Another bank failure on IOM!!!!!

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 04/08/2009 - 19:44

"An unprecedented run of withdrawals on retail deposits in the Isle Of Man, due largely to the success of an online campaign by angry KSFIOM depositors, has claimed another bank victim on the island leaving the much trumpeted Depositors Compensation Scheme in tatters (writes DCS-reliant depositor)".

OK, it hasn't happened. Yet.

But what if?

We all should know that the fund available for the DCS is for any bank failure between now and October, in fact such a concern that another bank may fail once the DCS was activated was laughed off during the SOA-debate, but here we are depositors actually prepared to force their cause by actively promoting actions that may lead to it.

Isn't this the logical conclusion from a successful "Don't Bank On the IOM" message?

Is this what everybody wants?

2.608695
Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (23 votes)

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

Another IOM bank going belly up is EXACTLY WHAT DAG NEEDS

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 16:21

Playing Devil's advocate....

I think you are looking at this from an IOM point of view. Subconciously you are assuming depositors want IOM to retain it's independence. The reality is we (non IOM depositors) couldn't care less, in fact if IOM want to keep their independence then losing it would at least be some revenge for us.

IOM was asked a very clear question in the Treasury Select Commitee along the lines do you need help? IOMG bowed their heads and shuffled their feet and mumbled no, we don't need any help.

Another bank going belly up on IOM is EXACTLY WHAT DAG NEEDS RIGHT NOW. There is NO WAY IOM coud cope. It would force HMG to do what they have wanted to do all along i.e. take responsibility for (and thereby control of) IOM's banking system.

If what youtubers are doing is likely to bring down another IOM bank (which unfortuantely it probably hasn't a snow flake's chance of hell in doing) then we should redouble our efforts. Maybe we should pick a particulary flaky looking bank and target it specifically. Frankly we'd be spoiled for choice.

The gloves are off. IOM could solve this overnight, they choose not to.

Maybe you could post a youtube video appealing to IOMG to see sense.


margaretta

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 23:18

I am not looking at this from an "IOM point of view". I'm looking at it from a depositors point of view.

A bank going "belly up" in the IOM "is exactly what DAG needs now" and this will result in HMG taking over the IOM banking system?

Are you serious?


Deadly

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 06:19

Am I serious?

Deadly.

By the look of the TSC the IOM were very lucky to get away with offering 50k. If they were put in a position of saying oops we've had to recalculate I find it difficult to believe they would be allowed.


Good point

  • Bromley86
  • 27/05/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 08:29

Bear in mind that I've not been following the IoM situation, so I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that a spin off to this point is that devaluing the Isle of Man brand devalues the KSFIOM loan book. That affects those with substantial sums at stake.

So vengence and wanting to do the right thing aside, what benefit is there for any depositor to attack the IoM? Would a Panorama program help squeeze more money out of the IoM government or help the liquidators realise more value?


Not so

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 23:40

The loan book is going to be run down in liquidation .

So it will make no absolutely no difference to its value at all if the entire Island disappears.

( Unless its invested in land in the IOM)


Get it in perspective?

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 10:36

The idea of the videos etc. is not to rubbish the IOM so much as to make people aware of what has happened. Sure, some people will be cautious and remove their money but I think most retail depositors who have the option have already done that.

I don't believe our campaign is going to cause a run on a bank nor cause a bank to fail, the idea is for IOM and HMG to be made aware that we're not going to shut up and put up. Who knows if we work hard enough they may decide that it's a good idea to get us paid off quickly. Even the promise of the DCS to come has shut up the majority of smaller depositors so it really isn't that difficult to shut us up is it.


Lorraine

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 13:09

I thought the idea of creating videos saying "Don't bank on the Isle Of Man, it can seriously damage your wealth" were made precisely to rubbish the Isle Of Man by deliberately telling people to either take their money out of IOM banks or not place it there in the first place?

If not, I do not know what your aim is or why depositors make them.

And how do you qualify your assertion that you "think most retail depositors who have the option (to withdraw their money) have already done that"? What do you base this "fact" on?

