UK 09:34 Friday, 6 November 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Yesterday I got a bullying letter from lawyers to a listed company. So too did Evil Knievil. Different companies same sort of threats. To Evil first.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
Pete
I daresay Mr Edelman would have carried out some technical research before he speaks, especially if he is going to trash a company. A rebuttal would also likely require some research, so to offer a company the chance to speak directly after Mr Edelman when they don’t even know what he is going to say, hardly seems fair. If Mr Edelman is going to speak about Blinkx then he should have offered Blinkx sight of his notes some time prior to his talk so that they could be equally prepared. I hold no position in Blinkx and never have but was thinking of buying into them before this debacle started. Obviously, I’ll now wait for this to play out.
Philip
The salient point, perhaps missed, is that the case re: Nighthawk involved ‘lies’ which could be proved to be so.
Does the case against blinkx involve ‘lies’ or an exposing of the truth on certain matters.
Lies & truth, both emotive & unequivocal terms. Let the case be put forward and people make their own mind up.
No gagging please!
Philip
But is it defamation if the facts stack up?
Philip
If the case was so clear cut, why have legal proceedings not been initiated already against parties to such ‘defamation’?
I think Edelman’s given his viewpoint with a response by blinkx. Some would argue that Edelman now has a right to respond himself.
It would be interesting to establish how much collusion occured, ‘specifically’ and for the sole purpose of influencing the share price.
There has to be a clear establishment of intent, recognised as such, by the authority presiding over the case.
Until then, nothing is unequivocal regarding Blinkx v Edelman.
I’m interested to hear what Edelman has to say.
wildrides
Toast is obviously a burnt long (piece of toast ) who failed to recognise the SP for Blinx had got ahead of its self . The market decides the value of the share and the market has spoken .
Toast is out of pocket and cant accept his loss so inflicts us with endless diatribe that it is “ all so unfair “ ( picture Harry Enfields flailing armed hormonal teenager sketch )
Take the loss like a man and stop whining like an angry housewife !
wildrides
If your the poster I think you are …………. then you got banned for” personal” verbal abuse of other posters and not the factual content of your post . Your opinions will never get you banned when stated in a non abusive way .
I have disagreed with Tom on many issues on this site in print ( mainly politics , but some shares as well ) and he has not banned me yet . LSE life time banned me just for stating a current share price, so compared with them freedom of speech here is very very good indeed.
For what its worth I think Blinx and GKP are fairly valued at the present time considering the difficulties ( very different difficulties ) both face .
But ……………. we can agree to differ on that view .
Edelman Is Toast
Sigh… Reposting due to Tom “I don’t allow free speech here” Winnifrith deleting yet again!
“The net result is that Blinkx can now sue Messrs Edelman and Winnifrith. I applaud its bravery in standing up to those who quite frankly commit market abuse by spreading lies in public forums, thinking they can say what they like. I will applaud Blinkx even more if it now pursues these individuals and takes them for every penny they have got. Right now it has not said what it will do so the matter is not sub judice and so I continue”…..
Those words might be familiar to anybody who is familiar with the writings of Mr Winnifrith. The reason is, he was the author! OK I changed the name of the company concerned. He was originally writing about Nighthawk, a company which HE had invested his hard earned in and was being damaged by malicious lies.
Here is the original article in full….. What’s that smell? Aaaah it’s hypocrisy!!
An unusual announcement today from Nighthawk (hawk) a company I have shares in which is run by combative ceo David Bramhill (actually he is a very nice guy). Nighthawk’s stock has been hit by a damaging barrage of defamatory insults posted on two Bulletin Boards. The posters assumed that they could get away with it since they were posting anonymously. But of course the boards concerned have their IP addresses.
Nighthawk has taken the boards concerned to court and now has – as a result got those IP addresses and can identify who wrote what. The board owners did not oppose Nighthawk’s Court action – it was in many cases just a formality but BB owners will not hand out client data unless compelled to.
The net result is that Nighthawk can now sue these posters. I applaud its bravery in standing up to those who quite frankly commit market abuse by spreading lies in public forums, thinking they can say what they like because they are anonymous. I will applaud Nighthawk even more if it now pursues these individuals and takes them for every penny they have got. Right now it has not said what it will do so the matter is not sub judice and so I continue.
You may accuse me of denying free speech. I am not. I cite Mill in On Liberty who would allow anyone to say what they want unless the effect was clearly detrimental to the general good. He cites standing in front of the corn exchange when corn is scarce and telling folks that the merchants are hoarding and profiteering. What these posters did was to persuade innocent folks who had invested their savings in Nighthawk to sell at the wrong price. They stole the money of these folks.
So I hope the posters are made bankrupt by a libel claim. Nighthawk should be able to cover its costs as these individuals are forced to sell everything they own. And Nighthawk will strike a blow for all of us who are defamed on BBs in reminding the cowards who snipe without identifying themselves that they can and will be identified and can be destroyed as a result of their (criminal) actions. Go for it Brammers.
Tom Winnifrith
Philip – Defamation is defamation whether or not it involves deliberate lies or merely negligent, shoddy research. Edelman was clearly in collusion with the shorters. The blogs content was heavily touted to the investment community (insti’s, hedge funds etc) before publication.
The prudent thing to do would have been to approach Blinkx and say, “I have X, Y and Z and intend to publish this information. Could I please have your comments”.
