Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Melrose Industries Plc LSE:MRO London Ordinary Share GB00BZ1G4322 ORDS 48/7P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  3.90 3.52% 114.55 114.60 114.80 116.05 111.90 113.30 3,424,870 14:35:36
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Industrial Engineering 10,967.0 106.0 -1.2 - 5,565

Melrose Industries Share Discussion Threads

Showing 10426 to 10448 of 11850 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  426  425  424  423  422  421  420  419  418  417  416  415  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
04/8/2019
21:04
Lindow Nonsense. Arrant nonsense. Your pedantry does you no credit. Nor does your punctuation. You are being argumentative for the sake of it. Here's an end to it.
tournesol
04/8/2019
19:16
Do you see what you've started here Sliotar, you fool?! Can't we all just 'get along'?
gettingrichslow
04/8/2019
13:46
Tournesol I appreciate your reply, and apologise to those who just want to read about views on Melrose, but trust they'll understand if I reply. First, there is no rule in English grammar against splitting the infinitive. The very term "split infinitive" is misleading as English verbs don't have an infinitive form, as French (or Latin) verbs do. The only possible objection to putting an adverb between "to" and the verb might be stylistic. Sometimes it can be good style to "split" the infinitive as the poster who commented on the issue with the licence fee did. (it wasn't me by the way). By conflating the use of computer code with the use of English you are not recognising that use of English changes all the time. Written English now is very different from that which was written 150 years ago. I don't work in technology but understand it's vital any particular computer code has to follow rigid rules to the letter (or digit). Equally presumably a computer code used 20 years ago, might now be out of date and irrelevant with modern hardware? It's correct that there are rules to follow in English to make it comprehensible and unambiguous where necessary, but the supposed rule against splitting the infinitive is not one of them, and is a nonsense rule. In English you can make the same point perfectly clearly using various forms of text, and in different word order. But I assume this is not possible in computer code? If you're interested in the subject read Oliver Kamm's book on English usage, "Accidence (sic) will happen the non-pedantic guide to English usage", part of which I quote above, in which he points out the first recorded written objection to the split infinitive was an article in the New England Magazine in 1834 entitled "Inaccuracies in Diction" by an unknown writer who then set about creating the "rule". Kamm goes on to quote the evidence of classical writers who have split the infinitive just in the nineteenth century: these include Samuel Coleridge, Walter Scott, Mark Twain, Thomas Hardy, Arthur Conan Doyle and many others. The practice is far more common now in the 21st century than it was and most sensible commentators on English style recognise the legitimacy of the split infinitive. But you're right about "Amo/Amare". Latin never was my strong point so thanks for pointing that out.
lindowcross
04/8/2019
11:19
Undowcross As someone who appreciates language in general and English in particular, I disagree with your assertion that the established rules of grammar are unimportant and irrelevant. Too often language is used in ways which are ambiguous or imprecise. The courts are full of cases where such deficiencies have led to serious conflicts. As someone who spent his entire working life in information technology I insist on linguistic precision. When you write code a misplaced comma can completely change the logic of a computer program and can cause serious malfunction. Languages have rules and sloppy usage leads to dysfunctional outcomes. 1) I think you meant to say "licence" fee. License is a verb. The noun is "licence". 2) "…who only stream Netflix…." I think you meant "…who stream Netflix only…". The latter means that the only thing they stream is Netflix - which I'm guessing is what you meant. The former means that the only thing they do with Netflix is stream it - as opposed to doing something else with it. 3) English grammar books were written long before the mid 1850s and were not written by latin scholars. 4) "Amo" is not the infinitive of the verb. That is amare - to love. Amo means "I love" - first person singular. HTH :~)
tournesol
04/8/2019
09:24
mattboxy, I can't recall seeing a 1-day price graph of the form we saw on Friday, as pilgrim pointed out, a flat line with the odd blip. It causes me to ask what the significance of 180.15p is.
meanwhile
04/8/2019
08:26
"More and more people are now choosing to not pay the license fee, especially the Generation Xs who only stream Netflix." There's nothing wrong with the so-called "split infinitive" in this sentence, especially if the writer wants to stress the fact of "not paying" the licence fee. And it sounds fine on the ear. The only reason we have a "rule" against split infinitives in English is because the people who wrote the grammar books 150 years ago were Latin scholars and in Latin the infinitive consists of one word only, eg amo, = "to love". The scholars didn't like that separation of the two parts, and wanted to keep the "to" as close to the main verb as possible. To be more like their beloved Latin. So they made up the split infinitive "rule". The modern view is that English doesn't need to be hung up on ditzy rules from old buffers with their heads filled up with Latin. So if your sentence sounds good on the ear: split away!
