AIM IP specialist Tekcapital to sell or float all four portfolio companies 'within 2 years'. Watch the full 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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
"narcissist " oh I do like this one. Your established group belief theory is challenged. Your reaction? By your own post, exactly WHO is the narcissist? Take your time...
By the way, you are forgetting the classic fall back answer "but it won't hurt to reduce pollution and clean up te environment so even if the data was fiddled a bit there is no harm done".
Apart from our pretty landscape being decimated by turbines like the march of the Tripods and the ever increasing energy poverty as all fuel prices escalate exponentially to pay for all the "green crap"*, it is what is coming down the road winch should worry people. Very significant restrictions placed on personal mobility locally, nationally and internationally. People live where they do and work where they do because they have personal transport to balance the cost out. When that personal transport is removed due to unaffordable electric vehicles, moving closer to work is not an option due to accommodation costs and jobs don't exist local to the present accommodation. The enforced switch to electric and removal of hydrocarbon fuel has unintended consequences that are not being vocalised because of the closed debate. There's significant trouble ahead and the moves to bring it all forward earlier is ell underway.
*Cameron et al
I think eevryone on here would always encourage debate and freedom of expression but as you point out yourself
"I often find I am absolutely not alone in my suspicions. "
And therein lies the problem YOU HAVE SUSPICIONS. Not evidence or fact....nor do you back anything with empirical evidence. my previous posts refer..
I try TP to enlighten, I also try to expose. When the preprogrammed dismissals are offered I try to encourage research and debate. Against the brick wall of opinion and hypnosis of some 35 years non-stop one sided propaganda and indoctrination from toddler upwards, I know that in the large part I am ****ing in the wind. To not respond is to play into 'their' hands as has been posted, prove it, prove it, prove it - I dare you. So I do try. I often find I am absolutely not alone in my suspicions. Oh to live in a society where people may speak freely and question openly without the mob attacking. Should I refrain from the argument, or should others put away the pitch forks and flaming torches?
As for investing in this old dog, I am sure there are going to be a few years of rises and falls to make money. But longer term there maybe less of a return. The idea rationing the number of times one may fly by way of a punitive tax on flights above some sort of travel allowance is firmly on the agenda and expect to be implemented in the next year or two. Using the pandemic to scare people against international travel for fear of importing bugs, especially foreign bugs [oh yes the Greens will play that card as and when required] in order to wind down aviation to 'save the planet'. BA and IAG may be one of the lucky ones lasting longer since they can argue green credentials such as economy of scale and investments in 'green' fuels. BA know what is on the horizon which is why they are sinking money in the green fuel schemes. The overall carbon budget is negative, as with those turbines, but the impression and brownie points might just deflect the greens enough to keep going at scale for another, say five years.
'And sunny, if you accept the consequences of climate change claims, what the hell are you doing investing in an airline? '
I personally have no problem with 'sunny'. He has been a frequent and honest long term poster here, often candid about his investments, which is what BBs is all about. And I'd gladly meet him for a beer or two.
I also have no problem with big-blue. Had some good bants with him (think wellies) but this is all getting keyboard warrior boring to me as my tongue in cheek Radio2 post is to others.
But, blue, your quote right backatcha. You clearly believe your own narrative. So as soon as you get 1p over your 212. Do yourself a favour and sell this doomed stock from your portfolio.
You can then sit back and watch the 'climate change' doctrine ground all airlines, kill all holidays, close all borders, shut down big oil and have the last laugh as the rest of us invest, trade and try to make a return.
Which from your long posts over the last two days is doomed to fail.
I'll sadly watch the wings cut off BAs fleet, which you highlighted will happen.
But until then, I'll see if I can eek a few more grand out of my IAG investment.
GLA and have a great Sunday with fam and friends.
Old people don’t do well in the heat. Too miserly in the U.K. to pay for air conditioning. Reduced state pensions payments after the hammering they have inflicted on young people with coronavirus lockdowns. Gets my vote.
