UPDATED 23/1 --DEVELOPING STRATEGY & TACTICS TO FURTHER DAG'S MISSION UNDER DIVER'S LEADERSHIP

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 21/01/2009 - 16:42

UPDATED 23/1 -- SEE EXTENDED LIST OF TACTICS AT THE FOOT OF THIS POST
My gratedul thanks to those who have e-mailed me to express their appreciation for this Post & my blog :)


The majority of members are firmly committed to DAG's Mission Statement - nothing short of 100% of depositors' money restored.

There will be a proposed SoA outlined to the Court on 29 January but in the final analysis it must guarantee the restoration of ALL that is owed to each & every member. Without the UK Treasury releasing the assets of KSFIOM presently frozen by the UK Court it looks as though a SoA will not be able to do so, other than in respect of deposits <£50,000.

In anticipation of this DAG must now have a clear strategic plan with tactics that rack up the pressure to ensure its just & legitimate demands are met in full..

DAG has no strategic planning group other than Diver's informal Team. The Team's Press Releases point us clearly in the direction of putting pressure on the IOM Government to act to save the IOM's bacon. It MUST do what other governments are doing if it has any chance of saving the Island's credibility as a safe place in which to put money on deposit

I invite members to put forward ideas under this Post for Diver & his Team to consider for an evolving DAG strategy & tactics to achieve it .

To kick off, I propose the following:

  1. Filling the public seats at the Treasury Select Committee Meeting on 3/2 (NB: this tactic is now under way (see comments to this Post)
  2. A draft website specifically pointing out the risks of depositing money in the Isle of Man (NB: there is already one brief site http://www.isleofmanbanking.org
    linking to DAG’s Public Forum)
  3. a courtesy letter/e-mail to Lord Bach, the IOM Governor, PM, Chancellor, the PM, Secretary & Treasurer IOM, & Mike Simpson announcing the intention to launch the website
  4. a letter/e-mail to the managers of all the financial institutions announcing the intention to launch the website
  5. a dynamic press release announcing the launch of the website and stating who has been informed in advance
  6. inquiry of all IOM banks as to the risks of depositing with them & what guarantee of security can they give (answers posted in the Forum & on the website)
  7. sit-in at KSFIOM Bank by IOM depositors (legal advice required first)
  8. sit-in at the UK Treasury (legal advice required)
  9. look into how this site http://www.mysociety.org/ could be a valuable vehicle to promote DAG & its Mission (it claims to have reversed Government objectives to stop public access to MP's expense claims through the Freedom of Information Act)
  10. keep Private Eye posted for a follow-up report (Sleeplessnight - on Diver's Team - may have this in hand)

Any other ideas for Tactics ?

4.764705
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (17 votes)

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

3rd Feb House of Lords

  • oap
  • 08/11/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 11:36

I am willing to be in the public gallery on 3rd Feb. Does one just turn up? Can you give us instructions on the procedure so that nobody wastes a journey?


TSC 3/2/09

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 11:57

i got this from the government web site..http://www.parliament.uk

Hope it helps....

Watch committees
A large part of the work of the House of Commons and the House of Lords happens in committees, made up by smaller groups of MPs or Lords. These committees examine issues in detail, from government policy and new legislation, to wider topics like the economy.

When
Public committee sessions are open to everyone, including the press. There are meetings Monday to Thursday when Parliament is in session (meeting). Visitors should arrive as early as possible; space is limited and places cannot be booked in advance.

Where
Committee meetings for both Houses take place in the Palace of Westminster (go to St. Stephen's Entrance), and some House of Commons committees are held in Portcullis House, located on Victoria Embankment.

Which queue?
At both locations please tell a visitor assistant or police officer that you're attending a committee, you will then be placed in the right queue.

Further details
If you are interested in a particular committee, check its webpage for future meeting dates and contact details.


Feb 3rd - See you there!

  • oap
  • 08/11/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 13:05

Thanks, sad, for doing the homework for us all, and thanks to ng for suggesting the information should be emailed to everyone. Let's have a really good turnout!


email to all members re. TSC meeting

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:51

Sad, if you have time, could you turn that into an email to go out to all members, may be add any other useful info for people that want to attend.


ng

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 13:09

sure, if it's ok i'll do that tomorrow and e-mail to you.....


Press Release etc

  • TERENCE STEVENS
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 22:49

Thanks very much everyone for some most helpful comments. I am now thankfully in contact with Diver and we will see what happens.

Many thanks again

Terence


Terence Stevens press release

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 17:44

I applaud your efforts and I hope the PM producers and your MP take up on your article.

