Constitutional and Financial Status of the Isle of Man

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 18/10/2008 - 13:40

Some things need explaining so as to get real. The Isle of Man Government as such has no legal existence although its departments do. Thus it cannot issue 100% unlimited guarantees. Where is the sovereign risk? Such guarantees would have no value. Government’s annual income is about £599 million most of it needed to run the Island with about £1.311 billion including various necessary operational and departmental budgetary reserve positions for on-going situations, contingency and currency funds etc. Google “The Pink Book” Isle of Man Government on the Net. KSF (IOM) Ltd owes £850 million against 10,000 investors. Isle of Man Government is a form of British Government but the Isle of Man is a distinct fiscal entity with internal autonomous administration devolved. The entire existence of the Finance Sector and Island administration is built on clear constitutional borders. They don’t directly finance us. We don’t directly finance them. This makes for different tax laws. We have two separate tax bases and neither side is represented in the other’s legislature. You cannot raise and spend taxes without elected representation. This is why the UK Chancellor cannot use UK taxpayers’ money to bail out an Isle of Man problem. If the Island were in the UK not an issue. For similar reasons the UK cannot nationalise banks on the Island without legislation from the Island’s parliament Tynwald. UK legislation enabled UK banks to come here but Tynwald had to legislate back to back. Only an Order in Council can force the issue over Tynwald’s head and by convention that is not done unless UK and Crown matters are at stake and Tynwald does not co-operate. Nationalising UK banks as has partly happened may enable some political influence over Island subsidiaries but most of them are very low share capital issue Isle of Man (Ltd) incorporations. The Depositors Compensation Scheme was not a hook. It was always openly advertised as being limited but in the context that other small jurisdictions had no Scheme at all. It was never a shield or a cure. No Government can protect investors from their own folly of putting multiples of funds within the aegis of a scheme proffering a minimal compensation, once about £15,000 now 100% of £50,000 but funded by the banks, and that openly stated as probably taking many years. The Island is not in the EU nor the European Economic Area (EEA) if it were then £16,000 compensation would have to be paid out within three months. There has been talk of borrowings to refinance KSF (IOM) Ltd investors but against what? The minimal tax base of Isle of Man working residents? This would not feed the cat! The Isle of Man Government is underpinned by UK Sovereign Risk as the UK holds sovereignty of the Island. However, as the UK elected MPs are not represented in Tynwald they have no say in the Island’s budget or Supply Vote. Therefore the UK insists that the Island has a balanced budget and does not run up anything looking like a National Debt. Isle of Man Government, not being sovereign and having no legal existence outside of the British, state cannot pledge UK Sovereign risk as a guarantee as the UK has no local political control over Island internal fiscal policy. In other words. Tynwald has no power to wield in this situation, the Island is too poor in comparison and certainly has never advertised nor promoted a fiduciary duty towards failed banks and their investors.

0
Your rating: None

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

People, can we stop wasting

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 14:15

People, can we stop wasting bandwidth please/ If you don't like what Barrie says, either don't read it or don't respond to it.

I'm getting slightly pi66ed going to "Recent Comments" and getting "Barrie Abuse/Banter" instead of something constructive. It's clogging the system for no good purpose.

Thanks.


it is a method

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 14:29

It is just a form of relaxation and probably therapeutic.


Fair call, I absolutely take

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 14:33

Fair call, I absolutely take your point, but I still wish it wasn't happening!

I had considered starting a new thread for "Humour in Adversity", but prevented myself for the same reason. As a smoker, and drinker of wine, I have my own solutions to stress .... ;-)

Ho-hum ... moving on.


Barrie, What are you trying to acheive?

  • JayC
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 01:11

I'm sorry, i think barrie is wasting peoples time and energy. If there is a problem banking in IOM then why are the banks there? Saying the UK has no influence over Tynwald is really a joke. IOM is a crown dependency, their international disputes and security are responsibility of UK. There is obviously influence. It doesn't have to be explicit to exist. The fact that the UK can freeze assents of IOM banks is a pretty powerful influencial position if you ask me.

I knew about the depositor scheme and i kept a small amount of money in KSFIOM. But nowhere in any of the account contracts did it suggest that the UK government could simply freeze the assets of this bank and cause it's collapse within 2 days. Had that been indicated even in the fine print i assue you i would never have looked at the island's banking options.

I don't see what's the point or problem of people banking in a "tax haven". If people shouldn't use a bank than close it and change the laws. Otherwise what's the problem for people of whatever country to put their money where they want it. We have to supply KSFIOM with plenty of documentation (including shipping BLs and customs clearance docs) whenever we get incomes form overseas. They say clearly that regardless of the account in IOM we have to abide by the tax laws our domicile country. So what's the point to classify IOM offshore depositors as tax dodgers? Having an account in IOM surely doesn't mean one didn't report their income, and if the UK government doesn't like it they can prevent UK citizens from depositing there.

The IOM has certain benefits built into it's own laws that are for the purpose to attract "offshore" depositors. The country and many local businesses has certaintly benefited from us depositors (if not why would the laws not change?).

