bobs last post, page-40

ACP123,

Thanks for bringing that up. I did noticed it before but I decided to stay silent instead, as I knew the way some of the posters here that prefer to wear blinkers instead of participating in an open and genuine debate, would have taken it.
Thanks again mate.

Karll,

As I mentioned above, I did notice that part and I also overheard comments from people attending the meeting before the vote took place that, to be fair, the Chairman should not vote any of the votes left open to him, to vote in favour of saving his own skin. HE DIDN'T!!!

To me, by acting in that way, it would be similar to a director voting for his own re-election and or voting for his own emoluments package resolution. That is legally not allowable, and it shouldn't be either.

No one brought it up, but, it was all for obvious reasons though. Someone the likes of Bob for instance, was already being put on notice that if he was asking more questions and interfere with the course of the meeting, he was going to be forcibly removed by security from the meeting itself. So, what was the use trying anymore?? It was already so blooming obvious that the meeting was gagged, that it wasn't even funny anymore.

As for the resolution that was linked together with the JH and CP, that was also tried to be debated and bring it up for discussion. And Lawyers there present made references to certain Company's Act clauses and precedents, and that part was also stopped in it's tracks.

If it wasn't because I enjoyed having a few days in Perth after the meeting, IMO the whole exercise of travelling all the way out West to Perth to attend a shareholders meeting and openly discuss one's own opinions, would have been a total waste of time and money.

Cheers