UPDATE AND ACTIONS FROM THE LONDON LEGAL TEAM

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 22/01/2009 - 20:33

In the past couple of days we have been in further detailed conversations with the IoM authorities and will be having further discussions tomorrow afternoon.

These discussions have centred on the SoA v DCS argument and the information (or lack thereof) emanating from Alix Partners. It is important for you all to know that WE ARE seeing information that we are not passing on to you and there are two very good reasons for this:

  1. We are parties to a confidentiality agreement so we are not at liberty to discuss numbers.
  2. The numbers we are being shown continue to be plucked from out of the air with no visible hard evidence to back them up.

So, unlike some, we do not have the luxury of hiding behind internet anonymity and we have to play by the rules we agreed to at the outset. Also, we believe it is highly unfair to discuss possible payback percentages when there is still no evidence of how these numbers were arrived at – they could be vastly optimistic or highly pessimistic…either way depositors could be given impressions that were simply not true.

It is still very obvious that there is a ‘hard sell’ going on as far as any SoA is concerned but, whilst there is a possibility that an SoA may be the best way forward, we simply do not have the information we all will need to make an informed decision. This is the message we are continually banging home to the IoM.

All the information being supplied by the IoM is being passed to our legal team here in London and they are also very much of the opinion that there is nothing, as yet available, on which depositors can make a decision.

The problem is that Alix Partners appear to refuse to stick their necks out even a tiny bit as evidenced by the huge stream of disclaimers at the front of their latest document. Quite simply they effectively say "here are possible outcomes of a SoA or liquidation but if they turn out to be entirely wrong we bear no responsibility for them". This is not good enough and this message has been sent to the IoM in no uncertain terms.

Our primary position with regards any SoA is this:

Firstly, the wording of any SoA would have to include clauses giving depositors the same legal rights and recourses as liquidation as well as the rights a liquidator would hold under liquidation. Depositors should not have to surrender any potential legal remedies by opting for a SoA.

Secondly, we will need a document that is crystal clear on how a SoA will pay out the sub £50k depositors sooner and quicker than the DCS scheme.

Thirdly, we will need documentation from Alix Partners giving detailed information on how they intend to maximise returns over and above what the DCS would pay out to higher end depositors. This document will need to be more than a set of 'beliefs' - facts will be required.

Lastly, the information supplied to satisfy the conditions above will need to pass the scrutiny of our Legal team before we can pass judgement or comment.
The last condition is a particularly important one. None of us are SoA experts whereas our opponents in this (Alix Partners) are, apparently. We should not be agreeing to anything that our legal representatives haven’t given the green light on.

We are reasonably confident that our second request (re. sub £50k depositors) will be met quite easily but the stumbling block at the moment is the request for ‘facts’ on how the higher end depositors will fare better under a SoA. Discussions we will be having tomorrow with the IoM authorities together with further info due imminently from Alix Partners should reveal how close we are to our objective.

ACTIONS

We understand that there can be quite a build up of frustration as we approach the 29th especially as the information from the IoM doesn’t seem to be flowing as readily as we would all like. So there are a number of things we as individuals can do:

  1. In all your correspondence with the IoM authorities, concentrate on asking that they provide clear, unambiguous documentation clearly showing the differences between any SoA and the DCS and explaining that we cannot possibly make a decision with the limited information so far offered. I would ask that you refrain from any personal attacks in these communications as, although completely understandable, they may have the effect of backfiring at the last moment.
  2. In all your correspondence with UK MPs and other UK authorities please point out the issues we are having as a result of the ‘transfer order’ enacted by the UK government with regards KSFUK. Quite simply, the legislation the UK government introduced put in place something called an ‘overriding objective’ for the administrators of KSFUK.

This legislation instructs Ernst & Young to ignore standard administration procedures in favour of procedures put in place by HM Treasury. Specifically, this states that for the first 6 months of administration the administrators must concentrate on dealing with all issues surrounding the movement of accounts to ING before dealing with any other creditor issues.

The result of this is that our Liquidator Provisional had no real information from London as to the potential recovery he can expect from our assets in KSFUK and as such, any parties showing an interest in purchasing KSFIOM are faced with a large hole in the balance sheet of unknown size. This has resulted in any offers from 3rd parties for our bank being of a derisory nature.

We will continue to report back as and when we have information that we believe is reliable and of use to you. There are those amongst us that will have you believe that all is not as it seems and that deals are being done behind closed doors without your knowledge. Once again I will reiterate that we do not have the power to make any such deals and that these stories are categorically untrue. We have placed our heads above the parapet and our identities are out there for all to see. I would ask those who so enjoy casting doubt on our intentions and morals to at least have the decency to do the same…at least then depositors can make a truly informed decision on whom to believe and trust.

The objective remains the 100% return of funds to all depositors.

Thanks

4.82192
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (73 votes)

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

Diver

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:52

Can i possably send you an e mail either to your own mail address or via the contact availability on the site although i am not sure how to do this, can you help with info.

Thanks


Diver, can you help?

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 11:56

Many thanks for your substantial work on all our behalf, Diver.

Can you help with some queries:

While the SoA could conceivably be the best outcome for depositors one can understand and even be encouraged by your scepticism.

Is it possible to find out Alix's track record in other such arrangements? I have never heard of them although that may not mean much. Are they a substantial International firm and if so surely something can be found out which might make us more comfortable, or otherwise, with them?

It's never been clear whether the IOM compensation scheme paid out £50k per a/c or £50k per depositor i.e., a joint account would get 2 x £50k. Is this under discussion in the SoA and do you have any idea of what the position will be?

Many thanks.


Diver, can you help?

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 11:56

Many thanks for your substantial work on all our behalf, Diver.

Can you help with some queries:

While the SoA could conceivably be the best outcome for depositors one can understand and even be encouraged by your scepticism.

