SIMPLE SUMS, HARD QUESTIONS

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 29/11/2009 - 18:06

SIMPLE SUMS HARD QUESTIONS

How an alleged £557M 'frozen' in KSF UK ended up with a UK first distribution of £41M

1.) Total monies invested in UK: £557M (rounded)
2.) Less 'secured' collateral shares: £154M (initial valuation)
3.) Less secured Certificates of Deposit: £53.5M (incl interest, all recovered)
Sub-total: £349.5M
4.) Less set-off (UK lent to IoM loan book): £164.3M
5.) Less Inter-company fees: £0.63M

6.) Less Unsecured interbank deposits: £184.6M (originally £175M)

a.) 'Readjusted' collateral share value    £136M (from Report to Creditors)
b.) Total secured & unsecured assets    £320.7M (184.6 + 136)M
c.) UK payment of share loss (disputed) £21M
d.) UK assets dividend (184.6 + 21)M      £205M 
e.) At 20% first dividend payment     £41M (£21M 'secured' reduced to £20%!)

Collateral shares recovered so far    £99.8M + £20.68 (repo 'transaction'?)
                              =  £120.5M (original repurchase sum £185M)

The sum of unsecured money locked into the UK bank was about £185M on interbank deposit. The remainder was secured against Collateral Shares or were Certificates of Deposit.

Q1. Why did the IoM Govt. continue to perpetuate the claim that Darling had frozen £557M in the UK when only £185M was in unsecured deposits?
Q2. As Doherty has worked alongside the JLs for more than a year, would it not have been proper to inform depositors by letter of the real financial situation – or did it suit them to have depositors vent their spleen at the UK and keep the heat off the directors?
Q3. Why has the dispute over the correction required by the UK bank for the loss of share value in the repo agreement not been resolved?
Q4. Why did the UK allow only £21M in this correction when the new valuation of these shares is now only £136M (the repurchase sum being £185M)?
Q5. Why did the UK then cut that £21M even further by the 20% required for unsecured creditors – Doherty stated to the SC that these monies were secured deals outside of the administration; why are the UK getting away with these reductions and then factoring them even further?

These matters represents my biggest concerns at present and no one is answering them. Several weeks have now passed and Pratt and Simpson have not even acknowledged receipt of my letter posing these queries and the minutes from the CCI don't even come close.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (19 votes)

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

JLs Report: Claim against KSF UK

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 15/12/2009 - 16:58

The report of the Claim against KSF UK is reproduced below, with my comments between the square brackets:

11 December 2009

Note on the current position on the claim against KSF UK (‘the Claim’)
The purpose of this note is to give an explanation as to how the Claim amount was calculated and the current position.

The estimated potential claim against KSF UK is £233.5m but the final sum remains subject to negotiation.

To date a dividend has been paid of 30p in the £ on a claim of £205m. It is anticipated that a higher claim would be agreed and accordingly, a catch up dividend will be paid.

The Administrators of KSF UK have advised that a final outcome dividend range will be between 60p and 75p in the £. On a claim of £233.5m this would mean a dividend pay-out range between £140.1m and £175.1m.

Depositors have expressed concerns that the gross claim of £572.1m has been reduced to £233.5m. The main reason for this reduction is the number of offsetting claims of KSF UK against KSFIOM, as the following table illustrates:

Cash deposits £349.6M
ISDA (note 1) £2.5M
GMRA Agreement (note 2) £185M
Certificates of Deposit (CD) (note 4) £35M
Gross Claim £572.1M

Less:
Cash Received from CDs (note 4) -£35.0M
Security Valuation under the GMRA (note 2) -£138M
-£173.0M
Claim submitted by KSF IOM £399.1M

Less:
Set-off claimed under sub-participation loan agreement (note 3) -£165.0M
Set-off claimed of inter company recharges -£0.6M
-£165.6M
Potential Claim on which dividend will be paid: £233.5M

Depositors should note that the offsets are typically favourable to KSFIOM because in most cases they have reduced KSFIOM's liabilities at 100p in the £, whilst reducing assets which would only be recovered at 60p to 75p in the £.

[We should be given an example of this assertion]

Notes:
1. KSF IOM and KSF UK entered into a number of foreign exchange and interest swaps subject to an International Swaps and Derivative Association Master Agreement (ISDA).

