Phone call this morning with PWC

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 01/07/2009 - 12:29

Called PWC to ask the obvious (i.e. why PWC did not ask Treasury to pick up the bill). Someone called Damon said MS was busy but that he would ask him and call me back. He did and said; " we are updating the DCS website and that the answer to my question would be there". I asked if he could tell me now and he said it was to do with PWC asking for expert legal advice and being informed (by these advisors) that they (PWC) would not be successful in their attempt to get Treasury to pay..... so they didn't ask them..... (Hope that makes sense). I then asked if he could tell me how much and when I could expect to get all my money back. He tried to get out of this saying it all depend on this and that and blah blah blah. He said they had received nothing from E/Y yet and that the loan book was from where most of the money would come back from and that that would take 3 to 5 years and when I pushed him on the percentage return of my savings he said the ballpark figure of around 70% was about right. I told him what I thought about that and about him and PWC. I am left with the overpowering feeling that unless we do something drastic, really drastic, we are NOT going to get 100% of our money back. We are going to have to sit this out for 3 to 5 years and then only get around 70% back.

4.666665
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (27 votes)

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

Costs of SOA

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 05/07/2009 - 11:35

The Simpson took advice from QC (at our expense) and was told the pursuit of costs of SOA was unlikely to be granted by the DD Corlett--it would have cost only fourpence to ask--wtf are they on?

When and how did the Simpson ask or consult regarding his involvement in the IOMT scheme of aggravation?

I can find no record of him asking or even consulting council on this matter and the Simpson now has the audacity to say he consulted QC regarding the costs--so he spent a million quid of our money without mandate and then spends more on advice not to claim it back--it beggars belief IMHO


@bobwin - It beggars belief

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 05/07/2009 - 11:49

Mine too! And it now appears that he was actually INVITED by the DD (at the 27 May hearing) to ask for costs; why on earth would the DD do that if he had no intention of accepting ???

For me, this was definitely the last straw ...


Direct action

  • grandmaparis
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 03/07/2009 - 00:13

Peter and Louise. I would certainly be prepared to take part in some form of direct action. Personally I would prefer a demo in London. But it must be something eye-catching, don't you think?


NO STONE WILL BE LEFT UNTURNED...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 04/07/2009 - 05:59

People need to be made accountable for our grief, I want my mine and everyones money back


OBJECTIVE

  • benchar
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 17:03

This has always been the probable outcome,despite all the fantastic efforts of the DAG and the very hard work of the dedicated few.
The ONLY way to change this,especially at the 12th hour,is DIRECT ACTION.
I understand that we are not the type of individuals accustomed to this.But if we truelly want 100% of our money back it's probably our only hope,it will certainly supplement all the other good work being done.
I have called for DIRECT ACTION several times and only recieved excuses or silence.
It needs a few hundred of us to BLOCKADE port of Douglas ,whilst a specific day of action outside embasies,France ,Spain etc.
Direct Action cannot be achieved from a desk,it can only be achieved in the streets.
We need to cause serious disruption to get noticed.


Direct action group

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 10:11

Can I suggest those talking about direct action do so in the Direct Action Group. The advantages are:

  • Discussion can be kept private (within that group) if required
  • You can see how many members have joined that group, giving you an indication of the level of support.
  • You can run polls within that group, to see opinions of peers within the group rather than all members.
  • By joining the group and setting a subscription, other members can be automatically notified (by email) of activity there.

DIRECT ACTION

  • benchar
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 03/07/2009 - 00:41

Thanks ng will take your advice.


In answer to benchar

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:22

I am prepared to participate in DIRECT ACTION. I too see this as the only way of getting something done. What shall we do? Shall we chain ourselves to the railings of Parliament in London or to the railings of Tynwald IOM or shall we go over to Iceland and do it there. They are all responsible and therefore legitimate targets. I do not want harm inflicted on innocent bypassers but yes, I do want to shameface the politicians that have done this to us. There will be 'difficulties' for us (imprisonment, maybe a beating), but it is a just cause and therefore how can you turn your back on it. So, let us all talk and organise. What can we do? Whatever we do it must be hard-hitting. And whatever we do we need numbers, people with us there who know how to talk and touch the right cord with the media who will be there. We have a lot of clever people in our ranks as depositors, maybe even some of the HNW people can join us on the streets. So, count me in for DIRECT ACTION.


DIRECT ACTION

  • benchar
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 19:59

I had previously suggested tagging onto the Tamil demo in Parliament Square,But believe that we should do a "FRENCH" style blockade of the port of Douglas,I suggested this for the TT races but was shot down on the DAG site for not considering the bikers. SOD the bikers ---- have they sympathy for us !
Obviously Action either London or Douglas,I don't personnally think that action in Iceland would get publicity, Sit in (or out )at Icelandic embassy is an option.It needs to be where it would get the best support rather than where.