Is it possible to find out Alix's track record in other such arrangements? I have never heard of them although that may not mean much. Are they a substantial International firm and if so surely something can be found out which might make us more comfortable, or otherwise, with them?

It's never been clear whether the IOM compensation scheme paid out £50k per a/c or £50k per depositor i.e., a joint account would get 2 x £50k. Is this under discussion in the SoA and do you have any idea of what the position will be?

Many thanks.


Diver can you help

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 13:08

The DCS pays out 50,000 GBP per joint account holder. One account having two joint account holders will receive 100,000 GBP. This is clearly stated in the DCS regulations.


DIVER Please respond to this!

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 15:42

Given the high fluctuations in the currency rates since 9th Oct then the foreign currency account holders will lose out in some cases 20% alone on exchange rates if the repayment is made in UK £ and exchange rate is settled on the 9th of October. I understand from FROGs comment that Mike Simpson would use the date of liquidation to convert all currencies to UK pounds. Hence the proposed SoA leave the foreign currency holders at a severe disadvantage if it uses the 9th of Oct as opposed to the DSC which would use the liquidation date. Therefore I think it is essential that either the repayment should be made in the currency of the accounts or the exchange rate calculation date should be the same as mike Simpsons. Otherwise you are likely to get a massive amount of resistance to the SoA from all foreign account holders who might want to go with the DSC instead.
I look forward to your comments


Exchange rate

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 11:04

The reason why there are different stories circulating surrounding the date at which exchange rate calculations will be made is quite simply because, according to the IoM authorities, the law is unclear.

We have been told that under UK insolvency legislation the relevant clause states that exchange rate calculations are calculated based on the date a company goes into administration. If this were applied to our scenario this would be October 9th. However, it appears that this clause is not present in the relevant IoM legislation and so it may fall to the Deemster to set the date (possibly the date of liquidation or the commencement of any SoA). The IoM authorities are in the process of clarifying whether UK legislation would rule in the absence of specific IoM legislation and will be getting back to us as soon as they know the answer.

The importance of this issue to a large number of depositors has been conveyed to the IoM authorities on a number of occasions so they are aware of its significance.


diver is totally correct

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:42

diver is totally correct about the legislation, UK and Manx legislation differ. The point has been made face to facee with Alan Bell by myself and others last week. It is being looked into by the DAG legal team and iOM. I am aware thaat other groups are also questioning this and asking for clarification. Blunty the matter is unclear, we'll see.

If I may say so it's a bit premature to make judegemental statements at this time on this issue.


Manx law vs UK law

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 09:01

Expat
Does this mean that, in your understanding, Manx (case or statute) law contains no provision, or that it contains different provisions to the UK?

This is quite a thorny problem - I have no idea what the % of currency balances among KSFIoM creditors is, but changing the fx rate broadly reduces the payable to non-CCY creditors by (Currency Creditors as % of total creditors) * (Movement in CCY %).

Given that sterling has weakened by 20-25% against the 2 main currencies, this figure is quite significant. Say currency creditors make up 20% of the total, this would reduce the payouts to non-CCY creditors by 4-5% (using the dreaded SoA figures, from 65% to 60%).

In other words, unless the % of CCY creditors is insignificant, it is unlikely that the bigger creditors will amicably accept a treatment that disadvantages them.

If there is no clearcut answer, is there a risk of a drawn-out legal process before any payments can be confirmed by the liquidator or an SoA agreed?


Liquidator shpuld pay in the currency we made the deposit

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 13:02

Many thanks Diver for explanation re: exchange rates but I can't understand why the liquidator is not obliged to pay me in the currency in which I made the deposit. I have £, € and US$, why does the liquidator get to choose to pay me back in £? In the case of dollars I exchanged them at $2 = £1. If I were paid at the date of provisional liquidation, for example, I'd be getting about $1.70 but I need to buy back the dollars and today would only get $1.37 for £1. Why can't I insist on being paid in the currency of the account?

Appreciate what help you can provide on this.


Liquidator shpuld pay in deposit currency

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 14:40

Hi Flower
I'm afraid in this case it's one of following the facts, not the fairness.

Where there is a multi-currency liquidation, exchange movements will inevitably benefit/disbenefit someone.
Choosing an earlier date for the conversion rate will benefit the creditors in the weakening currency, delaying the conversion rate will benefit the creditors in the strengthening currency.

A sterling creditor could justifyably claim that to pay you out in dollars unfairly reduces his % share of the distributable assets because of fx movements. I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying that this is an issue where if case precedent is not followed, legal challenges will ensue.

Hence why (see Diver's mail), the actions being taken are to establish the appropriate legel precedent.


Thats why you need to use the same date as the FSC

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 07:33

Exactly it’s a point of contention and that’s why the date the FSC legally is obliged to use should also be used in the SoA. This is the only way to avoid inconsistencies between the two schemes and further discussion of which is fair


Foreign currency holder may get less from the SoA than the DSC

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:25

If the DSC uses the date of liquidation as stated by Mike Simpson and the SoA used the 8 Oct for currency exchange rate calculations then you can actually end up with some foreign currency holders getting LESS in an SoA than a DSC. For example, a depositor with say 65,000 Euros could actually end up getting less from the SoA than he or she would get from the DSC depending on the repaymenyt percentage of the SoA.
In a DSC this depositor would receive roughly 50,000 pounds using the approximate exchange rate of 1.3 on the 8 Oct. Whereas in an SoA if we use the approximate current exchange rate of 1.07 and a guessed repayment of 65p to the pound of the balance he would get 65000Euros / 1.07*0.65=39000 pounds.
Hence the SoA would be significantly worse for such an account holder and thus does NOT give everyone the same or more than the FSC.
Clearly from the above example the ONLY way to fairly implement an SoA is to use the exact SAME date and method as Mike Simpson would be obliged to use in a DSC scenario. It would also be the only way to avoid the SoA being legally challanged by the foreign currency holders which would otherwise cause a delay in everyones payments.


