Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Village it’s getting tiresome you say
“ change.org ,,far right lunatic source ?”
The obvious question is whose petition? Britain First? Or someone pretending not to be Britain First?
I realise you don’t understand how this works, but I am interested where you get your ideas of Diane Abbott being a racist from, because there very dodgy sources who discuss this in seriousness?
So racism is a social concept to protect a minority with no or little power, from a dominant group with all the power. To misunderstand this concept is, in itself deeply dodgy. To claim a minority criticising a powerful majority as racism is in itself deeply suspect, does a powerful majority need to hijack this Concept? I dunno the answer to this, but I do know racists hide behind it.
“
Rooster - in fairness I’ve been listening to Fleccy for a while on here
I feel sure if he read his own comments back to himself he might be as disgusted as you or I. He might even ask what has poisoned him so much that he would think, let alone write down such a generalisation, which is so obviously & easily proved to be a lie
Just one of you, in less than a seconds thought shows these views are a lie
The only question is how far has this exercise in division and grooming gone? & how many of these lies are people not only prepared to believe but support enough to put their name to?
“Fleccy: the only people who'd vote Labour are the ones that either freeload, are lazy, never save for their future/retirement, or think the country should just become a free for all looney left lethargic failure of a country”
This is not true, I have a job, investment, love my country and am not after freebees but this time I will vote labour. The level of arrogance, dishonesty and deception from this tory and Libs is just disgusting.
In terms of economy, current tory party have no understanding of what is needed to help Business and no desire to learn. Investment has been at low level and several major British companies gone bust in recent years. Johnson was twice sacked for lying, lied many times during his premiership, whose party has had two referendums, three general elections & three leaders in the last five years and still says only his party can deliver 'certainty' to British firms.
What is this village idiot talking about?
“ He is the only person who denies Abbot is a racist and then bangs on about the white cliffs of dover for some mad reason”
And he says I’m a drunk ?
Village are you able give a coherent explanation of that nonsense?
Second thoughts don’t bother, I like seeing you as ridiculous
Well quick look online about Abbott and I see a couple of apologies from her for comments and tweets
Obviously far right lunatic sources are just “making stuff up”
It’s clear where you get your propaganda from
Decent people don’t read that kind of thing and recognise what it is. Only very silky people believe it,
If you to talk about competence or naivety then we might find some common ground.
Aus.... "If we want to think about racist comments why not start at the top with bojo.... it’s not like he holds a post with any responsibilities"
No, how about we start with Corbyn, Abbot, McDonnell and a very large section of the labour party. Strange how so many people don't see Anti Semitism as racist, especially wannabe MP's. Their hypocrisy is astounding, but then again, I suppose racism within the labour party is perfectly ok with the hierarchy.
I think it’s very clear what aus is saying and you let yourself down with comments like that. Healthy debate from both sides is required.
Oh village you crack me up...... so you have right wing blindness too?
I used to think you were misunderstood, now I’m thinking different
Hahahaha too funny. Although I have thought who to match Diane Abbott with. That would be mark Francois (no I don’t care how to spell it) and Raab who has a colourful past & didn’t realise Dover might have something to do with trade?... whilst holding minister for Brexit post hahahaha. Seriously I’ve no idea why I wouldn’t vote for these loons.
If we want to think about racist comments why not start at the top with bojo.... it’s not like he holds a post with any responsibilities
Village - you say “ I'd like to remind you Brexit is not about racism,though yor are all hell bent that it is so no point in even trying to educate you and your ilk Aus“
I say.... is there any reason you pick out Diane Abbot?
Village - even for you, you’re now showing unbelievable sillyness
Diane Abbott is my Tommy Robinson hahahaha hahahaha unreal. That’s like comparing Mr Bean with Vladimir Putin........ hahahaha
Oh Putin, he’s another one of your mates. Of course anything in his interest can’t must me in ours too...... dohhhhh
Well village, if not Tommehhhh, then there’s an inexhaustible list of deeply unpleasant characters behind the leave campaign, you should fit right in.
So deeply unpleasant in fact most decent people realised it was rotten to the core from start to finish.
It wasn’t turkey voting for Christmas, it was far far worse than that.
You have me all wrong village (hardly surprising) you specialise in wrong & trolling.
I voted remain!!!!
Self loathing, swastika waving & self loathing all belongs to the leave side. Why don’t you ask Tommehhh Robinson ? He’s your mate right?
Fleccy - for all your reasons why I agree with you, which makes so much of this an absolute nonsense and pie in the sky
What’s not nonsense & there for everyone to see is a government prepared to really lie about everything important, risk everything for those lies and to use deception (fact checking site & now a fake web site for labours manifesto) that Goebbels himself would be proud of.
What scares me is not fantasy Labour (country could do with a left leaning correction) but an electorate not prepared to punish the sins of an ever more outrageous out of control and toxic government,
"''Hands''of God fleccy,hands of God."
I apologise, I didn't know this was you.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/impotence-concept-man-magnifying-glass-looking-386390590
"I'm just a sex god"
What you're really saying is that you regularly use your "Hand of God"
No doubt you're also a master in the art of self fulfilment too.
Be careful though the Green party will come after you ,should they learn that you like to Flog the Dolphin.
