We have a real, significant, live problem, and it needs to be resolved.

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 25/06/2009 - 16:50

The posting by Lieben indicates, somewhat elliptically, that attempts have been made by HNW and DAG to reach an accord, and that they have failed.

In absolutely classic style, we might christen this 'style clash', the coded output states no accord is possible. And the roll call of names indicates a migration of the centre of power to HNW.

I for one am very disappointed with the adults involved. I don't have the the details. I cannot guess at the level of stupidity and the location of the stupidity that has precluded an obvious union. But from afar the level of intransigence of some parties is implicit. I do not know who has the suicidal impulses, all I know is that I don't concur.

The posting that prompted this was lieben's. Lieben has acted proactively here. Fair enough, and if this is a coup she is listing names. I would prefer that these children squabbled in private, reached an accord and then spoke out. The one thing Lieben's posting says, and a loudhailer is hardly needed, is that there is a problem with the abilities that reside within DAG and HNW that precludes a sensible accomodation. This is patently ridiculous.
What can possibly be the reason for such a divide. I go on record here as stating somebody, somebodies, are not negotiating reasonably. I don't know who these parties are. All I require is that they is that they are identified and expelled from the central caucus that is a requirement for us all.

I'm trying to imagine what could possibly be the real problem. This isn't a revolution, this is a 'single issue' pressure group, how simple can you get? The most significant issue that disabled us before was the split introduced by the IoMG with the changes to the DCS. This is behind us. The silence from certain key 'posters' emanating from HNW, and the general silence from DAG says a lot.

I'm going to take my gloves off here, I hope the people that count understand the 'analogy'. There are a lot of 'high performers' here, is that not the case? All of you are used to having your way. All of you are sure that you are correct, and if not in the instant then with time and your practiced plays then your analysis, your game plays, will prove to be correct. This obviously, logically given your behaviour, cannot be correct. And you are all capable of understanding this. I don't know who is the grit in the ointment, all I know is I want the grit removed.

Rather like Jesus I'm going to give you a parable:

In between high flying jobs like you all hold/held down, I had two jobs, working class jobs that I took to pay the bills. One was 'concrete', 'gunnite', you can think of this as 'tunnelling', a high paid high stress grind.
The other was in a performance loaded pay structure environment in a cold store.
What was unique to both environments was the bonus structure operating. The whole team in both environments operated a completely egalitarian bonus structure. Temporary members of the team received exactly the same bonus as the experienced full time members of the crew. The productivity was obviously different. But the equality of the bonus structure meant that the motivation of every member of the crew was equal. I have never seen such co-operation. If you didn't make the grade you didn't survive. There were no excuses. If you weren't breaking a sweat, and both environments were the hardest physical labour, and I mean hard, after every turn everybody changed their undergarments (euphemisms) because you were literally dripping, drenched, saturated with sweat. If you weren't dripping you weren't working. In this environment there were some 'different' people. One guy was a body builder, high on steroids sometimes, but when a fork-lift truck ran over somebody's foot one day, who lifted the fork lift truck off his foot? Think about it, can you lift a fork lift truck? No, I don't think so. And the crew knew that they were watching something special when it happened.
Another time a long term worker, pushed by the boss, my friend that got me the job, lost it big time, he tried to strangle my friend, he was sectioned after the attack that left my friend rather truamatised, it took several heavy members of the crew to pull the guy off my friend, and I mean heavy. I worked with both of them. I never had a problem, both of them were cognisant of my understanding of their own situations, and both of them made unique gestures of support when it was my time to leave the crew.
I'm a psychologist. My speciality is nothing more than that of all clinical psychologists, dysfunctional situations, dysfunctional responses. Now you are are acting dysfunctionally. I'll rip your heads off! Do you get it? This is why I said "..the gloves are coming off...". This behaviour isn't quite 'the norm'. But I'm tired. I know about human stupidity, what's new? But look in the mirror, I can't think of what other advice to offer.

You all seem to think that this situation is amenable to reason, I hope the same. But my experience tells me that reason isn't sufficient. My experience tells me that something else is needed. To deliver this 'something else' we need to have the groundwork taken care of. And the 'groundwork' currently seems to be in the hands of egomaniacs that do not debate openly, and hence the consensus seems to be caving in.

My advice, no it is more than advice, my demand, is that those fighting stupidly over this territory get their f**king act together. And I make no apology for this, If lieben needs to be strung up from the nearest lamppost so be it, and I liked Lieben's refernence to her own delicacy. If It's DAG's members, then so be it. I do not care. I do not want to watch thousands of peoples hopes and expectations being strangled by stupid pathetic egomaniacs.

Now let us have a sensible, calm, open, and finally productive debate to rid of us this problem.

Do you (f**king) get it?

(A normally calm reasonable middle class individual)

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (24 votes)

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


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 05:31

Addages such as 'Unitd we stand, Divided we fall' are true but trite. It is obvious that we are united by a desire to get all our money back. In a group where some are in it for £5000 and some for >£1m there will be different tactics required as the timing and guarantees for repayment differ. To recognise these disparities is not the act of 'children' Tao.....just the opposite.
This is not a class war. It is depositors against the bank. To continue your implied analogy the bolsheviks and the mensheviks could not agree. It has to be accepted. We hope that HNW and DAG can keep talking and find as much common ground as possible and be united on those issues.
Immoderate language will not help except to give succour to the 'enemy'.

Incorrect Tao

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 01:53

Liebens post was prompted I would assume by the post from the DST which implied that a vote for any other than the DST was a vote wasted.
Naturally we all wish that all parties together we dont really need longwinded tirades either so in the memorable words of JC porque no te calla?

Post moved

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/06/2009 - 22:27

Liebenk's Group post has been set "non-public", that's to say it's now only visible in the groups that it was targeted for, i.e. higher value depositors.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 00:29

With respect, why has Lieben's post been set as "non-public"? follow_the_tao's post makes little sense without context.

