Do you believe we should have legal representation in place in time for the next liquidation hearing?

Yes - I can contribute up to £10
6% (32 votes)
Yes - I can contribute up to £20
13% (74 votes)
Yes - I can contribute up to £50
36% (200 votes)
Yes - I can contribute more than £50
31% (174 votes)
Yes - sorry but I cannot afford to contribute at this time
10% (53 votes)
No - I don't believe we should go down this route
4% (23 votes)
Total votes: 556
Legal information is now
Posted by Diver on Thu, 13/11/2008 - 10:08
A quick update re. legal

A quick update re. legal representation, financing etc.

I spoke with Diver and other members of the London team yesterday. A few key points:

  • Diver is as active as ever with this Group, simply preferring a less visible role than previously.
  • The bank account for funding is being set up NOW, and Diver himself planning the accounting procedures to income and expenditure properly.
  • Other members of the team are tired but still motivated.

I personally chose to use "A small group of determined people can change the course of history" as out "slogan". It remains as apt as ever. Some people observed that we are not small. That's true - we are thousands - but we are taking on governments, countries, politicians and other forces far more powerful than any one of is individually - we remain small yet determined.

More detailed updates coming very soon.

Posted by ng on Thu, 13/11/2008 - 09:09
I agree with mariatown. That

I agree with mariatown. That is about the most sensible thing I have read on this website today. Too much joking around this afternoon and not enough sensible comments. What has happened to the hardworking quick thinking group that offered good honest advise?.

Diver where are you? Are you still willing to open an account for the group to contribute to legal representation?

Posted by FEDUP on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 22:00
Sorry pal, Your dead wrong

Sorry pal,

Your dead wrong and your comment is quite offensive and as inaccurate as Darlings statements about the Isle of Man and Kaupthing IoM! You are attacking other depositors indrectly and it does not help the cause of this forum at all!

Non domiciles since April 5 2008 must pay £30,000 flat fee a year to HMRC to keep the priviledge of remaining non-domiciled. They must still pay 40% tax on all foreign income they bring into the UK. This does not apply to any business income, but to investment income, and anthing other personal source of income. Otherwise for business income outside the UK it tax like anyone to HMRC.

Now there are only an estimated 1500 who earn enough unearned foreign income who can come out better by paying £30,000 a year to not declare it. But they cannot bring that money into the UK without owing 40% tax on it.

The only exemption is if non-domicled UK resident earns less than £2000 foreign income outside the UK, it does not have to be taxed in the UK, but that person loses their £5600 personal exemption. So unless we pay £30,000 a year, all foreign domiciles residents in the UK must now pay full UK on worldwide income like any other UK resident is required to.

But Americans are the only ones who pay tax on citizenship, not residence. So A UK resident American must pay tax to both the UK and USA. There is exemption from the USA for foreign waged income, but no unearned investment or interest income, bonuses, or self employed income.

The biggest tax avoidence structure in the UK is a Limited Company. But for Americans no chance because of the reporting required for ownership or more than 10% stock in any foreign owned entity. The IRS estimated the time required for filing out the form to GAP accounting requirements is 36 hours!

There is also absolutley no truth in your comment about a £30,000 cap

UK residents pay 20% tax on interest, but non-domiciles pay 40% on any interest brought into the UK. I also pay interest tax to the USA. Now unless I pay £30,000 a year I must now also pay tax to the UK even for retirement savings interest and investment income in the USA, Isle of Man or anywhere like anyone else does in the UK. But you are not paying tax to two jurisidictions!

I see why this forum is loosing steam when comments like yours attack other depositors. Im loosing probably quite a bit more than you, I am discouraged , dissapointed, fed up and angry to hear talk like this on this forum when you have no idea for basis of truth to what you are saying!
Bye

Posted by Jas III on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 21:35
Applies to statement about

Applies to statement about non-domicles below, its very incorrect.

