|
Anomalous - 23 Jan'04 - 22:38 - 1460 of 1490
> Jonck
It's not the FSA that should be worried. They expressed their concern at the LSE's actions today too in a 2 hour conversation. I think that certain members of the LSE will shortly need to write their CVs. They crossed a line yesterday and today. There's no turning back now.
We gave them an opportunity to solve their problem the correct way, by offering settlement and terms that protected the victims rights to sue for damages, but the LSE refused to accept it. So be it. They will have to pay for their mistakes. They have just destroyed the credibility of the London Market once and for all.
Now they will have to answer to the TSC and the press. The last person to appear before a select committee in similar circumstances had a very unfortunate end. Which was then the subject of a major enquiry by Lord Hutton.
I think David Shrimpton and Martin Graham had better get themselves organised. They are very likely to receive an invitation to appear at the House, to explain why they have allowed their employees to drag the the London Stock Exchange's reputation through the mud. The actions of the LSE have reduced the London Market to the status of a Banana Republic.
Jonck - 23 Jan'04 - 22:43 - 1461 of 1490
Anom - Fair enough, I have removed reference to FSA as it was unfair, but was a reflection of how I felt when writing it.
vanhalen - 23 Jan'04 - 22:46 - 1462 of 1490
gunnergonk - 23 Jan'04 - 22:49 - 1463 of 1490
i made a packet on afd today which far outstrips the £2700 ive had stolen from rsv so money is not my motive for pursuing this, its the principle !.
like they say "dont get mad get even" and we WILL
night all!
gunnergonk - 23 Jan'04 - 22:49 - 1464 of 1490
vh> your my hero!
Jonck - 23 Jan'04 - 22:53 - 1465 of 1490
night Gunnergonk and all
vanhalen - 23 Jan'04 - 22:57 - 1466 of 1490
Saw Bryan last year ..... what a class act !!!
uknighted - 23 Jan'04 - 22:58 - 1467 of 1490
Vh
Quite right, together we stand, divided we fall.
Dusseldorf
Nice touch,thanks. Hope your other investments make you money.
Knitcraft
Keep reading the BB, and there's still life in TAD.
Gunnergonk
Win all four? £5 says you don't.
Uknighted!
gunnergonk - 24 Jan'04 - 12:36 - 1468 of 1490
if you mean what i think you mean (trophys) i think your right!
dont want the carling cup any way! lol, its the other 3 i want!
uknighted - 24 Jan'04 - 15:39 - 1469 of 1490
Gunner
Carling Cup is your best chance. :-)
Uknighted!!
gunnergonk - 24 Jan'04 - 17:13 - 1470 of 1490
ooooh your so funny!
f.a cup result.... arsenal 4 middlesborough 1
roll on the next round!
i hope we get northampton!
vanhalen - 24 Jan'04 - 18:41 - 1471 of 1490
I expect the gooners to get pompey in next round
Pires takes another dubious dive and keep their even more dubious 100% no lose record !!!
hope your severely embarassed gunner !!!
:-)
gunnergonk - 24 Jan'04 - 22:03 - 1472 of 1490
nope!, proud!
night all
uknighted - 25 Jan'04 - 10:36 - 1473 of 1490
Gunnergonk
Northampton? Of course you would, you wouldn't want United :-)
gunnergonk - 25 Jan'04 - 11:58 - 1474 of 1490
correct,
anyone got any tips! ive got some money burning a hole in my pocket from afd!
gunnergonk - 25 Jan'04 - 12:02 - 1475 of 1490
vh> i must take exception with your pires comment! he does not dive he falls intentionaly with the use of a loud scream as if hes been shot!....its art!
vanhalen - 25 Jan'04 - 12:53 - 1476 of 1490
Playing Arsenal or MUFC on their patch means that the struggling teams are already 2 goals adrift before a ball is even kicked !!!
To get a deserved penalty is almost folklore
It made me smile when the question was asked a few weeks ago whether or not Arsenal could go a full season without getting beat.
My opinion ..... Depends who is refereeing on the day. A good run off naive referee's should see them through !!!
And dont forget ... you've still got to play the chaps on the south coast yet. We still remember that laughable three twists, double pike nicely finished of with treble somersault earlier this season.
Yours bitter and twistedly
:-)
jmillskeel - 25 Jan'04 - 13:54 - 1477 of 1490
.
trumpet - 25 Jan'04 - 14:53 - 1478 of 1490
Meanwhile in the States.......
Effective 2/20/04 according to DJ
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Taking most market participants by surprise, the National Association of Securities Dealers has drastically tightened one of its rules governing short selling.
Known as affirmative determination, the NASD rule stipulates that brokers and dealers engaged in a short sale transaction must make sure that shares
can be delivered by settlement time, three days later.
"We closed a loophole," said Steve Luparello, executive vice president of Market Regulation at NASD.
Until now, non-NASD members, like specialists, option markets and foreign brokers, weren't covered under the affirmative determination rule. That means that non-NASD members didn't have to represent to the NASD broker through which they conducted a short sale order that they would be able to deliver the stock by settlement date.
