RESPONSE FROM 'SHELTER OFFSHORE' - demasted but not sunk

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 09/07/2009 - 13:57

To give credit where it is due the wounded editor of SHELTER OFFSHORE has written openly on the website in response to the broadside cannon blast he has had about the Isle of Man as a safe haven to deposit. I think it is courageous of him to speak out in empathy of depositors and the way they have been treated.

Certainly nothing like this has ever been printed hitherto on this site. But he still says the IoM have now put things right & it's now safe to put your savings in their grubby hands!

A white flag of surrender from a demasted ship that's still afloat & making way with a jib sail and a fixed rudder?

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (11 votes)

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

Correspondence with shell shocked 'Shelter Offshore'

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/07/2009 - 15:37

My letter of today to the editor of SHELTER OFFSHORE:

CONGRATULATIONS on your well balanced feature in response to the complaints you received in respect of previous features on the Isle of Man. To date your article has been well received by a number of depositors, and I am happy to have given you credit for it on my blog:

In the final analysis KSFIOM would not have collapsed had there not been serious regulatory failure on the part of the bank's directors & the IoM's Financial Supervision Commission. It was a grave error of judgement on their part that over 50% of KSFIOM assets were transferred unprotected to KSFUK which the directors & FSC knew was at risk of failing if the parent bank in Iceland were to collapse
That is where the buck stops.

To date the IoM government has said it will conduct a PRIVATE inquiry into the KSFIOM debacle and the findings will not be made public. I think you will agree that such a decision smacks of 'cover up' & will not be likely to enhance the IoM's overall credit rating.

Sincerely, Jim

The Editor's prompt reply:

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your email. Please know that we are not on the side of any of these jurisdictions or any given institution either.

I personally understand, to some small degree, the absolute devastation that depositors with KSFIOM (and others) have felt as a result of a similar experience I hadsome years ago.

Best wishes, Rhiannon Davies

Shelter's response

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/07/2009 - 18:12

This response has to prove to those of you in DAG that have given up writing to anyone in the media to bring our plight to the fore to continue the onslaught whenever and wherever possible.

I wrote on 3 occasions and my husband at least once - along with everyone else we made an overwhelming number of mails. The editors conclusion shows that sane and rational people read, assess and answer in an appropriate manner, which brings me to the conclusion that Westminster and its contents cannnot be sane rational sympathetic or even human.

I leave everyone out there to draw their own conclusions but please continue to express views and correct those who get the wrong end of the stick. KEEP WRITING.

Julienne : you are right -

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/07/2009 - 11:22

Sorry - double post.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/07/2009 - 12:21

"The editors conclusion shows that sane and rational people read, assess and answer in an appropriate manner".

Yes it does. That "facts" often presented by many KSFIOM depositors to "sane and rational people" in the media and elsewhere have not been "facts" at all. Such "facts" have been simply countered by IOM politicians and those that represent them, resulting in zero publicity for our cause.

There has been no emotionless, concise, undeniable message from depositors to the PR community.

Hence little media coverage.

I do not wholly blame DST for this, as I know first hand they are dedicated, but I do blame members of this forum for stifling legitimate arguments and for not helping to mould an incisive communications strategy.

Julienne: Well said! I wrote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/07/2009 - 18:22

Julienne: Well said! I wrote to them too. We have to keep it up.

If you have not already done so, please can you do your bit here to protest against inhumanity of HMG:

93 "no" votes to date - not bad, but more would be better, and also more 'annotations'.


Lucky JIm etc

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/07/2009 - 16:13

Good work. A tangible example of KSFIOM depositors getting some of their points across in the "media" credibly (for once).

I am not damning with faint praise.

Typical statements by depositors in the past, particularly that "every other country has guaranteed 100% return" are factually untrue and are comparing apples with oranges.

In the light of other crown dependencies actions - which would be comparing apples with apples - the IOM have offered more by way of 1) effectively upping the compensation limit from 20K to 50K and 2) providing EPS arrangements.

These actions may chiefly be of interest only to those depositors with deposits around 50K or so at risk, and were no doubt instigated by the IOMG to protect it's own denizens who may typically represent such 50K depositors (but so what, this is politics, what do you expect?), but one with more at risk and not appreciative of such actions, must be blind in the first instance to not recognize the 'spin' IOMG can apply to the financial press by doing so. Be angry, but accept it's part of the rules in a so-called free-market society, to which most of you have profited from.

Nonetheless, as the editor in this instance has concluded, the central culprit - HMG - has treated depositors deplorably and this highlights such a case can be made without depositors resorting to relying on inaccuracies to push their legitimate cause.

Response from Shelter Offshore

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/07/2009 - 15:06

A good effort in my view. Especially the part about the role of the UK and Darling in particular - impressive and damning.

LJ: Do you think we could copy part of this, with source, as an annotation on the TWFY site? If so, should we ask the author's permission - or even better get him to put it there?

send this to all mps..

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/07/2009 - 18:29

What about sending this to mps in westminster? do we have to get the authors permission?

@ hippychickR...No -- it is in the public domain

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/07/2009 - 16:50

The article is in the public domain so sharing it with MP's is OK.

Strange isn't it how it turns out that the editor is really 'one of us' !

HCR: I guess we can send

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 09/07/2009 - 18:44

HCR: I guess we can send this to MPs.

My suggestion was to use it in the ongoing collection of replies to the Treasury's trite answer to a Parliamentary question on the site They Work For You ( I understand this site is widely read by MPs and will surely be seen by Treasury? We could also send the link to the media (DST?). But first we need as many contributions as possible - from everyone! It's easy to do. I hope you have done your bit:)

everybody get writing..

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 10/07/2009 - 15:57

This has to be circulated...