We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
"He offered me 4%. I’m guessing that’s 4% on the market value p.a.? But I did not go into it so am not 100% sure."
Great story.
He offered me 4%. I’m guessing that’s 4% on the market value p.a.? But I did not go into it so am not 100% sure.
Alex1621 what benefit would it be for you to lend out your shares?
Agreed.
We have had some uplift on the back of asos, we need our own positive results to do the heavy lifting.
Others have posted positive results, ours have to be or the Helter skelter of doom continues
Big dip this morning. Yesterday afternoon I received a call forum my broker asking me if I wanted to loan out my shares. That’s the second time. I selected the no lending button on my account yet they still ask? So someone shopping around for stock, presumably to short. Only good updates will see this pattern off.
Padd1 sadly there are some right d1ckheads on here.
For me, after yesterday, am sorry to see big dip this morning.
A discussion about Boo being exonerated by the CMA and not facing potentially serious brand damage from prosecution is more than worthy of discussion on this forum.
Just look at some of the fines the CMA have handed out in recent years to many well known brands including Facebook and across many different industries.
I'd agree the pointless six year old name calling and middle of the night posting by obviously uninvested trolls with faux rage adds nothing to the debate
Any chance this chat forum could get back to sensible analysis of Boo rather than the toxic comments currently going backwards and forwards?
I understand lots of people get kicks out of hiding behind their keyboards abusing one another but if you haven't got anything valuable to say can't you just be silent instead of abusive?
And for clarity Knob, the post doesn't deny the agreement was signed, it clearly was. DTN stated it was signed to mitigate further actions which it clearly wasn't.
"DTN, where in the article does it clearly state that agreement was signed to mitigate further actions? It doesn't but it does make clear no guilt is being applied. So quit with the usual nonsense."
"We are pleased to announce that the CMA has now completed its investigation and has not found boohoo to have breached any consumer protection law. The investigation has, therefore, not resulted in any legal action being brought against boohoo."
Knob, simple not lie, no breach of the law.
"Next you'll be claiming that the CMA isn't a regulator"
Knob, no breach of the law , otherwisethe regulator would have prosecuted.
"The undertakings have been provided to the CMA voluntarily and without any admission of wrongdoing or liability. It should not be assumed that ASOS, Boohoo, or George at Asda have breached the law – at present, only a court can decide whether a breach has occurred."
Knob, no breach of the law.
"It would have been lovely if Boohoo had been making fully accurate claims in the first instance, in a way that avoided a market regulator investigating and compelling Boohoo and two other companies into ceasing said practices. As I've always said: I just wish that Boohoo would fly straight. It is absolutely clear that this is a settlement. A signed agreement between regulator and the regulated which, if adhered to, will avert (or mitigate if you like) the need for the CMA to take additional action such as issuing fines or pursuing prosecution. A last chance warning, if ever there was one.
Exposed for ouright lying yet again, Tradey and Spunk. Next you'll be claiming that the CMA isn't a regulator, and that you are actually the law. I bet the moderators are in for a super hard time from you this morning, under fire to make this thread disappear."
I dont think anything BOO will do will meet your expectations. I understand you are no longer invested financially. Why care? Why care so much at 0326 in the morning to write war and peace?
Tradey and Spunk, our very own resident regulators of truth: The extract previously linked is from gov.uk, which is the UK government's own domain, in case you didn't know. It is there in plain language - the companies have indeed signed agreements. I honestly don't know how you can claim otherwise and keep a straight face.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/green-claims-cma-secures-landmark-changes-from-asos-boohoo-and-asda
"The firms have each signed undertakings that commit them to an agreed set of rules around the use of green claims. Amongst other things, these include:
Green claims: ASOS, Boohoo and George at Asda must ensure all green claims are accurate and not misleading. Key information must be clear and prominent, meaning it must be expressed in plain language, easy to read, and clearly visible to shoppers.
[long list of corrective actions, removed due to space limitations]
All 3 firms must also regularly provide the CMA with reports on how they are complying with the commitments they signed – as well as taking steps to improve their internal processes."
It would have been lovely if Boohoo had been making fully accurate claims in the first instance, in a way that avoided a market regulator investigating and compelling Boohoo and two other companies into ceasing said practices. As I've always said: I just wish that Boohoo would fly straight. It is absolutely clear that this is a settlement. A signed agreement between regulator and the regulated which, if adhered to, will avert (or mitigate if you like) the need for the CMA to take additional action such as issuing fines or pursuing prosecution. A last chance warning, if ever there was one.
Exposed for ouright lying yet again, Tradey and Spunk. Next you'll be claiming that the CMA isn't a regulator, and that you are actually the law. I bet the moderators are in for a super hard time from you this morning, under fire to make this thread disappear.
I've just got to work and at midnight is Daytrade once again. Honestly, why? Go to bed and get a life.
Not off scot free its suggested.
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2130976-boohoo-escapes-legal-action-over-green-claims-but-could-face-a-cost
Well if we have some ok results and optimism about the future this news might make some ii's more comfortable with a fun punt.
If you have an average of lets say 40.92 ish I expect you are chuffed with todays little rise. Smiley face.
Very true SPK.
Maybe daytrade should check the number of firms the CMA has taken action against. It has issued hundreds of millions of fines in the last few years.
If there was wrongdoing, it would have been communicated
"The company clearly agreed, as i have explained to you, to further monitoring and legally binding documented agreements to mitigate further actions being taken"
DTN, where in the article does it clearly state that agreement was signed to mitigate further actions? It doesn't but it does make clear no guilt is being applied. So quit with the usual nonsense.
"The undertakings have been provided to the CMA voluntarily and without any admission of wrongdoing or liability. It should not be assumed that ASOS, Boohoo, or George at Asda have breached the law – at present, only a court can decide whether a breach has occurred."
Was your nickname poison..
Best thing you ever did mr admin.... funny they never said anything unlike you ....i have real friends of 40 years plus that i still drink with reguarly....unlike your cyber pals ... you rat
Nobody could stand you and the envy on there, so off you went. Still grates eh.
Your never wrong are you .....😂😂😂
Boring same old same old made up nonsense, just as expected.
Maybe contact the CMA or govenement then, and see if they class their victory as "face saving.. I mean, you claiming that rubbish, must make it true. Right?
LD couldn't agree more
So apparently the company RNS isn't the best place to find out information about the company
Who knows, maybe Fashion United are the Oracle
Take a day off 😴 thank god I don't have that discord app anymore ............
Ofcourse they did daytrade
The CMA is simply face saving. As I told you before, if there was anything to be found it would have been communicated
Why are you always so angry and bitter. Any actual investor should be pleased that a potentially serious issue has gone away. Maybe there's the rub....
Have you checked Fashion United yet to see if they have updated their article.