HMG get Dave Whelan his £50 million back frozen in KSF while the rest of us have to wait.......

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 15/03/2009 - 18:04

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/15/jjb-sports-treasury

So the MP than represents Dave Whelan founder and ex chairman of JJB sports gives our dear friend Mr Darling a call and within two hours is advised that the £50 million he has frozen in KSF will be returned to him within days...... While all the charities, local government and everybody else has to wait until Easter at the earliest for an indication as to how much and when they may get there money back.

And he badly needs this money so he can make a bid to purchase at a knock down price the chain of health clubs owned by JJB Sports. This will allow JJB Sports to repay some of the debts to the three banks they are in difficulties with (one of which is Kaupthing) and therfore hopefully allow them to trade on securing 12,000 jobs.

Was Mr Whelan a retail depositor in KSF or one of the non Edge account holders not transferred to ING
Was he one of the yet to be paid out in full non edge depositors and with prompting from his MP the trasury just put his claim to the top of the list
or was he like all the rest of the institutions, charities, local government, IOMG etc an institutional depositor with no guarantees of how much and when his money would be returned.

If he was the latter then the fact that he has had all his funds returned early to facilitate the purchase and secure the jobs means that as a pari passu creditor we must all be inline for a full 100% payout aswell.

Would be very interested to find out what status he held with KSF UK ....

4.714285
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (21 votes)

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

Whelan's money, Simpson's apathy, our loss...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 08:06

According to MS (telecon frog 6/4/09) Mr Whelan was an unsecured creditor with KSFUK. - just like us. Thus a single person has been paid out by the FSCS to the tune of £40M + whilst ten thousand former retail depositors are simply ignored.

Simpson has been too busy (by his own admittance) working on the SoA (for IoMG) to know or fully enquire the details of Mr Whelan's good fortune. For sure, he is not pursuing the issue to see why KSFIoM depositors are not accorded the same benefit.

For every person(s), group or charity that get its monies back 100%, the FSCS will stand in their shoes to retrieve what it can from the liquidation of assets for itself and for the Treasury which it also represents in this matter. The receivers of 100% will inevitably reduce the return of assets to all other unsecured creditors by virtue of the FSCS/Treasury's larger claim.


Whelan - a red herring?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 09:56

IceCrusher: you (usually so accurate) say that "Mr Whelan was an unsecured creditor with KSFUK - just like us". Indeed he was an unsecured creditor, but surely not "just like us"? Unlike Mr Whelan, WE are unsecured creditors with KSFIOM and not with KSFUK; it is KSFIOM which is an unsecured creditor with KSFUK. We may not like that, but surely that's how it is?

Mr Whelan has been paid out by the FSCS, who now effectively replace him as a creditor with KSFUK. I don't know on what basis FSCS did this, but presumably they agreed to include him in the category of retail depositors and small companies to be bailed out by the Treasury. Obviously there is no way KSFIOM can be considered to belong to this category; moreover surely not all the 10 000 or so creditors with KSFIOM were "retail depositors". So if FSCS were to pay out KSFIOM, then they would have to pay out ALL other unsecured creditors of KSFUK (local governments, larger companies, ...), which clearly they do not intend to do.

"Our loss"? Not sure I follow this either. How will the fact that FSCS stand in the shoes of those they have refunded reduce the return of assets to other unsecured creditors. As I understand it, FSCS is an unsecured creditor just like KSFIOM and just like Mr Whelan was before he was paid out? So if the eventual dividend from KSFUK is, say, 80% (just a figure out of the blue), then the 80% which would have gone to Mr Whelan will instead go to FSCS - the remaining 20% being paid by the Treasury (and thus effectively by UK taxpayers). So why would that mean less for us?

I understand the fury over the Whelan affair, but can't help feeling it's something of a red herring. Maybe my simple brain has missed something - if so please correct me. Otherwise, I think we should be careful to stick to the facts, however much we may not like them!