I am willing to be an organiser,but my skills on site are insufficient to put this out.
Whatever is decided we must have sufficient numbers to cause disruption, minimum 200 individuals or same number of vehicles for blockade without specific undertaking by such numbers we will not be effective.
I understand that such action is only applicable to those who live in UK.But even so we will individually incur costs for travel etc,it's really a case of having to speculate to accumulate.There is no guarantee direct action will get our money back,but it can only enhance and highlight our plight,and who knows--- at least we willthen have done everything we can as individuals.
All those that live outside UK need to have a day of action to coincide where they live ,understanding smaller numbers,protest at British or icelandic embassy in France/Spain /Germany etc.


Conker championships!!!

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/07/2009 - 18:10

I believe that the IOM conker championships should be coming up in October time. Last year this event even took the lime lite away from the collapse of the bank so you can see how serious these Manx take their conkers.
I think this would be an excellent place to take some kind of action. Hey maybe we could even go over in September and harvest every last conker they have on the island......thus leaving them the only option of importing conkers. We could even sell them back to them for say a small some of 800 odd million quid.

The other option i would consider would require one of use to voluntarily become infected with Swine flu and go on a sneezing fit around the island!!! Biological warfare!!! I would pay serious money to see Browns facial hair clogged with a thick residue of viral snot!!!


Benchar

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 21:17

We are with you 100%. Should DAG be asked to put out a 'Call to Arms.' We need numbers for sure and we need to decide where maximum impact can be inflicted on government.


MOst of us are not here!

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 17:29

Benchar it is not lack of willingness its largely geographical.

Many of us are far away and traveling is expensive+ accommodation etc.

However there must be some people who are in the UK.


peter and louise

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 13:35

You state:-

'We are going to have to sit this out for 3 to 5 years and then only get around 70% back.'

Why the surprise, we have known that this was the case for months. It was always going to be the case with liquidation and has nothing to do with the competence or otherwise of the liquidator. He can only pay out what he can realise from the available assets of the bank, as and when they are sold or run down, so its no use having a go at him.

The only way the balance is going to be filled if from a source other than the banks assets, IOM Government, HM Treasury, Iceland etc.


I thought that 70% return was

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:04

I thought that 70% return was the percentage given before E & Y stated that we would get minimum 50% return from KSFUK. I know that Simpson got his sums wrong, but surely the dividend will be higher once money starts rolling in from UK.


Difference between Frog and MS.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 14:25

Interesting statement form MS to Peter & Louise.
Now Frog seems to have the expectation of a higher return.
Given that Frog has, we might imagine, had a closer liaison than most with MS, where does the discrepancy come from?
How does Frog, after his conversations with MS, reach an apparently different conclusion.

This issue seems to go back to the behaviour of MS. As Frog is now allied with HNW might not some of the differences of'opinion' we see come from a different reading of the facts. HNW's recent blog posting on 'reply to DST/DAG seems logically flawed to me, seems rather vacuous, demagogy like. Given the DD's comments in his recent decision I feel that they, HNW, need to be considerably more explicit in their responses otherwise the stand vulnerable to being accused of the same behaviour they accuse DST of.

They will read this. I don't know whether we can consider an accountant an intellectual. I personally have met the grossest accountants. And the same goes for the lawyers (as for the bankers- I reserve comment) but I feel I am seeing a deficit on their election hoardings. I don't even understand, and they don't even attempt to explain, the possible practical differences between a DAG approach and an HNW approach that might benefit us. They just state a platitude, let's say 'strength in diversity'. There is no substance to HNW's argument. Perhaps the intellectuals amongst them might hazard a response given the facts on the table at this point. Where exactly is the split?

As far as I can see it's just style, and style is detail.

On a more concrete note I'm writing to MS/PWC. Their position just stinks.


Returns

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:02

You knew for months (so you say) that this was the case (i.e. 3 to 5 years and 70%) but I certainly haven't. And neither do I think I shouldn't 'have a go' at the liquidator should I so wish. PWC are remiss in their duties towards us, they have NOT been proactive in any sense of the word, their interest in us is simply how much they can fleece us for and their manner on the phone, in spite of this, is distant and verging on arrogant. After 8 months of being on the case their answer to the important questions is 'don't know.'


@returns

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:18

I have to say I find it extraordinary for anyone to follow this forum without understanding that a 5-6 year wait with no more than 70% has long been the best offer from liquidation. To get more than this means that it must come from elsewhere. It isn't the liquidator and what he can do that is going to get us any more money, but who to sue and for what - and that comes down to lawyers, not creditor's committees and liquidators...