Can't help you Johnbri4, but I understand the troubles many have when this truth is placed in front of you. You believed the propaganda, you believed the narrative, you never questioned it and then you discover you were played for a fool and used. Problematic for many people. Should have kept the 360, read between the lines and maintained a critical overview - just in case you were being used.
Here sunsurfer, start with this. It will give a little insight into the subject and why all is not what it seems. Remember I also did actually serve up a strong point of evidence citing the claim that north pole melting equals sea level rise. It is an example of how something that is so fundamentally incorrect is used as de facto proof and repeated over and over as the gospel. Even with thousands and thousands of people screaming at the news editors, they just stuck up two fingers and called all those not accepting the narrative as denyers to be despised and ostracised from society. Now, new journalists are quietly briefed to not refer to sea level rise as a result of any melting of the north pole - which incidentally should have disappeared years according the the climate change proponents but is still there waxing and waning in size over the decades as it allways has been since the last ice age.
Anyway, try this as a leader.....
I suggest you FO.
But I am only an engineer, Ive never claimed anything else. I would love to hear what this amazing experiment of rumandcoke is, as I due d say. As far as links to prove anything, this is not quite the place as I am have merely pointed out that the climate change lobby appeared to have been slow to take advantage of the pandemic but over the last few days there are many references to building the new world order post covid and the greens are now very active. With the international conference cop something or other and emergence from lockdown together with a left of center sympathetic president in the US, here we go.
Fascinating use of smoking and oil hidden agendas as proof that there muat be some correlation to climate change claims. Is this the extent of your science? Those who wish to keep the 360 and decide if holding airline stocks as part of a pension plan woyld do well to familiarises tham self with Mann v MacIntyre. This case should have been mainstream media over years but was not because the insight does not follow the narrative. Also lool up the Oxburgh panal findings. Again hidden from the public gaze.
In considering long term stocks for your portfolio, something's are not quite what they seem.
And sunny, if you accept the consequences of climate change claims, what the hell are you doing investing in an airline? There is no logic in your choice. Another mega hypocrite happy to chant the mantra to fit in but safe in the knowledge that tje hippie radicals will never really have an impact.
Too late matey, they are and the hysteria is about to turn all your worlds upside down. I suggest you all educate yourselves.
@BB with all that hot air you could have powered a whole fleet of 747's to HKG and back and still left the APU's running...
Shame you didn't answer Rumandpoker or accept his school boy challenge (my interpretation), nor do you back ANYTHING you say with facts, no references, nada- nothing, nil, Nul point...
Just hot air, fakery and bluster...
As previously posted, I rest my case.
Oh and I love the fact that you pretend that others 'Set up my status to an elevated level...", i think you did that yourself which then opened you up to being ridiculed so you backtracked to being a simple engineer.
As for the "ree thinking experts who do not bow to doctrines and will counter every aspect of the climate change claims" I'm guessing their the same 'experts ' (aka lobbyists) that were paid by the tobacco companies in the late 50's & 60's to claim that there was no causal link between smoking and cancer...until their own scientists memos got release revealing the truth....The oil companies have been doing that for years but now realise the game is up and rather than being fined billions they have wisely decided to 'go green' where they can... smart move indeed.
PS Try posting some links to your claims otherwise you make a better fool of yourself than others (aka 'green lobby') could ever do...
.... actually just noticed something, "You call yourself a physicist". If you had been paying attention you will recall I said in a very recent post that I am an engineer.
Misdirection and obfuscation is so easy in a debate where the premise is so poorly understood and reported. Setting up my status to an elevated level and then claiming there is a trivial answer that undermines the elevated status such that nothing I may offer is to be relied on or worthy of questioning thereby returning the observer back to the safe plateau of accepting the established climate change narrative. The fundamental basis for establishing and preserving a narrative. It works as long as there is no counter argument. As long as people are corralled into herds of non-questioning supplicants the lie is established. Until, of course, people do start questioning and a gamble on a yes no referendum is taken. What's the saying, you can fool some of the people some of time... incidently this is why the Trump election victory was viewed with such horror and destain. It proved that even in an environment with saturation negative coverage across almost all the mass media the populous could still act with a degree of independence.
