AVZ Discussion 2022

[Bin59]

​

Annulation du PE 13359 : le staff de DATHCOM réagit à la décision de Mme la ministre des Mines - L'info qui fait échos

L’annulation du Permis d’exploitation (PE) accordé en avril 2022 à la société minière DATHCOM, qui se propose de mettre en valeur le lithium de Manono, <a class="mh-excerpt-more"...

econewsrdc.com

Cancellation of EP 13359: DATHCOM staff react to the decision of the Minister of Mines​

February 15, 2023 TIGHANA MASIALA 0

Ms. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, Minister of Mines

The cancellation of the Exploitation Permit (PE) granted in April 2022 to the mining company DATHCOM, which proposes to develop lithium in Manono, in the province of Tanganyika, has provoked a strong reaction from this company, since its HQ in Australia. It was Nigel Ferguson, presenting himself as the president of DATHCOM MINING SA, who was responsible for reframing the Minister of Mines, Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, pointing out serious irregularities in her decision. Here is the replica of DATHCOM. No comments.

To her Excellency the Minister of Mines of the DR Congo

Concerns: Acknowledgment of receipt of Ministerial Orders No. 00032/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2023 of January 28, 2023 reporting that of April 07, 2022 taking note of the declaration of partial waiver of Exploration Permit No. 13359 by the company DATHCOM MINING SA and Ministerial Order n°00031/CAB.

MINES/MINES/ 01/2023 of January 28, 2023 relating to that of April 25, 2022 granting Exploitation Permit No. 13359 to the company DATHCOM MINING SA.
Excellence Madame la Ministre,

I.INTRODUCTION

1. The company DATHCOM MINING SA acknowledges receipt in a state of shock and surprise your two Irregular Ministerial Orders in form and in substance while it was waiting to be notified on the calculation of surface rights that the Cadastre was in the process of carrying out Mining.
2. DATHCOM fiercely opposes your approach that violated the relevant provisions of the Congolese Minier Code, which it intends to demonstrate in the following lines.

II. THE FACT OF THE PRINCE AND THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF YOUR DECISION

1. We feel like we are the victim of a political decision whose real etherious motivations we do not know.
2. Your two ministerial orders show that all these facts are constitutive of the "prince facts" because, without any legal basis and are not based on the Mining Code as amended in 2018:
   4.1. The fact that you have responded to the request of the company "COMINIERE SA" which is not a holder of mining securities and therefore you create dangerous case law to receive the request from a shareholder whose acts are not allowed by the Mining Code but also whose status of Mr. Célestin KIBEYA is called into question because it is not appointed by "Presidential Ordinance" as required. Despite this irregularity, you nevertheless made these decisions that cannot survive in legal trade or produce its effects.
   4.2. The fact that you have based your two orders on issues of "conflicts between shareholders" that are not conflicts of your jurisdiction and therefore unknown reasons in the Congolese Mining Code as known to date.

III. ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND SURVIVAL OF THE GRANT DECISION NO. 00145/CAB.MINES/MINES/O1/2022 OF APRIL 25, 2022 GRANTING THE OPERATING PERMIT NO.133S9 TO THE COMPANY "DATHCOM MINING SA"

