Member Info for asimpleinvestor

8888...Is there an internet blackout across all of Iran, or have you just not checked to confirm if this is true? I’m using a VPN connected through a node in Tehran to verify your claim. If you can see this post, it means that, at least for me to post it to LSE, the internet is currently available in Iran. Regarding the idea of winning a war and now needing to win the peace, that’s factually incorrect, as Iran currently has the upper hand. So, if the war has indeed been won, I assume you mean by Iran. Is that correct?

"I guess that spells the end of the New York Yankees then."

The existence of the New York Yankees does not negate the term's potential as a slur; rather, it illustrates the principle of in-group reclamation. Within the United States, the term is a marker of regional identity or athletic branding. However, when applied by those outside the culture, the social context shifts from self-identification to an external label, which can be perceived as derogatory. This mirrors the mechanics of cultural appropriation, where the usage rights of a term or practice depend entirely on the speaker’s membership within that specific group.

Impossible to secure a border of an island like mainland UK so that argument will always be live unless of course you're suggesting putting a fence up around the whole perimeter with cameras the full length and making Britain a prison.

Child benefit is open for almost anybody who has a child, when I say anybody, I mean those who are paid below £80,000 and up to the standard level of 16 or up to 20 if in education and living at home.

@Cevodniya You are conflating linguistic diversity with arrogance. Standard English is pluricentric; there is no single global authority that renders one regional variant "correct" and another "incorrect."

Both the US and UK governments officially recognise these regional differences without argument. If the state accepts these variants, insisting upon a single "correct" version in an informal forum is logically inconsistent. Furthermore, in the context of Defence Holdings, "Defense" is a standard variant used in international markets.

It is also ironic that you speak of "arrogance" while employing the term "Yankee." Under English law specifically regarding the Equality Act 2010 and various employment tribunal precedents the use of that term in a derogatory context is considered offensive and can be classified as nationality-based harassment. Using a slur while demanding "correct" etiquette is a notable contradiction.

It only becomes a police matter if there’s evidence of wrongdoing. An allegation alone doesn’t make it one.

Quote "If i refer to the US Department of Defense i spell it correctl"

@Cevodniya — Regarding your point on the US Department of Defense: as of 5 September 2025, Executive Order 14347 officially designated the Department of War as the authorised title for the organisation.

For the purposes of this forum, while Donald Trump is President, it is functionally the Department of War. It is therefore inaccurate to insist that "Department of Defense" is the only correct name. Even if we look at Defence Holdings (ALRT), using the variant "Defense" remains entirely acceptable within the industry. It is also worth noting that a government department is a statutory body, not a "registered company."

You suggest that changing a name is "pure arrogance," yet you insist upon a title that has been administratively superseded. Regarding your use of "woke," the term refers to being alert and aware. I wear the label with pride, as I am aware of current administrative changes and linguistic variants, whereas your insistence on a single "correct" spelling suggests your own awareness of the world is suitably lacking.

@Cevodniya This is an investment forum, not a classroom. Outside of formal education, correcting spelling is unnecessary if the message is clear. Both "defence" and "defense" are correct depending on the regional variant of English being used. Furthermore, global forums include non-native speakers, users of various dialects, and individuals with dyslexia. If what is written is understood, the communication is successful. If your intention is to become the grammar police first, make sure your own command of language is perfect. Yours I'm afraid is lacking in this respect.

"ASI and DSAF both post in similar ways quoting rules and more rules and then even more rules as if it makes their views more legitimate than ours."

Legitimacy is strictly defined by the Companies Act 2006 and FCA/PRA regulatory frameworks. These statutes provide the objective legal standards for governance and market conduct, independent of how they are interpreted in forum discussions. So, if your opinions of governance differ from these legal statutes, I don't need to suggest them to be incorrect the laws do so for me.

Defense, defence, it makes no difference. If you understand what he is saying it doesn't matter how he spells it.

The principle of incumbency dictates that corporate accountability to shareholders resides with the current Board of Directors rather than their predecessors. In the context of corporate governance, the Board is a continuous legal organ; while former directors may remain subject to legal scrutiny for historical breaches of the Companies Act, they no longer maintain a fiduciary relationship with the shareholders.