I just hope the realisation occurs and the climate hysteria is stopped before chainsaws are taken to the wings of the BA fleet!
So the climate change rhetoric has nothing to do with iAG or the sp? That is an amazing statement given that aviation is cited as a major polluter and should therefore be significantly reduced and some activists would stop flying altogether. Those voices are no longer on the fringe and because there is no challenging of the utter rubbish and nonsense claimed by the activists and indeed the money grubbing so called scientists there is a real danger those policies will be implemented. Just look at the lemming policy on petrol engines at the moment where you are all going to be forced to electric despite the fact the vast majority of people will never be able to afford the overall cost. The hysterical have taken over. As I said before, stocks like IAG are not for the long, long term.
And as for it being down to conduct experiments doing what I can not imagine, 'dare me' to run what experiment? Give me 1 tenth of 1 percent of the climate change industry budget and I will put together a panel of open minded free thinking experts who do not bow to doctrines and will counter every aspect of the climate change claims. I have no idea what rumandpoker is referring to, what is this experiment and what is it supposed to show climate change is happening given that the 'proof' to date has been extrapolation of statistical data presented without error bars and with a base line that keeps conveniently being moved around to force a particular outcome. We saw that in the naughties and teenies when the predicted increase in temperature ended up with an 11 year decline even after the fudging and fiddling of the numbers.
The false and misleading narrative leads to politicians being spooked into enacting policies that result in industries like air travel being loaded with costs and restrictions which depress profits, bankrupt airlines and have to be priced into lower sp and dividends. To say there is no connection is frankly quite absurd.
You call yourself a physicist. Well, a true scientist would run tests to qualify their argument. So why don't you go run some tests that disprove the theory, and counter the very simple experiments you can run that conclude with a high sigma rating that climate change is happening. I dare run you to run these simple tests that back up the theory and still say its indoctrination. If as a true and 'qualified' 'scientist' you can't think of such an experiment I'll tell you how to run it. Can be done with standard household equipment.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - put 1000 Bishops in a conference and ask the motion, does god exist?
NASA - They are repeating what other people are saying, oh and by the way now they have declared it a problem the government should give them a billion or two to fund 'urgent' missions into space. Durrrr - wake up and smell the coffee. And what is more, there are a hell of a lot of NASA people that are frankly embarrassed at the political positioning on climate change. But it brings in money and opposing it is therefore frowned on. ssshhhhhussshhh and just take the money, it isn't hurting anybody.
Oh and another thing about the IPCC, half of the scientist in the first meeting were so appalled at what was being pushed they resigned from the conference and would not have their names associated with it. What was left was the true believers prepared to back a fundamental lie reproduced on the front cover - the hokey stick graph. And it is also interesting to note the actual substance in their reports has a whole heap of probabilities and qualifications.
You are clearly a believer, you swallow it up without any question, they have you exactly where they want you. It is a very easy place to be, it is so much simpler to just fall in with the crowd, keep your head down and don't question anything. What kind of societies does that remind you of?
Yep You cant change the mind of a Jehovah's witness and I don't feel the need to change yours.
I have already replied to your alto ego on irrefutable evidence
I rest my case
So sunsurfer, we take the analysis of a 6 year old as the evidence that climate change is a truth and ignore all the older people? The idea that a 6 year old who is still learning elementary maths is in any position to make a critical assessment of the proposed causes and effects of human activity is a nonsense. 6 year olds? The judge and jury? And in terms of being able to assess the climate change theories, what information are they fed? 100% one-sided pure indoctrination. Show me anywhere in any school teaching that the counter arguments are presented for analysis at any level in any form. I can guarantee they are not and children that take counter arguments into a school from outside are subjected to pretty intense 're-education' and even disciplinary action. Contesting the climate change claims is strictly NOT tolerated in the classroom or play ground!
