Could anything be achieved by collaborating with IOM residents?

Background and objectives: 

With reference conned's blog entry I would suggest we remember that in general IOM people are not the enemy. Surely they are no more responsible for their government's actions than UK residents are for Gordon Brown's or Alistair Darling's actions. No doubt many of them are misinformed, perhaps believing too much of their government's PR. But perhaps many of them would be as interested as we are in working together to find a solution, in terms of lobbying and PR activity. For example, might they put supportive videos on utube?

Could anything positive be achieved by collaborating with IOM residents?

Yes
40% (44 votes)
No
24% (26 votes)
I don't know
36% (39 votes)
Total votes: 109
Groups:
Why not go on the

Why not go on the manxforums.com and explain calmly these are read island wide.

The KSFmegathread has a huge amount of viewings everyday.

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 04/08/2009 - 20:28
barrona writes: "I don't give

barrona writes:

"I don't give a damn about the IoM or its residents. All I care about is how this debacle has affected me and my wife and has resulted in my having to continue to work when I was contemplating retirement."

Although I appreciate your situation, I fail to understand how such a callous attitude towards IOM taxpayers is going to help you. Are you blaming them for your predicament as I do not see how you can justify it. Nor do I see that maintaining such a view is going to help you get your money returned.

Posted by chris watson on Tue, 04/08/2009 - 20:20
I fully agree with Chris.

I fully agree with Chris. Calling the IoM residents silly, childish names will get us nowhere fast. Why do we want to put their backs up? I feel they too have been let down by their government. The current anger towards their island wouldn't exist but for their government.
We should be explaining to the residents, CLEARLY and CALMLY, what has happened and how it is effecting people who deposited money on their island. We need them to understanding us, not to resent us.

Posted by StuPot on Tue, 04/08/2009 - 06:12
I couldn't agree more with

I couldn't agree more with Icecrusher. Let's pursue those who are blatantly negligent, if not guilty, of perpetrating our loss without any apparent remorse. We musn't get sidetracked with other less important issues for to do so, would suit the IoM authorities no end.

Posted by barrona on Tue, 04/08/2009 - 06:10
I think I wrote that the tax

I think I wrote that the tax was generated from the £53B transacted with the C of L, not in the C of L - there is a difference. It is also the case that there is very little opportunity within the island for investment on this scale and that is why the money from all banks in the Isle of Man is upstreamed to do work in the UK and elsewhere. It suits our purpose that this should be so and I am more interested in getting our money back than being 'right'. Anything (even a myth?) that we can use to further our cause is fair (in love and war). It is probable that the 'power of the banks' is due to the money they control... Let's stay on track and target those who deserve targetting - the FSC and the bank's directors were the last one's to touch our money before it left the jurisdiction of the IoM; the FSC signed off the dubious parental guarantee and the IoMG has done its best to distract us from pursuing these non-innocents. We have not heard one word from the directors' no apology, no explanation, nothing. Let us hang these people out to dry, they deserve it, not us.

Posted by IceCrusher on Tue, 04/08/2009 - 05:52
I feel that pursuing a

I feel that pursuing a constructive dialogue with IoM residents would be a futile exercise. Bear in mind that the majority of the working population are in the finance sector and those who are retired etc., still rely on the economic well being of this sector for their comfortable lifestyle.

They need to be shaken out of their apathy. I don't give a damn about the IoM or its residents. All I care about is how this debacle has affected me and my wife and has resulted in my having to continue to work when I was contemplating retirement.

DAG/DST should contunue on the path that has been chosen with the objective of a 100% return of depositors money.