@anrigaut herrings

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 13:20

Anrigaut,
It is never my intention to post anything misleading, I simply meant that collectively our monies are held in the UK bank as wholesale deposits of KSFIoM, somewhat like Mr Whelan. We were retail depositors with KSFIoM and should therefore have had priority status, but when KSFIoM moved the assets to London they become 'unsecured'. There are 10,475 single and joint retail accounts in KSFIoM according to recent MS information.

I cannot know under what basis the FSCS paid out to Mr Whelan, and that is the reason I question why Mr Simpson has not pursued this matter to deliver a complete answer. We were retail depositors, but KSFIoM placed its money in KSFUK unsecured and thus became an unsecured creditor. If given compassionate consideration (like Mr Whelan) then it might be deemed that ten thousand depositors lives have been on hold for over 6 months now, which might have attracted some humanitarian attention, but it seems that we warrant less care and contemplation than a cat's charity. Personally, I do not see the comparison to pay out monies that would benefit ten thousand private citizens in quite the same way as reimbursing local governments and larger companies, but perhaps your viewpoint is shared by the UK Administrators.

I wouldn't quickly accede that following through on this matter is a red herring, it is, after all, our savings that are held in the UK even if the deposit is in KSFIoM's name. I had thought that although the forum is split an a few issues, that were pretty much in accord with the idea of getting our monies back from London. One man has had millions released to him; should we not expect our representative to find out why and see if the UK Adminstrators would now consider our case?

The banking fraternity have long considered 'upstreaming' to a parent bank to be an acceptable practise, so much so that it continues without securing such assets. This wasn't even upstreaming, as the bank was not KSFIoM's parent, but a sister bank. The funds were placed there for 'safekeeping' - for whom? KSFIoM was a deposit taking bank, that means that its primary function was to act as a regular retail bank and those monies sent to London were primarily the savings of ten thousand ordinary people. This is self evident to even a casual observer, let alone the Administrators of the UK bank. (Who actually told the LP that KSFIoM's case would be considered 'sympathetically'.) It is within the Administrators remit to determine whether a creditor should merit special attention and bring this to the Treasury's attention if subject to Clause 27.1

So the singular Mr Whelan has had his fortune returned, and KSFIoM has not. KSFIoM was also prevented from holding a place on the UK Creditors Committee for reasons best known to those who hold all the cards - the FSCS/Treasury.

I am relieved to hear that the UK taxpayer will be making up the shortfall for Mr Whelan - if he has indeed been elevated from unsecured to secured retail depositor. Such news will be a great relief to the 3,000 UK-based depositors in KSFIoM that it will be no loss to them... Under this status Mr Whelan will be entitled to the special Treasury funding that stands between the FSCS compensation of £50K and Mr Whelan's reported deposit of £60,000,000 - a mere £59,950,000 to be recovered from assets topped up by the taxpayer. My perspective is that we KSFIoM depositors did not benefit from the UK Treasury underwriting all 300,000+ IceSave accounts together with all 170,000 'Edge' and other retail deposits, so as retail depositors in an affiliated bank why will our savings be used to pay back the FSCS and the Treasury - it is an abomination. If we do not get the money back from the UK bank it will be a great loss (at least 40%, or more) to all of us. Let us all endevour to keep to the facts to the best of our knowledge and not mislead anyone, and let us continue to chip away at all possible obstacles to getting our monies back...


@Icecrusher/anrigaut: Simple arihmetic...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 04:44

KSFUK dividend 50 per cent plus..

2,5 Bn cost of transfer to ING.
170,000 edge depositors.

HMG subsidy equals 1.25bn divided by 170K equals 7.3529141176GBP per account average.

Given that the closing out of KSFIoM for 10K depositors has led to a loss of 200M GBP plus we have an average loss of 200m divided by 10K equals 20K.

