Charity should be compensated by Government for cash lost in KSF, says Lib Dem

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:06

Not sure how many of you will have seen the entry made earlier in which Mark Oaten a LibDem MP has gained some PR for a charity, it might be worth us all reminding Mr Oaten that there are numerous other deserving causes caught up in this mess, his email address is oatenm(?)parliament [dot] uk. For reference my contribution is copied below:

Mr Oaten,

I have heard today of your commendable efforts on behalf of Naomi House and other charities caught up in this disaster. Without for a second challenging the worthiness of your actions which I wholly support, nevertheless I would urge a consolidated approach to also represent the losses of tens of thousands of UK citizens like my wife and I who have lost the entire proceeds from our house sale and now see our retirement plans originally planned for 2010 destroyed. The fact that our links were via an Insurance Company Bond (Norwich Union), means that we do not even benefit from the Island’s compensation scheme.

In my view HMG acted with indecent haste in invoking anti-terrorism laws in Iceland which brought down KSFIOM, despite the Brown/Darling assurances of “having saved the world etc” and no British depositor has lost out etc ......... my wife and I are two very innocent exceptions to this rule and surely support for all UK investors charities and private individuals are equally deserving of your support.

I have asked for help from my MP Dr Liam Fox, although easily the most pro-active support to our group has a whole has come from an organisation of which I previously had no knowledge, the Senior Citizens party – I urge you to take a look at their website which is www.seniorcitizensparty.org.uk this entire affair has been nothing short of shambolic, and across all parties I believe this pitiful government should be embarrassed and our affairs put back in order. In governmental terms the sums are tiny I suspect but to each and one of us devastation is certainly not too strong a phrase!

I look forward to hearing your views in due course.

(Copy to Ione Douglas for Dr Liam Fox)

0
Your rating: None

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

Mark Oaten reply

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 18:16

First and only reply I have ever had!

from OATEN, Mark

XXXXX,

Thanks for the email. I am determined to try and push the cause of Naomi House but I have also met the lobby group for British nationals with money lost overseas. Following that meeting I have raised a number of parliamentary questions (some still due for answer in the next week or so) and have been well briefed on the subject. I think I and other mps will continue to raise the matter where we can in parliament.

I hope it will lead to something.

mark


Looks like I got the same email too!

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 09:35

Hi this is the reply I received form Mr Mark Oaten - very similar wording!

Thanks for the email. I am determined to try and push the cause of Naomi House but I have also met the lobby group for British nationals with money lost overseas. Following that meeting I have raised a number of parliamentary questions (some still due for answer in the next week or so) and have been well briefed on the subject. I think I and other mps will continue to raise the matter where we can in parliament.

I hope it will lead to something.

mark


HMG applied the "terrorism" law against Landsbanki

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 19:56

Not KSFUK. KSFUF was seized under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, on the advice of the FSA as it was deemed to be insolvent.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_102_08.htm


Interested in the insolvency of KSFUK

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 09:03

Hi dawes,

Can you explain to me about the banking laws if possible? If Brown and Darling moved all the money, from KSFUK, including the money which was put there from KSFIOM, into ING Direct to protect mainland savers, what right do they have to make a bank insolvent if it previously had operating capital? Isn't this a bit draconian? Is it the decision of Brown or the bank's directors to do this? Would be very interested to know what banking laws allow this without protection to all contributors and depositors. Presumably KSFIOM was a depositor with KSFUK?


Glen07, Brown & Darling did

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 09:15

Glen07,

Brown & Darling did not move any money from KSFUK to ING Direct it is still there but under the control of the Administrator. They paid ING Direct, from Tax payer money, the equivalent of what individual depositors held in KSFUK and then replaced them as a single creditor to KSFUK.

The reason that KSFUK was put into Administration is that depositors were rushing to withdraw their money and the bank ran out of liquidity. (Much the same as Northern Rock previously). Fuel was also poured on the fire by Mr Darling's unhelpful comments about how Iceland had said it was not going to support depositors in its banks, although there is still much discussion as to whether Iceland did in fact say/mean this.