1. The Democratic Republic of the Congo through its constitution dated February 18, 2006 as amended by Law No. 111/O02 of 20 January 2011 is a rule of law and therefore, your Excellency is subject to its own laws.
2. One of the provisions you ignored in the two decrees is that the person you seized, in this case Mr. Célestin KIBEYA, had to have a "quality" based on the Presidential Ordinance appointing him out of respect for the principle of formal parallelism in place of Mr. Athanase Mwamba who has remained to date Director General ai In the eyes of the law. This reason makes your two orders irregular in the form.
3. The reasons raised, in particular the conflicts between shareholders, are purely and simply unknown by the Mining Code, being a special law that derogates from common rights and requires strict application, the only reasons for which are in particular the "non-payment of surface rights" and "non-start of work", which is not the case here and allows us to affirm that the grant decision remains intact in the
4. To return to the State, it is important to remember that your aforementioned Decrees violate the Mining Code, which takes care of framing the "the report of mining rights". To this end, Article 48b in fine provides that mining and/or career rights may be withdrawn or reported, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality at the time of granting, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or failing that, within three months of the date of knowledge of its existence, either at the request of an
5. It follows from this provision that the only hypothesis of "report of mining rights or careers enshrined in law is illegality at the time of granting", in this case, the rights may be reported either at the request of a third party injured or on your initiative, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or after the date of knowledge of the existence of the grant decision
6. You will find that your grant decision was taken on April 25, 2022 and three months after July 25, 2022 and in case of "illegality at the time of grant". The decisive acts that are the "cadastral notices", "environmental opinion", "technical opinion" and "compliance notices" remain valid to date and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegal character in the granting procedure is the responsibility of your two decrees and DATHCOM has never been notified of any case of illegality at the grant.And you cannot ignore that the withdrawal of regular individual
7. This is quite abnormal, and legally unsustainable, that your jurisdiction can leave unexecuted an act that it has enacted and whose legality is not in the shadow of any doubt because it is over the three favorable opinions, and that you can begin on a painful and perilous approach to try to assess, a posteriori, the legality of your decision, especially since
8. In addition, the simple basic rules have not been respected, in particular the rights of the defense and your Excellency did not even deign to call the applicant to hear her version of the facts and the Mining Code has established the principle that decisions must be reasoned and so today nor the reasons purely under company law raised by Mr. Célestin KIBEYA (whose personal reasons remain obscure)
9. Moreover, your two decrees contradicted each other technically, so the decree 00032 on the renunciation should precede that of the grant decision 00031 thus making these decisions technically difficult to execute because we cannot report the grant decision and therefore there is no longer a grant or permit decision and therefore the decree 00032 reporting the one on the renunciation cannot come chronologically after.

IV. PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

1. This is worth recourse for justice to be done, it is up to you to choose the path of reason within the framework of the right business climate and to leave it to the appropriate authorities, which are within the reach of COMINIERE, to be able to implement their legal skills to resolve this conflict between DATHCOM shareholders rather than paralyzing this great historical project that feeds the hope
   Hoping that this will receive your special attention, please accept, Excellency the expression of our best regards.
   For DATHCOM MINING SA

Edit: The numbering is incorrect compared to the original article - refer to the link for the correct numbering

 

[Longunvest]

 

[Winenut]

I think it's now coming down to a game of brinkmanship.
Our opponents, and I include the DRC in that, have court cases and elections approaching.

Assuming that all is as it appears with AVZ finances then I would not expect BoD to blink first. They've played a pretty tight game upto now, so I don't see it changing.

BTW We have now gone from $10-12 TO to hoping that the offer is x. Where x means we get something.
Come on, we've been on a hell of a journey together and now it will end with criminals deciding the price.
NO FUCKING WAY.
An asset is not worth what a potential purchaser offers, it is worth what both parties agree is fair value.
If they don't agree, then it is not sold and it's value is hypothetical.

$10 unless Wino has increased the price.

Well I haven't increased the price but TITS did add the Zijin premium if those bastards want to buy $12 $12 $12

 

[Largus Averta]

Its baffling why we continue to talk the price down when in-fact we own the asset, we can sell for what we want, not what we are given. $10

We're being groomed.

 

[Modo]

You'd think Felix would be aware of the world's largest known hard rock lithium deposit in his own backyard that has world interest, Chinese all over it, various parties clamouring for control, international court cases and arbitrations in place, investigations and reports by the department he specifically pumped up in the IGF to weed out corruption as he happens to be spruiking the world stage for investment in mining in the DRC

Yeah he's fucking aware of Manono and AVZ and what's going on

Problem is.... he's done FUCK ALL about it.....

He is more worried about McDonadls international menus on offer.

Maybe we need to sponsor a McPerth burger, and the Presidential 767 can make a call through the Mc Fly through.

 

[TheCount]

Well I haven't increased the price but TITS did add the Zijin premium if those bastards want to buy $12 $12 $12

@Thaz - any increase for GST or is it exempt being off shore source on income?

 

[Remark]

He is more worried about McDonadls international menus on offer.

Maybe we need to sponsor a McPerth burger, and the Presidential 767 can make a call through the Mc Fly through.

Do I have to tell you again?

 

[Bin59]

Financial embezzlement in #RDC :
John @LungilaJ pleads for the intensification of the Financial Patrol in 2023 and the creation of a "Special Court" to judge the agents cited by the @IgfRdc

 

[Flight996]

Eight AVZ executives collectively hold 84.91 million ordinary shares plus 43.30 million performance rights (These figures exclude lapsed and/or exercised options, but the data are available in AVZ's 2022 Annual Report to Shareholders).

