Article removed

-->

6th Sep '14 by AnonymousUser858

68 comments 33163 reads

article removed

Unlock with Email

Unlock with Google

Already have an account?
Login here

About the Author

AnonymousUser858

Premium Member

68 comments

AnonymousUser858

11th Sep '14

The Telegraph has been slippery and devious in its accusations - blame is attributed to "supporters" of Soco rather than directly to the co. The reader is left in no doubt that Soco is the re-incarnation of the Waffen SS but the Telegraph might succeed in arguing that it did not actually say so. So, a libel action will have to get a judge to see through the smoke and mirrors to the accusations which are clearly being made. I would have thought that a reasonable interpretation argument would be favourable to Soco but it would not be a slam dunk.

The Ecologist on the other hand has been less subtle. They have simply accused Soco of a range of serious crimes. A libel action against them should be a slam dunk. It would not require Soco to prove innocence. The Ecologist would have to prove guilt.

The primary reason for Soco to take action, is not to obtain financial redress. It is that saying/doing nothing might be seen as a tacit admission. And that would be very damaging. I think that action is essential to stop the campaign. Or at least stick a spoke in its wheel. Otherwise it will escalate indefinitely.

We know that Soco is considering entry into new project areas. This kind of miasma of accusation will not help.

fuiseog

12th Sep '14

Global Witness Limited is a UK registered company. It is not a registered charity but receives funding from governments, charitable foundations, and very small amounts from private donors. Googling finds the company accounts for their year-end November 2012 or you can purchase them from Companies House.

Global Witness accounts show total income at £4,853,000 for their financial year-end November 2011. More than half of this came from 2 sources: The Foundation to Promote an Open Society (a George Soros charity) £1,250,000; and the UK Department for International Development Transparency Fund £1,245,000. Most of the rest comes from a hotch potch of charitable foundations and a number of European governments (Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland and Sweden).

For their year-end 2012 income rises dramatically to £7,863,000. Included in this is the first tranche of grant with 3 year tenure from our own UK Department for International Development bringing our contribution to 30% of GW's total annual income. This grant was paid as follows: FGMC Programme £1,317,000; Global Transparency Fund £1,037,000.
A further 38% (£3,000,000) of 2012 income came from the George Soros ‘Foundation to Promote an Open Society’.

So here we have an NGO heavily funded by UK taxpayers carrying on a proxy campaign against the DRC Government by providing questionable information that is being used by media editors to launch a smear campaign against UK registered Soco.

marben100

12th Sep '14

Worth noting, for those urging the company to take legal action, that the bar to a successful claim was raised in the 2013 Defamation Act. A claimant now has to show that they have suffered "serious harm" for a claim to succeed. Not sure that would be so easy.

emptyend

13th Sep '14

A claimant now has to show that they have suffered "serious harm" for a claim to succeed. Not sure that would be so easy.

Fair point, although I'd say that the shareholder register may well yield some interesting changes. AIUI, though, the thrust of the Defamation Act 2013 is to protect people who make fair but critical comment. It is not to protect people who present outright lies as fact. And the issue here isn't so much a question of quantum of damages - it is to dissuade others from casually repeating lies.

MadDutch

14th Sep '14

I am fed up with the same old attacks on Soco, causing so much wasted time here, with pages of well reasoned posts which are ignored by the time wasters.

I very sincerely hope there will be a punitive legal action to shut up and close down the hyper active rumour mill.

By punitive I mean a million pounds with the added statement "The purpose of this legal action is to terminate the lies told, but not to profit from the damages. After repayment of legal costs, the damages will be placed into a charitable trust, details of which will be submitted to the Court at that time.

I was planning to submit this as a proposal to the next AGM, if the disgraceful lies continue.

Fangorn

15th Sep '14

"By punitive I mean a million pounds with the added statement "The purpose of this legal action is to terminate the lies told, but not to profit from the damages. After repayment of legal costs, the damages will be placed into a charitable trust, details of which will be submitted to the Court at that time."

I'd hardly call £1m punitive frankly.You're dealing with the WWF. That's a drop in the ocean.

Personally any legal action should be pursue with a view to bankrupting the lying organisation in question.It's well passed due date that such "time wasters" who blatantly ignore the facts, instead preferring to obfuscate and misinform are made to pay properly. Only then will people think twice about spreading disinformation & lies.

Just look to the Speaker's wife -sued for defamation. She's been noticeably alot quieter on twitter since.

james8

15th Sep '14

I see that the article in The Ecologist has been taken down under threat of legal action.

AnonymousUser858

15th Sep '14

James8

thanks for that.

If you go to the Ecologist website and search for Soco or Virunga the most recent and most defamatory article does not come up. If you click on the link given by Nigel PM in post 43 above you get the message "taken down under threat of legal action" as pointed up by James8.

Well done Soco.

peterg

15th Sep '14

Personally any legal action should be pursue with a view to bankrupting the lying organisation in question.

Appealing though that would be any damages would limited to some sort of estimate of actual losses. That's part of Soco's problem here - very hard to prove much in the way of pinned down losses - block V is valued at 0p by most people, the SP is now up on the ecologist's publication. Potential reputational damage perhaps, but hard to quantify.

Clearly great that something seems to have happened and the ecologist has been forced (encouraged?) to take down it's particularly outrageous (and minimally researched) version of the rubbish published, but in reality I'd think Soco would be hard pushed to do more than cover costs of a libel action, if that, so I'd doubt they would push this too far.

Peter

AnonymousUser858

15th Sep '14

Peter

Actually I disagree. Firstly the share price cannot ever be a measure of damage experienced by a company.