A short seller typically borrows stock from a broker to sell it into the market, betting that the share price will fall so that he can buy the stock back at a lower price and pocket the difference.
The amended NASD affirmative determination rule, which was recently approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, will particularly affect short sales conducted through foreign brokers, most specifically Canadian brokers which have often been used by investors to sell short the stock of small U.S. companies trading on the Over-the-counter Bulletin Board or OTCBB.
Because it's often impossible to borrow the shares of companies trading on the OTCBB, investors and hedge funds looking to take negative bets on these often-overvalued development-stage companies have traditionally been trading through Canada where it's not required to borrow stock before selling it short. The practice is known as naked shorting.
That trading avenue has now been effectively closed.
The new NASD rule doesn't cover Canadian brokers, since most are not members of the association, instead it makes it the responsibility of U.S. brokers trading with non-members to make sure that their counterparts will be able to settle a transaction before completing a short sale.
"It's part of (a broker's) supervisory responsibilities," NASD's Luparello said, adding that a non-member's previous failures to deliver should be a good indication of whether or not it will in fact be able to complete the transaction by the settlement date.
Market makers engaged in bone fide market making activities will continue to be exempt from affirmative determination.
Luparello said that, unlike a parallel SEC initiative to tighten short selling rules on the small-cap markets, the new NASD rules did not originate from worries over mounting failures to deliver stock into the national clearing system. But Luparello said the amended NASD rule fits nicely with the new short selling regulations now under consideration by the SEC.
"I think it addresses a gap and (shows) that we, like the SEC, are looking at a variety of things in this area," Luparello said.
The NASD proposal was first submitted to the SEC in November 2001, well before alleged abuses of naked shorting became the focal point of a campaign lead by some OTCBB companies in the U.S that say they have been victimized by the practice.
While some investors argue that short sellers provide a needed service to the markets, others have called for the complete abolition of short selling because of the undue pressure its puts on the shares of companies.
While market participants in the U.S. and abroad are well aware of the new short selling regulations being put forward by the SEC, known as Regulation SHO, most said they knew nothing of the NASD's plan before it became final.
"It's taken us by surprise," said Richard Thomas, head of compliance at Canadian brokerage firm Pacific International.
Although separate from it, the amended NASD rule fits tightly within the SEC's SHO which is now under review by the SEC staff after a period during which market participants were invited to comment on it.
As it stands, the new SEC short selling rules will make it easier to short large-cap stocks since they would do away with the "uptick" rule, which bans
short selling on a stock when the price is falling.
But it when it comes to the small-cap markets, where it's often impossible to borrow stock, the impact of SHO will be the opposite, making it harder to
short sale stock.
The new SEC rule sets a predetermined level of so-called clearing fails - cases in which a broker or investor cannot deliver stock within two days after settlement - which will trigger a 90-day blackout whereby the customer will not be allowed to short sell that security. That 90-day exemption would
affect trading of U.S. securities in and outside the U.S.
The new NASD affirmative determination rule will take effect on Feb. 20.
Jonck - 26 Jan'04 - 07:04 - 1479 of 1490
Thanks for posting the above Trumpet - very interesting reading
esmerelda - 26 Jan'04 - 08:04 - 1480 of 1490
Response to Divine Comedy (1449) - Try www.snappytrader.com
The Divine Comedy - 26 Jan'04 - 08:52 - 1481 of 1490
Thanks Esmerelda :)
Will go give it a try!
matto - 26 Jan'04 - 10:25 - 1482 of 1490
Interesting stuff trumpet. Its almost as if they've been watching what's going on here.
excretia-ventaxia - 26 Jan'04 - 15:03 - 1483 of 1490
Sorry taken a long time to respond to Jonck re 5p to 6p rip off.If you bought stock off mm, say 10,000 at 5p cost £500. You will after this has been sorted out have the right to subscribe for 100,000 @ 1p another £1000. Your total holding will be 110,000 at a cost of £1500 ie 1.5p each. So if you sell them at 1.92 you should not be too badly off. However your right to subscribe for 100,000 is going to come to you courtsey of mms that are short and if as I suspect the mms have had their wrists slapped by the LSE they will have to cover the short. Here's hoping for a good old fashioned bear squeeze, especially if the NASDAQ ruling starts to gather momentum with our boys
largeman - 26 Jan'04 - 18:41 - 1484 of 1490
Thought you'd like to see this one I've just copied from the iii / ample bulletin board
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
"As a former employee of Cube8 (remember them), I got a letter recently advising me of the changes that have been made to the stock options of the company due to the various consolidations and whatnot over the past months.
Seems I'm now entitled to buy 250 shares at an exercise price of £10 each.
Perhaps I'll wait a while ...
D. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
Regards
Large
uknighted - 26 Jan'04 - 22:38 - 1485 of 1490
Hello Gunnergonk
Chelsea? Hat-trick of FA Cup Final wins? Go for the Carling :-)
gunnergonk - 26 Jan'04 - 23:32 - 1486 of 1490
hmmm wonder if our friends at tottenham might do us a favor and actually make an effort against man united? , no i dont think so!
vanhalen - 26 Jan'04 - 23:55 - 1487 of 1490
Arsenal v Chelsea, handbags at ten paces, that lot
Liverpool v Pompey, ..... thats a real tuffy, probably get knocked out with a dubious last minute penalty decision !!!
jmillskeel - 27 Jan'04 - 10:38 - 1488 of 1490
By the way, i still have my 121004 RSV shares and paid £600 legal (not that i am bosting)..
