Member Info for Skwizz

Thx Cardinal.
Agreed.

One of the reasons they gave for rejection was the unsuitability of the access road as per the warning signs at the road entrance.
The officers clarified that the warning signs were at the entrance to warn drivers only of the unsuitability further down the track, to save them learning of it too late.
This section is past the proposed useage by UKOG and being used by one of the complainants for that purpose (already approved through earlier planning permission application on his behalf).
They confirmed that the section of road had been reviewed by the Highways Dept. and confirmed that it was suitable for UKOG's intended use up to that point.
They further advised that UKOG had voluntarily offered to widen and improve the road every six months, at its' own costs, regardless.
Immediately following this, the member who called for the explanation said she was not satisfied the process had been thorough enough and would reject on that basis, without specifying why she was still not satisfied or calling for further review.

There were three or four "concerns" like that.
At best they could have been used as delaying tactics.
They should never have been used as reasons for rejection if the experts employed by the committee to advise them all advised them they'd approved them.

I still don't believe the committee understood what they were voting for.
Soe thought they were voting on the application, not an amendment.
One even started to make that point and asked for clarity (second or third voter I think), but then voted anyway, before it had been cleared up.

The chair was advised by his legal dept. that they had to have the second vote, in order to legitimise the first vote.
That was explained (by chair) as not being a vote on the approval/rejection of the application a second time, but to confirm that the voters all understood the rejection reasons given by objectors during the initial vote.
:)

Yep.
I don't see any mileage in the 'not fully public' approach.
The problem was the reasons for rejection.
I do see mileage in an appeal based upon those.

None were relevant.
All were explained away by officials.
The chair warned the committee that the reasons they were considering for rejection were not reasonable, based upon evidence given before and during the meeting, and on similar permissions already granted to others, including one of the complainants against UKOG's case.
He further explained that SCC would be likely to lose any potential appeal by UKOG around those reasons and cause SCC liability for legal costs in the region of £250k.

Soz, Ash said he was a Town Planner, not Planning Officer.

Wiz', I doubt Ash would be willing to provide his/her location, as it would be more identifiable and could leave them open to some form of rebuke and/or censure.
:)

Ash said he is a Planning Officer (not S.C.C.).

Yup.
I see the purpose of a Planning Authority.
But that was five hours of confusion, and private agenda, interspersed with bursts of reason from their nonplussed officers.
;)

""Turkey's plan is seen in Athens as a dangerous escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean, prompting Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to warn that European Union sanctions could follow if Ankara continues to challenge Greek sovereignty," Kathimerini reported on July 21."

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/turkey-warpath?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

I'm not a Planning Officer, but I've endured a few and those guys didn't exactly do your profession any favours.
I sat through the whole thing.
All the reasons given had been answered by the council's officials before the meeting.
They seemed (although they didn't voice this) surprised that they were being asked the same questions in the meeting, but they proceeded to dismiss them again there and then, and went into some detail why they were either not relevant reasons to reject the application or had been investigated and satisfied the concerns being raised during the meeting.

The chair warned the committee that they had no grounds to refuse, based on approvals already given, after he heard one of the reasons (which had been answered as above) for rejection being given before the vote.

Then, when the vote was called, the official collecting the votes didn't ask for a vote to approve or reject, he asked if voters supported the reason for rejection. The confusion in the voting process was plain and, although one asked what they were voting, it was not cleared up.
Then they had another vote to confirm that everyone knew why everyone else had voted to reject the application (which they nearly didn't until the legal officer pointed out they had to).

It was extremely frustrating to watch, and I haven't even mentioned all the times the council's online connection to the public and its' own officers was lost (I gave up counting after seven).

I believe the appeal has to be granted (with costs), if it even gets that far.
After the Turkey announcement I'm less convinced of the merits of the whole application.
I hope to be re-assured (not by our resident rampers).
:)

Okies thanks.
Just wondered what the source of the info was so it could be verified.
:)

Btw, I knew nothing about UKOG when I first got involved.
A friend who was starting to invest had pointed me towards it.
I saw it purely as an opportunity to test an idea I'd had about trading, which went completely against my lifelong position on investing.
That's why I only started with £1k.
:)

Thanks Ash.
Any links?
:)

I have been very clear and very consistent in explaining my involvement.

I started with £1000 and traded it to more than £100k.
I banked half (in my pension) and broke the rest into £10k chunks, which I re-invested in UKOG.
The most was bought at 1p.
The rest on the way down.
That is £50k still invested in UKOG.
I have sold for less than I paid and then bought back for less than that, bringing my average down.
But it's still only 50% what I paid, rather than 20% it would have been worth.

I have also had occasion to trade extra amounts (only about ten) since November.
On each of those occasions I had sold trades from other share investments and transferred the money to UKOG when I though a return was pretty much guaranteed.
Those amounts would have been just £1k, up to £10k.
I have made at last 5% on each of those (around 40% on the last spike when Loxley began).
All of these profits I count as separate to the £50k I left invested in UKOG over the last year and have been removed into my general portfolio.

One quarter of my entire portfolio is invested in companies that make money from fossil fuels.
I'm hardly a swampy, but I have managed and owned businesses.
I am entitled to my views, which are not to dissuade or persuade anyone from buying/selling shares in UKOG or anyone else.
But I will caution investors against listening to imbeciles, of which this board has more than its' fair share, here or in UKOG's board room.

One day I will either sell my holding, or it will just become totally worthless.
At that point I will get out of Dodge.
I will leave it in profit and will hope to be leaving with more.
But I still have the £50k I banked in my SIPP when I do.

I will certainly trade again, I started trading other (mostly AIM) companies since I began making such a big margin from UKOG and I still am.
I have made less from trading anyone else than I have from UKOG.
But I now know that I should have only traded UKOG, not held.

I'd rather be a swampy than a brave typist.
:)

Observation is not ramping/de-ramping.
Only biased speculation is ramping/de-ramping.

It's dead.

"In addition to the overall success of an organization or company, the CEO is responsible for leading the development and execution of long-term strategies, with the goal of INCREASING SHAREHOLDER VALUE."

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/careers/jobs/what-is-a-ceo-chief-executive-officer/

All of Trousers' rabbits have myxomatosis.

SP before 10/1 consolidation: 0.85p
SP right now 0.16p

Long past that now.
Should've gone a long time ago.
:)

O..M..G..!
Bit embarrassing for you.
Turkish Delight has been around long before Fry's named their offering after it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_delight
:D

Hope not, Capehake.
We're doing local lockdowns if and when the need pops up.
Working so far (he said, optimistically).
;)

No - they're the result of frustration with something which should be going as well as the Boiler Boys keep trying to convince everyone it is when the rest of us can see the horrid plain truth right in front of us.