As for the empirical evidence, well I pointed out the fraud of the hockey stick graph which has been used as the basis for the whole pyramid of validation. That was supposed to be empirical evidence except it was doctored and falsified to fit a desired outcome. And it doesn't stop there, so much empirical evidence can be ripped to pieces very little stands up. And then there is the analysis which again is almost entirely statistical and does not ever stand up to scrutiny whenever it is actually released from the inner circle. Climate science is the only science that refuses to release all its data and methodology outside the inner core for independent scrutiny. These are real world facts.
And I note you regressing into using terms like conspiracy theory, fake news and the like. They've got you and you are doing their bidding for them. And that is how this fraud is perpetuated. How much money have they had out of your wallet?
Yep most 6 year olds I know have a basic understanding of cause and effect. I'm sorry that this is a concept you struggle with.
I don't know many many kids that are "indoctrinated " in the UK, North Korea perhaps and a few others... My kids are and went to a secular school where they are taught to analyse the facts and information before them without prejudice. I think this is the concept you were alluding to in your post. It's got a name - "empirical analysis". It was developed as an independent method of verifying data, results and analysis and is still the basis on which modern science is verified today by peer review.
Check out wikipedia (if you don't think they are planted from Mars) which states "Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. I think the key words I would take away from that are "which accurately corresponds to reality"...
From memory I think your once said you were over 50 and have grandchildren and if that is the case it's not your future you should be thinking of but unselfishly theirs....because for most people with families, it is your children and your children's children that are your legacy. Now i get it, Anon et Al and all the conspiracies out their, some people like to get attention because they don't have much else in their lives, others just like to be argumentative for no other reason that that is how they are. So you can call it 'fake' news or whatever you like, but most of the world is realising that this is an important issue that will effect most of us, as well as our loved ones we leave behind. You can ignore it and the green long haired weirdos, Thank fully most of the world is waking up to the truth of the serious threat of climate change. many have realised, albeit a little later than others, that there are many people that talk rubbish without EVER backing up their claims. So whilst you might say there is a counter argument, that would be true, but it doesn't stand up to independent empirical analysis and is therefore false.
6 year old lesson over,
Glad it stayed blue....
H1, L1, now on H2.
What a superb trading chip this is :)
Don't misuse the term 'theory'
That's almost as annoying as when people state the definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a difference result. That's not the definition....literally by definiiton.
" a 6 year old can understand it"
Really? They have the developed critical analysis and background scientific and statistical knowledge to challenge what they are indoctrinated with?
Peddling this rubbish to kids that young smacks of desperation to zombiefy them repeating the mantras. Interesting how the older people get, the more they question what is put before them. I only have a physics degree which included modules in physics of the earth and environmental physics, and an MSc in pollution science. Interestingly, in the physics modules speculation is not allowed, only hard fact and verifiable unproduceable experimentation to turn theory into fact. The whole theory of global warming was derived from the astrophysicist trying to explain why some planets are warmer than their theoretical value. Albedo. However, it is still only a theory!!!
The thing about flat earthers, conspirists and fanatics is your arguments are never based on logic or science but on conspiracies and emotion...I'm happy to argue the science and I suspect many on here will correct me if I'm wrong....i don't profess to be an expert. I am familiar with geology, geography (planet Earth) and have a degree (bsc) in Environmental science but none of that makes me clever. What is important is you don't need a degree to understand what is happening to the climate as a result of human behaviour...hence a 6 year old can understand it (and i don't have a 6 year old...!)
I'm not calling you a 2" d-ick, i'm suggesting that is what your grandkids will think of you for espousing the crap you do because I am hoping they will use their education to understand and appreciate what is happening. Of course I could be wrong, and we'll all live happily ever after...
By the way my grandkids are just fine and enjoying the one degree rise in temp.
I’m sorry you mother got taken by aliens but maybe she has been taken to a world where they understand planetary dynamics. Maybe they don’t even have an atmosphere.
As an aside, I have always found that the person who resorts to swearing has already lost the argument. Try to keep it civil.