The press release will not attract much attention written as it is. The first paragraph should convey the message and I’m not sure what you want it to be. If it is to be connected with a PM broadcast that would be great and this would be the news peg.

If it isn’t then the long story of the KSF IOM debacle, from what we have learned over the past few months, is not very newsworthy except to us and a very limited number of journalists.

It seems to me the news in your press release is the criticism of the UK Government. If the peg was the 29th of January then there is some conflict with the prevailing direction the DAG is taking in challenging the IOM Government to take responsibility (I know you don’t agree with this but it is happening). It might appear that the DAG did not know in which direction it was going.

Otherwise, the news peg might be the meeting of the Treasury Select Committee on February 3rd. However, that really would depend on Diver’s view as he is the representative.

I think the press release should be reviewed once an appropriate news peg is found.


jmf --- sorry, you have posted your comment out of sequence !

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 18:29

Would you like to repost to follow on BELOW Terence's comment ?


STRATEGIC PLAN

  • TERENCE STEVENS
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 11:31

ToDAG IOM

Re: Strategic Plan

Yes, Lucky Jim, I have been trying for a few days now to contact senior members of the action group privately through the contact page but they have not yet responded. I have not been a contributor to date except one post on the 30th October. There are a number of reasons for this which I need not go into. As the deadline of the 29th and maybe Feb 3rd approaches however, I want now to bring the group up to speed with that has been going on in this camp. But before we get started there are just two points I would like to make.

With respect, I object to the anti IOM line that has been taken. Indeed, there may have been some mistakes. Iceland, as you will see below, made some horrendous ones which accounts in part for their predicament. But is does not do to play on them. Who honestly believes that the IOM, with their huge offshore finance industry (£53bn last June), is not interested in saving depositors one 100% ?. To settle for less harms their industry, plus the fact that, if we do not succeed, they have to cough up under the guarantee – which is a lot of money for them at 7.5% of GDP. Don’t forget that they only introduced that shortly before the crisis broke. They did not have to do that. Secondly, I find it somewhat distressing to read that Mike Simpson’s note in the last Affidavit on seeking a Scheme of Arrangement to solve the problem without liquidation is some sort of throw away empty gesture. No professional, least of all him, would do that. All these people are on our side. So lay off gentlemen. Let’s try and get this issue into the proper perspective.

So, firstly, here is my lead in sent to the contact part of the site on Monday last:

Last Friday, the 16th Jan, in response to the BBC iPM request on the website, I put together an article which was sent to one of the PM producers with whom I had obtained personal contact.

The story hits the big picture: from the Icelandic banking collapse and why the UK is implicated; to the tax situation; to the evidence for the effects on KSF IOM of the seizure of the onshore Kaupthing company; to key information in the February 2008 Banking (Special Provisions) Act and in the Statutory Instrument of the 8th October: and it further highlights key depositors individual cases taken from the iPM blogs.

I spoke to the PM producer this morning and he gave me an undertaking that it would be reviewed by the production team. As usual we do not know what will happen. But if it is mentioned I believe that it will help the cause since it gets at the facts behind the plight of the depositors.

Now in addition to this I have been working with my MP, who is very senior member of the Conservative party, plus with the author of the DAG position paper. In early November, the MP received a 22 page compendium from me covering all reports leading up to the bail out of Iceland by the IMF. He agreed that there was a substantial issue and that further parliamentary action was needed. However, just after that, the banking bail outs started and as a result the matter had to be shelved temporarily.

I have copied the iPM article to him, with comments so as to revive interest in view of the approaching 29th Jan hearing.

I would like to contact Diver who I believe is the lead person in the DAG and ask the following:

  1. Would you care to review the article sent to PM and let me have any comments. If so tell me where I should send it before it reaches the public domain.

  2. If you think that it contributes something of significance, let me know whether you would you consider incorporating it in a press release. If a release came from the group it would give much more weight to publication that from an individual. I would suggest in fact that it is aimed at The Times, who have always been sympathetic to the case. ( I have since drafted the press release – see below).

If we can achieve either the coverage by PM or the publication, or both, this could perhaps trigger the parliamentary intervention at some point, and in any case the publicity would be valuable.

Diver or the co-coordinating person please therefore kindly respond to me on my own e mail but note that I do not wish to be named in any release.

Many thanks. Let’s hope we can move forward.