Posted by Jas III on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 21:04
Mariatown is right - let's

Mariatown is right - let's get this wonderful support system back on track and the pressure on those who are holding OUR hard earned money. I cannot tell you how badly the departure of the key players / hard workers of our Action Group has affected me these past few days. Let's not waste their tremendous input to date and get refocused. Can somone please tell us what we need to do to support the drivers of this action group?

A truly devastated and despairing Flower - pls help!

Posted by Flower on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 17:41
Message for Diver, Can you

Message for Diver,

Can you contact me?

Posted by wipeout on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 16:42
skint at the moment the

skint at the moment the biggest issue everone can help with is political pressure, any way that MPs ect can be "enlightened" helps us. Its a massive issue in this. ractically te wonderfull stuff you are doing looking at the numbers and possible scaenarios in my view helps people to grasp that it s not impossible to win this. Until the E & Y reoport comes out it is a bit of guesswork but knoweledge is an asset. Do you want the KSF company reports or have you got them I can email them to you.

However annoying the bridgeing loan remark is in the FSC letter, you should take a good look at what else it says, for a very consdered writer (I am told a man that uses very measured words) that is quite illuminating.

As an idea? How about doing a list of all the good news, arling rocking at the TSC, the FSA contradicting the FSC at the TSC, London transports 100% return, admissions that a restructure is being looked at as an option etc etc. Now that would be good. There's lots of little signals iof you go lookig, Sadia ans Scottish Equitable Statements about KSF iOM, I lahave lost the place it was, but somehwere here somebody put a note from Skandia up which was interesting about KSF IoM.

Posted by expat on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 15:44
Thx for the quick update

Thx for the quick update Expat, apart from the obvious emailing Mp's Jack Straw etc,. is there anything else we in the back rows can do to assist the guys on the IoM.

I'm happy to try and do an update possibly with a draft action plan / key dates etc,. for the site if you guys can forward some details over and a brief run down of where we are.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 15:29
May I say the the London team

May I say the the London team has done a lot of work to isolate the correct advocate, on the island we are also checking through our own sources who is available and if they are appropriate. That will give us , we hope, a greater choice. It may or may not, but the matter is well in hand.

Posted by expat on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 15:04
BANK ACCOUNT FOR LEGAL REP

BANK ACCOUNT FOR LEGAL REP -I've read and reread these posts talking about legal representation. Nearly a week ago there were many many depositors ready and waiting to put their money into the pot for legal rep.

I know that Diver is taking a back seat for now but I thought we were almost at the point of releasing sort code and bank account numbers?
What has changed? Start collecting the funds before people get so worried and dispondant that they don't see the point of fighting anymore.

There is a distinct negative feel to so many recent post, don't give up now there is too much to loose. We have got to keep at it.

Please London or Isle of Man Teams get this account up and running , there's so many of us waiting to put money in.

Posted by mariatown on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 15:04
EDITED [ng: a member has

EDITED
[ng: a member has reported that the following claims are not/may not be correct]

Alistair Darling was happy to point out that the Isle of Man in a Tax Haven. However, he failed to mention that the United Kingdom is also a Tax Haven for non-domicile residents!!

Moreover, the United Kingdom is a much better Tax Haven than either the channel islands (Jersey and Guernsey) or the Isle of Man. Why? Because the Isle of Man caps personal income tax at £100,000, the UK caps income tax at only £30,000 for non-domicile residents!!!!!! I pay more tax living in London than a Russian billionaire living round the corner from me pays because I am domiciled in the UK and he isn't !!!!

Also in the UK non-domicile residents will pay 0% capital gains tax and 0% inheritance tax. I pay 40% income tax and I will have to pay inheritance tax at some point. Therefore clearly the UK is a much better tax haven than the Isle of Man. I wish Alistair Darling would check the facts, he and his government are utter hypocrites. Why do you think there are some many billionaire Arabs and Russians living in West London...errrr because they are paying a maximum of £30,000 income tax per annum on their billions and not having to pay any capital gains tax...

Posted by helpwithkaupthing on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 14:57
As in my blog, A plan has to

As in my blog,

A plan has to agreed and ready ASAP so it can hit road running. At the moment the hand brake is on and in neutral.

