Apologies for taking so long to respond to comments on my...

Apologies for taking so long to respond to comments on my original post, having three children, working full time, life sometimes gets in the way. Hence my scepticism of posts by supposedly impartial posters who don't hold a security. Do you simply have too much time on your hands? Do you offer this service, being a good Samaritan by alerting shareholders to the obvious detrimental issues that they have overlooked to the ASX full list? Or perhaps do you have an ulterior motive....
MotorcycleMan, maybe you don't fit this category, as you post positively on a number of other stocks, however if that's the case, why the fire and brimstone for me requesting that HotCopper include an extra tick box for short posters to declare their position? Section 792 of the Corps Act stipulates a "fair orderly and transparent market"...Are you opposed to this clause and what it implies? I'll give you a nod and the benefit of the doubt as I agree that this is a stock forum and robust debate should be encouraged. But if that's the case, you shouldn't have any issue with me requesting an additional tick box for shorters to declare their true position. Please elaborate as to why this is an unreasonable request.

Speaking of pox responses, Stickshift and MotorcycleMan both agree with me that there is no legal or legislative impediment in what I proposed, as neither could cite any legislation/exchange listing rules/exchange operating rules/anything legal or official whatsoever! Glad we are all in agreement that there is no legal or exchange impediment to implementing my strategy to prevent shorting of a company. It especially makes sense in the case of a Biotech like Imugene (IMU.ASX) that whilst trying to cure cancer, already has a first strike and around 6% of SOI short. How unconscionable is it for institutional white collar criminals to try to illegally profit by manipulating the price of a company whose sole objective is to develop a cure for cancer. S1020B and s1020F of the corps act are specifically included to give ASIC the power to prevent shorting when markets don't behave.... but ASIC can't dress itself let alone catch criminals.

Given a Constitutional amendment would take 50%(or75%?) approval of Cettire's shareholders to pass being an EGM, this might be a problem if the BoD didn't hold above 50% of the shares. Accordingly, this is why certain posters aren't exactly happy with what I am proposing. Lucky for Dean, having deep pockets he has the power to control his company's destiny, whereas most companies do not. However if he is first cab off the rank, I'm certain many will follow.
It's also worth noting, that having worked for many of the perpetrators over a 20 year period and having been an RM on AFSLs, most people are completely unaware how share lending agreements work. All managed funds (unit trusts, OEICs etc) must have a custodian hold their assets in Australia, to prevent investors losing everything should a fund manager go into liquidation. This means however that the custodian holding the assets can lend out the funds' assets and earn income, despite that income not being passed on to the beneficial owners of the shares...and in some cases (have a quick google), investors have been completely unaware that their shares were being lent out at all!)
Accordingly, anyone with something between the ears greater than a peanut will see both your responses to my post for exactly what they are - we don't have a leg to stand on, so we will try to attack you elsewhere... equally pathetic!
Just for clarity I'll repost my closing sentence to remove any ambiguity and to give you a chance to correct your drivel and provide an intelligent and reasoned response.

The only acceptable response is one that addresses my statement below...PROVE ME WRONG. PLEASE CITE THE LEGISLATION THAT STIPULATES THAT A FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF ORDINARY SHARES LISTED ON THE ASX INCLUDES THE UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO SELL.