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
    Login to post comments
I would like to suggest that

I would like to suggest that those who do not wish to contribute but who do wish to participate (in that they will be added to the list of those being represented by the chosen advocate) will also be invited to sign up. It is not for me to decide, but I would propose that all such non-contributors are admitted on an equal basis with those who are contributing - perhaps they could be asked to contribute £1 (or 10p if you wish) only as a membership fee for the depositors group and that the first £1 (or whatever amount is decided upon) from all those who are genuinely contributing to the legal costs is also treated as a membership fee. I recognise that this may be regarded as unfair but I think we will all gain in the long run by being able to demonstrate that we represent as many as possible of the bank's depositors. Also,

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 01:02
Monkeyface's questions

Those are exactly some of the questions on which we will be getting advice from the IOM advocate as soon as he is instructed. I expect that we will be taking the simplest and most practical course given that we do not have unlimited funds or unlimited time to discuss the issues - and that is one in which we follow his or her advice on each of the issues and instruct him or her to do what is necessary according to what has been advised. Let's call this exercise the IoM legal representation. It will have to continue at some level after the next hearing, whatever happens at that hearing.

As for the other matters, I would like to distinguish once again between the various steps that may be taken quite apart from IOM legal representation in the liquidation proceedings. Let's call these the London legal steps:

(a) advice from UK solicitors on options, including possible litigation and causes of action;
(b) detailed advice from counsel instructed by solicitors in (a);
(c) correspondence with prospective defendants if any, including letters before action, and obtaining information and evidence;
(d) issuing proceedings, if so advised, if it can be funded.

(a) and (b) will be quite expensive, but it appears from the response to the poll that we may have sufficient. If we go down that route then in a matter of 1 or 2 weeks after initiating the process we should know exactly where we stand in respect of possible courses of action, including estimated likelihood of success in any litigation (save of course for political negotiations). I would expect it to include consideration of possibility of claims against parties in England, IoM and Iceland. We will be suggesting particular counsel to be used, and the solicitors with whom I have discussed this are content with this. We have a list of at least 5 silks, all of whom would be extremely good if we could get them. Counsel's advice, which will be detailed, obviously cannot be published on the website or circulated generally because (quite apart from any other considerations) doing so would obviously assist any prospective defendants, but I think it can be summarised here.

  • (c) may take a long time and could be expensive and may involve applications to a court for pre-action disclosure.

  • (d) will be expensive and perhaps very expensive and there will be a risk as to adverse costs orders which we would hope to be able to cover by ATE insurance. It may also be lengthy, but perhaps not as lengthy as the liquidation of the bank itself and certainly far less costly (the liquidator's costs are likely to be several million pounds). The speed of the liquidation will be determined in part by how fast the liquidation of the UK bank and the Icelandic bank proceed (if they are liquidated), since the IoM bank is a creditor of both and in respect of the latter there is also a guarantee.

None of the above London legal steps would, if undertaken, be likely to interfere at all with the liquidation of the bank, unless any action is directed against the liquidator itself. This is not contemplated at present. In any case, any such action would best be taken by an IoM advocate.

If, for whatever reason, the London legal steps require an IoM advocate, as would undoubtedly be the case if any action were contemplated against any parties in the IoM, then we would expect the same IoM advocate as is instructed in the liquidation proceedings to be instructed by the London solicitors. That much has been agreed in advance with all prospective solicitors.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/11/2008 - 00:53

Thanks Diver & Elgee.

I am ready for this and will contribute when details are posted.

Posted by wipeout on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 17:05
legal representation

Thanks for the summary Diver. I confirm my contribution for representation on 27th.
I am not a great fan of litigation as things stand at the moment - and I gather you agree. However I am keen to investigate our possibilities of opening up the can of worms in London. Have you any information or ideas you could share on this? Or are you looking at it?

Posted by banna on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 16:35
legal representation

Thanks for the summary Diver. I confirm my contribution for representation on 27th.
I am not a great fan of litigation as things stand at the moment - and I gather you agree. However I am keen to investigate our possibilities of opening up the can of worms in London. Have you any information or ideas you could share on this? Or are you looking at it?