I have difficulty understanding the logic behind all this. You may not believe your campaign will cause a run on a bank, but to get to the point, why couldn't it?

People in general are still very jittery with regards to banking and if you do not intend the outcome of your actions to panic IOM authorities into paying you out to "shut you up", I'm not sure why they would unless they felt not doing so would have dire consequences on their economy? It doesn't make any sense to me.

This by the way is not about "doing nothing" or "doing something is better than nothing", this is about, "what do you want to achieve and have you considered the side affects"?


Chris

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 13:22

I used the word 'think' because i was referring to information provided by friends in the international banking sector only. Certainly everyone I know with funds in the IOM have removed them. I don't think I said it was a fact.

I have my opinion and you have yours but I'd rather spend my time acting on mine not wasting time posting messages, so end of.


lorraine

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 14:08

...unless it's posting messages on YouTube :)


Are you trying to scare people?

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 01:23

Chris,

the bottom line is that KSFIOM went belly up because the directors and the IOM regularoty authorities between them managed to put 50% of the bank's funds in one, unsecured place. Whether that was stupid or criminal has been discussed elsewhere. But there's no avoiding that:

Derbyshire depositors weren't told about the huge increase in risk when the branch was sold to Kaupthing
The bank was allowed to advertise a non-existent guarantee.

So far i have seen no evidence that the IOM goverment has done anything to address the regulatory failure in this case, or anything to ensure that the same thing won't happen to another bank.

Until I see some real evidence that the IOM Government is prepared to admit that something went horribly wrong within it's jurisdiction, find out where the failure was, hold those to account responsible, make reparation to those who have suffered and put legislation in place to make sure that this never happens again, I am going to tell all my friends exactly what happened to my money. Then they can decide for themselves where to put theirs.

I don't want anyone else to go through the same as those on this site have been through, and will be going through for years to come. What is your problem with this? Why aren't you lobbying your government to clean up it's act, instead of asking us to be quiet?


brokefirefly

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 07:36

Your rhetoric has not addressed my point yet has assumed I am from or live on the Isle Of Man (which I am not and do not)!

To answer your question, my problem is that if there is another bank failure between now and October on the IOM, and this failure is a direct or indirect result of a campaign from DAG members, those of us reliant on the DCS (i.e. not those with substantial sums at stake) will have the money available from DCS diluted by the other bank's failure as the money available is not ring-fenced, and this will "thanks" to other depositors efforts. It's fairly obvious who is trying to scare people into not "banking on the Isle Of Man".

This scenario after all was one of the main contentions during the SOA-debate (the SOA was ring-fenced), yet depositors seem to be happy to risk this event by encouraging others to remove their money from the island. It's fairly straightforward what my problem is.


@CW

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 15:19

OK, so you think that the youtube videos could cause another bank to fail? I couldn't disagree more. But, I do think that continued failure to regulate the banks on the IOM COULD EASILY cause another bank on the IOM to fail.

In my opinion the youtube videos won't make any difference to the DCS, but they might embarass the IOM goverment to a) improve it's regulation of the financial sector on the island, and b) do something for the people who are not covered by the DCS, many of whom are the ones experiencing most hardship. How would YOU feel if your entire pension fund had been in KSFIOM?

So we'll just have to disagree on this.


brokefirefly...thumper video

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 09:02

just seen this video on you tube, my god its a work of art it really is, can this not become our mascot or something...


Make sure you leave a comment

  • investor01
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 13:38

Hi hippychickrobbed

Thumper is glad that you appreciate his efforts and he has asked me to remind you that if you haven't done so already, to leave a comment on Youtube as Conned has been asking us to do.

Rgds


The IoMG are between a rock

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 14:06

The IoMG are between a rock and hard place and its a question of measuring probabilities. The IoMG has already claimed that their DCS will see all protected former depositors receive their deposits in full by the end of September - they will not renege on that declaration without losing credibility completely. If DAG is already upping the ante against the IoMG, imagine the furore if it did not fulfill its promises at this stage - after making depositors wait 11 months for the first (and final?) DCS payment - that will never do.

