Add your comments to MPs statements made in Parliament

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 31/03/2009 - 06:00

The They Work For You website allows users to add their comments to statements made by MP's - including our friend Mr Ian Pearson! There are a few comments but it would be useful if many of us added our own ones as well - i have added one so far.

One thing that did interest me is that hardly ANY MP's have raised the matter in the House of Commons. So much for all the sympathetic sounds we get from 'concerned' MP's. They actually dont give a damn!

Here are some links to the KSF IoM issues that have been discussed in Parliament to help get you going. You have to Join, but it is very quick and easy, click the Join button in the top right of the page.

Some links:-

Did FSA insist that Derbyshire consult its depositors before the selloff

Does the Treasury ever intend to reply to us

What discussions between the UK and IoM has there been

What discussions between the UK and IoM has there been (again!)

Will the chancellor help ex-Derbyshire depositors

How much would it cost to guarantee IoM deposits of upto £100K

Did the FSA talk to Derbyshire before it conned its depositors

How many people affected by KSF IoM collapse

What did the PM do to help the KSF IoM debacle

Just when is the Treasury going to respond!

Did the Government misuse anti-terror legislation

How much has all this cost the tax payer then

No go on, really how much has it all cost so far

What progress has there been between the Uk and Iceland in getting this mess sorted

What about the IoM Kaupthing savers the UK liquidation affected

So, there in a nutshell are all that has been discussed about us in Parliament. Some have been commented on but we need many more comments. I know from email conversations with some more helpful MP's that the site is used by MP's and so the comments you write WILL be read. So the more the better!

Your rating: None Average: 5 (21 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Elgee: conceded Yes that's

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:24

Elgee: conceded

Yes that's the problem. It's ridiculous. When are they going to do something about it? Before we lose our strength. This is not a game - it's for real. Many of us are very distressed at having to choose between two camps. I have made my choice (for DST). But I still didn't enjoy having to do so. We can argue the details between us, but we want and need a united front.


  • Wanda
  • 12/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:16

I followed DAG's instructions to the letter and submitted the special proxy nominating Robert Coates and have received the following response: "We note that your special proxy, in favour of Robert Coates, states that you wish your vote to be cast in accordance with DAG strategy team instructions in all votes.

In accordance with legal advice we have received, it would appear that the instructions on the form are not sufficiently specific to be treated as a special proxy and we are therefore advised that in its current form this should be treated as a general proxy, in favour of Robert Coates. (ie. for the proxy holder to vote at his discretion).

If you wish to amend the proxy , please send the amended proxy to liquidation(?)singers [dot] co [dot] im or by fax to 44(0)1624 699 200 or +44(0)1624 699 202, no later than 12 noon on Friday, 3 July 2009. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the helpline on +44 (0) 1624 699 340.

Can I please have specific instructions on what to do next as I do NOT want DAG to lose a single vote

@ wanda

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:32

Unfortunately DAG were obliged to change their original instructions for the reasons they explain. My understanding is that you should complete and send a new GENERAL proxy form ( ) and ask the Liquidator to replace the previous (Special) one by this new (Genera)l one. Otherwise your vote may not be allowed.

The proof of claim form is unchanged.

Hope that helps.

Proxy modification

  • Cawdor
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 03/07/2009 - 00:46

I was wondering where to post my 'warning to others' that completion of the special proxy form following the Model had the response that it was ineligible but first queried ksfiom as to the reason. Today I heard from one John Cannan that 'to be treated as a special proxy the proxy form needs to give the proxy holder specific instructions on how to vote in at least one resolution.'

He confirmed that, as it stands, a form completed in theis manner will be treated as a general proxy in favour of Robert Coates.

@ wanda

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 21:16

The response over the special proxy so indorsed is, I think, right and exactly what I would have expected, but there is no harm at all in it being treated as a general proxy for Robert, so there is no need to do anything except agree.

Silver lining

  • Wanda
  • 12/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:46

Thank you for your speedy response to my cry for help and especially for the link to the correct proxy form which I have now completed and will fax in plenty of time for DAG to get my vote.

The silver lining to this big black cloud that hangs over our heads since October 8th is the fact that there are people out there who are ready, willing and able to help each other. There are some great people on this site and I'm delighted to have "met" them (although I would have preferred it to be under different circumstances!).

Thanks again :-)