The SoA is still live - prove it

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 20/05/2009 - 22:04

Dear all,

I sent this in reply to Grapow who if feel understands how the DAG Strategy and Adrienne and Gavin of the HNWD are going to cost us all with their ongoing hatred of IOMG/T and the Prov Liquidator. They are now saying they had hoped to force the IOMG/T and Mike Simpson into renegotiating the SoA terms prior to the vote if they could show sufficient backing from other colleagues - they failed in that - or did they really want that to happen? Or did they want to defeat the SoA for their own predudiced views?

If they were trying to force a renegotiation and failed surely they should now be saying we failed so lets change our votes to support the SoA?

No chance because it was all a con. And as for our colleague in conneticut at age 76ish I would have thought £1.3m back inside a year of this month would have been far better than total guesswork as to what he will get under DCS in that time or any time. Waken up all of you change your votes now to the soA.

My reply to Grapow was as below

Dear Grapow I agree with you entirely, If SoA defeated all those smug Dag Strategy team and HNWD through Adrienne and Gavin might find out the truth - help. The SoA was the best hope we have/had of getting back 70% of our cash. I've said this a few times over the past 6 weeks. I have been sickened by the way the DAG team have 'hogged' every page with their hatred of IOMG/T instead of realising that 70% is a lot better over probably 4/5 years than Liquidation down the DCS route with no guaranteed dates payment or how much. They are all a disgrace to this site.

Mike Simpson phoned me - most surprisingly a fortnight ago re my last input to him and others for clarification over the then revised SoA and Explanatory Statement as of 27th april. And I asked him why he had only moved from 12.5p in the £ to 14p in the £ when we are now expecting back either £36.7m or the now lower £27m from KSFUK and won the first court case on the £10m CD. HE said the 14p was based on what they could pay out at that time and he assured me that he would pay out the most he could when the first payment became due in Sept this year. The then £36.7M and the £10m if all back before Sept would increase the amount payable in my reckoning by another 5p in the £. so we could get /could have gotten between 19p and 20p in the £ - a fifth of our money back for the above £50k depositors/bondholders - of which I am one. And we know from Mike Simpson that most of the loan book for KSFIOM is due back in 2010/2011. Se we have/or had a great chance to get most of our cash back by 2011.

And as said by myself previously if and when we get 70% back we then worry about the 30% still owed.

I don't know how people can be so stupid as to fight for the DCS with no outline, no dates for payment, how much will be paid out etc when the SoA is/was a far better, far safer option. And if the reduction in the net figure from KSFUK is correct and leads to less coming back it is/was even more secure to go for the SoA..

I implore people who now seem depondent with the interim view on the vote to go back in if they voted against the SoA and now vote for it. Because it is a lot tighter than many thought and the SoA can still win if some important HNWD change their vote to the SoA.

So to all of you once again get in there now and change your vote/and or make your vote if not done so already anf get behind the SoA.

Yours

Gordon 45

1.657145
Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (35 votes)

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

The SoA is still alive - prove it.

  • golightly
  • 14/10/08 28/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Online Now
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 06:32

Gordon 45,

You are doing the people who are working very hard on all our behalf and injustice. I'm sure we all have the same view of the way we are being treated by IoM. DAG etc are trying not to discredit the IoM, but to recover all our just funds !!!

Golightly.


@golightly: A purely personal comment.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 07:11

I lived in Cambridge for a while.
A very civilised place. Not much graffiti. But I remember fondly a haiku on a garage near the 'Boatman' near Strawberry fields: It said..

Tread lightly,
Go easy,
Stay free.

Your pseudonym brought this to mind. I don't know why I liked this graffiti so much, but I did, I loved it and I have always remembered it.

follow_the_tao


Tread lightly

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 08:07

Tao - your graffiti brings to mind the ending of a poem by William Yeats, that perhaps Messers Bell, Brown, Brown and Darling might be persuaded to sympathise with -

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread lightly because you tread on my dreams.


