Reply HM Treasury Paul Myners

  • OzDepositorIOM
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 03/08/2009 - 08:50

See .pdf attached

reply fr paul myners.pdf395.25 KB
Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

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

Conspiracy theory?

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/08/2009 - 17:52

You know something.
I don't really believe the current explanations offered for what happened on transferring our money to KSFUK.
We are asked to believe EITHER (a) FSC IOM was incredibly stupid and negligent OR (b) FSA lied to FSC and tricked them into making the deposit.
Remember - UK Govt have insisted throughout that all this Icesave/Kaupthing stuff was necessary to stop the UK banking world collapsing.
Isn't the most likely explanation that the IOM FSC wanted to do the sensible thing and require KSFIOM to spread their deposits (ie outside of the Kaupthing group) in the months preceding the collapse .. but that if they had done so this would have sprung the collapse of KSFUK (with the rest of the group) before UK HMG were ready to do their sting?
And that the IOM FSC were bullied by HMG at a political level to leave the money in the Kaupthing Group until the sting - on pain of serious constitutional changes if they didn't?
The reason why the other explanations don't wash is (i) John Aspen is a sophisticated and highly intelligent man; (ii) the bank and the FSC had top class legal advice in all dealings. There is no way on earth they would have made a cock-up of this nature, or left themselves open to the deceit suggested.
It is not believable that what happened was pure negligence since the dangers would have been so clear there is no chance they would be missed, or accepted unless there were other factors.
Remember - Darling has told the courts his "Iceland-move" was vital to save Britain from a total collapse. Was he going to let the IOM FSC spoil it by jumping the gun? Was he heck.
A political deal was done with our savings - the IOM must have been told that if the FSC did its duty to us (ie put our money elsewhere than Kaupthing group) thereby collapsing Kaupthing and the rest of the British banking house of cards before HMG's trap was ready, Gordon Brown would come down on IOM like a ton of bricks.
Check out the IOM Committe of Enquiry on this. Two of the 3 clearly left school at 16. Are they men for the job? A whitewash yes.
Gordon Brown has sold generations of UK citizens down the river into mortgage slavery in deliberately engineering the cruel and unjust property bubble that made average houses cost 10 times an ordinary joe's salary (unlike say 3 or four times as in the past). He has built the whole economy on that. He has brought down the whole economy on the back of it. All for what - to show he is right. Would you put it past him to bully the IOM to stop them raining on his parade?
I wouldn't and for this reason I think the above is what happened. Where is Oliver Stone when we need him?

Columbo and the 50k

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/08/2009 - 19:00

I'm not sure if your explanation is correct but I agree there is something a lot more than fishy. I made mention of the 50k issue in a blog post on this. It happened too quickly. IOM had already planned this in advance and presumably following direction from UK.

I don't think we will ever know the truth but the loose end peeking out has got to be IOM and if we keep picking at them something might unravel.

I think you are right

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/08/2009 - 21:36

The £50k would get rid of a lot of people who might otherwise be determined to seek the truth - and that might either have been something IOM dreamed up to stop them being forced to show the truth (willing to comrpomise all justice if UK demanded it) or something UK insisted upon or suggested (for similar reasons).
IOM and HMG perhaps took the view that there would be scant sympathy for a few richies left losing out and the whole thing could then be swept under the table.
So the theory is :-
1) Darling messing himself about the collapse of his banking farce - with Brown breathing down his neck
2) FSC IOM decide KSFIOM should take its money out of Kaupthing group and spread it around - this is told to UK FSA who tell ..
3) Darling .. who realises such a huge sudden withdrawal will collapse the Kaupthing group, cause widespread panic and collapse the British banking system
4) G Brown orders the IOM Govt not to do it - and tells them to put it in UK KSF
5) IOM Govt has terrible dilemma but are told in no uncertain terms that if they don't do what Darling says all sorts of trouble will come IOM's way at a constitutional level
6) FSC may have satisfied their conscience by thinking that by obeying, they are preventing a wider collapse, thereby helping more people
7) Meanwhile, Darling prepares his sting (trust accounts/ING etc)
8) IOM are worried about what will happen if Kaupthing collapses - they don't want it getting out that they sold their customers down the river for diplomatic reasons. They take the view that if they increase compo to 50k most of the local noise can be dampened and a few +50's off-island will be forgotten- collateral damage.
9) All happens as expected - IOM urgently bring in 50k compo
10) IOM has been a good boy - so G Brown calls off the dogs
11) G Brown's government won't allow a proper public enquiry
12) IOM have a private enquiry run by a few unqualified patsies
13) at TSC enqiry FSA can say they didn't order the transfer; Aspden can say he thought it had been ordered. Both are true - cos Darling ordered it at the diplomatic level