In total, these executives potentially hold 128.21 million shares, which is a compelling reason for them to fight hard for the best outcome for all shareholders (cough, cough, themselves).

With this in mind, I am betting on a good negotiated outcome.

Cheers
F

 

[RHyNO]

That response is a lesson in international legal diplomacy! I really appreciate the incredible careful and decisive nature of it. I mean jeez, I’d be Samuel L Jacksoning that fucking thing “YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL”. I’m glad management have taken this level headed step and look forward to holding deep into 2025s dividends.

 

[grassseeds]

The letter from Dathcom ( if confirmed ) will be considered war against the DRC Govt. If confirmed it would appear to be a last ditch reaction by Dathcom to remain with the project. My confidence in this project remaining with AVZ is rapidly deteriorating.

 

[Flight996]

The letter from Dathcom ( if confirmed ) will be considered war against the DRC Govt. If confirmed it would appear to be a last ditch reaction by Dathcom to remain with the project. My confidence in this project remaining with AVZ is rapidly deteriorating.

I don't know if it is genuine, but it genuinely made me cringe.

Cheers
F

 

[Roon]

​

Annulation du PE 13359 : le staff de DATHCOM réagit à la décision de Mme la ministre des Mines - L'info qui fait échos

L’annulation du Permis d’exploitation (PE) accordé en avril 2022 à la société minière DATHCOM, qui se propose de mettre en valeur le lithium de Manono, <a class="mh-excerpt-more"...

econewsrdc.com

Cancellation of EP 13359: DATHCOM staff react to the decision of the Minister of Mines​

February 15, 2023 TIGHANA MASIALA 0

Ms. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, Minister of Mines

The cancellation of the Exploitation Permit (PE) granted in April 2022 to the mining company DATHCOM, which proposes to develop lithium in Manono, in the province of Tanganyika, has provoked a strong reaction from this company, since its HQ in Australia. It was Nigel Ferguson, presenting himself as the president of DATHCOM MINING SA, who was responsible for reframing the Minister of Mines, Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, pointing out serious irregularities in her decision. Here is the replica of DATHCOM. No comments.

To her Excellency the Minister of Mines of the DR Congo

Concerns: Acknowledgment of receipt of Ministerial Orders No. 00032/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2023 of January 28, 2023 reporting that of April 07, 2022 taking note of the declaration of partial waiver of Exploration Permit No. 13359 by the company DATHCOM MINING SA and Ministerial Order n°00031/CAB.

MINES/MINES/ 01/2023 of January 28, 2023 relating to that of April 25, 2022 granting Exploitation Permit No. 13359 to the company DATHCOM MINING SA.
Excellence Madame la Ministre,

I.INTRODUCTION

1. The company DATHCOM MINING SA acknowledges receipt in a state of shock and surprise your two Irregular Ministerial Orders in form and in substance while it was waiting to be notified on the calculation of surface rights that the Cadastre was in the process of carrying out Mining.
2. DATHCOM fiercely opposes your approach that violated the relevant provisions of the Congolese Minier Code, which it intends to demonstrate in the following lines.

II. THE FACT OF THE PRINCE AND THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF YOUR DECISION

1. We feel like we are the victim of a political decision whose real etherious motivations we do not know.
2. Your two ministerial orders show that all these facts are constitutive of the "prince facts" because, without any legal basis and are not based on the Mining Code as amended in 2018:
   4.1. The fact that you have responded to the request of the company "COMINIERE SA" which is not a holder of mining securities and therefore you create dangerous case law to receive the request from a shareholder whose acts are not allowed by the Mining Code but also whose status of Mr. Célestin KIBEYA is called into question because it is not appointed by "Presidential Ordinance" as required. Despite this irregularity, you nevertheless made these decisions that cannot survive in legal trade or produce its effects.
   4.2. The fact that you have based your two orders on issues of "conflicts between shareholders" that are not conflicts of your jurisdiction and therefore unknown reasons in the Congolese Mining Code as known to date.

III. ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND SURVIVAL OF THE GRANT DECISION NO. 00145/CAB.MINES/MINES/O1/2022 OF APRIL 25, 2022 GRANTING THE OPERATING PERMIT NO.133S9 TO THE COMPANY "DATHCOM MINING SA"

1. The Democratic Republic of the Congo through its constitution dated February 18, 2006 as amended by Law No. 111/O02 of 20 January 2011 is a rule of law and therefore, your Excellency is subject to its own laws.
2. One of the provisions you ignored in the two decrees is that the person you seized, in this case Mr. Célestin KIBEYA, had to have a "quality" based on the Presidential Ordinance appointing him out of respect for the principle of formal parallelism in place of Mr. Athanase Mwamba who has remained to date Director General ai In the eyes of the law. This reason makes your two orders irregular in the form.
3. The reasons raised, in particular the conflicts between shareholders, are purely and simply unknown by the Mining Code, being a special law that derogates from common rights and requires strict application, the only reasons for which are in particular the "non-payment of surface rights" and "non-start of work", which is not the case here and allows us to affirm that the grant decision remains intact in the
4. To return to the State, it is important to remember that your aforementioned Decrees violate the Mining Code, which takes care of framing the "the report of mining rights". To this end, Article 48b in fine provides that mining and/or career rights may be withdrawn or reported, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality at the time of granting, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or failing that, within three months of the date of knowledge of its existence, either at the request of an
5. It follows from this provision that the only hypothesis of "report of mining rights or careers enshrined in law is illegality at the time of granting", in this case, the rights may be reported either at the request of a third party injured or on your initiative, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or after the date of knowledge of the existence of the grant decision
6. You will find that your grant decision was taken on April 25, 2022 and three months after July 25, 2022 and in case of "illegality at the time of grant". The decisive acts that are the "cadastral notices", "environmental opinion", "technical opinion" and "compliance notices" remain valid to date and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegal character in the granting procedure is the responsibility of your two decrees and DATHCOM has never been notified of any case of illegality at the grant.And you cannot ignore that the withdrawal of regular individual
7. This is quite abnormal, and legally unsustainable, that your jurisdiction can leave unexecuted an act that it has enacted and whose legality is not in the shadow of any doubt because it is over the three favorable opinions, and that you can begin on a painful and perilous approach to try to assess, a posteriori, the legality of your decision, especially since
8. In addition, the simple basic rules have not been respected, in particular the rights of the defense and your Excellency did not even deign to call the applicant to hear her version of the facts and the Mining Code has established the principle that decisions must be reasoned and so today nor the reasons purely under company law raised by Mr. Célestin KIBEYA (whose personal reasons remain obscure)
9. Moreover, your two decrees contradicted each other technically, so the decree 00032 on the renunciation should precede that of the grant decision 00031 thus making these decisions technically difficult to execute because we cannot report the grant decision and therefore there is no longer a grant or permit decision and therefore the decree 00032 reporting the one on the renunciation cannot come chronologically after.

IV. PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

1. This is worth recourse for justice to be done, it is up to you to choose the path of reason within the framework of the right business climate and to leave it to the appropriate authorities, which are within the reach of COMINIERE, to be able to implement their legal skills to resolve this conflict between DATHCOM shareholders rather than paralyzing this great historical project that feeds the hope
   Hoping that this will receive your special attention, please accept, Excellency the expression of our best regards.
   For DATHCOM MINING SA

Edit: The numbering is incorrect compared to the original article - refer to the link for the correct numbering

Wow it's pretty strong! Too much of an attack perhaps, to put the Minister off side for good? I dont know, we dont need new enemies, but at least they're coming out swinging this time rather than the previous wait and see approach, so let's hope this new strategy pays dividends.

I must say though, this isn't the kind of missive one sends when you are in the midst of negotiations with the government to resolve the impasse. I'd say it seems more likely just based of this that we may be struggling to get facetime with DRC high officials to argue our case. Certainly we haven't been talking to the MoM, as admitted in this document.

Now let's wait for a response!

 

[Largus Averta]

Did I ever mention AFR or CH9. No! This was to 1 shed the light on AVZ, because BOD tell us nothing.
2 expose the DRC as still corrupt and let the world know not to deal with them.

Unsure what channel you think 60 Minutes is on?

