John Wright

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

The following is a posting made by a John Wright on another forum. As already mentioned, if this is actually written by the John Wright who acted as DAG's advocate, it is quite amazing stuff...

"Lessons we should learn from KSF IOM debacle

1.There is no end to the greed of the depositors who think this will mean we taxpayers will now offer them 100p in £. I am sure Treasury, CoMin and Tynwald will not be blackmailed

  1. A solution proposed by Treasury which gave little or nothing and took 6 months of delay to be designed and put to a vote was always going to be a loser especially as the only reason for the scheme that anyone can see is so that our government can say no bank was liquidated when we were in power. Too late, stable doors etc say otherwise, any way

  2. Our Depositors Compensation scheme, which is not funded and or insured is crap and not worth the paper it is written on

  3. Never send our present Attorney General into court again to try and defend a useless scheme like DCS or a worthless scheme like the Scheme of arrangement. it was painful to watch and listen to

  4. Never, never, never, if we want to be respected internationally for our politics and legal sytem and integrity or for having any nouse or sense of fairness of hearing have the Attorney General have to appear in front of his own brother as the presiding judge. I know there is nothing sinister buty outsiders see it as unfair

  5. Be prepared. We must now set up a permanent emergency hardship fund to pay out smaller depositiors and people in hardship if this hapens to another IOM bank or an insurer

  6. The DCS and the Insurance scheme must now be funded as a matter of priority. The £150 miion treasury was to use in assiting the scheme of arangement must be used to seed this and a levy imposed on the finance industry to match over the next 20 years on the banks and insurers and we must look at some insurance as well or we scrap the schemes and make everyone aware they are not covered by depositing or investing in IOM

The truth is that over the next 6 or 7 yeras, absent fraud, and none discovered yet, and absent wholesale default, none yet and all lending adequately covered in loan to security ratios, taking into acciunt the 50p in £ due from London KSF administrators and the interest on the loans which have to be paid back over 5 years, with ot without the DCS recovery should be 95p plus, probably 100p. Yet no one officially will say so. They are scared of being wrong and told by their insurers to keep stum. But at the end of the day that is what the depositors want. Why when reality and desire mesh so well?......"

3.7
Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (10 votes)

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

John Wright

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 17:20

Leaving aside the unnecessary and unfair 'greedy' reference, JW's note is pretty insightful and provocative in my opinion.

What struck me most strongly was his assessment that a 95 per cent plus recovery was likely and that this opinion is widely (albeit secretly) shared. As he is certainly closer to the fray than I am, I found this encouraging.


John Wright

  • JayJay
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 09:12

In section 1 the writer states that the depositors - or a portion of them - are greedy. He also infers that they were/are/will be using blackmail tactics.

If the writer is indeed indisputably the advocate, John Wright, who acted for the DAG, then his comments on a public forum are unprofessional, unethical and possibly defamatory. As such the DAG, or any depositor who feels strongly about it, could report the matter to: Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal, Government Offices, Bucks Road, Douglas, IM1 3PW, Isle of Man.


John Wright isn't the issue -- John Aspden is!

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 05:38

My post in the Manx Herald

"I think the greed to which Mr.Wright referred was the attraction of the marginal bit of additional interest that KSFIOM offered over its rivals. We have been told by Mr.Aspden that this represented an elevated risk, so depositors have only themselves to blame for taking that risk & losing on the gamble.

But hold on Mr.Aspden, there should be no risk in putting one's money in a bank. It was not a gamble. Banks are there to look after one's money -- to provide security not the risk of possibly losing it! That's like a bank saying "your money is in our safe, but the safe door is not locked at night, & if a burglar nicks it that is your fault for depositing your savings with us"!

Depositors checked carefully before putting their money into KSFIOM. They were led to believe that the bank was in a consortium of 5 strong Nordic banks with low exposure to suprime, was backed by a parental guarantee and a DCS, plus the good reputation of the IoM boasting of having a robust regulatory regime that one would expect in a Crown Dependency as opposed to a banana republic.

As it turned out the only risk involved was on account of the gross regulatory failure of the FSC & the bank's directors who transferred £532m+ unsecured to a bank that it knew was on the ropes & subsequently went into administration!

Instread of having the moral courage to own up, they blame the UK Financial Services Authority for this disaster! Mr.Aspden you know the buck stops with you & the Directors but you think that the closing of ranks in this nasty little Island will protect you from your professional incompetence.