Posted by barrona on Tue, 04/08/2009 - 04:31
Icecrusher, I agree with all

Icecrusher,
I agree with all your comments bar the last one claiming that the bulk of of "the tax payer's money" is generated in the City of London.
The fact that you believe this myth shows that the propaganda generated by the City has been successful.
The reality is that the paper pushers and manipulators in the City generate no wealth but actually destroy it.
The wealth in the UK is generated by producers of real goods and services such as manufacturers, farmers, the extractive industries and service industries which export their services eg software etc.
The so called invisible earnings of the City are not for nothing "invisible"!!
We know that successive UK governments (incl the current one) have given priority to the interests of the City (largely due to the power of the banks and the location of the City close to the seat of government) and have in the process have seriously damaged our manufacturing industry, hence the persistant rise in the UK's balance of payments deficit.
I know that all this is "off the subject" in this thread but it partly explains why depositors with an IOM based bank have been hung out to dry.

Posted by Brabander on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 22:09
To engage with residents

To engage with residents means to engage with the government who represent them. The DAG has done that already, comprehensively & exhaustively.

However, If any member seriously thinks that the DAG could achieve its Mission by another way of persuading the taxpayers of the IoM to express sympathy with it & demand of their government that it restores all deposits 100%, then do please submit a Paper to the DST setting out the details of a strategy that you think would achieve the DAG's Mission.

Posted by Lucky Jim on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 15:46
Chris Watson: Thanks, but

Chris Watson: Thanks, but there is a definite distinction between declaring an act to be illegal and stating that an action should be pursued as a matter of law. The IoMG, like any other Government has a duty of care towards its citizens and other entities and should be seen upholding that responsibility without fear or favour.

Mr Aspden declared that the action taken by the FSC was unwise, but when Mr Cannan MHK called for Mr Aspden to stand before the bar at the Tynwald shortly after Aspden's admission, his submission was voted down. The IoMG wanted to keep the lid on any further exposure of the FSC's involvement in the loss of 50% of KSFIoM's assets to London without it being diversified or protected. That is the long and short of it, we don't need to split hairs on admitted facts.

Had the IoMG prioritised an immediate investigation into this most critical aspect of the whole sorry saga instead of wasting its time and our time & money for eight months on a DCS by any other name (but without certain rights) we might have been an awful lot farther along the right road and saved much precious time in the process. Performing this investigation would likely lead to legal proceedings thus bringing about a just and fair resolution as to the reason why eleven thousand depositors have suffered the consequences caused by the very few who actually performed the foolhardy deed.

If the FSC insist that it was the FSA that put them in that position then that is their fight; but firstly the IoMG needed to make good the loss to the depositors who put their money on the Isle of Man in good faith and in expectation of a well regulated financial industry. IoMG did not do this, they did not confront HMG even when given a golden opportunity to do so in front of the TSC. The IoMG has shown itself to be unworthy of the trust required in the duty of care towards its subjects and has demonstrated pathetic weakness before the UK Government. It has no shame, no remorse, and no guts to do the right thing. I feel sorry for the Manx people who have to live under the rule of these official scumbags.

Posted by IceCrusher on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 09:44
IceCrusher - I am not

IceCrusher - I am not defending the IOMG, but I do not see what they have done that was illegal or that they have not done everything they are legally obliged to do. It is one thing to blame with good reason (especially in hindsight), but another thing to be held successfully liable for your actions in a court of law.

Transferring money unprotected to the UK, not spreading this between non-Icelandic banks, offering an SOA - none of this as far as I can tell is illegal. This is why I believe the media can agree the IOM has acted slowly, incompetently etc, but not illegally.

Posted by chris watson on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 08:43
The bigger picture is that of

The bigger picture is that of a dysfunction of the financial sector.

As a result the financial sector needs logically to shrink. If the 'authorities' manage to blow another bubble the status-quo is preserved until the next 'pop'- The heavy-weight debate is as to whether the 'authorities' can blow another bubble. Another view of this is that we may exit this deflationary cycle without too much damage.
The debate is that significant. This isn't a debate for depositors. This is a debate for the 'bull(shitters)' who have robbed us of our money. We need to focus on this debate. We need to contest their presumptions that all will be well. Your pension?? You're money has already disappeared it seems.

What do ypu all need to realise that a fraud is being perperrtrated?

This isn't a facetious question.If they haven't taken your money 'this time' they'll be taking it 'next time'.