Now here is the suggested press release. Object: one last shot before the hearing:

AN APPROPRIATE TITLE ( I have one in mind obviously but others may like to suggest one)

“We in the Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man Depositors Action Group were pleased to hear the coverage which the BBC through iPM gave to our case with the broadcasting, on the 10th of January, of a statement from Mike Crimble. Mike, is an RAF Falklands veteran with a distinguished career serving his country, who has some £350,000 with the bank, his life savings.

Mike is one of literally thousands of UK citizens who have deposits in the bank, many with life savings also, the majority living overseas. Like all of us, he stands to loose a substantial part of this if our bank goes into liquidation, a move which the Isle of Man authorities and the Price Waterhouse administrator Mike Simpson have been fighting since administration proceedings first started on the 9th October.

Mr. Darling seems to think that UK depositors in the bank are avoiding tax on the interest earned. This is not so. In 2005, the Isle of Man, though not a member of the European Union, voluntarily joined the EU Savings Tax Directive. This means that it charges UK residents with deposits there a 20% withholding tax. That tax is remitted to the UK every year. In 2011 the tax is due to rise to 35%. The balance of interest earned must be declared.

All UK citizen depositors in the bank had their savings in KSF IOM there because it was a well run solvent bank and/or they left their savings there after it was bought from Derbyshire by Kaupthing at the end of 2007. Kaupthing offered a competitive interest rate, improved services, plus a 100% guarantee from the parent company in Iceland, Kaupthing Hf. Also because, contrary to the impression given by some Government ministers, it is very difficult, sometimes impossible, for overseas UK residents to open a savings bank account UK onshore because of the anti-terror laws.

Mike blames the UK government for his demise. He feels treated like a second class citizen. We completely agree with this. It is not the fault of the Isle of Man authorities, it is not even the fault of the parent bank in Iceland. It is the fault of the UK Government alone. Here is why.

Back in February 2008, Parliament signed into law The Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 which enabled the Treasury to transfer, under a special Order, the assets of a UK deposit taker to another entity of its choice, before or after a period of financial support. It also allowed the Treasury alone the discretion of deciding whether the deposit taker was able to continue as a going concern or not. There were also detailed provisions for compensation. This Act was used to transfer Northern Rock into public ownership and for the transfer of Bradford & Bingley to Abbey.

On the 8th October, Statutory Instrument No 2674 was issued under the Act for the seizing of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Limited, a substantial UK deposit taker which held some £5.2bn of UK individual deposits and numerous other businesses, in total worth £8bn. It was owned by the Icelandic parent, Kaupthing Hf . About half the deposits were transferred to ING in Holland. The balance of Kaupthing’s assets were liquidated or frozen.

Amongst the latter were £557m of assets belonging to our bank, some 65% of total deposits, which so far the Treasury refuses to release. This is because of Article 27 of the Order which prevents the release of any related company’s assets without the Treasury’s express permission. No wonder then that our bank was forced into administration. If these assets were to be restored in total to our bank, information strongly suggests that available resources could cover all deposits, and that the bank could be sold as a going concern.

Clearly then, the Treasury must have had prior knowledge of the presence of the offshore company’s assets in the onshore bank, and it therefore begins to look as if Article 27 was a deliberate inclusion to enable the Treasury to seize our bank’s assets also, so as to help offset the high costs to the UK taxpayer which may result from the application of the rest of the Order. It has created a legal tangle which is difficult to unwind. Since the Order is complex and detailed, it must have taken some days or weeks to prepare. It was not therefore a last minute knee jerk reaction. It was a carefully pre-meditated plan.

The UK government took this action because of the deteriorating financial situation in Iceland. There had been a run on the UK deposits, particularly the internet based ones.
However, the surprising thing about the Order was that it completely over-rode the normal procedure enshrined in the 1986 Insolvency Act whereby the first duty of an administrator is to try to rescue a company as a going concern. Our Government could have seized it, protected the depositors and other businesses by offering guarantees, and negotiated. But they chose not to.

Instead, the original Act, intended for domestic consumption, was converted via the Order into an instrument for the unilateral expropriation of a foreign company’s assets, with no provision for counter claims, negotiation, compensation, or permission. Small wonder perhaps therefore that the nationalised parent Kaupthing Hf is now suing the UK government over the seizure.

