Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

HO Ho HO!

Although not according to Snopes... http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp

General election confirmed May 6th

My anti virus has had a few 'issues' with Snopes, although that could be an anti virus problem. I was intending to post it on 1st April, but was too busy having fun telling the wife that Unite had gone bust and the oldest youngter would have nowhere to stay at university after Easter sp I fprgot.

It has gone quiet.

Everybody must be canvassing for the tories.

They need all the help they can get!!!!

8-)

I shall be coming back to Britain at the beginning of May and registering my vote ,i dont expect Cameron to be another Thatcher ,but can he really ruin Britain the way Blair and Brown have ?? I hate Labour so much it hurts ,,in fact i hate all politicians so much it hurts . .

Interesting, Cameron offering 150 for couples to get married.

Told to-day that it costs more than that to get a divorce.

I knew he was a con artist.

STOCK EXCHANGE NOTICE
NOTIFICATION ORDER BOOK CONDUCT
Introduction and background

The purpose of this Notice is to provide clarification and further guidance with respect to the Rules of the London Stock Exchange (the rules) regarding misleading acts, conduct and prohibited practices (Rule 1400). In particular, this Notice relates to the creation of a false or a misleading market in a security and the requirement on member firms not to act or engage in any course of conduct which is likely to damage the fairness or integrity of the Exchanges markets.

These changes have been prompted in part by recent concerns regarding certain behaviour on the order book, whereby a DMA client of a member firm was engaged in conduct that potentially put the member firm in breach of the Exchanges rules.
Specifically, the DMA client was involved in:

layering of the order book, in which multiple orders were submitted at different prices on one side of the order book; or

large orders were entered at a price away from the touch and then rapidly removed from one side of the book; and

the clients true intention was to trade in the opposite direction from the orders it had input.

These actions may have created an impression of liquidity that could have misled the market.

The Exchange has decided to publish additional guidance to assist member firms in understanding what behaviour is acceptable on the Exchanges markets. In particular, the Exchange wishes to clarify the responsibility of member firms for misleading or potentially misleading acts on the part of their DMA clients.

The guidance to paragraph 1400 makes clear that all orders entered to the order book are firm. Notwithstanding that legitimate reasons may arise for deletion and/or resubmission of orders, member firms should not submit orders to the order book that they do not intend to execute. This applies whether the order arises from the member firms own activity or that of a customer. The Exchange reminds member firms that the efficient functioning of the markets and the best interests of participants are undermined if orders placed on the order book do not reflect genuine trading interest. Such behaviour could create a false and misleading impression of the market.

To support this, the guidance to paragraph 1400 under Order book conduct has been amended. These amendments reiterate that member firms are responsible for the orders submitted in their name to TradElectTM. In part, the amendments mirror the guidance to paragraph 2100 on order entry, ensuring greater consistency throughout the rules. However, member firms should note that the existing guidance to paragraph 1400 of the Rules has been retained recognising that, where a member firm is genuinely unaware of the motives behind a customer order that has been entered to exploit the commitment to deal of a Retail Service Provider, the member firm would not be in breach of the rules per se.

Attachment 1 to this Notice highlights the changes that are being made to the guidance to Rule 1400. Such changes are effective immediately

Any comments or queries on this Notice should be addressed to Tim Rowe, Trading Services, telephone +44 (0)20 7797 3468 (STX 33468) or email: trowe@londonstockexchange.com.

Unfortunately Tim is nice but dim?in any casethe Markets are as straight as Dale Winton. we never see manipulation?

tabby: do you want me to take that as your final answer? ;-)

No MightyIll ask the audience.

"....where a member firm is genuinely unaware of the motives behind a customer order that has been entered to exploit the commitment to deal of a Retail Service Provider, the member firm would not be in breach of the rules per se."

So not much change there then.

Tabasco,

Very interesting. Don't know if you read that in The Daily Telegraph, but their article also stated that as the FSA is starting to get tough, it is likely to have some effect on corrupt market practises, although if you look at the following,
The FSA's own "market cleanliness" statistics suggest that between 25% and 30% of investor deals are preceded by suspicious movements in share prices that could be the result of insider dealing, they have their work cut out.
Still they are finally waking up.
I just hope successful prosecutions, with appropriate sentences follow.

