Change needed to HotCopper's T&C's

Given that the ASX is the Wild West (ASIC investigates less than 1% of reports of manipulation), shouldn't HotCopper require supposedly "unbiased" posters to declare whether they have a short position? The held vs not held is very suggestive but let's call a spade a spade. I am certain that "paid HotCopper downramper" is a real job and these clowns have real KPI's (see John 0428) to beat. And they do.
Suppose for a moment that you don't like soccer/rugby/afl... but you turn up to games to berate supporters and the teams playing.... why would you do that unless there is an ulterior motive (fleecing mum and dad investors).....
Shorters... those who are repeatedly posting on stocks that they don't hold.... do you provide this charitable service for all securities on the ASX that you equally don't hold by informing long holders of the fundamental details that they have missed? Or are you a wolf in sheep's clothing who is simply trying to trick mum and dad investors out of fair value.
How many companies, directors or individuals have been sentenced to the stipulated 15 years' gaol for crimes contrary to s1041 of the Cororations Act 2001? ZERO! (Noting that the stipulated 15 years is "per offence"... so 20 manipulative bot trades placed in the aftermarket (4:00pm-4:10pm) is 300 years' goal).
The instos aren't worried... why would they be? ASIC gives the best Sergeat Schulz impression ever - "I know nothing... I see nothing....I didn't wake up this morning...." (link below)
Interesting that there are numerous class actions against the ASX and ASIC, yet both entities' websites don't mention this anywhere. Maybe it is because of "preliminary discovery", where if the defendant concedes (that criminality has taken place), then they can compensate the plaintiff their loss, of course with signing of an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) which ensures that the criminal behaviour will never appear in any Commonwealth Law Report, AFR article... or anywhere. Effectively... the gravy train rolls on.
The JP Morgan Gold Desk was fined USD $920m for manipulating the gold price over a TEN YEAR period. This fine was FIVE DAYS' PROFIT FOR THE GOLD DESK!
Imagine robbing $1m from a bank, being caught red handed and being fined $20,000.... well that's the deterrent that the JP Morgan Gold Desk enjoyed..
Being able to short a stock isn't a bad thing if the market is properly regulated. The ASX clearly isn't and what I have already suggested to CTT's BoD is an amendment to the Company's Constitution to remove shareholders' "unconditional right to sell" their shares. This amendment would (not immediately, you would have to let existing share lending agreements run their course) prevent "shareholders" lending out their shares to be shorted. Any shareholders lending shares after the amendment of Cettire's Constitution would be in breach of their obligations as shareholders....enabling the company to cancel the "illegally shorted shares"..... I leave it to Cettire's CoSec to speculate on the compensation payable in these circumstances....

Before Stickshift, MotorCycleMan and the other obvious Shorters scream blue murder.... If I want to trade options, I can't force a company to list options, I have to limit my choice to a company that offers options. If you want to short a company, it isn't unreasonable to expect that if a company prevents its shares being shorted, a prospective buyer should buy a company that permits shorting or lending of its shares.
You can't short Preference shares or Founder Shares or Restricted Shares... and having searched the Corporations Act extensively and the ASX Listing and Operating Rules, an unconditional right to sell is not a fundamental feature of an ordinary share of a listed company on the ASX. The contrary actually... ASIC is specifically given power to prevent a company being shorted (s1020b and f).

NO TIME WASTERS PLEASE....(What a contradiction, given the number of paid shorters who's primary purpose is to downramp regardless of facts/basis/fundamentals etc...) The only acceptable response is one that addresses my statement below...

PROVE ME WRONG. PLEASE CITE THE LEGISLATION THAT STIPULATES THAT A FUNDAMENTDAL FEATURE OF ORDINARY SHARES LISTED ON THE ASX INCLUDES THE UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO SELL.

Bing Videos