Correction to above example

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 07:29

Actually I used the wrong rates in the above example. Here is the correct ones
For an account holder with 50000 Euros in the bank the calculation will look as follows:
Exchange rate Euro Pound FSC: 1.08 (at liquidation) or SoA 1.3 (8 Oct), payback percentage SoA: 65%
FSC: 50000 Euros / 1.08 = 46729 pounds compensation
SoA: 50000 Euros / 1.30 / 38461 pounds compensation (payback percentage 100% as amount is < 50000 pounds)
Hence the SoA would only give a much less the payback of the FSC for this account holder. For foreign account holders with much larger amounts there is also a major flaw in the SoA as these instead of a payback of 65% for UK £ account holders would only get 65 * 1.08 / 1.3 = 54% payback with the current SoA proposal.
In other words, the only way to ensure a fair and equitable distribution in the SoA is to use the exact same exchange rate calculation date/method as Mike Simpson would have to use in the FSC which to my understanding is at the date of liquidation sometime in the future


Currency Fairness

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:12

The only way to do this in a fair manner if we have to exchange to UK £ is to use the SAME date as Mike Simpson has to use in the event of a DSC which to my understanding would be at the liquidation some time in the future. Using a different date may actually cause some of the smaller foreign currency holders to get LESS from the SoA than they would have got from the DSC and this would not be in compliance with the stated goals of the SoA


Reply to Diver on Exchange rates

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 07:12

Diver,
My main contention is that a SoA should use the SAME date for exchange rate calculations as a Mike Simpson would be obliged to use in the DSC. This is the only way you can ensure fairness between the two schemes and it is also the only way you can avoid a lot of litigation from the foreign currency holders.


Hmm.

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 23:19

Hmm.

Exact quote from Mike Simpson (from an email from him to me correcting my mistake in a summary of a conference call:

"...Q20 - payments will be in Sterling, with the FX rate calculated at the date of the passing of the winding up order - not 8 Oct"

Also, check out: http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalMan...

Section 40.144 which deal with exchange rates

"40.144 Rate of Exchange

(May 2008)

Foreign debts are to be converted into sterling at the exchange rate prevailing at the date of the bankruptcy order or liquidation [note 8]*. This is to ensure fairness to all the creditors. The fluctuating exchange rate may lead to a loss or a gain in real terms to the creditor.

Daily currency exchange rates can be obtained from www.ft.com, a link to which is also available through the intranet useful links page under the news subheading. Historical exchange rates are available from the Bank of England website at www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/iadb/Rates.htm."

UK Law - who is advising you on this??

I hope this is clear

  • [note 8] 8. Insolvency Rules 1986 rules 4.91 or 6.111

Date for Insolvency purposes

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 23:44

The rules in the IoM were passed into law in 1934 (I think that dates correct, but definitely 1930s)
The matter of the date to be effective for this and other purposes was stated in open court to be in some doubt by Mr Clucas.
The references above relate to the UK IA 1986 which is substantially later than the IoM legislation.
I think it is fair to say that there is some doubt, although I agree M simpson has said this, although maybe the opinion of other advocates differ


There is no doubt for UK law.

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 05:01

There is no doubt for UK law. Mr Simpson is well practiced in liquidation, so I'm sure he knows what he is talking about as opposed to advocates coming at this for the first time.

Note that the insolvency laws of 1986 you refer to were superseded with regard to exchange rates by this one in May 2008


But this insolvency is subject to IoM Law

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 05:05

Advocates coming to this for the first time? Clucas is a partner with Cains - the largest law firm in the Island -, and is very experienced in this area. You will also recall the SImpson suggested that the FSCS were a more highly ranked creditor originally......
UK Cases are authoritative for Manx Law purposes where the law/regulations are the same, but as they are possibly out of step here then position is not the same.
What I have done is recount what actually occurred and was said in court on this matter. The other advocates, some of the most senior advocates in the IoM including the AG, didn't raise any issue with this point.


exchange

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 23:25

The explanation is the one provided by the IoM when challenged as to why depositors were being given different information from different sources. The issue has been passed on to our legal representation to clarify the situation.


Perhaps you could provide

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 04:07

Perhaps you could provide them with this information to save them some time.

I wonder whether the foreign currency holders should be represented by an informal DAG committee member like the in-flights, less than 50K etc.


Foreign Currency holder representation in DAG

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 07:34

I think this is a good idea Frog as it would seem there is sufficient reasons for representation given the issues we have discussed here.
My main contention is that the SoA should use the SAME date for currency conversion as Mike Simpson would be obliged to use in a DSC or that we should be paid out in our original account currencies. Anything short of that will surely get all the foreign account holders mobilized where after the terms of the SoA will be legally challenged and delay everyones payments.


Perhaps you could provide

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 04:24

I think there may be a misunderstanding over this issue.

Since the SoA, if there is to be one, will be a contract, this matter can be dealt with by agreement between the parties in any way they wish and set out as part of that contract. Any such agreement would not, I believe, be subject to over-riding statutory provisions that govern liquidation, referred to above, or affected by insolvency case law referred to elsewhere. The proposed contract as a whole would, of course, be subject to the approval of the court, but I doubt whether the court would wish to interfere in detailed provisions of this kind unless any depositors were to raise objections.