Deposits in the IoM were obviously on average, and modally significantly, greater (hence the power of the HNW depositors to vote down the SoA)

IoM Contibution 50m plus., Icelandic contribution 50m plus, HMG contribution (they did after all screw up the IoM bank) 50m (equals 5k per person .. less than the UK subsidy) and sell the bank to the Chinese, and we are home and dry,


arithmetic plus...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 05:15

Reduce the above 200m divided by 170K by

minus 50m GBP IoM contribution and then Iceland guarantee 50M GBP (cheap) and we have a significantly reduced figure, to say the least.

Let us use comparisons. Let us not be afraid of the figures. The IoM has been playing this game with aplomb ( I hate to give Mr Bell credit for political savvy but there it is ) now let us do the same.

Do these guys want a solution or do they want a disaster?

Are they trying to help us, or are they trying to screw us?

... and remember to be frightened, be very very very frightened, and vote for the SoA.............


@f_t_t magic numbers...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 07:02

FTT,

Do you know, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about! :-) It is funny because when you email me, you write quite normally, but on the site, you write like someone with rocket juice in them! Does anyone else have problems 'following' the tao, or is it just me? (Sorry f_t_t).
Ice


Wish that I could follow too

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 07:16

FTT/Icecrusher, I'm not one to normally intervene in other people's business, but sometimes I, too, have difficulty following FTT's line of argument. Sometimes he can be very cryptic!!! Better to be simple and straightforward when speaking in a forum that is populated with simplton's such as myself!!


50,000 or 50 million ?

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 12:22

I would have thought Mr. Whelan should have received 50,000 under the terms of the FSCS. If the FSCS claims 50,000 from KSFUK then you are correct it makes no difference to us whether it's Mr. Whelan or the FSCS that is claiming the money.

However if you think that the FSCS will get 50,000 with respect to it's claim relating to Mr. Whelan then you have more faith than me in the British legal system. The FSCS are going to clean out all the funds from KSFUK and leave KSFIOM with nothing or next ot nothing. I suspect the FSCS will roll up all their claims into one big one that will be impossible to pick apart and even if one tried I guess they will use the data protection act or similar to prevent it.

It is pointless looking at the KSFIOM issue in financial/legal terms. It is a political fight. HMG is trying to force IOM into total submission. IOM will never accept. We are just collateral damage. The best we can hope for is 50,000 as long as we are prepared to wait a long time (I predict something approaching 10 to 15 years based on previous cases) and in the end take IOM to court to fulfill it's DCS promise. IOM will fight it because the 50,000 was just a promise not a legal requirement. Best case they will eventually pay up, worst case the new IOM goverment at that time will say it's impossible and blame the old IOM government for making promises it couldn't keep.


Margaretta, do I understand you correctly?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 16:56

Are you implying we should reject the SOA and force the IoM to honour the DCS (which you describe as a promise rather than a legal requirement) through the IoM courts after which the IoM may or may not pay out in 15 years, and that this is the "best case" scenario in one getting a maximum of 50K back?

I have re-read what you have written and can make no sense of it?


@Dr Watson: Puzzled again -Hey Mate-

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 05:19

I guess she is.
But you do not get it.
Same as it ever was?


That's because, Tao, I was too busy getting arrested,

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 09:26

in an IoM riot, masterminded by your sentinel good self, trying selflessly to promote to the world's media the status of your 'universal solvent', which you so don't care about much.

Whilst you sat back with your feet up, in your LATAM creep-hole, watching events unfold on Spanish-speaking TV, surrounded by your Che Guevara posters and sipping champagne from your egalitarian Baader-Meinhoff embossed coffee mug, "tut tutt-ing" at the pig-mentality of authority now established on your despised island homelands and contemplating your next enigmatic 'world-view' contribution to Spare Rib magazine, which no longer exists.

Then I'd really be stoopid wouldn't I?

Eh, tao?, wink wink ;)

Oh, and btw, she wasn't saying that (see her full post below).


chris watson objectionable post

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 02:52

Your response to Tao is a personal attack. It is of no relevance to getting our money back. The type of post has no place on this site. Please desist.