@golightly

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 06:45

I do not doubt there are people working hard.

But for whose benefit ?

Clearly threequarters of depositors want the SoA.

How can DAG claim to represent ALL depositors ?


Bobby shafted

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 09:53

Please stop banging this particular drum.

Firstly - to say "Clearly 3/4 of depositors want the SoA" is simply not true, if for no other reason than that block votes taken by institutions holding pooled depositor funds did not reflect the underlying depositor sentiment.

Secondly - The DAG is clearly best placed to represent the interests of depositors because it contains individuals from all different depositor groups.

Thirdly - it was always DAG's position that the SoA would only be accepted if it offered benefits to ALL types of depositors. At the time that position was set out it was not clear exactly who the SoA would benefit.

Can you not accept that, although it transpired that a larger number of smaller depositors stood to benefit from the SoA, the DAG stuck to its original position and acted in a way that it considered best across the entire spectrum of depositors.

In the same way, if the SoA had offered to up its guarantee to 85% (benefiting larger depositors), but scrapped the 50K top up, DAG would have also have voted against to protect smaller depositors.


@bobby_shafted: Can you remember where you left you brain?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 11:29

There are many persons here in different situations. You don't seem to grasp this point.
All you appear to be interested in is your situation.
Now this fits the definition of being selfish. Can you see this point?
Now who wants to listen to a selfish person banging on about his interests when they run contra to the interests of a significant proportion of others?. Some of us, and let me say with the rejection of the SoA I stand to lose up to 10% of my deposit at the moment, believe that what is most appropriate in this situation is a attempt at a just resolution, not a resolution that is designed to hide the corruption inherent in the IoM.

Keep on shouting the same message 'bobby_shafted'..With each shout you weaken your case. Tell me exactly, please, at a personal level, why you are so obstinate, irreflexive? What is it with you? You are not assisting anybody, and that includes yourself. I am not in the business of selling brain-transplants, but it strikes me that you need one. Sorry I don't know where they are for sale.

In a just resolution each party will feel they have an advantage. This clearly isn't the case. Why not?

The situation is complex. We need calm heads and resolute spirits to deal with the situation. We are all in this together. Now can we co-operate? If not their 'divide and conquer' strategy is going to work.


I'm in class 1 and I don't

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 07:10

I'm in class 1 and I don't think that we should have even been part of the vote. The IOM should have guarenteed protected depositors payments under the SOA and DCS/Liquidation route with no material difference. They are legally obliged to pay us in any case. If they were prepared to make the funds available under the SOA then why can't they push that money toward the DCS? It hasn't disappeared.

Without the class 1 numbers of support for teh SOA, the picture would be different. And in any case, most peple still haven't received their hard copy papers.

My conscience is clear as to how I voted. I don't care if the bigger depositors may have taken advantage of me. The SOA was a bad contract pure and simple for anyone that wasn't a protected depositor. It had more loop holes and get out clauses than a cowboy builder's contract in Dubai.


@Gordon 45. You had a chance...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 04:22

to reach a consensus with 'lieben' et al. And this is for 'lieben'; that wasn't necessarily an easy goal (hope you enjoy that 'Lieben'). However that was the 'deal', you signed up for it, you have to concur in the resultant consensus or 'sqwark'. And that is what you're doing. No disgrace. Fair enough.
However: there is a mountain of research that suggests that the decisions of a group has more predictive capacity than that of it's components. As an outsider I see your point. But I don't agree with it.
We seem to be playing 'chicken'. This analysis is not going to be acclaimed. Let us look at the that worm's Bell's statement on this Monday. He knows it, and I know it, but the vast majority seem to be in ignorance, that his standard political play has failed in this situation. This guy, Bell, is accustomed to 'fronting' his 'opponents' and surviving. Let me say Mr Bell that until now you have read the situation correctly, you've always won. But you've always won within the IoM. Some of us are more used to outright 'bully' plays such as those that are your normal armoury. And some of us aren't intimidated by your macho posture. You are going to eat your words if I have my way. Mr Bell apparently wants to take the situation to the edge.