Can it please be re-instated?

Why non-public?

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 01:25

A compromise, given that there was some pressure placed on me to remove it completely. It's visible in the Up to 250,000 group and others, which anybody is free to join.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 11:15

So reading Lieben's post (which I'd copy and paste here if I did not think it would (unnecessarily) mean the removal of my whole post), the following points seem to be made.

  1. DAG Strategy Team still consists of unknown individuals using nicknames who are influential in shaping policy on behalf "of us all", whereas the HNW group are transparent as to who they are and claim to represent no one but themselves.

  2. The HNW group never claimed to represent the fully protected depositors and are therefore not fighting for such depositors to sit on the creditors committee.

  3. The approach by DAG Strategy Team to the IOM authorities is too confrontational and borders on "gloating" at the success of having "beaten the IOMG's SOA", and that such an approach will ultimately prove to be fatally unproductive when dealing with the IOM authorities.

  4. The HNW group likewise find the DAG Strategy Team individuals too confrontational for the HNW group to enable co-operation.

  5. That an amorphous mass of depositors such as ourselves are obviously going to have different opinions and approaches, but that this is both an understandable and "good thing" (a united voice for all being impossible for reasons described), and there are now two distinct voices representing depositors to the IOM authorities - the exclusive HNW group who represent HNW's only and the larger, all-encompassing DAG group purportedly represented by DAG Strategy Team, who claim to represent "all depositors".

  6. That there is a belief by HNW's that DAG strategy is decided to a great extent by Edwin Coe as opposed to the HNW's claim that they take legal advise but are not led by it.

  7. That the HNW will no longer provide legal funding for the DAG Strategy Team and that smaller depositors and bondholders should foot the bill.

  8. That collectively both groups should get as many retail depositor seats as possible as this will be to all our interests.

Looking at this objectively, I do not understand why this post was "censored" and removed from "public access". I'm sure from the 9th October the IOMG realised they'd be facing a disparate mass of depositors with their own interests/situations, so I'm not sure why the depositors not having "one voice all of a sudden" will come as a shock to the IOMG or be seen as some clever victory of theirs.

liquidator the problem?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 12:19

I also do not understand why the posting was censured. We live in a democracy, and differences of opinions should be applauded rather than chastised. This is not a dictatorship. I still think that we can all benefit by having representatives from both DST and HNW on the CC. Both groups are striving for 100% return. Nobody can deny the expertise and dedication of Frog and Hopper. They have certainly proved their worth. If both of them find a spot on the CC, I don't think that we will be at a disadvantage. It seems as though the major disaccord between both groups is the liquidator. The HNW group has already stated that it intends to keep the liquidator. I do not know how the DST feels about this, but judging by the votes and postings, it seems as though most people want to give him the boot or appoint a conflict liquidator.

What we really need to know is how much punch the CC will have, and how much influence they can enforce on the liquidator. Nobody has given us this info to date.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 13:03

I guess the "history" between DAG Strategy Team and the HNW group runs deeper than just the "liquidator" issue. Reading the posts over the past nine months and Lieben's most recent post, it would appear to be as much about personality clashes as it is about direction, which is of course a shame, but to get 100% consensus is virtually impossible. Take the SOA debate. Some partially protected accused the fully protected who voted for the SOA as being "selfish", even though they themselves were not offering anything in return and that other partially protected depositors also chose to vote for the SOA.

This is going off topic, but I will repeat that the idea of replacing the liquidator, however satisfying that would be, does not guarantee an increase in the amount of liquidated assets available but does guarantee an increase of those assets being diluted further and raises a real prospect of their distribution being delayed.

I'd be more inclined to listen to those who advocate the displacement of the current liquidator who have sums at stake (and I know there are those that do and have), rather than to those who have nothing at stake in terms of deposits at risk.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/06/2009 - 17:50

So agree with every word,the old addage must be noted
"United we stand ,divided we fall"
All are good inteligent individuals,having given so much of their time and energy to the cause.It would be so unacceptable for every thing to fall apart,unity is the only way forward focus our energies on the ENEMY.

not showing a united front

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/06/2009 - 17:47

If there are arguments on this site then the IOMG win - in the court transcripts it shows that mention is made of the depositors not all agreeing and they are trying to divide us in our mission to regain 100% of our savings.

So come on guys if you need to argue please do so in private and show that we are not being divided!


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 12:03

I disagree that arguments on this site = IOMG win.

Come on, it's impossible to not have dissent given we all have different circumstances. It is an inevitability, so turn it to your strength. As ng states in this blog:

"Communication is power

There is the challenge that unfriendly parties are most likely watching this site. So, we have to be careful what message we give them. There may be some concerns that disputes between members here could be seen by such unfriendly parties as indicative of some kind of weakness in the DAG. I would argue quite the opposite. It's the very fact that we have open communication in place that makes DAG powerful. If one particular DAG team runs out of energy or fails to achieve, others will quickly spring up to take their place. That must be very worrying for the enemy!"

" Latest News from the Strategy Team "- showing now

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 11:44

Is that new today -26/06/09 (it does not seem to be dated at the moment) ?
I have not seen it before - possibly because it has a "click" which take it off and on the site - and it may have been clicked "off" by me. Some good news there. When they say "On Tuesday.." does that mean this Tuesday 30th June?