Of our deposits there are some 500m GBP in the UK and 300m GBP in Iceland. UK and Iceland clearly knew things were going wrong and both governments grabbed our money and froze it. This is what the issue is about. Why would KSFIOM be put in liquidation before the negotiations of some 800m GBP in deposits are finished?

If UK guarantees their deposits 100%, well KSFIOM has a big deposit in the KSF Uk branch. So why isn't that guaranteed 100%? If it is those funds can come back to KSF IOM and be returned to the rightful owners. Maybe the UK was hoping for KSF IOM to go into the winding up and then with the compensation scheme enacted they figured no need to hold up their guarantee of 100% for the KSF IOM bank's funds in the UK.

We are asking that our money be returned to us. What is wrong about that.
jc


Barrie Achieve

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 22:03

You have totally and 100% misunderstood and misinterpreted me! Please read again! The entire section I mean. I have certain personal advantages in my education and I have tried to put this plus experience of my "stable" across. I cannot make it any simpler. I have tried to explain the difference between IOM Govt and Tynwald but then I am older and have been here before. The above is a total misunderstanding. IOM and UK are separate fiscal jurisdictions and which is strictly observed. The UK only did what it did because the IOM put the money into their backyard! If this was not done then you would all still have your money! Local IOM professionals have commented as such. Nothing but nothing moves in the IOM unless Tynwald says so but outside the IOM is another matter. You confuse Tynwald with IOM Government. Your money is outside the IOM. That's why you are losing out! Ask Charles Cain about Tynwald he will tell you! I have explained that Tynwald is the Parliament and the power behind the scenes is the Governor and mainly the Chief Secretary through which all influence does flow...But Tynwald is sovereign in the Isle of Man! Tynwald is not the govt of IOM so there is no UK power over Tynwald and that is what makes the Island what it is. My reasons are far from selfish! I have spent hours and hours on this site dumping the published and unpublished knowledge of 20 years and my book from 1986 "IOM The British Tax Haven"..The IOM ceased to  be a tax haven when Sir Miles Walker was Chief Minister and that was what...9-10 years ago?...I do not have to do this. I do not have to teach you. I saw your misconceptions and tried to fill you in with background detail and all I get is insults...I used to live on the Isle of Man for about 20 years in total but left in April because I saw this lot coming down the line tho' I keep a mail address there but overall I am in the UK so I must have seen something and equally do not work locally so all comments about Tescos which are wrong have been irrelevant.. A selfish person would not lay out the effort I have as there is no IOM audience for me to pander to...Also, if you had seen my letters in the papers you would not be in trouble. I suggest you read Smalley's item on the subject...ie your money has not been frozen it has been liened..But I will not explain this as you would not understand..I could well be wrong but I envisage 50:50 odds that your money is like a prize mechant ship captured in war and will now fly the British flag and serve the UK...As regards banks on the IOM some of them needed back-toback law from Westminster and Tynwald to make it happen but Tynwald is sovereign as the parliament of the IOM so get used to the idea...Now this "Selfish" person has done enough... I do not have to provide you with any information  at all...I do not even have an IOM audience to show off to...I sold out got out April 11th and if you lot had read the papers you would have too! ...So no more jibes... You are the ones who have been had for a sucker and not me and I will be very surprised if you get anything back quickly.....But I could be very wrong but then I have nothing to gain  and nothing to lose and no audience to impress...Just digging it out of my memory and all for you lot!...Treat it as a reference book!..I wonder actually if any of you are worth saving from some of the insults I have had but then I am retired and no longer and Isle of Man resident and tax payer.


Just to add a bit more to

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 07:41

Just to add a bit more to this section and what it is for (As an aside)

John Cashen of FSC and KSF (IOM) Ltd was for many years a very senior and high flying officer in the then UK Inland Revenue.

He was then also and possibly remains a lecturer at the UK Taxman's (now HMRC) version of Staff College.

I think that he was for a while the Isle of Man's taxman ie Assessor of Taxes but I am not too sure about this latter point.

Then he was Chief Financial Officer with his signature on Isle of Man Bank banknotes.

John Cashen was one of the Treasury Tribunal I had to face when invited to the Treasury under then Treasury Minister Richard Corkill due to my writing a lot of informed letters in the Isle of Man and Channel Island newspapers and studio guest on Manx Radio's "Sunday Opinion" with Roger Watterson.

This is the same show the Treasury Minister Allan Bell recently appeared on and many of you will have heard it.

It is quite normal for Isle of Man Govt to import UK tax officials including the
present man Malcolm Crouch if he is still there?

UK Inland Revenue staff were often co-opted or seconded but they work for the IOM Govt as their first loyalty.

Same with VAT. Everyone on the IOM knows every one else and their business so you need outsiders to get the job done. Police are the same.
edit reply


More tripe

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 22:34

Sorry, but this effort is particularly poor.