BTW
Got to nip out for an hr>two

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 10:06
And we cant decide what we

And we cant decide what we want until we have reliable information on which to make a decision , catch 22.

Posted by nivit on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 09:51
But how on earth are we

But how on earth are we supposed to decide to push or not for liquidation when we have still no real idea of the possible alternatives and/or their chances of 'success'? Personally, as of now, I would have to reply 'don't know' to any such poll. I believe some sort of proposition will emerge before 27th (the sooner the better obviously) which will either - in the best case - stop the petition or will at least give a basis for assessing the pros and cons of supporting liquidation.

I would also hope that in the latter case any legal adviser we might appoint would start by assessing all available information and providing expert and unbiased advice on the best position to take at the hearing. The advice could well be different for different categories of depositors, but I don't see why the legal advisor could not explain this. Only then could we participate in a sensible poll to decide how/whether to be represented at the hearing. Or am I being too simplist?

I know waiting is hard, but I believe a poll now would be premature.

Seems more difficult to know when (if) we should appoint a legal advisor. I'm happy to follow the IOM/London teams advice on this. But it does seem important that an account should be in place NOW ready to receive contributions as and when required. Is there any news on this? Is Diver still working on it?

For info, I have 70k deposited, so am in a somewhat intermediate position between small and large depositors.

Posted by anrigaut on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 09:39
Well this is where we were

Well this is where we were going before, but the issue we had then was that it had been decided that a lawyer was needed, but nobody really quite knew why.

A lawyer cannot advise us in this until we know what we want.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 09:24
It's a very thin line between

It's a very thin line between the two as this pickle has shown.

Our solvency now is 95% dependant on what E&Y give us back from the London deposit -
We reckon that there is about £850M ish of deposits, a loan book with an ad valorem value of what £450M? and cash at bank of say £100M (is this anywhere near close?) then we have the £550M held by E&Y,

What's the loan book worth? well these are going to be high value mortgages, minimum lend was I think 500K, and I guess that the owners don't want to live in council flats - on paper of course it's worth the face value of the advances, in reality, I haven't a clue, say 75% of that? Lets settle on £300M

What do we get out of London, same as the CI guys, 30%? that gives us £165M , then add on our cash in hand £100M gives us receipts not including realisation costs of £565M or about 66p in the pound. Raise the value of the loan book to it's face value and we reach about 85p in the pound, well you can do the maths to see that a very small increase in the payout from E&Y means solvency, especially if the IOM slings in that £150M that it has for the DCS.

Well I'd of course like to think that some of the above is true, but like all the figures and guessing here, it could be miles out, we don't even know what the loan book could be worth realistically.

We need some numbers from PWC and we need them soon.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 09:22
I agree we need to decide and

I agree we need to decide and do so within the next 2 days. Can someone put up a questionnaire that forms the basis of our strategy as group, only this way will we get any consensus on a direction. We should put all the questions that have been raised so far up for a vote, inclusive of the manner in which we are to vote, i.e.do we vote on an individual basis or on the basis of our deposit size, do we push for liquidation or not etc etc. Then we deal with the various options that should form the strategy and be the basis of instructing legal council. Cannot see any other alternative? At some point as a group we have to decide on what we want! Simply stating that we want our money back achieves nothing.

Posted by TykeinSingapore on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 09:09
Manx-Person and Cpt, good

Manx-Person and Cpt, good input, thanks.
Although my wife and I have, in total, £100342 plus accrued interest in three joint accounts on between one and three years notice with KSFIOM, we are in for a lot more in other offshore institutions, none of which I can any longer consider safe (Santander recapitalising also as of this week).
The negative impact of a less than fair solution for KSF would likely cost us very dearly. That, to my mind would be e.g. large depositors and bond investors being inadequately or not compensated.
This issue is, to my mind, not synonymous with postponement or not of liquidation on November 27th. Liquidation can be initiated and still a fair solution worked out, postponement does not make a fair solution any more likely.
I anticipate "plan X" being presented soon. I continue to scan the site and will support initiatives leading there.
The replacement of the LP would not improve our situation at all.