  1. KSF IOM and KSF UK entered into a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) the purpose of which was to secure a loan of £185m from KSF IOM to KSF UK. Under this agreement the securities have to be valued on a specific day relating to the termination date and utilising the quoted prices at that date.

[ The termination date refers to the date when the shares are returned to their owner (KSF UK) and the loan returned to the lender (KSFIoM).This became a date of default when declared by E&Y to have been the 27 Oct 08. Conversely, PwC believed the agreement to have fallen into default on the day KSF UK went under administration (8 Oct 08) - but the term of the GMRA had not run its course and i.a.w with its provisions one of the parties needed to declare a default against the other. E&Y did this, PwC did not. Ernst & Young declared the default against KSFIoM on the 27th October 08 and used the share prices quoted on that day. This appears to have been £164M because E&Y have stated - and have only paid - compensation based on £21M (the difference between the repurchase sum of £185M and the quoted share price as given on the day of default (27th Oct 08).

The JLs stated in previous reports (including the one presented to the Court) that the quoted share prices amounted to £154M, but that doesn’t add up (sic).It may be that the JLs subtracted the £21M from £175M which was the first figure given for the unsecured deposits placed in KSF UK instead of taking it from the assured deposit of £185M? The JLs claim that the GMRA was under-collaterised on the 8 Oct 08 and they therefore submitted that the quoted share price on that day was £136M (they have now amended that to £138M in this report) thereby making the compensation sum £47M. (They previously claimed £47.4M)]

This is then offset against the total debt due. The pledged assets are then realised by the liquidators and to date have realised £121m. The remaining security consists of shares in Icelandic companies which are difficult to realise and may have minimal value.

[ Here we have the JLs stating that the compensation is ‘offset’ against the total debt due – but why so? It seems to me that E&Y both want their cake and to eat it! If they hold that the GMRA did not automatically end on the day of administration and there was no ‘default’ until the 27th Oct 08, then the provisions of the agreement should surely be abided and full compensation should be paid – not as a decremented part of the unsecured dividend. If on the other hand, E&Y were to agree that KSF UK was in default of the GMRA on the 8th Oct 08, then perhaps they might have a basis for paying this sum as a dividend, but on a loan assured by collateral shares with rules of compensation clearly defined, I still fail to see why these payments are being reduced by the percentage of dividend declared. ]

  1. KSF UK advanced £165m in a number of currencies under sub-participation agreements for 19 loans and are claiming set-off in respect of them. As at 8/10/2008 the amount due to KSF UK in GBP was £165m. However a number of loans are in foreign currencies and for settlement at future dates. There are ongoing discussions between the liquidators and EY in respect of the balance due. These relate mainly to the date at which foreign currency loans are to be translated into GBP, inter-company recharges, who is liable for losses on the sub-participation loans and agreement on the rights of set-off.

  2. The CD monies have been received in full.

[ I think it is important to note that the difference between what PwC/JLs claim as the compensation sum (£47M) and that claimed by E&Y (£21M) is £26M. Back in Oct/Nov 08 the IoM Government and PwC claimed that a sum of £557M was ‘frozen’ in the UK, but the UK Government declared that a sum of £532M was held under ‘administration’. The point is, the 'difference' sum (~£25M) claimed by each side has remained the same for over a year now and equals the difference between the disputed collateral share prices despite repeated statements by both sets of administrators that ‘...ongoing discussions have almost finalised the outcome’. They haven’t, they continue to continue and ~£25M is no small beer. It doesn’t matter what the shares get sold for, what matters is what they were valued at on the day of default (termination) this sets the compensation claim against the defaulting party. ]

