Why can't we have Mr. Nobody's Darling Arrested for "Theft"?

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 08/01/2009 - 01:47

1.) I'm not joking this is the best public smokscreeen smashing possible. No more British correctness or stiff upper lip. We wouldn't be treated worse by mafia or dictaorship leadreship. So why should we treat them any better?

When I think of that MP David Green who was arrested month or so ago for" leaking out info that a few illegal immigrants were working as cleaners in government buildings", well this is childs play in comparison.
Please can we legally have Chancellor Nobody's Darling arrested for theft. You may think I'm joking but I am serious is this a possibility as he has committed a much bigger crime (theft of 557 million) than MP Green. If is this is a possibility this may be just the big jolt of fear he needs to release ad return our funds. It's a Darlingate case I think.

  1. ) Have we approached or lodged our case with the Court of Human Rights?

  2. ) Why can one government and treasury IOM versus another government and treasury UK not pull more weight and power no more be so "cap in hand" inferior? Why can they not have Nobody's Darling arrested?
    I am not being frivolous or crazy don't we have to fight by desperate not diplomatic means with the UK now and only save diplomacy but a very firm hand with the IOM now.

1.) I'm not joking this is the best public smokscreeen smashing possible. No more British correctness or stiff upper lip. We wouldn't be treated worse by mafia or dictaorship leadreship. So why should we treat them any better?

When I think of that MP David Green who was arrested month or so ago for" leaking out info that a few illegal immigrants were working as cleaners in government buildings", well that was childs play by comparison.
Please can we legally have Chancellor Nobody's Darling arrested for theft. You may think I'm joking but I am serious is this a possibility as he has committed a much bigger crime (theft of 557 million) than MP Green. If is this is a possibility this may be just the big jolt of fear he needs to release and return our funds. It's a Darlingate case I think.

  1. ) Have we approached or lodged our case with the Court of Human Rights?

  2. ) Why can one government and treasury IOM versus another government and treasury UK not pull more weight and power no more be so "cap in hand" inferior? Why can they not have Nobody's Darling arrested?
    I am not being frivolous or crazy don't we have to fight by desperate not diplomatic means with the UK now and only save diplomacy but a very firm hand with the IOM now.

With no response from the UK I think we must play very hardball now as our Jan 29th deadline is looming close, and hopefully I have missed something but I cannot see any progress especially awful news that 5 or 6 potential buyers of the bank have had to pull out due to the funds not returned therefore no tangible asset value to potential sale.

I am in London now and was abroad since this evil broke. I would appreciate being more involved and if any UK members have meetings or other petitions to take to No 10 and 11 let me know.

I hope there is better progress coming our way soon before we lose too much more money in lost interest lawyers and liquidators, and and I have to wish us all good luck with everything.

PS My rant and upset: I don't know about the rest of you but I simply cannot live in the UK anymore under the power (?) of thieves who have stolen my life savings.They've made us feel like fugitives who cannot rest in our own home or in our own country in which I was born. I feel nothing but contempt for these inhuman bastards if they don't return our funds 100%.and now have huge disrespect for them evn if they do after whet they have put us through. Would we choose to live under a tyrant or under Mugabe rule for instance? At the moment we are treated with less regard than a terrorist or Icelander etc etc....we are a the bottom of the totem pole and I am feeling so angry now that it is turning into hate for HMG and HMT and the UK in general - hence the fugitive feeling, but we're stuck here with our lives on hold with no security or direction for our present or future thanks to these bastards. These comments come from a formerly successful career person who has lost 27 years worth of my life savings and my late husbands peak of career ( I had to wind my career down due to his Luekemia) and my parents inhertance and future pension. All my friends couldnt beleive how well I'd survived through these years - it was being mortgage free careful spending and investing and now 27 years of all that gone within only one month of puting my savings into the wretched KIOM Bank
God protect and bless us all from this evil.

0
Your rating: None

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

Arrest Darling

  • s_green101
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 02:09

Would it be possible to have him arrested as a publicity stunt?


What legal recourse do we have?