Who runs the banks - the directors or parlimentarians?

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 14:23

Hi expatfrance 1,

Thanks for such a quick reply and am glad that everyone seems to be keeping an eye on all the new posts. I am grateful because as time goes by and more info hits the forums and blogs I seem to be getting further and further bogged down in info and getting increasingly confused with what I've learnt or heard before. Guess after Christmas my brain needs to get back to speed!

Surely if G Brown and Darling decided to pay ING Direct with tax payer money that's up to them. If the money is still with KSFUK - it's still liquid. I didn't know that outside influences could decide to move depositors money into another account, without their say so and close up a bank because it suspects foul play by a parent company or sector of a bank. Presumably this is where the anti-terrorist laws came into play? Is there a precedent for this behaviour in the past and can it be challenged legally?

I'm sorry if I come across as a dunce in banking matters but I'm afraid that's about the sum of it, I'm afraid although learning more and more each day!

Regards to you


KSFUK & ING

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 12:11

It's also worth mentioning again that KSFUK was put into administration, and the ING transfer ordered, a mere 2 hrs 5 min after the Landsbanki freezing order was issued, both actions having been initiated even before the orders were put before parliament. Who can say that this was not pre-meditated and pre-planned ?
I have yet to hear when it was that HMG first started talking to ING about the transfer of Edge accounts to ING.


Who put FSFUK into administration?

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 14:15

Hi mikeinfrance and sorry if I missed all the necessary info about the FSFUk into administration and ING transfer ordered 2hrs 5 min after the Landsbanki freezing order was issued. Who initiated these before the orders were put before parliament? We all know how long HMG takes to respond to our emails - where have they learned to move in such swift timescales?


glen 07.. timeline

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 16:57

Hi glen07,
I see expat has answered your question below. See also the timeline for more info:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/members-page/main-events

I also wonder why HMG chose a Dutch bank ING, rather than a british bank to transfer the Edge acounts to.


Immediate mistake

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:29

"Dutch and British Governments block IMF loan to Iceland"

Is dated as 7/10/2008. The linked article (and the IMF loan) was dated 7/11/2008.

Also, the claim that (7/10/2008) Iceland would pay Icesave compensation is not contradicted by the transcript. Quite the opposite and it was proven by their refusal to compensate the Icesavers and the repeated government assertions that compensation would be limited to domestic savers, only until forced to by the EU.


How about so they involved

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:06

How about so they involved another EU nation in their action against Iceland therefore giving it, they think, a little political/legal credibility mikinfrance?? Or maybe they knew the UK was bust!!


PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS SITE NOW

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:03

This has already been posted on the Forum and I just commented on this site, please this is a good blog site to put your questions to Alistair Darling on SKY NEWS, Jeff Randall blog

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Jeff-Randall-Live-Interviews-A...


glen07, that is the magic

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 14:45

glen07, that is the magic question!

The issue is was this a pre-meditated act? Did the UK Treasury/HMG/FSA know full well that as soon as they made public the Landbanski order and made comments about Iceland assets, that the next and frankly obvious domino to fall would be KSF. Was that the intention?

By moving the Edge accounts at all I have be advised they technically put KSF UK into default. Why didn't the Bank of England as the lender of last resort assist is another question. They were approached I am told and refused, why? Its obvious from all the numbers we've ever found that the bank was very liquid. So why move Edge and why no lender of last resort assistance for a UK registered bank?

Why did HMG give themselves power of KSFIoM assets/cash in UK? How well planned was that. Why did John Aspden of the IoMs FSC the FSA were in consultation about where the money was place, and why did Turner at the TSC deny that? Why wasn't the KSF IoM assets/cash protected if both FSC and FSA were well aware of its existance?

These and many other issues is what we are trying to answer, given that HMG won't oblige us with any answers!


They did exactly the same with The B&B

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:50

Maybe you can find the reasoning behind handing over the B&B depositors to Santander and whether they simply did the best job possible in the situation. I.e. found a one of the few remaining liquid banks who would take over the liabilities.