[ I am not alone in thinking that the Reports to Creditors have been extremely poorly set out, poorly explained, and deliberately made difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. On top of that, the JLs change numbers every time they produce another report. Some things will of course change as capital is repaid, but the sum held under the GMRA and the sum held as CDs (last declared £53.5M now £35M) and monies held as unsecured deposits have remained the same since that fateful day of 8 Oct 08 – only the JLs have frigged around with these numbers adding secured sums to unsecured sums and accepting dividend payments on the combination etc until it becomes almost impossible to figure out what has been going on with our money. If PwC failed to declare a default against KSF UK for failing to comply with the GMRA and this ultimately costs us £26M and the whole sum is then factored down by the final UK dividend say, 65% we are looking at losing £47Mx65% ( £30.55M) less £21Mx65% ( £13.65M) = £16.9M. This sum would pay PwC’s costs for the whole term and would be reason enough for PwC to be less than highly visible or fully explain just what is going on and why two professional parties and their lawyers have not resolved the issue after a year of negotiations. This sort of legalistic bickering is costing time, money and patience and we depositors are paying for their failure to reach compromise. ]

[ The big questions: Are our lawyers taking any note of this? Do they see a rational explanation? Are we really getting a better deal under set-off? Have the reports been subject to good reason for having the contents changed so frequently on data that has been set and fixed since last October? What is the law on compensation payments (under default) when an assured loan does not match expectations on the day of quoted prices? KSF UK has been obliged to pay 100% to secured creditors, so why is an assured loan not being given the same accord - because reading through the GMRA (as a layman) it seems to me that compensation should be paid in full. ]


It seems to me that Icecrushers questions go to the heart ..

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 16/12/2009 - 23:00

of the matter.
What I see we have have is a set of directors that were negligently unaware of the realities, or were simply dissembling.
Icecrusher has borne down on these points appropriately.
I see his point as I suppose do many of you.
This site, the old site, is still the focus of informed comment.

My question is why do not the COI, who were voted in by ourselves, respond?

I want transparency. Surely the LP's, assured of their/our case, want the same.

Now why isn't it happening??????

In the current environment everybody knows that the truth is going against the wall. But the LP's are employed )well their costs are secured) to fight our battles, not to feather their nests.

And what of the case against the 'Directors' and the IOMG agencies.

There is hardly anybody on both sites. Icecrusher is fighting, along with Gordon 45, apparently without the support of the COI. This was not what the vote was for.

The COI have not had their vocal chords cut. They choose to stay silent. Now why? They have been emasculated? Each person on the planet has his voice, why are they silent?

I voted for you bastards. Deliver.


Thanks for continuing to expose critical issues

  • yorkist
  • 01/07/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 16/12/2009 - 02:23

Hi there IceCrusher

Thanks for all the hard work on these still remaining critical and significant outstanding issues. I don’t have very much to add except I would like to know just on what basis dividends have been paid to the pension fund? Is this based the pension plan trustees evaluation of the funding shortfall or an independent evaluation?

My own thoughts are that the JLs of PWC (appointed by the IOM authorities) are probably local IOM partners of the firm and as such, even if supposedly as well qualified on paper as their UK counterparts, are probably not quite so skilled or experienced in international banking and finance. In other words PWC have been outmatched from the start of proceedings. E&Y in the UK have been noticeably sharper from the start and appear to run rings run around our JLs from PWC who have still not caught up.

This date of default and who gave notice and who did not is a clear example, if PWC thought that the date of default was the date KSFUK went into administration, then why not give notice under the terms of the agreement, at least they would have gone on record. Our JLs apparently did nothing and let E&Y make the call. Or is this the fault of the IOM authorities who only conferred Liquidators Provisional status on PWC? This may prove to be an expensive mistake with KSFIOM depositors footing the bill.

Also, I would not be at all surprised if the sub participation loan offset agreement saw foreign currency exposure further erode the balance due back from KSFUK. Any corporate treasurer worth his salt would have hedged this exposure so that there would be minimal further downside risks; this should have been one of the first moves made by PWC to protect the KSFIOM depositors.

The JLs from PWC have even let the IOM send us the accounting and legal bills for their SOA, whereas PWC should have insisted from the start that creditor’s interests were protected by agreement with the IOM that they would pick up all costs associated with this. PWC did not even fight this issue. Apparently, PWC and the bank are also incurring charges explaining the DCS, why didn’t PWC keep a separate record of these costs and bill back the IOM Treasury? I see from the recent COI minutes that this is proposed going forward, but these costs going forward are likely to be minimal compared with what has been incurred thus far; again guys, too little and too late and we are paying for this.

Too many times our LPs at PWC appear to be edging forward when the ball has already passed by. We are paying a high price for PWC therefore we should have no hesitation in asking for and expecting the very best.