Just to start with: "your money has not been frozen it has been liened..But I will not explain this as you would not understand"

I think you've instead proved that you don't understand Barrie. The money has been hotchpotted, not liened. A lien is security for something - like the lien over a house that a mortgagee takes when loaning you the money, or the lien on your car that a garage have after repairing it until you pay them. This is absolutely, nothing at all like that. The best plain English term to describe the situation is 'frozen'.

And Tynwald is not Sovereign within the Isle of Man. You have a particularly poor grasp of Manx history if you believe that. Parliament is sovereign, and can overrule Tynwald whenever it wants - and it has done so in the past. It is by tradition and custom only that it does not do so for internal matters, but constitutional conventions of that sort have no standing whatsoever in law.

Next you'll be saying that the UK Parliament only has a hand in Manx affairs because of the Act of Revestment in 1765, and that the Isle of Man was independent before that...


Tripe and Onions

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 08:59

This section is meant to be a summary of the Constitutional situation.

It is not meant to be a "Cheer Leader" so do not look for good news here. I am trying to correct your mistakes.

The Constitution is spread over many documents and is a very subtle entity.

Tynwald is sovereign in the Isle of Man simply because the UK respects and upholds this.

On this basis Gordon Brown is able to dismiss your concerns as not being his concerns as it is a matter within the competence, as they phrase it, of Isle of Man Government...or if you prefer a matter reserved for Isle of Man Government.

I have already stated that the UK holds the sovereignty of the Isle of Man but then it delegates this sovereignty as represented via the Crown and the Lt. Governor and Chief Secretary.

The UK asserts itself every year on Tynwald day where the Lt Governor sits atop of Tynwald Hill.

When the Governor empowers the Chief Minister he is delegating UK sovereignty and elsewhere I have mentioned UK Sovereign Risk.

It is a fact that the UK delegates and thus recognises the sovereignty of Tynwald as a parliamentary assembly within the Isle of Man that makes Tynwald sovereign within the Island. ie Tynwald is upheld by UK sovereignty and that gives Tynwald the respect as a "no go area" for the UK.

The UK reserves the right to legislate over and above Tynwald and it last threatened to do so in 1918 when the UK ordered the Governor Lord Raglan to impose income tax.

The Radio Caroline North situation was similar.

At other times it has used Orders in Council emanating from the Privy Council but by convention Tynwald either asks for an Order in Council or it backs down first!

If the UK issues by force and Order in Council without the tacit agreement of Tynwald then the danger is that they issue not an ordinary Order but an Irrevocable and Peremptory Order in Council which then terminates Tynwald's sovereignty in the Isle of Man.

This power makes Tynwald behave!

London of course has the last word but Westminster legislation does not automatically extend to the Isle of Man

Please study the latest constitutional paper the "International Identity Agreement"..

So to summarise, Tynwald is sovereign as the UK says that it is and respects it as the Isle of Man's choice but retains the last word until the Island ever becomes independent.

As regards the Act of Revestment, this was the UK or Britain reacquiring sovereignty and vesting it in the Crown for tax reasons ie the UK was losing tax to smugglers and so took the power back off the Murray family..Duke of Athol..who had inherited this power as Lord of Mann...

Since 1945 the UK has steadily given up its day to day powers in the Isle of Man and is content for Tynwald to take over.

In other words, it us upholding the sovereignty of Tynwald within the Isle of Man backed by its, the UK's ultimate Sovereign Risk, and which gives the UK the last word but, respecting Tynwald's right to do what is right and good for the Isle of Man.

Without UK sovereignty then Tynwald would not be sovereign.

If I the above is wrong then you would not now have lost control of all your money as the two jurisdictions would not be so far apart!

I have often written and broadcast that the Tax Information Exchange Agreements and the EU Witholding Tax etc are another form of the Act of Revestment.

I am not a very good lecturer am I...But then the class is naughty and disobedient.

You must all go and sit on the naughty step!


Sovereignty

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 14:51

Barrie,

Again, when challenged you subtly shift your position. You have brought up some additional good facts, but they merely offer further proof that your conclusions are entirely off kilter.

'Sovereignty' means, by implication, absolute power over something without answering to a higher authority: from the dictionary "supreme and independent political power or authority".

You cannot have 'nested' sovereignty. Tynwald merely has 'competence' (in the sense of 'legal ability'!) over defined areas, much like the Scottish Parliament, or a county council.

You said "As regards the Act of Revestment, this was the UK or Britain reacquiring sovereignty" - so I ask again, for clarity - are you saying that British sovereignty over the Isle of Man began in 1765? Was the Isle of Man (or the Lord of Mann, if you prefer) its own master before that event?


Lien...Barrie's Reply

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 08:12

Sorry about the delay you chaps! I went off line...Lien...Well actually again I am probably a lot older than you. I have done many liens in my time as a shipbroker...

The lien, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder....If I have your loot/money/ etc, and I think that you owe me or will owe me or I want "leverage" as the Americans call it, then I will rightly or wrongly apply a lien.

To this must be added political power and the likes of Crown Immunity etc. This can make it drag on for years!