As for the timing/planning, it was know that the Icelandic banking system nearly failed in 2006, Icesave was set up to save Landisbank, the banks had no central bank backing or a depositor protection scheme with sufficient funding. Due to the EEA agreements EU banks could not refuse to allow the Icelandic banks to operated (the Dutch were not keen, apparently). HMG were monitoring Icelandic banks all through 2008 and meeting with them to discuss the issues.

The moment the first bank was nationalised and the CDS spreads killed any possibility of Icelandic banks raising money market funds for their upcoming multi-billion debt repayments, then entire Icelandic Banking system was doomed.

So HMG had a week to ten days to prepare for the inevitable crash. They also monitored the run on the Icelandic banks over the weekend of the 4-5th of October (when the Times,for instance, announced the collapse of Iceland's banks on 5th October). http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_...

Basically HMG had well over a week's warning, plus the obvious fact that they are required to have all the paperwork ready as part of their contingency planning - its a legal requirement of banks, Governments and business to pre-plan for disasters. I should know, I provide systems for companies to do exactly that.


Aha - thanks expat

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 15:08

Hi expat

Got ya about what happened. However, I still don't understand. Can the FSC/HMG overrule the directors of a bank and just move accounts to secure against a run on a bank? I completely understand that there's something pre-meditated or certainly very unhelpful in the way it played out as far as investors in the KSFIOM was concerned. Why was the Bank of England unwilling to assist? Because it was in a crown dependency? Because we're supposed "tax dodgers" ( boy that gets my goat!)? Any contacts there willing to share the truth?


Yes they can as it happens.

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 15:23

Yes they can as it happens. Why didn't B o B assist, well that's a loaded question and has nothing to do with IoM as far as I can see. Must be careful what I say here or ng is going to moderate me!!! Political perhaps??

The tax dodger issue has always hacked me off, there's a bit on the BBC somewhere where I suggested Darling was bordering on slander! Mind you it might n=be true today as I am a bit skint now!!

The silence glen07 is deafening!!!


I've gone deaf too - quite literally

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 15:36

Always amazing in this day and age of communication, SMS, emails that the world is overflowing with the sounds of communication and the exchange of information and yet this subject seems to have found stoney silence. As I'm just recovering from flu and am actually deaf as a post in both ears - then getting quite used to it.......


Yes and I wonder why?? Not

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 15:42

Yes and I wonder why?? Not your hearing I mean! I often why no matter how hard we try to get the media to look at this all they want is stories about....well your lack of hearing and stuff like that! Bleeding heart stories. I wonder why that is??

I noticed that at least three of us tried to comment on a Sunday Times article today, not one was published! I wonder why??

Not sure if I have deafness these days, the wife hasn't spoken to me in months! That's so rare I treasure it!!
Ouch, sorry Lil!!


I think I know why..

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:59

I suspect its because the whole banking system depends on trust. There isn't any money in it, they simply lend money out of thin air, based on your asset (i.e. on a mortgage).
The precarious smoke a mirrors act is totally unfounded if, as Iceland did, its abused and they refused to bank the banks as the lender of last resort.

If people simply withdraw their saving - which don't exist as cash - then the entire banking system will be exposed and the charade that it is. Having this exposed and discussed in detail will make what little confidence there is in banking vanish completely.

The Gangsters in Iceland seem quite happy to screw the entire worlds banking system, but I doubt the UK media want to do it.


hello dawes

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 12:18

I thought I’d follow up a couple of points with you, are will informed and accurate about all this, a touch hard on some perhaps, but accurate!

Firstly the issue of press coverage, I am not sure that I can agree with your assessment of that, there have been in fact a number of articles about trust in the banking system and the way it operates. The broadsheets in particular, have discussed those issues. I will stand corrected, but I think both Kaletsky and Hutton have discussed it, I’m sure others have as well. Far be it from me to suggest a conspiracy of silence in our case but…….

