Yesterday evening BBC Radio 4 considered fraud at AIM. Apparently AIM has raised circa £100bn since it kicked off in the mid nineties. Accordingly, one can imagine why its progenitors within the LSE are not much minded to clamp down on fraud. However, unless frauds are stamped on the only eventual effect must be to deter investors from touching AIM in the first place. There are others who will be amazed at the extraordinary goings on at AIM companies where, right now, fraudsters get away with it on so barefaced a basis.
I well remember Phil Edmonds pumping away in a manner which surely demands a review by the authorities. My experiences have been several – I particularly recall White Nile about twelve years ago. Last night the companies mentioned were Sable Mining and African Medical. Here Edmonds and Grove should surely face questioning.
A recent poser made public is that of establishing liability for the consequences of driverless cars being deemed to have failed. It’s just an idea but it seems to me that the position is analogous to racehorses under the Wild Animals Act 1971 where owners are liable on an unlimited basis for any damages caused by their horse even though it could not possibly be argued that the owner had been negligent. (Some years ago a trainer was very seriously kicked by a horse in his charge in a parade ring. The damages came to vastly more than the funds of the owner who was in turn bankrupted. The trainer remains in a paralysed condition.)
The risk is insurable as would that arising from owning a driverless car. It would simply be a matter of enquiry to consider whether driverless cars were in practice less safe than driver-operated cars. They probably would not so be. This would make insurance cheap and readily assessed.