Agincourt - 27 Jan'04 - 14:27 - 1489 of 1490
jmillskeel
How's that then?
greenchair - 27 Jan'04 - 14:30 - 1490 of 1490
nice to hear that jmillskeel.........
I still hold too. (not that i was ever going to sell out to the rest of the group)
:-)
"you know we made a vow to leave one another never"
jmillskeel - 27 Jan'04 - 14:43 - 1491 of 1863
Good to hear it Andy..
greenchair - 27 Jan'04 - 14:53 - 1492 of 1863
;-)
whats bosting?
jmillskeel - 27 Jan'04 - 14:57 - 1493 of 1863
>
Skiboy10 - 27 Jan'04 - 17:22 - 1494 of 1863
Disgraceful.....
RNS Number:6991U
Azure Holdings PLC
27 January 2004
London Stock Exchange Regulatory Announcement
Publication of Market Maker Holding under Rule 2302
Name of company: AZURE HOLDINGS PLC
Relevant security: ORD 1P
Member firm: EVOLUTION BEESON GREGORY LIMITED
Percentage holding: 16.15%
As at close of business on: 23 JANUARY 2004
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
Jonck - 27 Jan'04 - 17:43 - 1495 of 1863
Skiboy - you said it - disgraceful.
Agincourt - 27 Jan'04 - 18:17 - 1496 of 1863
jmillskeel
You posted earlier that you still had your shares.
Then you deleted the post.
Does that mean you have them or you do not have them?
jmillskeel - 27 Jan'04 - 18:35 - 1497 of 1863
i have them
Agincourt - 27 Jan'04 - 18:39 - 1498 of 1863
jmillskeel
How many is that then?
jmillskeel - 27 Jan'04 - 18:40 - 1499 of 1863
121004 rsv
uknighted - 27 Jan'04 - 20:30 - 1500 of 1863
What ever happened to London Metro(?) was it who owned and posted in the "early" days?
This BB is getting very quiet.
brugha - 27 Jan'04 - 20:33 - 1501 of 1863
still holding 1000 shares
What's happening with this one?
I've seen the odd trade going through at 1.9p
rocket fuel - 27 Jan'04 - 20:39 - 1502 of 1863
check your accounts tomorrow guys, you might find your missing shares have shown up, minus 100 fold and minus 80% of original outlay.
londonmetro - 27 Jan'04 - 20:48 - 1503 of 1863
Still here - frying other fish - still holding firm with these,not sold out.
Havent got a lot to report at the moment.
uknighted - 27 Jan'04 - 20:54 - 1504 of 1863
Good to hear from you london :-)
Rocket fuel "minus 100 fold" - work it out again sunshine, usual drivel.
maxmillion - 27 Jan'04 - 23:36 - 1505 of 1863
Still here & holding...FAST !!
vanhalen - 27 Jan'04 - 23:46 - 1506 of 1863
sprocket tool ..... doesn't matter if the shares are in my account or not or how much they are worth. The damage was done long ago and is well documented.
My advice to you w@nkers is keep sucking each others dicks ..... but whilst your at it .... watch this space !!!
he who laugh's last laugh's the loudest :-)
Beastman - 28 Jan'04 - 10:02 - 1507 of 1863
Me too, still holding, for a interesting share have a look at arx
Anomalous - 28 Jan'04 - 12:00 - 1508 of 1863
Azure Holdings PLC
28 January 2004
For immediate release
28th January, 2004
Azure Holdings Plc (formerly Room Service Group Plc)
( 'the Company')
Notifiable interest
The Company was notified earlier today that on 27th January, 2004, Chiddingfold
Investments Limited disposed of 6,100,000 ordinary shares and is now
beneficially interested in 6,122,761 ordinary shares in the Company,
representing 19.6 per cent. of the issued share capital of the Company.
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
jmillskeel - 28 Jan'04 - 12:02 - 1509 of 1863
very odd
Anomalous - 28 Jan'04 - 12:04 - 1510 of 1863
This RNS and the RNS last night proves that we were correct. The LSE did approve the sale of the shares from Chiddingfold to Evolution. This sets a very dangerous precedent as now the LSE have signalled to everyone that it is perfectly OK to perform a market abuse and sell as many shares as you like, because they will bend the rules to make it OK afterwards. They have just made the listing rules obselete.
Anyone want to buy 100 billion shares in Vodaphone? I don't have them, but under the LSE's new precedent, that doesn't matter, I can take over the company and create as many fake ones as I like and the LSE will bend the rules to OK it.
This shows that the LSE can no longer be trusted. They have crossed a line that will bring them to worldwide disrepute.