I object to this post.


IOMG Parental Guarantee

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 02:32

I am implying that as things stand we should remain seated with our seat belts securely fastened, bend over, put our heads firmly between our legs (our own legs Bishop Paterson of Sodor) and kiss our hard earned savings goodbye.

There is no difference between the DCS and the SOA in reality. Both will result in a similar outcome within a similar timeframe despite what is claimed.

For the folks with more than 50k at risk this is not likely to come as a shock - which is why I suspect the DAG is leaning towards DCS - mostly out of spite since it will be more embarrassing for IOMG. For the sub 50ks there is no guarantee from either the DCS or the SOA. In fact the terms SOA and DCS are grossly misleading; perhaps they should be dispensed with and replaced with a more easily understandable term such as 'IOMG Parental Guarantee'.

Personally I am just waiting to see what happens and am not much interested in DCS or SOA. I just want my money back and am prepared to do anything to achieve it.
Once I have a reasonable idea of how much I have lost or am likely to lose I will make a decision as to what I should do next.

Pursuing things further legally is daunting since the only parties worth pursuing (i.e. who have money) are governments (who make the law) or are offshoots of Government. However bearing in mind the attitude of HMG and IOMG towards the depositors I am not overly concerned by the likelihood of winning, I am more concerned by the fact that corruption and malfeasance on this level by a British Government should never go unchallenged.

The Wheelan and other cases are fascinating since they appear to have the potential of showing clear evidence of preferential treatment of creditors. It all depends on what happens with KSFUK and what the FSCS gets out of it. If HMG continue their present tack then a case brought in the European Court of human rights is likely to be a no brainer and even more photogenic than a British Bobby bludgeoning the proverbial old lady to death with their riot shields and extensible truncheons. They may desperately try to convince themselves it’s all perfectly legal but I suspect the Blair champagne Stalinist generation is soon in for a nasty dose of reality.


DCS SoA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 06:36

"There is no difference between the DCS and the SOA in reality."

There are several differences. One BIG one is that the DCS compensates up to 50k. Only 50k.


There is no difference between the DCSand the SOA

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 14:45

Where is this 50K coming from ? The IOMG themselves have already told you (tactfully) that there is no gaurantee that the DCS will pay out 50K. Neither is there any legal requirement for IOMG to pay out 50K in the case of KSFIOM. The only reason they publicised a 50K DCS at the time was to prevent a run on other IOM banks. Now that risk has subsided there is no reason for them to pay out other than to avoid bad publicity. Given the kind of people they are I doubt if the threat of some bad publicity is going to worry them too much.

Regardless of whether the DCS or SOA is activated you will get what there is in the pot regardless of whether it is less than or more than 50k per depositor.


margaretta, Not sure where

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 16:24

margaretta,

Not sure where you are getting your information from. The DCS WILL pay up to £50,000 if invoked before October, the main question being when each payment will be and for how much. The SoA guarantees payments upto £50,000 within a known timescale and at set amounts.


If the DCS is invoked

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 22:38

The IOm will run about like headless chickens trying to get the banks to stump up.

They have to BY LAW pay every depositor 50K or their total deposit if less than that amount.

( BTW the under 50ks will get their money back QUICKER under DSC)

So they will have to raise the money by taxes and loans if the banks wont play ball.

This they want to avoid at all costs.

Hence the SOA

The SOA has no legal precedent , therefore it has no standing in Law.

As soon as the IOM get the power into their hands they will change the goalposts to suit themselves.

They could have taken a loan and paid us all out and sat back and waited for the money to come in.

They are guaranteed to get back the money in the Loan book and that in the UK.

Then they could have been the GOOD GUYS with their reputation and standing intact.

Instead they have come over as a bunch of conniving bumblers who are desperate to do anything rather than given us back our own hard earned money .

