| Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386534] |
Mi, 10 Mai 2006 13:49 |
|
I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
Several thoughts arise:
a) apparently, the only identifying information of the sender is an
e-mail address: isn't that a bit cowardly? At least they might have the
courage of their convictions and identify themselves (as they are
threatening to identify others?)
b) by (1) sending letters and suggesting they will (2) publish details
of shareholders on a website, they may be in breach of the Data
Protection Act on both counts: not doing themselves any favours there either
c) shareholder registers are in the public domain under statute and the
animal rights group is threatening to put it on a website. It's
surprising what you can find on a website if you look hard enough.
d) the animal rights extremist group have written to small shareholders.
Shouldn't they also be writing to anyone with a pension. It is highly
probable that most pension schemes will have at least some exposure to
Glaxo (or a proxy) since Glaxo is worth about 5.9%* of the FTSE 100.
Frankly, I'm underwhelmed this action, both in the effects it's having
(intimidating small shareholders) and by the flaws in its execution.
Allan
Information page on Glaxo's website:
http://www.gsk.com/investors/shareholder_information_advice. htm
Weighting figure quote from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/4652010. stm
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386545 ] |
Mi, 10 Mai 2006 17:55 |
|
Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
>Several thoughts arise:
Only if you have a Crest-sponsored member account surely ?
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386554 ] |
Mi, 10 Mai 2006 18:47 |
|
Daytona wrote:
> Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
>> Several thoughts arise:
>
> Only if you have a Crest-sponsored member account surely ?
Interesting statement ! :-)
Why should being a Crest-sponsored member have any relevance to whether
I get a letter or not?
As it happens, unless I get a letter shortly, I would refute that
statement (cos I know a sponsored member who got a letter and a
sponsored member who hasn't).
Interesting little avenue on the ongoing tale: when I rang the ICO's
office, the nice lady I spoke to said she'd spoken to another GSK
shareholder yesterday in receipt of one of the letters and the
shareholder indicated that there might have been more personal
information in the letter than would be available on the shareholder
register under statutory disclosure...
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386600 ] |
Mi, 10 Mai 2006 20:45 |
|
"Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ce29qF15jm5nU1 [at] individual.net...
>I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
>Several thoughts arise:
There are two things that I thought of:
1) They said that if you didn't sell within 14 days you
would be "named and shamed", but are the published
records updateed that quickly. If you sold today would
you really fall off the published list in 14 days?
2) It was said that to avoid such hassles in future
people could put their shares into nominee accounts
but that it was still possible that you could be identified.
How? Surely brokers that sell/hold shares in nominee
accounts hold everyones shares under the same
nominee name, so how can an outsider tell who owns
which?
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386676 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 01:18 |
|
tim (back at home) wrote:
> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ce29qF15jm5nU1 [at] individual.net...
>> I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
>> Several thoughts arise:
>
> There are two things that I thought of:
>
> 1) They said that if you didn't sell within 14 days you
> would be "named and shamed", but are the published
> records updateed that quickly. If you sold today would
> you really fall off the published list in 14 days?
The registers get updated on a rolling basis as settlement occurs (hence
such things as T+3, and ex-dividend and record dates)
As to whether 'published records' get updated that quickly, I suppose it
depends what you are calling 'published records'. Shareholder
registers are in the public domain under statute, but how quickly and
dynamically the register (held by the register) translates into anything
that is readily publicly available is another matter.
> 2) It was said that to avoid such hassles in future
> people could put their shares into nominee accounts
> but that it was still possible that you could be identified.
> How? Surely brokers that sell/hold shares in nominee
> accounts hold everyones shares under the same
> nominee name, so how can an outsider tell who owns
> which?
IIRC, I believe there something called a Section 198 notice where the
body in charge of the nominee has to declare the beneficial owners of
the shares it holds if they are on behalf of someone else, so being in a
nominee does not necessarily protect identities.
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386688 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 09:52 |
|
Allan Gould wrote:
> a) apparently, the only identifying information of the sender is an
> e-mail address: isn't that a bit cowardly?
Yes, but what do you expect from thugs and bullies? These are the type
of people who will smash your windows and dig up your grannie's corpse.
> Frankly, I'm underwhelmed this action, both in the effects it's having
> (intimidating small shareholders) and by the flaws in its execution.
I'm frankly amazed by the stupidity of the thinking that it reveals.
Who do they think small shareholders will sell to? If it's another
small shareholder then what has changed? If it's a big institution then
the only thing they've achieved is allowing them to pick up a few
shares on the cheap.
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386706 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 11:50 |
|
At 19:45:53 on 10/05/2006, tim (back at home) delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
>
> "Allan Gould" <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ce29qF15jm5nU1 [at] individual.net...
> > I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
> > Several thoughts arise:
>
> There are two things that I thought of:
>
> 1) They said that if you didn't sell within 14 days you
> would be "named and shamed", but are the published
> records updateed that quickly. If you sold today would
> you really fall off the published list in 14 days?
That's presumably why they were instructing people to e-mail them to confirm
they had 'complied'.
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386739 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 15:00 |
|
Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Why should being a Crest-sponsored member have any relevance to whether
>I get a letter or not?
AFAIA they are the only individuals to have the name and address on
the share register. Everyone else is recorded as a brokers nominee
account.