KSFIOM indeed has a leaky balance sheet, but by far the biggest hole is the inter company relationship with KSFUK, and to me this is the critical issue. It seems to me that from a regulatory standpoint the IOM authorities treated KSFUK as a friend and therefore probably relaxed its view of risk by virtue of the inter company relationship. But because of the corporate structure, which had only been recently changed (KSFIOM became a separate subsidiary of KSF hf and not an indirect subsidiary through KSFUK) KSFUK should have been treated just like any other third party, subject to the same credit checks, subject to the same exposure limitations. In my own view there has been a gross failure of the IOM regulatory authorities to regulate. There has also been a failure of the bank directors and senior management in their willingness to accept second rate security from KSFUK without at least protecting or hedging the downside risks. Both the IOM authorities and the bank directors and senior management failed to foresee what happened and have a plan in place to mitigate the risks. These people should be brought to account.

Apologies for the rather lengthy tome, but it seems the more changed/fudged numbers I see the more I think complacency, complicity, conspiracy and incompetency.

Regards,

Yorkist


Exposure of critical issues

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 16/12/2009 - 21:05

Yorkist,
I fully agree with your observations!
Unfortunately it is now too late to repair the most of the damage done to the depositors' financial interests.
The fundamental reasons are as follows:
1.The IOM courts allowed the IOM government to delay the liquidation of the bank even after it became clear that the bank could not be sold.
2. From the outset the Liquidator Provisionally took his instructions from IOM government departments and the interests of the creditors were therefore not given priority in his decision making process.
I suspect that due to his involvement in the various schemes proposed by the IOM government he had less time available to look after our interests

The question is now how we can ensure that our interests are now paramount and that urgent action is taken to repair earlier mistakes (as detailed by Yorkist and Ice).
We are very dependant on our COI members!

Brabander


Icecrusher - re JLs Report: Claim against KSFUK

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 15/12/2009 - 18:51

Once again you already have some fantastic figures in place and show you really understand the KSFIOM V KSFUK situation.

You need to do a list of questions to the COI reps through Glen 07 (I think) and you need to write directly to the two JLs for comments on your questions.

I am lagging behind you, but already have a list of around 20 questions for our JLs to answer. Yes, as you say, they are updating, but keep changing tack and it becomes extremely difficult to follow the exact sequence of cash in and cash out. It is ok giving 'cash in hands' at different dates but if they then do not show what has caused the increase and the decreases on the first figure then you cannot follow the pattern. I did sit last night and tried to get back to their 1st Dividend figure of £191, 462,286. I tried to take my first moves from their £312m 'cash in Hand' at 31.7.2009 then add the further £10.2m from CDs plus £25m CDs expected shortly after giving a total of £347.700m. When based on what has been given since then and the latest updates I find myself £5.7m short of the £191.462. So I will try again tonight because until I solve that initial problem I cannot move on with any believe in my ongoing figures. That is why I need to ask our JLs once again for the mssing information to allow a complete flow of events and figures to take place.

But as said Ice well done and very well put,

Gordon 45


@Gordon 45 - questions for COI

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 15/12/2009 - 21:54

Hi Gordon, Icecrusher and all. I did make a composite list of questions for the last CC meeting and happy to do so for any further meetings with the liquidator. I have no official role in so doing. It's just, last time, many questions arose but were lost in the main body of personal comments that I thought should be pared down to straight questions for the sake of a more efficient and economical CC meeting. I am going to start a new forum - DEPOSITORS' QUESTIONS FOR NEXT CC MEETING so a list of questions be prepared for the next CC meeting, whenever that shall be. I know depositors will want to vent their spllens and have every reason to do so but can they start their comment with a direct question or a list of questions (maybe in CAPITALS or in BOLD to delineate them from the comments or ideas that can follow). In this way the real list of questions will become obvious to all reading them and will make for an easier collation for the COI to present to Mr Simpson or his representative. Hope this will help to focus all the work and questions that people have about this topic


Thanks Glen07

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 16/12/2009 - 16:37

Hi There,

Firstly an apology I thought I read on the latest PPD newsletter that you were officially going to collate questions on all our behalfs to the COI.

