Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[webshares] 03/5/2016 09:22

Isn't tomorrow the 2 week deadline that CHL asked ICSID to set for ROI response to confirmation of committing to the case? Or will ICSID set 60 days for response?

[daddy warbucks] 03/5/2016 09:20

Sounds like Mr Graham could be a councillor! ;0)

[andy] 03/5/2016 09:18

Pat,

I agree, after a while people can see through the ramping.

Debbie can only rinse and repeat so many times before the MO become transparent.

[p@] 03/5/2016 09:13

Hope I got that right!

[p@] 03/5/2016 09:12

Indonesia is a country!....LOL

[masarap] 03/5/2016 09:10

Last attempt with the Govt is via my constituency MP sent just now :-

I forgot to copy you in to this reply. Your colleague, Richard Graham, might find it convenient to pretend a UK treaty hasn't been violated but it doesn't make it any less of a provable fact. Make no mistake this isn't some subjective interpretation as he conveniently contends.

I look forward to hearing from you with regards to the stance on UK treaty violation in general and specifically this case by both the PM and Lord Price. I sincerely hope they have a different outlook to protecting UK treaties and Britsh business than Mr Graham has. At the present time his stance (and by implication the PM's) is that treaty violation is of no interest to the British Government.

Whilst trade with Indonesia must of course continue, the Government must surely engage with Indonesia and the EU on a diplomatic level and not just simply give a £1b trade credit facility or promote closer relations as if nothing has happened.

I sincerely hope you will read through the email chain because it's very clear that the regularly repeated words 'treaty violation' or any synonyms simply don't register with Mr Graham.

Best regards,

[patviera] 03/5/2016 08:44

Stephen. U got me all excited!Bl dy down on the Day!!I think all these posts from Debbie and crew are irrelevant to short term performance hereWe are long cos we are confident about tribunal decisionI'm not selling on up or down days

[debbiegee] 03/5/2016 08:31

Saint Masarap :-))))))))))

Thankyou !

We have enough TRUTH to work with I cant see the need for the constant ramping

[reesyheli] 03/5/2016 08:26

Excellent work Masarap

I think everyone on here and further afield owe you a huge vote of thanks

[masarap] 03/5/2016 08:17

P@ thanks, yes I intend to do that. As I mentioned to Richard Graham I wasn't looking to score political points hence giving him umpteen opportunities to engage his brain and give an appropriate reply. Still, if he is going to be inept and lazy then it will be given on a plate to shadow ministers and any interested journalist. He would be able to get away with his 'can't be bothered' approach were it not for the fact that a UK treaty has been violated. Ironically, this is helpful for Churchill because it means that the UK Govt has an obligation to step in otherwise it makes a mockery of the validity of our treaties and international law. That's the key bit he avoids recognising and either he can't read or can't be bothered to read.

[pathai3] 03/5/2016 08:17

Buy
Target price
28.37 p
Potential
+41.50%

[debbiegee] 03/5/2016 08:10

the 20.625 trades were all buys the 10.001 was mine

[p@] 03/5/2016 08:01

Masarap-Thank you for your great letters,the earlier suggestion by a reader to send them to the labour opposition ,for them to pass the letters on to Graham was a good one IMO..

Thanks again

[aimsharesone] 03/5/2016 07:55

Screenshot 7.15am thanks pathai3 keep up your good work

[debbiegee] 03/5/2016 07:51

It was declared late on Friday not pre open

[4627192] 03/5/2016 07:49

Pre open 45% up, 10p

20p is coming, shell is the one compensating. Highly material


Petro Matad Expecting "Highly Material" Compensation From Partner

Petro Matad Ltd Friday said the decision by its partner in Mongolia to withdraw from the joint venture will lead to the company receiving...

[sos100] 03/5/2016 07:47

i can't see it!

[pathai3] 03/5/2016 07:44

£10k PRE-OPEN

[patviera] 03/5/2016 07:11

Thx warbucksAppreciate it

[stephen1946] 03/5/2016 04:44

Time for some contrition, i am reliably informed that i read the situation quite incorrectly and have posted what on the face of it was, blatant ramping. That was not my intention. I apologise.

[fidra] 03/5/2016 00:25

Masarap nice ones.

[neo26] 03/5/2016 00:20

who in the press will be man enough to ask these questions to the UK govt.

ROI need to be put into a corner,

[masarap] 03/5/2016 00:00

My response to Richard Graham's reply :

Dear Richard,

Your reply really is extraordinary and frustrating.

I note that you are running away from answering simple questions and prefer to distort, misinterpret or ignore the contents of my letter. The contents and questions are of course relevant to both your remit and that of the Prime Minister you represent.

To deal with your points :-

I have contacted the British Embassy in Jakarta and received no reply.

I am unaware my MP is taking up this on my behalf as I have had no communication confirming this from him.

I sincerely hope my MP has the intelligence to understand that this is not, as you suggest, about "one company's issues" but it is about a blatant and obvious violation of a UK Treaty, the upholding of international law and the protection of national interests which you don't appear to have the slightest of interest in.

A simple reading of the facts shows that there has been a flagrant violation of a UK Treaty. That is beyond dispute as a cursory glance of the link I sent you would have informed you.

It is not as you put it "my interpretation of a situation" regarding the blatant treaty violation, it is taken from an official LSE announcement authorised and advised on by one of the very top law firms who specialise in such matters.

Of course I am not suggesting "all British commercial activity with Indonesia should cease". That is a ludicrous response to the serious questions I posed covering the principle that a British Government has a statutory duty to ensure its treaties with overseas nations are not violated. Equally ludicrous as your deliberate misinterpretation of my letter is a stance that resists any diplomatic engagement with a treaty violator or EU allies and does nothing to protect UK interests. That just comes across as either inept, lazy or laissez faire about protecting British interests or an unhealthy combination of all three.

I find your stance so perplexing that I am beginning to queston whether I owe you an apology. From the tone and contents of your reply it's becoming patently obvious that I may have misread your title. Perhaps you are not the Trade Envoy TO Indonesia, are you in fact the Trade Envoy FOR Indonesia? A Presidential rather than a Prime Ministerial envoy? Attention to detail is obviously not my strong point. Obviously that is tongue firmly in cheek but your disinterest in the violation of a UK Treaty and failure to appreciate your duty to advise UK companies of this new risk in terms of their Treaty protection is truly astonishing and frankly risible.
.
I asked some very simple questions that are relevant to your remit, Lord Price's and of course the PM's as well. I note your instruction to stop emailing you so I will oblige and get the press to ask you, Lord Price and the Prime Minister the questions you are running away from.

It's really quite shameful that the PM's envoy is telling a member of public who has flagged up an unquestionable violation of a UK Treaty to try and persuade an overseas embassy official of this obvious fact rather than taking up the Governmental obligation to protect national interests.

Best regards,