In the light of the news from the UK their offer of 60% ( take it or leave it you aint getting anything else) not just shabby but downright cheapskate.

Do we want these people to have power over us for years?

We have made on serious mistake

Let us not compound it by another.

Once bitten twice shy

Unless things change drastically for the better I shall vote for liquidation.


IOM will not let DCS fail

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 23:56

I agree with you completely Belly up. The IOM CANNOT let the DCS fail as it's their flagship and propaganda for attracting future depositors. Even though the DCS is a sham, the IOM will have to do whatever they can to quickly get it funded if the bank goes into liquidation. The DCS will probably end up costing them, which is of course what they want to avoid at all costs (no pun intended!)

There's no way that my parents will vote for a scheme that will make them pay up to the IOM after 60% return.


DCS is incapable of paying out 50k

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 19:40

The information is from the IOMG themselves. Comments such as 'if another bank were to fail......' tells you all you need to know.

The DCS is grossly underfunded. It is not even capable of paying out at the previous limit. There is no hope of it paying 50k to every KSFIOM depositor. That is presumably why the SOA exists and is being forced through.


SOA = Save Our Asses

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 09:19

@Margatta

What ever makes you believe anything the IOMG say!

They are not looking out for the depositors they are looking to cover their backsides.

Hence the aptly named SOA!


DCS

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 21:16

Margaretta,
Neither the SoA nor the DCS would need to pay out £50k per depositor!
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of depositors (by value) will never get any top up payments from either scheme as the Pari Passu distributions will very quickly put their recoveries over the DCS/SoA limit!
I believe that the reasons the IOMG favours the SoA are:
- It allows them to make head line grabbing announcements; over 70% of depositors fully compensated!
- It helps smaller local depositors (voters!)
- It avoids liquidating the bank
- It allows them to control events better than under liquidation
- All this at minimal cost as they expect most of the top up funds will recovered post 60%
By the way I would have done exactly the same in their shoes!


Brabander

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 21:34

But I think you would have made a much better job of it than they did!!! Your graphs would have been way better!!!


Selling the SoA

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 21:52

I am not sure whether to take this as a complement or an insult.
Thanks anyway!


@ Margaretta

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 20:51

if you are going to bother to post why post such nonsense.


From steenjp: '"There is no

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/04/2009 - 08:26

From steenjp:

'"There is no difference between the DCSand the SOA in reality."'

"There are several differences. One BIG one is that the DCS compensates up to 50k. Only 50k."

It is a pity that this degree of disinformation is still circulating at this late stage. The for avoidance of doubt, when depositors talk of "DCS v SoA", "DCS" is shorthand for "liquidation plus DCS". I am sure most forum readers realise that. Just to be on the safe side, the vote amounts to a choice between two alternatives:

Alternative 1: SoA, no DCS, no liquidation (bank remains in provisional liquidation)
Alternative 2: liquidation and DCS


yes, arnigaut...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 10:04

people sometimes on this site misinform, ......


IOMtoday article on Whelan

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Treasury's position in return of Whelan's money?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/03/2009 - 18:58

The matter of Mr Whelan's retrieval of funds appeared in the IoM News today - Manx Govt to 'monitor claims' of the veracity of this story. I sent the following comment:

Sir.
You can be sure that Mr Darling will not have done anything that could be construed as illegal in this matter, immoral and unrighteous possibly, but we know already that the Treasury prioritised the return of Edge depositor's funds before all other savers, and those non-Edge retail depositors will be attended to before any unsecured creditors get a look-in. We will no doubt discover that Mr Whelan's personal fortune was held in a retail account and that the Treasury was able to oil the wheels a little because this intervention will be perceived as in the public interest. Mr Whelan will undoubtedly be one of the last non-Edge depositors waiting for his money...