The fact that he failed to check his “facts” before publishing leaves him wide open for a defamation/malicious falsehood suit or in the alternative, an action in tort for negligence.
In view of the catastrophic repercussions for ordinary Blinkx PI’s (who Tom has openly expressed his contempt for in his statements that he was looking forward to see what further “damage” Edelman could do and his response to me on his earlier article that he hoped that Ben would “serve up more pain for me on Saturday” I hope that Blinkx take both Edelman and Winnifrith to the cleaners.
Tom has already demonstrated with his posting on Nighthawk that he applauds companies who are brave enough to stand up to defamatory comments – but only companies that he is invested in to protect his own investment!
Blinkx have refuted the allegations. They have been audited by professionals – Kroll and DLA Piper (who also spoke at the recent Capital Markets Day) and their Lawyers have run the rule over their operations and given them a clean bill of health.
It is normal practice in journalism to check the facts before publishing – Edelman failed to do this. If he had, it would have been rather inconvenient for the Hedge Fund spivs whose shorts depended on Edelmans blog frightening off PI’s and in the process, as Tom gleefully trumpets, halving the Market Cap of the Company.
Here comes the sycophant Wildrides. FYI, I only recently invested in Blinkx at 104p so I am not a “burnt long”. I rail against wrongdoing and hypocrisy and the dirty games that the people in the shadows play. I used to have respect for TW as well – I applauded him for his Sefton work, I applauded him for Vialogy but something seems to have gone very wrong inside Toms head – his recent work against GKP and Blnx has been malicious and full of double standards. I pointed out that TW used to applaud companies who stood up to bullies through the use of lawyers – I cited his writings on Nighthawk in support – difference is, Tom was invested in Nighthawk so of course he supported them bringing in lawyers – it was after all his own hard earned that was at stake.
How did Tom respond? By deleting my post and attempting to gag me by banning me from posting on SP again. Luckily there is a workaround so I’m still here. At least this episode has exposed Tom for the bully he is who is only interested in suppression of free speech! Sycophants are welcome but people armed with evidence of rank hypocrisy aren’t welcome in the world of Thomas John Zacchaeus Winnifrith!
Edelman Is Toast
Now we find that Ben admitted that if he failed to find anything negative in relation to Blinkx, his fee from the Hedge Funds would have been reduced!
What a naive fool to have admitted that!
The knock on the door can’t be far away!
Also, I see Evil has been posting on Blinkx today! Nice little defamatory comments made of which Blinkx have been made aware…. Expect to hear the crackle of Cawkwell fat being roasted over the spit very soon!!
Tom Winnifrith
EIT
I do not know where to start.
Re Nighthawk – Er I did not own a single share. Er…fact check? I have written my comments before on the HAWK episode. Do I regreat standing up for a bloke I trusted who claimed he was the subject of defamatory posts? No. Do I regret the tone of my piece, or perhaps being too trusting. As I have accepted before, yes.
Re Blnx. They can sue me? Go ahead. For what? Calling their lawyers bully boys. That is not as some think defamatory. They threatened me unless I allowed Blnx a full retort to Edelman. I offered them a full retort before they sent the letter. They then declined that opportunity. Yes that is a bully boy tactic.
GKP – Heck I was a bear at 160p. I have been consistent & right.
I leave your post up to display how you cannot even get your facts right. What you write here is defamatory ( you suggest I held shares in Hawk & did not decalre it, you suggest I defamed Blinks. Heck not even Blinkx has suggested that.
You post garbage & occassionally I delete garbage but here the garbage reflects so badly on you I am happy to allow it to stand.
t
Edelman Is Toast
Tom
I take it that you were drunk when you posted the above?
Read my post again (and yours) and stop being a cretin (I suspect that the latter is impossible for you).
“ you suggest I held shares in Hawk & did not decalre it “ errm, where did I suggest that? I acknowledged that you had stated you owned shares in HAWK and were therefore fully supportive of the Directors hiring “bully boy lawyers” to go after the naughty people who were attempting to damage your investment! I was pointing out that you are a steaming hypocrite for crying over the fact that Blinkx, a company BE was trying to damage with your assistance (you admitted that you hoped Ben would serve up more pain for Blinkx holders and were licking your lips at what further damage may be done), these things are a matter of public record) had hired Lawyers to protect their and their shareholders interests.
wildrides
Toast ………………….Yawn …………………….ZzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Tom Winnifrith
EIT
On the logic you describe I should always support companies that take legal action? Sefton? I think not.
But if you tell me to stop be ing a “cretin” who am I to argue? You are the master…
Perhaps you’d care to have my job and entertain all on this website with your insight? I can retire and leave it in your safe hands..
Tom
J P Spaghetti
“ you suggest I held shares in Hawk & did not decalre it “ errm, where did I suggest that?”
Sorry to but into someone else’s argument EIT but haven’t you essentially just asserted
that with the following statement
“He was originally writing about Nighthawk, a company which HE had invested his hard earned in and was being damaged by malicious lies.”?!
I accept you haven’t stated he held shares specifically, merely that he was invested, but – given the nature of this site – the difference would seem a tad captious to put it mildly.
Perhaps I’m drunk…
wildrides
Toast & spaghetti …………what culinary delight . No posting from under the bed cloths ……..mummy says its lights out time.