Mr.Aspden, you will not get away with this any more than MP's at Westminster are not getting away with their malfeasance."


@Jims post in Manx Herald

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 14:27

Jim for Justice:
I've wracked my brains over this and still can't figure out how the statement (repeated below) by one John Wright, can possibly refer to an incremental increase in interest that KSFIoM allegedly paid over and above its rivals. I simply don't get it, the man is talking about the greed of those of us who had our live-savings purloined for crying-out-loud; he clearly alludes to 'we taxpayers' offering 100p/£. Please Jim, explain how you get 'higher interest paid by bank' from 'greedy depositors expecting island taxpayers to pay 100p/£' ?

  1. There is no end to the greed of the depositors who think this will mean we taxpayers will now offer them 100p in £. I am sure Treasury, CoMin and Tynwald will not be blackmailed

With thanks,
Ice. (I also posted on MH)


Interpretation

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 16:40

By him saying "there is no end to the greed..." I thought he was referring to a 'beginning greed' that led to the deposit in the first place! How can one be greedy for wanting to have returned that which has been taken away from one ? If I walked into my bank and asked for £100 from my account I would not expect the cashier to say: "don't be so damn greedy -- you can't have it!"

If the government decides that the taxpayer must foot the bill for the incompetence of one of its agencies, then that will be an issue it will have to face with the electors not the depositors.

Perhaps someone on the Island should contact John Wright and check out if he is the guy posting on the manx forum


Mmmmmmmm.... Here's some free

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 17:53

Mmmmmmmm.... Here's some free advice: KISS! :-)


Mmmmmmmm.... Here's some free

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 17:53

Mmmmmmmm.... Here's some free advice: KISS! :-)


Seems no doubt he IS the same

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 17:04

Seems no doubt he IS the same man - see his subsequent post on the manxforum site (posted by CW below). He says the "greed" was expecting the IoM taxpayers to pay (though how that makes us greedy beats me). Whoever is ultimately responsible for this debacle, our bank was in the IoM jurisdiction, of which they are so proud. So it is to them we should turn for support. If they are convinced they bear no responsibility for the collapse of our apparently solvent bank, then why are they not going all out to get our money back from the UK?


John Wright (3), Icecrusher

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 15:36

This was JW's explanation on the same forum:

"I have thought long and hard about replying

I knew the topic would be controversial, but I wanted us to move on the debate about what we as a nation, government and tax payers do about regulating and providing a life boat for depositors with banks here and investors with insurance companies, when we have so signally failed this time araound

I am being very careful about what I say. Everything to which I refer is in public documenst or is my persoanl post 09 April opinion. I have no idea who voted for what in the scheme meetings and I have never represented anyone where my instructions were to force IOM government to pay back all depositors in full, that would be a political aim, not a legal one

First I do hope all depositors do get their money back, but not via taxation. I understand many people have lost life savings. The IOM never promised anything other than a small DCS life boat which it has increaseed since the event. I don't think the attitude of some that IOM should repay in full is either realistic or helpful

What I characterised as greedy was the attitude in some statements that the IOM Government, ie you and me as tax payers, had to pay any shortfall, absent fault.

In this matter we still do not know what has happened in UK or why, but it had a serious knock on effect and it tried our protection schemes to the limit and beyond and they have been found wanting, so also found wanting was the immediate response. Because we do not have a standing fund we had no emergency arrangemenst to make hradshup payments to those who lost everything

I contrasted a DCS scheme with a fund and insurance which might work, and just saying no protection as future options

I had hoped to widen debate. After all if we are to continue to offer banking and insurance investment products it is important. These are not things that only happen once in a world recession, but they happen regularly, 4 or 5 times in the ast 30 years banks in IOM have gone bust. Many snall manx insurers have gone into run off and IOM subsidiaries of UK insurers have had to be sold to protect them

These are questions the entire western world is asking itself. After the irish announcement, swiftly followed by others, none of whom can afford to honour te pledges if push came to shove, of 100% guarantees the EU is discussing capping lifeboat schemes

Of course there may be differences between small banks with savers only and large banks through which commerce of the country is transacted, Some may have to be saved and others not.

