Member Info for Skwizz

Morning Scally.
Jaguar XF 3.0d S here.
My next will be electric, and I'm considering something like the Tesla model Y atm but can't give up my nice comfy XF yet.
Fossil will still be in use after I'm deed n gorne.
;)

All very well talking about it, but the planet still doesn't contain enough lithium to power the cars we have now.
Population growth exceeds the rate at which renewable could replace the infrastructure for fossil fuels.
Apple bought it's own lithium mine a couple of years ago to ensure supply for it's own production.

The problem still isn't the resources.
It's the people using the resources.
:)

Not my opinion but there's a "Strong Buy" recommendation on Investing com this morning.
:)

As a member of the board, he is supposed to hold a duty of care to his shareholders.
Legally and ethically.
Shareholders see the revenue the business is making and compare that to the rewards SS is giving himself.
Quite rightly they are rather disappointed about appearing to be paying Trousers, directly from their own trouser pockets, for a role that has seemingly not performed at all well thus far.
:)

Exactly, Hope.
Just another Swampy.
:)

Utter cobblers.

*****ing about trouser's mistakes and judgement errors is useless and very negative.
On the other hand it does make me feel a little better that other people can see it too.
:)

Have they actually been asked to stop?
I wasn't aware and find that disturbing.

I don't think you do know the reason.
The reasons they've given you are generalisation.
The specific reasons for their "concerns" were unfounded.
Their own officials responded to them in detail and dismissed them as valid during the meeting.
They did not further query their officials responses, just ignored them.
:)

I read the title and got very excited.
Only to be disappointed to read on and find he hasn't gone yet.
:)

As mentioned earlier there was only one reason given which was not properly cleared up and that was the possible failure to notify the traveller site.
It was raised but nobody seemed able to confirm or deny it.
Taking it as correct, I wouldn't have an issue with a delay to ensure they had fair chance to raise their own objections but, Swampyism aside, I don't believe they could've added anything the others hadn't already raised anyway.
Obviously, if it could be proved false then that would have to be swept aside as well.
:)

Wiz'
Yep.
While presenting he actually said they'd already been submitted in his report before the meeting but that he would go over them again for clarrity.
Then he was asked another question about it (Povey's second attempt) and repeated the information.
I don't recall now but I think the Traffic guy may also have covered the same points, so there was no reason for Povey's insistence that the issue had not been resolved or was unclear.
Patently following his personal private agenda despite clear explanation and clarrity.
I am sure that is why the Planning Officer sounded surprised when he repeated this exactly the same as before as his reason for rejecting.
:B

Some do.
But they don't get any response.
Save your time.
;)

Ian, Good point, made by Povey.
Again, the Traffic Officer was quite clear in his explanation of that.
Also pointing out that the signs were placed there to stop anyone entering the road at that point.
However the section of road they referred to was AFTER the point at which access would be required by UKOG.
Up to that point the road was not only suitable for UKOG access, but UKOG were also improving and widening the road themselves to ensure there was no chance of their vehicles damaging the edges.
This would also be redone every six months, at UKOG cost.

This was in direct response to Povey's question, yet he STILL gave it as a reason to reject.
Deaf, deliberately deaf, or just stupid.
Take yer pick.

:)

Bud, there were so many things wrong with it I still am in a daze.
I think I'm actually in a form of shock about what I saw and heard.
Other than the traffic and planning officers, who I thought were very good and extremely well prepared.
There was one councillor I think we can all agree was excellent too and understood the law and process better than all the others put together (sorry, I don't recall his name..., 'Ernest' I think?), including the chair.
Only one though.
:)

I've always seen directors buying shares in UKOG as a distraction and irrelevant.
If I was a UKOG director I would be buying shares, but NO WAY would I buy UKOG shares.
As an investor, seeing UKOG directors buying shares in UKOG in its' current condition would just worry even more about their credibility.
:)

Bullshirt.
He left before the second vote, which was only a process technicality, to verify the reasons to reject given during the first vote.
The first vote is the one that should be overturned (and there are a zillion reasons for it).
;)

Hully's point (while good and relevant) was given during the meeting.
Not that any of the objectors seemed to 'hear' it.
:)

Planning officer pointed out that Wedding Guy was given planning permission for HGV's for his business.
The objections some gave was because of UKOG's intended use of HGV's.
Rejecting UKOG's application for that, when it had already been approved in the earlier traffic office approval, was thus not valid, or legal.
:)

Numptytrader.
I sat through all five and half hours (which took considerable effort, may I say).

The vote should have been on whether to approve or reject UKOG's Planning Application.
Instead of which, there was a motion to reject the application.
The Vote then became whether or not to approve or reject the rejection.
I had the distinct impression that some were voting to approve the application (as would be the more usual formality).

But in any case, those who had made it clear that they were voting to reject the application, listed their reasons as those same reasons which had been raised before and during the meeting and then answered and dismissed before and during the meeting.
The main protagonist (Povey) used to be the council's leader and plainly was on his own agenda.
He asked questions quite clearly which his own officials were able to respond to in detail and at length, dismissing each concern he raise, but he listed them still as his reasons to reject.

The only one reason I heard which (trying to react impartially) could have been a justifiable cause for delay (not necessarily rejection), was the nearby traveller site.
They should have been notified and given an opportunity to object but say they were not.
I don't know how true that is, but if they genuinely were not given that opportunity, I would understand that as a fault in the process which would have needed to be rectified.

Otherwise none of the other reasons raised were still valid by the time of the vote, yet were still given.
Utter comedy.
:)