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/06/2009 - 21:59

Nothing except war justifies censorship in my mind. It is almost immaterial what Liebenk wrote, We need to be mature enough to handle it.
If the only way we can remain united in effort is by censorship then we have no future as a group and it might be better for us all to go home. Except that would leave as victors the pirates who stole our money and the rats who are still trying to stop us getting it back. And that goes against the grain after the hundreds of hours I have spent since last October trying to protect my family's interests.
In Edwin Coe's offices a few weeks ago I met Hopper and some of the DST group. I thought I was fortunate to find myself suffering in the company of people who seemed rational and reasonably bright. Was I wrong?
Now I do not care what the differences between you are - they are merely differences of opinion - and if you are not prepared to sink those differences in the interests of the thousands of us who are destined to pass the next six or more years in painful pursuit of our belongings then you are damaging not only your own interests but mine too. And I am not too keen on that.
And I say that to both groups. You are both responsible and you owe it to us all to get your acts together.
Liebenk, I know you and some of your group are in London/London area which is where the DST group and Edwin Coe are. Please arrange to meet, get your acts together, issue a joint communique and let's get on with fighting the common enemies.
In the last analysis what the hell does it matter who is on our Committee. As long as it is OUR Committee?


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 00:49

I regret that this posting from Adrienne undermines the pasts efforts of the DST on behalf of DAG and is in danger of sabotaging some of our present efforts. It seems to be directed at ensuring HNW gains up to 3 seats on the creditors' committee, which appears to me to be out of all proportion to their representation, and excusing this group's refusal to ask its members for funding for DAG's legal costs and seeking to take credit for much of DST's own work, which is offensive but not especially damaging. However, by seeking to talk up what should be a relatively insignificant division within DAG, it is potentially highly damaging to the interests of depositors as a whole and entirely unnecessary.

It appears that HNW group feels the need to carve out for itself a separate role in the liquidation process, but it seems to me wrong to do this at the expense of the majority of depositors.

This is out of order

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 02:14

Elgee this is out of order many of the HNW depositors have contributed generously to the legal costs already.

Who is it that dictates that the HNW should not be represented on the Creditors Comitteee?

As 70% of depositors will be paid out by the DCS I would think that the HNW depositors are a significant proportion of the remaining 30% and have as much right to be represented as anyone else.

And note that the HNW are also supporting DAG - where is the support from Dag for the HNWs if as you claim DAG is representing everybody?

This is out of order

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 03:20

Bellyup, I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I support and have always supported the "HNW group" having a representative on the CC, namely Gavin. I think this view is also that of the DST. My objection is to Adrienne's group having more than one seat on the CC, and indeed proposing 3.

DAG includes well over a thousand members who are above the DCS limit and at least many hundreds who are "high net worth" if, by this term, we mean depositors with several 100 thousand or more savings in KSFIOM. The HNW depositors within DAG need to be distiguished from Adrienne's "HNW group", which has approx. 150 members. You will note that the title of Adrienne's posting is "HNW Group Proxy and Relationship with DAG/DST". In it, she clearly distinguishes her "HNW group" from DAG and the DAG Strategy Team. Her "HNW group" is not the same as the group of HNW depositors within DAG. Adrienne does not speak for the majority of HNW depositors in DAG and while her "HNW group" utilises DAG's forum, it has been and increasingly continues to function not as a DAG sub-group but as an offshoot of DAG and separate from DAG with a different agenda.

In case this is not clear enough, DAG's proposed CC members are ALL HNW depositors, but they are not members of Adrienne's "HNW group". However, at least two of them once were.

In summary, there is DAG, within which is a large group of HNW depositors. DAG does not treat that group as a separate entity, because it tries to act in the best interests of all depositors. Once within DAG, but by their own design now clearly outside, is a separate entity comprising a small sub-sub-group of DAG's HNW sub-group, called Adrienne's "HNW group", which wants to be treated in a special way with its own representatives on the CC and its own legal representation (although not on the record in any proceedings of which we are aware). Adrienne's members are always welcome back under the DAG umbrella, and I suspect many of them believe that they are under that umbrella anyway, but it appears that the organisers of the "HNW group" want to keep them separate.

@Elgee I have one question

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 23:22


I have one question for you -which you can take in whatever way you want...

My understanding from other posts is that you have been fully paid out?

Why are you making comments on people who haven't - and have a considerable amount to lose here? Surely this isn't appropriate?

Calling the HNW group the 'High Net Integrity Group' and saying that you don't know why it exists smacks of sarcasm and you have a dogma that you want to propound. It seems quite wrong to me. Please let me know where I have got this wrong, but I, for one are rather disappointed as I always saw you provide good comments in the past....

BTW, I'm referring to comments from the DST Censored post if it looks disjoint to others reading this.

@Elgee I have one question

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 23:51

Frog, you're probably right that my comments were inappropriate. You're definitely right that I have been fully paid up by EPS2 - it was mostly my older son's trust fund anyway.

Thanks Elgee for the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 10:17

Thanks Elgee for the clarification - you have restored my confidence in you.

The post I referred to has

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 11:56

The post I referred to has been removed.

re regrettable

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 01:33

I concur with elgee's very reasonable analysis of this regrettable situation which risks to be highly damaging to our common cause. I have no problem with the idea that the HNW group should have at least one seat on the creditors' committee (and would indeed prefer that the DST proxy vote if possible for one of the HNW candidates along with the 3 DST candidates), but seeking to reverse the roles by voting for 3 HNW members and only 1 DST member (which is clearly the group's intention) is clearly out of all proportion to their respective levels of support among DAG members (and indeed sounds like an attempted coup). In the last vote, DST held over 5 times as many class 2 proxies as did HNW (722 to 127), so logically they should have 5 times as many seats :)

Would it be too naive of me to suggest that the two proxy holders could and should make an electoral pact designed to optimise the total DAG (DST + HNW) representation on the committee, respecting insofar as possible their respective numbers of proxies. Such a pragmatic arrangement would mean that both proxy holders agree to vote for the same candidates (or at least for a common core of say 3 DST and 1 HNW), thus improving the chances for all of them to be elected. If different political parties with overlapping interests and a common 'enemy' can do this, why not the two strands of DAG?

Then any real bones of contention (whatever they are) between the two groups can be thrashed out in the confines of the new depositors only site, where it is to be hoped also that the DST members will feel happier to reveal a little more of themselves, as many of us have not unreasonably asked for (while understanding their reticence on a public site).