DAG and the Manx Herald amongst others, has long proclaimed that the IoM DCS isn't worth the paper it's written on (much like our parental guarantee!) therefore IoMG will fulfill this promise so as to prove DAG and other doubters wrong. Allan Bell has already stated that alternative documentation will be put in place to retain the £50K compensation scheme after October 09 - another 'must-do' to maintain what little credibility remains with this 'Government'.

If the worst were to happen, IoMT still have enough money in the coffers to fund another similar-sized DCS payout and because there are substantial assets within KSFIoM, the IoMT will recover quite a chunk from the first dividend. One would think though, that the FSC will be watching the situation with avid interest and will not endorse any dodgy money movements considered by cretinous company directors.


IceCrusher

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 14:25

I agree it is all about measuring possibilities and also understand your reasoning.

I just hope, for all our sakes, you are correct...


Why for all our sakes?: CW.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 04:29

Nothing has worked so far, and I have gained exactly nothing except losses from the actions of the IoM Government since last October, in fact I consider I've lost. And as for before last October well........
As far as I can see what might happen on the IoM, even if it's a tsunami, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned therefore I don't give a damn.
Therefore you're a little inaccurate there Chris!

You and your probabilities. Been wrong so far.

Another bank won't fall. So stop being so frightened you don't think straight. Or are you thinking that they might rollover for you and give you your 'interest' if they find they are suddenly 'in the money'?

Camp followers don't win. Your analysis has the appearance of being more mature but it isn't really. Who knows if anything would have made a difference. The only thing left is pointing up the totally compromised position of the directors of the bank, the compromised idiocy of the FSC, and the disgustingly self-serving behaviour of the IoMG. And if this might impact on the IoM I personally would be absolutely delighted.

You rabbit on about the innocence of the IoM taxpayer, but you conveniently overlook the overlap between the taxpayers and workers in the financial industry. I have stated repeatedly that the industry ought to be made to pay, that's if the truth is as the IoMG presents it that the directors and the FSC didn't act stupidly (sic) (but in fact self servingly and hence negligently).

I have also said repeatedly that the aspects of the financial system that led us to this debacle were a scam, and a scam underwritten by the IoMG etc. They've put the lid back on. And you seem to be helping them. Your comments are practically worth even less than this one. The system stinks Chris, but I'm not rolling over in front of it.


"For all our sakes"? I wrote

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 08:10

"For all our sakes"? I wrote this because I think Bromley made an interesting observation: "it seems to me that a spin off to this point is that devaluing the Isle of Man brand devalues the KSFIOM loan book. That affects those with substantial sums at stake".

So, you couldn't care less if a tsunami hit the IOM? How nice.


More and more desperate: CW.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 03:45

First: Devaluaing the IoM brand will not impact at all on the loan book. It doesn't work that way
Secondly: Who exactly are you to talk about "niceness"? I have not noticed anything about niceness in your criticism of my position until this point. As for you, what is nice about selfishness?
Thirdly. I offer you an olive branch, the offer has a short expriry date. IF you want to talk to me mail me. Otherwise I'm going to sit on you until you're dead.

regards
Tao


follow_the_tao death threats

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 08:40

I think your threat of death is highly inappropriate.

I'm out of here. Good luck.


What a loss Chris! Ciao.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 09:20

Heard of a poetic licence? I don't want a reply from you.


Tao, You really are a fucking

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 10:30

Tao,

You really are a fucking idiot.

I really hope that depositors get 100% return of their money but in your case I make an exception. You spend hours on this forum making posts that either abuse or threaten other posters or are just a stream of unrelated words that just do not make sense. You either swallowed a dictionary or abused too many mind altering substances in an earlier life. Nice to know that with even your self opinionated view of your self you still have to resort to death threats when you have been intelectually challenged by someone else.

Perhaps you really aren't as clever as you think your are.


Objectionable language

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 08/08/2009 - 19:45

Please temper your objectionable language. This is a public site.
I agree with you that this bickering and nit picking must stop, Tao is not the only culprit!