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 12:34 - 1511 of 1863
This RNS and the RNS last night proves that we were correct. The LSE did approve the sale of the shares from Chiddingfold to Evolution. This sets a very dangerous precedent as now the LSE have signalled to everyone that it is perfectly OK to perform a market abuse and sell as many shares as you like, because they will bend the rules to make it OK afterwards. They have just made the listing rules obselete.
There is nothing in the listing rules that has been made obsolete by this action, your comments simply reemphasise that you haven't read the listing rules and don't know what you're writing about.
"Anyone want to buy 100 billion shares in Vodaphone? I don't have them, but under the LSE's new precedent, that doesn't matter, I can take over the company and create as many fake ones as I like and the LSE will bend the rules to OK it."
What a totally absurd suggestion and a fundamentally flawed analagy. The last time that I checked the market cap of VOD was in the region of £100bn. You don't have that much money. Furthermore, VOD isn't technically insolvent like RSV was before it was given an emergency life-line by Chiddingfold. Chiddingfold saved RSV.
"This shows that the LSE can no longer be trusted. They have crossed a line that will bring them to worldwide disrepute."
The LSE has shown great integrity in managing the settlement problems in a fair and equitable manner for all. It's not their fault if the members of the action group are totally unreasonable people who can't discuss things in an adult like manner without defaming the market makers and putting in ridiculous excessive and unjust demands for compensation. The LSE's forbearance in trying to explain the position to the action group should be applauded, anyone else would probably have lost their patience by now. The LSE should be applauded for managing an orderly resolution of the settlement issue, for their efforts in trying to educate the hapless action group and for and for putting up with the whingers to begin with.
It's not the LSE's fault that the members of the action group bought shares in a technically insolvent company that had publicly announced that it was going to have a massively dilutive debt for equity swap. Shareholders have to take responsibility for their own investment decisions, even when those decisions are fundamentally flawed, as in this case. If they can't accept responsibility for their own investment decisions then they shouldn't be buying shares to begin with.
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 12:51 - 1512 of 1863
PS: I forgot Anomalous, I presume by now that the FSA have confirmed to you that I have no connection whatsoever with the MMs. It's therefore round about now that an honourable person would withdraw and apologise for their previous inaccurate comments.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 12:55 - 1513 of 1863
JakNife
So you are able to confirm that you are just on here to give us the benefit of your free advice out of the goodness of your heart.
Is that right?
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:21 - 1514 of 1863
shove your crap opinions up your backside jacko, whats your point,ooooo watch out your boss is behind you again, oh i forgot it doesnt matter! you cant get told off for doing your job can you.
you pratt.
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:27 - 1515 of 1863
hi guys im still holding and with the group till the bitter end! any one want a laugh, i got a formal written warning from my broker for doing what was apparently against the rules, if anyone wants to know what i did then say and i will post it! its pathetic but it fcuked up 2 MMs so i thought id SHARE it with you.
garbut - 28 Jan'04 - 13:30 - 1516 of 1863
Agincourt,
From JakNifes very first post,you could smell his one-sidedness in
this matter.And nothing has changed.
You sum it up quite correctly in your post 1513.
That he has felt it necessary to repeatedly post on this thread,shows,in my
opinion,that the "Powers that be" in the Market KNOW that a line was
overstepped.
And"My word is my bond" has a somewhat hollow ring to it now.
Garbut
vanhalen - 28 Jan'04 - 13:30 - 1517 of 1863
Easy gunner .. old boy.
Hold onto your left flank and stay in shape !!!
Slowly bringing up the artillary
email it to anom and i am sure he will mass post if he deems necessary
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:31 - 1518 of 1863
go on let me tell!
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:32 - 1519 of 1863
nothing to do with azh/rsv
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 13:33 - 1520 of 1863
gunnergonk
Please share it with us.
vanhalen - 28 Jan'04 - 13:34 - 1521 of 1863
post it here gunner, i could do with a laugh !!!
ps ..... nice to see old jerklife is still with us
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 13:36 - 1522 of 1863
"From JakNifes very first post,you could smell his one-sidedness in
this matter.And nothing has changed."
Why does anything need to change garbut? As far as I'm concerned my opinion is the better. You and the action group are the ones that need to change opinion.
Human nature is such that whenever people lose money the first thing that they do is look for somebody else to blame. But the bottom line of RSV is that shareholders lost money because of their own poor investment judgement.
thumbtwiddle - 28 Jan'04 - 13:41 - 1523 of 1863
JN - to use your terminology, "investment decisions" are made according to the rules by which all players must abide and are required to do so. When the rules are broken by one or other party, then it is not the "investment decisions" that need changing, surely?
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 13:44 - 1524 of 1863
Perhaps if you could specify exactly what rule was broken thumbtwiddle then we might have a meaningful discussion but as far as I can see no rules were broken.
Did you bother to read the accounts before buying shares? Did you read the bit that explained that there would be a materially dilutive debt for equity conversion? Did you make any sort of effort to assess the risks of an investment in RSV? Look at the balance sheet?
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 13:47 - 1525 of 1863
JakNife
Please answer my question?