Posted by Martin H on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 08:49
I agree with all that you

I agree with all that you say.

There are two tests of solvency.

  1. Liabilities greater than assets; and/or
  2. Unable to meet obligations when they are due

In accounting terms, there could well be impairment required in respect of the asset being the loan to UK in so even if there was some form of deferral of claim like you suggest then this would need to put the put the back in a net asset position in order that the Bank (and the LP) could represent that the bank is solvent.

If the bank isn't solvent on the 27th I think it is going to need a very creative deemster, or some very compelling proposal to convince him that a liquidator shouldn't be appointed.

Posted by manx-person on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 08:48
Now you obviously know the

Now you obviously know the difference between UK an Manx Insolvency( I don't but understand for example that there is no Administration process, but that an Insolvency can be annulled), but in the UK, at the first creditors meeting which the IP will call, we have our only opportunity to vote him out. After that as you say, it is by order or the court and you have to show malpractice and/or negligence - effectively impossible.

I would be surprised if the Manx court deals with the matter of the liquidator at the insolency hearing, it would certainly be a matter for the first creditors meeting.

Regarding point 2, we or a mystery third party would need to show that something concrete was going to happen - if for example enough creditors were prepared to defer a claim on their funds then the bank could well be solvent even now.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 08:37
Several days ago I understood

Several days ago I understood from a posting by Diver (I think it was Diver) that the action teams had pretty much identified someone who could represent the depositor group on the 27th. Is this not going to happen now that Diver has taken a back seat or is someone on the IoM action team still working on this?

As the action teams know very well everyone really appreciates all their efforts on the behalf of those who cannot play such a direct role. Thank you

Posted by Blades on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 07:58
Legal Repn. - capn comments

Legal Repn. - capn comments reply

For 1. I think that it may be possible under the CA1931 to get the LP removed/replaced but there is a requirement to show the court good reason; this means that you will need a reason and evidence - despite what people think about his communication etc. I think this would be quite hard. Also the issue of weight of creditors interest will no doubt be considered by the deemster, and the proposed LP will need, as you say to be found an also to consent ! Also you need to ask yourself why.

For 2. Evidence that this shouldn't happen will be required. The reason for the application in the first place is that the Bank cant meet its obligations when they fall due.

I am hopeful that plan X will be outlined soon, and I think that this will be the basis of any submission by the IOMG (through the treasury or FSC).

Who knows what this plan may be, and what impact it will have on the individual situations of the depositors. It could imagine how this plan might, in the short term have a varying impact depending on the individual situation.

What has been said before about the impact if someone appearing in person shouldn't be underestimated. There is perhaps some merit for an individual getting some initial legal advice and then submitting a notice to appear and talking themselves. An impassioned plea from an individual for example about their personal finances would come better perhaps from an individual, and additionally more 'latitude' is generally offered to those appearing in person

Posted by manx-person on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 07:37
They cannot afford to let it

They cannot afford to let it happen. I'm in India now, and ICICI are taking half page ad's every day showing about the security of the bank (take THAT as a warning folks) and telling people not to take their money out as this is what causes banks to fail (as if I didn't know).

I don't care is TB is doing it because his old Mum has the proceeds of a brothel stashed in there, whatever his motives are, what he is doing at first sight seems to be about the best way forward.

We know that HMG will not do anything too visual to help, but possibly could consider a loan to prop the bank/support IoM government.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 06:34
You just have to look at the

You just have to look at the agro we are giving them, it's pretty certain there will be a full parliment session on AD's actions, that's going to have the knock on effect to his, he was already in deep water with his back benches & some front before that, the risk is huge, to have this small group keep pecking away at his crowning issue. A chance for the history books as the worlds economic hero....
Took him 5 years to get the job he was after and to lose it in a year. On the other hand he does have a habit of turning 180 to try & keep the party off his back, small chance of front door there, with "look I don't have to do this but I will cover IoM depositors too".
Would have better if the by- election had gone against, then the benches would have been at his throat, but hey can't have everything.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 05:37
Cpt, on TB so am I, they have