But there is more. According to an article by Richard Portes, Professor of Economics at the London Business School, published in the Financial Times on the 12th of October, the Icelandic banking problems originated mainly outside Kaupthing Hf, due partly to mistakes by the Central Bank of Iceland concerning the other banks, Glitnir and Landsbanki. He said that the seizure of the Singer and Friedlander UK onshore subsidiary destroyed the still trading larger bank, Kaupthing Hf, an opinion which is shared by many authorities. This forced its nationalisation,

Therefore, not only is the UK Government implicated in the terrible financial meltdown of the whole Iceland economy which followed this action, but also it has caused untold stress and financial hardship to some 8000 UK and some Non UK citizens at home and overseas who are members of our bank. We are and remain innocent well advised and bona fide victims of this heavy handed act. Only the UK Government , which created the chaos in the first place, can reverse this, not the Isle of Man authorities. Let them do so: if only on the strongest of humanitarian grounds”.

I would like to receive any comments. Grammar etc and clarity included.

Mid range depositor £200K

End.


Your Draft Letter Terrence

  • colinalvin63
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 14:32

Hi Terrence,

I think you have written a commendable letter, and I hope that most of it it used to tell our story.

I don't think you mentioned the fact that the FSA duped the FSC to advise Kaupting (IOM) to transfer funds to the UK, and then Lord Bach stated afterwards that there were no guarantees that the money would be safe once in Kaupthing(UK). Kaupthing(IOM) were tricked into this, and if they hadn't been they would probably not be in administration.

As I see it, the blame is attributable as follows :-

GUILTY - UK Treasurey for refusing Iceland an insignificant loan back in March 2008.

GUILTY - UK Treasury for freezing assets of Kaupthing(UK), and consequently Kaupthing(IOM) in a pre-meditated action engineered to remove any rights of Kaupthing(IOM) to it's assets and to transfer Kaupthing(UK) customers to ING in one FOUL swoop.

GUILTY - UK Treasury for depriving Kaupthing(IOM) of it's assets and causing a run on the bank and it's consequential demise, all at a time when every effort should have been made to improve the stability of the banking industry worldwide.

GUILTY - UK Treasury for adversely affecting the Icelandic economy and causing several major Icelandic banks to go into administration.

GUILTY - FSA for duping FSC into advising Kaupthing(IOM) to transfer £560 million to Kaupthing(UK).

GUILTY - FSC for heeding the advice of the FSA and for not considering possible outcomes, given the lack of respect between the UK Government and the IOM as an offshore jurisdiction.

GUILTY - Kaupthing(IOM) for heeding the advice of the FSC and transferring such a large proportion of their assets on the ultimate misguided advice of the FSA.

GUILTY - IOMG for not standing up to the UK Treasury sufficiently, for lack of action, lack of communication, lack of backbone and lack of options to help retrieve depositors money.

GUILTY - IOMG for engineering a pitifully inadequate Hardship Payment of £1,000 which was somehow supposed to support depositors that have been living for over 3 months with no access to their savings and who likely have considerably longer to wait.

None of those involved are without blame.


+ The Insurance COs

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 15:58

Each risked millions with no protection whatsoever. £20K for 600 people's £63 million & that's just Skandia!!!
I believe none of them made depositor's aware that it was a corporate investment & therefore there would be no cover under the DCS for retail depositors. Scandalous!!


+The insurance Cos

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 16:13

What do you expect when the chief insurance regulator (Chairman of the IPA) is also a director of the risk vehicle (KSF).

Why should they have been worried, there were parental guarantees in place and the vehicle was "highly" regulated by the IOM FSC!!

Seemed like a sensible low risk investment. Same as what was sold to me (and others).

So I don't understand your comment.


+ The Insurance Cos

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 17:00

I presume your comments are "tongue in cheek".
My comment is that depositors in bonds under any DCS do not have the same protection as retail depositors. Given the Northern Rock situation in 2007 the banking system worldwide has been vulnerable for a very long time so at least £50K each depositor has got to be better than £20K shared between 600!


Well put colinalvin, you

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 15:44

Well put colinalvin, you could add the Derbyshire and KSF Sales and Marketing to that list!


Terence Stevens press release

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 19:14

applaud your efforts and I hope the PM producers and your MP take up on your article.

The press release will not attract much attention written as it is. The first paragraph should convey the message and I’m not sure what you want it to be. If it is to be connected with a PM broadcast that would be great and this would be the news peg.

If it isn’t then the long story of the KSF IOM debacle, from what we have learned over the past few months, is not very newsworthy except to us and a very limited number of journalists.

It seems to me the news in your press release is the criticism of the UK Government. If the peg was the 29th of January then there is some conflict with the prevailing direction the DAG is taking in challenging the IOM Government to take responsibility (I know you don’t agree with this but it is happening). It might appear that the DAG did not know in which direction it was going.

Otherwise, the news peg might be the meeting of the Treasury Select Committee on February 3rd. However, that really would depend on Diver’s view as he is the representative.