Posted by banna on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 16:35
not posted

This hasn't been posted yet

Posted by Diver on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:19
On what grounds?

'The first and only concern at the present is if we as a group oppose or agree that the liquidation should go ahead'

On what basis do you believe we should petion the court one way or the other?

Posted by Diver on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:16

As I mentioned in my statement, we have no evidence to supply to the court with which to suggest the bank should not be wound up. We cannot ask to delay a winding up based on 'hopes that things are being done' or 'hopes that a buyer will be found' or 'hopes that negotiations are on going'. If anything like that is going on it is up to those parties to produce evidence in court or to give us something to act on ourselves.

Posted by Diver on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:12

We are working on the bank account

The collection will be enough based on the poll but should a disaster happen and not enough contributions are received we will return what was donated.

There will be no publication on the interent.

Posted by Diver on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:09
Have I missed something?

Have I missed out as to where I 'am to send contributions for the legal representation?

Posted by bellyup on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:06
We are OK


I have just been informed by email that i have won huge prizes on no less than three lotteries.
I am worth millions - I think ( I dont recall buying a ticket)
Naturally after KSFIOM I am a little less than trusting but if it is true i will be happy to share.

Posted by bellyup on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:04
Agreed, but let's be clear -

Agreed, but let's be clear - if liquidation does go ahead on the 27th, I wouldn't count on getting all of your deposit back unless you are under about 75K.
Always think of any money you pay for lawyers as an insurance premium, you don't get it back if you don't claim.

And when you say "successful" - what do you mean by "success"?

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:53
legal representation

"This is representation to ensure we get a say on the creditors' committee should liquidation take place, this has nothing to do with personal circumstances or any sort of court petition."

It should be clear that we all get a say on the creditors committee if liquidation does go ahead, and we are also all asked to accept the appointment of the liquidator - this is all due process and no representation is required to obtain these rights.

The first and only concern at the present is if we as a group oppose or agree that the liquidation should go ahead - only if it does proceed does the next stage come into play.

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:46
Legal representation

Thank you Diver and Elgee for you continued work , i agree to representation but from previous litigation experience i was involved in a couple of years ago (ie only nearly paying for) where i was told one barister one fairly simple court case which would probably take 12 months to be actioned would cost about 350K you do not need smelling salts to wake up to the fact that our litigation case could be in the millions if taken to the end, the soliciters always win, will we? anyway you have my 150.

Posted by shafted on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:29
Jointly funding legal representation

I don't wish to complicate this. However could we also have a bank account number into which funds can be transferred, as I have no other means of making a payment. Preferably not a KSF bank account, please!!!

a) Should the collection not raise enough, would the payments be returned to us?

b) Also, if we are to collect funds for this purpose, could we also ensure that any payment details and deposit holders' names are not published on the internet.

Posted by sami on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:22
I am in for £100 for

I am in for £100 for representation on the the 27th, pursuing other courses I would prefer to leave until later. Just to folllow ngs comments, firstly thanks for all of the support, and i have also spent about £2500 to date as well as the pressure on my family in moscow my absence has caused, Thankfully a russian friend has got the FSB of all people (must make me the first person to be invited to russia by the security services) to issue a letter to get a new visa, I will in the near future have to activate that and return to mosow before the wife gets hooked on happy pills!

May I also suggest that everone uses the sleepless letter to get at their MP or ambassador today. I have pestered Cameron and the Moscow Embassy today with it,

Posted by expat on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:18

A well considered summary. The only point I have to question is that if the status of KS UK regarding whether or not it is in liquidation and the status of KSF IoM's deposits is still in doubt, is allowing the liquidation to go ahead on the 27th the best course of action?
Let us remember that to date, even PWC do not know the answer to this point:-

"Regarding the deposits held by the bank with the UK bank, I am in discussions with the Administrators of the UK bank but I have no information currently about the financial position of the UK bank and therefore the size of any potential recovery. My understanding is that if the UK bank goes into liquidation, the IOM bank will rank as an unsecured creditor. Clearly this issue is of enormous importance, but I'm afraid I dont have the answers yet. "

Posted by Captain Mainwaring on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:14
Legal Representation

I agree with Diver.
Litigation seems a very expensive and possibly fruitless exercize, although I do think that we should be represented.
It is outrageous how we are being treated - and I know, a lot of us feel so helpless.
We will be willing to contribute and support all the ideas, letters and emails etc etc.
What else can we all do?????????

