Well actually no - I did not miss you point at all and to be...

Well actually no - I did not miss you point at all and to be honest I think your summisation of my post is off target.

I am very grateful that the suspension was invoked when it was - I thought that I had made that point patently clear in more then one post of late - what I was inferring to was my reading of a few comments by posters including you, that referred to 'reasons why' a suspension should be initiated.

Your comment :-
"The share price plummeting is not the central concern when considering a voluntary suspension in our case."
I get what you are saying but what I say to you is this, your statement is wrong in that "The share price plummeting" should be your one and only overwhelming concern when considering a suspension but after you invoke that protection for us investors, then you can sit back and admire whatever else you have achieved which is important as per what you mentioned - ie stopping false markets, the provision of clear and accurate information and whatever else a suspension stops from happening but it just grieves me that directors cannot understand that their primary function is infact to have our SP as the 'central concern' and it's even worse when we are told that was not your primary intent to do that - it should be your primary intent, the rest is pure guff as the rest of the positive effects of a suspension will follow as an automatic consequence.

And to a few posters - anyone that thinks it's fine and dandy to watch an SP collapse and be able to trade all the way down must be off a different planet to most I am sure - no thanks - lets keep the SP where it was before the suspension and take the kick off from the half way line and not our own goal line.