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 03:36

In my own simplistic way, I have been wondering about this for some time. After all, when anyone else steals from us, we are entitled to protection from theft, robbery, and fraud under the laws of the land. Acts of this type require police investigation, arrest, and prosecution. Unless UK law gives him immunity from prosecution for his acts, why should he not be held accountable for taking our money, as would any other person? In another life, when I was completing police college, when looking for suspects, we were taught to ask "Who gains?", to follow the money. We know where the money is and who has it. If some other, non-ministerial person, had taken our money and if we knew who that person was, where they were, and where they had put the fruits of the crime, the police would investigate, arrest the culprit, and recover our funds, restoring them to us eventually. What would it take to bring the perpetrator to book in our case? Is it possible to initiate criminal invetigation and action against a serving minister, or are they above the law? How can criminal legal processes be set in motion as a result of and in response to the theft of our savings?


Arrest Darling

  • emjay
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 10:31

It's funny that this should come up as I was just thinking the same thing yesterday and wondering if someone would have the balls to arrest him as, at the very least, it would maybe force the detail of what has been done to come out and we would at least be able to find out if what was done is legal or not.

I used to be a policeman and recall that the definition of theft is "when a person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

What Darling and Brown have done seems to fit the bill. I realise that governments would normally use a piece of legislation to get around the dishonestly part but, in this case, using the terrorist legislation for a reason other than that for which it was intended could support the dishonesty part.

I think you would need to speak to a lawyer about whether you could take this further. I also don't know if you could simply issue civil proceedings for theft. At least in that sort of case it would simply be a question of issuing papers but the fact that it had been done might be an angle that can be used to then get the press involved and try to generate greater interest into everyone's plight.

If the bank had simply gone bust that would be one thing, but for UK savers to lose their money because the money has been taken by the UK Government is just wrong and I'm really surprised that this hasn't received greater press attention.

In terms of a general civil action to recover the monies, why hasn't this been done? Does anyone know?

I also remember when this site was first created that there were a number of very prominent contributors to the site (particularly EXPAT). They were all in a position where they seemed to have a very good angle on what was going on and also were very clear that they would not give up until they'd recovered their monies.

Where have they gone? Without wishing to cause offence if this isn't the case, can I ask if anyone knows why they've gone so quiet? Have they managed to do a separate deal to get their money?


theft - not a hope

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 01:00

It was an act of state. Therefore there is no possibility of theft proceedings being successful, or its equivalent in tort (which incidentally is called conversion).

As an ex-policeman I think you should have been able to recognise that that is the case. Quite apart from that there was obviously no intention to permanently deprive and unquestionably the IOM bank is a creditor in the winding up of the UK sister bank and part of that money will be recoverable. If the UK Treasury then fail to give permission for it to be returned to the IOM, that would be a different matter which obviously could be successfully litigated, but not in theft or conversion.


Northern Rock act

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 21:16

"n this case, using the terrorist legislation for a reason other than that for which it was intended could support the dishonesty part"

They used to Northern Rock act to seize the bank, not the terror and crime bill. The same act was used for Northern Rock and B&B and its written and used to to take over insolvent banks.

There Terror, Crime and security bill was used to stop any transfer of funds or assets outside the UK. Given the extent of the criminal behaviour, fraud and outright theft that has come to light in Iceland's banking system it was probably a good thing.


A "good thing" only if our savings are returned . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 03:50

I will be able to see it as a "good thing" when our savings are returned to us.


Emjay ... not a depositor

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 19:19

Emjay describes himself as "not a depositor"


"I used to be a policeman" ,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 13:08

"I used to be a policeman" , "Have they managed to do a separate deal to get their money?"

Yes, quite.


emjay..expat

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 12:36

Instead of making extremely objectionable comments about expat I suggest you spend more time reading the posts on this website.Expat has made quite a number of posts in the last 2 days. He sacrificed a lot and achieved a great deal on behalf of all of us during the very first weeks of this whole fiasco.We all owe him a great deal of appreciation for what he did then and continues to do.


Hey guys no arguments about

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:58

Hey guys no arguments about me please, no offence was taken emjay and thanks for the support mikeinfrance. As it happens diver and I have just been exchanging notes, so after a time trying to straighten out some family issues I am getting back up to speed. No friction please chaps, there's enough of that flying around!!! I mean the wife wasn't overly happy with a two month sojourn on the Isle of Man and I've got the scars to prove it!!!