Posted by Yoda on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:04
Excellent news re legal representation, thank you

Thank you so much for all the work you have done on this, Diver and Elgee. We fully support all that you say - legal representation and advice ready for the 27th, but not legal action until later, and only if absolutely necesssary - and we fully agree that a calm, measured approach is the most appropriate at this stage. (I have already indicated via the poll our willingness to contribute to the funding, and ask only that a very safe means of payment is made available to us - but I think that you and your colleagues have this in hand already.) Thank you all.

Posted by Hoping and coping on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 10:03

Everyone will be asked to contribute what they can afford. We each have very different circumstances so setting a fee level for participation would be unfair. If anyone feels that this is wrong then they are free not to participate in this. This is a time to stick together and to help eachother out as much as we are able.

The full details of how the lawyer will represent us all will be discussed in a posting later on but there is one thing that needs to be clear from the start. It would be a practical nightmare for every single one of us to sign up with the lawyer in the administer the paperwork alone would cost funds we can ill afford. What will happen is that a small group will be named in court and that group will then be announced as representing the wider group that have asked to be part of proceedings (there will be a separate posting for this).

For the sake of unity there will be NO instances of individual circumstances being put forward...besides they will not be relevant to the hearing. Also, only the small group named in court will have contact with the lawyer and they will report back to everyone here.
Before anyone posts that this is 'unfair' please consider this; we have over 400 users who have supported this action, what would happen if each of those wanted to speak to the lawyer? Please imagine the chaos let alone the costs that we would incurr.

This is representation to ensure we get a say on the creditors' committee should liquidation take place, this has nothing to do with personal circumstances or any sort of court petition.

Posted by Diver on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:58
Well Said

Well said Skintagainow ... this website is the only thing that has kept me sane and focused over the past few weeks (in between feeling physically sick). PLUS kept us informed and got ALL 3 questions asked at the Treasury Meeting. I can hardly afford any petrol at the moment, but I will make sure I will find something to donate. Majority of us are very very grateful ................ thank you!

Posted by caledonia on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:47
Legal Rep

Excellent work Diver and Elgee, I'm sure your choice will be top notch and know you have put a lot of effort into researching it, much obliged.
There are lots of topics that need to be covered such as:
Do we keep PWC on as liquidator?
FSC as joint petitioner etc
Any idea as to info on these answers etc pros/cons

Im probably getting ahead of myself here but no harm in asking

Posted by Monkeyface3604 on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:40

Fully support this strategy/objective and will be happy to contribute both time and funding.

Posted by Tank on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:29
Legal representation

Count me in Diver. In addition to the details (who, payment method, account, etc.), it would help to know what would be the amount expected for each of the willing participants. I expect that the selected law firm would have a fee for this representation at the 11/27 hearing and would be able to be contacted so they fully understand our specific situation and therefore would agree that our interests could be addressed together with the rest of the group.

Posted by columbgc on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:29
Well put

Very well put, Diver. I fully support what you have said here. It seems like sound common sense.

Posted by David9J on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:13

The poll results have given us a clear indication that as a group we wish to have legal representation at the next liquidation hearing. To this effect, Elgee and I have been speaking with solicitors on the Isle of Man and in London to ascertain the best way forward and to find out who would best represent ALL our interests.

As a result of our discussions we believe we have identified who we would like to represent us at the hearing. We are carrying out one final background check today and, if that goes well, we will be in a position to give full and exact details this evening.

It is important to understand the relevance and importance of representation at this hearing so that there is no doubt what our aim here goes.
At this moment we have no evidence to present to the court to challenge any petition to wind up the company. Whilst it is possible that other parties (such as the IoM government) may have such evidence and may petition for a further posponement we need to be prepared for liquidation. The purpose of having good representation at this hearing is to make sure that, if the bank is wound up, our interests as significant creditors of the company are duly represented. On winding up a Creditors' committee is formed consisting of representatives of all the creditors. This committee will in effect have the power to control who the liquidator is and what he/she does. We intend to ensure that we have representation proportional to the sums owed to us by the bank on any such committee and this will give us, as a group, significant influence.

