Bearcast 8th January - free speech deniers Quindell and other matters

Comments

clive pearson

8 January 2015, 08:39

blimey, are you serious, you banned me from complaining simply about the foul language used !!!!!!
Tom Winnifrith

8 January 2015, 08:41

so we banned you so you are posting here..er confused.com

t
clive pearson

8 January 2015, 08:48

do not be confused, you banned me for simply complaining about repeatedly using foul language when attempting to get you point across………….I posted to see if you would see the irony of what you are now complaining about, at least you do.
Tom Winnifrith

8 January 2015, 08:52

Clive I am fucking sorry someone banned you – that was a mistake for which I friggig well apologise. Clearly not a very successful ban though…

T
Max

8 January 2015, 09:30

I’m a militant supporter of free speech, however this has nothing to do with free speech. Any organisation has a right to decide who they do or don’t want to associate themselves with. If Waitrose was being advertised on Hamas’ website or something equally disgusting, nobody would have any objection to Waitrose deciding they did not want to be associated with that website.

Equally if somebody has informed Waitrose of the details of what ShareProphets says and does, and Waitrose as a private company decides they have a preference for not advertising themselves through such an entity, that is their business.

Basically, the right to free speech doesn’t entitle you to advertiser support or revenue while exercising that right. Fwiw I don’t think Waitrose should stop advertising here, but it’s up to them, and it has fuck all to with free speech.
Scott Sanderson

8 January 2015, 09:46

Mr ‘Journalist’ you provide no BALANCE you only give one sided views, thats probably why your disliked – nothing to do with banning free speech. You blog anything you can…. random comments from readers and unvalidated sources i.e. Swinton contract.
Everyone loves free speech….. just not a continous stream of random unvalidated blogs
Steve Morris

8 January 2015, 09:46

Tom,
I am Northerner and a Guardian reader who has known Rob Terry for over 30 years. I disagree profoundly with some of things you say (but not all). However, I do agree profoundly with your position you take on freedom of speech. The Quindell morons who attack you are most definitely in the same category as the Islamist Barbarains of Paris who are fundamentally against free speech. As a journalist you are most definitely entitled to air your opinion.
Very Best
Steve
PS The Real Man Pizza’s are excellent IMHO
Tom Winnifrith

8 January 2015, 09:47

Max

Read the boards. The folks there are openly saying they are targeting ALL advertisers here to put us out of business. What do you think the loons told Waitrose?That we bust fraud and they are invested in fraud?

T
Diabel

8 January 2015, 10:23

…the long term! Didn’t keynes say in the long term we’re all dead! Since you expected qpp will go to administration imminently your long term expectations are a huge shift in your earlier position. The vocals would be a Mossad project. If you are a Mossad agent no doubt there doing the analysis. Perhaps stay clear of boats short term to avoid a maxwell outcome! Your free speech point is weak since it’s not the message that’s the issue. It’s the way you deliver it. A business associated with family values – actually killing more families than hitler with their toxic food – probably don’t want to appear and be therefore associated with fuck this every second.
Barry

8 January 2015, 10:40

Tom, you have brought this entirely on yourself. I know you don’t seem to care for anyone’s opinion but the language offends many and is totally unnecessary. If I was an advertiser I most certainly would not wish my company to be associated with your company. Further,to compare what happened in France yesterday to the happenings on LSE is beyond the pale. You should be, but won’t, ashamed. I am not a holder of QPP having sold at a large loss,partly prompted by your reporting and for that I thank you.
Barry
Barry

8 January 2015, 10:43

I would guess that my message will not be shown as happened to my last which was also critical.
Jonathan

8 January 2015, 11:02

I didnt listen to this one Tom. As soon as you said in your abstract that lse asylum posters are no less despicable than the murderers in france it became stupid without needing to click play.

I have grown to like your bearcasts, but such a statement is so obviously stupid, insensitive and (to be frank) really quite selfish on your part to imply your status is the same as those murdered.

I am sure your point is that free speech is under attack and it needs defending, with which I absolutely agree.

However, using a genuine tragedy and contrasting it with your own experience of attempted censorship is just wrong. I seriously doubt that the families of the.murdered journalists immediately thought ‘i hope Tom Winnifrith continues to fight for free speech and uses our loss to defend himself from really mild abuse which he is happy to hand out to others’.