lindowcross
03/8/2019
21:51
It was a strange level to drop compared to most in the ftse 100Not seen anything in the news either
mattboxy
03/8/2019
18:06
Brussels calling, Brussels calling. We are getting really mad now in our EU Commission bunker here in Brussels, with you british brexitists not accepting our terms. You, with your endless cups of tea and your greasy 'fish & chips', some of you even putting gravy or curry sauce on them. When you are under our control, we will cure your weak bellies with cooked frogs and lots of animal intestines, to go with your chips. We will have all your fish for ourselves to make into soup. We are especially disappointed with your Mrs May, the vicar's wife, and her friend Hammond, who had promised us they would persuade you to stay by giving you an awful deal. Regarding Hammond, we are generally suspicious of anyone who talks through one side of their mouth but we gave him the benefit of any doubt. We may have been wrong.
meanwhile
03/8/2019
14:35
Pilgrim, but does your wife constantly claim to be a 'master investor' and tell virtually everyone that they are all morons and don't understand the stock market?
gettingrichslow
03/8/2019
11:04
gettingrich slow...My wife does that, dredging up stuff from years ago:->
pilgrim
03/8/2019
11:02
Mattboxy...Yes, strange that I can find no comment on the drop. And the result is a strange looking daily chart. Big drop followed by more or less flatline.
pilgrim
03/8/2019
09:33
Wicked humour..😁
jackdaw4243
03/8/2019
00:32
Anyone on here remember Minerve? And anyone on here been following the Woodford crisis recently? If so, sit back and enjoy this classic post from 2015... "minerve 16 Nov '15 - 22:10 - 465 I have been in this business over 20 years. I can reassure you Woodford is up there with the best there is, no question. Of course, investing is not a game of perfection, it never will be, it is a game of managing risk with a view to long-term growth and not many will do it better than Woodford. I am a great admirer of him as a professional and as an individual. His views and attitudes pretty much mirror mine and his willingness to be open and transparent is second to none. If I had to hand my money over to someone in trust for the future, he would be the first, even before family members. Woodford is no different now than he was decades ago. Solid 100% professional with untouched integrity."
gettingrichslow
02/8/2019
22:06
Why the 6% fall today
mattboxy
02/8/2019
21:00
And another thing, eipgam, what's wrong with 'Love Island', you miserable git?
meanwhile
02/8/2019
19:23
I'll sort out the split infinitives if you promise to sort out your 'breaths' from your 'breathes'!
gettingrichslow
02/8/2019
17:48
Tournesol 1. I rather like Sophie Ridge, she certainly gave Richard Burgon a rough time with some basic questions. 2. She is nicer to look at than Andrew Neil Election in Wales has not helped my portfolio or is it China and Orange Man. Test match looking good. No wind so so no sailing to day in Cowes Classic Week, wine evaporating in the glass.
jackdaw4243
02/8/2019
17:06
Please. No split infinitives.
sliotar
02/8/2019
16:22
Tournesol, you are absolutely spot on regarding Andrew Neil. The BBC is in terminal decline now I think. More and more people are now choosing to not pay the license fee, especially the Generation Xs who only stream Netflix.
gettingrichslow
02/8/2019
14:27
Hi Losos, Yertiz and Tournesol Hope you are all well. Losos, we were in North Norfolk last week with family for the first time in 34 years. Had forgotten how lovely it is. Stayed in Walsingham - no not on pilgrimage - and spent time at Blakeney, And swimming on Holkham Beach and Burnham Overy Staithe. Great pubs and farm shops. Have decided to visit again next year. Agree about LK - not very good.
brexitplus
02/8/2019
14:25
I agree with Tournesol on Andrew Neil. He was far too good and honest for the bbc under Lord Haw Haw’s regime.
meanwhile
02/8/2019
13:39
Losos The best political TV reporter/analyst by a long distance is Andrew Neil. He is scrupulously objective, has an amazing command of the detailed facts and the history, is wise to the ways that politicians try to dodge the question, has the gravitas to hold his own against anybody and does not allow his ego or his personal views to get in the way. The BBC sacked him last week. They have replaced him with a team of light weights. The sackable offence he committed was that he did not adhere to the BBC policy of being anti-conservative and anti-Brexit. Anyone who watched him could not tell what his views were - he might be pro or anti but he never let that get in his way. He aimed to ask politicians the questions they would have preferred to avoid and treated left and right alike. He even had Diane Abbott as a regular contributor until she joined the shadow cabinet. Not enough for the beeb. What a wrong headed decision. The BBC continues to lose my respect.
tournesol
02/8/2019
13:25
eipgam, You seem to be as snide and as twisted as the typical BBC presenter Losos describes. Anyway, why are you posting? I thought I'd told you to clear off a couple of weeks ago.
meanwhile
Chat Pages: Latest  426  425  424  423  422  421  420  419  418  417  416  415  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
MRO
Melrose In..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200923 13:50:37