It is important to understand that we are not taking any legal action against anyone. This is in no way litigation or preparation for litigation. This is just us as a group putting ourselves in the best possible position going forward.

Having said the above I still believe in preparing for all eventualities. We have had hours of conversations with some of the biggest London law firms and had some very informative discussions with them. We have also spoken to some of the most respect Chambers in London, such as South Square, who boast some of the very best QCs the profession has to offer. Assistance from all quarters has been very heartening. A small group of us will be meeting some of these Law firms over the next 10 days to discuss our situation and to get a feel for where we stand.

Please be in no doubt that litigation should be the very last resort. We are still in a position where it is unclear if we have a case to bring and who we should bring the case against. The purpose of our discussions is to start the process to answer these two questions. Litigation would be a phenominally expensive route to take. Contrary to some postings on here Lawyers are not keen to take us on based on a Conditional Fee Arrangement (i.e. they get paid based on how much we get back), they charge serious cash for their services and this is cash I don't think we should be expending unless it is truly necessary.

We know that this website is read by all participants in this disaster we find ourselves in, so, it is important for EVERYONE to know that we are actively taking advice. We do not want to spend what's left of our resources to fight a legal battle but if we are left little choice then that is an option we reserve the right to use.

Based on the poll results we will have a surplus of funds following the appointment of representation for the liquidation hearing. Once we post details of who will be representing ALL our interests we will be asking for depositors to donate to the legal fund - more details will be posted later. We will also be asking for permission to use any surplus to fund other legal measures should we deem them necessary (such as obtaining official legal opinion in London) - I will put up a poll to gauge opinion on this later. I do not intend us to ask for funds we don't need and I don't intend to expend what's left of our funds going down legal avenues that just lead to dead ends. Litigation should not be the answer here, this is a situation crying out for a political solution but should the worst come to the worst you should know that we will be ready.

Posted by Diver on Wed, 05/11/2008 - 09:04
legal representation

Am happy to contribute to legal representation but would like some advice on 2 issues.
What is the aim of having a legal representative at the Nov 27 hearing? What advantage do we gain? What extra info do we get? Could it change our future action? What brief do we give him?
I know Diver is looking for beagles in London. To do what? Two areas where I think legal advice/help might be useful : to knock down the fences built around the EY
administration in London, and to get the FSC and Aidan Docherty to give us absolutely clear information about what went on in the days/weeks/month before collapse.
I feel as though I/we are groping our way through a fog - and we need some light.
Have I missed something? Are we looking to do these things?

Posted by banna on Tue, 04/11/2008 - 22:52
Thank you . . .

Let me add my heartfelt thanks.

Posted by drglowry on Tue, 04/11/2008 - 00:44
Legal Representation

I agree with Fred. Count me in for £100.00. Tell me how and when !

Posted by Mrs Not Too Happy on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 16:03
Donations for legal representations

I do think we should have legal representation. I am willing to contribute GBP 100. Please post where and how to donate.

Posted by Fred on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 15:50

There are 2000 subscribers to this forum. Assuming that our lawyer is successful, who among us would not be
willing to contribute so long as our money is returned to us.

Posted by Podcar on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 11:03
Funding for the site

Thanks again Chirs and all others... I will be putting a system into place very soon. Partly it's a matter of figuring out how to handle it without a huge work load - receiving and processing a large number of small payments could be a lot of work. So it needs to be automated and that basically means PayPal or something similar.

One of the things I'm trying to do is streamline things like technical support. Most questions that I receive are of a basic nature - they could be handled by other people, but we quickly get into the area of privacy of email addresses and so on. So, I'm trailing the "shoutbox" feature that you might have noticed, and also a basic in-site "chat" system.

Anyway, I digress... the "donations tracking" system is on my list too!