This mirrors the political reality of executive responsibility, where a sitting government such as the current UK Prime Minister and Cabinet is held accountable for the state of the country, regardless of whether those issues were inherited or externally driven. The incumbent holds responsibility for the entity's current status simply by virtue of holding the office.

For Pennpetro, the following points remain the objective reality:

The current Board is the only body with the legal and operational authority to address existing challenges and is therefore the sole party answerable for the company’s trajectory.

Regardless of any internal governance updates, the company remains suspended from trading. Until this suspension is lifted, all stated progress and valuations remain theoretical.

Institutional performance is ultimately measured by market access. Until the shares are tradable on the Exchange, the Board’s actions have not yet delivered tangible value to the investment base.

@Newuncle The principle of corporate governance is that the current Board of Directors is the body collectively accountable to shareholders for the company's ongoing performance. While former directors may be personally liable under the Companies Act 2006 for breaches committed during their tenure, they no longer have a functional or fiduciary relationship with the shareholders once they have vacated their seats.

Consequently, operational accountability rests solely with those currently in office. While individual liability for past actions remains a legal matter, the present Board is the only entity responsible to the shareholders for the company's current status and future direction. Focus on previous directors does not change the fact that the institution of the Board remains the party answerable to the investment base.

What he’s saying is that nothing is actually delivered until the shares start trading on the market, material value for shareholders remains theoretical until the suspension is lifted and shares resume trading. Until liquidity is restored, no tangible benefits can be realised by the investment base.

From a regulatory and legal perspective, the Board of Directors functions as a continuous corporate organ. While specific individuals (Directors) may change, the Board’s collective responsibility, legal duties, and accountability to the company remain constant. Consequently, focus is placed on the institutional performance of the Board under current laws, as the legal entity itself remains responsible for the company's direction regardless of which individuals occupy the seats at any given time so there is no point pointing fingers at the performance of past directors as the responsibility falls on the seat not who is sat in it..

@JamesTrader71 I prioritise civil discourse and typically only contribute when there is a material development to discuss. The placement of such a significant volume of shares is a noteworthy event that warrants objective analysis, which is the reason for my participation and as importantly, the purpose of this forum.

Regarding the definition of arrogance: it is a behaviour characterised by an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance and a dismissive or contemptuous attitude towards others. Attempting to invalidate a contributor based on their posting history or frequency rather than the data they provide aligns more closely with that definition than my own participation. If you are suggesting this of me, it appears to be a clear case of the "pot calling the kettle black."

In relation to posting times, the digital environment operates on a 24-hour cycle. The relevance and validity of factual information are determined by its content and accuracy, not the specific hour it was shared. I prefer to focus on the material reality of the market rather than personal aspersions.

People often mix up socialism and communism, though they’re quite different. For some reason, many assume they’re the same thing. Just a quick look at a few posts in this thread shows concepts from one being labeled as the other and vice versa.

Oh! I'm unfiltered again.

@affrm quote "....not many small caps have billionaires as owners...so the question remains what do they see in ppp that we haven't not seen yet?"

@affrm They view the entity as a clean shell to facilitate a Reverse Takeover (RTO). This provides a pre-existing infrastructure on the London Stock Exchange (LSE), which is a significantly more efficient and certain route to market than a traditional Initial Public Offering (IPO). The primary value is in the listing itself; it allows them to bypass the protracted timeline and initial barriers of a fresh registration, providing a ready-made platform to access institutional capital and facilitate expansion within Europe with greater speed.

ZagEgypt often claims to have filtered people, but when he responds to one of your posts, and when you point this out he says he unfiltered you for a special reason. In reality, it usually means curiosity got the better of him, and he struggles to follow a thread, so he removes the filter. Over the past year, I think he’s hit a baker’s dozen of times claiming to have filtered me, each time when facts have gotten in the way of his fantasy that when this relists he can pay off his mortgage rather than the reality that when this relists he will be broke.

"✅ Modification: The FCA retains discretion to accept a lower market value if it is satisfied there will be an adequate market for the securities."

Not on a Reverse Take-over. If you can give an example of an RTO where this has taken place I will stay quiet but if not will you?

@Newuncle I’m not attacking anyone, just sharing the figures provided by RMD and the company. There’s nothing wrong with dilution if it benefits both shareholders and the company, but that doesn’t mean you should follow blindly without considering how it impacts your investment.