Treasury deflects MPs’ criticism over Icelandic banking crisis

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 19/06/2009 - 13:37

The Treasury has defended its handling of the Icelandic banking crisis after criticism from the Treasury Select Committee of cross-party MPs.

Link: < >

Despite ‘severe distress’ HMT are still content that KSF depositors should sacrifice their savings as " it would not be appropriate to use tax payers money to compensate them".

Would these be the same MPs that are now repaying expense claims to keep hold of their seats and salaries until the next election?

Kind regards,


Your rating: None Average: 5 (13 votes)

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

Let's find an attack:

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/06/2009 - 09:28

Enough said.

How? With what? When?

Body slam!

And further more ... I feel

  • DJO Gutted
  • 12/10/08 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/06/2009 - 11:47

And further more ... I feel like I am working harder to get money back than I had to work for it!
[and I did work hard for my money!]

This 8 month fiasco gets worse at every turn especially now with the complications of these poxie forms etc. etc. etc.
I ain't signing anything, I will wait, How can anyone sign a document such as we have been given.
God give me a break, my head hurts from trying to understand the legal language and ramifications, reading the forum every hour to understand what is going on and what is being said.

I do follow the Tao in my life and have been very patient, my mission WILL be to find an investigative reporter
who will expose expose expose. They are doing it in the US and now BIG BROTHER BRITAIN can join the ranks and have their underwear hung up in public so that the public open their eyes. Zeitgeist!

Signing nothing @DJO Gutted

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/06/2009 - 14:31

Its by signing the proof of debt that you get the dividends in a liquidation. If you don't lodge a proof of debt then you don't get a payout.

So it is not inappropriate to

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/06/2009 - 07:24

So it is not inappropriate to give Whelan his millions then?

Of course it was. Or was it?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/06/2009 - 11:03

Whelan got his millions because it was in the interests of....

Now where are our interests?

This is naked prejudice. Let's hang on to it. There are more of 'them' than 'us'. Is anybody surprised?

But look at it this way,,,,,,,,, Whose choice? Vires or 'ultra -vires'? Do they warrant this distinction? Is it legal? is it just. What does it signify? Was there a vote????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

We have a corrupt government.... yes or no? For what does it's word count?


Poor Innocent IoM

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/06/2009 - 20:16

"The Isle of Man government has questioned why the FSA had been able to warn it about the problems with Bradford & Bingley, but not Kaupthing. "

The IoM have their own banking regulator, they know damn well that Kaupthing was regulated by Iceland not the UK. It was their duty to warn depositors - MORE so than the UK who, after all, had a credible depositor protection scheme.

Dawes..FSA culpability

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/06/2009 - 21:30

Dawes....You say that .."Kaupthing was regulated by Iceland not the UK" but neglect to say WHICH Kaupthing you are talking about.... Whilst Kaupthing Hf was clearly regulated by Iceland, KSFUK was equally clearly regulated by the UK FSA, which is the point. Not only did the FSA fail to advise the IOM FSC of their intention to put KSFUK into administration, knowing full well that £550M of KSFIOM depositors money was in KSFUK, but they previously ignored S&F Alan Shearer's advice that Kaupthing was not fit to take over S&F and went ahead nevertheless and authorised the takeover. In my mind the FSA is the No 1 villain in this whole affair.

Treasury deflects TSC criticism - comment

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/06/2009 - 16:11

I posted this comment:

The depositors who placed their trust and their life-savings in the Isle of Man and Guernsey banks will continue to suffer from their huge losses until these two British Governments behave responsibly and take cooperative action to recompense ordinary, decent and prudent savers who did nothing other than save their monies in a highly-rated bank located offshore.

No one expected the UK Government to use the blunderbuss of anti-terrorism powers against the Icelandics instead of providing co-operative assistance when they were asked for help some time before this financial disaster manifested itself; and no one expected the powers of the FSA to extend to moving £2.6 billion pounds worth of retail depositor accounts to a foreign bank causing KSFL to fail and thereby brought under administration with all deposits trapped for months under Court Order.

Worst of all, no upright citizen can even imagine what has been done to the savers in the Isle of Man and Guernsey because it is beyond the realms of what any first world Government should do to its citizens.

The UK Government instigated an orchestrated action to contain the maximum sum of Icelandic assets in the UK jurisdiction and retained it against all comers. Even though it was made aware that the £557,000,000 held in the UK Kaupthing bank was initially deposited in KSFIoM by retail depositors, the UK Government steadfastly refused to allow the return of that money to the Isle of Man – to the ordinary savers – 70% of whom are in or near retirement.

The UK Government instigated the loss of these people's monies and whilst they themselves were busy pilfering the public purse they actually made false accusations against folks, many of whom have no obligation to pay tax and quite properly refrain from making such payment. Which, therefore is illegal, falsifying claims in order to take more money from the public purse than your proper entitlement, or not paying into that purse because you are non-resident and under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to make such payment?

It is one thing to level accusations and gain public support through misrepresentation of the truth, but quite another when real facts are borne out against the perpetrators of falsehood. Now that MPs have been exposed as mere mortals who would bend the rules to make a penny, perhaps they will climb down from their perch and try to understand and comprehend what it means for normal everyday people who have had ten, twenty or thirty years of diligent saving taken from them. Not a few hundred pounds snaffled from the public purse, but tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds saved over years and years. It is an insult and a disgrace to allow this to happen, and yet it is happening, in Great Britain, to British citizens right now.