Hopefully, having got that off my chest, I can now go back to bed; ruminating on this silliness was stopping me from sleeping. PLEASE see sense and work together for the common good (as you did for the SOA vote).

Hear hear Banna

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/06/2009 - 23:28

Well put and very much to the point.

For Goodness sake, bury the hatchet and get your act together for everyone's sake - and that goes for both DST and the HNW committee. Are you not all part of "us", the DAG (= Depositors' Action Group, in case you've forgotten) ? And if not, what are you doing here? We (the DAG) need all of you, fighting together for all of us - including those of us with more moderate sums of money at risk who would be daft not to apply for DCS but will still be here with you to the bitter end, fighting for the rest of our due. Otherwise, as Banna says, the only winners will be our common enemies. Do we really want to give them that pleasure?

Banna, anrigaut:

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 00:59

I completely agree with you, however the statements in liebanks post are factually incorrect and verging on ridiculous.

The actions of a handful of individuals have been continually destructive to the overall objective of DAG. I say this as a depositor who's suffered alongside all other members of DAG and :

As one third of what was the London Team alongside Ziggy and Teapot.

As a member of the DST who has been constantly involved with ALL issues concerned with DAG.

As a member of DST who has been party to information beyond the remit of liebank and HNW.

As someone who appointed the lawyers for DAG .

As someone whose name has been read out in court at each hearing on behalf of DAG .

As somebody who was responsible for the creation of the factual public site.

As someone who was part of DST efforts that were entirely and solely responsible (despite false claims) for the 3rd class of voters that succeeded in defeating the SoA.

As someone who attempted to highlight to the HNW group that IOMT were only on a self preservation exercise and implored the HNW not to cut across DAG legal and lobbying moves.

As someone who has consistently tried to enlighten HNW to the fact that supporting the SoA was a foolish act on their part and detrimental to depositors despite their continuation to do so.

As someone who tried consistently to warn HNW where they were duplicating effort and giving loopholes to IOMG.

As someone who has been responsible for mailing out press release on behalf of DAG since October.

As someone who has been responsible for building correspondence on behalf of DAG with all and any financial bodies we deemed as necessary to correspond with.

As somebody who has liaised with journalists and politicians on a daily basis October.

As someone who put their name and personal number on the PR that goes to ALL national and international press on a daily basis since October.

As somebody who has an endless list of erroneous decisions by HNW representatives that have been destructive to DAG, but thankfully will have little impact eventually.

As somebody who is very proud to be a part of DST: a group of people who work night and day for the efforts of DAG

I would like to highlight that there is far more involved in acting in the best interests of depositors than posting a contentious blog and falsely claiming resposibilty for efforts they were not part of.

I would also like to highlight that there is far more to putting oneself OUT THERE than posting a C.V on a website!

I am extremely distressed that we continue to deal with these internal politics and that members who have been the cause of them still have not understood how destructive it is for the the perception of DAG as a cohesive force.



I believe we have to put

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 23:32

I believe we have to put emotion aside and concentrate on the main event - getting the best result we can. I'm disappointed with this posting and others. It seems mainly due to a competition in grabbing proxies for the CC voting and a breast-beating about whom has done what.

I've also been involved from an early stage with this and have attempted to work to get facts and material that helps us understand what is going on. I make no claims that it has achieved anything, but I believe that teh more facts we have - plus a good working relationship between the liquidators, the government and us is the best we can work with right now.

Emotional posts and emotional poisonous PR are not good for anyone. Lets get as many regular depositors on the committee of inspection - and HNW and DST vote each other in (maybe vote the DCS out!) and start working together.

Working together was my reading of Lieben's post - and Sleeplessnight - you can call me anytime to discuss this, we are all on the same side.

DST/HNW debate

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 11:39

As a partially-protected but relatively LNW depositor, I am taking the risk of putting my small oar into this debate because I feel it is important for us all and for our common cause that some things are resolved one way or the other. I should make it clear from the start that I am part of neither DST (though I have helped out with specific tasks on occasion) nor the HNW group. I have supported both the legal and IT funds and gave my proxy to Stuart Roberts in the SoA vote. I am delaying my DCS application until after 7 July in order to exercise my vote at the creditors' committee meeting. I am still hesitating over my choice of proxy; on balance it will probably again go to DST, but I do have sympathy with some of the points made by the HNW group.

The current conflictual situation within DAG has been festering for a long time, with occasional and sometimes violent eruptions, and I for one am relieved that it has now come more into the open. For that I think we can thank Frog in particular, though I trust that he did not betray any trust Sarah may have placed in him by posting on the forum anything from their email exchanges which she may have asked explicitly should remain confidential. Let us hope we can seize this opportunity to find a viable solution to go forward in a truly cooperative way, even if – as is normal in a disparate group such as we are – there are differences in appreciation of the best stategies to adopt.

Strategic decisions and choices have to be made and no-one among us can reasonably expect to get it 'right' all the time. Each of the two groups currently soliciting our support clearly contains a number of highly intelligent and well qualified people with much at stake in the outcome of this debacle. Provided we agree that we are all working towards the same objective (and I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise), surely we should be able to turn our different viewpoints into a point of strength rather than of weakness? This requires at the very least a sort of non-agression pact between the parties (with neither attempting to sabotage the efforts of the other) and at best a strong and structured cooperation (or even a reunification). Given the current de facto situation of two 'parties', I personally would like to see both represented on the creditors' committee. Hopefully this could lead to a more balanced view than either group alone – and hence more strength to DAG as a whole (I continue to resist the idea that DAG=DST; for me, as for ng, the DAG currently consists of all registered users of this site; so for me – until and unless they declare UDI - the HNW group remain part of DAG).

