Member Info for Spikeyj

13:54, hi data, to answer your question, nope, it is entirely untrue.

i have never had any position in EUA, neither long nor short.

“Don’t have a wife, to [sic] clever….been there done it.”

?although back on 2nd dec 2024 datttttaaabbb posted at 12:15 that his wife now runs the business, while he plays golf? … ain’t that puzzling.

sorry to hear you lost your wife sometime over the last two months, ddddattttattattbba.

MAB, 12:20 …. ? & what is your own ‘qualification’ to comment on EUA’s value?

(& presumably the rampers who managed to get me banned in the ramp to 42p did so precisely because they wanted to dump shares onto other pis being enticed into buying EUA shares in the 20s, 30s and low 40s, and they didn’t want any contrary views spoiling the happy-clappy get rich quick yarn they wanted to spin to sucker new money in. dirty games, these AIM shares!)

Same old porkie-pies from TBOB at 14:00.

i never said that EUA would not get a replacement nomad. i did say that I thought there was a significant chance that they would not. … not the same thing, of course, but that liar TBOB likes to pretend they are.

certainly true that i stopped posting on this board for a while, but that was nothing to do with the war, nor my own choice; during peak ramp phase, enough of the rampers managed to mass report to lse admin that my consistent (on-topic, non-abusive, company focused) negative view of EUA was ‘disruptive’, so admin banned me from this board for many months.

however, as anyone nerdy enough to care could verify from a look at the ADVFN board histories, i continued to post there about EUA throughout that ban period, expressing the same consistent views on this company and its shares.

the only bit where i agree with TBOB, yes, let’s wait and see what happens next, it’s still interesting to watch.

(my guess, they will try to raise more funding within the next two months approx, and probably will try to link that with an argument that extra finding is somehow needed to facilitate the additional listing.)

Supposed ‘value in the ground’ doesn’t mean much re value that can be delivered to shareholders, since the latter needs to take into account costs of stuff like: definitive location of minerals, extraction and remediation, transport, processing, storage, sales and distribution, plus of course lengths of licence, and security of ownership/extraction rights in any particular jurisdiction.

EUA has always been remarkably shy of publishing meaningful data about actual and likely costs. (& similarly slippery imv about differences between genuine proven reserves versus resources etc, relying in part i think on poorly understood differences between western and russian categorisation systems).

all the above deeply fundamental to mining companies, not just purported ‘assets in the ground’.

(& ‘tier one scale’ is *not* the same thing as ‘tier one’.)

“… can’t we work together..?”

? to do what?

EUA has near worthless assets that no-one wants to buy for anything other than a nugatory price, very little cash, and zero meaningful revenue stream. no amount of posters ‘working together’ on this chatboard will make any difference to that.

? I thought the war was meant to be all over on day one of trump’s reign? .. che passa?

& added again, small.

What people can still try to claim in some cases would be a “public interest’ defence:

https://hamlins.com/insight/a-decade-of-the-defamation-act-2013-part-3-public-interest-privilege-and-secondary-defences/#:~:text=Section%204%20of%20the%20Defamation,matter%20of%20public%20interest%3B%20and

Hi saintnick,

i am not aiming to ‘intimidate’ anyone.

you, like maidit, are wrong about defamation law in the UK. there is no valid defence in UK law based on the libeller’s *intention*.

it doesn’t matter whether someone genuinely *believed* a post to be true or not (altho’ there is a defence that the imputation is actually objectively true), & nor does it matter in current UK defamation law whether a poster could claim an altruistic motive or not for publishing a libel.

See for example section 2(15) in the uk gov link below, regarding the repetition rule:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/notes/division/5/2?view=plain#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20long%2Dstanding,the%20“repetition%20rule”).

or for example:

https://gowlingwlg.com/en-cn/insights-resources/articles/2024/the-libel-bible-a-deeper-look-at-publication

Maidit, you are mistaken.

if person A publishes a libel…

but then person B repeats / republishes that libel…

then person B can also be found guilty of libel.

(but feel free, of course, to believe what you will.)

Telegram bunch would presumably claim it was an investment. others might not.

Maidit, i am not planning to sue anybody, since i am not one of the people being libelled by that blog.

just because something libellous has been published somewhere on the internet doesn’t make it ok to bring it to others’ attention, and to help it gain a wider readership.

? what makes you think “at least 2m people” would already have read that blog, maidit?

trump’s antics over in the USA won’t make much different to UK courts hearing libel suits in the UK jurisdiction.

anyway, i have reported it to lse admin as libellous material, so it’s up to them what to do with it. (as the site publisher, lse could also be sued for not taking it down, if someone does go to law. up to them if they want to take that risk.)

Saintnick, you have posted a link to a blog that makes many blatantly libellous statements about named living individuals (e.g. of cannibalism, child murder, and paedophilia).

i strongly suggest you do not continue to re-post such material, as you (and potentially lse) may become liable for libel damages. stating that you do “not endorse the views of the author” doesn’t let you off the hook, since by reposting you are repeating and circulating the libellous materials to a wider audience.

(… not meant nastily, st nick, just you may not understand just how costly libel claims can be to defend.)

When investing, it’s generally sensible to know what kind of people you are dealing with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-konSUS_TA

13:28, helpful post.

Roughly one month until final results. should be fun.

“Rounding up criminals”, i gather he’s also let a few out as well, lol.

meanwhile, this was the second week running that the ramp crews attempted a trump pump and dump. still time for more price action today, but currently looks liked. 2.75/2.80 was the top both times round.

? third time lucky next week, if someone can unearth yet another random tweet etc claiming to have special knowledge of imminent asset sales etc etc?

… clock ticking on (a) future attempted p&d based on some kind of purported political deal with russia /ukraine, versus (b) future attempted EUA fundraising as they have dwindling cash and no meaningful income generation, with near worthless assets including that mothballed loss-making mine and not much else…