If I apply a lien wrongly as in "wrong title" etc then I am in for trouble. I have discussed this here in the UK with people involved in the City with the Isle of Man and they do quote back to me "Possession is nine points of the law!"

If I am wrong then I pay!...I partly base my comments on those of the lawyer/accountant, I forget which but lawyer mainly, Mr Smalley on this site (Somewhere!) who points out that it is wrong to say that the IOM KSF Ltd funds have been frozen by the UK

He says, or is reported as saying, that that "frozen" is the wrong word and if I remember correctly that the funds were seized against potential Icelandic liabilities towards UK interests...a point that many of you have made already!

This I term a "lien" as again, the point of the lien, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder...I am not explaining it very well at all am I?

It is not my desire to enter into this constant series of arguments and insults.

If you do not agree then write a counter argument and that will be constructive otherwise just leave it there maybe as food for thought.


Liens

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 15:02

Barrie, I am not insulting you - I am just pointing out the many fallacies in your statements.

Your basic facts are wrong here. The funds have not been "seized against potential Icelandic liabilities". They are not under any form of direct UK Government control at all.

The funds were deposited in a UK bank, Kaupthing Singer and Friedland Limited. That bank was placed into administration under the Insolvency Act 1986. The administrators automatically 'freeze' the assets of the bank, whether directly held or in accounts at other banks. This is whilst they sort out the affairs and work out what is going on. It may not be a legal freezing order, but the money still isn't going anywhere.

Once they have, unless there is some form of security or collateral against an asset, it will all be hotchpotted - combined and shared out equally to all creditors (well, first the preferential, then the unsecured).

Besides, you cannot have a lien over an intangible such as a 'debt' (which is what a bank deposit is). You can only have a lien over real property - a ship, an aeroplane, a house, a car, or a pile of banknotes. It has to be something real and tangible that you could touch.

Please do feel free to keep digging...


We are all waiting for your

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 22:43

We are all waiting for your reply Barrie? ;-)


Captured in war

  • P.Taylor
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 22:29

Barrie: "your money is like a prize merchant ship captured in war and will now fly the British flag and serve the UK"

May be some truth in this.


Maybe but we dont want to know ..............

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 22:45

Barrie

Great stuff why don't you write it in the IOM Daily News instead of here or better still write to all MPs telling they are a bunch of pirates a, they have captured our money and please give it back fore with.

cc to our brothers in Iceland

Are you with us or against us?

Is you are with us please dont keep writing such dreary episodes if you are not well please ....

We have enough to cope with.


Dreary Articles

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 08:18

The truth hurts butgthis is an open forrum and until it ceases so to be then anyone can write in...You may make it private, bar me from it or ask the Moderator to edit it


Maybe We Don't Want to Know

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 07:53

I agree! I am merely emptying out all the things I have acquired over the years so that it has some use.

Many of you are not absorbing the full content of my writing.

I have of course written many hundreds of serious items as letters in the Isle of Man Examiner and Independent and done serious current affairs radio as the studio guest and stayed for the phon-ins...

I have tried the UK papers and apart from an item run by the Daily Telegraph suffer from the same condition that afflicts you lot "Nothing of any import comes out of the Isle of Man...Get me a picture of Rolls Royce and a headline ie "Tax Dodgers Island Hideway"...deja vu to you lot!...They even hired a Rolls Royce and parked it outside my pad on Strathallan Terrace and I don't even drive!


Barrie's goal

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 01:59

Self-promotion.
I wish he would not use our site for his selfish purpose.


Self-Promotion

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 08:16

I have nothing to gain and no audience to show off to! I have 90% ceased to be IOM Resident and am just tidying up loose ends so a bit more writing may appear in the papers. Odd how you tell me to write for the IOM papers then accuse me of self-aggrandisement


Barries true collars

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 15:41

Maybe this is old news but I thought people should see it. Personally I don’t mind people airing their opinions on this web site as long as we all know where we stand. Of particular interest is the third last paragraph insinuating we are tax dodgers.

http://www.thisisguernsey.co.uk/discus/messages/11779/17880.html?1224673687

Here is his post in full:
NOT one of the Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IOM) Ltd (KSF) victims was able to explain on a recent live internet debate on Isle of Man Today as to why they did not place their funds in the licensed offshore subsidiary of a major British bank. Or why many of them put all their eggs in the one basket of an Icelandic bank offshore?
Details of this island's [Isle of Man] limited depositors' compensation scheme was in the shop window on the internet and no secret. Why should the island proffer 100% guaranteed security or total refinancing to those who placed funds over and above the advertised compensation limit?
They claim that, being expats with no UK address/domicile, the UK banks were no option due to anti-terrorism-money laundering laws.
Surely, all the islands have those also back to back with the UK, and in spades? You still have to prove yourself.
A UK bank subsidiary is less likely to do a KSF due to UK influence with the parent even though nothing today is safe.
I suggest the real reason for some was that UK banks now provide the UK taxman with account details of their offshore UK citizen clients who have not actually emigrated from the UK permanently.
This over and above the self-declaration provisions of the EU savings directive/withholding tax arrangements on certain interest bearing accounts.
The Isle of Man global Internet debate can be viewed on Isle of Man Today.
BARRIE STEVENS,
Isle of Man.