I feel a clarification/apology is due from you.
Tom Winnifrith

8 January 2015, 11:18

J

You want me to apologise for what I said in a podcast that you have not listened to. Hmmm

All free speech deniers are evil. If they try to deny it by murder they are clearly worse than if by other means. They are guilty of 2 awful offences. Not 1. The LSE loons ae no less despicable in their aim ( free speech denial) but are clearly less despicable in their acts ( so far none of them have actually killed me, just a couple have threatened to)

I am sure that journalists around the world condemn all those who seek to prevent free speech in whatever way as being evil and wicked.

Those who say we condemn attacks on free speech but in your case you deserve it for swearing or whatever are ike the folks who say dont get me wrong Im not racist but….

It does not wash.

Either you 100% support free speech or you are on the side of the deniers. That was my point.

T
Diabel

8 January 2015, 11:25

Foxacher thanks for your reposting my post here yesterday on the lse. Yes I was banned on the basis of potentially defamatory postings. I called rob terry a thief, and a guttersnipe. It’s obvious qpp would never go for a creature called Diabel instead of Tom – could you imagine – so why are the lse so North Korean minded. Frankly I miss not being able to post. It’s addictive really. I could sign up with a new identity using an IP address they’ve never seen. But I wouldn’t be diable. Brother humble best regards. I admire your fortitude. At 25p you were as bullish as when it was 200p.

We don’t want balanced journalists. No fairness doctrine wanted except for the BBC. Frankly I like the gloves off argument. So the swearing distinguishes this site and brings the traffic since Tom appears so personally involved. Which works well until his opinions are demonstrated as hopeleslly misconceived. I would announce that if qpp can break 170. A serious resistance indeed.
Michael

8 January 2015, 11:47

Hi Tom,

Just heard from II that thetrainline.com are floating soon, could you write an article about that?

Thanks
Jonathan

8 January 2015, 11:50

Thanks Tom, that clairification works. The move from ‘no less despicable’ to distinguishing between aims and acts does make a significant difference.
CHARTMAN

8 January 2015, 11:51

Without a shadow of a doubt, to post (genuinely) any questioning bearish concerns on the LSE Quindell forum site, even whilst remaining long, is to witness first hand, responses that reveal the mindset of what it must have been like during the days of the great South Sea Bubble.

Only yesterday a poster was lamenting the fact that he daren’t turn up to some event or other that TW will be present at, as he stated that he would be unable to control himself from physically attacking Tom.

In other words; just like some advocates of a certain religion –
Believe in, and say the same as what I believe in and say – or I will kill you, or at the very least physically hurt you.
Juicin Drumroll

8 January 2015, 12:08

TW

If anyone doesn’t like what you write or the way you write they always have the option of not reading your stuff.

Anyone complaining should try the the above. If they don’t want to do that, continue to read & continue to find fault with your style or content my advice to them would be to get down on their hands & knees, pucker up and kiss my arse!

HTH.
MS

8 January 2015, 12:30

Go on Tom, keep sticking it to ´em.
Or alternatively, just ignore them.
If they had any conviction in their comments, any belief that what you say is false &/or deliberately misleading, (and if they had any balls), then they would sue you. If they could find a contingency fee lawyer that can´t read a cash flow statement to bankroll the case…..
Not wishing any misfortune to you, but part of me wishes that QPP would sue you for what you said about their (alleged) dodgy M&A bribery activity, just so that it could all come out in court.
If find myself wondering if there will be a RNS from QPP saying that pwc say ¨no accounting violations found¨. Shortly followed by dailymail commentators laughing their socks off and thinking you have been proven wrong, whilst not getting the joke of what the RNS actually says. Of course, it revolves around who is pulling the strings of the pwc review, how deep it goes etc.Easy to list a number of massive frauds which had their accounts signed off by big 4.

Remember how the QPP lovers reacted QPP ¨won¨ the libel action against Gotham. Phyrric victory.

I think your comparison is bad taste though. You wouldn´t make a good politician. But you should continue to say whatever the hell you please.
The good thing about our less than good libel and slander laws of course is if you use your right of free speech to deliberately do wrong, to deliberately mislead, to spread falsehoods, you lose.

But of course, if you use your right of free speech to broadcast a vociferous, confrontational, aggressive, sometimes sweary message then as long as are making a deliberate false statement – carry on.
That´s what the trolls don´t get.

Maybe Waitrose just don´t like your style and were previously unaware of how you can be. (Gobby. Not very mummy-buy-me-some-quinoa waitrose-y. ) Up to them what they do with their money.
I think it quite a stretch that a bunch of QPP internet trolls would have that much influence on corporate advertising though. All of the above is blindingly obvious to most readers of this site I expect.
RPC

8 January 2015, 12:56

Tom is perfectly in order to draw comparisons with those who deny freedom of expression via the gun with those who deny freedom of expression by the word. One is but an extension of the other.