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:48 - 1526 of 1863
ok,
no names
i bought 452,004 shares in ??? then sat and watched as they did nothing! yesterday i had to go to phisio when i returned they had gone up!
christ i thought im £1491 up in less than a day i will sell these!
then i watched everyone else start to bail out and the bid price drop my profit was slipping away! when i went to sell they had put a 50k sell limit on it so i got on the phone to the broker and was put on hold! by this time i was only £605 up so i sold all 452,004 shares in 9 lots bang,bang,bang went the trades all at the same price all within 1 min 40secs, right i thought total profit was about £500 marvelous i thought!
20 mins later the broker was on the phone threatening to "reverse" 8 of my 9 trades as they had had a complaint from 2 seperate market makers saying that as i had put the trades through so fast they now could not disperse the extra stock and were stuck with it! when i looked at the bid price it was now at 16% lower than my trades went through at so i begged and grovelled and said sorry countless times and my broker said that they would let me off with a warning this time but "a note would have to be put on my account saying that i have been warned"
happy days!
pete
thumbtwiddle - 28 Jan'04 - 13:50 - 1527 of 1863
in answer to your second para: no i did not. I never bought any shares in RSV but I do follow the thread and many of the posters are fellow holders of other shares, hence my interest.
in answer to your first para: no rules were broken??? lol
thumbtwiddle - 28 Jan'04 - 13:53 - 1528 of 1863
gunner - they don't like it up em!
same thing has happened to me (with comdirect and shares in YOO). I put through 2 50K purchases at 16:29, they appeared in my online portfolio, and then a short time after the bell msg in my inbox and, just like that, 50K yoo shares swiped! what happened later in the week? NTL rns...
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:55 - 1529 of 1863
hmmm com direct! your right "they dont like it up em"
jmillskeel - 28 Jan'04 - 13:57 - 1530 of 1863
nice one thumbt.
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 13:57 - 1531 of 1863
oh hi jmill u still with us then?
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 13:59 - 1532 of 1863
JaKnife
"Perhaps if you could specify exactly what rule was broken thumbtwiddle then we might have a meaningful discussion but as far as I can see no rules were broken"
It is just not worth telling you about all the rules that were broken. If you want to know go and read the rules.
Please answer my question.
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 14:00 - 1533 of 1863
Agincourt
I have answered your question and explained my presence here in one form or another about six or seven times already. My conclusion is that if you still don't understand then you are too stupid to understand and so explaining it any further is pointless - much like trying to have a discussion with you about the technicalities of UK company law, which you clearly don't understand.
thumbtwiddle
"in answer to your first para: no rules were broken??? lol"
If you could provide details of exactly which rule it is that you think was broken then we might actually be able to discuss this. I will merely repeat, as far as I can see no rules were broken.
psps - 28 Jan'04 - 14:02 - 1534 of 1863
here here.........
Rules are made for fools
Rules are meant to be broken
hahahahahahah
jmillskeel - 28 Jan'04 - 14:02 - 1535 of 1863
yes i am, theres a filter use it
psps - 28 Jan'04 - 14:05 - 1536 of 1863
i use filter to drink coffee
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 14:06 - 1537 of 1863
psps are you still in?
psps - 28 Jan'04 - 14:13 - 1538 of 1863
in what ?
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 14:13 - 1539 of 1863
JakNife
There is no excuse for what you are doing. Any decent person would be ashamed to take the line you are.
You will however get your just deserts, have no fear.
Your claims to have satisfied the FSA are obvious tripe like most of what you say.
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 14:14 - 1540 of 1863
when is this going to re-start? if all the shorts are cleared now then i assumed we should have started trading again, its just that im sick of seeing the letters azh on my portfolio! if we had bought this company which we had then i would have not called it azure as that conjours up thoughts of blue skies and nice things, instead they should have called it dirty ditch water holdings!
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 14:15 - 1541 of 1863
psps> in the "holders club"?
psps - 28 Jan'04 - 14:16 - 1542 of 1863
gunnergonk,
sure i am
gunnergonk - 28 Jan'04 - 14:17 - 1543 of 1863
jolly good
psps - 28 Jan'04 - 14:18 - 1544 of 1863
but my holding ( whatever the value it will be) is pretty small
i hope they get relisted soon
Anomalous - 28 Jan'04 - 14:19 - 1545 of 1863
>Jacko
Firstly, the FSA still have you under investigation, so no apology is necessary. You should be apologising to the Action Group as you have no idea what our demands were, so to call them unreasonable is a blatant lie on your part.
Secondly your argument is completely flawed, as the LSE never consulted the Action Group, we had to pursue them to find out what they were doing. The FSA said that the LSE should have consulted all the parties involved. All requests for round table negotiations were refused. The LSE were not interested in reaching an amicable solution, only in enforcing one that was acceptable to their members, who had violated the code of market conduct.
They have cornered themselves by allowing 3045 to be used in this way and we have asked the FSA and TSC to examine this precise point. If this use of 3045 is acceptable, then the LSE has allowed a disorderly state to be maintained for a month and half (contrary to the FSA's requirement for the LSE to restore an orderly market as soon as possible), when they could have resolved it on 5 December. If they try to deny this, then they only have to check this RNS:
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&cb=1073762924&article=6128617&symbol=LSE%3AAZ H
With all your claim for knowledge, it is quite simply amazing that you have a complete lack of comprehension of the damage performed by the market makers and now by the LSE. Your love for the market makers is making you blind to the effect this decision will have on the reputation of the London Equity Markets. All over the world, they will look at this case and believe that if you can not trust the regulators, then you can not trust the market.