Just to assure you that the questions will be coming from myself shortly and there are a number. I think either Yorkist or Icecrusher mentioning next meeting probably 6 months away, I thought I read on the 5.11.2009 stuff ex COI that next meeting was in 4 months.

Anyway there coming and thanks for doing the collation.

Gordon 45


High end/Low end projections

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 16/12/2009 - 19:10

Hi Gordon 45,

Do you think the high end predictions of the eventual return is based on a UK return of 60% or 75% ? You will recall that the last 6 monthly report produced by the JL's based the high end return on the figure of the then predicted UK return of 50% and the low end was based on 25%. If the high end projection is based on 60% there is a high probability that the 93.6% return could increase by as much as a further 3%.

I am also at a loss as to what has become of the so called "company A" share that has up until recently been mentioned in the JL's reports but for legal reasons not declared in name form.

From the latest projections we have no way of knowing what write-off is being assumed for the loan book (in the case of the low and high projections)?


DEPOSITORS' QUESTIONS FOR NEXT CC MEETING set up as new forum

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 15/12/2009 - 22:04

Hope this will provide a clear location, on this site, for questions to be asked in preparation for the next CC meeting.


Icecrusher - Simple Sums Hard Questions

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/11/2009 - 21:51

Listen Mate,

Can only say tremendous stuff, and you are so right. But we will continue in our quest for answers and not give up until we get them.

Thanks again,

Gordon 45


simple question

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/11/2009 - 21:30

Absolutely agree with Q1. Everyone who wrote letters over the past year cannot but feel angry and totally despondent to find they have been so misled. Also, to wonder what they should do next to fight for what has been lost. IceCrusher I admire your tenacity. Why do we not hear from the liquidators? Somehow I feel we are being duped over and over again.


Discrepancies

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/11/2009 - 21:28

Icecrusher,
I share your concerns.
I believe that the Liquidators have stated that from an efficiency point of view (cost effectiveness!) from now on they will only communicate with the depositors through the members of the COI or through the bank's web site.
The members of the COI have however indicated that they will not communicate directly with the depositors but that instead they will let the Liquidators release information via the bank's web site.
I am afraid that this will effectively mean that you may never get a clear answer to your valid questions.
The members of the COI will hide behind their confidentiality clause and the Liquidators will simply carry on as they have done before!
I continue to be hopeful regarding our eventual dividends but we will never have a proper inquest into why the actual realisable assets of the bank are so much lower than the assets in the balance sheet at the date the bank was put into administration.

Brabander


Confidentiality Clause ????

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/11/2009 - 15:31

Barbander

You state that they are hiding under the Confidentuality Cause but do we not have rights under the Access to Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 1998 as individuals???

Aurora


Confidentiality clause

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/11/2009 - 20:32

Aurora,
The members of the COI have signed a confidentiality clause. For commercial and legal reasons there is obviously a need for such a clause. They are therefore legally obliged to adhere to the restrictions imposed on them by this clause. I am not sure what the penalty is if they are in breach but we must assume that they will not knowingly do so.
As I do not live in the IOM I am not sure what laws exist in the IOM with respect to the right of information we may have but I am doubtful that any such laws would void the confidentiality clause.
The key is therefore that the COI should put pressure on the Liquidators to keep the creditors informed in a timely and adequate fashion. This is currently not the case!
Brabander


IOM Laws of compliance.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/11/2009 - 21:35

Yes I appreciate that they would be bound by Confidentiality.

I am not sure about the laws on the IOM either whether they come under the auspices of UK GOV but I am sure the Freedom of information would apply if they have this Act and we have a right to this information individually.

http://www.foi.gov.uk/yourRights/publicauthorities.htm#part1

I have been looking on the site of Departmental Constitutional Affairs as regards whether they do come under the UK. can't seem to find anything!

Well I hope the COI continue to keep up the Pressure re the LIQUIDATORS as this INFORMATION we have a right to know what is happening.

Thanks for your notes...
Aurora


IOM laws

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/11/2009 - 22:48

No UK laws apply in the Isle of Man - it is a totally different legal system


Freedom of Information Act is VALID on the IOM

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 01/12/2009 - 09:27

I am well aware the financial issues in this Island are somewaht archaic but we as the general public have rights..