The Chancellor appears to play by the rules no matter what; he looks disdainfully upon KSFIoM depositors and clearly prefers to view them as unsecured creditors who deserve nothing better that being turned aside as blameworthy victims who foolishly placed their money and their trust in an island seen as a thorn in the side of the 'establishment' wishing to be onside with the new US administration. There has been not one sincere indication of remorse from this labour Government for instigating the circumstances that brought ordinary British savers to this demeaning and demoralising place; HMG's responsibility lies not just with precipitating the situation, but worse, allowing it to continue.

Mr Darling's legal stance relieves his mind of any responsibility he might otherwise feel; it was not of his doing that the depositor's monies were placed en masse in the UK bank; and the fact that it went unsecured just happened to 'turn' 11,000 retail depositors into unsecured creditors - a legal condition not of his creation either. No, he could convince himself (as he did with that telephone call with Arnie Mathiesen re guarantees) that 11,000 erstwhile diligent British retail savers were not of his concern because they chose to put their money in a jurisdiction outside of his immediate control. Legally they have no special rights; they are in that sorry position because of the island's regulator, not the Chancellor's FSA.

Those depositors are now cast aside by the collective perpetrators of misfortune without any representation, but that is not the Chancellor's concern either because the legal position is quite 'above board'. Exercising its moral duty to all British citizens is negated for those persons choosing to save their monies on a British island instead of on the mainland. Finding a moral route to return these citizen's monies is unnecessary as they lost it 'fair and square' - and it is now forfeit to repay other UK citizen's losses and refund the Treasury. All's fair in Mr Darling's world. How can so many lose so much to so few?

Lou


Whelan's Money

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 19:47

Icecrusher, that was a brilliant piece. How much longer, I wonder, until the voices of reason, such as yours, are going to be listened to, and acted upon, by those who ARE in a position to return our funds. I still believe we need a mass demonstration in London, DIRECT ACTION, so that this whole scandal brought into the public eye.


@Icecrusher

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/03/2009 - 19:09

Another excellent letter. Great penmanship as always.

Have you already bombarded them / others regarding the fact that Gordon Brown has been recently quoted as saying that "as a matter of policy all governments should vouchsafe the savings & deposits in the banks in their jurisdiction." ? Darling actually said something similar at the TSC if I´m not mistaken.

Along the lines of:

It would seem that the Isle of Man Government require assistance in adhering to / implementing Gordon Brown´s publicly recommended policy, and I would hope that they are being pressed to comply. This would clearly be best for the innocent savers, assist in preserving the Isle of Man´s reputation, and not least ensure that Gordon Brown´s integrity is protected.

IOM is a British dependancy for goodness sake!

Its a tact that I´m trying to put forward at every opportunity.


Letter to Observer

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 16:49

Might be worth sending a letter to the Observer

letters(?)observer [dot] co [dot] uk


Neil Turner

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 14:32

I grew up in the Wigan area which is Neil Turners constituency, so I wrote to him...this is his patronising reply....

Dear Barbara,

I didn't help Dave Whelan, I did my work as a constituency MP, namely to help 2000 of my constituents and 10,000 others keep their jobs, hopefully successfully. As a former constituent of Tyldesley, you may still be entitled to assistance from the Worsley MP. I would recommend you contact them and ask her to put a case on your behalf as I have done for my constituents.

Regards,

Neil Turner MP Wigan


Neil Turner

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 14:43

Very interesting - no deniial regarding the extraordinary release of funds. We need to follow up on this, it is quite outrageous. DAG Team - suggest get the PR firm onto this urgently.

Could you post a copy of your message he replied to please (scratch name as appropriate).


Dave Whelan's MP

  • tonycBrisbaneOz
  • 12/10/08 31/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 11:44

Dave Whelan's MP is Neil Turner.

A real a**e licker if his voting record is anything to go by:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/neil_turner/wigan

I haven't found any evidence that Mr Whelan is a party donor.

