Should sites be wound down?

Background and objectives: 

[Updated 2 Oct 2009 - see end of post]

The new site at is run by DST and intended to replace both the existing sites, i.e. the existing "public site" and "chat site". Their Welcome to our website page on gives further information.

Built on the Joomla CMS the new site potentially offers similar functionality to the Drupal based sites we have at My understanding is that it will offer at least the following features:

  • A forum (discussion) area, moderated by DST "to keep a lid on excessive slanging matches".
  • A members-only area, access limited to "verified" depositors (I do not know how the verification process will operate.)
  • General news and information, broadly similar to (where the majority of information has historically been posted by DST.)

In short, as members migrate to, then and will quite possibly fall into disuse.

Migration period

I think one month from the point where is officially "live" should be sufficient as a migration period. My plan for that phase includes:

  • front page will show a link to and background information as to why the new site should be used.

  • will continue to operate unchanged, but with the assumption that discussion will gradually be moved to the new site.

  • which never went live, but was intended to be a "members only" site, will be removed.

Post migration

After the migration period, the sites will quite possibly be "switched off", and web-addresses redirected, meaning that entering into your browser will actually take you to (perhaps via a message that explains what's happening and why.) I imagine this would be the end of November this year.

Right now I am assuming that the majority of depositors/members will happily move over to the new DST site, and agree with the wind-down and eventual shut-down of sites. This poll is intended to confirm whether that is indeed the case.

As a final note, is a forum site that I set up some time ago to provide a possible alternative to the forum site here. It is based on a much simpler (and cheaper) configuration than the forum site here, and can be kept operational at minimal cost. The hosting was paid for one year and runs up until May 2010. It can be left operational to provide an "alternative" forum area for those who want it.

So, to repeat the poll question: Should sites be wound down?

(Please see also this discussion)

Update 2 Oct 2009

It's clear from the poll results to date that there is considerable feeling that existing DAG sites should continue. Once I've figured out how that will work in practice I'll post a revised plan. Suffice to say for now that the migration process described above is apparently not going to happen, at least not within the time frame indicated.

30% (51 votes)
58% (98 votes)
Don't know
11% (19 votes)
Total votes: 168
    Login to post comments
No need to wind anything

No need to wind anything down, you are driving depositors away in shedloads with this bickering. I look at comments posted on many important topics only to find one or two people have bothered to say anything. On this topic there are screeds of comments, all getting nowhere and made for the sole purpose of poking peoples eyes out. I am getting to the point where I don't read anything anymore and only stick with it to get my money back. REMEMBER, that is what this is supposed to be about, GETTING OUR MONEY BACK.

Posted by conned on Sun, 11/10/2009 - 16:46
Elgee, What planet are you


What planet are you on?

This last post is just ridiculous, designed to be inflamatory and simply wrong. There is one group, originally called HNW, that is out in the open, names names and actions, sends out e-mails that are clear, constructive and believable, while the DST hides the shadows, barely communicates and seems to pride itself on being the "only" outfit to solve this KSF (IOM) debacle.

Meantime, we are not speaking with one voice and that's exactly what HMG and IOMG etc etc want - and you keep stirring it up.

I have no axe to grind - but if one group is talking and communicating to me and the other isn't, then you should tell your DST mates to raise their game - it's as simple as that. As for your last sentence, it's so off base as to be laughable.

Posted by Lostinspace on Tue, 06/10/2009 - 23:55
Strategy for 100% return? The

Strategy for 100% return?

The concept of functional sub-groups within the DAG has always seemed like a good one to me. You might call it divisive but that would only be the case when a sub-group had objectives which were incompatible with those of other sub-groups or the DAG as a whole - otherwise, I prefer to see it as getting organised.

So as a reminder, any member can create a group (or "project") area here, and that can optionally be access-limited or even hidden (if hidden, nobody will know it even exists unless somebody tells them.) The group "administrator" can decide who is allowed in and even kick people out. The administrator can also send email to group members, and appoint additional administrators ("managers"). The feature has only ever had limited use, yet is perfect for teams to get together, even if only on a temporary basis, in a more controlled environment here.

Since many members now know other members sufficiently well to decide whether they're able to work together, whether they're "bona fide" or not, etc, it's an effective way of establish a task force to work on something like developing a strategy for 100% return. All the standard site features work as expected, such as automatic email notification of posts, and polls within the group, accessible only by the group's members. The Projects: Create link (near top-right) allows you to create a project group.