Fianlly I note lots of discussion about fees, mine, the liquidators and wages of Aspden and the staff still retained by KSFIOM. I cannot specifically comment upon mine without breaching client confidentiality but I can say would have been happy if I had received even half of what it is alleged I had received. As for Aspden, he has no job security and no government pension. If the banking regulator in a Gulf Stae made him a job offer, I have no idea what the slalary would be, but I hope the drift is followed. Its the rate for the job. As for the liquidator his fees are set out in the papwer on the KSF web site, they are not huge. How much did government spend of our money in putting together the scheme, I suspect well over a £million. As for the staff they have to run the bank calculate interest on the loans still outstanding, deal with repaymenst etc etc. It would eb a mess to sack them all and do nothing. This wil be a bank run down over but if total costs of liquidation exceed 5% I wiuld be surprised."


Sounds like he would have had

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 16:32

Sounds like he would have had a fundamental conflict of interest. He seems to have the protection of the beloved Isle of Man and its tax payers very much at heart. Would he have suggested any action that might have been detrimental to the Isle of Man? I doubt it. Sounds like he is running for office.


Lucky Jim's post in the Manx Herald

  • homeless
  • 18/10/08 01/01/16
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 13:46

Well said, you have hit the nail on the head.

Thanks for all the excellent posts and the work behind them.


John Aspden is

  • JLATROUILLE
  • 24/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 07:55

what about those who put their money in the Derbyshire?A pre tax paid pension .We were assured it was safe when Kaupthing took over the Derbyshire .There was a parental guarantee..........etc etc


John Wright (2)

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 17:30

Here's another posting from John Wright in follow up. I note that this JW has a blog spot where he talks about his place in Spain (same as 'our' JW) He also refers to his 'partner'. Quack, quack...

"The £150 million will not go into the scheme of arrangement, because it has failed to be voted in

Government willy have to fund the DCS to pay out people up to the £50,000 or £20,000 limit under the DCS but

1.They then rank parri passu (pro rata) with all depositors for dividends so they get most of iot back, and if I am right all of it back and

2.They can levy the banks to recover the money over time any way

At end of day both DCS and Scheme are cash neutral (over time) to IOM goverment in KSFIOM as it got its money back either way

i don't think out banking is finished. it offers significant advantages in the market place. But we have to be prepared, either we boldly say no depositor protection or we say there is and we run it properly

The EU is limiting the size of guarantees so the 100%, of Ireland, will go. ireland couldn't afford it by the way.

we have had the cries of doom about the failure of the banking sector via IFTC in 1979, SIB in 1982 and BCCI plus when all the EU disclosure and witholding stuff came in.

What really worried me at the end was the interviews given by Alan Bell, someone whose integrity I had admired previously saying if the creditors dod not vote for a scheme then there would be a fire sale of assets below value and everyone would get less. The liquidator had made it clear that he would be running down the affairs of the bank identically in schme run off or liquidation.

As for his fees, he will have earned them and there will be a comittee of inspection, appiinted from amongst the creditors who will oversee them and approve them as a control. Not the great and good but ordinary creditors out of whose pockets any payments will have been made"


quack quack

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 17:40

At least the arguments put in the forum by 'john wright' are clear and coherent.
Maybe this is why there is some doubt about whether the forim poster and the advocate are in fact the same person


Seems a bit low-brow for my

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 10:49

Seems a bit low-brow for my liking. Troll I think.


It is John Wright

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 15:25

SgKZ

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 13:01

Having been often called a "troll" myself for no good reason, I appreciate that this is an accusation lazily thrown around with little regard and thus has little weight.

The John Wright on the forum in question has the following stats:

Posts: 1,648
Joined: 1-September 06
From: Douglas and Mas Gassons
Member No.: 2,905

Now that would be some trolling and involve a considerable amount of foresight to wait for this very moment to post a few swipes at DAG, IOMG and the IOM financial system as a whole, don't you think?


Chris, not everything is

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 16:18

Chris, not everything is about you I am afraid.

I agree that it is obviously not a troll. Yes, it is sometimes thrown around a little lightly but sometimes it is absolutely true. I'm not a newby to internet forums.

Do you agree that it does sound a bit low-brow for a lawyer? The use of the word 'blackmail' in that situation is not exactly the most accurate and seems a little strange coming from someone who has supposedly represented DAG.

I am assuming that he is still retained by DAG and will be looking to stay in this for the long haul. Lawyers are anything but stupid when it comes to recognising where their next pay cheque is coming from.

Has to be another John Wright.


This is indeed the very same

  • anom
  • 27/05/09 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 13:48

This is indeed the very same John Wright. He is well known on the Island.

eg:

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=5999

ok, it could be argued a misdeamour by close assocation, but it does somewhat colour the character appropriately. Add this to the held-in-private court hearing of the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal (mentioned elsewhere on this site) in front of the Governor, 2nd Deemster and AN Other, then you get the idea.