Welcome to the abyss Mr Bell.


Hear Hear Tao

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 04:31

Let's hope that what has happened (SoA rejection) leads to Bell's head being put on the block. He (and Brown) have a lot to answer for...hopfully Manxmen and women will NOW see through their charade and be rid of them.


No one hates the IoM - we just have no reason to like it

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 11:50

No one hates the IoM. We just don't like the way it has failed to restore to depositors what is rightfully theirs.
The SoA doesn't offer anything other than the government being able to interefere with the process of recovering of assets should it feel that there is something in the process that doesn't suit the government, the IoM and its taxpayers.
Under the SoA the current predicted 70% return is simply a return of recovered assets by the Liquidator provisionally.
Under the DCS the government could make up the 30% shortfall to give a 100% return in line with what every other government in Europe has done in respect of Kaupthing banks in their jurisdiction. It has the means to do it, but lacks the will & integrity to do the just & right thing.

The DAG Strategy Team is sticking four square to the DAG's mandate - 100% return of money put on trust in KSFIOM, and this is totally in line with UK & international policy.


the way fotrward

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 16:51

lucky Jim,
Thank you. At last we are beginning to see some logic arrive in this debate.
I am not anti IOM nor is the vast majority of depositors who voted against the SoA.
Neither am I a member of the DAG team.
BUT I do want to keep alive every possible chance of getting back 100% of our money.
To Grapow and the rest of my fellow sufferers who have had their money pinched - as I and my family have- PLEASE consider the following points:
1. the people who have delayed us being paid for SEVEN MONTH NOW are the IOM
Treasury. It is they, not we depositors or DAG, who have sought each
adjournment.
2. Had IOM wished to do us a good turn they would have proposed to pay us
back100% last November or at the very least have put forward an acceptable
SoA at that point.
3. They did neither. Ask yourselves why not?
4. They did not do so because they either do not have the cash to do so, or they do
not think we are worth it or because they think we will accept something lower.
5. The SoA was a method of hiding the fact that they do not have the cash to pay
us out 100% and was effectively a way of telling us we are not worth more than
we can get out of asset realisation.
6. Whether each of us has £1000 or £1m in there we shall each see ONLY what can
be realised from the assets except that the Compensation Scheme (DCS) will
ensure that everybody with less than £50k (or 20k for corporates) will be fully
paid out.
7. The SoA would apparently top up each of us to 70%.and will then take back
whatever is realised from assets until they recover those top ups. Why did they
first top up to 60% and then to 70% ? Because they realised that the KSF UK
guaranteed 50% payout would easily guarantee asset realisation way beyond
60%. What they did not point out is that they are still taking NO RISK AT ALL.
With the money the liquidator is currently holding, plus reasonable management
of the IOM loan book plus the minimum £50m interest to be earned on that loan
book over the next 5 years plus the minimum 50% payout from KSF UK we can
surely see minimum 80% of our money back eventually.
8. So, for taking no risk at all and eventually getting back most of their top up, they
offered us a supposed earlier payout of our first £35k or £50k. Probably by a
matter of a few weeks. But as they have delayed things for the last seven
months and cost themselves a fortune in consultancy fees and us another fortune
in legal fees in what way can they be said to be paying us out earlier?
9. BUT the real sting is in what they asked us to give up in return for this supposed
advantage:
- our legal advice is that the SoA would invalidate or weaken the parental
guarantee. It might well be of use to us one day.
- IOM insisted on a permanent place on the Creditor Committee. Why?
- IOM insisted on getting a CONFIDENTIAL report from the SoA manager one
month before any payout, not to be given to the other members of the Creditor
Committee. Why?
- SoA limited our right to sue certain IOM people/institutions. Why?
- the SoA separates the roles of realising the assets and paying them out.
And puts the IOM in virtual control. It is inconceivable that this would not be a
more costly administrative process than liquidation alone.
NO RISK FOR IOM SHOULD NOT GIVE IOM THESE ADVANTAGES

  1. Would I be prepared to trade off most or all of these disadvantages for a guarantee by IOM of 90% payout? Probably. And I have repeatedly written to Mr Bell and Mr Brown (IOM) to say so.Did I get a reply or acknowledgement? No!