I understand that some of the present conflict is a relic from unfortunate past actions of individual members of DAG, clearly working under a lot of stress. But I would like to believe that those concerned are adult enough to put their personal antagonisms and past history behind them for the common good. Now is the time to move on (yes, I know, it's easy to say ... but please try, for all our sakes!).

Otherwise, the fundamental division appears to be a difference in the appreciation of the best strategy for achieving our common aims – one more aggressive, the other more accomodating – and getting the right balance between these extremes is not easy. Neither strategy is obviously 'right', but clearly those who have had the closest contacts with the various outside parties concerned are better placed than most of us to weigh up the odds. So please, put personal egos aside and at least agree to listen seriously to one-another and to share ideas and information as partners in the fight. If there are significant issues on which the two groups remain fundamentally opposed, then I think we have a right to know what these are so that we can make up our own minds.

On a lesser point, I do agree (and have said so before) with the need for more openness and communication from DST. I don't see that knowing real names rather than pseudos makes any appreciable difference (and can well appreciate the reticence of some to identify themselves in this way to anyone who may read this site – though those standing for election on the committee have necessarily been obliged to do so), but a resume of the competences and expertise of those who are leading us (and not only the CC candidates) is I think something we can reasonably expect. Communication is a thorny problem given that not everyone reading this site – nor even all those registered – are friendly parties. But hopefully the new depositors-only site under construction should help to resolve this (as indeed has been suggested – I live in hope!).

I also am somewhat worried by the increasingly evangelical tone of some of DST statements. Fighting talk is one thing, but putting out false propaganda is another and can only do harm to our cause. I'm not saying this is deliberate, but passing into a more aggressive fighting mode (probably necessary now), it is easy to get carried away with one's own rhetoric and I guess it can be hard to draw the line. But distorting the obvious facts – intentionally or not – cannot do us any good in the long run. A recent example is LJ's pronouncements that the DCS will not cost the IoM (Treasury and/or banks) anything; while I'm far from being a fan of IOMT, I do think it behoves us not to deny what little they HAVE done (including upping the compensation limit) to protect smaller depositors – which will not be at zero cost to them (or the banks). We have enough spin from governments. So please, let us show more integrity: stick to the facts (they are bad enough anyway!) and fight from there.

Seems I too risk getting carried away, so will stop there. Sorry it got a bit long, but if any of this can help us to go forward in our fight for justice I'll feel I haven't totally wasted my time.

Regards to all – and on with the fight!

Do Bondholders still belong on this site?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 21:02

As a low value bondholder who has received 50% of my original deposit back through EPS 1 & 2, I continue to thank my lucky stars that I was mindful of the then DCS when I deposited. Nevertheless I earned every penny of the £10K + which I may never see again but I see very little feedback from anyone as to where we bondholders fit in on this site.
I am sure many of us have contributed to the relevant funds but are now (I believe) to be excluded from the new depositor site as we cannot produce Account Numbers etc with which to log on. Is this correct? please advise me if I'm wrong.
I appreciate the need for this site but if we bondholders with total deposits in excess of £280 million are to be excluded from this new site, how will we be able to keep up to date with those events which are not for general consumption?
If this is how it will be, is this not another way of dividing us? I have never felt that this site has much time for bondholders so I would love to be proven wrong.
It is not my intention to inflame the situation, we bondholders are at everyone's mercy, so who is fighting our corner please? I know we are elligible to whatever % age is recovered under liquidation and that is all, at least our exclusion from DCS appears to have saved us from all the anxst which this issue appears to be causing the rest of you but that is no consolation when I for one was told I had DCS cover, which we all now know to our cost was not the case.

@cypheath - The new DAG site does not aim to exclude bondholders

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/06/2009 - 01:11

The basic idea with the new site is to exclude "watchers" who are not depositors in any form and may not be friendly to DAG. How to achieve this, without excluding valid depositors is not an easy task. In fact, the policy has still not been finalised.

Thanks ng

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/06/2009 - 11:54

I appreciate your reply and as already stated the reason for the new site. I did look at it a couple of days ago and noted the mention of verification through account numbers which is why I posted the above comment.
Obviously there will need to be verification of bondholders too but this may be impossible to achieve, especially for those with fewer IT resources and knowledge available. I look forward to more info. in due course.

Thanks again.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 13:47

I heartily agree with everying anrigaut says. I too would like to know more about the issues on which DST and HNW disagree. It would help me decide to whom I give my proxy.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 13:53

grandmaparis: the answer appears to be not much (issue on which we disagree)

Perhaps something formal will be posted about this matter very soon

Please stop the spin

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 12:07

Well put anrigaut.

I too feel slightly concerned by some of the spin eminating from certain members of the DST which seems to consist more of rallying sound bites than actual facts. Many people on this forum rely on the DAG for information and I must say that some of the misinformation that is currently being published is beginning to overshadow the real achievements that the DAG and DST have made and if not curtailed may make people start to question some of the other statements they have made in the past to justify the chosen cause of action.

Please stop the spin

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 13:40

expatfrance1: I hope that I never put out any spin if any kind, if you intended to include me in your criticism, because I have a strong dislike for spin, which is of course just another word for "lying".

I don't think DST ever intended to spin, but more likely is not always able to say exactly what it would like to say, for obvious reasons.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 16:09

I was most definately not suggesting that you were one of those that had resorted to spin. There are however others, who are close to the DST, who are definately not adverse to a little spinning in order to get the message across. Whilst I am sure they have good intentions I do find that this approach is a little too close to that of the IOM of which we have been critical in the past.

This topic has been beaten to death

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 18:30

Can we please get off this topic. There is no doubt in my mind that we all have our own views on how we as a group should proceed to maximize our return but, like anrigaut has stated above, we have nothing to gain with all this he said she said banter. I also do not believe we have anything to gain from the continuous verbal bashing of the IOM government. If irregularities are uncovered it would be in our best interest to pursue the matter in a professional manner but until that time we have nothing to gain by alienating those with whom will have to work together.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/06/2009 - 19:55

I don't agree this topic has been "beaten to death", nor do I agree we should "get off this topic".