Correct Icecrusher. We need litigation.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 14:30

Now how are we going to organise this?


icecrusher.. what about direct action..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 17:46

I think we need to coordinate direct action but its always always talk, but i feel fight theft is getting a website going isnt she?We have to maximise the internet and this will be effective for us, tell the world this iswhat happened to us. This is the information age we can do this you know..tell our story, warn people come on everyone


NEXUS - something to do today

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:05

Write to Iain Yule at Nexus - the magazine for expatriates.

Giving an update on our situation.

They are still giving out top offshore rates mostly in the IOM.

yulepress(?)aol [dot] com


written to nexus..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 04/07/2009 - 05:43

I have written to nexus...we need direct action this is the only way forward. This rubbish of not allowing demos on the tnt rally on the isle of man is disgraceful... we want our money back, our legacys, these are rightfully ours every penny..


LP's account of judgement now

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 13:17

LP's account of judgement now on bank site (not DCS site as suggested above):

http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4134

Needless to say he doesn't mention the comment about possible dereliction of duty ....


LP's account of judgement now

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 17:27

In respect of the following paragraph which appeared on the liquidators' website:

http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4134

"The Joint Liquidators Provisional wish to make clear that their decision in this regard was based solely on the extensive legal advice that they obtained as to the prospect of any such application being successful. In particular advice was sought from leading Queens Counsel. In the absence of any legal advice that there was a reasonable prospect of being successful in such an application, the Joint Provisional Liquidator considered that they would have been derelict in their duty to creditors if they had chosen to disregard the legal advice they had received and had pursued such an application. Indeed the judgment makes clear that as the Depositors Action Group’s application for its costs to be met by the Treasury had been rejected, it follows that an application for the Joint Liquidators Provisional costs to be met by the Treasury would be rejected."

Well, the response is quite clear. Who was the QC and can we please have a full copy of the advice referred to (it will obviously be paid for by the bank and hence the creditors). Last time we asked for a copy of advice relied upon by PWC (in relation to the preservation of the parental guarantee under the SoA), the request was refused. What do you think are the chances of it being provided this time?

I would add what I posted elsewhere:

When a judge invites a party to make an application, especially in the very hearing in which the subject matter of the invited application is the subject of the hearing itself, it is not normally because the judge intends to refuse the application immediately after it is made.

So who buys PWC's excuse?


Who buys PWC'sexcuse ?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 19:44

Not me, elgee! It just doesn't hold water.

As I posted on some other thread earlier, what did he have to loose by not asking unless he had something to hide? It doesn't cost anything (in financial terms) to ask, does it? OK - if costs were refused, at least he would have tried.

Our chances of seeing his advice ? Infinitesimal I would think.

I must say though your penultimate sentence has got me foxed; try as I may I can't quite get my brain around it! Maybe I've missed something; what did the judge invite him to do and in which hearing?


Who buys PWC's excuse ?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 23:36

Anrigaut: Judge invited PWC's advocates (Cains) to make an application for PWC's costs (company's costs) in SoA to be paid by Treasury and they declined to do so. When a judge invites you to do something it is normally a strong signal that if the application is made then s/he will grant it. For example "Mr Smith, would you like to apply for your costs?" or more subtly "Mr Smith, do you have anything to say to me on the matter of your costs?" or "Mr Jones, do you wish to make an application for me to strike out the defendant's counterclaim?".

Many, many years ago, when I was a very young man, a purple judge interrupted me after I started to say "I wish to sum up" with "there's no need for that, Dr. whatever". I said "But your honour, I understood that it was normal for me to sum up at this point". The judge said "Dr. whatever, if you were fortunate enough to be a member of the bar, you would know that when I say "there's no need to sum up" I mean that I have already decided in your favour". And so it is with applications - when you are invited by a judge to make one, of course you do it because you know he is minded to grant it. You don't, as Cains did, refuse the invitation on the basis (this is what they said) that you have been advised that the judge will decide against you. It is plainly absurd. No matter what you may have been advised, the fact that the judge is making the invitation means that he does not intend to decide it against you. It is like, as I wrote elsewhere (or something similar), a woman coming up to me at a dance and saying "would you like to ask me to dance?" and my saying "no, because I think you would say no". Well I guess some women might do just that, but judges just don't. I say that PWC's position in this matter is indefensible - it is plainly wrong. Their new excuse that it would have been in dereliction of theit duty to depositors is patently absurd.


