Ann: Confirmation regarding Richard Evertz, page-54

You said: "It is clear that they were under no obligation to disclose the conviction"

You should've stopped right there.

You continued: "But it would certainly have been the right thing to disclose it ... as a relevant consideration for investors"

No it wouldn't. It might have been for you, but as you yourself said, BIG had no obligation to do so.

Let's be clear: BIG doesn't make the rules, it can only follow them. BIG is under suspension right now because of questions over financial accounts, which may also involve rules been broken. But in the case of disclosure of someone's remote past, BIG did everything it should have, was obliged to, and required under the law and ASX listing rules.

It's like people coming on here are critical of BIG breaking the rules, and at the same time critical of BIG for following the rules.

RE's past is an irrelevancy. Deal with it. You have no idea of the pasts of any other company directors on any other companies you might have invested in, nor do you care. You're just flogging a horse that's been dead for 26 years. Move on.