Secondly, I think that the campaign of misrepresentation which has been waged by WWF, GW, Ecologist and others has brought Soco into disrepute and has made it appear to be an unethical business engaged in unethical practices. That situation must unarguably make it more difficult for Soco to represent its own business interests in dealings with 3rd parties. For example, it will reduce the chances of Soco being allowed to acquire/obtain other licences in other locations. I am getting grief from members of my own family who have read the various inaccurate reports published and who have, somewhat naively, accepted their general thrust. If I am feeling the heat from my significant other you'd better believe that Soco will certainly feel the heat from its important partners and/or putative partners.

Thirdly, quite apart from the libel against the company, there has also been a very serious libel against senior management. They are entitled to their good name and that has been traduced by the various libels. It would seem to me to be entirely reasonable for the co to foot the bill for legal action taken on behalf of senior management. After all they are being libelled for the actions they have taken on the company's behalf.

So, all that said, I would think it entirely reasonable for the co to use the law to stop the campaign and to recover damages.

T

Fangorn

15th Sep '14

James,
Thanks for the heads up vis the Ecologist move. Wasn't aware of that.

Peter,
Just how practical my approach would be is open to debate. Am definitely in Tourn's camp vis the need to sort out WWF and their ongoing defamation of both the company,and its senior management with this campaign of disinformation,or more to the point, blatant lies. Efforts directed at the Ecologist so far,and their taking down of the offending article on pain of legal action, should be the mere start of establishing the truth imo.

MadDutch

17th Sep '14

I agree Fangorn. The sum has to be big enough to hurt; so one million is a minimum. £5 million will be better and bankruptcy should be the objective.

Do we have enough evidence to justify an approach to the board of directors at Soco? I think they will be encouraged by support from shareholders, as they were at the AGM; I had a lot of thanks for my comments.

MD

MadDutch

17th Sep '14

james8; taking a defamation down will not protect The Ecolologist from legal action; the defamation has been made and they should be sued. The best they will hope for is reduced damages.

MD

MadDutch

17th Sep '14

Its not often I disagree with you Peter. You seem to believe that legal action is to make money and therefore not worth doing because it will not make much. A 5 million pound claim will attract media interest, and that will cut the income into the begging bowl department; would you subscribe to a "£2 a month" TV commercial if it looks like your contribution will be needed to pay legal costs and damages?

MD

MadDutch

17th Sep '14

tournesol, I am 100% with you. The defamation must be stamped out and the more painful for the perpetrators, the less we will see in the future.

MD

peterg

18th Sep '14

You seem to believe that legal action is to make money and therefore not worth doing because it will not make much.

Not at all. As my post made clear I welcome the action that appears to have led to the Ecologist taking down their rubbish. My post was a response to the sentence I quoted at the start of it, which suggested that Soco should seek to bankrupt GW, WWF etc. My point was that is an unrealistic aim. However that is not a reason for not taking action, which appears to have been done.

Peter

MadDutch

25th Sep '14

Any ideas to explain the large Soco International price fall?

I was expecting the ex dividend to reduce the price by 22p, but the fall was about three times as much. I checked other oil companies and have concluded that the Soco fall was not related to the oil sector,

So why has it happened? It caused a £2000 loss since I was stopped out of a long term position. Could this be related to the Ecologist defamation? If so, it could justify a County Court small claim.

If there is sufficient support and help here; I will teach the Ecologist a short sharp lesson.

MadDutch

AnonymousUser858

25th Sep '14

much as I would love to hold your coat whilst you gave the Ecologist a good kicking,
I don't think you'd have any chance of making a winnable case.

it's bad enough that E and co have badmouthed Soco. there's no point in wasting our time
on Unwinnable legal actions.

MadDutch

25th Sep '14

T; thank you for your advice. I will ignore it.

I have taken legal action 21 times in the last 35 years, and have won 20 out of 21. Cases include;

- Legal & General for an insurance claim. I accused them of behaving like a L*b****e fruit and vegetable merchant. I upped my claim 50% and they paid in full.
- My former auditors for refusing to refund the £400 that I had overpaid. It took 5 years, & I estimate it cost them in excess of £10,000, They lost despite having a solicitor and a barrister who was very upset when the judge awarded me my costs.
- The latest; Santander Bank which sent me a 10% over payment after I sent them a photocopy of the summons. I suspect they worked out how much it would cost to employ a local solicitor on £400 an hour, and risk him or her would lose them the case, and expect to be paid for losing it.
- My next will be my County Council.

Too many cowboys and bent or incompetent organizations get away with it because too many people say "there's no point in wasting our time .....

I remind you that at least 2 people here told me not to waste my time when I started asking Soco for a dividend.

Does anyone else want to help? I remind you that Soco's enemies read this forum. They now know that some madman wants to get them into a law court where they will learn a very expensive lesson.

MadDutch

Fangorn

25th Sep '14

Goodness me, you sound a litigious chap! :)

Wouldn't want to cross you MD.

Just how did you manage to get involved in legal action on so many occasions - came close twice, but that was only as a result of moving employer in the City and one sides lawyers started getting funny. (The company I was leaving)

"Too many cowboys and bent or incompetent organizations get away with it because too many people say "there's no point in wasting our time ..."

Wholeheartedly agree with such sentiment. You're part of a dying breed however, as too many people day can't face the life upheaval such a manoeuvre would entail.

Good luck though.

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Take a free trial

Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram RSS

This site cannot substitute for professional investment advice or independent factual verification. To use it, you must accept our Terms of Use, Privacy and Disclaimer policies.

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Take a free trial

Article removed

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

AnonymousUser858

68 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...