UK 00:09 Tuesday, 22 September 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
I have not picked a fight with anyone for a week or so but as its my Birthday tomorrow I thought I’d treat myself and have a go at Roger Lawson from ShareSoc as he has written a piece today that is mean spirited in omission if not content. Journalists like fights and I have been goaded.
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
Jonathan
The thing about oxen, is that if you poke them they react and can be goaded.
I did not think Tom was an ox until now.
Bigsam
Enjoy your birthday 2 moro,judging by this article im guessing it must be your sixth birthday.Be carefull with the candles
modsa
Tom has been very restrained in not commenting on Roger’s past relaitionships.
Phil
Anyone want to offer odds that the 1st two posters on this thread are investors of Blinx or Naibu or both
JustCurious
Tom
With all due respect, the article above makes you a hypocrite. You have (rightly in my view) defended your right to deny “Bulletin Board morons” a platform for comments you consider to be rude and offensive. However, you object to him blocking your post on his website which, according to his own account, he did because he considered the comments to be defamatory. Whether the comments were in fact defamatory or not is irrelevant – by your own opinion, he had the right to deny you the platform.
You should publish a statement apologising to Roger on this point (not necessarily the others) or retract your earlier Bearcast.
2+2=4
Modsa – ???
Tom Winnifrith
Just
You have no respect for me otherwise you would not have written suck cock.
Lawson defamed me in his article.
My reply was correcting his factual errors not mentioning him. So I was by definition not defaming him.
He refused to publish that just letting his libel stand.
Lawson owes me an apology but the cocksucker of a share ramper will not do it.
T
wildrides
Lawson wont reply ………….. he will be too busy knocking one out .
His ramping of Blinkx while owning the share was a disgrace for a man in his position at the time .
Bigsam
Phil i will give you odds of 1000/1
JUSTCURIOUS
Tom
You are incorrect on many points:
1. Believe it or not, I do respect you. In fact, I like your “no nonsense” style.
2. That being said, your direct choice of language is not to the taste of everyone. Some would rather that discussion was restricted to polite terms. It would appear that Roger Lawson objected to the way you chose to phrase your post on his website (“they were certainly impolite and rude comments”) and this is why your post was removed. My understanding is that the phrase he objected to was “bully boy lawyers”.
3. You have argued in a recent Bearcast that you support the right to free speech but no-one is under any obligation to provide a platform to their critics. You have used this argument to justify blocking posts from “Bulletin Board Morons” which you consider to be distasteful. However, by the same logic, Roger Lawson was entitled to block your post on his website. By his own account, Roger Lawson did this because “I certainly don’t want the ShareSoc blogs to degenerate into the standard of many internet boards”. Unless you had a subsequent comment blocked which did not use phrases like “bully boy lawyers” then you have no grounds for complaint, regardless of whether the points you made in your reply were correct (I assume you made no such attempt).
Therefore you face the following choice: either acknowledge that you were wrong to criticise Roger for blocking your post, open the floodgates to the comments of the “Bulletin Board Morons” or be recognised as a hypocrite. I sincerely hope that you opt for the first selection.
I make no other comment on Roger Lawson’s actions, your criticism of these may or may not be justified. However, if you truly believe he has made libellous comments against you and you feel strongly about this, I would ask why have you not taken legal action?
Tom Winnifrith
Just
If Mr Lawson justified blocking me pointing out why his post was libellous and factually incorrect because I used the phrase “bully boy lawyers” that really is a cop out is it not? It is hardly fair language and when I publish the letters I got from Blinkx’s lawyers you will agree that it was fair comment.
Why dont I sue for libel? Because it is expensive & pointless. I can set the record straight here and if the blinkx ramper Lawson wants to fight in words I am happy to meet him on my territory.
T
Many Aliases
You are a hypocrite, I agree with the other poster. If you can block others from posting you must expect and accept yourself to be blocked, “live by the sword, die by the sword”.