I have left 14) out.
Will it be HMG and IOM sacrifice innocent people's lives for Gordon Brown's political benefit?
Or .. brave and determined Dag-gers get the whole disgraceful mess opened up.. and in the process bring down Gordon BROWN and his Darling, Hector Sants, ian Pearson and all the cronies?
"Be cheerful, wipe thine eyes; some falls are means the happier to arise".

Good point

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/08/2009 - 21:12

And .. there may be something of interest in the transcripts from the TSC.
Remember Bill Clinton and his subjective definition of "sexual relations"?
Was Hector Sants of the FSA choosing his words carefully eg "We (ie FSA) did not order them to transfer the money". Perhaps so .. but did the order come from higher - eg Darling himself? I mean - it wasn't the FSA that ordered the transfer but HMG.
This might explain Aspden's words too.
And I would be interested also in the duties of the FSA and FSC, legally interpreted. Is their duty at a micro level (eg in relation to each bank - so they have a duty to protect depositors in each regulated entity) or a macro level - ie they can ignore any duties in respect of each bank, in pursuing a larger goal, for the greater good?
In short - did the regulators roles - as defined in law - entitle them to ignore protecting us (at the level of one bank) to seek to protect others (depositors in all banks?)

Response from PM Office to E-Petition to open Sealed Secrets

  • brennajm
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 13:13

The official site of the Prime Minister’s Office Home News Communicate Meet the PM History and Tour Number 10 TV Search Home > Sealeduksecrets - epetition response
Ask the PM …from the PM e-Petitions Petition Responses Tuesday 4 August 2009
Sealeduksecrets - epetition response
We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to open and reveal court papers for UK Savers & Tax payers to view.”

Details of Petition:

“The UK Government used clandestine and secret means to freeze £550M of sterling assets in the UK banking system during the recent Icelendic crisis. The UK court papers related to this action are sealed and not able for UK voters or tax payers to view. Therefore I implore and request that these papers be made public to understand : (a) Did the Uk government act rashly ? (b) Is the UK Government & Treasury hiding the truth ? (c) Basic representation - for a UK Taxpayers - “show us the money”.

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage

Read the Government’s response
On 8 October the Financial Services Authority (FSA) determined that Kaupthing Singer Friedlander Ltd (KSF UK) no longer met its threshold conditions for the purposes of its authorisation to accept deposits, and was unlikely to be able to continue to meet its obligations to depositors. The FSA, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, concluded that KSF UK was in default for the purposes of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

Following due legal process, KSF UK was put into administration. It is correct that, when ordering that KSF UK be put into administration, the court also ordered that its file relating to the application for administration should not be open to inspection without leave of court (except for the court order and the notification of the appointment of an administrator). The FSA requested such an order because the documents provided to the court contained information which was commercially sensitive and confidential under section 348 the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Ernst & Young LLP has been appointed as the Administrator for KSF UK. As part of the administration process, as is usual, a moratorium is in place on the enforcement by creditors of claims against KSF UK.

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man (KSF IoM) had deposits in the region of £532m with its sister company KSF UK at the time of KSF UK entering into administration. Under UK insolvency law, KSF IoM ranks like any other creditor in the administration - money that a customer has placed with a bank on deposit (including with a sister company) is a liability of the bank in which it has been placed. The customer only has a debt claim against the bank. If the bank chooses to place the money it has received on deposit from a customer with a second bank, the first bank is placing its own money with the second bank and the customers of the first bank do not have any direct legal claim to the deposit with the second bank. KSF IoM will have been fully aware of this. It could have chosen to put its money elsewhere and to have diversified the deposits it made rather than making a single large deposit, which concentrated the credit risk to which it was exposed. As it is, this sum is now subject to UK insolvency procedure and forms part of the administration estate of KSF UK.