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become your character.
And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
What we think, we become..”
DUCK AND DIVE

8 January 2015, 13:36

Once upon a time, I wrote a dismissive – might even have been derogatory – comment about your chum, Mr Lenigas at the time of his withdrawal from Twitter in high dudgeon because he was getting flak for misrepresenting a 2D seismic survey as 3D. I predicted that he would be back because he used Twitter more for his own benefit than his shareholders’)…and it wasn’t published — presumably to spare old Dave’s feelings.

Anyway, I was right.
Gary

8 January 2015, 14:41

Tom ..free speech from me…only thing u r good is doing aa aa aa when u blabber!
Max

8 January 2015, 23:22

Tom,

As a holder on Quindell – up a tidy 80% at this point – I disagree with your opinion on this share, but I also disagree that people should target your income streams because they disagree with you.

However, you weaken the concept of free speech when you invoke it here.
You cannot be arguing that the right to free speech entails a right to advertisers? I don’t bear you any ill will, despite you trying to make me lose all my money on Quindell lol. But I urge you, as somebody who deals with left wing morons desperate to throw away free speech on a regular basis…don’t devalue the concept.
Max
J P Spaghetti

9 January 2015, 02:52

“They may not be murderers but they are no less despicable.” I admit this caused me to recoil initially without any qualification (their aims are indeed no less despicable) but let’s not forget that a threat was made to TW for merely voicing his opinion re. the antics of a certain BOD to – and I think this is more or less verbatim – “stick a knife in you” not so long ago.
Jon Fiennes

9 January 2015, 03:42

Tom,
I have suggested before very tactfully that your style is likely to lead to your having a very poor impact. Comments on the serious issues of financial matters punctuated with poor behaviour, abuse, bad language and frankly silly behaviour are likely to mislead and furthermore ultimately damage your own reputation as a journalist irreparably.

I advised against acting foolishly at the Quindell Shareholders meeting as you had the opportuniity to raise genuine question. You lost that opportunity by failing to register for entry properly and then harassing a member of staff simply doing her job and then recording this. I advised you the video was inappropriate to say the least – and you did eventually remove it I believe.
You use foul language continually throughout and you seem to defend that. Fair enough but if you then expect advertisers to stay with you – you may find your position precarious. I will leave aside the content of your messages as they are a subject of debate and often seem to hinge on trivia to me. The point I would emphasise though is that your style alone will indeed lead to you generating ill will, and may well lose backing. If you wish to pursue your option of free speech in an abusive manner you will find others may use theirs to respond in like vein or withdraw support. That is free speech in perfect form, and your attempt to try to liken criticism of yourself or actions to protect brand name are comparable in some way to the tragic events of a mass murder are as childish as they are offensive. Grow up Tom – you will find you get your messages across, for what they are worth, much more effectively. By doing that your energy and time could then go into genuine research rather than engaging in valueless silly mud slinging slanging matches.
MS

9 January 2015, 04:02

Go on Tom, keep sticking it to ´em.
Or alternatively, just ignore them.
If they had any conviction in their comments, any belief that what you say is false &/or deliberately misleading, (and if they had any balls), then they would sue you. If they could find a contingency fee lawyer that can´t read a cash flow statement to bankroll the case…..
Not wishing any misfortune to you, but part of me wishes that QPP would sue you for what you said about their (alleged) dodgy M&A bribery activity, just so that it could all come out in court.
If find myself wondering if there will be a RNS from QPP saying that pwc say ¨no accounting violations found¨. Shortly followed by dailymail commentators laughing their socks off and thinking you have been proven wrong, whilst not getting the joke of what the RNS actually says. Of course, it revolves around who is pulling the strings of the pwc review, how deep it goes etc.Easy to list a number of massive frauds which had their accounts signed off by big 4.

Remember how the QPP lovers reacted QPP ¨won¨ the libel action against Gotham. Phyrric victory.

I think your comparison is bad taste though. You wouldn´t make a good politician. But you should continue to say whatever the hell you please.
The good thing about our less than good libel and slander laws of course is if you use your right of free speech to deliberately do wrong, to deliberately mislead, to spread falsehoods, you lose.

But of course, if you use your right of free speech to broadcast a vociferous, confrontational, aggressive, sometimes sweary message then as long as are making a deliberate false statement – carry on.
That´s what the trolls don´t get.