There is such a thing as 'smoothing effects'. These are normal. I contest that that what is happening is a grand fraud, not smoothing effects. The IoM and the HMG need to be confronted.

Posted by follow_the_tao on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 06:08
I very much doubt that we

I very much doubt that we will obtain much in the way of support from the majority of Manx residents who after all, rely on the finance sector for a multiplicity of reasons.

DAG/DST would be much better employed, as I am sure/hope they are through the legal team, in what to me sounds like a strong legal case against the IOM Govt and FSC for accepting what was aobviously a flawed document in the form of the parental guarantee and negligence on the part of senior officiials in the FSC, some of whom were also directors of KSFIoM!

It was on the basis of the parental guarantee that I amongst others,decided to open an account in the IOM.

I disagree with the assertion made by Chris Watson that the media will soon come to realize that the IoM has done all that it is legally obliged to do. That has to be counteracted.

That is why it is important for DAG/DST to concentrate on the negligence that is blatantly obvious.

Posted by barrona on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 05:58
"Follow_the_money" is a

"Follow_the_money" is a cliche now for resolving cases like this.

There are enough of us to follow the money with a vengeance. Lets just do it. Where did our money go?

And if it is currently sitting in the salaries of the politicos of the IoM let's complain.

The situation stinks to high heaven. Even those with protected deposits see this. Do you (all) really think that the politicos can withstand a concerted effort. Therefore let's work together.

Posted by follow_the_tao on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 05:40
I partially agree with this

I partially agree with this in that IoM residents are not the target and blaming the entire population for its Government's shoddy behaviour is not going to win DAG too many friends. It is true that they voted these people into power, but then again the UK voted in New Labour and look where that got them...

Where I disagree is that IoMG has not done all that it is legally obliged to do - the finger of blame is pointed squarely at the bank's directors and the FSC for transferring the money unprotected to the UK and not spreading it between non-Icelandic banks. The IoMG would have had us signed up to the SoA in a flash so as to try and block or deter depositors from taking legal action against their precious FSC. The buck stops with the regulator and this one was unfortunately sold down the river by the scurrilous English, but 11,000 retail depositors should not have to pay the price of failure of a regulatory body charged with protecting the island's financial sector. Even Aspden himself stated that moving that money the way the did was not, in hindsight, very wise.

The IoMG should own the responsibility of its FSC and properly investigate what went wrong and whether there is liability on the part of the regulator. Brushing this under the carpet whilst putting on a show of false competence is truly shabby; almost as shabby as HMG not returning the KSFIoM asset because they hold the IoMG to blame, but then express false sympathy to 11,000 depositors who they fully expect to bear the brunt of the loss due to the foolish stupidity of handful of idiots.

It should also be considered that the taxpayer's money is not generated so much by Fred and Bert working in the local garage, but by money generated from the £53 billion per year fiscal business transacted with the City of London.

Posted by IceCrusher on Mon, 03/08/2009 - 04:19
Certainly something positive

Certainly something positive can be gained working with IOM residents. The problem depositors need to make themselves heard whilst doing it, but who should be the target of the protests?

Attack the Manx residents by threatening their economy ("Don't bank on the IOM") with the expectation they will be scared into forcing their government to get HMG to ensure Iceland honours their guarantee which is a shoddy document that IOMG should not have accepted in it's final form, or go after HMG for freezing KSFIOM funds or blame Iceland for not paying out because they are bankrupt? All three?

None of the above are taking responsibility, but I do not see how calling normal island residents "yellows" (as Conned and others often do) is going to help get them onside, or help us in the media, who may sympathize with our plight but soon come to realize the IOM has done all it is legally obliged to do.

Posted by chris watson on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 20:35
I agree entirely with this.

I agree entirely with this. The real question will be how do we practically engage with them? I try to ensure that whenever I post any criticism of the IoM it is always directed at those in power and hence responsible. The average IoM resident is just like you and I.

If you post a U-Tube video (I have just done mine), try to be supportive of the IoM residents. They might not be to blame but they have the power to pressure those that are.

Posted by investor01 on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 19:46