The first UK creditors’ meeting for KSF (UK) was held on 1 December 2008. At this meeting, representation for the Creditors’ Committee was determined by the creditors. Although the KSF IOM Joint Provisional Liquidator is not a member of this Committee, the administrators of KSF UK are in ongoing, constructive and cooperative discussions with the Joint Provisional Liquidator for KSF IOM. Useful information can be found on the administration of KSF UK and KSF IOM on the KSF IOM website: HM Treasury has been in regular contact with the Government of the Isle of Man.

Further Information
· Sign up to our newsletter service

Tags: Financial Services, Savers

Sealed Secrets

  • ItsTheft
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 10:54

Could someone put a topic up about the Sealed Secrets response going up. I am shaking too much with fury to think straight enough to work the site. has it on here including its response.

For every email that has been sent to MP's before; by God we need to send 10 now. I'm going to get pissed before I start to plot the response tommorrow because my current reaction - to send poo in the post - is anger driven and will do no good whatsoever.

response to number 10

  • hardyboyz
  • 13/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 19:02

I saw that number 10 has a "tweet" . If I have managed the technology I joined twitter to tell them that their response was pathetic. Perhaps we can all join and bombard them with tweets.

Paul Myners reply to John Leech MP

  • jamjar
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 10:38

Paul Myners reply to JL-MP is now the official edited statement of facts,as seen and declared by the Labour Govt,in defence of critisism from all and sundry,however doesnt contain any information,concerning the premeditated actions taken by the Treasury,FSA,and the PM,-BEFORE 8th Oct 08.An official statement,as seen and declared by the Labour Govt,would be very interesting and useful,and may contain details that we dont know already,hopefully providing a further lever in the DAG toolbag.Could we please ask the originator of the letter to JL-MP,to ask these questions.

Just Tubing Do It

  • margaretta
  • 22/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 03/08/2009 - 18:13

If ever there was a reason for adding to the videos on youtube under the heading 'don't bank on the isle of man' then this is it. If UK says it's an Isle of man problem (which it clearly is not) then lay into the Isle of Man until the Isle of Man tells UK:

'Get to ****, KSFIOM was a comparitively well funded and stable bank making most if not all of your UK banks look like offshoots of Madoff enterprises until your financial authorities told our sucker financial regulator to put half it's money in a bank which you already knew you were going to close. Now it's payback time and if you are wondering why our national flag has a more than passing resemblance to Sicily then you will find out soon enough if you don't cough up the dough '.

Make a video. You don't need to show your face. Just let people know you are here are and you are not leaving. You can have a bit of a laugh in the process so it might help with stress if you feel any.

The response from HM

  • barrona
  • 17/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 03/08/2009 - 09:13

The response from HM Treasury spokesman, Paul Myners, trots out the often repeated statement that it has nothing to do with the UK but is the complete responsibility of the IoM Govt.

Any further communication with HMT is therefore likely to prove a complete waste of time and effort.

DAG/DST need to be concentrating as to why 532 million of depositors money was transferred to KSFUK and was it legal.

Article in Telegraph

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 11:00

Reading this article, just HOW can the FSA and FSC wash their hands and say it was not their fault. Surely they were set up in the first place to protect banks/depositors from such goings on ...... if they had done their job properly, the Kaupthing takeover would never have taken place and we would not be in this position. They are culprits in this fiasco (as well as HMG) and need to pay the price ........ but I suppose they are yet another "protected species" !