However, what interests me more is your point about pre-planning and contingency plans. Absolutely agree with you on that. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this was NOT done in detail. There was ample time I would suggest, from the spring at least to run risk assessments on the banks. I do not find it plausible that the regulators did not look at a variety of scenarios and project the consequences of each one. Self evidently (and I’ve been around enough project planning and document production to know timescales) it took months to produce the Landbanski order alone, I read it some time ago, it wasn’t put together overnight!

If you look at the statements by Brown and Darling about Icelandic assets prior to the weekend of the 5th October, I would suggest they were considered and had purpose. The Landbanski order does not mention KSF or any other bank, technically the UK seems to have had no problem there, they had I do not doubt, run projections for months about acts and consequences and knew their targets. I suggest they wanted to bring the entire Icelandic financial edifice to its knees. To create a bank run wasn’t difficult, you just say the words as Brown and Darling did to all that would listen. Is it not the case that by moving Edge to ING for whatever reason, technically broke KSF, whether or not it was liquid? Once a run started as I have no doubt was predicted they had their moment with KSF and others. And again I would ask why didn’t the Bank of England intervene with a loan? No other bank was allowed to go to the wall and all had far more precarious positions it seems than KSF did.

Let me be clear I do not specifically believe that there was not smoke in Iceland, your comparison with my beloved Russia, the one we want to leave so badly, is apt I suggest. If, however, there was a case against KSF why wasn’t it in the Landbanski Order or one like it? Is it not feasible that the UK Treasury were well aware that a few well placed remarks would cause the bank run they needed to get at the KSF assets, IoM included? After all The PM had made it clear that ALL Icelandic assets were being sought.

Now lets go back to pre-planning over months, again I find it totally implausible that there was no contact or discussion between the UK and IoM regulators, that really doesn’t bear scrutiny in my view. What is interesting is who said what. I find it difficult to believe that the IoM agreed to a major slice of KSF IoM assets being unprotected in the UK. Certainly the impression given by John Aspden (FSC IoM) and others is that it was protected in some way. Lets face it there is about $20m of KSF “staff/employees” money in this, IoM is a small place, can’t quite see them throwing all that away myself.

My information is that the regulators were ‘crawling all over’ KSF in UK and Douglas for weeks prior to the fateful day. Again I find it difficult, though possible, that the FSC IoM did not take care to protect the IoM deposits. That may be the case, but if so why? Did they believe all was well anyway with the IoM money? Were they led up a garden path by the FSA in UK. Again I find it implausible that there was anything other than detailed contact between the regulators, and the shock on the IoM over all of this was palpable I can assure you.

It’s an intrigue isn’t it?? I wonder what your thoughts are on my conjecture? I wonder if what they want to see is the IoM take out a bloody great loan from the IMF to cover the depositors 100% and this was a convenient way to bring the IoM to heel, just a consequence of another action, one that seems to have played well in Downing St.


Its imposible to know...

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 13:19

Maybe the UK wanted to take out the offshore system, however HMG has strenuously protected off shore banking from the EU in the past. I seem to remember it vetoed the EU. Your theories maybe right, but like mine they can only be informed guesses.

Maybe there was a desire to get the off-shore to setup fully funded depositor protection schemes instead of living off the mainland banks coat tails.

Why should HMG have to bailout or take flak for the failings of the off-shore industry that has got rich from the mainland populations while having commercial advantages un-available to the mainand banks?

Iceland took the offshore banking principle and exploited it to the detriment of the EU banks, they had no reserves, no depositors protection (that they had any intention of backing) and were leveraged to the max (to the extend of selling 1/3 of each banks shares to each other and many other share prices ramping mechanisms).

Iceland plan was for the EU to bail out their banks "because they are too big to fail". However, the UK were only ever going to bail out the top 10-15 most important institutions when its came down to it (those listed as eligible for the Government lending scheme at 12% interest). Any other bank, NR, B&B, KSF would simply be destroyed and the depositors protected.

