Normal
Not meaning to be rude mate, but I'm only stating reported fact from SICAG from what is published in the media:"Frankly, I cannot possibly see what this inquiry will achieve that the parliamentary inquiry or ASIC's inquiry aren't achieving," Investors Consumer Action Group joint chairman Mark Weir said."I hesitate to make any expression of conjecture here but there seems to be something going on."[Almost] half a million dollars is not an insignificant sum of money, but in the scheme of what has been wasted in this whole exercise it's not that much."The Worrell inquiry will seek comment from more than 40 potential witnesses, a company statement said. I am champing at the bit as much as SICAG members to see CBA brought to task for what they have done, but anything that might shed light on the potentially negligent actions of EC and his employees should be welcomed with open arms.As for incriminating evidence on Storm's inaction, my brother got it out of one of the ex-Redcliffe Storm employees in passing at the local shops. I am sure there are some disgruntled Storm employees still waiting for their redundancy/termination payments that would quite happily spill the beans. Although, some of the ex-advisors are now waving the flag for SICAG, so maybe that might not be the best idea eh?You are not reading my posts, I have said time and time again that I applaud the work SICAg has done in terms of saving devastated people from doing something incredibly stupid, only a heartless person would state otherwise.But the fact remains, and as many people on this forum have stated, that SICAG's strategy seems based around blaming the banks for 100% of the problem, when in actuality it is clear that Storm/EC/former advisors should be held equally accountable.The disturbing thing is, that even if in your opinion there is a lack of evidence or an unwillingness by SICAG to look into this fact, one would still reasonably expect that there would be an acknowledgment of the failure of Manny/Julie/Storm somewhere on the SICAG website. There is no mention of this, and never has been. And this very reason is why members of my family, and others we know affected by this refuse to attend a SICAG meeting.I am not someone sitting on my high horse poking the downtrodden with a stick, myself and my entire family got stung by Storm/CBA and their negligence. WHY aren't SICAG demanding answers from ex-employees and Storm principals? Why isn't there public outcry demanding EC/Julie to be taken to task for what they have done? Noting that some ex-employees/family members of those who stood back and let it all happen are now members of SICAG, you only have to ask them at your next meeting surely?You mention that criminal charges won't put food on the table of people affected. No it won't, but it will sure take food off the people responsible, which is how justice should work.
Not meaning to be rude mate, but I'm only stating reported fact from SICAG from what is published in the media:
"Frankly, I cannot possibly see what this inquiry will achieve that the parliamentary inquiry or ASIC's inquiry aren't achieving," Investors Consumer Action Group joint chairman Mark Weir said.
"I hesitate to make any expression of conjecture here but there seems to be something going on.
"[Almost] half a million dollars is not an insignificant sum of money, but in the scheme of what has been wasted in this whole exercise it's not that much."
The Worrell inquiry will seek comment from more than 40 potential witnesses, a company statement said.
I am champing at the bit as much as SICAG members to see CBA brought to task for what they have done, but anything that might shed light on the potentially negligent actions of EC and his employees should be welcomed with open arms.
As for incriminating evidence on Storm's inaction, my brother got it out of one of the ex-Redcliffe Storm employees in passing at the local shops. I am sure there are some disgruntled Storm employees still waiting for their redundancy/termination payments that would quite happily spill the beans. Although, some of the ex-advisors are now waving the flag for SICAG, so maybe that might not be the best idea eh?
You are not reading my posts, I have said time and time again that I applaud the work SICAg has done in terms of saving devastated people from doing something incredibly stupid, only a heartless person would state otherwise.
But the fact remains, and as many people on this forum have stated, that SICAG's strategy seems based around blaming the banks for 100% of the problem, when in actuality it is clear that Storm/EC/former advisors should be held equally accountable.
The disturbing thing is, that even if in your opinion there is a lack of evidence or an unwillingness by SICAG to look into this fact, one would still reasonably expect that there would be an acknowledgment of the failure of Manny/Julie/Storm somewhere on the SICAG website. There is no mention of this, and never has been. And this very reason is why members of my family, and others we know affected by this refuse to attend a SICAG meeting.
I am not someone sitting on my high horse poking the downtrodden with a stick, myself and my entire family got stung by Storm/CBA and their negligence. WHY aren't SICAG demanding answers from ex-employees and Storm principals? Why isn't there public outcry demanding EC/Julie to be taken to task for what they have done? Noting that some ex-employees/family members of those who stood back and let it all happen are now members of SICAG, you only have to ask them at your next meeting surely?
You mention that criminal charges won't put food on the table of people affected. No it won't, but it will sure take food off the people responsible, which is how justice should work.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
