Member Info for Spikeyj

Bring back timski, eh? (… no, not really)

It’s still a mildly interesting company to follow, although fading now that it has abandoned the fairy tales about WK, but with some of the stupidest and most pointlessly unpleasant company supporters across any of the AIM boards.

almost all the reasonably sane and half-way sensible ones left long ago, leaving just the very dregs like beasty, cheesy, puntercat and the various unsanitary aliases of richard /moony.

Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e2vqd3j1vo

17:46, that goes for puntercat too, mr_w …. i.e. they seem to have nothing left to say about the underlying business here, despite some interesting posts from del and holmdean, and results/accounts fast approaching. … how will EUA keep paying those bills?

Thanks fleccy

Offer, I’ve already pointed that out to puntercat. (i don’t think he actually has either the capacity or the genuine interest to understand the relevant issues. he’s just doing the usual toddler tantrum stuff he does on every chatboard.)

09:26, “… now you turn abusive, defeated brain cells normally go that way”

Matthew 7, v1-5.

You don’t understand punter. … it is not about claiming to be a reasonable person, it is about whether a hypothetical reasonable person might honestly have held the same view, rightly or wrongly, given the available info at the time.

you’re being a bit monotonous this morning punter, so i will leave you to it. feel free to keep sending your green crayon messages to FCA etc, and i will keep commenting in EUA if there’s summat i think is worth saying.

08:48, you’re a snowflake at heart punter.

… in the meantime, punter, you seem overly focused on the specific defence of truth.

admittedly, it’s a very good defence anyway in relation to adverse comment on the car crash that is EUA and its BoD, but it ain’t the only one … particularly, note as per 2013 defamation act what a “reasonable person” *might* have thought at the time, as their honest opinion, with the information available to them … the reasonable person’s view does *not* have to be correct, balanced, fair or polite.

Defamation law isn’t there to protect individuals from hurty feelings, punter.

… EUA cannot take action for ‘distress’, it’s a company.

(and if CS is ‘distressed’ by me saying that i think he’s been awful with EUA, i suggest that he tries doing a better job for his shareholders or resigns.)

Punter, businesses must prove ‘serious financial loss’.

(the clue is in the words, ‘serious financial loss’. ? how much money do you think i have cost the company EUA with my posts??)

(Hint: have a read of section 1 re the ‘serious harm’ threshold.)

You don’t understand the 2013 defamation act, punter.

Offler, technically the (2013) test regarding an individual director such as CS is whether a “reasonable” person *might* hold the same view on the basis of the information which was available at the time ( — irrespective of whether that belief turns out to be true or not, whether or not it was a ‘balanced’ view, fair or not, irrespective of whether it was expressed politely or very rudely, etc.).

it is my honestly held opinion, which i think might well be held by some other reasonable people, that the BoD of EUA have been useless.

Punter (21:37) appears to believe that my posts on this chat board have significantly influenced the EUA share price. LOL!

Punter, the burden of proof is on a company, to prove that it has suffered serious financial loss as a direct result of someone’s publications.

if a company cannot prove serious financial loss, then there is no case to answer under 2013 defamation act (which is irrespective of whether statements have been balanced or not, accurate or not, rude or not, fair or not, etc).

Offler, the guy is utterly clueless. he would do better to tell the nice dinner-ladies that some nasty boys on the chat boards have been saying mean things about his shares, and maybe they would kiss it better for him.

Punter, whether folks like my views or not, i have been pretty consistent in what i say about EUA for years.

you appear to have no understanding of the 2013 defamation act… please do explain, for instance, what ‘serious financial loss’ do you think i have caused EUA, and how that is evidenced?