Yes, I'm aware that the SOA

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 04:44

Yes, I'm aware that the SOA moves to a commercial contract from statute, so they can offer whatever they want. Nonetheless, there has to be a starting point based on the proviso that the SOA is better for all depositors - not just a majority. I am not sure though that the IOM government wants to necessarily work to disadvantage a number of depositors with a date which would reduce their payout by 20%. This would certainly be challenged in court - probably to force the liquidation, by a number of depositors who are significantly . You must see that the IOM government is using these currency changes to subsidise their contribution.

As mentioned before - the best option for the SOA is to pay out in the currency of deposit. That way everyone is happy.


Yes, I'm aware that the SOA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 05:14

I am glad that we appear to understand each other. Of course I am not suggesting that depositors should agree to the IOMG's present proposal in respect of exchange rates. In fact, I am not suggesting that depositors should agree to any aspects of the proposed SoA, such as it is.

I merely make the point that the proposition that a contractual term in the SoA needs to be consistent with statutory provisions or case law relating to liquidation is incorrect.

Incidentally, the starting point you suggest is not sufficiently well defined or strictly wholly achievable. For example, it could easily be argued that if some depositors would receive larger payments under provision A than under provision B, then it can only be at the expense of all other depositors, since there is a fixed amount of money to be distributed. Moreover, I do not think that the starting point you suggest will be one necessarily adopted by the court or one that is accepted by the IOMG.

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that it is strongly arguable that foreign currency depositors ought to be compensated either (i) in the currency of their deposit or else (ii) in sterling, but at the exchange rate prevailing on the date that they receive the payment, both of which I believe achieve the result that they want.


CLARIFICATION: BONDHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECT DEPOSITORS:

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 00:17

CLARIFICATION: BONDHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECT DEPOSITORS:

Diver: It has been suggested on the site that you are not, as a committee, representing ALL depositors fairly and squarely. Would you confirm beyond any doubt, that you are acting in the best interests of ALL depositors, be that bondholders or direct account holders.

From the outset, the sites motto was to represent ALL depositors and seek 100% recover of our money. Clearly without the intervention of the IOM government, that is an impossible realisation and is giving false hope. Could you confirm that the informal DAG committee is representational of the whole group and, that all depositors are being represented equally. That being individual account holders that have placed their funds within an insurance bond are being treated equal to direct account holders. That you are working, as a group, to ensure that these insurance bond holders receive an equal payout to those that are direct account holders under any implemented payment scheme.

For sure, most insurance bond holders were not aware and, have been misled as to how their funds in such a bond would be held. (another claim for another day) Most, clearly, me included, would not have placed money in a bank for security on deposit within such a bond, if we knew at that time our funds would not be covered by any protection scheme. Under the present law, £20,000 being spread amongst £60 million of funds held within my particular insurance company is just not fare. A total of £400 million is being held by corporate (bondholders) that's nearly 50% of the £880 million total cash held on deposit. It is unjust to expect these 50% of depositors to accept such a low or such an unrealistic payout under the DCS. This is just one of the wrongs which we bondholders collectively were hoping, that you would have been endeavouring to rectify.

Can you confirm, that under the proposed SOA bondholders will be treated the same as direct account holders, if not currently, that you will insist that this be so.

I look for a positive clarification on this point and that the interests of ALL account holders are being fairly represented in any negotiations with the IOM government that you are having and, not just the direct cash account holders


I'm not sure you are grasping

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 03:23

I'm not sure you are grasping this - for all depositors with a substantial wedge in the pot and the recovery that we are reasonable sure we could achieve under a traditional liquidation, then the DCS isn't worth two bob, both literally and figuratively - in fact you could be worse off if you channel you money through it, rather than just accepting the dividend from the liquidator - the scheme has costs and is designed that those costs are funded from outside.

Do the maths and see what the liquidation would need to provide as a dividend, with your level of deposit, then see if you will receive a cent from the scheme - for me, if the liquidation realises 25P in the pound then the DCS is useless.

Please understand that the 20K spread between all of you will only mean something if the liquidation is a complete disaster, if you have 100K in the pot, and the liquidation provides 49P in the pound then you will have 49K from the receiver and 20000/(your proportion of sum with bondholder) , which will probably give enough to buy a dog license on top of your 49K. If the liquidation realises 51P in the pound, then please don't be tricked by some here, you will get NOTHING from the DCS in any case (subject to a 100K deposit) -

There have been some very devious posts here trying to illustrate the DCS as being a wonder scheme (some people want their name in lights) - however the craftily sneaky pages of waffle that follow, with no simple illustrations with numbers (despite many requests, no one as yet has written an illustrated guide to the DCS with numerical examples), every comment made about the DCS being a wonder-scheme only mention what the scheme could do, if the bank pays out nothing.

Try not to think of the DCS, think of conventional liquidation, with Simpson getting fat, or an SoA that should provide a better level of recovery.

I am strongly in favour of the committee insisting that any SoA incorporates outside contributions from banks and the IoM, who both have everything to gain and nothing to lose by not triggering the DCS, that together with a complete loss of faith in the IoM banking system. If the SoA can insist that the IoM chips in it's 150M, and that the banks are required to contribute ( possibly to a lesser extent than under DCS), the we all have to be quids in without a doubt, as we all stand to get a bit of top up compensation, rather than just the <50K'ers.

One last comment - you mention "Under the present law, £20,000 being spread amongst £60 million of funds held within my particular insurance company is just not fare" , which I would agree with, I'd also point out that the DCS that a few bleat about is also "not fair" - assume nothing from the bank as a dividend, on depositor has 50K, and his mate has 1M50K - the scheme will eventually pay out 50K to each of them, one loses nothing, and the other 1M - tell me what is "fair" about that?

I'll make one prediction - the DCS will not be triggered, but we don't yet know if the funds that should have gone into it from the banks and the IoM could be distributed into an SoA - that is a job for Diver and hi guys to negotiate, assuming that they haven't already.