Cpt, on TB so am I, they have to be looking at it seriously, it's by far the best overall solution for them, in this climate another BICCI (think that's the name) would be devastating. Can't see anything out of the front door from GB, back door loan, yeah -

250>300m to shut us up - and get another term in office ~ cheap at half the price

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 05:22
I think the polling by site

I think the polling by site (vs. email) is better (more background info available), but knowing that the site was down on occasion despite of our teams’ efforts, email is more reliable. What are the techies view on this aspect?

Posted by columbgc on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 05:10
I don't see a problem with

I don't see a problem with that we need as many registered voters, voting as possible to get a representation. NG / STEFF other IT would it be possible to "flash" message whenever a user logs on, also is it possible to discount the non depositors from votes. We know there are few and for this they have no part to play.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 05:07
Do it by email then, that way

Do it by email then, that way people who aren't depositors can be weeded out.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 05:04
Me too, I am afraid that it

Me too, I am afraid that it is a sad fact that any poll needs to work on the same basis that depositors would be represented in court or at the creditors committee - as I see it at the moment, then the <50K's would be in the minority, but that of course doesn't mean that the bigger depositors are in favour of postponing the liquidation.
The poll needs to be quite complicated, a for or against vote, and then an amount - it's all achievable, but it is of course up to the admin if they want to go this way, alternatively make two new forums, a "liquidate" and a "postpone", then individual can make a simple post stating the amount they have deposited (no comments silly or otherwise, just the amount in a prescribed format so that it is easy to lift out of the SQL DB)

To be honest I'm hoping that Mr Brown will make all this unnecessary.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 05:02
If we must limit the polls to

If we must limit the polls to 24H then at least we need to make sure all registered members get a email notification (ng, can this be arranged?). Otherwise, unless we are on all the time (some cannot do that) we could be deprived of expressing our views.

Posted by columbgc on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 04:58
Yep, my own view is quite

Yep, my own view is quite clear and fairly well documented, same as a board room it's voting stock and oppose, give them a bit more time to sort out and go for the run off or restructure, on paper it's very do-able, but there's risks to both sides.

(apologies guys for going for voting stock - but that's the way the court would view it, if a vote goes the other way - then so be it, I'm in whatever)

Not managed to get a clear indication of how the numbers stack up for the under 50K folk, I do know there's one or two well over the 50K mark who just want money now and walk, conversely there will a few of the under 50K who'll stay with it, again no idea of numbers.

Would be nice if something a statement / position etc,. came out of the IoM well before the 27th, before the 17th would be even better, but I don't think that's going to be possible, and unless we & they get some clear answers from E&Y (via meetings or PWC) on timscales for the start of their payout.
I doupt if Tynwald can make the decision to cover the full amount certainly before monday and T Browns return ~ briefing ~ and full sitting of Tynwald to decide on whatever TB's badgered the UK gov for.

With the time left, any polls are going to have to be 24hr, if you don't get your vote in, it's gone we've also have to get the name of the legal guy they were at least happy with before the events and just get things moving again.

I want to be careful not to tread on any toes things are a bit sensitive at the moment me thinks, but time's getting short.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 04:47
I would guess so, but are you

I would guess so, but are you going to "weight" the poll with the size of deposits too?

It's going to be devisive without a doubt.

The other choice you have is to keep the lawyers out of it, and for individuals to address the court - this way no money is "wasted", and everyone has the same chance.

I'll be honest and say that at this moment, our views won't come into the outcome of the hearing on the 27th, and that higher powers will be deciding this point.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 04:12
Skintagain Agree, but "we"

Skintagain

Agree, but "we" need to decide what "we" want.

"We" is in fact a two headed snake, let's not mess about here, we know some people who are covered by the DCS limit believe that they will receive a payout quicker if the liquidation goes ahead, while the bigger depositors believe that they will stand more chance of funding a solution and a higher return if we postpone - truth is, no one really knows, and no one knows what outside forces will charge straight over the top of all of our views.