I do agree that "we all have our own views", and mine is that the DST are currently showing little sign of working co-operatively with any part of the IOM establishment. If the DST do not work co-operatively with their counterparts in the IOM, whilst claiming to represent the whole depositor base, we run the risk that we will all suffer.

Elgee is not correct in threatening that "spun" is the same as "lying". I find the DAG press releases are being "spun" in a way the DST think is to the DAG's advantage, but I do not think what is written by the DST are necessarily "lies". That's the difference. My problem is I do not see the current "spin" as being advantageous at all, nor do I find their attitude to the IOM as being "healthy" in getting a good result for the depositors. Have a look at how utilizing this "spin" has been completely unproductive on the Manx Forums, when certain members from this site post on them. What once was casual interest from the Manx community in our plight, has turned into outright hostility to it.

I understand (from speaking to them) that DST have "dirt" on the IOM establishment which they can't disclose and this, if true, no doubt fuels the fire of hatred. I also believe the IOM establishment have "dirt" on the DST membership. What could that be? Who knows? But I can't say I feel comfortable with people who are anonymous shaping strategy on behalf of "all the depositors". Who are the DST? What's their individual personal history? Why do they wish to censor debate at any opportunity? What even makes them think they have the f***ing right to try and do so anyway? What's their motivation if some of them have been paid out already?

I'm particularly concerned as many KSFIOM depositors are senior and trusting. I think I am right in saying Elgee has already threatened to quit twice. Is this someone aware of his "power", but wishing to consolidate it with a "please don't go Elgee, we need you!" mandate from the vulnerable?

For the record I have never had any trust in politicians or in the concept of "common decency" within politics. I'm a businessman and in my experience, there is always a deal to be done, but getting to loggerheads increases costs and eventually requires arbitration and mediation. And guess who is going to pay for this delay? Answer: The depositors who are not fully protected. That does not include me, as I am fully protected, but nor does it include those who have already been paid out, yet shape direction within the DST. And who will get paid? Answer: those who put in an invoice through the courts.

Morally I cannot stand by and silently watch this happen without comment, especially as I get correspondence from depositors too scared to post on here because they fear being called "Quislings" (as my grandmother says).

Time for slice of realism, folks. Hopefully the membership of the creditors committee will be a fresh step toward it.

Clarifying my post to "Undone" above

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 10:48

Having now had the opportunity of speaking to both Elgee and Sleeplessnight at length, I feel I have more of an understanding of the DST and their motives, and I'll qualify the following points I made.

  1. My stated "belief" that IOM has "dirt" on the DST was an assumption on my behalf. It seemed to me that if DST had "dirt" on the IOM then the same would be true in reverse as they are both at loggerheads. Understandably, DST do not want it thought that their personal histories are being concealed to protect their reputations, nor do they want it thought the motives of the DST are suspect. I understand better now why some members of DST do not wish to reveal their identities and this is not because they wish to conceal them because of "reputation" but for other personal reasons. I do not think the motives of the DST group are suspect, but in many instances I just do not agree with their approach toward the IOM authorities.

  2. My point about many depositors being "vulnerable" and the fact Elgee has offered to resign previously, was not implying that Elgee is exploiting depositors and manipulating them with idle threats. It was that Elgee has become an important figure for many (including the elderly) in the campaign, but that he is in no way obliged to continue "the fight" and has every right to withdraw his efforts at any stage. By offering to resign some months ago, via conducting a poll, it occurred to me that if he were to "walk away", as is his right and for whatever reason, it would leave those who rely upon him "high and dry". I found his action of calling for a poll egotistical at worse (and commented thus at the time), but I am not implying he is manipulating vulnerable people.

If the DST, and Elgee and sleeplessnight in particular, felt that I was making false allegations, then I hope this post rectifies that impression and I apologise for any upset caused.

I have contacted you and

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 01:29

I have contacted you and responded to your points above..

As somebody who has had no knowledge of any of the specific issues I have raised, I am amiss to why you made this post?

What is really concerning for any depositor is the following statement you made:

"plus a good working relationship between the liquidators, the government and us is the best we can work with right now."...

Sums it upl!!...

The rest of us should perhaps head home, as between: PWC; IOMT; yourself... we should be grateful!!

Sarah, I'll respond to your

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 10:33


I'll respond to your points here - plus I'll add in your mails to me and also respond to them here so we can keep this debate open and in plain sight.

  1. No knowledge of the specific issues.

Well I guess what you are saying is that I don't know anything about your points raised in the mai (although I'll attempt to here)l. I'm not sure what is secret but I'd appreciate you educating me (and the rest of us!) as to what we don't know...

The first three quarters of the post is just a list of 'As I Have done this...' points which have no specific issues that I can see. I agree that you have been active in various areas regarding this issue - that was in my post.

On the original post:

2 With regard to the blog posting - well I wasn't involved in it - though I can't see what was wrong with it or where it was false - can you clarify?

3 Internal politics - well that was what I was trying to say! What is the issue with working together and voting Depositors onto the CC?

  1. I agree with you that HNW is an inappropriate name - maybe a time for a change.

5 With regard to your post above - "plus a good working relationship..." Can you clarify why you find this so wrong? I would have thought that this is a given in order to get the best result. When diplomacy fails, War inevitably follows - and we have no army!

  1. I won't comment on your - in my view- rather childish final sentence

But when diplomacy DOES fail...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/06/2009 - 17:22

If a Government needed to implement damage control on a situation that could seriously destabilize the economy and cause irreparable damage to the reputation of authorities and individuals; what actions would it take? Firstly observe and exploit the weaknesses of those that could cause the damage, secondly see how they could manipulate the situation internally by putting protagonists in place to muddy the waters and cause discord amongst us and thirdly rely on the weak human trait of self interest to cause an internal division.

