Maybe Manxmen are getting the message!

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 07/02/2009 - 11:17

Noticed a lot more of our comments were eventually posted in response to TSC meeting including several from island residents.
Mine was "Distraught Grannie" this one was next but one below:-

Most commentators here agree that Tony Brown's performance was weak and defeatist. However, we do not know what pressures our government is being put under by the UK bully boys. If the Isle of Man could prove the allegations made in their written evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, that a perfectly solvent bank on the island was brought down by the actions of the UK government, it would be devastating for Comrade Gordon and his old labour crew. Their claims that the banking collapses were entirely due to events outside their control would be shown to be untrue. They couldn't allow that and I am convinced by the about-face change in the IOM government stance between the written and verbal evidence that serious threats to the island's future were probably made by Jack Straw and Lord Bach, our 'representatives' in the UK government, if our delegation 'spoke out of turn'. Now our government's leader has stated publicly that Tynwald takes full responsibility for banks within our jurisdiction, whoever caused their collapse, with all the implications for island taxpayers like me. We wait to see if Tony Brown will live up to that promise by properly and speedily arranging compensation for KSF depositors before their action group carries out its threats to start a massive propaganda campaign against our island, destroying the future of our main industry.
JOHN, Douglas

There are at least 2 more from an islander's perspective. Interesting!

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/politics/Chief-Minister-gives-evidence-to.4944...

4.833335
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (12 votes)

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

The message must have been "shut up or else...."

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 08:16

I am sure the message from UK to IOM was that they had the choice between bearing the full burden of the collapse or call from assistance from the UK government where after the UK government would feel compelled to re-evaluate the Islands ability to run an independent financial industry. Too bad they are letting themselves being bullied in such an obvious way.


The message must have been "shut up or else...."

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 09:52

I am informed that the IOMG were threatened by the Dept of Justice with a reduction in what is known as the "common purse" (the island's share of UK customs and excise revenue) if it rocked the boat, hence what you observed at the TSC.

Also, I think it very likely that the inquiry, announced several months ago, into the island's tax haven status was used to put pressure on IOMG.


Foot report

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 11:32

I think that the Foot report may have more to do with the G20 OECD meeting that is being held on 2 April in London that Mr Brown is hosting


Next TSC meeting

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 10:34

Elgee I suspect there is some truth in your statement. I would like diver to state that the inference is that the IOM has been warned off. Obviously he has no actual facts but said in the right manner would I am sure get the pint across that HMG are being bullies. I suppose the fact that is there is that the the OIM have stated in writing that they blame the HMG but were not prepared to state it at the last meeting could be used.
It disturbs me to think that the Dept. of Justice would stoop this low but under the present leadership it does not surprise me.


I tend to agree with both

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 10:29

I tend to agree with both posts above - but why would HMG do this to ordinary retail depositors in the first place? Was it a 'mistake' that they just cannot admit to?


We are just a small inconvenience to HMG

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 11:31

The fact is that we were merely collateral victims of HMG’s actions and are at best somewhat inconvenient for them in our present situation. They definitely don’t want to compensate us because if they do you will have headlines all over The Sun and other similar papers stating the Government bails out rich offshore tax evaders


I tend to agree with both

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 11:15

I am not sure that it matters whether it was a mistake (in the sense of it being unanticipated and unintended) or merely something about which HMG had no concern or was reckless. I think the real question is one of causation (did event A lead directly to event B, or might B have happened for other reasons or in any event), and HMG are not going to admit that because if they do then it might be suggested by those that matter (eg. TSC, ombudsman, a court, an inquiry) that they should compensate.

As for governments using financial pressures to achieve a diplomatic result, I think that is standard practice (eg. foreign aid).


VAT reduction

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 16:24

The reduction in rate of VAT also applies to the IoM (no choice in this matter)

This will reputedly lead to a reduction of £40m in IoMG revenue. ( a fact I find mind-boggling for 80k population! )

The IoM concern re this £40m reduction in income IMHO supports the suggestions in previous posts that the IoM

is vulnerable to UK "financial diplomacy" which looks a lot like bullying.

Changes in the IoM / UK health service arrangements also look like UK bullying the IoM.


"a perfectly solvent bank on

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 07/02/2009 - 11:51

"a perfectly solvent bank on the island was brought down by the actions of the UK government,"

If it was solvent, it wouldn't have been brought down.

Everybody keeps talking about the £550m as is it exists - it doesn't; KSFIoM lent it to the UK branch and the UK branch lent it to its customers. KSFUK was still insolvent and by extent so was the rest of the bank.
You have to remember the purpose of KSFIoM was to provide money to the Icelandic head office because they had no access to any other funds. The bonds market was shut to them in early 2007.


Not correct -- KSFIOM was solvent

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 13:06

it became insolvent because it had it's licence withdrawn as a result of it's funds being frozen in the UK.


Not correct -- KSFIOM was solvent - NOT

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 08/02/2009 - 13:50

LJ: "it became insolvent because it had it's licence withdrawn as a result of it's funds being frozen in the UK."

Incorrect. It became insolvent as a result of having no access to its funds in the UK and no funds from its parent and then declared itself to be insolvent (see 1st affidavit in this matter, 9 Oct 2008), as a result of which it had its licence withdrawn.