"Fleccy,youve come down on my mad person richter scale"
There's a thin dividing line between Genius and Madness, time will tell whether my investment decisions make m money long term. Either way the probability of Labour pushing through a nationalisation program encompassing BT assets are Zero, the likely Parliamentary compromise will be to get transport infrastructure nationalised at best, because everyone agrees that transport privatisation isn't working. I don't think the above is likey either really, as I just don't think Labour have a chance anyway.
You shouldn't keep underestimating yourself. If you don't recognise your own achievements no-one else will and whilst most wouldn't aspire to be a DIY sex god you must claim whatever you can..
well there's a double negative if ever I heard one!
Excuse my ignorance but is Taste of the 70's some sort of compilation?!! Glam rock or punk rock?
"The 1970s shipbuilding and aerospace nationalisation provides an illustration. The pledge was contained in the Labour manifesto for the first 1974 general election. It took nine months of internal deliberation before a Bill was presented to Parliament. This proved highly contentious, both in the House of Commons (where the Government had a majority of only three) and the House of Lords (which rejected the Bill three times). The Conservative opposition strongly opposed the Bill, and the support of the Labour backbenches could not be taken for granted. In the event the Act was finally passed in 1977, after multiple amendments and significant reductions in the scope of the businesses nationalised. Very shortly afterwards, the Government lost its overall majority.
The technical and political hurdles in the way of a nationalising Act of Parliament should not be under-estimated, particularly for a Government without a clear majority. That has consequences for the legal framework of any potential Act. The longer it takes for an Act to be passed, the more difficult the valuation questions become"
https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/PDFDocuments/nationalisation.pdf
I'm not sure it's even worth speculating on the subject of nationalisation. The probability of Labour gaining an overall majority are almost non existent, even if the Conservatives do extremely badly, with the Lib Dems winning the remain Conservative marginals. The Lib Dems would never agree to a nationalisation program. Lets imagine the SNP win most of the seats in Scotland and leverage an Independence referendum against supporting Labours left wing agenda, many Labour MP's could never support that and would rebel against their leadership. Corbyn and McDonnell know all this, so their promises are undeliverable and they know that too. Funny thing is, most of the electorate realise all this too. Labour know they're facing an election defeat and are making promises to a section of the electorate that have an axe to grind against society for a variety of different reasons. In my opinion the only people who'd vote Labour are the ones that either freeload, are lazy, never save for their future/retirement, or think the country should just become a free for all looney left lethargic failure of a country. It's a pity the many young Labour supporters can't be given a taste of the 70's.
one way or another, 'selling' open reach, passing partial current value to shareholders and leaving the remaining BT free to compete has it's attractions and right here and now is possibly a better growth prospect than the treacle it's stuck in.
Thanks Velo, but sometimes less is more. A simple proposition worth £2 bond for £1 keep share worth £1. Would that work and be a starting point giving everybody what they want. Manifesto states
We will establish British Broadband, with two arms: British Digital Infrastructure (BDI) and the British Broadband Service (BBS). We will bring the broadband-relevant parts of BT into public ownership, with a jobs guarantee for all workers in existing
broadband infrastructure and retail broadband work.
BDI will roll out the remaining 90–92% of the full- bre network, and acquire necessary access rights to existing assets. BBS will coordinate the delivery of free broadband in tranches as
the full- bre network is rolled out, beginning with the communities worst served by existing broadband networks.
So no mention of exactly which bits, let's keep it simple.
PS.
".... That would bring a whole new raft of people to the story and you’d still get a 5% yield.’
Yeah, if you buy in brand new at this area's SP of 180p-odd, yes it would make sense.
Shame about the ultra loyal, ultra long term holders in BT as they're in £££'s above this lowly SP - they won't see anywhere near 5% yield, will they?
" So the proposal is to nationalise the parts of BT involved in BB, basically Openreach."
It's a lot more than just "basically Openreach".
They said they want:
1) Openreach
2) Enterprise
3) Consumer
4) and parts of BT Technology.
Openreach has circa 33,000 employees
The total number of empolyees in the above divisions is currently - well over 65,000 - up to 70,000 so 2/3rds of all the employees in BT go over to work for the govt under Labour's proposals. Then there's another hit to consider.
This from Shares mag out today:
"... Then there’s the huge pension scheme issue. BT has previously highlighted pension costs as a material obstacle to a potential Openreach demerger while analysts at investment bank Jefferies believe that the BT pension scheme trustee would ‘logically demand very substantial upfront compensation’...."
I take that to mean as 2/3rds of employees flit over to a nationalised industry that BT will have to pay over to the govt 2/3rds of the outstanding pension deficit too.
The meddling poltical finger in the pie is set to increase even if Conservarives win with:
"Analysts at investment bank Berenberg believe BT could face being politically leaned on by a re-elected Boris Johnson, increasingly the political risk, ‘even in the event of a Conservative victory’. "
And that would lead inevitably to this:
" A tactical cut to dividends, perhaps 20% or 25%, would make a lot of sense.... . . .. Such a move would also send regulator Ofcom a message that the company is willing to be flexible in meeting the various demands of all stakeholders, playing its part in developing a faster broadband network for the nation while giving investors a return on capital. . .
. . . Finally, it would draw a line under an issue that has dogged the company’s investment case for several years, namely provide some certainty over the future dividend policy.....
‘We think it would be the right thing to do to take some dividend off the table, potentially a 30% to 40% cut, and reinvest that money into Openreach,’ says Adrian Gosden, head of Strategic UK Equities at fund manager GAM. ‘That would bring a whole new raft of people to the story and you’d still get a 5% yield.’