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.

Whilst I agree that those who have acted incorrectly should be brought to account, I am not so sure complaints against the Company and possible public censure of the company will help us.

Possibly the reverse. it could bring into disrepute the Company and the management, which is completely changed except for the new(ish) FD and dear old Liz.

Mind you, a public censure would not be a final glittering entry she would welcome on her CV. And she should have had the knowledge available to stop irresponsibility - or resign in protest.
But she did not, thereby giving credence to how the company behaved.

I believe the merits of doing this were discussed earlier in this thread.

My feeling again, FWIW, is that the company would not be damaged for the very reason you point out above, Tony.

i.e. Since the period when the announcements complained about took place 'the company and management is completely changed except for the new(ish) FD and dear old Liz.'

I don't see that 'dear old Liz' is a good enough reason to hold back, however 'dear' you think she is. If there are victims in this story and there has been any wrongdoing she'll have to join the many other victims - those of us, including yourself, who lost a lot of money.

Investors deserve some answers - if the FSA decide there is nothing to answer, fine, Thats our answer - as investors we were stupid and not conned. If we were conned, however, we should be told.

Hi Toneyrelaxes,

As Oblomov has stated, this has been discussed earlier so it might be worth a read back. But I do agree that any inquiry into a company by any sort of regulatory body can (if that report comes to light) have a detrimental effect. Even if nothing comes of said inquiry, the no smoke without fire brigade etc.
But to reiterate briefly......If we allow companies to trade with impunity, where will bad practice end.
The FSA do make it clear that most of their inquiries start due to info from outside.
As to there being a different management, whist I agree that most of my complaint basis is regarding the past (management) there are still many questions that need to be answered. Cig filters, Greenseal, Wrap to name but 3. I have no idea where issues are with these although several time scales dates have long past.
If there are serious issues updates should have been forthcoming.
They may as well have said, We have a 12 month trial with *****, or we are in serious negotiations with some major companies re ***** and after the mentioned dates, deadlines we will inform our shareholders if the news is good but we won't bother if its bad.
It was suggested that to inform re serious problems would impede sales, but my answer was and still is....Any potential buyer does due diligence on the products they are interested in, as well as the company. Perhaps that is why take up by Walmart is so slow, almost to a full stop.

I am hoping re several updates in the results, but all I am expecting is much of the same stalling techniques, more fog, no clarity. If I am wrong (and I truly hope I am) I will be the first to admit it.

I will be on Hols the first 2 weeks in Sept, so will post on return, even if the update is No Update from the FSA.

Lets hope I come back to good results and a recovery in the SP.

Regards all, Greek.

Well back from Hols.
No update re SEO complaint.
Just read the results. Looks like as said, stalling techniques.
The problem is that whatever they say, we have heard similar before.

Quick update. Now into Oct and still nothing from the FSA.

Will only post once a month, or if/when I receive a reply.
Not holding my breath.
I think the chances of any reply from the FSA, or SEO making it big time are about the same.
Both appear to have no interest in their customers/shareholders.
Pathetic.

Greek,

Will the FSA not give you an idea of when you can expect a reply? The Financial Ombudsmen does and even sends a monthly update, even if it does only say they haven't reached the case it does tell you they haven't lost the file!

Hi Oblomov,

They informed me that unless their investigation (if they have one) results in a public censure, the UKLA will not comment on specific cases.
This is due to statutory and policy reasons of confidentiality, (their words not mine).
So if there is no public censure, thats that, I presume I will hear nothing further.

The above gives no cause for openness, or confidence in the system.
Now if I was a representative of a large city institution, or someone with a name, I wonder if the same criteria would apply.

And the FSA is supposed to be open and forthright.

I'm sure you agree that we are all equal. It's just that some are more equal than others.

Note... I have penciled in to re contact the FSA in December so I can at least draw a line under what is increasingly looking like a waste of time.

Thanks for your (and all others) continuing interest.

Regards Greek.

Hi Greek,
Knowing the FSA very well, they will do precisely nothing.
They are spread too thin, trying to police far too much, in areas they know almost nothing. With this in mind, they focus their efforts on the easy stuff. Like the CSA chasing fathers who are easy to catch and ignoring the rest, or local coppers doing nothing about burglaries, but devoting half their force to speeding motorists.
This is the problem with having targets set. Ones natural instinct is to ensure the targets are met, regardless of whether wider objectives are achieved, but that is another subject.
The chances of censure are nil. If SEO can show they have systems in place so that rules are not usually broken, then nothing will happen. If systems are in place that are faulty, they will be asked to fix them. That is all.
There is so much wool in the heads of the FSA that it is childs play to pull it over their eyes.
Bunch of jobsworths with no clue at all about the real world outside Canary Wharf.
(Can you tell I have little time for them)?