Posted by ng on Tue, 06/10/2009 - 10:16
Offer of Cooperation Nixi,

Offer of Cooperation

Nixi, since you were copied on most of the correspondence I'm surprised that you do not think that my offer on behalf of the PPD group was sincere. I offered as you know to discuss ANY area that you (DST) felt we could work together on. Further I offered 2 areas where I thought working together would be both obvious and also help build bridges. The 2 areas were a single DAG submission to the Tynwald Select Ctte Enquiry and the second was in agreeing a single communication plan for UK MP's.

Regarding the submission to the Tynwald SC I went as far as to give the DST in advance an outline of our proposed submission to see if there was substantial agreement. I received a unambiguous reply from DST that there could be no cooperation between the DST and PPD beyond the CCI.

Regrettably the submission to Tynwald has now been made and we are weaker for it not being a single DAG submission. As an aside what in our submission did you disagree with? If we had discuss this we might have found a mutually acceptable position. Regarding UK MP communication the offer remains open.

I believe the CCI is also working on the gap between liquidated funds and 100% and we fully support them and the forensic investigation that is taking place. We are also focused on political solutions to bridge the gap and I would like to think we could put aside discussions about the names of groups and work together to this single common aim.

Finally I find it strange that while only allowing depositors who agree with your strategy and actions to join your site you have no problem voting in a poll to close this site where those of us (many since day 1) wish to meet and share news and views. Personally I am all for any sub-group having the right to pursue actions it feels are in its best interests to acheive our aim - including having their own private site.

Posted by Alastair on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 23:41
@Anrigaut But this is not


But this is not quite true its obviously not open to every depositor.
My registration - and I was one of the first to apply has yet to be approved - and from what I am given to understand will NOT be approved.

The fact that I have supported DAG financially and in terms of time as well as money from the very first means nothing .The fact that the DST has all my information means nothing.
The fact that I gave my proxy for the SOA to the DAG representative obviously means nothing.

As i am completely bona fide depositor in everyway there is obviously some other criteria to be met.

I suspect the reason that my registration has NOT been approved is that I make no secret of the fact that i believe that the DST should work together with the PPD for the greater good.

As this does not appear to be acceptable I will therefore continue to post on this site .

Posted by bellyup on Sun, 11/10/2009 - 18:24
banna, What you say makes a


What you say makes a lot of sense - and I agree with what you say in principle.

A goal may not be achievable, and the route to getting 100% back may not be visible right now, but don't lose heart, look at the current achievements - we have a majority of retail depositors on the COI - enough to keep the insurance companies honest (if ever that is necessary - as their goal surely must be the same as ours). I have a big issue though with choosing the right approach to work toward the goal - and alienating everyone involved (Insurance companies, UK Government - and specially the IOM government and it's people) is not really a good way forward. Also I'm a big believer in trusting people who have common goals - and having a DST where you just don't know what their individual motivations are bothers the hell out of me. Members who have also absolutely nothing to lose look very suspicious to me!

Regardless what has been said before, I can tell you that the PPD group did want to work with the DST to get a single group together, but that didn't happen - but the COI members are working well together apparently, so that is also good news.

I think we should look to people who have actually moved the situation forward positively for us (and not just explained what is going on) - real movers and shakers who can get things done - I'm not convinced those people are leading the DST right now (well not all of them).

Posted by frog on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 22:27


Maybe,frog, but at the movement we are all whistling in the wind! None of us has yet defined a strategy of any sort - clear or unclear - for achieving that aim. In fact when I asked Adrienne 3 months ago to please tell me what HNW strategy was, and the question was and still is a genuine one, I was dismayed to receive the reply that HNW did not have a strategy. How the hell are we going to get anywhere without putting our joint efforts behind defining and then pursuing together a strategy that we think might get us where we want to be?
I am simply not interested in debating who is right or who is wrong, nor am I interested in inflating or deflating peoples' egos. The time we have wasted on these arguments is indicative of a herd of half wits who are lost and have no idea how to go about finding their way out of the maze.
It seems to me that there are 3 very good reasons for all getting together on one site and making part of that site strictly private for our own members

  1. If we are to define a common strategy and from it a plan of campaign we need to be as sure as we can be that our deliberations are confidential. It would be unwise to broadcast plans to all and sundry and allow them to be undermined.

  2. One of the features of the past year is our lack of knowledge of who and what we are. How many are we? Where are we? How much of our money has the enemy got in total? How many of our people are insurance co. bondholders? etc etc. Having a well defined profile of our group would be a strength and would help us in our deliberations. How do we talk sensibly to MPs, Govts, the media and others without this sort of information? To say that telling one person in our group how much each of us has at risk (50k, or up to 250k or more than 250k) could be dangerous to us is utter rubbish! Where is the risk in that?