KSFIOM was collateral, but the FSA did the best thing by moving the deposits to the UK and allow the receiver to recover from the UK assets - better that recovering 2% from Iceland as other creditors are doing. I can't see what else HMG could have done, bailing out off-shore or foreign banks would be an impossible can of worms.


dawes good afternoon, with

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 13:35

dawes good afternoon, with great respect you're doing the same as every government letter we've all received, avid the central issue sir. That as you say yourself "KSF IoM was collateral", that in a nutshell is what this about. the question is why was it involved? Whether I am right or wrong, as you say all any of us can do is guess, deduct from what we know or think we know, the issue is was wasn't the IoM money secured as it was obvious if a risk analysis was do the cards would fall.

I have no problem with many of your points, none at all, I am asking and have always asked, why. Particularly ads I have spoken to people very close to this who this is was protected, or at least were under the impression it was. And watched ti two regulators UK and IoM contradict each other. Neither I nor anyone else is asking the uK for a bail out, we simply request that HMG act as they can and release the IoM assets/money they have used the law to hold in administration. Nothing I am saying is letting Iceland off the hook, or the FSC, or probably even the Director,s who all have a Duty of Care, by the way. This is simply about lets be nice and say a comedy of errors, because if it wasn't is was a devious act. I submit the Darlings performance at the TSC, as well as Lord Bach, makes this all look just a little dubious to me and obviously a few others.

Anyway thanks for the response, much appreciated. We all have much to consider in this I am sure. Have a good day. PLease keep showing interest in the subject and many peoples plights.


Well, I don't know why KSF IoM was involved

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 16:48

Except, the deposits were of no use to in the IoM and had to be used as part of the capital of the Bank on the mainland or in Iceland. Its was KSF's 'commercial decision' (to quote the HMG) to lodge it in the UK.

As far as I understand it, the KSFIOM £550m isn't 'depositors funds', its a loan(or whatever the term is) between two commercial entities, one of which is in receivership. Depositors funds are treated differently, obviously.

HMG can not just go in and start stripping assets and sending them to the IoM, in the same way they can't steal assets. It has to go through due process with the reciever.


Howl to the moon

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 15:00

Sometimes I just feel like howling to the moon it will probably have the same effect.

We know we are collateral but why the silence form HMG we are British Citizens and we have been robbed of our life savings but no one wants to know.


its not over yet..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 15:10

we wont give up on this, none of us will, no matter how hard it is, we keep at it. We keep campaigning,media intrest constantly, .WE WILL NOT GIVE UP..


imf loan to iom expat?

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 12:29

why cant the IOm take out a loan from the IMF to repay us, this nightmare would end for us.all. I see it that they do not want to stress about anything and when a crisis arise its hello mummy uk, well there isnt mummy uk to turn to is there?. We should have been protected, now is the time to put it to them to take out a loan to protect their deposiors. These banking offshore have to show responsibility . for the mees they have put us in.


is it 50 million or 50 billion to the uk stockmarket?

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 13:35

Which one of those amounts do the IOM send over to the city? also nationalisation what was that all about but never happened, my god are we sitting ducks ?it will be hard for us to sleep till Thursday.


Might I point out that the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 13:38

Might I point out that the nationalisation idea, just as the buy out co-operative idea before it, was a concept by depositors hippychick not the IoM. A good idea maybe, but one for debate only at this point. Gotta see the wood for the trees at times haven't we.


IoM loan IMF

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 12:46

IoM can't take a loan from IMF they are not an independent nation hence are not allowed to have a National dept, UK would have to act as intermediately and pass it over to IoM termed as something different.


Actually I was being

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 13:19

Actually I was being sarcastic, IoM cannot under their constitution do take an IoM loan. I am simply trying to stress what appears to be an added bonus for HMG during this action against Iceland.


it can be put to them..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 12:55

The Iom core team can put this to the IOMgovt about a loan they seem to adjust only when they feel like it, they just have to find a soloution like everyone else has in this global crisis. There is something in this whole situation that is just not right , do they think if we suffer these huge losses it wont affect them?. Its all beyond me if these insurance companies can go near them again with their little ifas, trying to sell the IOM package. If I knew about the sib bankruptcy that happened yrs ago i would of stayed away, .I just dont want us to go down that road where they think we will accept catastrophic losses because we just wont.