Hi.

I have also had dealings in the past, and fulling agree with you re the easy stuff.
I also believe they are not fully independent of outside authority. Their remit may state they are, but like you say, in the real world!
No doubt if a case worker causes too many waves, they are quickly reigned in.
Several years ago I was in a profession that had dealings with Social Workers.
A case worker transfered to the area, who within a few weeks sorted out so many child abuse cases by not taking no for an answer. Many of these cases involved serious obvious physical abuse, but previous case workers had not seen the children involved because parents had given many excuses why their children could not be seen (similar to those that reach the news, such as the Crombie case to name but 1).
This worker after a few months was moved yet again to another area, presumably to satisfy the don't upset too many people brigade, and things drifted back to normal.

Thanks Greek.

Alan, I'm going to reply to your email shortly (next hour or so). Let me know if you don't receive it.

Apologies for delay - been a bit chaotic since I got back from hols for one reason and another!!

Cheers, Oblo.
Popping out soon so it may be this evening before I check my mails.
Thanks alot
Alan

On contact with the FSA 1055 hrs today the following has been confirmed.
They informed me that unless their investigation had resulted in a public censure, they would not comment on specific cases.
They also confirmed that if there is a none public censure or a NFA decision I would not be informed.
So as it stands, I can't find out if the decision after investigation (if indeed they did investigate and not just bin it) was a private censure or NFA.
Figures show that very few FSA censures are public with most being of a private nature. No doubt the vast majority are NFA, as no doubt mine was.
And the government continues to state that all such department should be open and above allegations of none compliance.
Some hope. The system as it stands gives no cause for confidence.
Prior to commencing on my quest, I gave little hope of justice, but felt I had to at least try.
I would like to thank all those who contributed to this thread, even those who had differing views to my own. I only wish I could have finalized this issue with at least a semi definitive result.

There is only one more route I can take and that is through the civil courts.
I therefore request that all SEO shareholders send me a cheque of 100 (I need about 100,000 so anyone who wishes to contribute more please do so) details of my Caribbean Bank account number supplied on request.

Please trust my honesty, remembering that if I did run off with your money, you could always retrieve it via the Caribbean Financial Services Agency.

Regards Greek.

Greekman
One route that occurs to me - but I'm not sure if it would work - is to contact your local MP and ask him/her to request information regarding the case with the FSA using the Freedom of Information Act.

The FSA might be able to dodge a reply because it could be regarded as "Commercial In Confidence" but most MPs like haveing a pop at Bureaucracy and the FSA is a good target - 'cos they're crap.

The only downside is that I suspect your MP is part of the establishment - Alan Johnson - so he may dodge it himself. However, if it's David Davies I'm sure he'll be more than up for it.

Just a thought

Hi mg,

So I presume your not sending me a 100 then.

The problem with the Freedom Of Information Act is that it's as selective as the government want.
For example..... A while ago John Hemming MP asked how much was the total cost of the governments Red Boxes, which all ministers are entitled to.
He used the Freedom of Information Act to ask them to justify their response by disclosing the advice they had been given.

But they argue Section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) "provides that information can be withheld where disclosure would make officials less willing to seek or offer free and frank advice would inhibit the frankness and candor of guidance in future."

The above covers a be all and get all situation.

They have been made the same way for centuries - a wooden base covered in roan deer leather, or cloth. The cost varies, depending on size and finish.

Prices of the boxes, which are used to store government papers securely, ranged from 385 to 750 each.

Of those who responded, the DTI - now Department for Business - spent the most at 13,337.50 for 18 boxes.

I appreciate not all info can or should be released due to sensitivity/security but the price of a wooden box, well say no more.

There must be plenty of other examples.

So although I appreciate the suggestion, I won't be going down that dead end.

When it comes to trust, politicians are at the bottom of my list.

Nice finish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

greekman
Sorry I didn't reply - busy setting up a red box business :)

Thanks for that - it was just a thought - and you are right - it should be called a Freedom of Information That Won't mean Anything To Anyone - or - Yeah Right, You Think We're Gonna Tell You That !!

Thanks for the reply anyway.

Mg,

No prob, I'm just annoyed that I could not gain a better and satisfying result.
I hope your red box business goes well. Will they be bio-degradable?
Don't forget to include a plain brown envelope inside!
Look forward to seeing you in the New Years Honers list.

Note.... To date no one has requested any details re my Caribbean Bank Account. What a none trusting lot you are.

Regards to all, Greek.

Greek.
I was thinking of paying the 100 in cash over the Bank's counter.
Just send the address and fare please.

Tony,

Nice one.

Greekman...do you have an email address ?

I would like to discuss something with you?