I was very surprised when I learnt that some of you were employing John.

Over the years he has made a luxurious living out of the Isle of Man and its very, -very- dubious legal system. The first rule is . . . irrespective, don't kill the Golden Goose.

Who on earth recommended him to you?

John was never going to act in your interests. Never. The colour of your money looked good though.

You should have applied to employ a UK QC (actually often cheaper than the average bog standard Manx Advocate) who would have actually looked after your interests and probably cornered the Isle of Man Establishment into some sort of submission. John ain't EVER gonna do that.

How he would have loved to become the Attorney General?. Next time maybe?

Anyway, you live and learn.

Certainly, I hope you have all learned so much about our beautiful Island.

See ya next time

x


What an interesting

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/05/2009 - 14:27

What an interesting observation; I do believe that LG had something to do with this selection...


Icecrusher, Elgee wrote on 5/12/8, in this DAG forum

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 30/05/2009 - 17:30

"John Wright is good - you have my personal assurance on that. He was my recommendation based on many hours of talking to many lawyers in the IoM.

I am personally confident, from having spoken to many lawyers in London and the island, that the two lawyers that I recommended and the "London team" ultimately chose to instruct - John Wright in IoM and David Green at Edwin Coe in London - are amongst the best that the depositors could have obtained. So much so that now I am looking, at the request of several small depositors, into the possibility of separate representation for them, I am as yet unable to do as well in either location."

So it would appear you are correct.

And Elgee and others find it necessary to question my own credibility at every opportunity throughout this site? Hmmm.

Isn't it strange that JW states not only that depositors are "greedy", but that the DCS "is not worth the paper it is written on" whilst David Green, DAG's solicitor, states on today's BBC Radio 4 Moneybox show in one breath that depositors (which class?) will not get "paid more" but get "paid quicker", and in another breath that the DCS is not all that it is portrayed to be and could "take years" to pay out? Does this not mean that he thinks that the fully protected will get paid out considerably "slower" under the DCS, thus making it very detrimentally 'different' when compared to SOA for this class? Perhaps someone can clarify this?

I understood we were to reject the SOA in favour of the DCS because by doing so it would make 'no difference', and indeed could even be beneficial to the fully protected class, with regards to payout timelines? Yet it transpires, that perhaps neither of DAG's paid legal professionals had any faith in the DCS now or at the time?

I'm sure there is a good reason for why the opinions of DAG's appointed Legal Team have become known on this general forum post-event other than just me posting it, but I wonder what it is?


SgKZ

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 17:04

You may be assuming wrong. I read that DAG and JW were no longer together, but I have no idea if that is so. It might, however, explain the original post if it were. His blog indicates the writer works in the IOM law courts. Have you not seen the rest of this thread or other comments on the forum regarding DAG and their advocate? Guess not...


Chris, I don't read

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 16:43

Chris, I don't read everything on this forum or the other one, particularly the legal stuff as I haven't contributed to the legal fund and as a protected depositor the whole arguement is rather academic.

It wasn't that long ago that I had to point you in the right direction to find the Dag representatives for the under 50k group which had been known for months. So, silly little side swipes about my knowledge of different forums don't really make their mark coming from you.

Dos va danya.


SgKZ

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 17:03

Let's not fight unnecessarily. You only had to read this thread. You don't need to have contributed to the DAG legal fund to do so, believe me.

You stated the John Wright in question was a troll. I begged to differ. It seems like it was 'the' JW. Why do you think I'm making "silly little side swipes"? I am not. Calling someone a troll without any reason is, you may understand, a pet peeve of mine.

Yes, you did point me towards the under 50K group "to have little read". I did. Thanks. Does this mean I can't ask you to do the same for a different reason, without you getting defensive? Guess not. Again.


Unlike you Chris, I don't

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 31/05/2009 - 06:44

Unlike you Chris, I don't have time on my hands, nor the inclination to read and reply to the numerous posts on this forum let alone some Manx Forum.

You seem to take great delight in trying to wind people up, posing often irrelevant rhetorical questions. And you wonder why you often get labelled as a troll or people en-masse decide that they are going to ignore your posts?