I'll let diver issue any statements about events, but we are all as committed as ever.


emjay..expat

  • emjay
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:38

Hello Mike. Sorry if my comment caused any offence - I'm not great with computers and so haven't found Expats recent comments.

The reason for raising my concerns were simply that I remember seeing a lot of activity and energy at the start of this problem with Expat very much at the centre of it. What has happened to everyone is terrible and, recently, when logging onto the site I felt that the activity seemed to have slowed. I'd read a previous post asking if anyone had heard from Expat and, having not seen anything from him over recent weeks I was concerned and wanted to raise it.

I really hope that this matter can be brought to a successful conclusion and again I apologise for any offence caused.

Regards

Emjay


expat & emjay

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:28

OK expat & emjay my post was just a knee-jerk reaction to the "separate deal to get their money" comment. I later noticed that you'd just got together on a different forum. No harm done.


hello fight theft

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 05:23

I am totally totally, totally with you on this. I have to return to my so called home country uk to wind something up there and the whole thing makes me sick. we never want to go back now, my husband wants to finish his career here in the middle east. A govt far better than this one. Darling and brown are heartless bastards out for their own political careers. Basically the country is broke and he helped himself to our funds, they are morally corrupt. its covered up because of the mess they are all in. We have lost like everyone else through no fault of our own. This should be taken to the intl court of human right, they have left people homeless. Some without pension incomes and that gordon brown gets on tv and says he cant call a general election this year because he cares too much about britain. The man is insane. This is all criminal what do we do next everybody?


hello fight theft - reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 01:13

Could one perhaps sue one's clairvoyant for negligence in not having foreseen the bank's collapse?

Please don't take that suggestion seriously.


Deluded

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:15

Icelandic Bank outside of the UK and EU is absolutely not the UK government's problem. The fact is the Icelandic Government should have stepped up and backed their banks, but they couldn't and wouldn't..

Until you accept this basic fact, you will continue to pointless bang your head on the wall.

Icelandic government has accepted it has no case against the British Government.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/01/06/statement-from-the-icelandic-...


Dawes, I feel you should have

  • colinalvin63
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 16:28

Dawes, I feel you should have qualified your statement more clearly.

The UK Government and Treasury may have cleverly, legally foxed the Icelandic Government from being able to challenge the UK Government's action over seizing Icelandic Banks assets, however, that is not the only avenue open to them. The Icelandic Government have offered to fund other legal challenges, eg. Through the European Court of Civil Rights. They support Kaupthing IOM in any action that the bank takes to sue for damages.

You make it sound like the Icelandic Government has given up trying to sue the UK Government - that is not the case. The are exploring all possibilities exhaustively, and so they should. I have nothing but distain for the UK Government - they deserve to get burnt over this matter. They need to be taught that they can't go around trying to play "God", crippling other countries economies and stealing thousands of private investors life savings.


HMG havn't seized KSF assets have they?

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 11/01/2009 - 19:28

The assets of KSF are with the receiver, including the £550m from KSFIOM. Expat has confirmed this, HMG hasn't seized any of KSF's assets.

And HMG FROZE the assets of Landisbank, they didn't seize them, to stop them being repatriated to Iceland (as requested by Iceland's junta)

I doubt Landisbank will be able to sue the UK Gov (the Icelandic Gov is NOT suing anyone itself). Landisbank was nationalised shortly before their assets were frozen and the FSA deemed them insolvent.

I find it bizarre that you think Iceland is somehow an innocent party. Go ahead and read this

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/01/09/origins-of-the-current-econom...

It details the corrupt, despotic, nepotism that infects Iceland. The closets parallels are with Russia after the break up of communism. Thats the reason why HMG acted as it did, because Iceland is a nation in the grip of a organised crime syndicate. Icelander's have just woken up the scale of the corruption in their country.


Deluded

  • emjay
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:41

It doesn't matter where the bank is located. The bank had deposited monies in the UK and the UK government took them. This is both within the UK and the EU and it is the governments problem.