Great suggestion CW - let's

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 04:40

Great suggestion CW - let's all sit around and do nothing!!


Done LIke A Kipper

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 07:28

Hello Kips. What do you mean? Where have I suggested we sit and do nothing? Oops, forgot you don't reply to questions.


Yet another pathetic and snide comment CW.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 06:46

You should have been banned back in February.
I can only post this because you 'broke the rules' then and you got aware with it. You set a precedent.
Free speech. OK
But that degree of freedom was granted to you in the belief that you might finally contribute something useful, and in recognisance that stupid opinions would be identified as such in the longer run.
What was missed was in the analysis was that stupid opinions waste so much time - the cost of democracy and free speech.
But be aware that it doesn't appear to matter now, and your constantly cheap jibes belong on Manxforum with the Manxes. And they, I'm told, (but I've been there as well !!) love apologists.
Have you done a cost/benefit analysis on your possible return by continuing?

Quality blogs have rules, rubbish blogs like Manxforum are crude by comparison. You would not have been allowed to continue in a quality blog, the argument would have destroyed you, you would have been slapped down for recognised breaches of blog etiquette. You take advantage. Why? Well I suggested a reason the other day.

I suggest you take this moment to reflect on how to behave like an adult.


follow the tao

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 07:57

It is a "fact" that Kips is stating I said we should "do nothing".

It is a "fact" that I did not state this.

It is a "fact" Kips does not reply to my questions.


It is a fact that your

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 08:43

It is a fact that your comments become evermore child like

It is a fact that you seemingly get off on causing controversy!

It is a fact that 'kips' is utterly bored with you


deleted

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 07:43

deleted


DO NOTHING?? DO NOTHING.??

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 06:34

A great number of members could teach doing nothing as an art form.


conned

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 07:37

Where exactly has this "do nothing" come from. With respect, Conned, why not answer the original post rather than insult others? And I am not a "yellow" from the IOM, another needless insult you often make towards her residents.


DO NOTHING?? DO NOTHING.?? new

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 06:37

Read my comments again, my suggestion wasnt "do nothing" we need to remember our objective was to achieve 100% recovery not destroy the IoM? 100% already a difficult goal becomes impossible surely in the event of a total collapse of the IoM and/or the DCS? This suggestion is about timing!


Great suggestion CW

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 06:31

There is some merit in his argument. Surely it makes sense for the Compensation scheme to actually deliver before any major offensive?


Bank worker posts on Jim's blog

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 07:21

Under the post 'Depositors have no quarrel with the people of the IoM' a bank worker has commented:

I work in the financial sector on the island which puts the butter on the bread for a lot of people. We are here to make money for the bank & for the IoM. If people have been let down as they have with Kaupthing its not surprising that they will tell others not to trust us. People are now dead suspicious of bankers & what is coming out of Iceland about Kaupthing there gives them every reason for not trusting them. The industry should do something now to get this Kaupthing mess sorted. Let the Kaupthing depositors have their money so we can restore confidence in the island as a place that can be trusted.

I rather agree with her/him! ( :

http://ksfiom-blog.blogspot.com


lucky Jim

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/08/2009 - 07:25

So do I, but this is rather off topic.


To Chris Watson

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 14:16

I am always confused as to which topic you are ever writing about or which planet you are on. I can't/don't read your posts anymore like the majority of us here. I hope you write relevant letters to the relevant MP's, Government Departments etc, which could help us all, and not just waste everyone’s time and your time and energy on these useless posts. Yes freedom of speech .... but sometimes I don't think your posts are even written in plain English. Go and rewrite the "Madhatter's Tea Party....or "Darling's Devilish Delight or "Manx Madness" for the Beano or something. I doubt that they'd publish it.


fight theft

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 22:01

I think you are getting me confused with follow_the_tao.


@ Chris watson

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 15:28

I dont understand why you are constantly undermining me on the manx forums?

What do you stand to gain?

We all know you want your 56.75 p interest back by now are you trying to get a whip around?


bellyuip

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 15:50

If correcting "facts" you make on that forum means you think I am undermining you, then so be it. However, I would hardly call it "constantly", and if it were to be it would only because you were "constantly" posting erroneous facts.