Then as you mention, we have the insurance guys, what will they want? they are arguing with their reps now about the quality of info available as the reps may well have to start facing damage claims.

We also don't know what PWC and/or the FSA have been up to - all sorts of talk about buyouts and runouts.

So remembering that this hearing is I am pretty sure only a for and against hearing, what are you looking to represent?

Will it come down to pure numbers where the amounts at stake and the wishes of the deposit holders come into it? If so, then I think it will be opposed.

In the time we have, to appoint a lawyer to oppose or agree with liquidation is problematic - despite what has been mentioned here, he must be instructed by everyone who wishes to have their views heard, or his submission to the court will have no more weight than if he was representing one depositor.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 04:13
Cpt, if we don't have

Cpt, if we don't have something in place PDQ a way forward on voting (by depositor or deposit) a clear vote indicating liquidation / non liquidation, an initial view of the how the insurance companies are likely to vote, we may have very little choice in the matter.
I'm not sure what's happening with the London team at the moment if any are online can they give an update.

I know I mentioned the last 12 hrs before ie - Expats possible departure ~ subsequent stay in light of email from FSC and contact with diver to try and get him on the Island too, I'm not part of either team so can't give any updates - just trying to wade through all the recent events now.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 03:47
Should we poll - or would it

Should we poll - or would it be devisive? If we really are all in it together then we should postpone.
Isnt that it?

Posted by Saddest on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 03:41
Decide what you want

Decide what you want first.
Legal representation but for what? Answer the following questions so people can determine whether they want to follow:-

1) To push for liquidation on the 27th and
a) Request the appointment of another liquidator, and if so who?
b) Request the retention of PWC

2) To oppose liquidation on the 27th

In the case of the choices of 1 above, I'm pretty sure that these only get decided at the first creditors meeting.

So we get back to this initial question of whether we want to oppose or agree with liquidation on the 27th.

Perhaps the only way to sort this out is to have two funds - each one subscribed to by followers from each camp - if there is enough dough in each then everyone can get their way but I suspect......

That there will be other parties outed by the 27th who will be having an interest in the liquidation or otherwise and that like last time it will be decided by others.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 03:32
Agree with that, in addition

Agree with that, in addition we didn't get a rolling statement of account for both sides, including the website admin so that we know when to make a donation to keep things sweet.
Could we have this, I for one and happy to contribute (unfortunately not millions) for anyone who is going (particularly) to the IoM to represent depositors. I firmly belive that the ultimate solution lies in the IoM, with possibly a bit of assistance from the UK.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 02:54
Is it possible to have an

Is it possible to have an updated statement about the current situation placed on the Home Page? I continue to be fully supportive of what our people and teams are doing, but am very confused now as to what the situation is regarding the London and Isle of Man Teams: are both or either still in place? How do we now best support them? What is the current plan of action? How do we help? Thank you.

Posted by Hoping and coping on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 02:44
My husband and I committed

My husband and I committed and we are still committed

Posted by romans on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 02:24
Cannot agree more, unless

Cannot agree more, unless someone in our group can give us an account in which to contribute we are in danger of wasting time in getting a legal represntative of the depositors in place, that could be invaluable come the 27th. Please can we appoint a legal firm, open an account and let everyone know. I appreciate it is more work for the teams in IOM and UK and that it is easy for me to criticise. It would be really helpful to have legal concil that could advise and inform the depositors.

Posted by TykeinSingapore on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 02:07
Oh - I would think there's

Oh - I would think there's more lot more than just 4 erh 5 now, after the events of the last 12 hrs never mind that 12 hrs before, I think give them a break, digest and come with a vengance. there's been a hell of lot to take in.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 02:02
Well that's 4 of us. What

Well that's 4 of us.
What happened to the other 461 who wanted legal representation?
Time is running out for this option.
Does anyone else have an opinion?