  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 11:11

Just how much publicity did Enron and similar cases get?
Now we have the evidence that Kaupthing Iceland was a similar beast - ie a disgusting fraud perpetrated by the power brokers in Iceland and their cronies (Genghis etc) to steal decent people's savings and punt them for personal profit - or if lost, tough - since the liability to repay is unsecured and owed by a shell company.
Gordon Brown and his FSA let this be set up in the UK and apparently totally failed to supervise it properly, leading to the unheard of losses (50% of KSFUK potentially lost).
They then suckered the IOM FSC to chip in to the pot - so that UK Gov could help itself to our money to compensate itself for what it paid to UK savers.
Morally - G Brown should sort this out - since he took our money, when he could have accepted the KSFUK fiasco was entirely the FSA's fault and hence warned off the IOM.
Unfortunately, as things stand, will any pressure be put on him to do the right thing? Can't see much just now.
Perhaps the Hf information will balloon -n and public interest will give us a chance to get our injustice - and I mean INJUSTICE- into the proper public eye.

Chris Watson's comment that

  • barrona
  • 17/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 03/08/2009 - 09:06

Chris Watson's comment that he does not feel that the IOMG has acted illegally is astonishing in its naivety.

One could repeat the catalogue of errors, illegal and otherwise, that have been committed both by IOMG and the FSC but as they have been regularly repeated over a period of time, I do not intend to do so again.

I only hope that DAG/DST are pursuing the relevant issues with the utmost vigour.

Thank-you 'barrona'.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 03/08/2009 - 09:57

Just what is 'CW''s game?
This idiot is more than apparently an apologist for the IoMG.
Just where does 'CW' think his apologist stance is going to get us?
Over to you CW?
And 'barrona', my directed responses have not been indulgent.

barrona - tao

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/08/2009 - 12:20

Hard to see how I am to respond seeing as I do not know what specific comment of mine Barrona is commenting on (barrona's post has sprung from nowhere), but it is safe to say I am struggling to see how IOMG have actually acted illegally.

Perhaps it would be better for one of you to spell out actually what they have done that is illegal, and what you propose to do about it. It's not good enough to say "it's been stated so many times before I won't bother repeating it".

For example, as IceCrusher wrote: "There is a definite distinction between declaring an act to be illegal and stating that an action should be pursued as a matter of law. The IoMG, like any other Government has a duty of care towards its citizens and other entities and should be seen upholding that responsibility without fear or favour.

Mr Aspden declared that the action taken by the FSC was unwise, but when Mr Cannan MHK called for Mr Aspden to stand before the bar at the Tynwald shortly after Aspden's admission, his submission was voted down. The IoMG wanted to keep the lid on any further exposure of the FSC's involvement in the loss of 50% of KSFIoM's assets to London without it being diversified or protected. That is the long and short of it, we don't need to split hairs on admitted facts".

The point is that what happened is not ILLEGAL, and if depositors go shouting to all and sundry that the IOMG has acted illegally, they will lack credibility. And just because I point out this fact (in the depositors interest, I might add) does not mean I am apologizing for the IOMG.

And tao, no need to always insult me.

"Over to you..."

CW & Others

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 09/08/2009 - 19:17

"The point is that what happened is not ILLEGAL" & "but it is safe to say I am struggling to see how IOMG have actually acted illegally."- what proof have you that what happened is not ILLEGAL. I do not think that I or you have enough of a handle on the facts or the experience to know whether 'what has happened' is illegal or not. At present it is purely your opinion. This is best left to others much more experienced and erudite in such matters to provide a conclusion one way or the other.

"That is the long and short of it, we don't need to split hairs on admitted facts". - trouble is we may know what some of the admitted facts are - but we do not know what ALL the facts are.

So again 1/2 facts and semi truths are begining to be circulated - why not wait until hard facts are known before making statements.

It would also be of great help to all depositors if comments included some sort of thought out solution to problems rather than members just highlighting the problem.

I really no longer use this site because of all the crass and stupid unthought through comments that do not help any depositor in any way shape or form. Statements are made but contain no means or thoughts of solving it - yes thats the hard part - so DO NOT leave it for others to sort out - put your own positive input into it as well.

CW & Others: I understand the need for some to always have the last word, so there is really no need to comment against this post as I shall personnally not be bothered to read them.