Jacko you are a complete fool if you think otherwise.
garbut - 28 Jan'04 - 14:24 - 1546 of 1863
To JakNife:Re Post 1522
I made no inference that anything needed to be changed.I merely stated that
"Nothing has changed" regarding your one-sidedness.I stand by that.
Also,you are obviously more informed on the LSE rules and regs than I.
But the bottom line is this,"That,as a result of the nature of the RSV
naked shorting,the LSE FSA will not want to see a repeat of this in the future.
Garbut
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 14:26 - 1547 of 1863
anomalous
JakNife is not a fool, complete or otherwise. He knows just what he is doing. He has no compuction about lieing and trying improperly to mislead people on here. That is his aim and I don't doubt that he has succeeded in some cases.
Now - JakNife if you deny that - let me know and I will arrange to give you the name of my solicitor and you can sue me.
So - for the sake of clarity - JakNife you are a liar.
Sue me or buzz off.
psps - 28 Jan'04 - 14:28 - 1548 of 1863
WOW...........do you guys want boxing gloves to fight each other
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 14:45 - 1549 of 1863
Good afternoon Anomalous
"Firstly, the FSA still have you under investigation, so apology is necessary."
I will simply sit and wait then, I infer from your wording (assuming that you have mistakenly missed the "no") that an apology will be forthcoming in time.
" You should be apologising to the Action Group as you have no idea what our demands were, so to call them unreasonable is a blatant lie on your part."
You forget that at 1424 ComeonDTC expressed amazement (post subsequently edited after a request from Gantenbrink to hide the evidence) that he was being asked to sign a court claim for £5,000 of compensation when his shares where only worth £500. That statement is more than enough for me to conclude that your claims are unreasonable and unjust and that at least one of your own membership also think so. I stand by my comment that the action group's are unreasonable; I cannot see how an opinion could be a lie.
"Secondly your argument is completely flawed, as the LSE never consulted the Action Group, we had to pursue them to find out what they were doing. The FSA said that the LSE should have consulted all the parties involved. All requests for round table negotiations were refused. The LSE were not interested in reaching an amicable solution, only in enforcing one that was acceptable to their members, who had violated the code of market conduct."
I am unsure why you think this one comment makes my whole argument "completely flawed", it strikes me that your sweeping statement is illustrative of poor reasoning. As I have noted before, given your intolerant attitude to the other parties involved in the discussions and your excessive inflated claims it seems more than reasonable to determine an offer by reference to an independent professional third party.
"All over the world, they will look at this case and believe that if you can not trust the regulators, then you can not trust the market."
I would suggest that "all over the word" it is more likely that market followers are still trying to understand why people could be so dumb as to pay over the odds for shares in a company that was technically insolvent and that had publicly announced that it was going to have a materially dilutive debt for equity conversion.
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 14:47 - 1550 of 1863
Agincourt
There's no point suing a man of straw.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 14:51 - 1551 of 1863
JakNife
You have no way of knowing if that silly remark is true or not.
You are not only a liar but a coward as well.
You don't have the guts to back up you stupid dishonest arguements, or to defend yourself.
I will take it that your failure to take action is an admission that my remarks are true.
byroneck - 28 Jan'04 - 14:51 - 1552 of 1863
I am curious... has anyone ever seen JakNife post anywhere else?
If not then surely his handle was created simply for the purpose of posting on this thread. That would then lead to me to question why.
What sort of person is prepared to offer up his (as he is quite happy to try and point out) "superior" understanding of the laws that govern the markets? Why makes him such a damn nice fellow that he would devote so much time to fight against the majority of the forum (who for agruments sake) may all be wrong, for the good of man. What a guy!!!
He would seem to suggest with some honesty that he is not affiliated with an MM, which then leads only one other solution that I can think of an that is that he is are some how realated to the LSE. Perhaps you even are directly involved with the case at hand?
Question, questions... what a game of smoke and daggers we have here....
mgstone - 28 Jan'04 - 14:54 - 1553 of 1863
byroneck - seen jacko on Cater Barnard CRB thread. He claims he does not hold any CRB.
Anomalous - 28 Jan'04 - 14:57 - 1554 of 1863
The "NO" was missed out. I have edited the posting
NO APOLOGY IS NECESSARY TO JakNife
and you are lying by saying that no rules were broken:
Code of Market Conduct Sections 1.5.3 (False and Misleading Impressions) and Sections 1.6.13 (Abusive Squeezes).
I think you should apologise to the Action Group
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 15:03 - 1555 of 1863
Take it however you like Agincourt, your posts here have illustrated to me that you lack basic written/verbal reasoning skills; such skills are the necessary foundation of any professional occupation. You claim that you are a professional but in our discussions you have betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of the technical knowledge that a professional in your claimed field should have. Your comments can be likened to the mindless thug down the pub shouting "outside then for a fight", which suggests to me a low standard of education. Add to all of this that you are gambling on highly risky small cap stocks then all of this prompts me to form the opinion that you are not a sucessful person and hence a man of straw.