  3. If we do not get ourselves into one group what is going to happen when we need to consider legal action? Can you imagine the shambles of one group going after the FSC, another after the FSA, another after the Icelandic Govt and yet somebody else after the Directors? And the waste?

Frankly, if we go on as we are we shall achieve nothing and we shall deserve to achieve nothing. Some of the best amongst have already disappeared and the rest will do so.

Personally I think we have a stark choice -

  • either we get ourselves in to one group with a common aim and an agreed campaign

  • or we forget about an action group and let the liquidator return what he will

Any other course seems futile.

Posted by banna on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 22:05
Well this is arrant nonsense

Well this is arrant nonsense The PPD committee are well known and their site names are linked to their real names. Also their background is not shrouded in mystery. I wonder why you (as a member of DST committee perhaps? who knows?) do not disclose your name and background and reason why you should be trusted - actually I don't really care. I'm not joining the site.

With regard to your data - that is now rather invalid. The SoA occurred prior to the DCS payout. With DCS, those fully protected depositors have been paid out and therefore they have no real need to be involved in the fight to 100% payout for the others left in this sorry situation. Remember, a large number of voters were paid out by the DCS, so are not current creditors now. The point you made was regarding the position post DCS payout - and your 'fact' is not substantiated.

While you are in the belief that the intention is that the censorship on this new site is only to stifle bad language, who knows whether these unidentified individuals will follow your beliefs - also I don't see much bad language on this site - ng seems to handle that well enough on this site, so why the rather peculiar requirements on signup?

You know, I've read many of your posts and I think you are a very altruistic person with good intentions, but there are others in this world not like that. Why for instance are DST setting the requirement as only being a depositor at point of the bank failure (LJ was a depositor, but had the good sense to get his cash out just before the default) - seems a rather random choice. Either people are creditors of the bank now - or they aren't. Surely people who are creditors of the bank are the people who should be only the ones with interest in the strategy going forward? Elgee was paid out by the EPS (not even the DCS) so why is he accepted over LJ? Why is he accepted at all?

Anyhow, good luck with your new site. While I disagree with the aggressive and abusive PR approach of the DST and the autocratic and secretive approach, I note that the COI members are working well together - and that really is great as they represent collectively a majority on the committee

Posted by frog on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 22:02
Frog, What's in a name? - I


What's in a name? - I agree: it was a minor point in my original post. And I agree - and have said - that people will decide which group they prefer.

Re the zero, you misrepresent what I said - but I don't think we need to make an issue of the semantics; in practical terms, the bondholders have no protection (and none directly as they are not themselves depositors).

Data: SoA class 2 proxy votes (722 held by DST, 143 by HNW)

Personally I find nothing sinister in the anonymity of some of the members of DST who have valid personal reasons which I can respect for not wishing to have their real names displayed on this public website. In some ways I have been and still am more troubled by the fact that some of the PPD committee are quite unidentifiable if/when they post here because, though we may be told their real names we have no idea of their site names. So I have no way to know what they think or whether I feel I can trust them. Just knowing that someone is called Jim Bloggs rather than Fred Smith gets me no further forward.

As for the moderators of the DST-managed site, they are all known - by user name a least (which I think is usual in forums) - to those who register on the site, who are surely the only ones concerned. For your information, the intention is not to stifle discussion or to moderate conversations other than in extreme cases of abusive language and no post has been moderated to date. The site is open to all who were depositors at the time of the demise of the bank (which happen to include elgee but not LJ). Nothing sinister in that.

I hope that makes things clearer.

Posted by anrigaut on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 19:46
Notwithstanding your

Notwithstanding your propaganda for the DST, I'm amazed that as a mathematician, you are saying that a number approaching zero is in fact zero. Also, please share your data that supports your fact that 'probably a majority' of PPD support being represented by DST.

Anyhow, what's in a name - people will either decide to join one group or another (or not at all) based on their own view on what is good for them - both DST and PPD claim to have a goal of 100% back for each depositor, but have differing ways about going about it. I myself find the binding clauses in the signup agreement to the DST site plus the anonymity of the people who moderate the conversations, decide strategy and speak in the name of the creditors rather sinister, plus although the site claims that it is only for depositors, the site has non-depositors not only contributing to the site but also deciding policy! LJ out, but Elgee in? What's that about?

Posted by frog on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 18:19
Frog : you said "the

Frog : you said "the bondholders are protected to some extent - the oft-quoted 20,000 - although this is per-company. Although the amount protected is small, it is not zero - so all bondholders could be classified as partially protected."

