New Russian base on the IoM

  • peterthailandudon
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 13/12/2008 - 05:48

By what right can we expect or hope to be treated any more favourably than the hundreds,perhaps thousands, of small businesses that have lost money in KSF UK . There are lots of moral and ethical arguments, but I don't think they'll hold water in court and our principle enemy, HMG, seems to be anything but moral and ethical.

Make no mistake, I want ALL my money back and if we could be treated better than other "business" account holders in KSF UK,, I for one, would be very happy. I just can't see how this can happen.
Eventually creditors of KSF UK will receive Xp in the pound and we'll get the same - however deserving our cause, hovever much we believe, or were led to believe, our money was, or should have been ring-fenced.

Transport for London, local authorities, charities as well as numerous small business are all in the same boat.Surely,the liquidator in the UK, or even HMG can't give us our money back without equally compensating all other account holders.

The horrendous possibility exists that HMG may top-up the payout to "worthy" groups e.g. charieties, Transport for London (?) to a full 100% on an ex-gratia basis, thus fulfilling their quotes that they won't lose any money. But we, and small businesses etc will be left stranded.

We could of course sue the Directors and management of KSF IM and may succeed but I doubt they have 500+ million, although there would be some satisfaction dragging them through the courts.

I still think the IoM govt is our best hope for compensation, either through a concerted PR campaign ( don't keep money in the IoM) or via suing them; I fear that they are plotting to re-structure the bank, will offer us e.g. 50p in the pound - tell us that's a lot better than what we'd get if the bank goes into liquidation and furthermore save themselves from having to trigger the compensation scheme.
Someone will get the bank cheaply, the Govt of the IoM will have not spent any money and will say " no bank has gone bust in the IoM, it's a great place to invest" and the only losers - US

Actually, maybe the best answer would be for the IoM govt to invite Russia to set up a nuclear submarine base on the island for a generous donation which could then be used to compensate us and to set up the good citizens on the Isle for life

0
Your rating: None

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

They really would be beyond the pale i

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 09:17

The IOM really would be beyond the pale if they did this - they would find themselves looking down gun barrels before they could say KSF.

However they must get some bad publicity why should they just sit back and let people who put their trust and their money over there go under while they carry on business as usual.

IOM IF YOU STILL WANT TO BE A BANKING CENTRE YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

Are they taking Iceland to task and have they asked the IMF to pressure Iceland to pay out its IOM creditors?

What exactly are they doing?

Re being treated differently from other creditors- we are being UNFAIRLY discriminated against anyway.
Why will someone explain to me are the cats protection society ( and I am an animal lover) more worthy of a seat on the creditors committee than us the second largest creditor?


IoM You must do something

  • peterthailandudon
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 14:55

Imagine the scene at No. 10 a few months ago;

Darling. "Good morning PM. We've just heard that the US bank, Lehman Bros will be put into liquidation this weekend resulting in thousands of Brits losing many millions of pounds. If we act quickly,we can seize whatever is in the bank and use it to alleviate the potential suffering of our people, before those damn Americans get their hands on the money"

PM: "Just how many nuclear warheads, battleships a nd war planes do the Americans have. Darling, you're an idiot, get out."

Darling: Yes,Prime Minister

Same place, a couple of months ago.

Darling: "Good morning PM. We've just heard that some Iceland banks might be going broke and thousands of Brits will lose many million of pounds If we act quickly we can seize whatever is in the bank and use it before it's sent to Iceland, although there will be some collateral damage to those who bank in the Isle of Man."
PM:" just how many warheads do you think the Icelanders or the Isle of Man have. Get a bloody move on Darling."

Darlng : Yes, Prime Minister.

And what's the betting that sometime around March/April this year

PM:" Darling, get someone to tell those pinheads in the Isle of Man to send us all their money. We'll tell them it'll be quite safe in London and anyway, we can use the dosh"

Of course we need the IoM govt to help us, but I wouldn't count on it unless we can twist their arms with the threat of publicity aimed at wrecking their financial services industry and /or court action due to the negligence and incopetence.
I think they are just too afraid of the UK govt to really rock the boat and we need them too become even more afraid of us


No threat

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 10:02

The FSCS had a massive voting capability because of the compensation given to UK depositors. They effectively voted us off as we are probably a threat that the UK Treasury can do without (as they caused our problem). The Cats Protection Committee is not a threat.
In my opinion the Treasury/FSCS have overstepped the mark and should be challenged.


cats first

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 11:42

A cats charity secures a committee seat.
The liquidator provisionally of a bank of 8,000 people (PEOPLE) is voted off.
The minds of the FSCS are poisoned, their hearts are twisted.
Or have we British always put animals first?


This is ridiculous

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 16:52

Re the cats charity

You just couldnt make this up i think we should send Steenjp post en masse to Lord bach or anyone else that we can think of.

Does anyone have an email for him the ones i have keep getting returned as unknown .