Same deal for all depositors,

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 12:30

Thanks for that but, I am after a commitment that the team will get the same deal for all depositors, be that individuals or bond holders, that's my concern. Naturally, for me an all-round solution that equates equal for all will do me better, I feel. As I have a foot in both camps, as a direct depositor and a bond holder.


They can't Calespain - high

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 12:40

They can't Calespain - high end depositors will not win.
They never could.

That F'ing DCS should have been left at 20K
Sorry, but it's true. Now I intend to get caned on home brewed cider.


CapMan and the DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 08:43

CapMan,

You have probably made more comments about the DCS than any other poster on this chatline.

Why, if you dislike it (and the notion of smaller deposits being fully guaranteed) so much, did you deposit in the first place ?


Analogy

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 11:10

Because it is like trying to solve third world hunger with a bag of frozen peas, the very fact that the IoMG/FSC chose to increase it in the first place shows that they know how woefully inadequate their control of the banking system was, and any herbert who turned up with couple of official looking stamps and an ink pad could open a bank.

I've no objection to smaller deposits having a guarantee, but how about a bit of concern for the bigger deposits?

The SoA proposed is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, it means that they just don't have to admit by way of public notice of liquidation that they have failed in their control of the bank.

To be honest the only reason I have posted anything about the DCS is because of the blatant maneuvering by a couple of members to see the DCS triggered, and in the case of one, so that they can watch it fail.

I found it humorous that for ages, one member in particular was under the impression that the DCS would pay out on top of what liquidation would pay out (or perhaps that was just spin to get so intermediate level depositors to join the "cause"?).

The whole sorry mess could have been cleared up early on when buyers were keen, if the IoM had taken over the sum held with KSF UK, taken a loan if necessary, and set KSF IoM back in business. There would have been an insistence that every depositor had to either leave money with the bank at a reduced rate of interest, or if they wished to withdraw it, they could only take stage payment, to ensure the continued liquidity of the bank, while the loan book came full term - it could have worked.

And here we all are arguing about whether a bag of peas or two tins of baked beanz will solve world famine problems when we should have seen the IoM rise to the occasion and look at a real solution to return a pretty much 100% dividend.

I take it you are under 50K, and will get seen alright whether the SoA or liquidation progresses? Swap places if you like, and maybe you will get some idea of the frustration that some of us are feeling.

edit.
I would add to this that if there was no DCS argue about, that instead of us bickering about whether it might be nice or not, there would be a great deal more panic, particularly around the just under 50K distribution of depositors, who had something substantial to lose, no disrespect to those with under 10K, but in this day and age, 10K is not a substantial deposit, and those who had that sum on deposit were almost certainly not worried about income from it, or for using it for some major purchase - whereas, we can pretty much assume that all the bigger depositors were living off interest having retired, or planning a house purchase etc, and the loss to them is more likely to be unrecoverable.

I wonder how PWC etc has informed the 5000-6000 other account holders who haven't registered here about the choices potentially available to them? perhaps they consider the bank website notices to be enough? I bet if everyone who previous hadn't joined here got a letter saying that in actual fact the promised compensation would not be available, just a pari-passu distribution which is what the higher level depositors will get, then this website would crash with new applications for membership. As it is, I wouldn't be chewing at the carpet if I had 10K in, I know I would get 10K back, with possibly a bit knocked off for scheme costs - carry on Pike as it were.


I appreciate your comments

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 01:15

Captain Mainwaring:

I appreciate your comments and take onboard your view on the DCS. In Oz our dog only has two legs as we have eaten the other two, and a licence is not required. So as not to waste the opportunity of being called a spend thrift, I have ordered a puppy from the UK and booked space for it to be transported here via a reputable carrier, on the condition that I will get back more than the cost of a UK dog licence. I hope that the headache is dissipating after your night of debauchery swigging homemade cider. (Scrumpy)

Do you still have a cricket team ?
Is hanging still legal in the IOM ?
Or flogging with cat of nine tails ?

Please see my comments about my outstanding question under heading : neilbkk: I have read what you .Again feel free to comment as I haven't received a response from the committee, yet. Does it not deserve one ?


mainwaring dcs fair

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 10:19

The DCS is fair to those who chose to acknowledge it in their savings strategies. I always was aware of the fact that I could lose everything over 75% of £15,000. I tried to stick within the DCS limits.

Ok, the DCS has holes enough to sink a rubber duck, but it still pretends to float.

Really, the whole thing boils down to lack of commitment by the IOM. Refunding all of us 100% would cost the manxmen so little, and the world would celebrate their compassion.


ALL account holders are represented...see here

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 03:16

Please look at this for a description of the informal committee, what it will do and who is on it:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/very-important-update-pleas...

I think you will find Bondholders are represented. Please also see numerous other postings from Diver.


neilbkk: I have read what you

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 01:23

neilbkk: I have read what you suggest but the direct question remains unanswered.

Thanks for the links, yes I was aware of this and had previously read it. But my question remains unanswered by anyone from the negotiating team.(The Committee) It is not meant to be confrontational nor contemptuous, I really am grateful for the extended hours of commitment that these guys are putting into this for the group. We are now getting to the sharp-end of our group being offered a package, which when it has passed, Diver's and the committee's acceptance, will be put to the remainder of the group. Under the DAC, clearly bondholders are severely disadvantaged. It has been mentioned by others but, not confirmed by the committee, that under any SOA arrangement, all depositors will be treated equally.

It seems that as Teapot is based in the UK, that any meetings that are taking place, face to face, in the IOM, bondholders are not being represented there, hence my question, can Diver confirm that bondholders will not be disadvantaged under the SOA and will be treated equally. I understand that conference calls are taking place to discuss the offers after such meetings, but to have 10 white eyeballs constantly in your face and all looking out for the other, would be intimidating to the IOM government and, helping to ensure it does the right thing. And not, as seems to be happening, giving them a get out of jail free card.