I think the press release should be reviewed once an appropriate news peg is found.


DAG STRATEGY

  • TERENCE STEVENS
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 11:09

To: jmf and colinalvin and others

DAG STRATEGY – ANSWERS TO COMMENTS

I agree with your comment about news hooks. I thought that this was covered in the first para where I refer to Mike Crimble’s talk on PM on the 10th January. I intended to use this hook and then bring in the second implication of the UK government bit from there. jmf if you can suggest a better clearer way to do it I should be most grateful. The problem is to hit all the necessary ducks, including I think the tax one. I agree also with when you say that there is more than one hook. There are three possibilities:

  1. Press release now in a last ditch attempt to influence the hearing outcome. Unlikely, but perhaps justified on a point of principle. Possibly to assist PM giving a wider focus. Time a bit short though now.

  2. In reaction to what is said at the hearing. An obvious hook for PM here.

  3. Prior to the 3rd Feb Treasury Select meeting.

I agree what I have suggested could be shortened, perhaps edited. See the general remarks towards the end of this post. I am in touch with Diver on this subject. Above all, however, I think we have to be quite careful and I hope this is apparent from what follows.

The direction is a key issue, of course. Affecting this, there are two issues. There is firstly, if you like the humanitarian one, i.e. the human error one, call it what you like, which includes the transfer of funds, duped or not, and the responsibility for this of entity A B or C, etc. As I understand it, DAG is currently focusing on that. Not forgetting the personal issues, PM has been doing a good job on this, with the Mike Crimble talk and the iPM blogs from UK citizens around the world, now well over 300. I am sure you will have seen these

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2008/11/a_twist_in_the_expat_tale.shtml

By the way, the reason or hook I contacted PM in the first place was in response to their request for data leading up to the issuance of the Statutory Instrument No 2674. I mentioned to them the contents of Richard Portes article, I linked this article today on this chat. But here it is again for reference, in view of its importance:

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/10/13/richard-portes-analyses-the-s...

One interesting thing about this article is that the problem here is down partly to politicians. And of course the world situation following the Lehman brothers collapse. He praises the bank as well managed. No toxic assets, etc.

To the person who asked about the legal aspects you need unfortunately to read both the original act and then the instrument.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080002_en_1

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20082674_en_1

Its tough reading, but I guarantee you will be shocked by the Order’s contents. It went through parliament on the nod and was enacted a few hours before that. The original act provided for the laying of the Order before parliament. I do not think that there was any debate on it (though I have not researched that) and I just wonder how many MP’s really understood what they were passing. The point is there is not, that I could see, any specific power to liquidate an asset. The Order says “if” the company is in administration, etc. Therefore I assume that the Treasury after the transfer to ING, thereby making the other parts insolvent, found some way to use the original Act to liquidate the remaining parts, a circuitous route. Perhaps that is what Grundberg Mocatta Macisson (for Kaupthing Hf) may have alighted on when they talked of “Misfeasance”. But that is speculation. What is quite clear is that the Order is draconian, profoundly undemocratic, and in effect permits wholesale expropriation.

Just to encourage you further, the rub of it is that, the way the break up was handled and put into effect caused offset claims on our assets, and there is a lot more there than just, as Mike Simpson said, “a sizeable cash deposit”.

That is why we need to focus on the political issue, because the only authority that can do this is the Treasury. And that is not going to be easy because of the cross claims. The IOMG may have been at fault in agreeing or even encouraging the transfer of some funds (I assume the cash deposit) but, particularly because of Article 27, they are powerless to do much unless the Treasury gives way.

Clearly they had no inkling that the onshore company was about to be seized and under such terms. The fact that they did it indeed does not help our case, since it lends credence to Pearson’s claim that it was some sort of panic reaction and the quote from him “they could have put their money elsewhere”.

Perhaps I need to mention some basics here. A deposit taker of course has to invest his deposits in order to pay interest. The normal procedure, so I am told, is for the taker to hold a certain amount of the deposits in liquid assets to handle normal fund movements, say 10 – 20%. The balance is the loan book and other securities. If the total value of our deposits is £840m I just cannot believe that 65% of it was, as it were, suddenly transferred at the last minute. At least part of the loan book and other securities had to be onshore or perhaps elsewhere, and from which the offshore company received interest. As Michael Simpson said in the 27th November Affidavit, there were other instruments with KSF UK as well. And as I said, the Treasury must have known about this for some time in order for Article 27 to be added. So this justifies, I believe, the conclusion that there was a close business relationship between the onshore and offshore companies.