We all sat like rabbits in the headlights while some users on this forum told us that IOMT were working night and day to find a solution that would be in our best interests. This created the mist that was required for them to look at their own damage control agenda and quell the antipathy that could annihilate their financial industry. You say that diplomacy is the only way forward, do you not realise that this approach has been exhausted over and over again? Every single possibility for rescuing depositors was proposed to IOMT face to face, by email and on the telephone by numerous individual depositors, DST, and even MPs, they feigned interest and support but never carried that through because, as long as they had the opportunity to get through relatively unscathed, there was no point. They had an appetite to save face but not save depositors and we still remain bottom of their agenda. Thanks to the support of some for the SoA they managed to distance themselves from trying to solve the issue in the same way that has been implemented in all other territories where Kaupthing branches existed. They have created enough distance between the 8th October events and the actual liquidation as possible and put as much spin on the situation as they could. There were two windows of opportunity for depositors and both were closed due to the ill-conceived actions of certain depositors. Even the life companies who supported the SoA now admit to their policyholders that more is likely to be returned under liquidation.

Those that are in the driving seat are primarily motivated in being re-elected or having contracts extended. If it is true that Spellman has successfully secured a further two year contract you can be absolutely sure that neither Bell or Spellman are going to humiliate themselves by changing tack now, not after wasting over a million pounds of tax payers money.
There are however several options that could return 100% of money: Pursuit of liable parties; Public Inquiry that will bring the whole sorry mess out into the open and force a political solution; Judicial review in the UK, as the charities are now threatening to do after being spurned by HMG and continuing to put pressure on Iceland to honor the Parental Guarantee.

You say we do not have an army, but that is the mistake IOMT made by underestimating the strength and determination of those of us that have suffered through no fault of our own and remain committed to each other . There are influential MPs and MHKs listening and the Treasury Select Committee remains our best avenue for political pressure , but nobody is going to fight for us to be reunited with our money unless they are aware of the failures and the rough justice we have been dealt by the very institution(s) that should have saved us.

I can understand why you think my original post was arrogant, but that was not my intention. I had wanted to explain why I felt in a position to know what was wrong about the post that had stimulated my post. I have only ever helped as part of a team who have only ever had the best intentions for DAG and all its members. As a result of being in the DST and appointing lawyers we have been contacted by numerous individuals over the months who have volunteered confidential information to help us understand the situation. For quite obvious reasons it has not been possible to publish that information on a website that is monitored.

Let us hope that we can get a good team onto the Creditors’ Committee who will work together. It’s going to be a difficult situation because they will all have to sign confidentiality agreements which will doubtless preclude the possibility of telling the rest of us what is actually going on behind the scenes. (Although they will have access to legal advice)
A lot of wisdom and the trust of the rest of us will be needed!
Now, enough of this I think! Let’s move on.

Really, your post talks a lot

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 13:40

Really, your post talks a lot about the past - and I'm only interested in what is happening now and in the future. Maybe we missed some opportunities, but we are where we are.

Liquidation is a well organised process, and the Committee of Inspection doesn't have a huge amount of powers - maybe only some influence, but the more depositors we get on the committee the better. Any efforts outside the liquidation (politcal pressure etc.) would not affect a orderly management of liquidation.

My question still remains - will the DST vote for the MNW guys to be on the committee or not? There is space enough for DST and HNW people (and bondholders) who would represent the vast majority by number of depositors. Excluding the Pension Fund wouldn't be a big loss (in my opinion) - 3 DST, 3 HNW, one Bondholder and we have our 7.

Please answer this directly so we all know where we are.

I would also like an honest

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 14:03

I would also like an honest reply from DST about supporting (or not) HNW. Having members from both DST and HNW on the CC will be in the interests of all DAG. If DST does not support Gavin or any of the HNW nominees, I shall be extremely disappointed, and will be led to believe that egos are getting in the way. There is room for everyone. We need the talent and expertise of both groups. The dog and pony show is over, now let's get down to the nitty gritty of working together!

Re I would like an honest reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 16:24

Well said Swiss. That goes for me too - and my proxy has gone to DST.

sleeplessnight.. public inquiry and pursuit of liable parties

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 08:56

Sleeplessnight or anyone , will dag pursue those above to bring about the return of our savings..


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 09:19

That is defintely the intention through the processes that allow this ie the liquidator, actions of the Creditors committe to intervene and pressurise.

That is why we need as many proxy's as possible to influence the CC. We have the right, skilled, knowledgeable people to do this who will act in the best interest of all depositors


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 29/06/2009 - 23:47

Well done sleeplessnight. I'm glad you've buried the hatchett. Now, as you say, let's move on.

Here's the second post

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 11:33

From Sarah -
I started to respond.... but there are so many things wrong with your post,
on so may levels!

I would like to understand and hear your full explanation for the following:

1: "I've also been involved from an early stage"... please explain??
2. "plus a good working relationship between the liquidators, the government
and us is the best we can work with right now".... please justify???
3. "poisonous PR" ... could you please identify the pr you refer to and
could you justify your statement please?
3. "HNW and DST vote each other in (maybe vote the DCS out!)" ... ???no words
for the lack of knowledge and understanding demonstrated in this ?!?!?
4. "Working together was my reading of Lieben's post - and Sleeplessnight -
you can call me anytime to discuss this, we are all on the same side".: would
you like me to furnish you with the unpleasant and uncomfortable evidence of
the divisive and abhorrent acts of HNW Nigel?... incl blackmail over funds
and further emails that would seriously damage the actions of the commendable

As an individual who has clearly attempted to work hard for DAG, you have
backed the wrong horse!.. You have supported uninformed individuals who have
no clue as to what has, and what continues to happen.