There is no point in my even debating with a mindless thug such as yourself, never mind wasting my time trying to sue you.
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 15:09 - 1556 of 1863
Jak nife
I couldn`t agree more.Look at a thread he started yesterday with over 350 posts on it....... 95% from Agincourt himself.
Easy way to check if he is an accountant, check out the name with the appropriate body.Just click on his handle above to find the info you require.
Skiboy10 - 28 Jan'04 - 15:35 - 1557 of 1863
Does the right hand know what the left is doing??
RNS Number:7434U
Azure Holdings PLC
28 January 2004
Immediate release: 28 January 2004
Azure Holdings PLC
The Notification of Shareholding announcement released today at 1423hrs under
RNS 7376U was released in error and should be disregarded.
A further announcement will be released in due course.
-Ends-
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
MSCQKFKBPBKDNDB
JakNife - 28 Jan'04 - 15:35 - 1558 of 1863
Hello Anomalous,
I disagree, the rule that you have highlighted has not yet been tested in the courts. It is a new one and so there are no legal precedents upon which you might rely and upon which you might base your case. You will be making new law and in my opinion the law that you will make will not be supportive of your case. But then you probably know this already don't you?
garbut - 28 Jan'04 - 15:38 - 1559 of 1863
JakNife,
An unbiased interest in RSV?......NOT.
"Knight in shining armour"?........NOT.
Protecting a self-interest?.......Probably.
Educated?.........................Definitely.
The truth.
You have failed to "Persuade" the majority of shareholders of any stock that
you are a man of impartiality.
Garbut
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 15:40 - 1560 of 1863
Hello Knitwit
You here again
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 15:43 - 1561 of 1863
jakNife
Now we are being silly.
You are trying to say that the rules don't come into effect until they have been tested in court. LOL
abitgreen - 28 Jan'04 - 15:48 - 1562 of 1863
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 15:56 - 1563 of 1863
knitwit
I am not particularly bothered that you put what you believe to be my name and my town on here but it is in breach of the etiquete for bulletin boards and from now on you are fair game.
Hollowman8d8 - 28 Jan'04 - 16:11 - 1564 of 1863
Anomolous - Did you solve the problem of voting rights with shares you had bought but had not been settled?
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 16:16 - 1565 of 1863
All anyone has to do is read your profile.
Why put it on if you dont want people to see it.
Its available to anyone you ACA????
You certainly have started some very interesting threads.
Bet you were the schoolboy bully in your youth.
oswd - 28 Jan'04 - 16:26 - 1566 of 1863
Knitcraft - Remove post 1556, thats a scumbag trick.
REMOVE IT NOW!
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 16:27 - 1567 of 1863
its interesting that jaknife has always been INSTANT in his denial of links to mms, but hasnt chosen to deny byronecks suggestion in post 1552....and jaknifes posted TWICE since then and more than an hour and a half has passed, so he's clearly seen it and chosen NOT to deny....and he has a well documented history of dealing with EVERY little detail of EVERY post he disagress with...so..i think u must have hit the nail on the head byroneck!?
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 16:30 - 1568 of 1863
and totally agree with aswd re knitcraft post 1556.......one should always judge a person by both their actions and the intent of those actions....and in this case knitcraft has shown the type of person they are..glad the views of such people are on the other side of this dispute so im not associated with those types of people.
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 16:31 - 1569 of 1863
oswd.
Anyone can find out the info by clicking on the name of poster.
Why put it there if you dont want anyone to see it.
The guy is a baffoon.
oswd - 28 Jan'04 - 16:34 - 1570 of 1863
Knitcraft - You are out of order, and you know it, advfn will remove the post if you don't.
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 16:36 - 1571 of 1863
knit
"The guy is a baffoon."
Please dont claim ur finger slipped coz A is nowhere near U on the keyboard...accurate spelling of insults is usually required for them to hit the mark...you see we have no way of knowing if you meant Buffoon, Balloon, Boffin...etc...
glad to see youve taken the points made and edited ur post
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 16:41 - 1572 of 1863
What a f...ing fuss about nothing.ANSWER my point...why have the info there for all to see if you are ashamed of what it says and complain when someone posts it?
Since when has spelling and punctuation been so important on the internet.
90% of messages would be deleted if it was.
You lot are obviously in foul moods having just been made rather large fools of.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 16:47 - 1573 of 1863
knitcraft
At least now, even more people know what a despicable little wanker you are.
By the way. I have edited my profile just for you.
vanhalen - 28 Jan'04 - 16:56 - 1574 of 1863
Agincourt ..... may i be the first to buy you a beer at our celebration bash !!!
Keep up the good work
Knitcraft ..... last week you told us you would not be posting on this thread anymore. Glad to see you are and once again taking severe flak !!!
Like it and lets get "READY TO RUMBLE" !!!
note skiboy post 1557 very interesting, any thoughts ?