Posted by bellyup on Wed, 12/11/2008 - 01:35
I agree as well

I agree as well

Posted by Mrs Not Too Happy on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 15:09
I agreed with Bellyup can

I agreed with Bellyup can someone from the IOM team please let us know their thinking and any actions we need to take to get this moving.

Posted by Alastair on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 15:06
In my opinion we should have

In my opinion we should have legal representation in place.
If something happens prior to the 27th Nov that makes this not necessary and we recover all our savings then all well and good -we have lost but a little in comparison to what some of us have lost.
I dont think its a question of funds as can be seen from the above poll many people are willing to pitch in on this.

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 14:19
I'm 100% behind Diver. But

I'm 100% behind Diver.

But lets get the money rolling in - this is probably the best investment any of the "robbed" depositors can make at any time in their lives.

Human nature and recent events have made people reticent to put up more money in fear of throwing the residual good after the "bad". Hopefully people's conscience's will enable them to overcome this and put in their share and support the team.

We need to do it quickly and decisively. Just tell us how!

Posted by Ian in Oz on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 09:13
Both teams IOM and London are

Both teams IOM and London are vital for our success and we really appreciate all your efforts. So many people round the world are depending on you. We are told the focus is shifting to IOM now. What is happening to the London group and how can we still support them?

Posted by jetski2 on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 04:31
Guys as one of the headless

Guys as one of the headless chickens I feel bereft at this temporary I sure, rift in the teams and would ask you all to please reconsider ,united we stand divided we run around in circles.

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 04:18
STATEMENT BY FORUM

STATEMENT BY FORUM EDITOR/MODERATOR
The two teams in London & The Isle of Man have been working under enormous pressure. They have been conscious of the heavy burden that they have been shouldering to do all the right things to fulful the Forum's Mission - the return of your money.

Inevitably the strain of working long hours away from home & family, the task of undertaking a role unfamiliar to them, the anxieties of having to represent our interests before other people (Liquidator, Government officials, politicians, Press, TV presenters, etc..), has been a great strain.

Under all this pressure these super people have had to make judgements & decisions on issues that are not the equal of anything they have had to do before in their working lives.So it is not surprising that when one piece of advice conflicts with another the task becomes harder & the burden of responsibility becomes the greater.

The London Team has done a magnificent job, & now in the run-up to the IOM Court hearing on 27/11 the focus is shifting to the Island and the mantle is being passed to the IOM Team.

Thus right now Expat & his Team need our encouragement & full support. I am sure you will all say: "hear! hear!" to that. The Forum has shown much faith in everything that has been done over the past 4 weeks. Let us continue to be united, standing in solidarity with the IOM Team until our Mission is accomplished.

Following Diver's understandable decision, comments to this Post concerning legal representation became way off track. As a consequence I have exercised my moderatorial prerogative to delete them, with the exception of the one below which I am sure you will feel is very appropriate at this time

Lucky Jim (admin/moderator)


Expat you commented :- i just want my family to have its dreams back and if tht involves you then so be it. If that involvs co-operating with iom then so be it, if that means staying abnd fighting then so be it,

Well Amen to that one - I agree entirely.

I am behind you and have been from day one - I admire the courage it must have taken to go over to IoM to find out what is going on - from that point - you have been our face - A necessary evil I fear in such circumstances - one I am sure no one would relish.

The cohesive nature of our group has been our strength - PLease guys - we all have differing views - can't we continue to work towards the common goal - together - that being the return of 100% of our funds - asap.

Without a face or leadership from those that have put themselves up there we would all be wandering round like headless chickens. We are flung all over the world (by the very nature of what we all are - we are expats) as such the governments concerned possibly thought (if they had any thought process) we could not make a noise. BUT we have and that is largely thanks to YOU.

Negotion has to be the first thrust - we have to give that the chance of success - we out here in the wilderness need to be able to do constructive things like mail MPs - so our voice is heard loud and clear -like it says on our home page " One determined person can make a significant difference; a small group of determined people can change the course of history." -- Sonia Johnson.

So guys - LETS CHANG HISTORY............ Please -- very pretty please

Posted by Julienne on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 02:16