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/politics/Freedom-of-information-legislation-on...

see Link with regard to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and LOOK it up on Google, anyone can apply to TYNWALD for Information.

If the INFORMATION requested is not given this is another matter, however IOMG would have to explain why?

Aurora


IOM legal system

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/11/2009 - 23:01

…and in the Isle of Neanderthal Man the legal system is full of nepotism and laws only tailored to suit the survival of their Neanderthal in bred idiots who rule the island and run the banking system.


Whistleblower: One member sacrifices themselves to

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 01/12/2009 - 03:59

break ranks. = 1 down and three to go.

The lesson from inquiries, TSC, IoM SC, etc etc.. is get the news out fast. Stale news just wraps fish and chips, and fishing stocks have been depleted by the very bastard ideas that produced this crisis.

"Better to burn out than to rust away", some of you, even students with a silver spoon in their mouths, must recognise that. I love the fact Gavin was GS, but my continued sniping would pass most of you by, and possibly bury itself impotently in Gavin's comfort zone. And I've heard it said that Gavin is on top of things.

But that isn't enough to answer the queries posed above. And to me they look critical.

So who, Gavin et al? is going to break ranks for the common good? Or tell me, how they have bought you off? What are you, or ourselves going to get with obeisant compliance that makes being the moral pall of being a fellow traveller worthwhile.

You'll remember this COI members, "Don't ask me 'bout the shape I'm in, can't sing, ain't pretty and my legs are thin, but don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you'd like me to." Green Manaleshi.

No excuses. We are in heavy duty game playing territory, at a critical moment. We are staring down the throat of sovereign debt crisis, and pretty tightly associated an inflationary wipeout scenario. Let's get real. Let's get some real pressure going. Who has the COI's telephone no's and addresses etc? The irony of kicking ass internally is just too much for me. I don't want to wait until I'm wiped out further. Don't you guys get it?

COI members are 'big boys', supposedly. Ohhh they are really big! So let's see them deliver. Otherwise they are seen to be joining the 'ripoff party' (cognitive capture again- Christ don't any of you have insight). My question to all and each of them is do they have the combination of the intellectual capacity to see the appropriate action here coupled with the personal balls (pardon my Spanish) to actually achieve something. I'm not going to elaborate on this point at this point. We voted for you. You're not MP's so don't give me the 'I'm institutionally totally corrupt" argument. You guys do have two brain cells each to rub together for your pleasure, just about it seems. The question is can you see the way out of the compromised position you're being abused in.

Gavin, you have a big spread in Devon. Let me tell you that I lived on a big spread in Devon. I know "what you are". Lead the pack. Or assign the task of a sacrifice to a lesser mortal. But, please (and this is advice not begging Gavin, get on with it). Timeliness is next to Godliness, and you ought to start reaching Gavin.

You do read the news don't you Gavin?

I'm only slightly drunk tonight. Tomorrow I'll be sober and continue sobering up. I'll be behind Icecrusher all the way now. And my apologies to Icecrusher for my default. I'm into the detail.

Icecrusher's, and Gordon45's questions quite clearly demand and have a right to a response. This is what we expected the COI to deliver. Where is your strategy COI to deliver the responses and control you were elected to produce. How do you look at yourselves in the mirror in the morning boys? How are they buying you off?
Or how frightened are "the big boys". Or is this all just arrogance on their part.

Transparency, or delivery. But first transparency. You do see the trap don't you boys?


Confdentiality Laws

  • jamjar
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 06/12/2009 - 19:53

Dear FTT,What I do know,and what my years have learnt me is,ALL laws are made to be broken,its a matter of establishing what the consequences are,if any,for instance,look how MANY lies and laws the Govts of UK,ICELAND,IOM,have told and broken,to their citizens,in stealing,and denying them access to their OWN monies.It would seem its now time for a bit of SPOOKS type craft,and reverse psycology,and force THEM to prove who snitched,if they can.!!!.


@jamjar

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 07/12/2009 - 10:09

Confidentiallity,? I am with you jamjar, softly softly got us walked all over. Punch in the nose is what they need. All this secrecy suits the IOMG very well, it covers up all sorts of jiggery pokery and leaves us impotent. Up and at em, I say