Shorts shorting even more, page-33

Actually you are debating this with someone who was very active on EGO forum when the company paid for the legal fees of its directors to sue the individuals as they deemed the comments to be personal injuries. I was also pressurised when querying another company who then insisted on their attorney being party to our discussions. The reality is that as you state its already happening but right now , in my opinion, only the indefensible are using the workaround to attack shareholders or those seeking to question their actions.

Actually in EGO's case it really put many people into severe hardship so the bullying tactic is already here and its impact out there was felt by fellow HC members. The interesting aside is that almost all shareholders were against the company taking action against its shareholders.

However the other side is that a nameless and faceless entity calling itself XYZ right now puts out a report questioning a company's business process. The company cannot sue as you say - damage doesn't attach to managers it actually attaches to shareholders as the company, its business and processes are damaged.

The reality is that we don't like coal so we say something bad under cover of "free speech" and its against a company so no defamation etc. Then we picket their operations etc. The balance has to be maintained and yet right now PC is totally dominant - we have legal businesses being attacked. We are now getting to an era where the "Emperor has no Clothes "actually could exist as we deny what is the truth before us. Really with shorter's not having to disclose who they are or their interests in doing so can wreck companies and in fact make a huge profit whilst doing it. So yes I am far more concerned that we restore balance. I would suggest that if you fail to state your true identity when making damaging statements the law should no longer afford you any protection and in fact the state should pursue that individual on behalf of us all. The law should then entitle you to state your opinions if you disclose your name in doing so. That in fact you should be entitled to hold and state views that may offend some - I have always believed that its only possible to persuade people when they can freely express their views - suppressing them never gets that view tested. I love freedom of speech because it actually supports the truth because false statements are debunked - yet suppressing them actually makes it hard to debate the viewpoint.

The balance however is that you allow the company to defend itself but put a high bar on them proving that the statements were defamatory and incorrect. The person or company that has made less than substantiated attacks on CCP has never disclosed who they are but they have probably wiped off $80 million market cap and in fact at its height probably closer to $150 million. They have caused many to sell their shares. The business may not be a lily white one but it is what it is and in fact it states clearly what you will be paying - if there were no companies in this end of town the people you would borrow from would probably break bones if you could not repay. The interest rate would be higher etc.

Too often sitting in our ivory towers (that is me included - I am uncomfortable with this payday loan process) decide for others what people should or should not be allowed to access. I have never had to take out a payday loan and hope never to have the need for one but I also cannot stop others access to something that they may need. We all think that this country has many safety nets but in reality it also operates on money and without it you could be on the street. access to it at times of real hardship is a necessity and without it where would these people go.

I don't want to judge but after a while has anyone worked out what the costs of using say Afterpay and missing payments would cost? I don't which is better and I also know that people would not be using it unless they had been turned down by the traditional banking groups.