Personally, I always think arguments are stronger when the facts used are actually facts.

If you stuck to them, you might find people there more willing to understand your situation, or whatever it is you wish to achieve by posting there.

I'm not sure why you have not understood that by now.


Please please Chris, give

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 16:14

Please please Chris, give bellyup a break on the manxforums. He/she is doing a thankless job trying to put the depositors point of view across in a very nasty forum (I couldn't cope with it). If minor inaccuracies creep in from time to time, I'm sure there are plenty willing to point them out without your very disputable 'help', which IMO does all of us much more harm than good.

If you want to argue with bellyup's views and 'facts', please do it here - and not in a forum full of people only too ready to do us down. Bellyup has always said that the IoM residents/taxpayers are NOT our target, but most of those on this dreadful forum simply do not wish to listen (and I can only hope they are not typical of IoM residents). Sorry to say this, but your posts come over as pathetic. The problem is that our detractors over there are only too ready to use you against us. Can you really not see this? Is this really what you want? I can't make you out.


anrigaut

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 16:46

I'm not sure what to say. If my posts on there do not meet your standards, yet you are worried they will be used against "you", I don't understand what your concern is. Can you not see that Bellyup's approach has done nothing but harden attitudes against KSFIOM depositors?

I'd hope that my comments, which I try to keep as factual as I can, may contribute to IOM residents getting their government to do something. I do not believe IOM taxpayers should compensate those who exceeded the compensation limit, but some in DAG obviously do. I would say that Bellyup has not actually made his position clear on this issue. He detractors certainly think he asking the taxpayers to make him and everyone else 100% complete

And Bellyup is again being economical with the facts. I am not constantly undermining him, but it has been he/her who insults me by stating the fact I've had my money frozen for 9 months has not affected me or my family, when the truth is it has and quite significantly. I only confront bellyup when I am asked a question, insulted, or see a error in his posting. Same as on this forum. I respect bellyup for posting on there, unlike others on this forum who dare not to but are happy to insult me on here (hello tao), but I think he'd do all of us more good if he stuck to the facts and argued from there.


Facts

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 19:21

It is a very long time since I have posted on this site, and I told myself I would not respond to your postings, however ....................

You have been stating that you did not deposit over the limit and therefore your £50k or just under is covered by the DCS or even the SOA (why this is still commented on I have absolutely no idea - suggest you move on) - however on FACT is exceedingly clear - when you deposited your £40-50k the limit which you STATE you were within was in fact only £15K. So when you try and clear up other peoples minor errors please ensure you are clean of the same error.

Thats it no more


Tricky Dicky

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 06/08/2009 - 21:36

I have always represented myself as someone who deposited over the 15K limit. How else would you know about it if I hadn't? The difference between myself and others in this regard is that I did not deposit massively over this 15K limit, and that the amount I did deposit is within the compensation limit which matters.

The fact IOMG raised the compensation limit, as well as providing the EPS, probably goes some way to explain why I do not share the hatred many here seem to have for them. I am an example of a Joe Doe using a bank as a place to keep my money for day-to-day expenditure, rather than a depositor who can be portrayed as "hiding their riches away in an island so as to avoid tax", as so many of DAG's critics will have the world believe we all are.

I believe it is relevant that IOM residents realize that the majority of depositors are in a similar position to myself, yet we still feel the IOMG owes depositors a duty of care to those depositors who have not been fully recompensed and that their government should do something about it. I do not think the IOM taxpayer should pay the bill or agree with insulting them.

The reason the SOA has been brought up again is because a fundamental reason given for voting for it was that the money made available to it would be ring-fenced just for KSFIOM, yet the DCS isn't. If depositors now want to take action that may dilute the DCS fund on which I am reliant, I will ask what do they think they are doing?

Bellyup also decided to bring the SOA discussion here from manxforums.com (see his post below).

Hope I have answered your questions and that this is all clear.