Regards, TonyC


Is anyone else in Neil Turners Constituency?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 12:30

If you are write to him asap
In fact why not write to him anyway and cc it to your own MP.
turnern(?)parliament [dot] uk


whelan & neil turner

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 16:21

I wrote what I thought was a fairly polite email to Neil Turner on 17 March asking him why he had not taken up the cases of we depositors in KSFIOM as I thought the Labour Party had always said it was on the side of the 'small man'- the poor and the oppressed.
Back came an automatic reply "there is a strict Parliamentary rule that that MPs can deal only with questions raised by their constituents" and requesting my full name and address. The automaticity and refusal to answer the question so incensed me that I wrote to tell him that since the 17th century there was also a strict understanding that MPs are the servants of the people and that those of us who were brushed off by automatic replies would no doubt remember it when the time came round to vote. This time no automatic reply, but a furious personal note telling me I was "incredibly rude", asking why I should assume he would refuse to reply and informing me that I am now on his blocked email list!
I'm sending him a copy by mail of our exchanges and giving him another chance to answer my original questions.
Should I be worried about being hauled off on a rendition trip?


banna, here is an extract

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 16:51

banna, here is an extract from Wikipedia on Neil Turner MP. Just goes to show what an arrogant a**e he is:-

'When a dyslexic constituent, Stephen Halsall (a psychiatric nurse), sent him a letter in March 2001 complaining about a drug rehabilitation unit being built near to him, Turner returned the letter to the constituent with all the spelling and grammatical errors underlined and annotated in red ink'

Hope your original e-mail was gramatically correct or you days as a free person might be numbered!

Here is how he has voted on some key issues since 2001:-

Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.


@ Expatfrance +MEPS

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 17:16

Expat - just to digress have you seen the letter to MEPS posted on all the group sites by Adrienne?
Basically Iceland has applied to join the EU and we have a letter written in various European languages to the MEP asking them to take into account that Iceland has not yet met its obligations to us the KSF depositors.

P Lease everybody post this letter to your MEP - including people in the UK
They are all there on the spreadsheet .
If you cannot find yours please email me via my contact .
If you do send off the letter please advise me so I can update the spreadsheet so as we can tell how many MEPS have received this letter

Many thanks
BU


This is the letter to the MEPs

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 17:22

Available in several languages

Dear [MEP Name],

I am writing to you as my MEP and as a [depositor/bondholder] in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited (“KSFIOM”), a bank in the Isle of Man (“IoM”) which was placed into provisional liquidation in the IoM on 8 October 2008. Since that date myself and several thousand retail savers have had our life savings frozen causing us great anguish and uncertainty. Iceland has so far refused to acknowledge its responsibility and offered no assistance.

I am writing to you to implore you to ensure that Iceland and Kaupthing Hf meet their obligations, under the Parental Guarantee that was lodged with the IOM authorities and used to promote KSFIOM as a safe place for people to put their money.

We politely suggest that meeting these obligations must be made a primary condition of any consideration regarding the accession of Iceland to the EU [and/or joining the single currency]. A member state, or indeed prospective member, of the EU must accept certain moral obligations to the citizens of other member states to ensure that retail depositors are protected against systemic upheavals in the financial system. All other member states in the EU have accepted this the case and found appropriate ways to guarantee the retail deposits held in other subsidiaries of Kaupthing Bank Hf.

Additionally I would seek your advice on how best to lobby for support from within the European Parliament and other institutions of the European Union to ensure that Iceland is forced to acknowledge its responsibilities in this matter. I have included a summary sheet, attached, which details the background to KSFIOM and some of the intergovernmental issues involved.

Thank you for your time in considering this letter and I look forward to hearing from you further in relation to this matter.

Yours etc

[Name]


bellyup, can you provide a

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 17:23

bellyup,

can you provide a pointer to the French version.