Is it not time to be honest and out in the open with everyone, unless the IOM government steps into the breach here, we as depositors will never get 100% of our money back. Yes, it is the committee's objective, but currently its unobtainable. So, they have to do the next best thing and get us the best possible return of our money whilst it is still worth anything. After all the UK banking system would now be like Iceland's, if it were not for the million's of UK tax payers.

Yes the DAC, as it now transpires, was never meant to be a depositors compensation scheme that actually works, we can see that, clearly. Otherwise, it would have by now been activated and everyone would have been in the process of getting their money back. The Original DAC was devised to give savers a false sense of security, not to pay anyone out. Good grief no, pay out, what next, Gordon Brown allows the Bank of Scotland to fail, lets get real here. We're being stuffed, some of us don't like it, but in the end, that's what we will be, stuffed.

Under Further Strategy & Actions:

• formalizing the DAG - a constitution is currently being drafted and is nearly complete and will be uploaded for consultation.

I have not seen this, is there a constitution that represents bondholders the same as direct depositors.

Also: As always our objective is to recover 100% of our money at the earliest opportunity, recognising hardship and long term difficulties that arise from our varied situations. At present our strategies are as follows:

It should be acknowledged that without the assistance of either the IOM, UK HMG, or the parental guarantee, we will never get 100% of our money back. It's time to be honest, we all deserve to be told.

I agree, that the figures being shown to the committee of the SOA are based on nothing confirmed or even near to reality. These figures are I suspect the best scenario that we as depositors can expect to get back. But Diver and the team are right, they are speculative and cannot be confirmed as the UK government has made it impossible for us to start our recovery properly for at least 6 months from 9th October. It's time for the IOM government to step up and be counted and not hide behind, its not our fault banner.

But the question remains under the SOA will all account holders, including bond holders, be treated the same. It has been quoted as a reply to me :- "They can't Calpespain - high end depositors will not win. They never could".

I am not looking for a win, I'm looking to be treated equally, 30% for all, or 70% for all, accepting that everyone will get at least £50,000 or up to their deposit limit if theirs was less than £50,000 on October 9th 2008.


"I am not looking for a win,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 04:35

"I am not looking for a win, I'm looking to be treated equally, 30% for all, or 70% for all, accepting that everyone will get at least £50,000 or up to their deposit limit if theirs was less than £50,000 on October 9th 2008."

Well it isn't fair is it? the DCS scheme was originally set to 20K, let's just say one of us was an actuary, and had worked out that his level of deposit would be adequately compensated, using 20K as the payout value, then how can it (DCS) be changed after the event? it isn't on.
Actually it doesn't matter at all so long as no one else is compromised, but for various reasons, they will be.

Subordination in all it's glory - and still no answers.


You must be up all night ?

  • calpespain
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 07:48

You must be up all night watching the screen or waiting for the ping. Where's your sense of humour gone, I have just been back over a lot of your posts, you should put those into print what you have written here. You'd get back your loss in one week, the best laughs I've had for a while. Can we have more please ! chuff the problem, continue to make my day and I guarantee to send you the dog licence when I receive it.


Nah, the way it works is that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 08:05

Nah, the way it works is that the world is this football shaped thing that twizzles rahnd and rahnd in front of this bif fiery fing called the sun, cos my bit of the world is on the uver side to you lot, I get currant bun when you get it all dark.

Actually I've never thought of it as funny, some of my work emails are better though:-

On Wed May 9 14:26 , "Dougie Pirie" sent:
Captain,
IBR is not the same, all the fans on it run at the same speed.
If you would read my last email, you would see that what I have done is rationalize the pulleys and belts to acheive the same speeds.
However it appears you will not be happy until you see the bill of material for yourself. I have attached the bill.

Dougie

Hi Dougie,
Not happy - Me? Nah , you got the wrong bloke ! - albeit that it is 8-30pm and I am typing this , the sun has being shining today , the disco will be open shortly and I think I will have Thai red curry for my supper - I couldn't be happier .
I suspect that however tomorrow Sanjiv Kaul will drop his flange as he has just ordered (drum roll) a machine set of 160mm pulleys , because no one was aware or had reason to assume that the fan speeds and thus pulley sets were all different .
Actually , I only asked for the BOMS to double check the Taperlok dims , but there we go .
Thanks,
Captain.

On Wed May 9 14:26 , "Dougie Pirie" sent:
Andrew,
IBR is not the same, all the fans on it run at the same speed.
If you would read my last email, you would see that what I have done is rationalize the pulleys and belts to acheive the same speeds.
However it appears you will not be happy until you see the bill of material for yourself. I have attached the bill.

Dougie


Isn't our only hope of 100% return to get 557million back?

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:21

Isn't our only hope of 100% return to get 557million back?

Dear Diver, thanks again for all your unceasing efforts, wishing you all the strength and best health to carry on, but I have some questions to put forward to the legal team again…….

Being a fairly large depositor (27 years of life savings, sale of flat, and future pension deposited) I am totally against the SOA or (especially very anti liquidation - God help us! – this isn’t even good for small depositors due to slow return ) and either scenario only estimates, not even promises a maximum of 65% return ( this will go lower with expended time) to depositors with over 150,000 GBP in Savings ( ha ..!... Savings now there’s a funny word ..Savings… a misnomer here…).

Surely we have to reject both of these ( solutions?) on potential offer and persevere for the 100% return of our frozen/stolen savings.

Re your instructions and and insightful information above…:

"In all your correspondence with UK MPs and other UK authorities please point out the issues we are having as a result of the ‘transfer order’ enacted by the UK government with regards KSFUK. Quite simply, the legislation the UK government introduced put in place something called an ‘overriding objective’ for the administrators of KSFUK.
This legislation instructs Ernst & Young to ignore standard administration procedures in favour of procedures put in place by HM Treasury. ..."