Barrie's True Colours

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 20:04

It was writtten from the point of view of as it could be seen from the Isle of Man and was aimed at the Forum on-line.

It raises questions and suggestions which is what this is for.

Maybe I am not so up to date on some things but it still stands and I see the picture overall.

After all none of you posters here can say what is the motive for the 10,000 or so investors as not all of you are here are they?

What's that saying, "If we had the gift to see ourselves as others see us?"

That is what the above was meant to be and not an attack? I did ask and no one answered hence the speculation.

I think the amount I have put down in this section has been quite a generous amount of work. It might even prove useful one day??? It is not aimed like a weapon.


Barrie's True Colours

  • Manxboy
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 19:47

Barrie - SHUT UP. Most of the people who have lost money (unlike you) seem sick of your posts. Lots of manx people are sick of your posts here and in the local papers.

As has been pointed out 1. Your not a depositor 2). Your not a lawyer 3) Your not a journalist 4). Your not an expert on financial matters.

You're an incessant poster, letter writer, and pain in the a**e who just cannot stop himself from making long posts about nothing and further goading people who are at their wits end with what has happened.

Get a life.


Shut Up Barrie

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 23:56

And you speak with authority Manx Boy like the minority on the Isle of Man ie The Manx!...Come out..Put your Dukes up!...If I what I say is rubbish how come they print me and have put me on the radio for all those times....Manx Boy come out and be a man!


Sigh...

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 01:03

Having 'letters to the editor' printed in a local paper, or phoning in to or being a guest on a local radio station does not make anyone a distinguished commentator or any kind of expert... any more than the ability to go on Internet forums does.

Isle of Man Newspapers prints quite a lot of letters that are obviously circulars sent to every newspaper in the UK as well... clearly they don't get a lot of letters to be picky over.

Manx Radio has a lot of hours of talk to fill despite broadcasting to a fairly small population.

So, enough of this to-and-fro please. If you've got constructive contributions make them.


Me Sigh Also!

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 09:19

If you just accept that which I have written and stop attacking and insulting then I would be content to have given you a data base.

I will simply make a post and go away.The more you write then the more I shall write.

I do not claim to be an expert but I am that generation of auto-didactics and unlike modern education was encouraged to spread myself, be an active citizen, encompass all, plough back that which you have received the bounty of at taxpayers expense.

And, most of all, do not think that all authority is the realm  of experts.

And do not live in a pigeon-hole. The pigeon-hole mentality is the fault of education now for more than thirty years.

I had this constitutional stuff drummed into my head in the early 1960s and did RSA, "O" Level and "A" level in the subject.

I also did my 1986 book about the Isle of Man now out of print and you will not find it in the British Library data base as the publisher forget to send them a copy!


Barrie Shut Up

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:33

The Editors keep printing my stuff and who are you to speak about the 12,000 surviving Manx people when you do not even have the courage to identify yourself and be a man! There are are more whales than there are Manxmen.


Barrie, I DID

  • brokefirefly
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 19:27

Barrie, I'm in a time zone 9 hours behind the UK, so I couldn't join any kind of live internet debate. I (and many others) DID choose to put their money in an IOM subsidiary of a UK bank: The Derbydhire.

The regulatory authorities in the UK and the Isle of Man allowed my savings account to be sold OVER MY HEAD to an Icelandic bank, I had no say in the matter.

And, yes, I was intending to move it (of course, with hindsight). But I wasn't in such a great hurry because I believed all the assurances I was given that it was a "good" bank. The Derbyshire didn't even tell depositors that Kaupthing was Icelandic: they used the careful words "Northern European Bank". And the waters are even dirter, because Singer and Friedlander was a very well respected UK bank, until Kaupthing brought it.

But you are making the mistake that it's easy to just open another account and just move the money. It itsn't. In the country where I was living it took weeks to get hold of notarised copies/translations of all the documents I needed to prove residence address etc.

I knew I was going to move to the USA (where getting all these pieces of paper is so much easier), so I decided to leave opening a new bank account until I got here, and we all know the rest.

But all the insinuations that the depositors here were chasing higher interest rates or trying to avoid tax (it's been said in so many places here, none of us are avioding tax or even trying to, if we were our money would be somewhere else) are offensive, anyone not currently resident in the uk has no choice but to go offshore.

I really appreciate the help you have given in this forum, put please remember that many of the people here are facing financial ruin through simply putting money that they couldn't afford to lose in a place that they were assured by both Governments and the financial industry was safe.

Comments like that are going to make us really angry, and take our eyes off the goal, which is lobbying and raising awareness until this political mess gets sorted out politically.


Barrie Who Does not Work for Tescos And Never Did

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:45

I am not attacking anyone. My comments are based on 20 years involvement in the IOM. I am trying to give the the big picture. It is not personal. I am probably older than many and have been here before. Please do not shoot the pianist!...Why are there no Manxmen in "Startrek"...It is all set in the future!