You now seem to be on a personal crusade against Elgee, for what purpose? Is it going to help those less fortunate than us who aren't protected depositors get there money back? I think a part of you will be happy if the DCS takes ages to pay out because then you can crow about how right you were. I just hope that you have the humility to accept that you might have been wrong if it does indeed pay out in a timely manner.

Incidentally, the IOMG will seemingly do anything if it is in their best interest. You only have to look at the SOA to see that. So, a DCS that takes years to pay out is not going to happen. They are going to do everything they can to try and prove that it is 'worth the paper it is written on'. Not because they want us to be happy, but because they know what a PR disaster it will be for them.


SgKZ

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 31/05/2009 - 10:30

Some of you just don't get it, do you? If you wish to ignore my posts, fine. If it's not relevant to you that both DAG's lawyers apparently feel the DCS is crap, and yet this was not made known at the time of the SOA-vote, fine also. You're "greedy" according to a posting by a John Wright. Not want to know what an advocate one's paid for is allegedly saying about you? Did I write what JW wrote in the other forum? No. Did I know elgee recommended him personally? Not until now. There's another thread where I simply posted what was said on the Moneybox Radio 4 show, and that was enough to upset some people. Makes me wonder...

Humility? I'm one of the few who will hold their hands up when I'm wrong. But this thread isn't about when we get paid out. It's about DAG's advocate and the judgement shown in choosing him, and whether we can put faith in those that made this choice going forward. Apparently, it's OK for me to sit back and have my integrity questioned, but not OK if I respond in kind. Let's be clear - I'm not the one putting myself forward as a "leader". And by the way, I don't duck questions, like some. Doing so is Westminstering.

DCS taking ages = me happy? OK, whatever you say.


JOHN WRIGHT

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 08:08

Please tell me I am wrong. Is this the John Wright the DAG employed at great expense to act on our behalf? Was his post slagging us off written late in the evening? It seems if this is he, he was fined £20,000 for gross professional misconduct? Who recommended this person to us? http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/TOP-ADVOCATE-REPRIMANDED-FOR-EMAIL.180397...


Chris can you confirm which John Wright it is....?

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 07:32

this would probably be a good idea before making assumptions.


DNA

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 11:27

Yes especially as everyone seems to have both similar names and probably the same DNA on the IOM.


Bellyup, why the persistent slurring remarks

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 13:50

You seem to take great pleasure in attacking all on the Isle of Man. I live in Canada, have never visited the island and am just as upset as any other depositor with the series of events that have plagued us over the past seven and a half months but I certainly cannot understand this contempt you have for the Isle of Man and its citizens.

Every so often you put together a very well thought out and informative posting but then on other occasions you simply belittle anyone who voices anything contrary to your thinking. We are all in this together so please tone down your aggressive tone.


Thank you

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 14:06

I am totally uninterested in where you live. nor your schoolmarm strictures so please keep them to yourself.


@undone

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 07:04

That put you in your place didnt it. Now take 100 lines!


Wrong choice of word?

  • Valentine
  • 18/10/08 31/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 01:28

Don't read too much into JW'S initial comment.
I'm sure he didn't mean to use the word 'greed' - after all, how can people who have lost all their money, and just want it back, be called greedy?
I think he meant to use the word "cheek" - and if he did, he's got a point.
Let's face it, how can we really expect a place like the IOM to borrow money in order to pay all of us out in full? - unless they are found to be culpable, of course.

The rest of what he said is pretty much spot on.


Time for a bit of political reality.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 07:20

'They' screwed up. And they screwed up for corrupt reasons. They were trying to guard their asses after a series of appalling decisions. They were lambs for the slaughter but they were culpable.

JW's comments mirror something I heard from the IoW a few weeks ago. It was that there were egos the size of planets swanning around. Now after watching this recent farago, and people will understand roughly (and I mean that, it was a play) what my position was, I find I have a very strong criticism of many of the players here. The situation simply isn't good enough.

Where is the political analysis that unites us?

JW's comments are gross, they do him no service. But we obviously are confronted with a very angry person. All of us are confronting the IOM political machine. Everybody is angry, or defensive, or secretive. The one thing that is lacking is transparency.

Now where does the responsibility for this lie?

You, we, have to be asking the right questions. And we have to be prepared to accept the truth, not live in denial, and proceed accordingly.

I have interposed my commentary rather brutally after your comment Valentine. My comment is not directed at yourself. JW has stepped way out of line professionally with his comments. I'm starting to accept that his comments might serve us. Heads need to be banged together here. Our heads. This is the second time that the situation after a serious analysis looks ridiculous.