I think the banks themselves

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 18:40

I think the banks themselves are quite capable of screwing the worlds banking system without any help from anyone else!!


dawes, as it happens I can't

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 18:40

dawes, as it happens I can't disagree with much of what you say, particularly about the gangsters as it happens. Can't say the UK didn't have time to plan either, think I first spotted a problem on the weekend of the 5th Oct. at about 2 on a Saturday morning! I think that in essence we'd probably have very similar views on a lot of this, however, it is incumbent upon us to do all we can to find the flaws in this, or at least those of us with money at stake here!

As you can do doubt see there is and always has been confusion for many about what happened here and why. I would still, however, be looking at just how exposed KSF actually was and just how much the UK freezing order had an effect. Was there malfeance, we'd never prove it I am well aware of that, but it is a bit convenient how the dominoes tumbled I'd suggest. I'd also make the point that if it were so clear cut then neither Kaupting or Iceland would go to such lengths to go to court over this.

It is also a topic of some debate as to why the KSF IoM assets etc were not, as a number of people in places you'd expect knowledge, protected in some way. I'm being vague on that term for the sake of simplicity.

There are issues here, I'm sure you'd agree and whether I think taking action against Iceland was justified, something I have generally seen the sense in by the way, I am still at odds with what we might call the detail of that action, at least as it effects KSFIoM.

Just an opinion of course, its hardly likely that I'm going to roll over and play dead, with a "thanks Gordon for saving the Cat Charity and screwing my kids future", is it?? But you make good points dawes, keeps us thinking!!


Being battered

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 15:47

expat,

I know this situation has battered us but with a comment like that about your wife, you'll be black and blue, starving as well without.....certain priviledges. Don't make your life any harder than it already is. Does anyone have contacts in the newspaper world. I think I have a contact on The Mail which I am pursuing. Any luck with any of the expat periodicals or finacials. What about The Financial Times?
Remember to treat your wives well and concentrate your energies on sorting this mess out!


glen07 I am black and blue!!

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 16:20

glen07 I am black and blue!! She's Russian, one does learn!!!

I spent days with the FT months ago, I've tried it with the Mail on Sunday as well. So if you have a contact we can use lease pass them across and I'm sure we'll have another go.


Mr Oaten

  • maxsweep
  • 15/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 17:39

I have also sent an e-mail today along similar lines. I am also about to follow up with all the other MPs I have managed to write to and get responses from to ask them yet again to follow up with the Treasury for answers.


letter to Oaten

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 17:44

Have sent the following:
Dear Mr Oaten,

We are glad to hear that you have recognised the shameful treatment of Naomi House and other charities by HMG by freezing £550m funds held by KSF (UK) and refusung to release them to the IoM branch. This is nothing short of theft by HMG.

Please do not forget the other 8000 UK citizens who are tax payers but unable to open UK bank accounts as they are working abroad in export service industries (such as education) earning money for UK plc who also have deposits stolen from them. Many (including my wife and I) face losing our life savings and money saved by our parents and left to us for their grand children.

As Mr Cameron and the conservative party seem not to care a jot, the work of yourself and Vince cable will not go unnoticed and will be rewarded with well-deserved votes at the next general election.

The behavior of the government in this matter is totally immoral.

Please ensure hat in making your case you avoid being partial - all depositors are fast becoming a charity case !!!!

With best wishes,

Dr R and Mrs W S**********

Have received this reply within four hours - someone in politics who seems to be both efficient and moral. HMG could learn alot from Mark Oaten:
'I have meet the action group and asked questions in parliament and will continue to do what I can- I am very sorry you find yourself in this awful situation mark '


grapow, just to let you know

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 11:32

grapow, just to let you know I have also written in similar vein this morning. Thanks for the lead on this.


grapow - have followed up with email

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 15:30

Dear grapow,

Have just sent an email to Mr Oaten and hope other members send him an email so he can see how many of us are affected. Thanks for the lead.


Compensation for Charity info'

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 01:48

Thanks for this info', grapow. Devastation is certainly not too strong a phrase...