Something Stinks....

Roger Lawson a self-proclaimed paragon of virtue EXPOSED

 

We often ask ourselves how independent opinion is in the markets? This brings me to Roger Lawson the Deputy Chairman of ShareSoc a body campaigning for transparency among PLCs and shareholder rights. Surely these self-proclaimed paragons of virtue are beyond reproach?

Lawson wrote a piece after the storming UK Investor Show speech by Ben Edelman slagging of the blinkx critic as a showman, a man with nothing new to say and a man paid to write bad things.

I commented originally here however I am afraid that I have new revelations about Mr Lawson that I must share with you.

The critical point here is that Edelman did have something new to say and it was damning about blinkx. I quote here from a recent shareprophets piece you can find HERE

Edelman’s standard research contract – as he explained on the video – is that he charges a fee for doing research and writing a report. But if the research shows nothing amiss there is no report so the fee is less. That is his standard terms– less work = less fee. He states that clearly on the video. That seem okay enough and at least Edelman is 100% upfront on any financial interest he may have in blinkx.

…. no other revelations of note?

1. Blinkx bought nearly all if not all of the assets of Zango a firm shut down and fined heavily by the FTC for breaking the law.

2. Edelman showed clearly that blinkx is now engaged in exactly the same activities, even using the same code.

3. So blinkx is breaking FTC rules – is that not a matter of concern?

4. Edelman then showed that the blinkx independent report had not examined any of the relevant data but had merely consisted of chats with blinkx execs who said they were doing nothing wrong. That is a bit of a shock revelation is it not?

In other words the Edelman presentation was explosive and damning. But Lawson gave comfort to blinkx fans and was widely quoted on bulletin boards for dismissing the whole thing and for rubbishing Edelman. But there was something City establishment figure and all round good fellow, Jolly Roger Lawson, did not bother to mention in his piece.

Roger owns blinkx shares. Yes you read that correctly. He has been on the shareholder for some time...

So while Roger denounces Edelman who does declare a financial interest, Roger himself does not bother to declare his own financial interest when penning an inaccurate character assassination of Edelman, he relies on an old admission to his interest in blinkx as acceptable. '' I beg to differ '' You see when penning such critic's I believe an open declaration a moral obligation whether that be owning a single share or a million.

I have pursued this line with the deputy chairman of a body campaigning for greater corporate transparency but his response was to (I won't quote) suggest i'm an idiot

I guess I just do not understand these City types. I am just a thick Northern working class git. So I would have thought that an “idiot” was one who wrote a wholly inaccurate piece giving a misleading impression of material matters about a stock which (undeclared) he owned. But as I said, I am working class and a Northern git so what do I know?

Roger is the expert on transparency and questioning companies that break the law so I guess I should just go back to my slum housing underneath the motorway and leave it to City gents like Roger to look after the interests of plebs like me.

All the best

Doc

https://twitter.com/DDS_Doc_Holiday

http://docslaymanschatter.blogspot.com/

Featured on SP.com
http://www.shareprophets.com/

Subscribe free for a daily share tip.
http://uk.advfn.com/one-free-share-tip/

Featured on Ofst every day.
http://uk.advfn.com/one-free-share-tip/tipsters


(These are but opinions derived from my own experiences and thoughts and do not adopted as statement of fact)