There wasn't any money in the UK

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 21:09

It may have been 'deposited' but the UK didn't physically take any money. They gave a couple of billion to ING to take over the UK depositors and a bill (for that) to the UK bank. If the IoM money exist its will still be there.


There is always a great deal

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 06:26

There is always a great deal of confusion about the series of events that took place and the consequences of those actions. May I suggest that you look at IceCrushers posts over this week on the subject, he is very concise in his explanation of what happened it may help some to understand the predicament a bit better. Putting it bluntly the uK does not hold the money at the moment, it is in administration. Why that is the case is, if you try hard to be objective, pretty interesting!! You might also go to the BBC Kautphing site and see his excellent letter to Alan Beith, it may be here as well, but I've missed it.


Thanks Expat

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 23:54

Thanks for pointing us in the right direction to icecrushers award winning letter - perfection. Sorry I did not respond earlier to thank you but I caught a bad virus (getting run down form all of this). Still have haven't met with Vincent Cable MP due to this flu, but since I'm back in London (temporarily I hope) and once I've shaken the flu I'm open to any suggestions of actions to be taken by London members close to No10 and 11!


confusion and icecrusher's informative post

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 17:16

Hi expat welcome back
Could you tell me where I can find icecrushers post - which forum - I'm on my way to see our local supportive MP Vincent Cable


Great Letters

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 12/01/2009 - 03:03

We need a great letter department where all you erudite people ( like Icecrusher) can put your letters so that we of lesser talent may use them as a base for our own missiles.

Do we have one somewhere and i have been missing it?
We did have a template place once somewhere didnt we?


Hi if you go to the BBC and

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 17:31

Hi if you go to the BBC and search kaupthing you'll find a site dedicated to us!! Lots of blogs and it could do with a few more, Ice put a letter Alan Beith and there thats worth reading. I think I posted the details here today. A few days ago he did a short precis on this site I'll try and find.


IceCrusher letter Alan Beith

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 17:55

Expat, I see you are looking for my letter to the Justice Commitee, so here is a copy:

Dear Sir Alan Beith,

May I extend my sincere thanks to the Justice Committee convened on
the 10th December 2008, and most especially to you and Mr David Heath
CBE MP for the incisive questioning of Lord Bach with concern to the
activities of the Justice Ministry and the Treasury in their dealings
with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

Having viewed a videotape of the proceedings, I doubt that Lord Bach
persuaded too many committee members of his truth and transparency in
matters relating to the interests of UK depositors banking in the Isle
of Man or the Channel Islands. If body language provides observable
evidence of a person's discomfiture, then in the case of Lord Bach it
appeared highly discernible.

Your questions to Lord Bach were clearly weighed and astute, and I
have no doubt that you readily perceived any elliptical responses of
the Justice Minister. Even given faith in your interpretations, I must
on behalf of my fellow depositors comment on Lord Bach's final
assurance to a question posed by David Heath that the interests of
depositors in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were looked
after as well as any other UK depositor. This is inexact; the offshore
depositors were not protected from the first actions of the Treasury
as follows:

•Peace of mind was given to all UK depositors within hours by
assurances given by HMG that no British depositor would lose their
money.

•All UK savers deposits were declared safe and underwritten by the
Treasury using billions of taxpayer's money.

•All IceSave accounts were frozen and vouched for by the Treasury.

•All UK Kaupthing Edge Deposits were moved seamlessly to ING with
barely any inconvenience to depositors.

In comparison, offshore depositors received no assurance from any
source as to the safety of their life-savings. Access to their
accounts was suddenly denied them and even two months later there are
still depositors' who have just discovered that their bank has
collapsed; there will be others yet to discover this awful truth.

No entity bailed-out the offshore depositors, and we have been left in
morbid anxiety as to the return of our savings and who will represent
us in holding to account those who have acted most callously towards
an unrepresented group of British subjects.

Not only are we subject to a 'blame the victim' mentality prevalent in
UK society, but we have also been subjected to misleading comments by
ministers, including the Chancellor, using cheap unapprised shots at
the Isle of Man being a tax haven and thereby inferring that KSFIoM
depositors are tax evaders.