PWC's excuse

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 09:48

OK, elgee. That's what I imagined you meant. It's just that I seem to have missed out on (or lost track of) the fact that the Judge INVITED Cains to make a costs' application. Was this at the 27 May hearing? I can only find the court order which makes no mention of this.

In this case, their excuse - which I already found suspect - holds even less water. How can any of us continue to defend him or to believe he will come good for us?


PWC's excuse

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 10:00

Anrigaut: the fact of the invitation by the judge and the lawyers' responses to it was reported by Edwin Coe who were present together with Dominic Chambers QC (for us) and Richard Halsall (for us).


elgee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 17:41

Should it not be who "pays" for PWC's excuse?

What do you think? "We" should replace them? Or are you staying "neutral"?


Chris Watson

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:13

Chris: I am guided by DAG's view, which was clearly expressed to be in favour of having a conflict liquidator, with a close secondary option of replacing PWC altogether. I think my own view is irrelevant. I have spoken to both liquidators provisional (or in Manx-speak "liquidators provisionally") several times (MS always in the presence of his lawyers) and have a few opinions of my own, but they are subjective anyway.

I wonder who the silk was who purportedly advised PWC not to apply for SoA costs from the Treasury? PWC has not brought a silk into the proceedings before. I will make a few enquiries and see if we can find her or him and what s/he advised.

The question who pays for PWC's excuse can easily be answered - creditors, and twice over.


@Elgee

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:17

Appreciate your point regarding PWC applying or not for SOA costs from the treasury.

I don´t recall seeing any explanations as to why PWC accepted to work on the SOA at IOMG´s request at the expense of the creditors. Surely they should have stipulated that costs would be to IOMG´s account before proceeding. After all the SOA did not bring any more monies to the table for the creditors.


@Elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 18:26

Of course they should have entered into an arrangement with IoMT over costs before undertaking the work. Their apparent failure to do so may well be the reason why they were advised not to make an application for IoMT to pay after the event.

Strangely PWC don't explain why they opposed DAG's legal costs being paid by the Treasury. Was that too on advice from their silk?

I will wait for comments on this matter from DAG's legal advisers, but I would venture to suggest that failure to follow advice given by your own counsel in relation to the making of an application to the court (especially as such advice would not normally be known to creditors) would NOT be deriliction of duty on the part of liquidators and the manner in which PWC has sought to spin (and I do mean literally mean spin) the DD's comments about deriliction of duty is verging on laughable.


PWC Costs

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 19:56

I think it is astonishing that having committed £000,000s [probably] on developing an SOA, which was 'on balance' a good idea by his own admission that he did not "risk" what would have been perhaps £10K if that on making a cost application. The risk of an adverse costs order (and its quantum) would have I guess been very low, and the potential upside in terms of recovery of £000,000s for the creditors would have made the decision very easy.

Even if the legal advice would have stated that the costs application was unlikley to succeed I still think that the amount at risk would have made the decision a commercial one to proceed.

I am mystified and think that this particular action, is certainly meritous of further review IMO.


Dereliction

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 19:48

"the manner in which PWC has sought to spin (and I do mean literally mean spin) the DD's comments about deriliction of duty is verging on laughable."

Indeed; that's exactly what I meant ...


Dereliction

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:58

And so it goes on ad nauseum. Comments, observations, insights, disgust, dismay, all so eloquently aired over a web-site read by few and acted on by none. Where is this all going! Nowhere. DIRECT ACTION IS THE ONLY WAY OUT. FORCE POLITICIANS TO ACT. They are the ones who will bring about justice but only if we make them. How the hell to move on from this is unclear to me at the moment. I know there are some out there who will act. But who will join us. Who can, who is able and ready. This web-site and DAG has done so much. Can we all organize a demonstration PLEASE. It can be done. Voting and proxies and this and that is all well and good but matters are slipping away from us now. We need to be out on the streets. Think about it before slapping this back in my face. We need to DEMONSTRATE ON THE STREETS.


@peter and louise

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 09:42

While appreciating your efforts to organise direct action in the form of a demonstration, I feel you are being a little unfair - and that saddens me. I'm sorry if our discussions give you nausea, but you are not obliged to read them - and they were posted in a thread you yourselves started concerning the performance of PWC ("why PWC did not ask Treasury to pick up the bill") rather than as a call to Direct Action:)

No-one is trying to stop you or anyone else from organising Direct Action -indeed I applaud your efforts in this direction and have absolutely no wish to slap you in the face. But I disagree that Direct Action (as you understand it) is the ONLY way out. The written word can be extremely effective over time ("mightier than the sword" and all that) and we need to pursue all avenues in parallel - we are not in competition!