Daily Telegraph.

I get my chips in that paper, but they taste better in Express.

Warning though don't use the Daily Mail.


8-)

.

NM,

Sadly I have only had chips about three times in the last 2-3 years and fish and chips once in 10years.

My wife likes my Sylph like body and has my wallet.

But I have my memories.

The wife makes home made fish and chipsnot forgetting to three times cook the chipsand twice cook the fish in a beer batterthen we wrap them in the New Statesman and Horse & Hound.sit on the patioand sing Chas & Dave songs.

.

So good old Gordon admits to getting the Banks wrong he couldnt foresee their reckless and irresponsible behaviourand the impact it would haveit was all the rest of the Worlds fault? just a small blunder there Gordonand a bit late in the day with the admissionhe didnt exactly set out too many conditions for any future misconduct when he bailed the ba**ards out with our moneynever mind we all make mistakes?Brown has just said hell impose new curbs on bankers bonuses if he wins next months election giving regulators power to override employment contracts................if he dontor forgets?over the coming four yearshe will admit to getting it wrong againlike true British citizens we will once again forgive him for his fcuk-upsand there could still be a future for him in waiting as a Catholic Priest.

Tabs,

Repeating myself once again.

Prior to the 1997-2008, the Tories were responsible for the demise of much of the industrial bases of the UK. Talking up the Financial and Service industries and the Tories implemented changes to the Building societies regulations in the 1980s which led up to the current problems. (Many of the changes in banking and financial services go back to that period and were condemned by many at the time.)s

The belief was the financial services and banking services were the new cash cows for Britains economy.

(I am not saying all the changes were bad.)

In the period 1997-2008 the majority of people in this country were doing well and their expectancies were on the up.

Wages were increasing, living conditions were improving and in general health treatments and health care were improving by leaps and bounds. The latter two has to exclude the creeping increase in obesity and illegal use of addictive drugs.

The strong pound allowed many to float around in Europe for extensive holidays.

House improvements and false marketing up of their value was rampant.
Greedy bank borrowers were gambling on the continuation of the trend. (The same happened during the Heath government, where property builders and dealers were gambling on increase in equity of properties being built to build more.)

Punters were asking for more or demanding more and more unsupported tick.
Companies were set up for subprime mortgages.

The City and tories were crying out for less regulation of the city and the Banks.

In this free market can you imagine any government being able to restrict by legislation the operations of the profitable banks, especially, with the media chanting on about the freedom of the markets place and Television programs on how to make a quick buck by buying and selling a property.
Gordons Boom and bust boast was crass stupidity, but comparing that period to the boom and bust periods, of the previous torys administration, I can see the pleasure he had in thinking that he had achieved the miracle of economy. (Many shared the delusion.)

Can you imagine dreaming up policies to increase regulations of the financial agencies and getting them into legislations?

In one way the financial bomb was bound to go off.

The problem is, that looking at the pressures on increased Bank lending and reforms to taxation and general over expectancies, I can see another bomb in the making.

Looking at the present political parties, they all seem weak, and at present, I don't think any of them individually will have the courage to introduce the strategic changes necessary to "settle" down and resolve some of the fundamental needs of the country.
.

"The belief was the financial services and banking services were the new cash cows for Britains economy."

Fact: London and the South East produces the highest GDP per capita in the UK.
Fact: UK Financial services share of GDP is around 10% of total UK GDP
Fact: UK manufacturing still accounts for 26% of UK GDP
Fact: UK manufacturing has been in decline throughout the last 13 years of Labour government.
Fact: The first thing Brown did as Chancellor in 1997 was to pass control of interest rates to the BoE.
Fact: Brown told the BoE to set interest rates with the primary objective of controlling inflation based primarily upon inflation data that he had massaged. In other words, Brown was still in control of interest rates in all but name.
Fact: If interest rates had been higher and more in tune with reality throughout the noughties, the irrational exuberance we've witnessed would never have happened.
Fact: Brown has spent every penny we ever had, and then some.
Fact: The country no longer has a pot to p!ss in.
Fact: Brown is 100% responsible for the mess we're in now. It's not the banks' fault and it's moronic to suggest it's the fault of traders.