Member Info for stokey12

Just seen this on Afloat https://afloat.ie/port-news/navy/item/60040-government-to-pursue-new-200m-multi-role-vessel-mrv-project. I am not sure if this is something HARL would want to do on its own.

What I liked was that there was not dozens of conditions attached.

Mikee_p ref 17.02 post I am not sure if you were being serious with that post but he would not be allowed to hear the case if he had a financial interest.

LSE03 ref 15.18 post In view of all the talk about independence I found this comment interesting 'Ms Hyslop has said the UK government should also play a role in resolving ferry issues in Orkney.' So when they talk about independence do they mean political independence and not economic independence?

I think it was Lottie123 that was talking about the Chinese economy this video might be of interest to some of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fqjTvB1KC0

LSE03 ref 08.40 post I see that this was higher than was requested. I wonder whether HARL can get 1% of that.

Broomtree ref 19.36 the posts last week and yesterday need to be taken in context. With last week's post I was pointing out that the timing of the rise in the share price tracked with post from Chrisatrdg. With yesterday's post that was specific to the post I was responding to. You cannot read my post without reading the post I was responding to. When you do you will see that Trickymatters was making a connection between the reaction to RNS if any and the share price performance. My point being that there was probably no such connection as the markets were down across the board yesterday.

Trickymatters ref 18.23 post HARL's share performance is not connected or at any rate is unlikely to be connected to the news about the JR. All London markets are down and importantly shipping stocks are down.

Just seen this tweet from HARL chrome-extension://jfijboeaeajnoejbcdbhejlnmhepeige/index.html. I hope the link works. The photo is of the 11 Arnish apprentices with the Arnish General Manager

LSE03 ref 16.47 post I do not see the difference between this agreement and Team Resolute.

Chopper99 ref 15.24 post I agree I think this rule is to cover the situation where contractors staff actually sail with and as part of the ship crew. It does not answer what I think was the original question which was about the USITAR and why HARL needs an Import and Export Manager with expertise in that area. The only reason I can think of is that HARL would want to purchase American parts and they are caught by these regulations.

Chopper99 ref 11.42 post the rule was finalised this year so it took sometime and the rule can be found here https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/01/2023-09020/operational-contract-support-ocs-outside-the-united-states

Just seen this post from John Wood https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7099017573236658176/ The text says

'What an inspiration for our young women. Yes the final didn’t go our way but this is only the start of the journey……..

Just like the women’s football, shipbuilding is changing too. We have record numbers of women in our yards. It’s amazing to watch this transformation, no jobs are out of reach.

Let’s keep facilitating and supporting this journey….'

It seems that HARL will be sponsoring two events during LSIW23 https://afloat.ie/resources/irish-ports/shipyards/item/60171-harland-wolff-to-sponsor-parliamentary-cruise-reception-at-lisw23

Kaeren ref 09.36 post certain is not the word I would use. But if I recall there was a change in the law so that planning decisions do not require to go to the executive. Therefore this particular ground of challenge should fail. That said you can never tell which way a judge will go.

Gheko ref 08.52 post With respect you are wrong with regards to the executive point. If it is held that the matter should have gone to the executive then the license will in all probability be dead. The reason for this is that a number of the members of the executive are opposed to the application for a license if I recall correctly. The question is whether they would make a legal decision or a political decision.

Gilbosconi ref 08.28 post It is never wise to bet on a court judgement. That said as far as I can tell a number of the grounds of the challenge seem to be merits based and not reasons based. I have never seen the claim form so I am going by posts. If I am correct the claimants will fail on any merits based grounds. The one ground I am not sure about is whether the decision should have been referred to the Executive as there are cross cutting issues. I remain unconcerned about the decision.

Trickymatters ref 21.16 post Yes I noticed that the post disappeared later in the day. I think it may have been because the information was not supposed to be circulated. Basically it said that Baille Gifford's fund performance was not good. A point that seems to have also been made in this article I cannot read all of it as it is behind a paywall. https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4119914/baillie-gifford-calls-british-companies-fund#:~:text=Baillie%20Gifford%20has%20closed%20its,and%20target%20over%20five%20years.

Just came across this on twitter https://twitter.com/rhomboid1MF/status/1692941943301435710. I do not know the poster and have not checked the information so cannot confirm what it says so do check it. As the regular posters know there was some question as to whether Kave was investing on his own account or for Baille Gifford. If it was the latter this might explain the selloff by them. Looks like they may have needed to improve returns and HARL was not providing a sufficient return.

Roly12 ref 16.21 post thanks that makes sense.