Having been subject to abuse from SHAC at a company administering
accounts (and therefore down as a nominee) I put it down as one of
life's experiences. Viva democracy and all that. However it's a
different matter when they take the battle to someone's home or mail
the entire street identifying you as an evil animal killer.
If the authorities are on their toes they will easily be able to trace
the phone line used to set up the Hotmail account.
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386741 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 15:30 |
|
At 14:00:20 on 11/05/2006, Daytona delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> If the authorities are on their toes they will easily be able to trace
> the phone line used to set up the Hotmail account.
Back to an Internet Cafe in Bulgaria, perhaps?
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386746 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 15:41 |
|
Daytona wrote:
> Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Why should being a Crest-sponsored member have any relevance to whether
>> I get a letter or not?
>
> AFAIA they are the only individuals to have the name and address on
> the share register. Everyone else is recorded as a brokers nominee
> account.
Anyone still with their own paper share certificate (probably a dying
breed, I admit) will have their name and address on the company register
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386752 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 16:36 |
|
"Daytona" <me [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6hc662tco85v5ukk54lp14r8s22lbtjhiu [at] 4ax.com...
> Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Why should being a Crest-sponsored member have any relevance to whether
> >I get a letter or not?
>
> AFAIA they are the only individuals to have the name and address on
> the share register. Everyone else is recorded as a brokers nominee
> account.
>
> Having been subject to abuse from SHAC at a company administering
> accounts (and therefore down as a nominee) I put it down as one of
> life's experiences. Viva democracy and all that. However it's a
> different matter when they take the battle to someone's home or mail
> the entire street identifying you as an evil animal killer.
>
> If the authorities are on their toes they will easily be able to trace
> the phone line used to set up the Hotmail account.
But has an offence actually been committed ?
(I eat animals)
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386765 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 18:29 |
|
Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>As to whether 'published records' get updated that quickly, I suppose it
> depends what you are calling 'published records'. Shareholder
>registers are in the public domain under statute, but how quickly and
>dynamically the register (held by the register) translates into anything
>that is readily publicly available is another matter.
The annual CH copy of the shareholders register is unlikely to be what
they are using when they can request a current copy from the company.
>IIRC, I believe there something called a Section 198 notice where the
>body in charge of the nominee has to declare the beneficial owners of
>the shares it holds if they are on behalf of someone else, so being in a
>nominee does not necessarily protect identities.
IIRC only the company can issue 198 notices.
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386808 ] |
Fr, 12 Mai 2006 12:22 |
|
Daytona wrote:
>
>> IIRC, I believe there something called a Section 198 notice where the
>> body in charge of the nominee has to declare the beneficial owners of
>> the shares it holds if they are on behalf of someone else, so being in a
>> nominee does not necessarily protect identities.
>
> IIRC only the company can issue 198 notices.
Humble pie time: I stand corrected
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386809 ] |
Fr, 12 Mai 2006 12:39 |
|
Allan Gould wrote:
> I haven't received a letter yet, but no doubt it will arrive shortly.
Seen a copy of the letter. Haven't had my own yet, although it is
reported in the media that the letter only went to about 157
shareholders - mainly pensioners - although the letter itself promises
it will be going to all shareholders "over the next 2 weeks"; given that
GSK appear to have about 160,000 small/individual shareholders, that's
going to cost a wee bit.
The letter is headed as if from from 'Campaign against HLS', but the
return address at the top of the letter is an address in Ealing, London
which appears unconnected with the Campaign against HLS and it doesn't
take too much Googling to find out the address might be GSK's Co
Secretary's address (bit naughty, me thinks, but not surprising).
There's also a phone number 01844 238 nnn (which is apparently located
in the area of Brill near Aylesbury) (Google doesn't throw up anything
for the phone number).
The e-mail address given to confirm you have sold your shares is:
GSKshareholder1860 [at] hotmail.com
Oh, and the writer of the letter doesn't have a particularly good grasp
of the use of apostrophes. Honestly, if they're going to trade insults
and issue threats, they could at least get the grammar right :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386812 ] |
Fr, 12 Mai 2006 14:08 |
|
Allan Gould <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>GSKshareholder1860 [at] hotmail.com
Well, lets at least attempt to get them on the spam lists !
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386879 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 09:47 |
|
Daytona wrote:
> If the authorities are on their toes they will easily be able to trace
> the phone line used to set up the Hotmail account.
Which may well be an internet cafe.
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386924 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 19:04 |
|
Jonathan Bryce <jonathan [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Daytona wrote:
>
>> If the authorities are on their toes they will easily be able to trace
>> the phone line used to set up the Hotmail account.
>
>Which may well be an internet cafe.
Which is likely to have CCTV.
Daytona
|
|
|
| Re: Glaxo & animal rights extremist group letter [message #386936 ] |
So, 14 Mai 2006 20:45 |
|
"Daytona" <me [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:8foe62ljai5n9d5stbl0ouk330rhr29mqa [at] 4ax.com...
> Jonathan Bryce <jonathan [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>Daytona wrote:
>>
>>> If the authorities are on their toes they will easily be able to trace
>>> the phone line used to set up the Hotmail account.
>>
>>Which may well be an internet cafe.
>
> Which is likely to have CCTV.
>
> Daytona
which in the unlikely event it works and they still have the pics, are
likely to be low quality pics of someone wearing a hoody.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
|
|
|