Here's a list of emails that I

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 14:41

Here's alist of emails that I sent my JCM letter to including Lord Bach:

MILLSC(?)parliament [dot] uk, cheesemang(?)parliament [dot] uk bachw(?)parliament [dot] uk, davidheath(?)davidheath [dot] co [dot] uk, SCOTTA(?)parliament [dot] uk, sianjamesmp(?)parliament [dot] uk, kawczynskid(?)parliament [dot] uk, mordenj(?)parliament [dot] uk, morganj(?)parliament [dot] uk, alunmichaelmp(?)parliament [dot] uk, neillb(?)parliament [dot] uk, riordanl(?)parliament [dot] uk, sharmav(?)parliament [dot] uk, tyriea(?)parliament [dot] uk, whiteheada(?)parliament [dot] uk, john [dot] mcfall(?)blueyonder [dot] co [dot] uk

A couple of JCM members were without emails...

Ice


Cats charity

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 17:58

Based on an earlier report of the creditors meeting posted by restless, I'm beginning to think the "Cats" charity may in fact be representing a group of 25 charities, including Naomi House, a children's charity who have said they are represented by such a group on the creditors' committee - see my posting on the "Weekly call with Mike Simpson ...." topic. If so, protesting on these grounds becomes more difficult.


Cats = Save our Savings

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 18:58

Just posted this in thread about 'Weekly Call with Mike Simpson at Price Waterhouse Coopers IOM'

Just to avoid any further confusion: it is the group Save are Savings that secured a place on the creditors' meeting They did attend the meeting on 1 dec, but were not on the list of possible candidates (maybe because they were too late to notify E&Y and lists were already printed?). However, during the meeting, before voting obviously, they publicly requested to act as a group of charities under the name of Cats Protection, since they were already on the list (the Chief Executive of Cats Protection is a spokesperson of Save our Savings and was there as well). E&Y agreed and subsequently Save our Savings asked the attendees to vote for Cats Protection if they wanted to vote for the charities.

It is probably because Cats Protection was the official candidate on the list, that E&Y still mentions them as being on the creditors' committee. I just received the update from E&Y myself (same one as from Mike Simpson) and indeed no sign of Save our Savings. During the meeting on 1 dec however, after voting took place, E&Y mentioned Save our Savings as one of the members of the creditors' meeting.

http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/content.php?id=2422&pg=15&cat=58
http://www.naomihouse.org.uk/news/art198.aspx
-> Professor Khalid Aziz, Chairman of Naomi House will be acting as spokesperson for the group, together with Peter Hepburn, the Chief Executive of Cats Protection. Khalid Aziz said, "Naomi House has been campaigning for the safe return of our funds since October, and we are not giving up until they are returned in full. The £5.7million we have at risk has been donated by our supporters in the local communities we serve. We owe it to them and the families who use Naomi House to keep up the pressure on the administrators and the Government to ensure that this is done as soon as possible.’ "The team at Naomi House has been working with Cats Protection to secure a place on the Creditors Committee; success will give the hospice a voice during the administration process. Forming the action group, Save Our Savings, will help to achieve this, and by working together, we increase our chances of representation."

Hope this helps,
restless


Thanks restless for your

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 19:21

Thanks restless for your clarification, which confirms what I had somehow managed to deduce.

Incredible that E&Y couldn't get it right on their official meeting report - doesn't exactly inspire confidence!


Its still wrong

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 18:12

So does that mean we have to shut up because it looks bad to protest if children rather than cats are involved?

It still doesn't make it right.

Not morally not legally.

We are people too.


I'm not saying we should shut

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 18:27

I'm not saying we should shut up; just that putting charities helping children or other people in need before "rich-cat (sorry, pun unintended!) offshore depositors" may be harder to protest about than putting cats before. Nothing to do with what is right.

And I don't suppose any of this was actually illegal. Just dirty tactics to keep potentially more awkward customers out of harm's way. FSCS didn't want us on this committee and they had the (legal) means to keep us out.

I just hope it doesn't cause us too much harm. What power does this committee actually have? As I understand it all unsecured creditors have to be treated equally? But I was worried by a comment I read somewhere on a House of Commons site by I forget what MP in response to a question by the Naomi House charity who was told that being represented on the committee they would have a stronger voice. Hopefully the MP was just trying to placate her.


purpose of committee?

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 19:12

anrigaut: According to the E&Y statement : "The purpose of a creditors committee is to assist the administrators.It may also fix their remuneration." .. All a bit vague, and they also suggest that it wasn't actually necessary to have a committee formed.


Yes - I've seen that. As you

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 19:25

Yes - I've seen that. As you say, (more than) a bit vague!


Cats before people

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 15:17

Perfectly put steenjp - no further comment !


How much FSA?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/12/2008 - 12:39

Have the figures been produced yet as to the exact amount that Treasury/FSA underwrote the Edge deposits? I think they said about £2.6Billion at the time. The legal requirement was up to a maximum of £50K per person wasn't it? So the Treasury paid the FSA for any account holding more than £50K and the FSA is 'standing in' for all previous retail depositors.

The thing about all those other accounts is that they (presumably) elected to place their monies in the UK bank as unsecured assets; whereas we didn't exactly do that - we placed our money as individual retail depositors and have ended up in a wholsale depositor position by virtue of our money being put in the UK bank - isn't that it?
Ice


Thanks dclf

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 10:07

Thanks I shall forward this information to my MP