Hobbits

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:53

Is it true that members of the Manx government are sometimes referred to as the "hobbits" over there?


Hobbits

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 23:10

No! The IOM has a parliament and a legislature that is very much based on an intimate contact between the MHK and the Voter...Frankly, you have to be Manx to get elected or married to a Manxman which is not a bad idea really...Or closely related to the Manx... If you are not born and bred in the IOM like marriage...RULE ONE...Never underestimate the power of the Manx people on their own Island...It is not part of the UK...Never take the Piss out of the Manx...NEVER...You will lose...You are not just up against the Manx but the UK will support the Manx right to be a nation apart and seperate as we have seen with KSCF IOM LTD....Call a Manxman a "Hobbit" and you can kiss good-bye to your Compensation Scheme!...On the IOM it is like who you knew at school and threw your dummy at!...Insult the Manx and it is like a Kentucky feud...So if you want your money and you are going the right way to lose it...Do NOT insult the Manx Nation!..I speak as an old colonial and no Manxman!...Get respectful or go down!...


hobbits - must be another Manx then

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 00:32

I did not mean to wind you up, but what is all this about then:

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?s=1b64b51c70a58b3cd19506be2b0...

And what is the nature of this intimate contact that you refer to between the MHK and the voter (but if it has anything to do with Mellor's interests, please spare us the details)?


Intimate Contact

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:46

I have covered this elsewhere.

The Island is so small that many people know personally their MHKs who are not delegates but representatives...

The MHKs are from ordinary backgrounds..Many people grew up/went school/lived next door/threw their jelly at/are cousins etc...

They are seen in Strand Street Douglas and not deferred to...

They get their ears bent...That is what I mean.


Hobbits

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:42

It does not make sense to me and I think that it is mere invective.


Barrie

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/10/2008 - 13:11

Ladies and gentlemen, I would say Barrie is welcome on the forum. He apparently has a lot of knowledge about IoM laws, government and politics and we need such information. Maybe Barrie and Expat should get together and clear some of the doubts off-line. Can we afford to alienate such people?


Human Rights Aspects of UK Actions in Seizing IOM Savers Funds

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 14:39

Human Rights. No one so far as I am aware has yet mentioned the Human Rights aspect of this. Although actions in this context take time it might be worth mentioning this aspect of the situation when communicating with official entities.....

....Before we start. I have never worked for Tescos.
.
Now...I am not a lawyer but I was involved in a case and made it my business to swot up on the Human Rights subject in Tynwald Library...which is on Finch Road, Douglas, just before the Tynwald "Wedding Cake" building and a place you should maybe visit you "Sefton Bunker" people!

They have all the newspapers there and Internet.. law books..reference works etc. The staff are helpful and especially Jeff the Librarian who knows everything! The Library is that new building with the flags outside and the big glass doors.

Anyway...This may eventually have some bearing on the UK arresting of KSF IOM LTD funds.

The Isle of Man was always covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but around 2001 with a struggle it imported the ECHR into domestic law so that like the UK you do not have to go first to Strasbourg.

The Human Rights Act 2001 did not come into force until 2006 on the Isle of Man. As a result Human Rights issues can be taken to a local court initially.

The First Protocol to the ECHR also was imported and this gives the right to respect for your property and possessions.

The State cannot interfere with your peaceful enjoyment of property and possessions save broadly for the public good, the enforcement and collection of taxes and to uphold the rights and freedoms of others in this context.

This a Fundamental right but not an Absolute right.

The UK is the High Contracting Party representing the Isle of Man at Strasbourg in the Council of Europe (Not to be confused with the EU and the European Council). The UK is responsible ultimately for the Isle of Man's Human Rights.

Under the provisions of the ECHR Article One the UK guarantees to secure the Convention rights to all those within its jurisdiction and not just British Citizens/UK Citizens. This does not appear in the Human Rights Act as the Convention is imported by the Act and Article One is not necessary.

Note that Legal Persons ie companies/charities etc also have "Human" rights under the First Protocol when it comes to a State or Government infringing their rights to property and possessions under both the Convention and the Act.

I honestly do not know if by being Expat and not an emigrant you count as being under UK jurisdiction. You are in terms of the Convention if you are in the Isle of Man but not immediately in terms of the Human Rights Act against the UK alone. ie you may have to take an action locally in the Isle of Man but this needs advice.

Certainly you must exhaust all local remedies which is not the same as the Depositors Compensation Scheme but in terms of any legal action in the Manx or UK courts. This can of course relate to the Human Rights Act.

Once all conventional remedies are exhausted then actions can begin in terms of human rights. ie. Human Rights in terms of the arrest by the UK of all your funds. Incidentally, states can take Human Rights actions against each other but as the Isle of Man is not a state I think they could not take action against the UK in a Human Rights context but I am not an expert.

To proceed......

(UK) HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 ARTICLE 1 OF THE FIRST PROTOCOL - PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (In the Isle of Man it is Human Rights Act 2001 but much the same)

THE FIRST PROTOCOL ARTICLE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

The principles of Article 1 of the First Protocol.