11.As to whether rejection of the SoA would be democratic or not, look at
the value of deposits as well as the number of votes cast. Total deposit value
voted was over £818m. That is, nearly 94% of all deposits.That seems to me a
significant turnout.Of that, £233.5m rejected SoA, that is 28.5% of votes
cast.That is more than 25% of all deposits, let alone of one class only. And then
ask yourself which depositors will be left fighting for their rights and their
unrecovered money long after those with up to £50k have left the
ring? DCS or SoA will pay out everybody up to £50k. How will those
with more than £500k at risk get back their money if we deprive them
of the parental guarantee and the right to sue the IOM people? Or
whatever.

  1. I am going to log on www.government.com and continue to pursue my
    100%. Infighting will not get it back for me.

banna, hope your right..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 17:49

God I hope your right, the thing is we all have gone through alot and still are , and all this uncertainty is making us insecure so it all comes out in these posts...


Excellent post banna. That

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 16:56

Excellent post banna. That just about sums up the past 7 months in a nutshell.

Thank you.


Lucky Jim

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 13:20

Good points.

Let's assume the IOMT continue to refuse to the "just and right thing" and KSFIOM goes into liquidation without an SOA in place and refuse to top up the expected 70% via the DCS (first I heard that was possible, by the way).

Given that, even if no one hates the IOM, it certainly seems the IOM and PWC has at very best little respect for DAG, do you not foresee the liquidation process and activation of the DCS being a very expensive and drawn out process, more painful and expensive than the SOA that DST defeated, or do you see liquidation as being vastly easier and cheaper?

What actually happens when we have a liquidation without an SOA? Do DAG no longer have to deal with the same individuals they have been at loggerheads with for the past four months or so? Presumably they would continue to work with Simpson, someone I understand many DAG members want removed? Isn't this just the start of yet another mess, or is this going to be a walk in the park compared to the past 8 months? In your opinion, that is.


@Chris Watson -- DCS simplifies the whole thing

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 14:10

With the DCS the Liquidator will be in sole charge & statutorily bound to carry out his role in the best interests of depositors. The government & the banks will simply do what is required of them by statute.

The liquidation will proceed at the rate of:
- recovery of the balance of assets from KSF UK
- run down of the loan book
- other recoverable assets as per the balance sheet

This rate of recovery will be the same under a DCS as under a SoA.

The SoA is legal mumbo-jumbo designed to give the government a better option than the one of going down the road of liquidtion. It has nothing to do with what is in the best interests of depositors, but the government has to make it sound as though it is

If you sign up to the SoA you say to the government:
"I absolve you of any obligation to restore deposits 100% in line with what is required under international consensus that people's savings should be protected, because otherwise banking is meaningless" The IoM does not want to sign up to that consensus. It is the only government that has failed to do so. It's as simple as that really.


Lucky Jim - you are wrong

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 21:03

Lucky jim,

You keep coming out with the same old arguement and stories. The DCS and SoA are not the same. There is no time scale for return of cash under DCS yet. There is two payments and dates for SoA. They are not the same if we get less than 70% back - SoA is the winner there by a mile.

And the quicker the up to £50ks get paid the quicker the HNWD/bondholders get more of their cash back. Get it straight for once and stop dreaming of 100%

Gordon 45


Payments

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 23:35

please see the following link for payment analysis:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/dag-strategy-team-analysis-s...


