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.

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?

lostalot,

Got your E-Mail via the MoneyAm messenger yesterday but can't reply same way as from 1st March (today) no longer Level 2.
But you can contact me via tradavanmar@hotmail.com. Hols from 6th march though.

regards Dave (greekman)

The Daily Telegraph reported today that the LSE has come under fire for refusing to name 4 AIM companies that it has fined a total of 170,000.
These breaches varied from
1 Misleading and unrealistically optimistic statements.
2 Delaying the publication of price sensitive information by up to two months.
3 Omitting material facts.
All I feel are serious enough offenses for these companies to be named. As it stands I/You may have shares in these companies, and have been mislead.
As many will remember, the FSA informed me that if my complaint against Stanelco resulted in a penalty that was not deemed a Public Censure then I would receive No update.
It looks as if the LSE are as open as the FSA are. Decisions such as these make companies less likely to be open with their shareholders.
I appreciate SEO are not on the AIM but I'm sure the treat shareholders like mushrooms is relevant to the main markets and AIM equally.

nothing to do with SEO...as you say they are on the Main MArket, but one wonders - for how long - they must be a blight/tarnish there and maybe nudged out.

FSA fines - are a sad joke, IMHO - since a "fine" is not directed to the wrongdoer ( ie Management, who collect bonus fees etc.) - but the Shareholders whose dividend is cut as a result.

If shareholders are fined for the wrongdoing of their shares - then shareholders need at least twice the power thay have at present. The ability to set the AGM-agenda and maybe forced rotation of Execs that cannot show their performance is well above average. AGM Time and Place.

And so on. Indeed shareholders would ppear to be better "regulators", since any bad outcome directly affects their investment...

And up 25.49% on the day with as yet no justifiable reason. If there is such a reason then someones in the know, or it could be similar to the last 3 such rises, whereas the sp steadily drops over the coming days/weeks.
If course I'm not suggesting the possibility of someone chasing up the price in order to start the shorting merry go round again. Perish the thought.
Whatever is happening we (PI's) will be the last to know.