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 16:57 - 1575 of 1863
Agincourt has now had the good sense to alter his profile.
Since he and others kicked up a fuss I checked another 30 profiles on ADVFN.
AGINCOURT was the ONLY one stupid enough to put his personal details and lies that he is an accountant.He obviously has a massive inferiority complex.
Not only is he a liar but he is totally vindictive which if you look through threads he has contributed to will become apparent.
I hope he has contributed some wise words to your cause but from what I have seen I doubt it.
He acts like a child on this site and if as he says he is an accountant , he is a disgrace to his profession. I have made the first of my enquiries to ascertain if he is indeed as he says. It is against the law to plagerise a proff. qualification and I will be notifying the regulatory authorities as appropriate.
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 16:58 - 1576 of 1863
ha @ knit
u cant even guage the tone of a post u berk!...dya really think id stick in the balloon/buffon kobblers for a laff if i was in a foul mood??...im in a great mood ta, (and the outcome of RSV wont change that!) but the tone of ur rather coarse opening line suggests youre not...
and while we're on spelling and punctuation, lets chuck in grammar too (as this clearly annoys you so is even more fun for me!)......"90% of messages would be deleted if it was"...unfortunately, you appear to have forgotten about the subjunctive tense in your haste to post such pearls of wisdom.
and the point re spelling anyway is that slips of the finger on keyboard trying to type fast are totally different to crap spelling... dont forget the old saying: "He who spells crappily will never live happily, and he who cant speak proper will always come a cropper!" (Ian Michael Albert William Anker, 1906)
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 16:59 - 1577 of 1863
See post 1573
The words of your friendly accountant...my arse.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 16:59 - 1578 of 1863
Knitcraft
"lies that he is an accountant"
Really - you sure about that?
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 17:01 - 1579 of 1863
hmmm...knit....on the same theme, im not convinced its possible to "plagIARize" a professional qualification!!!
vanhalen - 28 Jan'04 - 17:03 - 1580 of 1863
note skiboy post 1557 very interesting, any thoughts ?
Looks like a complete foul up and LSE in complete dissarray !!!
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 17:03 - 1581 of 1863
The three T...s all together.
You aren`t the Beverley Sisters by any chance.They all used to sing the same song and they weren`t in tune either.
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 17:04 - 1582 of 1863
vanhalen
agree...looks like a right mess!...the more this saga carries on the more confidnece i lose that things DO actually work at all in this supposedly glorious system we have!
knitcraft - 28 Jan'04 - 17:04 - 1583 of 1863
No but I sure as hell am going to find out.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 17:04 - 1584 of 1863
Knitcrfat
You on the bottle this afternoon?
Knitcraft
"lies that he is an accountant"
Really - you sure about that?
Haystack - 28 Jan'04 - 17:05 - 1585 of 1863
knitcraft
have you seen Agincourt's profile now. He is being about as pleasant as he usually is (not the slightest): -
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=profiledis&user=agincourt
Name Do not trust Knitcraft
Town He is a detestable little scumbag
Country Anguilla
Least Favourite Stocks Knitcraft
Comments Knitcraft is a stooge of the Market Makers and has been helping them defraud the RSV/AZH shareholders. He pretends to be impartial. LOL What a liar.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 17:06 - 1586 of 1863
Knitcraft
Easiest thing in the world. Phone up the Institute in Milton Keynes.
vanhalen - 28 Jan'04 - 17:07 - 1587 of 1863
Haystack, wouldn't poke your nose in here ..... what with your record !!!
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 17:09 - 1588 of 1863
knit
i hope youll apologise to agincourt if your allegations prove to be unfounded, in much the same way that jak insists on an apology when his bias is questioned? (speaking of which, STILL no denial from him re byronecks post...we KNOW hes read it, but still no denial...hmmm...interesting!)
Haystack - 28 Jan'04 - 17:10 - 1589 of 1863
vanhalen
I am surprised that you think it is any of your business to be honest.
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 17:12 - 1590 of 1863
haystack
LOL
vanhalen - 28 Jan'04 - 17:13 - 1591 of 1863
priceless !!!
This thread didn't go down too well did it !!! :-)
http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=5560604
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 17:15 - 1592 of 1863
..er...is it jsut me or does anyone else think theres some kind of conspiracy at work when "haystack" suddenly comes on as a sub for the other side shortly after allegations are made about one of our number being a "man of straw"??!?
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 17:15 - 1593 of 1863
The mind boggles. LOL
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 17:20 - 1594 of 1863
Ah well haystack.
He's just a complete pain in the arse.
PaulKent - 28 Jan'04 - 17:23 - 1595 of 1863
vanhalen
ha..good link to that thread...i dont think Ive ever seen anyone have to edit so many posts out...i guess we can all figger what he was saying!...arent some people strange tho huh?!!
Haystack - 28 Jan'04 - 17:40 - 1596 of 1863
I changed it as someone else set up another list after me. Try this one.
http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=5570170
Agincourt - 28 Jan'04 - 17:42 - 1597 of 1863
lol - I wish I could find a stock worth ramping LOL
| 