ONSIDE

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/08/2009 - 07:59

I hope that the commentators here do not mind me interjecting, but I would just like to say that CW's explanation above seems quite reasonable; but alluding to the rabbit video, Disney's Thumper says: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say nuthin' at all." We might also consider that in the cause of all depositors getting as much back as possible that it would be better to avoid posting anything contrary to that aim. Although we could say that we don't hold the man in the street liable for our loss, we must strongly and steadfastly hold to our own perspective that we are not liable either. "He who claims to see both sides of the arguments can be generally said to see nothing at all." Which simply means fight your own corner first.

The fact is that there are many of our number who physically have no time to wait for their life-long savings to be returned to them. On the other hand, Governments can always find money - even if they have to borrow and pay back over many years. The public purse can sustain a long drawn-out repayment; a few planned expenditures may go on hold for a while, but generally the public doesn't really feel undue pain at the strain put on the public kitty because of the long time-frame involved.

Even better than this would be for Joe Public IoM, to bring pressure on its Government to demand without reservation that HMG commands that this money be returned to the IoM's jurisdiction as the latter was an uninformed, non-participant in the UK's action against Iceland. It should be self-evident to any casual observer that HMG used other people's savings to secure money in its own jurisdiction for it's own benefit and such reprehensible behaviour demands those appropriated monies be returned. It would seem beneficial for both islanders and creditors to be united in this endeavour.


That has to be right

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/08/2009 - 11:47

Gordon Brown has already complained it was wrong for US to receive Lehman money that might otherwise be in UK.
The hypocrite then steals our savings to prop up his bail-outs to save his political neck.
Brown and Bell need to be seen to act for us.


Rubbish

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/08/2009 - 11:07

The money is still in the London Branch, nobody stole it. The problem is that its been to lent to dodgy people and has little chance of being fully repaid,


HMG has come out badly in all this

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/08/2009 - 11:34

HMG has come out badly in all this.

A labour government has destroyed hard working people ( whilst unbelievably allowing MPS to rip the same people off for millions )

Both main parties are as bad as each other.

They have ruined the country along with us.


HMG Bad..

  • ItsTheft
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 10/08/2009 - 11:41

Yep. I believe it is HMG who are primarily to blame. I am very uncomfortable at all the IoM bashing while we leave HMG getting away scot free. The amount of correspondance they get from us remain very low. Is hitting IoM just bashing the easy target because there is never any reaction from HMG?


Good to remind people of this...

  • investor01
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/08/2009 - 18:31

This seems to have slipped away and is something I wrote to a number of MPs about (but received no replies of course). The similarities between this and our case - in that another government seized UK citizens' monies - is uncanny. Gordon Brown tried crawling around the US to try to get the Lehman money back but felt no such compulsion to help us. I suppose it is also strange that the IoM felt no compulsion to emulate Gordon Brown and make a visit to the UK to ask for their money back. I guess the UK simpers around the US and it's a similar story with the UK and IoM relationship.


Typical quote from manxforums

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/08/2009 - 09:46

QUOTE (bellyup @ Aug 7 2009, 01:04 AM)
"Guys why dont you do what every other jurisdiction in the world has done fully supported their depositors and thereby vouchsafing your Islands reputation as a secure and safe banking and financial centre?"

QUOTE (When Skies Are Grey @ Today, 09:17 AM
"Because as the poster child for the depositors on here you make it very difficult for us to give a shit!

PS W00t I just started the 97th page!"

My belief is that if one does want to work with IOM residents to put pressure on their own government, it's best to get facts right first.

For e.g. comparing IOM to "every other jurisdiction in the world" is like comparing apples to oranges. A more realistic, but less convenient comparison is to compare IOM with the other crown dependencies (Channel Islands) who have not offered any compensation or fully supported their depositors, in fact they have done less than the IOM as no EPS or DCS was offered. OK, so the bank went into liquidation quicker in the CI's, but this is not the point Bellyup is making.

Personally I think DST should have a strategy and produce guidelines for how to argue DAG's case with islanders, because at the moment any sympathy on that forum there may have been has almost evaporated entirely. At the very least I am trying to keep some credibility for the cause and this is why I post there.