There is one more factor which affects us which should be considered. It is very simply the status and world opinion on the status of Tax havens. The IOM is one such, although nobody likes that term. Although they are perhaps the best managed and most transparent of all, it is perfectly true that are, like all such places, under pressure. A review is almost certainly going to happen.

Therefore, I do not think we should criticise IOMG and increase that pressure at the present time. Almost certainly representations have been made at a high level. This was quite clear from the article published on the 13th November in the FT “Doing Business In The Isle of Man”. (Available to FT.Com subscribers). So my answer to those who still think that this should be our line is:

We should take care. This is a sensitive area. We could end up shooting ourselves in the foot. The villain in this is not IOMG, but HMG.

In response to Colin’s guilt list and the duping, the only thing I would say at the moment is that Pearson strongly denied any FSA complicity in the Adjournment debate on the 6th November. He went into that in some detail. So I am not sure what the situation is. You may have more information. Much of what he said there was highly misleading, in particular the strong implication that the FSA acted because Kaupthing Hf had collapsed. Which, as I said is rubbish. The seizing of KSF UK finally caused Hf to collapse. That is very clear also from a study of the timing of events.

Much of the above comes under the heading of the second issue, the political scene – the political environment, the manner in which the UK government handled the whole business: good or bad; legal or (perhaps) illegal; diplomatic, misleading, or downright reckless, and so on. My hope is that we can get the press and PM to focus on this aspect as well – a much harder job.

Now as you may know already, and from the above, there is a large amount of data in support of the more negative parts of the above. It is this stuff which opposition politicians want the most. So with that lies the best chance of parliamentary action.

So in my opinion, the strongest part of the DAG case must be to emphasise the political and larger picture aspects. They must be kept alive. But more than that. They actually must be as specific as possible. This will make the already compelling human case so much stronger. So that is why I went through information that we know, but the general public does not, or has forgotten in the face of the other awful issues facing our country.

Sorry to take up so much space again. It is an attempt to answer the good points that have been raised.

Terence


DAG STRATEGY Terence Stevens

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 10:07

I agree with your opinion that political and larger aspects of the picture are key and should be the thrust of our efforts. At the same time we should not disregard the specifics on which we build our case.

The peg for a press release seems to me to be the Treasury Select Committee. The majority of depositors lay most of the blame at the feet of the UK Government and you have have compiled an account that supports this view. However, this would require close co-operation with Diver as what he says at the Committee should be supported and complemented by the press release (which should be available at least a day before, or on the day of,his appearance). This is a meeting which will attract the attention of the UK press, MPs and the public, a greater audience than can be expected for the proceedings on the 29th on the Isle of Man.

With regard to the content, I would say that it should be brief and state our main objectives forcefully with a succint, hard hitting headline. The paper you have written which explains the story in detail can quite properly be included as additional information to editors as could a separate brief press release devoted to Mike Crimble, the human side of the story.

This is a lot of work and the content of the story needs to be vetted for accuracy. I say this only because I'm bewildered by the conlicting information that is posted on the DAG site not because I doubt your care in compiling the story.

Apologies for not replying sooner but have had importantt deadlines to meet at work.


Terence Stevens press release

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:05

Lionel Barber, Financial Times
• Alex Brummer, Daily Mail
• Simon Jenkins, Guardian
• Robert Peston, BBC

For the press list: these journalists giving evidence to Treasury Committee Banking Crisis Wednesday 4th February.


DAG strategy Kaupthing hf judicial review

  • Consuelo
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 11:47

I agree entirely that the role of the Treasury should be kept at the top of the political branch of our fight. Lets hpe the TSC will help us achieve this. I presume all the minute and indeed macro details of the use of the instrument will be kept in the public domain if Kaupthing hf's leave to seek a judicial review is granted. Does anyone know what the timescale for this application is and if successful how accessible the details will be?


Punctuation

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 16:02

Full stop at the end of penultimate paragraph.
Closing speech marks at end of final para, I can't see opening set?


Interesting Draft press release but too long?

  • adambw
  • 13/10/08 31/08/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 15:44

Terrence Stevens, thanks for the work you've put into this ineresting draft press release. My one comment is that I find it rather lengthy. I realise that you've done your utmost to explain facts, legal aspects, etc,, but if it could be made shorter, I think it would be more likely to be read. Hope this helps...


Punctuation

  • Sarah f
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 15:02

There is a comma needed between "innocent" and "well advised" in the last paragraph.


Loose/lose

  • arny
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 14:43

Loose morals, but lose money.


Isle of Man Blameless?