 

[Mr Inappropriate]

​

Annulation du PE 13359 : le staff de DATHCOM réagit à la décision de Mme la ministre des Mines - L'info qui fait échos

L’annulation du Permis d’exploitation (PE) accordé en avril 2022 à la société minière DATHCOM, qui se propose de mettre en valeur le lithium de Manono, <a class="mh-excerpt-more"...

econewsrdc.com

Cancellation of EP 13359: DATHCOM staff react to the decision of the Minister of Mines​

February 15, 2023 TIGHANA MASIALA 0

Ms. Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, Minister of Mines

The cancellation of the Exploitation Permit (PE) granted in April 2022 to the mining company DATHCOM, which proposes to develop lithium in Manono, in the province of Tanganyika, has provoked a strong reaction from this company, since its HQ in Australia. It was Nigel Ferguson, presenting himself as the president of DATHCOM MINING SA, who was responsible for reframing the Minister of Mines, Antoinette N'Samba Kalambayi, pointing out serious irregularities in her decision. Here is the replica of DATHCOM. No comments.

To her Excellency the Minister of Mines of the DR Congo

Concerns: Acknowledgment of receipt of Ministerial Orders No. 00032/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2023 of January 28, 2023 reporting that of April 07, 2022 taking note of the declaration of partial waiver of Exploration Permit No. 13359 by the company DATHCOM MINING SA and Ministerial Order n°00031/CAB.

MINES/MINES/ 01/2023 of January 28, 2023 relating to that of April 25, 2022 granting Exploitation Permit No. 13359 to the company DATHCOM MINING SA.
Excellence Madame la Ministre,

I.INTRODUCTION

1. The company DATHCOM MINING SA acknowledges receipt in a state of shock and surprise your two Irregular Ministerial Orders in form and in substance while it was waiting to be notified on the calculation of surface rights that the Cadastre was in the process of carrying out Mining.
2. DATHCOM fiercely opposes your approach that violated the relevant provisions of the Congolese Minier Code, which it intends to demonstrate in the following lines.

II. THE FACT OF THE PRINCE AND THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF YOUR DECISION

1. We feel like we are the victim of a political decision whose real etherious motivations we do not know.
2. Your two ministerial orders show that all these facts are constitutive of the "prince facts" because, without any legal basis and are not based on the Mining Code as amended in 2018:
   4.1. The fact that you have responded to the request of the company "COMINIERE SA" which is not a holder of mining securities and therefore you create dangerous case law to receive the request from a shareholder whose acts are not allowed by the Mining Code but also whose status of Mr. Célestin KIBEYA is called into question because it is not appointed by "Presidential Ordinance" as required. Despite this irregularity, you nevertheless made these decisions that cannot survive in legal trade or produce its effects.
   4.2. The fact that you have based your two orders on issues of "conflicts between shareholders" that are not conflicts of your jurisdiction and therefore unknown reasons in the Congolese Mining Code as known to date.

III. ACQUIRED RIGHTS AND SURVIVAL OF THE GRANT DECISION NO. 00145/CAB.MINES/MINES/O1/2022 OF APRIL 25, 2022 GRANTING THE OPERATING PERMIT NO.133S9 TO THE COMPANY "DATHCOM MINING SA"

1. The Democratic Republic of the Congo through its constitution dated February 18, 2006 as amended by Law No. 111/O02 of 20 January 2011 is a rule of law and therefore, your Excellency is subject to its own laws.
2. One of the provisions you ignored in the two decrees is that the person you seized, in this case Mr. Célestin KIBEYA, had to have a "quality" based on the Presidential Ordinance appointing him out of respect for the principle of formal parallelism in place of Mr. Athanase Mwamba who has remained to date Director General ai In the eyes of the law. This reason makes your two orders irregular in the form.
3. The reasons raised, in particular the conflicts between shareholders, are purely and simply unknown by the Mining Code, being a special law that derogates from common rights and requires strict application, the only reasons for which are in particular the "non-payment of surface rights" and "non-start of work", which is not the case here and allows us to affirm that the grant decision remains intact in the
4. To return to the State, it is important to remember that your aforementioned Decrees violate the Mining Code, which takes care of framing the "the report of mining rights". To this end, Article 48b in fine provides that mining and/or career rights may be withdrawn or reported, without retroactive effect, by the granting authority in the event of illegality at the time of granting, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or failing that, within three months of the date of knowledge of its existence, either at the request of an
5. It follows from this provision that the only hypothesis of "report of mining rights or careers enshrined in law is illegality at the time of granting", in this case, the rights may be reported either at the request of a third party injured or on your initiative, within three months of the publication of the grant decision in the Official Journal or after the date of knowledge of the existence of the grant decision
6. You will find that your grant decision was taken on April 25, 2022 and three months after July 25, 2022 and in case of "illegality at the time of grant". The decisive acts that are the "cadastral notices", "environmental opinion", "technical opinion" and "compliance notices" remain valid to date and have never been declared illegal and no reason or illegal character in the granting procedure is the responsibility of your two decrees and DATHCOM has never been notified of any case of illegality at the grant.And you cannot ignore that the withdrawal of regular individual
7. This is quite abnormal, and legally unsustainable, that your jurisdiction can leave unexecuted an act that it has enacted and whose legality is not in the shadow of any doubt because it is over the three favorable opinions, and that you can begin on a painful and perilous approach to try to assess, a posteriori, the legality of your decision, especially since
8. In addition, the simple basic rules have not been respected, in particular the rights of the defense and your Excellency did not even deign to call the applicant to hear her version of the facts and the Mining Code has established the principle that decisions must be reasoned and so today nor the reasons purely under company law raised by Mr. Célestin KIBEYA (whose personal reasons remain obscure)
9. Moreover, your two decrees contradicted each other technically, so the decree 00032 on the renunciation should precede that of the grant decision 00031 thus making these decisions technically difficult to execute because we cannot report the grant decision and therefore there is no longer a grant or permit decision and therefore the decree 00032 reporting the one on the renunciation cannot come chronologically after.