As Gordon said, there is no

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 07:03

As Gordon said, there is no timescale associated with the DCS payouts. The DAG can publish whatever analysis they want, but that does not make it true, and any figures they give are pure guess work as it will be the IOM and not the DAG that actually makes the payment.

Under the SoA I would have recieved my protected deposit in August 2009. Under Liquidation/DCS even according to the DAG's own figures I will have to wait until December 2010, which could be even longer than that depending on how the IOM actually payout. Not really such a 'marginal' benefit as the DAG would like to make out.

Even by the DAG's own analysis it is those that deposited within the old DCS compensation rules that look likely to be most disadvantaged by the SoA being rejected.


Guess we are all in the same boat! Get over it!

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 09:32

Guess we are all in the same boat! After all we were all in the same bank!
Why are all you 50K- depositors moaning so bloody much. Why do you seem to all feel you have more right to your money than the 50K+ group? Liquidation is the fairest way, we all get the same percentage at the same time!
You will get your money back, fair enough you might have to wait a while longer but get over it, these are the cards we have been dealt....get over it!!!
My parents have 500K at stake, the sum of their lifes work....why should they sign away there rights so you can get your 50K back a few months quicker?
Your selfish attitude is disgraceful, moaning like a bunch of spoilt teenagers, get a grip!!!


Why cant those who voted

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 10:11

Why cant those who voted against the SoA post anything on this forum without getting abusive.

I am not suggesting that people sign away their rights, they must do what is right for themselves, whilst those that voted for the SoA were doing just the same thing and should not be criticised for doing so.


Abusive?

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 10:23

Im sorry if you feel my post is abusive, i did not intend it to be. All i wanted to say (and feel akll i did say) was that those 50K- depositors who are moaning need to get over it and see the bigger picture
Whats done is done, moaning is not going to solve anything!


I think you will find that

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 10:32

I think you will find that most sub 50k depositors who have posted on this site have accepted the vote against the SoA but are just trying to highlight the fact that to some the SoA may have been a better option.

To which the response from some anti SoA posters has been 'greedy', 'pathetic', 'selfish', 'crap', 'troll'...... To me that looks very much like abuse!

Having said that we ALL need to move on.


do you think Expatfrance

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 10:59

Do you think that people here dont know that?

We dont need you ramming it down our throats and taking up site space continually.
Class 1 voted for the SOA because it was in their best interests.
Class 2 savers voted against it because it was their best interests.

As you are not as pure as the driven snow in the name calling department I suggest you take your own advice and move on.


@bellyup

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 11:30

Just couldnt resist could you!

I think I have called someone a name on this forum only once and that was out of utter frustration at your taking up site space continually and throat ramming barrage against anyone who took a different view to yourself.

At least you now admit that people voted differently because of their own interests, at least that's progress!


Lastworditus

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 11:42

I admit nothing that I and many others have been trying to explain to you endlessly.
Now as you obviously suffer from lastworditus i shall expect another unoriginal repetitive spacewasting boring tirade shortly.


hear hear Monkeyface

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 09:51

I think we are all fed up of hearing these gripers.

Thanks to all the under 50k depositors who saw the injustice in this SOA and voted against it.


COMPO

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 09:38

I would even venture the view that it is wrong that there should be full compo up to a certain deposit - especially where the limit was set long after everyone deposited. What the Government should do is work out the compo pot and everyone should take a pari passu hit - whether they ahve £1 in or £1 million pound. Why should the £49k depositor lose nowt and the £60k depositor lose £10k? No sense or justice to it. We should get 100% compo and then reset the rules for the future so that everyone knows they should deposit no more than x in any one bank. All this after the fact stuff is most unfair.


@steveservaes

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 10:12

Unfortunately (for you at least) that has now passed into IOM law and cannot be reversed under liquidation/DCS.

Also, your example is wrong, as the 60k depositor loses only the unrecovered proportion of the 10k excess over 50k.

