Member Info for jalpa

So what. A 2.5% price rise on an RNS that announcedA meaningless numbers of a boiler that was a prototype not a production reality and you cant prove otherwise when it should be easy to prove the existence of something you told the world you intended to make 500000 of. The willingness to publish increasing production volume from 360000 to 500000 in an RNS but the total lack of publishing simple performance figures of the production boiler you cliamed to be manufacturing. I think its clear cut. A solid case.

"I have no evidence that would prove that the boiler back then was a production model but I believe the increased production level limit would prove further expectation and yes it could have been a pumping tool but difficult to prove"....but lack of production, performance data, boiler non-existence and statements under oath from ex-employees would prove the boiler was a prototype not fit for purpose? Not difficult to prove at all. Furthermore, had the boiler been a production reality, its existence and performance would have been easy to prove as there would have been thousands of "gamechanging" boilers doing their thang changing games paying for themselves. But there wasn't, was there. Isuggest It was an incompetent piece of shit whose existence only fuelled a story.

Your recollections are flawed..the price rose to 49p on the November 14 RNS announcing production had begun. The allegation, supported by considerable evidence, is the boiler was a prototype not fit for purpose rather than a "production model" when that RNS was released. So rather than countering allegations with proving negatives, or denouncing posters by trying to work out who they are, Why not leave that you are, by your own admission, unable to prove the boiler was a production reality. Given there is no return for investors and this is a total loss, I personally feel discussion is better focused on the allegation and evidence that fraud has been committed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bad-character-evidence

The concept of propensity is admissible in law and the question of why the RNS announcing the increase of production to 500000 establishes and reinforces the case the two RNS in question were released not to inform investors of actual progress in the business, but to extract money from investors, which we can easily prove was the principal source of income for this company and, in particular, the BoD who profited handsomely from that income. The onus lying now on proving the boiler in November 2014 was not remotely a production reality but merely a defective prototype not worth a shit. (a mere �14k worth of IP, and even then that was likely for the power electronics). So popgoestheweasel, rather than filibustering around the issue, can you prove the boiler was a production boiler in November 14? Because the evidence is it was a deficient prototype not worthy of production.

Prove the production model wasn't a prototype. Why was initiating production "the most significant achievement to date for the Group"? Why was the production run increased from 360000 to 500000? Given the boiler was never seen and fundamentally a flawed concept, the burden of proof lies with the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Let us consider the RNS statement."Initiating production is clearly the most significant achievement to date for the Group. 10 years of development culminates in this moment, where the first production model of the Flow boiler rolls off the production line that we expect to produce hundreds of thousands of Flow boilers over the coming years. We now move into our sales phase, with our full launch planned for mid-January 2015" Notice Stiff doesn't use the word "volume" in contrast to the main body of the RNS. The first clear indicator this statement is slippery and seeks to mislead. What is stated is production has been initiated and that the boiler being produced is a production model and not a prototype or development mule. This is a clear statement of product maturity and hence function. The onus will be to prove the boilers lifecycle status was production released and that product trials had been completed and successful, and production tooling procured. This tooling would be inline with the production methods used for producing a projected production of 360000.

Of course popgoestheweasels only defense is the proving of a negative,which will be thrown out of any court the second it is presented, if a team was stupid enough to present it. The defense will have to prove the boiler was aproduction ready when the November 2014 RNS was released, spiking the share price.

"I treat everything I read and hear with suspicion Jalpa and will not put a man in the stocks or in the dock until I am fully satisfied"...the boiler never appeared and the boiler was worthless. How much evidence do you need when these facts are compared with the RNS? You are unconvincing.

"Suns out and that train may be pulling into Liverpool Central" Having visited Liverpool recently, to collect a statement, I recall Liverpool Central is an underground station, so you cant know the sun is out. As I say, nothing you say stacks up.

"Why be fearful tm, of stating who you are" who are you then? And if you've lost what you say you have, why defend what is appears to be blatant fraud? None of the company statements and stack up and none of your defences do. Indeed, having discussed this company with impartial advisors, all conclude "fraud".

Its the "practices that were unlawful" that is interesting.

"Initiating production is clearly the most significant achievement to date for the Group. 10 years of development culminates in this moment, where the first production model of the Flow boiler rolls off the production line that we expect to produce hundreds of thousands of Flow boilers over the coming years. We now move into our sales phase, with our full launch planned for mid-January 2015. This was a prototype that was deficient. Hence the "sales phase" never happening. There was no marketing or selling of the boiler. What justified the statement ""Jabil will now manufacture 500,000 game-changing Flow boilers". when it was widely known the prototype didn't work?

Worth repeating. NO BOILERS HAVE EVER BEEN SEEN.

"I am referring to clear evidence to suggest the boiler was not a finished product when it rolled off the production line"....witness statements from ex-employees reinforced ny the fact no boilers have ever been seen. Independent expert witness statements sating the design was not capable.

I am referring to clear evidence to suggest the boiler was not a finished product when it rolled off the production line...where is it then?

Evidence: The concerted effort to suppress and control this forum with threats of libel and accusations of "trolling".

Evidence: The statement "Jabil will now manufacture 500,000 game-changing Flow boilers" They didn't.

Evidence: You had to pay Jabil off.

If that be the case then so be it - no-one has confirmed anything of the like to me...why would they. You are a nobody.