IV. PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

1. This is worth recourse for justice to be done, it is up to you to choose the path of reason within the framework of the right business climate and to leave it to the appropriate authorities, which are within the reach of COMINIERE, to be able to implement their legal skills to resolve this conflict between DATHCOM shareholders rather than paralyzing this great historical project that feeds the hope
   Hoping that this will receive your special attention, please accept, Excellency the expression of our best regards.
   For DATHCOM MINING SA

Edit: The numbering is incorrect compared to the original article - refer to the link for the correct numbering

That‘s a pissweak ending at section IV.

They’ve just laid out a bunch of reasons that the ministerial orders were inappropriately given. Then, fuck it, they end with ”it’s up to you”. No request for immediate 1:1 meeting, no request for specific decree/action, no timeframes for resolution stated, no “we need <x> by date <y> or we go to the mattresses”.

I had previously understood MoM was a friendly - it’s clear from this that she’s not. It might also explain why JFM has been allowed to remain enconsed in Snack Hall for all this time.

Fark.

 

[wombat74]

Wow it's pretty strong! Too much of an attack perhaps, to put the Minister off side for good? I dont know, we dont need new enemies, but at least they're coming out swinging this time rather than the previous wait and see approach, so let's hope this new strategy pays dividends.

I must say though, this isn't the kind of missive one sends when you are in the midst of negotiations with the government to resolve the impasse. I'd say it seems more likely just based of this that we may be struggling to get facetime with DRC high officials to argue our case. Certainly we haven't been talking to the MoM, as admitted in this document.

Now let's wait for a response!

You could be right . MoM not responding to AVZ/Dath requests to discuss the current situation . China play book . Nigel having no choice but to issue a strong and direct statement . Or Nigel did get a response and he didn't like it . Doesn't fill me with confidence TBH . MoM/China won't succumb to legal threats I would imagine and admit wrong doing . Unless this is all fake news of course , but that's a very detailed response . Now this is out it would be nice to get a little clarity from Nigel .

 

[Onthefm]

I don't know if it is genuine, but it genuinely made me cringe.

Cheers
F

Same hear mate if its real negotiations are over. And I don't want that.

 

[wombat74]

That‘s a pissweak ending at section IV.

They’ve just laid out a bunch of reasons that the ministerial orders were inappropriately given. Then, fuck it, they end with ”it’s up to you”. No request for immediate 1:1 meeting, no request for specific decree/action, no timeframes for resolution stated, no “we need <x> by date <y> or we go to the mattresses”.

I had previously understood MoM was a friendly - it’s clear from this that she’s not. It might also explain why JFM has been allowed to remain enconsed in Snack Hall for all this time.

Fark.

They are all in the Chinese pocket .

 

[Onthefm]

Same hear mate if its real negotiations are over. And I don't want that.

I realy can't see any situation where a letter like that should be sent.

 

[wombat74]

I realy can't see any situation where a letter like that should be sent.

I can . When you are getting the Big Pineapple .