  • gazfuk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 14:03

Terence, a well presented argument...but for myself, I do not think the IoM is blameless. I believe the Parental Guarantee was accepted without a great deal of thought, the transfer of funds to UK without securing them in some way was encouraged by the FSC and the IoM government have dragged their feet (certainly compared to other governments around the world) in the way they are now dealing with the crisis.

Similarly, the Icelandics are far from blameless for allowing their financial industry to behave in the way it has, apparently unregulated and with no intention of fulfilling its responsibilities via guarantees. Then of course, there are the actions of the Directors of the banks involved...

I would recommend a slightchange of tack, recognising that the blame for this debacle lies in a number of places. The only place it doesn't lie is with the wholly innocent depositors.


Iceland blame, etc

  • TERENCE STEVENS
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 10:58

Gaz, I believe the "no intention" bit is questionable. Intent is an important point. Circumstances are another. On the morning of the seizure of KSFUK and Landsbanki, Geir Haarde effectively said "Wait a minute, I am sure we can sort this out, I am sure the Landsbanki has sufficient assets, etc". But Brown ignored that and went ahead and appointed lawyers to sue the Icelandic Government for the recovery of funds. "No intention" is what Darling said on the morning on the 8th, but the transcript of his phonecall with Arnie Mathiesson shows no such malicious intent. In later statements Darling changed his position to a "were not able" stance and said he had heard it from other sources which he refused to name.

It helps the Governments case for seizure of KSF Limited and our property to portray the Icelandic banks as irresponsible, but that that is not right. They performed quite a service to UK in providing some of the foreign lending to UK banks to support thier projects. Without them there is a bit of a hole in our banks ability lend - which used to be filled by foreign banks money, in all about 50% - according to an FT article a few days ago.

See the Portes article to which I refer:

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/10/13/richard-portes-analyses-the-s...


gazfuk..I agree..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 16:38

The bottom line is that they did not look after their depositors intrests, uk did but the IOM want to come out of this like they are victims too. The only victims in this are we, but we are only victims if we do not let it rest. These funds were taken away from us full stop, they are negligent, there are parental guarantees which can be honoured. Am sorry in 5yrs time, we are going to see the icelanders party again, the iom govt carry on with their nice banking island , the only losers will be us who didnt fight them enough for our rightful funds. I want to know if anyone of those govts or individuals had proceeds of house sales involved would let this lie, no they wouldnt. The ones acountable for this awful catastrophe have to come out and become accountable. Enough is enough.., we are suffering a terrible injustice


I am confused.com - Re Isle of Man not blameless

  • merlin
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 15:14

I think Terence's letter very good - but we have all been urging each other to e-mail, write to the IOM government to ask them to do the right thing by us and now we are saying they are blameless. I wrote 20 e-mails urging them to get off their backsides and stop trying to cover them.

I agree with Gazfuk entirely.


MISTAKES?

  • sleeplessnight
  • 10/10/08 30/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:45

T.S - You write: " With respect, I object to the anti IOM line that has been taken. Indeed, there may have been some mistakes. "

If those mistakes have in any way brought us to where we now are, they must be identified, considered by the appointed Legal Team, and addressed accordingly. If there have been no mistakes in the actions of the IOM and in particular the FSC, then there should be no issue with disclosure of the correspondence between the FSC and FSA that resulted in the movement of £550m of our deposits to KSF London

Please see the following link :/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/email-rosemary-penn-chairperson-fsc-20012008


MISTAKES?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 13:42

There was a further meeting, not mentioned in the link you have posted, the minutes of which i think should be sought. That is the FSC sanction committee meeting, which I believe was chaired by Michael Weldon of FSC, at which the transfer of funds was approved by the FSC. As I think you know, I have sought copies of these (and also notes of FSC/FSA communications) from FSC during past several months, and my requests have been refused.


Interesting and compelling arguments by Terence

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:25

You put forward some very compelling arguments there Terence, and it makes positive reading. I'm interested in your point about the 1986 Insolvency Act, in terms of the new banking order overriding the principle of rescuing a company.

Could you explain further, how the banking special provisions order is contrary to that?

My concern however is that irrespective of this, our bank's funds happened to be in UK at the time, and as such those funds are non-secured. But nevertheless, I am impressed with the way you present these details and I believe your approach deserves considering further by our team. Your point that the special provisions act appears to have been set up some time in advance, is also very valid in my opinion.

Sami.


Reply to comment

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:11

What an excellent commentary, very balanced too which is not easy for any of us given the extraordinary circumstances here. Terrence and Diver clearly need to communicate as the combination of their skills/knowledge will surely be to our collective benefit?

