Member Info for MrHumble

So, imo, it's not that they wont do the job. It is far more likely, they can never get the wide boys to work for them.

Remember, they have all activities. Not just the crud on level 2 - they have the registers - in essence they would know the game in 15 mins

But they most likely do not have the staff to do it. And flags are not knowledge. Easy mask.

FCA: (Not a reader of tapes) flag appears. Call NOMAD or maker etc. 'What was that?' 'Oh just a client order blah blah. 'Ok thanks'

FCA: (Tape reader) flag appears. Make a call. 'What was that at x and y? Oh just a block order blah blah. FCA dude clears throat. 'Il tell you what it was boy' - haha

I think the real problem with the FCA, is that you really have to know how to first read the tape, and progress from there. But if you know how to read the tape, you wouldn't waste your time working there anyway.

I dont know why it's even a discussion anyway. What the hell are the FCA and Co all doing? It's their job. In saying that, stocks can often be down 99% before they conclude, if ever even look

Ashman's words made any numbers material. Even £0 . It was material via the words used that most likely made some decide to buy, and await numbers.

Really, no number was not material after that.

And it seems CRDA are getting the blame for another party's serious breach of regs.

It is wholly illegal for any NDA to supress market sensitive info for a 3rd party (or yourself).

So whatever it is they said no to, it was obviously so immaterial, it was probably an embarrassment lol

Really it leads to questions for CRDA investors? Who are suffering a long time as well.

What happened to first allow it and the withdraw it? Was there bad news on sales that CRDA decided not to expose it's own investors to? Or great sales, and still letting them suffer?

This is throwing open a lot to be pondered about CRDA so is that the official line? Re CRDA first said ok and then said no?

'SBTX's defence, naturally, would rest on the argument that the statement lacked intent to form a contract, and was made in good faith based on information from Croda.'

A bit questionable re intent. Particularly pre a cash raise.

However, is their paperwork or a statement from CRDA stating they at first allowed it and then pulled the plug 2 mins prior? What sort of an NDA is that? Id love to see it.

Really, my interest now is the COO. Past, present, future role, and what he was planted in there for. Il have to ask others. As i cant remember being in anything with the name ringing a bell. I doubt its good for PI's, even if does not know it yet (my disclaimer)

Enjoy week all

Probably reading this now, nodding quietly. Then mince it in a hillbilly show. This is the norm.

Anyone ever going to know he truth Nope.

But there is one underlying truth after it all. The lads can make millions more, and it never really needs to rise at all. Only need time. Sometimes you need a spike to rejuvenate gerbils. About it.

GLA

So, imo, he is guilty of negligence. Negligence of not covering own ass properly really

Theory

Ashman was told by somebody, he could say he can give numbers.

There never was intention to give any. He was probably last to know. Probably knew nothing about the cash call either. Proper set up

Im not defending the man. But none of it adds up unless you go into the dark side of AIM, and those really running it for decades.

However, this is also based on the fact many wouldn't agree with - who actually runs these companies really

He made such a horse of himself, I actually believe he was set up.

It would take record breaking neck, to willingly go that route, and into a cash raise as well.

I know it's common but not so exposed by own words.

Something truly stinks, and I'm not even sure the CEO farted.

Negligence? Or something so wrong, the option of being called a liar was far better?

i dont know

If true - what was so bad that 1. CRDA wanted to stop it, and 2. Ashman was willing to make a total liar out of himself, whilst complying?

As it goes, it seems (if to be believed ), CRDA stopped him on the evening of June 29th. It can't have been sooner, because past statements made that info market sensitive, requiring immediate release.

But given most of these scenarios are most likely far from the facts, lets run with one anyway.

Why did CRDA stop him on the evening of June 29th?

Bottom line. He had a legal duty to ensure when informing market he would release numbers, that he 1. understood the nda and 2. if it needed clarifying for any reason with CRDA, clarified prior to engaging market

This is a case for negligence really

I dont know what the association to HNWI's is supposed to prove. They lied to you as well? haha