More to the point, why post this at all? Just to score a couple of points against those <50's who are moaning about the SoA failure. Does that actually help anything? Other than generating another 600 we're right/you're wrong comments (like this one ;-)).

Tis done now, and time to move on.


Compo

  • Monkeyface3604
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 09:55

Careful there Steve.....you could get lynched lol
But your damn right
The compo was set at 20K........anyone who is above that and below 50K and moaning should think themselves bloody lucky anyway. Funny how short peoples memory is.


@expatfrance1 - depositors under old rules

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 07:16

"Even by the DAG's own analysis it is those that deposited within the old DCS compensation rules that look likely to be most disadvantaged by the SoA being rejected."

But the old rules under which they deposited were exactly what they will be getting (except that the DCS has been upgraded from 15K to 50K) -so how will they be disadvantaged? No-one to my knowledge deposited with the 'promise' of a SoA...


Thank you, Codpeace

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 05:55

Thank you Codpeace. Now, if only certain members of this forum would also read this (CW, EF for example).


Lucky Jim

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 14:23

So I take it you consider it will from now on be a "walk in the park"?

Sorry I think you missed my questions and more or less repeated what you had already written and which was something I had not actually contested within my post.


Response to 'Lucky Jim'

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 14:16

In the main fair comments 'Jim' makes, he does however miss out one important ingredient of the SOA, timescales! At least the SOA attempted to address some of this problem We need a dose of reality in this forum, there never has been and never will be any chance of a 100% recovery, the current government, and almost for sure the next one will simply play the same damned tune....the IoM is a separate jurisdiction etc etc etc.

Please do not get me wrong, this hurts my wife and I every bit as most on here and more than most I feel certain, however we must face facts that we had a glorious chance to take something from this quagmire and we blew it!

Be clear on one final point - I pray to God that I am entirely wrong !


timescale benefit of SoA -- irrelevant!

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 14:53

The so-called timescale benefit is a crafty caveat to make it 'look' as though the SoA is a better option! To a starving man a piece of bread is attractive when he doesn't know that optionally there's cake to be had!

The only timescale that matters is the rate at which the Liquidator can recover all the assets.

Don't be duped into thinking that 100% is not possible. if I believed that I can assure you that I would not be writing this!

The IoM government can not cock the snook indefinitely at an internationally agreed policy. The DAG will call upon HMG to require the IoM to come into line. The Constitution provides for this as per the Kilbrandon report 1972/3:
“The UK Parliament does have power to legislate for the Island without their consent on any matter in order to give effect to an international agreement”
Source: Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 3 June 1998, cols. 471 and 465.

The IoM government refuses to reply to this Constitutional imperative. Members who live in the IoM should ask their MHK what is their view on this. There should be a debate in the Tynwald on it, but the IoM is not so democratic as to permit this to happen! But try it & see what happens!


@Lucky Jim - HMG powers over IoM

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 16:00

Pity I didn't read your latest blog before sending off my reply to MoJ (just posted on another thread) - I did refer to MoJ's responsibility for good governance, but could also have cited the Hansard text. Anyway, you say DST is working on it ...

Keep up the good work!


lucky jim, but look what we are dealing with..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 12:18

yes, but all other countries are decent this one is not, its the isle of horrors and I just dread whats coming next ...we have all been reduced to poverty and despair here and their consciences are not stirred one singles bit, what else do we do go and die outside their doors or something.


@hippychickrobbed

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 12:34

"all other countries are decent"

No, I think all governments first look after their own interests and then, insofar as it relates to and is consistent wth their own interests, those of their electorate. "Decency" never comes into it, except in how they like to be portrayed in the media and in the limited sense of telling others how to behave in public (not frightening the horses).


Gordon 45 what a load of rubbish

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 05:18

You obviously haven’t bothered to understand the facts before posting.


Gordon is NO moron !!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 06:58

Most depositors are in favour of the SoA.