If you would like to meet to discuss I would be more than willing,


  1. My point was that I have been involved since late November with the calls with the LP. I had been involved on the site prior to this. Does this justify my comment in your eyes?
  2. I believe we now are getting toward the endgame before process takes over - that would mean that we now have to work with what we have. Regrettably, the political avenues seem to have closed down, so we have to make the best of what we have - and having a constructive working relationship with all parties (as much as we can) is, in my view, the best way.
  3. I refer to the last PR put out 'Indecisiveness rules the day'. Within this PR you claim:

Conspiracy between the IOMG and their legal system
The IOMT are incompetent and act in self-interest
IOM Government are not 'fit for purpose'
The IOM Government can't manage its regulators
The country as a whole is incestuous and is parochial
The country is corrupt as its legal, business and political interests are not managed independently

This strikes me a justifying the moniker - poisonous.

3.Huh? I really don't understand your comment - If I have a lack of knowledge and understanding, how would I put this in words. While you have made various comments to this point, you have never explained why it is facile.
4. Yes please - I'm a late entrant into the group (I disagreed with their original approval of the SoA - but worked with them when they changed). I find them a very switched on and professional group of people, with talents in exactly the area that we need as depositors. I also like their approach to provide openness to all depositors and the balanced way in approaching issues.
5. Well as to backing the wrong horse - this comment in itself is worrying. We are all depositors and I would hope that there is no 'wrong horse', but then you have labelled my previous suggestion of working together as being facile. Why?

With your last point 'clearly attempted to work hard for the DAG' well damning with faint praise! - washes over me unfortunately. Let me be clear - I was not acting for the DAG - but for depositors who have had their money taken away from them - including myself.

Now, I have explained myself to you - would you be so kind as to do me the same favour?

With regard to meeting, I'm in Paris all this week but will be happy to discuss over the phone.

Here is the first post from Sarah

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/06/2009 - 10:59

Sleeplessnight wrote: Nigel,

Your post on the site was beyond ridiculous. Are you so desperate to get a seat on the CC that you are resorting to nonsense?..

You have had no position of knowledge as far as I am aware, zero knowledge of the liaison between DAG and any parties, and no understanding of the motivations behind PR.

Your post was highly offensive and inaccurate, and I am bitterly disappointed you are the person who has spearheaded the liaison with PWC, yet clearly fail to understand the responsibility accompanied with doing so.


In response:

You have used this term 'beyond ridiculous' before - in the PR if I recall well. You really should explain why rather than just dismissing a point of view. I, actually am trying to understand - but all it seems is that there is a lot of things going on which I (and everyone else) are not allowed to know.

Why not publish a position paper as to what has happened so far - I've read all the other ones, and if there is more info that I haven't been told then please let me (and everyone else) know.

With regard to the PWC contact - well this had nothing to do with you - I set it up as it seemed a logical way of getting more information in an open way from the LP and I hope it has provided useful information you and all depositors. Please explain what you mean about responsibility? Is it that I may not be agreeing with you (but you can't say why?).

With regard to the seat, well please think a little bit more before you spout - as the amount of people coming along to the meeting will be low compared to the amount of those who have provided proxies, I really can't see how I will get on the CC as the resolutions not contained in the proxy voting papers will only be voted on by those present - but then It isn't the point.

No understanding of the motivations behind PR.... don't make me laugh - I have PR people working for me - I understand very well - I am a chief marketing officer as it says in my short bio. With regard to this specific PR, I hazarded a guess as to what it was aimed at doing - maybe here you can clarify - or is that secret too?

With regard to 'offensive and inaccurate' - well I'm sorry I have offended you (can't see why unless it is because I've dared to ask for clarity) and as always I ask again PLEASE tell me what is inaccurate!

To everyone else reading this post - consider the fact here that this style of email is probably a taster of the emails sent under the banner of DAG to the IOMG, the UK Government, the liquidator and the IOM Treasury - and consider whether you want your name associated with this approach.

censorships remains...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 23:07

Whatever the arguments - I do generally agree with DST and DAG - I did find it very unconstructive to censor the HNW's post. This action increased the level of suspicion on the way we worked together... and that was just a poor decision - whatever the contents.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 11:13

I have now read the Liebenk posting of June 25 and having now read it I reiterate what I said on my posting last night. I can see no reason for censoring it. I am against censorship in principle and in this particular case there seems no justification for it. I can see no reason for saying that it is in any meaningful way factually incorrect or verging on the ridiculous. You are reacting too emotionally! And I expect better of people to whom we have given our proxy to act for us.
I do not agree with HNW's campaign objectives of seeing 3 of their number on the Committee but that does not seem to me to be a cause for dispute. If they want to do that and can get the support for it where is the problem? Liebenk's posting does not denigrate the qualities of the proposed DAG candidates but in fact offers to vote for one of them. A wry smile and a shake of the head would have been a better reaction.
As I said last night I need you 2 groups to get together and agree. You would be much better sitting down and agreeing the qualities of the persons we need on the committee, their terms of reference and their tasks than sqabbling like politicians.
Let me tell you what I - and I am arrogant enough to believe all of us - need on the Committee.
1. A highly competent and experienced accountant preferably with some insolvency/administration experience and/or contacts
2. A highly competent and experienced lawyer preferably with similar experience
3. A banker preferably with experience of retail/offshore banking
4. An experienced businessman who can bang heads together and get a strategy agreed and implemented.
5.A wide ranging thinker who can attempt to foresee the pitfalls for us.

The Committee has to be OUR SERVANT and so behind it we need DAG and HNW people to be in touch with it and attempt to feed information in to it so that it continues to act in all our interests. While respecting the confidentiality imposed by Committee membership.

Can you please get this message to DAG and HNW.
Thank you.

@sleeplessnight - behind you 100%

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/06/2009 - 07:22

I guess you had a sleepless night...

Passengers on a plane rarely know or see who is on the flight deck but they put their trust in them.

I support 100% the outstanding work & tireless efforts of 'sleeplessnight' & the rest of the crew.