Thanks


French Version

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 17:27

I will send it to you as well

Monsieur,
Madame,

Je me permets d’écrire à vous qui êtes mon représentant au Parlement européen pour vous mettre au courant de ma situation en tant que client d’une succursale de la banque islandaise Kaupthing hf. Cette succursale, Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, située dans l’Ile de Man, fut placée en liquidation provisoire le 8 octobre 2008. Depuis cette date, mes économies, ainsi que celles de plusieurs milliers d’autres épargnants, sont gelées et nous n’y avons plus accès, ce qui est source de beaucoup d’angoisse et d’inquiétude. Jusqu’à présent, l’Islande a refusé de reconnaître ses responsabilités et ne nous a proposé aucune aide.

Si je vous écris c’est pour vous demander de faire en sorte que l’Islande et la banque mère islandaise Kaupthing hf remplissent leurs obligations et exécutent la garantie parentale inscrite auprès des autorités de l’Ile de Man et utilisée à des fins de marketing pour promouvoir la banque KSFIOM comme étant un lieu sûr pour placer ses économies.

Plus précisément nous souhaiterions que l’exécution de cette garantie soit imposée comme condition préalable à toute adhésion islandaise à l’Union européenne (et/ou à la zone euro). En effet, tout pays membre, ou tout pays demandeur, doit accepter certaines obligations morales envers les citoyens d’autres pays membres pour que les clients des banques soient protégés contre les bouleversements du système financier. Tous les autres pays membres de l’Union européenne ont accepté ce devoir moral et trouvé les moyens appropriés pour garantir les fonds déposés dans les autres succursales de Kaupthing hf.

Par ailleurs, je souhaiterais avoir vos conseils sur la façon la plus efficace de faire du lobbying auprès du Parlement et autres institutions européennes afin d’amener l’Islande à reconnaître ses responsabilités dans cette affaire. Je vous joins en annexe un résumé concernant KSFIOM et ses origines, ainsi que des questions intergouvernementales soulevées dans ce dossier.

Je vous remercie infiniment d’avoir pris le temps de lire cette lettre et espère pouvoir compter sur votre aide dans cette douloureuse affaire.

Dans l’attente d’une réponse de votre part, je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur, Madame, l’expression de mes sentiments respectueux.

Signature


neil turner

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 17:03

Thanks Expat France - I am minded to rewrite my letter to him including some grammatical errors! But perhaps not, as I really would like him to concentrate on answering my questions.
By the way, where are you in France - I have a small pad in 06 and am going down there in April. If you're in that area we couild perhaps meet for a drink?


banna, we are in the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/03/2009 - 17:13

banna,

we are in the Charente (16), not sure where 06 is.


Is this a Kaputhing Icleand

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 12:35

Is this a Kaputhing Icleand account or KSF?

This is NOT the first time a UK company has got its money out of an Icelandic bank, a frozen food company did it a few months ago.


Looks like KSFIOM was involved

  • ksfmoney
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 17:47

Looks like KSF IOM was involved per this article

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailin...


reply from Mike Simpson

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/03/2009 - 19:51

I e-mailed Mike Simpson regarding this info and got an immediate reply from Mike saying that he is investigating this transaction.

Seems like he's on the ball.


@swiss: Well it would be an embarassment if he wasn't.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/03/2009 - 23:34

Ever heard of fire-fighting?
The guy doesn't give me the impression of being on the ball. The guy gives me the impression of being a "plodder".


This might be the thin end of the wedge we need

  • tonycBrisbaneOz
  • 12/10/08 31/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/03/2009 - 12:06

If his deposit had been with Kaupthing Edge, now ING, then he would have been able to access his funds on the 7th of February.

I have already written to my MP and the TSC about it.

Regards, TonyC


Whelan: look at the last sentence, we don't know yet!

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 15/03/2009 - 23:08

Calm down. Let's not go off half-cocked.
Gentle, persistent, reasonable, uncompromising!


Email Simpson (I just have)

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 15/03/2009 - 19:48

Email Simpson (I just have) to ask whether he will take court action to stop this and protect our money and find out when we get ours. He cannot just let this go.