Posted by ng on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 10:34
Legal Representation

Although a minor depositor of less than GBP6000 and therefore likely to recover in full if final liquidation ensues for KSFIOM, in terms of the depositors compensation scheme, I feel that all depositors are entitled to get their money back and that all are in this together. Accordingly if it is considered necessary on good independent legal advice that the Depositors group should be represented at the court hearing on the 27 November, I will be willing to contribute to such legal fees to the extent of GBP20.

Posted by stornaway on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 10:08
ng Thanks for the PVT Message


Thanks for taking the time to send me a PVT message relating to this topic and making the situation clearer to me.

My reply heading read incorrect due to lack of punctuation, it should of read "Cynical Moi ?" I was not questioning the ethincs or the reasoning behind the survey but playing Devils Advocate and raising the question of record keeping and accountability which IMHO is a prudent action. Admitted my reply may have been a little strong but the question I was raising was realting to transparancy, sure many of us are hurting at the moment some more than others.

May I suggest that either the UK or IoM teams could make enquiries as to the probable expenses likely to be incurred by following this route thereby allowing depositors to decide whether they think it is a viable path to follow rather than asking people to pledge blindly.

There seems no point in retaining legal services initialy and then later on the costs may be greater than the amount of money being initial pledged, maybe there could be a legal firm who are prepared to take on our case for an initial retainer and then a percentage of our returns ... of the top of my head 0.1% up to a maximum of 100GBP / depositor, that is someone with 25K would pay 25GBP, 50K 50GBP 100K+ 100GBP, just an idea.

This is just one idea, no doubt other depositors will have their own ideas, but I suspect that there would be a more positive response if there was a known payment structure in place and we, as collective depositors have more information on which to base our decision. As for "Ripping-Off" my concern are with legal representation holding out for more money knowing how deperate most of us depositors are, not the great teams in place who set up this forum and continue to fight unselflishly on all our behalfs.

Apologises for any misunderstanding in my previous posting.

Posted by Mekong on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 09:02
Pot Kettle Black

go mann said "brain-cells are not an entry qualification for Forums - "hyperthetically" "

go mann said "Mekong, at the moment you should consider re-joining as "To66er" ;-)"

Based on the contents of a post I made you infer that I am a ""To66er" you jumping to that conclusion is a basic informal fallacy, that is to say that the validity of your deductive argument depended on an invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw was not in the form of the argument, thereby demonstrating your intellectual weaknesses.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Posted by Mekong on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 08:28
re Cynical moi

Mekong, read your post yesterday morning & I left the site all day as was really quite stunned at your comments, ng I would have thought must be one of the most respected guys on here, Matt, ng & steff set this site up in double quick time after the crash, and since have spent many hrs keeping it going so far as I'm aware they have not received anything for either their time or the cost of the server and hosting.

I notice you've been a member for over 2 weeks and I'm hoping this was just one of those black moments I think we have all felt at some stage or frequently throughout the last 3 weeks. Yes I've read your story and can fully appreciate your frustrations, I don't do inactivity very well either. I'm one of those who come in the bracket that you say you feel sorry for, at 54 if the money is not retrieved and I have to return to UK full time I'm finished, my story is there too posted just 1hr after Matts @ 04.00 on the 10th - since then this site has quite literally been a lifeline and kept me relatively sane.

Even if it was a con what the hell could he get out of it - so far only 300 have pledged any money even it that was 50 quid each (not that it is) that's only £15k where's that going to get anyone, personally from the IT service we've had from from ng & steff that's still bloody cheap, I doubt that you could find anyone to set a site up within a few hrs find hosting keep it running for over 3 weeks and only expect to get a few grand out it.

Come on you've posted some good questions and answers over the time, lets keep it all together now and back the people trying their best to help all of us through what at the moment is virtual hell.

Posted by skintagainnow on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 03:18
not disappointing

I thought that the number of positive replies was very encouraging. There are over 400 of them in a couple of days from a pool of around 1500, which is over 25%. I think most marketing people would regard that level of response as very good indeed. However, I don't think I know any so I cannot be sure.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 01:51
No win/no fee?

The Isle of Man still has laws against champerty, which would make any no win/no fee arrangement involving legal action on the island rather difficulty.