Does anybody understand politics here? I don't care if the HNW team have a Harvard lawyer (their investment strategy has just gone seriously south, no doubt because of their arrogance and lack of independent thought). I don't care if the London team is dedicated, and I personally would like to applaud Elgee's analysis, What matters is results.

Now with the information I see I conclude that our strategy needs to be tightened up. I want to see blood.


Isle of Wight

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 07:42

WTF has the IoW got to do with any of this ?


Reply to comment - should we be worried?

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 05:43

I copy just one of Wright's bullet points below:

"Our Depositors Compensation scheme, which is not funded and or insured is crap and not worth the paper it is written on"

not funded are the words which worry the hell out of me - where is this going to come from?

Me thinks the stress of this situation still hasn't fully started yet ?


That's why they invented the SoA

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 06:18

That's why they invented the SoA in order to cover up their worthless DCS. They didn't want the world to see that it was an empty scheme. They will be forced to expedite payments and find a solution because they have been bragging about their wonderful DCS during the entire financial crisis, and even though I think that their joint IQ is below 100, I really don't think that they are that dumb in making those protected depositors wait forever. I think that Bell's words confirm this, so I'm sure that you won't have to worry.

"The Isle of Man Government will now work to support the liquidation and DCS process with a view to expediting the repayment of depositors. We will seek to achieve a similar outcome for creditors with claims under £50,000 as would have been achieved under the Scheme of Arrangement, to respond to the clear preference expressed by them in voting for the Scheme."

Class 1 depositors are all in Bell's good books, and you earned a lot of Brownie points as you voted just how they wanted you to vote. They have no choice but to turn the DCS into a worthy bit of paperwork.

The SoA was just a bona fina DCS in disguise, and the IOM gov are just a bunch of manipulative con men.


@Swiss

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 07:32

Please done be so dismissive of sub 50k depositors. It does you no justice. I like I am sure many other depositors in that group voted for the SoA are careful consideration of the arguments from both sides and not because the IOM wanted us to vote in that way. Perhaps comments from many of the anti SoA side that the DCS was 'worthless' and an 'empty scheme' may also have had some influence.

If you want to carry on that route you could say that those Class 2 & 3 depositors must be in the DAG's good books and have earned their full quota of brownie points as the voted just how the DAG told you to vote!


Cheek or Greed ?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 05:13

Really ?
it looked very much like he meant to use the word greed to me he IS a lawyer and therefore will have a basic command of the English Language.

How he has the hard face to say this having taking a considerable amount of OUR money in fees is beyond belief.


Greed, cheek, or "the way we do things her (IOM)"

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 26/05/2009 - 15:36

The contempt expressed towards KSFIOM depositors, after taking our money to represent us, is similar to the contempt shown towards us by IOMG, following many good years of taking our money. Their assurances can join the ranks of "I'll respect you in the morning" and "The cheque is in the post." Any chance of ever learning the truth and bringing to justice those who are responsible so much misery would be foregone by signing away our legal rights of recourse (as difficult as it may prove to be to exercise them through IOM courts.) I, too, want my life/retirement savings returned. But I would also like those who put us in this position named, shamed, and jailed. It is obscene that the FSA official responsible for giving our money away gets an astronomical raise - a bit more than would have been my retirement income before my money was stolen. The exchange rate for 30 pieces of Biblical silver must be around £ 24,000 in IOM in 2009. Does anyone really believe that this was not the quid-pro-quo that bought exemption of IOM from the UK tax haven black list? They used our money to help bring that result about. Wants my money back and wants the villeins in the nick, wearing the striped suits they deserve.


John Wright

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 25/05/2009 - 10:12

I, for one, am convinced this is the same JW who acted for DAG and presumeably got paid for his services or he would be complaining.

It is the same JW who was fined 20grand for gross misconduct back in 2005 I believe.

He knows too much about the detail to be anyone else.

He seems to be a bit of a rebel.

I think that is just what is needed to kick some a**e.

I bet he knows some juicy stuff we could use to promote our cause.

How about it John--dish some dirt to the secret sqirrel line PLEASE!

And Belly up since you are a member of that other site, get him to talk out--wait until evening when he has had a few sherberts! OK John?


John Wright

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 24/05/2009 - 09:05

The forum is http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32732&st=0&p=431155...

WARNING: Posters aren't quite as 'delicate' or 'polite' to the partially protected on that forum as they are on here.