Member Info for Cardinal3

Can I be the first to congratulate sharehunter3 on not mentioning RNS in his last post?

Wise advice by peka. In my working life in the City there was a truism I’ve always remembered. There’s nothing wrong in taking a profit and don’t be too greedy.

There have been times I haven’t actioned those words.

Helpful. Thank you. Please update any significant changes for those of us who don’t have L2.

Wizard
Legal challenge at the Court of Appeal? Who by? You can't appeal unless there has been a High Court hearing in the first place.

The article refers to the saliva tests being made by Innova not Novacyt so why should Novacyt benefit?

I agree Fleccy, partly because our government has made so many Horlicks by under-delivering and over- promising it would be in its- and our- best interests to Get Vaccine Done by not saying exactly when it will be ready till it's ready. Add to that faint hopes of solving the Brexit impass and despite its own failings we could end the year in much better shape than it looks just now.

He is a sad character but why promote what he says by commenting on them here?

Zoom

Once a decision is taken by the planning committee, that’s it. There is no second bite at the cherry at full council.

Tymers

You are quite right that SS will deserve reward if the share price hits 2p. Sadly I doubt his compensation scheme takes account of shareholder value unless he has taken his money up front.
One good alternative to make sure he benefits is for him to buy a few million so he will be on the same page as shareholders.

I take the view that when you are spreading your risk from your core purpose which is UK oil and gas, and have built up control (85% now) you are saying your strategy is failed or failing and you need alternatives asap.

Skwizz

Sorry I have got onto this late in the day but I just spotted your comment this morning and wanted to clear up your procedural issue. The way voting on planning works is that there is automatically a recommendation to approve or refuse. In UKOG's case councillors debated the officer recommendation to approve.
If you, as a councillor, want something different ie in this case refusal, you put an amendment to refuse , get a seconder and off you go and debate your amendment first. The first vote is on the amendment ie to refuse. Councillors were asked whether they supported the amendment to refuse, which they did, 6-5. So the vote to refuse was carried.
What went belly up is that there were no clear reasons to refuse. An amendment should say something like on the grounds of highway safety, speed of cars etc and give reasons, like them or not. The fact that the legal officers say you can't do that as you have been told it would be unreasonable, doesn't mean they won't. In this case the officers said what are the reasons, and the councillors went off to cook up reasons to support the decision they had already made. Then they had vote on the reasons, not on the motion to refuse which had already been carried 6-5.
There are legals issues here, constitutional nightmare time. One is that they had already taken a decision, but didn't know why, which is surely crackers. Then to have a separate vote on the reasons for refusal which I think came out 9-1 is baffling. Why have a separate vote, when they had already voted? So another question is- was the voting 6-5 or 9-1?

Where the chairman went wrong is by calling a separate vote on the reasons. He also went wrong in not demanding the reasons for refusal in the first place, so they knew what they were voting on. There are questions whether some councillors has a clue what they were doing but we will let that pass.

Sorry to be boring. I understand the arcane nature of the law of meetings and local authority constitutions. I know sod all about oil though.

I noticed one poster said the councillors should be booted out. Oh I wish. Sadly it's not possible under the law these days. You need elections for that and you will be sorry to learn there is a risk we won't have any next year as there might be a move towards unitary authorities and the govt might postpone the SCC elections for a year. There was a time when councillors could be personally charged for making unreasonable planning decisions, but that stopped I think in the 1970s.

Cheers

Mirasol
"non-operated so no control over day to day ops, secondly very close to the Syrian/Iraq border - a bit hairy I'd guess".
Great point. We don't want operational control do we? Unlike the 85% of HH where control was deemed critical!
The writing on the overseas wall was obvious from the last RNS.

I know one option who couldn’t possibly do a lot worse than SS and that is, of course, Jonathan Tidwell of Angus fame. Very reminiscent of failing Grayling but here we are where the share price has gone on a downward slope roughly opposite to the slope of the graph showing money in the pocket of SS. Not many could do worse for shareholders.

Hi wizard
It would be boring but people might prefer to be bored and have money in their pocket rather than in the CEO’s.

Wizard
Anyone with zero shares is aligned with shareholders in the same way as SS without the bonus. :)
They may have made the right call.

Mirasol

That is a very well thought through argument, comparing national policy and local democracy. There's the rub. It is all very well companies wanting to build, dig or knock down and it is fine if you are the shareholder, but what about the residents and free- for- all planning. Shops turned into flats without the need for planning approval is one consequence. I can see the need to sort out the ludicrous red tape around infrastructure projects eg airports and HS2 but when it gets to the local plans would we be happy with an unaccountable government appointee such as an Inspector taking all the detailed local decisions? I think unlikely. It is a balance.

I see we have all had the same response. In the last week I have had the pleasure of ‘meeting’ a number of SCC councillors all of whom were already aware of the legal shambles even though none is a member of the planning committee. Considering they can’t chat while they have a cuppa in the council offices that is saying something. The situation is that the council are trying to work out whether the decision was legal. I expect they are aware they will be slaughtered for costs on any appeal but they are also aware that government is looking at taking some planning powers away from local councils so that planning can be speeded up and this will only provide ammunition that councillors can’t be trusted.

gkb

my honest answer is I have never looked at this before so can't advise. You will need to be patient. I have said previously these things take a week or two. They are probably scrambling to cook up the wording as I type. They will know they are in deep trouble both on the decision and the governance. I have complained to the monitoring officer and got the same reply as others here so they know people are onto them. Councillors know this too.

also note it says "delegated decisions". The planning committee is not a delegated decision. That's when professional officers are authorised to decide without recourse to committee.

GKB
No point in looking there yet. Far too early.