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.
@contarian123 - It appears you may have a case of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Not in the legal profession and not English but awe know already that facts will not get in the way of your suppositions.
"Equanimity" - your command of the English language is impeccable. Patronised CaneToad like a true Englishman. Do tell us what part of the legal profession space you occupy?
@CaneToad, as HumpyDumpy said well done for concluding this is not the right stock for you and moving on. Given how wobbly you have been on this one for a while now, I am sure you will gain equanimity from the decision.
Well done CaneToad for having the bottle to bail out at this point. Lots of folk would cling on in hope, and that often proves to be a poor call. Who knows, this may come back a little, and I hope for those who have lost here that it does, but there are obviously better and more stable investments elsewhere, particularly with all the uncertainty we have at the moment.
@erratum, looking back over your posts, it's crystal clear that you are some sought of insider. In contrast to me: a genuine investor in many companies. Nobody that has been here for a substantial amount of time, with a substantial investment would defend the Ince management. They have destroyed the value of the shares on every possible time scale. 75% down from the most recent high. That is due to sheer incompetence, arrogance and disrespect for shareholders.
I worked in the broking business for decades. I am not a lawyer, but I know the business they are in. There is absolutely no logic to the acquisition or to their justification for it. At best, they have halved the value of Arden. Clearly, this deal is about more, but I have no plans on sticking around for more of this nonsense. when insolvency is a real option here.
Good luck.
@erratum, you're absolutely right. I have no knowledge about the legal profession. How many investors have qualifications in each area in which they invest? What a ridiculous statement.
You have no idea what you're talking about, making comments about how others research a share.
'I am more than a bit curious on what basis you underwrote your purchase of Ince shares' ? what sought of gobblygook are you talking about and what business is it of yours to know how people are investing? I invest in an ISA/SIPP, like most UK investors.
@canetoad - Forgive me for the bluntness but it clear you know very little about the legal profession and specifically Ince and its key practice areas, it is also clear that you did not do very much research before investing. I am more than a bit curious on what basis you underwrote your purchase of Ince shares ?
@Contrarian123 - You are most welcome to your opinions/speculations, they are of course wrong but you are most welcome to them.
Maybe erratum can join them lol. I am sure he already works for them in some sort of capacity. Pure speculation on my part of course
"The article in Rollonfriday on 6 May (link provided by tshaw2 below) was already disconcerting, but some of the comments - apparently from former Ince employees - are even more so."
Those comments on RollOnFriday, Facebook, Google and 'Review Solicitor' paint a terrible story. I wish I'd come across that material before investing here. When *all* reviews are terrible, there is something wrong with the company. It seems that the CEO has no idea how to fix it or is totally out of touch. Perhaps he should step aside for somebody else.
How the heck will they attract new staff?
The article in Rollonfriday on 6 May (link provided by tshaw2 below) was already disconcerting, but some of the comments - apparently from former Ince employees - are even more so.
I said that on the information we have we do not know who the letter was addressed to. The prefix Mr is universal for male identifying humans. I have said Adrian and John were present. You subsequently said that it is addressed to Biles and by extension he was present. I am saying, on the basis of that, I am delighted you concur that he was present.
I believe that the pontification around crude behaviour at a dinner in Cardiff is an inferior priority for discussion than shareholder destruction born out of poor quality judgement (crude behaviour in a restaurant is of course consistent with that). I believe that there is a case to be answered for in the disingenuous language in the RNS as I laid out this morning.
It should be asking you if you are in agreement that it addressed to Mr. Biles .... just 5 mins ago you were telling me it was not.
@tshaw2 .... would you like to tell me what took place and who did what and when as I don't know and clearly you do ?
Would you also like to refer to the follow up tweet from the owner where he says on reflection he overreacted and perhaps you might also like to acknowledge that Mr. Biles's retirement was announced before the newspaper coverage and that he did not resign over the "incident" as you appear to be suggesting.
You are in agreement, that the letter addressed to 'Mr Biles' relates to the dinner that he 'chose' for 'his' dinner. It could not be clearer, that whomever it was addressed to was a participant that evening (as would be a natural function of the addressed being the subject matter of the email). The letter though does not absolve him of any responsibility of the behaviour as you have twice suggested. It merely says 'your group'.
sorry I thought I did not need to fill in all the details .... Try Mr Biles
Mr does not relate to anyone more specifically than a man. Every man at that table would warrant such a prefix.
try Mr.
ettarum, the letter was not addressed to Adrian nor John? The first letter after the word Dear shows an M. It didn't absolve anyone.
@tshaw2 ..... are you certain this is what happened ?
A little fact checking would tell you that the emailed announcement of Mr J Biles retirement went out to staff before 9.30 am on the morning after the restaurant incident (is it possible it was a retirement party ?) and long before the tweet made it in to the newspapers. The letter which was tweeted out was addressed to Mr. J Biles and explicitly absolves him of the behaviour that was objected to. I do think people on this board need to be very careful about stating as fact things that they are guessing or supposing, especially when tied to named individuals.
Whatever qualities one might draw from Michael Fabricant and his headpiece, the point is simply that you don't resign / not show up when there's a question as to who the guilty party is.
Roll on Friday ..... lol, retracted tweets from Michael Fabricant of all people. Lots of hard facts there then.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/feature-content/exclusive-ince-boss-john-biles-resigns-after-restaurant-allegations#:~:text=John%20Biles%2C%20Ince's%20head%20of,the%20misbehaving%20party%20as%20Biles.
Adrian Biles and Father were at the table. The father stepped down not long after daily mail article. See here. There is no doubt that Adrian + Father were at the dinner. This is not hearsay. This has been confirmed by insiders. You do not step down from a company immediately after an incident if you are innocent because else you will be misidentified as being guilty. You do not stay in a company immediately after an incident if you are advised by the board that your position is untenable. The 'optics' of a stepdown, such as his, is an effort by the board to 'put to bed' the story. Even if the individual and incident are not named together, it implicitly does the PR work for you, all things being equal.
Michael Fabricant attempted to articulate this dynamic in a, now retracted, tweet last week.
This post by erratum pretty much confirms my suspicions that he/she is an insider trying to defend the indefensible