Subsequent to the first actions above, the interests of offshore
depositors have clearly been neglected by those charged with the
Constitutional obligation to represent the Isle of Man in
International affairs:

•A UK delegation had already visited Iceland and begun talks there
before the UK even agreed to represent the Isle of Man. Almost a week
had passed before formal acknowledgement of this critical requirement
was announced. A week too late.

•Hundreds of depositors in the Isle of Man deluged the IMF with emails
asking that consideration be given to satisfy the requirements of the
parental guarantee for savers in Kaupthing IoM before an IMF loan was
granted. How many UK depositors felt the need to do something similar?

•What reward came to the IoM depositors for these efforts? The UK
Government ignored their needs in discussions with the Icelandic
authorities, HMT sought only to secure the monies it had expended in
underwriting nearly 300,000 IceSave accounts and supporting the move
of 170,000 KSF EDGE accounts to ING. The Justice Committee noted the
conflict of interests in this regard. The IMF loan was granted to
Iceland with due consideration of every other depositor's guarantees
bar those of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands – lamentably left
out of the bargaining process by a UK Government concerned only with
its own self-interests.

•Lord Bach asserted that the Ministry looked after the Isle of Man's
interests 'where appropriate'. Does he suppose that such a catch-all
phrase excuses his department from providing international assistance
to the Isle of Man's Government at a time of great need? How much more
'appropriate' could that need have been? If the UK delegation to
Iceland were confident enough to secure the interests of a country of
60 million citizens, how much of a challenge was it to do likewise for
an Island population of 80 thousand?

•The colleague of Lord Bach (the one to his left and most frequently
looked to for support) stated that it was only right for adjoining
regulatory jurisdictions to discuss their mutual interests. Of course
fellow British regulators should be expected to discuss matters of
common interest between them at the highest level. How could it be
then, that HMG used a power within the Anti Terrorism Crime and
Security Act bringing both immediate and far-reaching financial
adversity upon depositors with offshore institutions without so much
as a word passing between the respective regulators?

•Lord Bach used almost the same terminology as Lord Turner did during
the TSC meeting to assert that the FSA neither advised nor required
KSFIoM to move its deposits to the Kaupthing UK branch. What then was
the point of these discussions? Were they chatting about the weather?
If the FSA felt obliged to discuss such a serious matter as the
possible collapse of the Icelandic banking system, it would surely
have been open to the probable consequences and prospects of such an
outcome? Kaupthing IoM would hardly deposit its monies in a
non-affiliated entity without questions emanating from the parent bank
in Iceland. The FSC and directors of KSFIoM did what was likely
expected of them and used their sister bank in the UK. HMG/HMT/FSA
failed in their Constitutional duty to advise the Isle of Man of their
impending action and allowed the Administration of the UK branch to go
ahead appropriating some £550M of IoM depositor's monies in the
process. Lord Bach is at liberty to assert what he will but it is
clear that 'By their fruits ye shall know them'.

The Justice Ministry is taking a self-righteous and spiteful attitude
in its control of assets belonging to the depositors of the IoM
Kaupthing bank. Thousands of life-time savers are denied access to
their monies; many of these folk are retired and completely dependent
upon this income; many more are located far from home with no means of
return. No one has yet asked why the Justice Ministry and the Treasury
are so rigorously arguing for the IoM's asset to be kept in the UK
bank – who will be the benefactor of this hardened stance, where does
the money-trail lead? The whole point of Government action in this
affair was stated to protect depositors and the UK economy – why then
is HMG determined to deny retail depositors of KSFIoM their assets and
lay stress upon pernicious legal details when eight thousand real
people are sorely and seriously affected by the severe action taken by
their Government in the first instance, and by its politically pompous
position since. Saving the World indeed.

We have been set adrift in mid Atlantic and denied safe passage
because the captain failed to load the fuel bought and paid in advance
by the passengers. Everyone involved denies responsibility, but the
fuel is locked in the depot and the passengers are marooned on the
high seas without power and in imminent danger of capsizing whilst
others deliberate as to whether the 'fuel' by which they could be
saved should be returned to them.

This shameful state of affairs is beyond the understanding of mortal
compassion; it is high-minded legality gone awry – and is evident to
all who look upon it.