Posted by cold-dose on Mon, 03/11/2008 - 00:32
I commend your hard work in

I commend your hard work in seeking the legal representation we need, and I am 100% in favour of pursuing this line of 'battle'

Posted by sleeplessnight on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 22:05
Icelandic herrings and Pericles

Any resemblance in the above quotation to actual Icelandic fisherman, living or dead, is purely coincidental

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 21:47
why pay for legal representation

As Shakespeare writes in Pericles:

"Here's a fish hangs in the net, like a poor man's right in the law; 'twill hardly come out."

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 21:44
that nice Nigerian man

He offered me more than £20m! Next time he writes I will give him my KSF(IOM) account details.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 21:03
Denzel is busy

He's currently working at Tesco's

Posted by uptight61 on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 20:01
cynical toi 2

We appear to be in the same floating boat!
I think my £11,003 will emerge eventually through the DSC, so what's the point of me being here?
I'll admit I haven't signed up to legal fees, but I'm throwing the odd quid at Steve in IOM, and still attempting to get ng to take some money for the server costs.
Whatever, they're probably the most sophisticated Nigerian scammers since that nice man who offered me £15,000,000 just to let him use my UK account details.

Mekong, at the moment you should consider re-joining as "To66er" ;-)

Posted by go mann on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 19:51
Paying for this Site

I have put up in forums countless times - where do I pay my cheques to help this cause? No one is telling me.This cant be done for free. Its not fair for those like NG.I will contribute as I said but I need somewhere to send money.

Posted by Relentless Posse on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 19:47
legal representation

Having joined Hopper's group , we will have legal representation at the next hearing . So will our group need further representation ? Would that conflict with , enhance or simply duplicate what we already have ?

I will ask Latchams what their opinion is and will post their reply

Thank you again for the tireless work you are doing on all of our behalves. We owe you ........

Posted by KA on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 19:41
cynical toi

I am the offender who has been pushing for legal representation in IOM and for obtaining legal advice in London and possibly, if so advised, for litigation, and the raising of funds for doing so from members of this forum. I am also the culprit responsible for contacting prospective lawyers in the IOM and London.

If it helps, you should know the following:
(a) I will not be collecting the money offered by intending contributors, nor will I have any access to the bank account (that will be 4 other people);
(b) I am a small depositor and my savings are less than one-fifth of the sum covered by the DSC, so I will recover ALL my money without taking any action whatsoever in the liquidation or proceedings against anyone else;
(c) notwithstanding (b), I am (at least at present) willing to expend the time and expose myself (at least to a limited extent) to the risk as to costs in instructing solicitors on behalf of depositors, although I have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 19:31
so dont pledge any money...

Mekong. I have read your story and - if you care to read mine - sympathise with you totally. But what other way do you suggest? A small team have been working very long hours to try and help us all get our monies back; we are in the same boat; granted you have to trust us on that - except that everyone has seen members of the groups in IOM and London on the news and we have this forum.

Rather than fighting amongst ourselves, may i suggest we concentrate on the fundamental issue here which is to get our money back so that we can afford to buy, rather than steal, food for families.

I am starting to see a number of attacks on the very people we should be supporting on here and it saddens me deeply.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 19:28

Mekong, perhaps you've spent too long in Thailand.

If you can remain off the mekong long enough to stay seated on the top of your barstool for more than a few minutes, you may want to remember that in this part of the world there still are people (increasingly few, I grant you) who do things out of genuine charity (without giving any consideration to such things as "making merit"); or because they are moved to care; or because they hate to see injustices; or because they get aroused when they come across others getting away with things that are just plain wrong.

I know it is hard to reconcile all that with everyday events in Thai politics, its military, its business community and the machinations of the expat communities in places like Pattaya, but it really is true.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 19:09
I'm glad you said that ... I

I'm glad you said that ... I bit my tongue when I first saw it, simply to avoid wasting time in some SERIOUS abuse.

No doubt those who are contributing to Steve's hotel bill are also wondering whether they're actually buying a Mercedes for someone in Nigeria.

Sadly, the Internet has it's faults, including the fact that brain-cells are not an entry qualification for Forums - "hyperthetically"

Posted by go mann on Sun, 02/11/2008 - 18:45