Of course, to be effective the words have to reach the right ears, in our case the politicians who have landed us in this mess. They can also be a means to "force politicians to act" - at least as powerful, and maybe more so in our case, than demonstrations (for which unfortunately let's face it - we will never have thousands of supporters out on the streets). This is a chat forum, but the discussions here are not idle chat. The shared insights and clarification of thinking they provide help us to better define and carry out the relevant actions elsewhere. Surely that is the purpose of this site?

Right now, it is normal that the issues of voting at the Creditors' meeting to be held in only 5 days time take precedence. I may be wrong (I'm no expert in this), but it is my understanding that a pro-active, independent-minded and uncompromised Liquidator CAN initiate actions (eg against parties at fault) which may significantly improve our returns. So getting the best possible team together (both in terms of the Committee to be elected and the Liquidator) is important - and now is perhaps our one and only chance to get it right. Yes - a political solution to give us back 100% remains our objective, but since we are not sure to get that it seems essential that we also work to get the most out of what is available as of now - the liquidation process.

There's nothing to prevent you and others from pursuing the Direct Action line at the same time, though I suspect you might get a better response after next week's meeting. I do not personally have the capabilities to organise a demonstration, but if something not too physically demanding is organised in London I would try to participate, though I'm not in UK. I have in the past marched in 'demos' in the streets in Paris (the French are good at this!), but I was physically more capable at the time and am no longer able to run away from trouble or risk being brutalised by police.

A last word: have you added your comment to the Treasury "response" to MP Mark Williams' question about a Public Inquiry (that's political too)? See this thread http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/add-your-comments-mps-state...

Please take this in the spirit in which it is meant (not too nauseating I hope!). You are doing a great job. Keep it up, and good luck.


reply to anrigaut

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 10:29

No, that was not too nauseating and you did quite well on holding back the slap! Yes, there are many forms Direct Action can take and your comments in this area are as thoughtful and incisive as they are ultimately correct, with just ONE proviso; the impact of the written word is not only determined by the skills of the author but probably MORE by by the openess of mind of those that read it. Otherwise it is a bit like casting pearls before swine. So far our eloquent deliveries have done nothing to bring us justice. Any fair-minded politician with the power to act would have acted by now and brought about a just resolution. It hasn't happened. But yes, you are correct again on the fact that my type of Direct Action seems doomed before even starting; our small numbers make us seem like a bunch of hobos shuffling about on a street corner with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Laughable. Except it isn't.


Please keep me informed

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 08:30

Please count me in. Will be returning to the UK in around 2 weeks and have EPS2 at hand with which to invest in direct action in order to secure my missing thousands (and I mean 1000's). Please keep me posted as to direct action in the next month or so.


Direct Action

  • golightly
  • 14/10/08 28/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 09:03

Count me in.


6 weeks ago..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 09:40

I was in the uk six weeks ago, really wanted a demo but everyone again became complacent. I really beleive in direct action also this is the age of information and we can maximise the internet to highlight our cause. Please let not this be talk, honestly we can do this ...remember everyone said obama becoming president was a dream but he maximised getting his message across with the internet and word of mouth. I hope fight theft is right now onto this for this website.. plus a march somewhere maybe outside the treasury, ernst and young will make politicians embarrassed as they have creamed of the tax payer with their countless homes while taking our only ones.


Direct Action

  • Mrs Not Too Happy
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 10:35

I have to agree that some sort of protest is becoming necessary probably in the Isle of Man. We do'nt seem to be moving forward at present and at least some sort of demo would 'be in their faces' and hopefully they would not appreciate it.

Would it help our cause - who knows but it certainly ca'nt hinder it !


Direct action London

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/07/2009 - 11:16

I want to protest in London. Brown and Darling stole our money - lets face it - by casting aside the FSC/FSA reporting procedures. They took our money for their "pot" (ie the KSFUK pot with E&Y) to pay themselves back for bailing out the UK savers. They then kept us away from the pot - and KSFUK's books - by banishing us from the creditors committee. This is absolutely outrageous. Whether IOM should compensate us in full is another question. But the real bad guys in this are those caring, sharing, transparent, just and fair socialists in Downing Street.


Demo in London - Theft of our savings by Brown & Darling

  • Colpep
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 03/07/2009 - 21:35

Count me in. I'll be a 61 year old suffragette! Thieving b$£*xzds!


we want demo to expose crooks..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 04/07/2009 - 05:51

These peopel have stolen homes while creaming taxpayers for their 1, 2 three homes and we are just sitting there hello which planet are we on. they are not gods but nasty human beings who given power have behaved like an evil regime. This is confiscation of wealth...something that was done in the 2nd world war to a priveledged lot is how they saw it