This once again points out and verifies that the UK Authorities are still the root cause of, and sole barrier to, any acceptable solution to our plight.

With the continued lack of return of our 557 million they still to date are the one barrier for potential re- building the bank. The one barrier against the buying of the bank from at one stage as many as 6 interested parties – the obvious reason to their pulling out from buying the bank, without the 557 million being returned, it is impossible to know the banks worth in assets.

I still refuse to be offered Humble Pie crumbs from thieves: the UK Authorities and HMG treasury, of my own hard earned savings.
Quote from today’s front page Article in Private Eye magazine: The £530m transaction followed discussions, which remain shrouded in mystery, between the British and Manx regulators. Soon afterwards, Kaupthing collapsed and the Treasury froze its assets here in the UK, insisting that none of the deposits by then over here should be returned to the Isle of Man.
When it comes to negotiating compensation from the Icelandic government, the depositors are now reliant on the British government, a task that the Whitehall department responsible, the Ministry of Justice, has palmed off to a Treasury notoriously dismissive of the depositors’ plight.
Minister Lord Bach insisted everything was fine. Asked at a parliamentary committee hearing whether he was sure “those [Isle of Man] depositors’ interests are now safeguarded, insofar as any depositors’ interests are safeguarded in the UK?” he replied categorically: “Yes I am.” But a swift bollocking from the Treasury must have followed, for by the time the transcript of the hearing appeared a footnote had been added: “Note by witness: I am satisfied by the steps taken by the UK government in the interests of the people whose deposits the UK regulatory authorities are responsible for.” In other words, not those in the Isle of Man. For IoM depositors who might have got their hopes up, this translates as: you’re still shafted.
Translation of slang word “Shafted” = robbed, ripped of, including robbed by fraudulent means.
I still believe that the UK Treasury must be issued a writ or Darling arrested if not for theft – at the very least for PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE”. ( i.e. for his very questionable: “put in place something called an ‘overriding objective’ as quoted above inventing some new law to suit the moment”.
He and the UK Authorities are: PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE - the rightful and just return of out money to a solvent bank which was only made insolvent on HIS ORDERS re: the NON RETURN of OUR MONEY. We should also then make claims against them : loss of interest, pain and suffering e.g.: Illness caused by this mess and time spent with out lives on hold i.e.; loss of earnings due to time spent on this Other problems expenses one has had to endure to bail one self out of debt, fines, foreclosures .. Etc etc…
This is as immoral and inhuman as a person gets….
As it stands at the moment I don’t think we could be made to suffer anymore than if our deposits were sent to Iceland. What’s the difference?
He’s created a major trauma in our lives like a Tsunami or Earthquake - 8,000 citizens affected is a large number to suffer in those non man-made “acts of nature” disasters, but this is a “man made disaster” – whoever is responsible has to or repay us or pay the consequences.
I’ve totally had enough of this evil inhuman man by now ruining our lives and would like to have him thrown in the old fashioned “stocks” for starters in the freezing cold with no food and drink and throw deadly viruses in his face until he breaks and becomes human and starts to learn about human suffering..


Spot On FIGHT THEFT!!! FSC-TSC-MLRO Where can we get their Names

  • librasaver
  • 12/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 20:35

Fight Theft must be in the same boat as My wife and I , except that we do not appear to have paddles, and are way up the creek, being pensioners who were about to move back to the UK, and as expatriates had all our savings in KSF IOM.
Where can we see a list of names of those who comprise the FSC, FSA, the TSC, and what is the MLRO? I would like 8000 plus depositors to commit their names and faces to memory, so that one day when we know who is responsible for our current suffering, someone will remember and deliver a punch or two to the appropriate noses. They must not be allowed to slip into obscurity with the passage of time, and must bear the consequences of their immoral decisions and actions.

The IOM and Price Waterhouse Coopers have now sent forms asking for the Sterling destination account details - in the name of the account holder. Back to square one- Has anyone without Sterling funds managed to open a UK account so that the IOM can be given a destination for their GENEROUS offer of an upfront £1000 refund!! The least they could have done is provide the name and account opening forms from an institution willing to accommodate people such as ourselves. Online we have seen account opening minimum balances ranging from £1000 to £10000! If someone has just had their life's
savings frozen through no fault of their own, where are they going to find the minimum opening deposits? If anyone else has encountered the same difficulty, Please advise any solution you may have found.
Darling and others have repeatedly LIED by stating that it is possible to open a UK account as a non-resident. We have looked at the account opening reqirements of dozens of UK institutions, and without exception All require evidence of UK residence and a visit in person to the local branch.


hello fight theft...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 06:02

Darling with that brown did this Torment on us for a few votes and some glory.way back in oct. A spin to the uk they saved the banks, but its lead to nothing. Nothing because the govt now are in crap, another bailout of the banks, one more time and its a trip to the imf. There are people losing their jobs left ,right and centre and I doubt that as time will go they will handle it. They never knew how to handle anything, . They have brought untold misery onto all of us , .I hope that legally there would be a way to hold them accountable for what they have done, but noone seems to be clear on this and it seems those two want it swept under the carpet.I think that there are things we do not know , but one thing I am sure with my correspondence with diver and his team that he is out for the maximum recovery for all, its in his intrest too. If that takes time to acheive a good result then we have to remain patient.


Bit more to it than that.

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 06:16

KSFIoM was a poorly regulated shambles, accounts opened using cut outs from cornflake boxes etc

The IoMG couldn't organize a picnic for two woodpeckers in the middle of Epping Forest.

This recession hasn't even started yet.

PWC are in it to win it, not for you, but for them.