Good luck!

Graham


next few days

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 10:08

For some relevant input more-or-less on topic, please see:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/group-topic/some-progress-50k-position#...

You may need to join sub-50k group to read, but what appears there may be of interest to others.


Restarted

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 09:51

I've re-started this on a new thread here - http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/restarting-strategy in the hope that we can keep it 100% on-topic.


On strategy

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 17:43

Lucky Jim: "I invite members to put forward ideas under this Post for Diver & his Team to consider for an evolving DAG strategy"

A good idea, Lucky Jim, but surely you mean "for all of us depositors to consider ..." because it seems clear to me that strategic decisions should not be taken on behalf of the rest of us by an unelected group.

That is not to suggest that I do not support the "Team's" recent strategy U-turn, because I now think it is going in the right direction, provided that it is not mere posturing.


Unelected or elected?

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 08:22

Elgee, let's be fair, whilst unelected, the members here have generally shown ongoing support for the existing team. To put it another way, if we ran an "election" now I suspect that Diver would be "re-elected", especially as there are no other candidates in the running(?).


unelected

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 08:32

I was not proposing that they be elected. I was proposing that since they are not, then strategy should be a matter determined by depositors as a whole.


Animal Farm

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 17:13

I would recommend this book to those who have forgotten it or never read it.


If you want to sink the IoM,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 16:57

If you want to sink the IoM, it was suggested three months ago, but the committee didn't want to do that as they had an agenda worked out.
As for wasting money on press releases and yet another website - don't both, register at MSE and tell the whole story, place will be like a ghost town in two weeks. - tumbleweed blowing in front of Tynwald, and the dude "Kid Simpson" walking the walk down to the next failed bank.


Sorry CM all these acronyms

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 17:48

Sorry CM all these acronyms are a bit much for the uninitiated WTFs the MSE


nivit - MSE

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 18:12

Martin Lewis :- Money saving Expert

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/

There's a full topic on there already - many of the early ""founding fathers"" of the site posted there too and of course on MSN money, motley fool etc,.

have to admit not visited any of them for a while so don't how well they have been updated since "D" day (disaster or darling day) in October.


Thanks for that

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 22:47

Thanks for that


We are not sinking the IOM -- it's Government is !

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 18:31

Hi Capt'n .... We are not sinking the IOM -- it's Government is !
The recent DAG Press Releases simply point out that the IOM Government is now clearly out of step with the rest of the real world of banking and unless it does something in line with what other governments are doing it will see its banking industry collapse.
From our bitter experience I feel we have a moral duty to do what we can to warn others of the risks of banking in an off-shore banking regime that just has the legislation but not a credible compensation scheme with the funds to compensate depositors should their bank(s) fail.
In fulfilling this duty we also demonstrate the power of DAG to get the 'powers that be' in the IOM to start acting FAST in our interests as well as theirs.


Off-shore banking advised against on Radio 4

  • oap
  • 08/11/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 11:33

In answer to a listener's question, Radio 4's Money Box Live this Wednesday advised against investing money off-shore: the interest rates were no longer much higher than on-shore and the risk not worth taking. So people are already being advised against investing off-shore.


It is quite clear that KSFIOM

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 17:08

It is quite clear that KSFIOM have laughed in the face of "Know Your Customer" regulations and the Directors should be taken to task, if sufficient evidence is available they should be prosecuted.

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/service.nsf/docid/D3737CBB3227333F80256D240051...

So, who is going to ask Mr Simpson to explain and brought to explain the failure of KSF to regulate their customer base and ensure that all identities were accurately verified as required by UK and IoM law - I seem to recall the Anti-Terrorism legislation being mentioned before and this drops right into the middle of it.


Agree clear strategy is

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 16:51

Agree clear strategy is needed, plus objectives and tactics inline with that strategy. More than one strategy can work and run in parallel. I don't believe this should continue without giving Diver and associates an opportunity to define his strategy (or strategies) here.

This topic is not new, the fact that it has come up again probably indicates something. What?

P.S. I would suggest that what you propose above are actually tactics, not strategy - not playing with words, and not wishing to belittle your efforts at all.


strategy, & tactics to achieve it

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 17:42

Point noted ! (smile!)
I have posted under the 'Action & Strategy' Forum, and my thinking in this context was indeed tactics to achieve strategic objectives. I have slightly edited my Post to clarify this.


03/02/09 meeting

  • Julie
  • 03/12/08 14/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/01/2009 - 16:50

I could attend