Sir Alan, please help bring a resolution to this crisis and ensure
that 8,000 mainly British citizens, are not unjustly penalised in such
a cavalier fashion when an obvious, sensible, and civilized solution
requiring no public money is available – return unto the depositors
that which belongs to the depositors.

Yours sincerely,
LH,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Tony Blair: At the heart of my politics has always been the value of
community, the belief that we are not merely individuals struggling in
isolation from each other, but members of a community who depend on
each other, who benefit from each other's help, who owe obligations to
each other. From that everything stems: solidarity, social justice,
equality, freedom.


Icecrushers Letter to Alan Beith

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 23:32

The best piece of writing I have ever read. Well done icecrusher - no politician or journalist could match this perfect letter. Please, it must bring te right response.


Where are you, Tony Blair?

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 04:05

Can you imagine Tony Blair taking our savings in the fashion that the lilliputian Messrs Brown and Darling have employed?


Ice Crusher's letter to Alan Beith

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 18:13

What a superb letter, practically perfect in every way. This really does deserve a wider circulation. Could we perhaps send copy of it to our local mp's, newspapers etc. etc.


Thanks Ice I think everyone

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 18:02

Thanks Ice I think everyone should read this. Excellent stuff.


There wasn't any money in the UK? Here's a new

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 21:24

Hi dawes, can you please clarify this statemant with any substantail facts. Now we're really confused and worried. Please tell us what you know to back up your statement. Regards


not HMG

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 03:05

KSFIOM's £600M is still in KSFUK and not in the hands of the UK govt.


Indeed....

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 21:48

The £600m is legal a liability of KSFUK, HMG didn't touch it. However, its probable that the money doesn't physically exist and has to be claimed against the banks other assets because the bank dispersed the KSFIOM deposits as loans etc. HMG stopped any assets from KSFUK being stolen back to Iceland and gave the UK depositors to ING, together with the 2.5Billion (?) to cover those deposits (the bill for which has been given to the reciever of KSFUK).

What KSFUK spent the KSFIOM funds on will have to be determined by the receiver.

fight theft, does that answer your question?


Well put, that is the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/01/2009 - 06:30

Well put, that is the scenario many have to come to grips with. Whatever the injustices people feel over this dawes is correct. That is why it is so difficult to assess what we need to do and has taken a bit of time to get at in total, The issue is that the UK Gov gave itself powers to stop the KSF IoM money from being transferred back to IoM (I am being a bit simplistic here) and it's one of the issues that we try to follow, how to reverse that.

I have said it a million times, be grateful that the assets/money are not in Iceland. That by the way is probably why the balance of money was in UK and not IoM. There's another story behind that as Ices piece demonstrates.

So all the moral indignation and despair, is as bellyup says, only leading people to depression, I went through that in the 1990s when I lost it all and implore people to try to think clearly about this situation and avoid depression. THere is always hope of getting out just deserts here, but we need to pressure the UK with clear arguments as to why the money/assets should be released. Things like why does Gordon Brown say to the US return Lehmans money but not do the same for us?


How about arresting Darling for Perverting the Course of Justice

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 23:19

"Iceland is not going to honour that guarantee...in one way Darling was correct in freezing their assets....."
Yes, bellyup expat dawes etc I agree with you - I've always said no matter how politically incorrect Darlings' move was to freeze the assets, he did at least save the UK going down to rock bottom with Iceland but if the Kaupthing assets hadn't been frozen along with Landisbanki Icesave assets then the IOM branch would not have collapsed - which is the reason why Kaupthing hf is now threatening to sue with a US law firm.
However we, the unprotected, thanks HMG, have been dragged down to rock bottom due to these freezing orders. We are bottom of the Totem Pole - a sick place for the only solvent bank and its' honest savers and depositors.

BUT since we have had auditing done long ago to prove he has frozen 570 million of KIOM assets frozen in the UK. We are not Iceland, the money belongs to us, and should have been returned long ago not pooled into the frozen KSF UK pot leaving us as unsecured creditors t any point of this mess. Our own proven audited funds, can be held up in court as evidence. They have been audited and they are as strong eveidence our assets nobody elses.