This Convention right/Human Rights Act provision provides that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 is made up of three rules concerning: the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; the deprivation of possessions; the right of the State to control the use of property in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

The UK/IOM courts will be able to decide whether interference with property rights is justified in the public interest.

The Strasbourg Court acknowledges that, in the context of this Convention right, each State is in a better position to assess the economic needs of its own society and should therefore be allowed some discretion in determining when interference with this right is in the public interest.

Even so, any measure or law that interferes with property rights (for example, a compulsory purchase order or seizing investors funds sent from an Offshore bank and jurisdiction!) must strike a fair balance between the demands of the community or society and the need to protect the individual’s fundamental rights....That's you lot if you indeed are in UK jurisdiction or maybe Isle of Man jurisdiction at the time or that your company was or the company or Legal Personality in which you have a share or property interest.

In considering this balance, one of the things the court will look for is compensation. So that, for example in the case of compulsory purchase, (or Bank funds seizure) interference can be justified if the loss of rights to property are compensated by the payment of the economic cost of that property.

An interference with property must also satisfy the requirements of legal certainty. In other words, there must be a law which permits the interference and that law must be sufficiently certain and accessible. Is it right to use the Anti-terrorist Act?

There must also be procedural safeguards against arbitrary State decisions. The procedural requirements of Article 6– right to a fair trial, may be of relevance ie right to a fair hearing before an impartial and independent tribunal within a reasonable time.

Definition of property or possessions

"Property" or "possessions" in this context has a wide meaning and covers anything of economic value. It includes physical and non-physical property such as: land and buildings; money; goods, shares and investments; patents; rights under contracts (including leases); rights to run a business or economic interest connected to the running of a business; rights to exercise a profession goodwill; a benefit resulting from a restrictive covenant; an entitlement to an annual rent; damages or other sums awarded by a court or tribunal.

Although property has a wide meaning it covers only existing possessions and existing legal rights. For example, it covers the right to receive benefits under a pension scheme but not the right to inherit property at some point in the future.

It would not cover the refusal to grant a licence but it might cover revocation or refusal to renew a licence.

Article 1 of the First Protocol covers property not just owned by individuals but also owned by a company or other private body, such as a charity or trade union. In order to claim an interference with property rights, the claimant must be able to establish the nature of his property right and his entitlement to enjoy it under national law.

Interference with Property Rights

Everyone has the right to use, develop, sell, destroy or deal with his or her property in any way they please.

The right to protection of property means that public authorities cannot interfere with the way that property is used unless there is a law that lets them do it and unless it is justified.

This means that no one can be deprived of his or her property except where the action is permitted by law and justifiable in the public or general interest. It is also necessary to ensure that a person has the same rights to property as other people in the same situation.

For example, a man caring for his disabled wife should get the same exemption from paying tax as a woman caring for her disabled husband. In this situation, a person’s rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol together with rights under....Or is it right to seize Icelandic funds including KSF IOM LTD and use these to bankroll a payout but not let the KSF IOM LTD Victims get equally paid out from the Icelandic pool???

The UK under both the ECHR/Human Rights Act must not discriminate in regard to Convention Rights or Human Rights under the Human Rights Act/ECHR Article 14.

This does not usually mean that you will not suffer discrimination but that you should not suffer discrimination in regard to something granted you by the Human Rights Convention and Act.....I quote:-

....“Article 14. The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status“.

I have read in the law books of cases where Article 14 has been allowed to stand alone but then I am out of my depth but you get the picture.

The UK or the Isle of Man for that matter is allowed to vary from the ECHR/Human Rights Act by way of a margin of appreciation if it serves local needs and requirements, is provided for by law, and is proportionate ie means justifies the ends or vice versa.

One major factor to justify varying from the ECHR and Human Rights Act is that by doing so the UK is upholding the rights and freedoms of others ie the UK based losers in this mess.

Therefore one has to see, in human rights terms, whether the UK was proportionate in allegedly interfering with the First Protocol property rights of persons and legal persons banking in the Isle of Man.

And what constitutes being within UK jurisdiction when this happened? And whether this was justified ie infringing the First Protocol rights of those in the Isle of Man and elsewhere in order to uphold the First Protocol rights of those within the UK mainland jurisdiction.

Was this a proportionate use of the Anti-Terrorist law by way of infringing human rights under the Act or Convention? Was the UK entitled to infringe IOM-based human rights in order to uphold First Protocol Property Rights for those resident in the mainland UK?

Do UK mainland residents/subjects even deserve to have what appears to be priority treatment because the Human Rights Act/Convention is, save in rare cases, against private entities but against states.

If the UK took action against Iceland by way of anti-terror laws to uphold the First Protocol rights of UK citizens ie if Iceland as an ECHR signatory had infringed those rights by its actions, then is the UK right to discriminate certainly against those persons and legal persons within the Isle of Man jurisdiction if not arguably elsewhere on the basis of one’s being Resident, Ordinarily Resident and Domiciled in the UK?

