forwarded to. I received an E-Mail directing me to forward the complaint to the following address.
Regulatory Complains
Trading Services
London Stock Exchange
10 Paternoster Square
London EC4M 7LS.
Today I received a reply stating, from the above dept..... Thank you for etc, etc. Based on the information you provided it appears to be a matter more appropriately to be dealt with by the UK Listing Authority (UKLA) who as you will be aware, monitor releases of information in relation to Main Market companies such as Stanelco plc.
They have supplied an address for the above which is part of the FSA, which is the department I initially thought I needed to contact, but the LSE advised me otherwise.
So I now have to re submit the complaint and corresponding evidence. (Will do so this Saturday).
If the LSE when contacted give the wrong department initially, it does not fill one with confidence.
But I will not give up yet.
I will keep everyone posted.
oblomov
- 19 Jul 2007 19:12
- 67 of 101
Thanks Greek.
kimoldfield
- 19 Jul 2007 19:33
- 68 of 101
Hmmm, yes thanks Greek,................LSE, is that an abbreviation of Let Stanelco Exaggerate?
greekman
- 20 Jul 2007 07:51
- 69 of 101
Possibly. In my last job the CPS was referred to as The Criminal Protection Society.
(See the Talk To Yourself Thread).
explosive
- 20 Jul 2007 12:39
- 70 of 101
Just noticed this thread, well done Greek, in my view if you don't ask you won't get! Maybe also send a copy of the letter to the top corporate holders, you never know who may be willing to add support and weight.
greekman
- 20 Jul 2007 13:32
- 71 of 101
Hi Explosive,
Thanks. I believe the corporate holders would be reluctant to back a complaint at this stage, as it would be an admission that they had got it wrong. My feeling is they will wait till the final moment (a possible suspension of dealings) before they act. That is not to say they will still be holders by then.
I am not saying this will happen but you never know.
All IMHO of course.
greekman
- 26 Jul 2007 08:21
- 72 of 101
Confirming report was sent Sat 21st by recorded delivery.
Nothing to do with Stanelco complaint but may be of interest. You can win sometimes....I have just received a small amount of compensation from Halifax (won't go into the boring details) after threatening them with the FSA, now waiting for a reply from the Law Society re a complaint against a solicitor (connected to the Halifax complaint). So some you do win.
kimoldfield
- 26 Jul 2007 08:26
- 73 of 101
Well done Greek, it's good to know that the 'big boys' don't always get their own way!
greekman
- 26 Jul 2007 08:27
- 74 of 101
Kim,
See the Talk to yourself thread in about 15 mins. It takes some believing.
greekman
- 31 Jul 2007 09:45
- 76 of 101
Update.
Received acknowledgment from the FSA.
Thank you or your letter dated, etc,
If the UKLA finds that a company has contravened the listing rules, it is possible for it to be sanctioned by means of a censure, the details of which may be published. Information, such as you have provided us, is a valuable contribution to our work. However, for statutory and policy reasons the UKLA's investigations are strictly confidential and, unless they result in a public censure, the UKLA does not comment on specific cases.
We thank you for etc, etc.
The above is obviously the usual proforma type letter.
There is NO mention that I will receive any update, if No action is to be taken. I would have expected this to be mentioned.
Watch this space.