We should not be treated as unsecured creditors. To get our money returned in full maybe arresting Darling for "Perverting the course of Justice" (hiding behind sealed court documents) - and/or not admitting that the fact tat the 557m funds our ours. When can we get disclosure to these documents ( Why is this so hard long and drawn out legal team and IOM government’s legal teams??) If Darling won’t disclose the content then I think he could be issued a writ for theft and/or “Perverting the course of Justice. Like Jeffry Archer – the Mayor of London was not above the law to be arrested so why should the Chancellor have immunity?

This could be the route to return of our money with damages ( ie: lost interest, pain & suffering etc and court costs paid by the perpetrator not more money from we poor victims. (every other action is dragging on with much confusion, high costs ( loss of our money into legal and liquidators fees) and crocodiles in the sewers stalling and blocking any quick solutions.

If the the IOM treasury/government would like to have taken a much stronger iron fist rather than “cap in hand” approach then I’m sure we’d all be out of this mess by now. Forgive me if I’m wrong key figures in the IOM I would love to hear about your achievements and successes ( ie disclosure of sealed docoments content and return of 557m) rather than shortcomings. I honestly thought that at least when all the IMF and Icesave UK loans and payouts were finished we would get our money back soon after (I was mistaken it seems!).

Mr.Nobody's Darling and Mr. Brown cannot have it both ways - we want "nothing to do with the IOM" (we’re only going to steal freeze and keep their money).

If they want nothing to do with the IOM then they simply should have nothing to with our money and absolutely no active control over it either. Then the comments “we are not going to bail them out”, when we were the one solvent bank brought down by his actions makes my blood boil. If the IOM is outside their jurisdiction then they cannot make decisions/ control or have power on what to do with that money. IT HAS TO BE RETURNED and what better way for us to get the best exposure to our plight than to see Darling to splutter out his reactions and reasons for his arrest to press can have a field day at his expense rather than ours for a change.

This would also be the basis of the case for the European Court of Human Rights.

Can anyone enlighten us any further ( Legal advice please!) and fight fight fight and bring Nobody’s Darling and HMG to justice and take them down?


Release the funds to a new IOM bank . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 13/01/2009 - 04:28

Following the postings, it seems a good thing that the funds were prevented from being transferred to Iceland in early October. It is also likely that it is in the interests of depositors for the UK Treasury to hold onto those funds whilst a new UK / IOM owned (by depositors and IOM Government?) bank can be established to which the funds should be transferred. Depositors would have the same balances as they had in their KSFIOM accounts on 9 October, 2008. Funds returned to UK / IOM owned and regulated Bank, depositors resume life with entitlement to their assets. Bank goes about its business. Life continues. Iceland 0 / KSFIOM depositors 1. The UK Government can proudly publicise how it, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and Chancellor, saved all of us KSFIOM depositors' life savings by their foresighted and timely actions, on our behalf, of course. As would actually be the case, if events turn out something like this. This is a win-win-win solution that gives the pollies a gong, helps to save the IOM finance industry, and definitely gives KSFIOM depositors our incomes and lives back. The UK Government certainly could use some good-news outcomes such as this to bolster flagging support.

A much better scenario than receiving a small fraction of our life / retirement savings! How about it, fellow depositors? Mr Blair? Mr Darling? Mr Bell?


deluded

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:40

You are correct in that the Icelandic Government will NOT be taking legal action against HMG, but from all the news info, they are backing Kaupthing Resolution Committee to take action and possibly Landsbanki as well.
As an example : http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/news-item/kaupthing-sue-uk


dawes..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:26

that is the end of that then, so it comes to them honouring this parental guarantee which the isle of man govt should sue them for it..


Iceland is not going to honour that guarentee

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:32

Iceland is not going to honour that guarantee .

In one way Darling was correct in freezing their assets.

What I want to know is why KSFUK is the ONLY bank that HMG is allowing to go down.


bellyup not only KSFUK

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 02:59

bellyup...Not only KSFUK... You forget about Landsbanki, Glitnir and Heritable. It could be said that HMG didn't so much allow, as force, their demise.


What if...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:47

We were depositors in a French bank that had placed £550m in KSFUK and the freezing of the assets caused that French bank to collpase?

What would the reaction have been from the French government and how would they have tackled the issue with HMG?


war

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 11:52

war...