Diver & Co are doing their best, as is everyone who is commentating - they are nothing without us, and we are nothing without them - however do not put all your faith and expectations of perfection in one man, it isn't fair and you will be disappointed.

Forget all your dreams of ever holding anyone in HMG or indeed HMG liable for anything, it isn't going to happen, the chances of shaming IOMG into action are also becoming slimmer.

The treatment of depositors, in particular one group is not going to be very fair.

Time? we are going to need quite a bit of that.


Too right!

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:44

You are absolutely right on this, "fight theft". I am simply amazed that they have done this to us. If we had been French or German they would have bent over backwards to make sure we were treated fairly. However because they have an interest in damaging the IOM they decide to do us over into the bargain. The Treasury Select Committee is absolutely vital. I hope Diver is given enough time to get our point across. I assume the ING process if over now - since all Edge UK depositors I know have been up and running for ages . There is no excuse any more for E&Y delaying advising all creditors what they propose to do for us and when. There are procedures for M Simpson to enforce this duty. We must not miss the chance to create a huge ####-storm at the TSC since - lets face it - the UK political parties are otherwise going to hang us out to dry. Diver - how much time will they give you - and do you feel ready to take them on?


Hear, Hear

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:41

He won't even answer MP's questions about the matter....disgusting behaviour


Fight Theft is so right about

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 17:57

Fight Theft is so right about this, we have been truly shafted and they expect us to stand in line and accept crumbs. We have been treated despicably, ignored and dismissed, but we won't go away. The TSC meeting must push Darling and Co right over the brink this time and not let them get a way with measly answers. We want our life-savings back, we want our futures back and sooner rather than later.


they hurt real people...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 06:10

At the Tsc meeting they have to be made to realise that they have brought grief to real people with futures at the moment shattered. We are responsible for ourselves and out children ,yet our savings have been taken away from us. Is this how a civilised society behaves for a thousand votes, ruining peoples lives, this is not a govt ,but a heartless regime. i will never give up on conquering evil. We are all human here and they do not have the right to do this to other human beings this is what I dont understand about how we stand with them on human rights. That govt are all going to be out of employment in yrs time and I want to be there while they are clearing their desks, especially those two in the front bench.


HCR.

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 06:34

Give it up, it's collateral damage, it's the way the UK works.

Here is what you do, get a dodgy survey done on a property in the UK, remortgage up to the hilt (you'll be lucky now, this one has been overcooked a few times), sneak the money out, let it get repo'ed, then go bankrupt, you can post on MSE and say how proud you are to be dealing with your debt, and did I forget? yes, do the credit card companies while you are at it.

The UK will bail out people like this, but refuses to acknowledge dutiful savers who are trying to avoid being a state burden.

It's been like that for flaming years. During the last recession the banks stuffed all us small business owners by pulling the carpet away from under us, as a result, the UK in now a nation of hypermarkets, and no industry, with the only employment coming from these places, soon everyone will work in a supermarket, and the UK will collapse in on itself, with the only outsiders being necessary will be the drivers who bring a constant stream of cling wrapped microwave dinners, ink for tattoos, assorted drugs, knives for people to stab each other with and of course cheap alcohol for the under tens. I suppose it could almost be self perpetuating, with those snuffing it while at work being fed into Tesco's giant munching machine that makes Jamie Bloody Oliver's "knobbly bits" Butchers Choice Mystery Bags, to be served with fries, feed your family for a fiver and a deceased colleague of your choice.

My God in Hemel Hempstead, was Blair a clever man, and was Brown a twit.


Blair - he was a clever manipulator

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 11:40

Blair - he was a clever manipulator and knew the exact time to get out - I give you that - but as far as anything else goes --- 88888888


UK in ruin

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 08:18

You are so right about UK, it has become an island for the assisted-lazy- illegal-criminal-asylum seeking layabouts of the world. It's the Eldorado of government hand-me-outs. Unfortunately, those hand-me-outs don't go to those hard working Brits that deserve it. Just look at all the "undesirables" who are queuing up in northern France ready to hop onto the train of "goodwill" for their one way ticket to the treasures of the UK. Why would any normal hard working person even consider living there? The likes of Brown and Darling have sold our souls and our island to the most putrid form of humanity.

My parents have a helluvalot to lose, but I think that they are more livid about the fact that, that they have paid 100s of thousands of pounds into the UK tax system to finance those layabouts who are happily blood-sucking away at their 50 yrs of solid hard graft. My parents are now having to beg the UK to return their own hard-earned money. Is that normal??

On the bright side Captain, when this is all over, and you all get your money back, I'm going to miss your extremely witty (sometimes coarse) comments. Are you a Yorkshire lad by any chance? We always had Shepherd's pie, I think Cottage pie was for the posh folks!


UK IN RUIN

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 08:38

Actually from a charming little hamlet close to Watford, though I stress, on the "right" side of the M25.

As I said, even our dustbin had ulcers, so there was fundamentally no difference between Shepherds pieand cottage pie, they were both a challenge to the teeth and digestion. A family friend once remarked from his experience as a Jap PoW that my mothers offerings were something reminicent of a scene from "Tenko".
The bloody dogs always did better than we did, and it is a miracle that I didn't grow up stunted like that little chap Babbu from "fantasy island" - by rights I should be wandering around saying "the plane , eeh come misterrr, the plane eeh come".

I don't know about "get my money back", but I do know I am now set on a collision course with the MLRO of KSF IoM, and the FSC.

As an aside, refuse to use the bloody self service checkouts in any supermarkets - my two comments on this to staff advising me of the availability of such a wonderful invention are as follows:-

"When I buy a George Michael CD, I don't expect to have to sing on the naffing thing"

"I suppose you want me to grow my own vegetable too, and just come here to weigh and pay for them"

Yep, UK is buggered alright.