Bobby Shafted, maybe, but I can think of another who seem to be

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 07:13

Ignorant people tend to be blissfully ignorant of their own ignorance
See my post: "Bobby Shafted – You are ignorant of the rules"


@Klauseriksen

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 08:24

Why do you (and certain others) insist on being so smug and superior on this website. You seem to find it impossible to accept that someone can have a different point of view to your own without insulting them.

I can't understand why someone who clearly rates their own intelligence so highly should find it difficult to realise that the some people consider the SoA a preferable option to liquidation/DCS.

Whatever your preference, there is a valid criticism of the DAG and (far more so) the so called "High Net Worth" (rather than the more prosaic "Large") depositors in that all that has been achieved is the endless stringing out of the start of liquidation.

The influential individuals involved shouted at the beginning that liquidation was to be avoided at all costs, now 6 months delay later, liquidation is apparently the only answer.


@Klauseriksen

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 12:49

For the record, I was always in favour of a rapid liquidation and never supported the SoA, since it was obvious at the start that it was nothing more than a vehicle for the IoMG to avoid liquidation and calling upon its DCS. We know some of their reasons for taking this position, but I have it in mind that a major reason for their wanting to avoid the latter is that certain matters would most likely come to light that they would prefer to remain hidden. Recent information reaching the DAG tends to confirm this.


Elgee and Realism....

  • Ashoker
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Fri, 22/05/2009 - 10:10

Would just like to add my support to Elgee and what he has to say generally on this forum. His contributions are well-informed, incisive and loaded with realism. He has not, in my opinion ever been taken in by the nonsense that the IoM govt. et al, have trotted out. I, for one, am extremely grateful that we have him on our side, and that he continues to lend his support our cause, even though he has already received his money back!


Elgee, Benfit of prior exposure

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 13:11

Yes it would appear you had the benefit of previous exposure to the IOMG and therefore had a better idea of what they were up to from the start, whereas this was experience us Expats only acquired once the first SOA draft was published.


He also has the benefit of

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 13:51

He also has the benefit of already having received all of his money back so it really does not matter to him how long it takes for everyone else.


He also has the benefit of

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 13:54

expatfrance1: Thanks for your observation. That would be the case if I were driven only by self-interest. But if I were driven only by self-interest, why would I have bothered to stay with the matter at all?


Elgee, Benfit of prior exposure

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 13:35

If I had any benefit, it was probably of prior skepticism. I don't recall any past exposure to IoMG.


Trust Has Gone!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 12:48

The Main Reason you seem to have missed is that it's OUR Money and the IOMT & HMG seem to think they have presidence over it... I have worked hard all my life for the Proceeds of the sale of my Property only to have the proceeds stolen from under my Nose...

We have every right to get Legal protection in this Situation, SOA is giving the IOM T the Reins and I am not prepared to vote for this in any way shape of Form I have no Trust In Tynwald or HMG of United Kingdom.

The DAG have worked their Butts Off to bring this about and they have my Support 100% as this is exactly the SUM of my Money I want and Need returned to me.

Just because the Country has got itself into the Mire with financial Debts why Drag us innocent Saver's DOWN with it..

Control thats what it is... Fairness is what I ask and this Debacle SHOULD be faught in the COURTS..
>>>>>>> THIS IS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD!!

Aurora


No trust

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 13:14

Yes definitely and only the IOMG is to blame for that


Donald C

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 21/05/2009 - 09:23

Hi Donald C

It appears to me you are saying that it is depositors who have endlessly strung out this process.

I think the facts of the situation are that at the initial Court Hearing 24 Oct 2008 it was IOMG/T that requested liquidation be held whilst they sought alternates. Then it was IOMG/T that at the following Court Hearings on 27 Nov, 29 Jan and 19 Feb who did not comply with their own Courts request to clarify their SoA until finally on 9 Apr we actually had a SoA that their Court deemed sufficient to be put to a vote.

As far as I am aware there was no input into this process by anyone within DAG (of any value of deposit) - if you know of any I would be interested to see it