Maybe Waitrose just don´t like your style and were previously unaware of how you can be. (Gobby. Not very mummy-buy-me-some-quinoa waitrose-y. ) Up to them what they do with their money.
I think it quite a stretch that a bunch of QPP internet trolls would have that much influence on corporate advertising. though. All of the above is blindingly obvious to most readers of this site I expect.
Invetigate

9 January 2015, 05:27

Interesting all the talk on LSE about new Chairperson.

QPP have come out and said:
“Quindell Plc (AIM: QPP.L) notes the recent speculation concerning the appointment of a new Chairman to the Board of Quindell. As previously announced, the Company is seeking a permanent Chairman and new board members. Whilst discussions are taking place with individuals, there can be no certainty that any appointment will be made imminently and further announcements will be made as appropriate.”
wildrides

9 January 2015, 05:28

Blimey ………. what a fuss …………. I like the swearing and industrial language . Its all part of the English language any way . As for the comma police that keep hounding Malcolm …. why dont you feck off if you dont like it . We dont all go to Cambridge to study English . My daughter is reading English at Durham and she swears like a trooper and thinks the comma police should get a life .
As for Fiennes ……… if you dont like it turn off the off button . Pompous tosser . We dont have to like what you like or your pompous literary style . What are you on ……….. telling people how they should present their written and vocal style .
Charlie Webster

9 January 2015, 06:28

I find comments in this blog distasteful, offensive and potentially libellous…. how dare someone call you a journalist.. everyone knows you are not, only an alleged character of dubious ethical morals with no style of writing worth talking about.
wildrides

9 January 2015, 06:54

Webster ……….. how dare someone call you a tosser ……….. you know where the off button is . I suggest you use it . I like the site and I think Tom shows relentless tenacity and great ethics in tackling AIM fraud head on when even the regulators are statuesque . Why dont you trot off and knock one out .
Jon Fiennes

9 January 2015, 07:40

Wild Rides … you missed the point entirely. This is not about whether I like Tom’s style or not – I don’t – but that’s not the point. It’s not even whether I think bad language is acceptable in everyday life…. on that I have no strong views as its so commonplace it’s irrelevant. The point is whether bad language, abuse and the kind of behaviours Tom has exhibited in a professional sense (I mentioned a couple of examples) are likely to lead to the things he is complaining about. The fact is they are likely to. The reason is not to do with freedom of speech. These things are not attractive to companies wishing to protect their brand name. So when those companies realise where they are advertising they may well think again. Similarly if people are abused in the course of what should be a sensible debate they will respond negatively and in the same vein. These are facts of life – not my opinion. So Tom is entirely at liberty to continue as he wishes – but if he does – then he has little reason to complain and none whatsoever to compare his own situation to the tragic events in Paris, which looks unprofessional, and extremely thoughtless.
Phil

10 January 2015, 06:47

I have read the two posts you have here, I don’t agree with them in any way, but frankly I can hardly be arsed to offer a response,

If you cannot see a different between appealing to Waitrose when they run adverts on this site, this site is aggressive, outspoken, controversial and uses bad language, is the rightful use of free speech. whereas making allegations that this site is about purposefully destroying a fine British company and putting 4000 jobs at risk is a fraudulent lie, there is nothing I can say, and I don’t think anyone who has a rationale would have anything to say either.

I want an end to the fraud that is Quindell, and I want an end to all the others, if that means the moronic shareholder group or those other wank shareholders bust out, so be it. It isn’t my fault they remain invested,

My duty as an investor is to look after me, by investing in companies that are not frauds, but to buy into respected and respectful boards, that don’t tell lies, scam of fraud, offer value for money, the opportunity to share on wealth creation, that is created in a lawful wholesome with good solid enterprise with a longevity.

In that i safeguard myself, my fellow investors, the reputation of the country I live in. my neighbor and their wealth, and my right to a free press. My duties go no further and even if they did, it wouldn’t be to an abusive, lying deluded , scamming bunch of shareholders who would do anything to protect the wealth they had in Quindell. I say had because their monies have already gone, and they have not a chance of getting them back.
Jon Fiennes

13 January 2015, 03:29

Phil
Your post does not make a great deal of sense. Good luck with further attempts.

Menu

Bearcast 8th January - free speech deniers Quindell and other matters

By Tom Winnifrith

8 January 2015 07:13

Sorry, Bearcasts are available to paid subscribers only.

Complete Coverage

That Was the Week that Was 7 Days of ShareProphets

Sunday »

Saturday »

Friday »

Thursday »

Wednesday »

Tuesday »

Monday »