I shall let you digest it and think it over.

Maybe you should challenge some of these officials and claim your First Protocol Rights and find out where the action should be commenced. They may even take this on board but don't be fobbed off by the DCS. That is a mitigation factor but not a human rights solution.

Overall I think the Human Rights case is against the UK rather than IOM but where you start the ball rolling I am not sure!.....


Human Rights Aspects of UK Actions in Seizing IOM Savers Funds

  • Manxboy
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 19:52

Thousands of words Barrie ... blah ....blah ....blah ...blah ...... get back to your proper job you crackpot.


Agree with cold-dose - The

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:02

Agree with cold-dose - The human rights angle while maybe interesting is not in any way a worthwhile angle to go down at this point, while there are far better strategies for us still to play out.

Secondly, I think the above comment about Barrie is totally uncalled for. Yes, some/many of Barrie's posts are a bit long-winded and many may disagree with him. So what? They are addressing topics related to KSFIOM and the IOM, are serious posts, are not offensive, and aren't trolls.

Frankly I am far more irritated by the number of people clogging up these forums with posts criticizing Barrie the person, than Barrie's posts themselves. Please stop them now. If you want to comment on the actual content in his posts then of course do so, but if you feel the need to write posts that only talk about him then please instead direct your energies elsewhere on these forums to something more useful.

Thank you.


Barrie Crackpot

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 12:57

My dear friend Manx-Boy...I think he is the Troll not me...NB I had to look that up! So that's what a Troll is? ....

Of course I only remember the Trolls in the early 1950s and "Great Big Billy Goat Gruff"...With Uncle Mac on "Childrens' Favourites".

They live under bridges hence the story of the Fairy Bridge allegedly at Santon but actually a bit off track..

It is part of the Manx Viking history...Maybe Manx-Boy lives under the bridge?...


Tolkein inventions

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 12:58

with the hobbits?


Proper Job

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 12:46

What job?

I don't live on the IOM tho' I retain a foot on the ground. I left on April 11th as I saw this lot coming down the line and wrote about!

Never did work at Tescos but DID launch a case at Strasbourg hence the above.

I also think that I am a much better educated, experienced and older man than my dear friend Manx-Boy. What say you Manx-Boy...Large portion of Manx Crab?


Proper Job

  • Manxboy
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 14:03

Barrie. You're getting even more pathetic now. Name calling and from you ... an expert in all matters and Isle of man media star (ie. sad crackpot that writes long letters that noboby reads in the paper).

From day one I have only posted against you because, as a manx man, I find your ramblings totally irrelevant to what these people are going through. I can't imagine how terrible it must be to be a KSF IOM investor and worried about how this is unravelling. I do, however, know I would feel 10 times worse having to read the "told you so" drivel you post in spades. You have posted thousands and thousands of words of diatribe on this site and you know ... it makes absolutely no difference to how these people feel about the situation they are in.


Actually...

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:40

...this effort isn't too bad! Goes off a bit in the middle, but not bad for a general understanding of the Human Rights angle.

Without the strange theories and conspiratorial spin, Barrie's posts could actually be useful.

The main point that needs to be made about the human rights bit is that we are nowhere near the point where it would be sensible nor useful to start making (legal) claims about breach of human rights. So don't worry about the details at the moment yet - it's very, very unlikely any of this would come into play.


Human Rights

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 12:47

No mate! Not conspiracy I have actually done it!


Human Rights Conspiracy

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 14:03

You will find much of writing already encasulated in the HUDOC system of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg...

I do not make it up but have been at this a long time and you have only just started.


Conspiracy

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 12:50

You have to remember that I am trying to condense all that I have experienced and this may at times seem obscure or "conspiracy"...But it is that which I have actually done!

I am constrained by space.


space constraints

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 12:57

Barrie, it seems there may be insufficient space in the entire universe to accommodate your output.

I believe Stephen Hawking is working on the problem, but for now could you possibly direct your attention to the anyonym of the word "prolix"?


Prolix

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:59

No! I am writing all this heavy stuff for download and saving. You are welcome to take 20 years out and catch up with all my past reading in Tynwald Library.


Barrie and Infinity

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:53

This is nothing! I have been a newspaper "stringer" round the world since I started writing for the Daily Mail at the age of 17..I have also re-translated from the Greek and Hewbrew some of the New Testament and those books are floating about the world!


quatum theory would suggest

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:02

quatum theory would suggest barrie could be in iom and new york at the same time, or as there are almost certainly multi-verses you can rest assured he is getting attention in many universes!!


quantum theory indeed

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:12

I can help you out a little in this area. While multiverse theory would allow for the simultaneous existence of Barrie in two or more different locations in configuration space, these parallel universes could not interfere with each other and no more than one Barrie instance could be perceived by any of us in the universe in which we presently find ourselves. I think one reason that Hawking and others are wrestling with this is that Barrie may actually be the first observation of a state that violates the theory, in addition to certain well-established conservation laws.


Space

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/10/2008 - 13:55

Too clever for me!