I am of course aware of that. But to be more precise, I think it is the Insurance Companies, not the bondholders, who are partially protected (to the extent of £20K per company). That would presumably amount to a few pennies per bondholder IF the companies chose to claim from the DCS (which they certainly won't because there's no point in them doing so). Hardly what most people would mean by 'protected'.

In practice, the bondholders are unprotected, whatever the amount concerned. So I still think that if your group is really representing the bondholders, your choice of name is not the most appropriate. But if the bondholders amongst you are happy with that, why not ? The fact remains that many (probably a majority) of PPD apparently still prefer to be represented by DST.

Posted by anrigaut on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 16:55
Anrigaut: You said "The

Anrigaut: You said "The newly-named PPD group defines itself as
"a group of partially protected depositors in Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander
Isle of Man (KSFIOM). We are members of the KSFIOM Depositors Action Group
(DAG) and were formally known as the HNW Group. We have approximately 250
direct retail and indirect bond holder supporters."

The bold type is mine. I understood that the unfortunate bondholders, who are being particularly badly treated in this debacle, were unprotected. Have I lost the plot? If so, maybe a bondholder can put me right."

Well to put you right, the bondholders are protected to some extent - the oft-quoted 20,000 - although this is per-company. Although the amount protected is small, it is not zero - so all bondholders could be classified as partially protected.

Posted by frog on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 14:45
I changed my vote from no to

I changed my vote from no to YES for two reasons
- I have neither the time nor the energy to keep up with two sites


This whole sorry business is depressing enough without subjecting myself to this too ......

Many thanks, NG, for all you have done for this site, and to all the others who have worked tirelessly and positively on behalf of all of us. To the small minority who have finally convinced me I don't want to do this any more - what on earth is wrong with you? My (young) children behave better than you do.....

Don't bother wasting your time slagging me off, I don't intend to read any more.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 12:18
I am grateful for your

I am grateful for your confirmation.

Posted by dodot on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 10:45
Future of the site, DST/PPD

Future of the site, DST/PPD etc

This is getting very off track. My thanks to those who have provided valuable input, and to those who have done little more than insult others and incite argument: please desist.

My "brief potted history" post was in direct response to elgee's insistence that DST was had never been a sub-group of the DAG. It was meant to illustrate origin, not validity of the sub-groups. It was not meant to be criticism of anybody and was not meant to indicate my personal support nor lack of support for any element of the DAG. Nor was it meant to start a huge debate!

Ok, so we have a situation where a significant number of people have asked for this site to remain open. Apart from the poll votes I have received several emails to that effect. I need to find a way of doing that, and will be posting further information on that topic shortly.

Today, Elgee has pointed out here that his account has been disabled, now on two occasions, and indicating that in his opinion this constitutes censorship. I assume from his post that he expected and/or wanted me to explain here the reasons behind the decision to disable his account (temporarily). I am not at liberty to do so, nor do I believe that publishing an explanation would be in elgee's best interests. Suffice to say that the decision was based on what I consider to be valid reasoning. In any case, he is able to continue discussion on the new ksfiomdag forum if he wants to, therefore neither he nor those who want to communicate with him are significantly disadvantaged.

So, to try to wind this up, could I please get some input on definitons and descriptions - I asked for unbiased input, but I welcome input from biased parties so long as it's written accordingly. The objective is to provide a clear, succinct and non-judgmental overview of who is who and why any visitor should visit the new site or old sites.

Posted by ng on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 09:09
Have I lost the plot - or do

Have I lost the plot - or do PPD need yet another name change?

The newly-named PPD group defines itself as
"a group of partially protected depositors in Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander
Isle of Man (KSFIOM). We are members of the KSFIOM Depositors Action Group
(DAG) and were formally known as the HNW Group. We have approximately 250
direct retail and indirect bond holder supporters."

The bold type is mine. I understood that the unfortunate bondholders, who are being particularly badly treated in this debacle, were unprotected. Have I lost the plot? If so, maybe a bondholder can put me right.

As for being 'members' of DAG, I'm not sure what is meant by that. Sure, all users of this website (depositors or not) are members of "DAG" in the sense that they are ... users of this website (though this particular DAG has no legal identity). But we all know its not as simple as that.

At the time the group now known as PPD emerged (early last February I believe), the DAG was already widely recognised as the only such group representing KSFIOM depositors, under the de facto leadership of the DAG Strategy team (formerly the London team). When the minority PPD (or HNW) group began to operate independently, on occasions in direct opposition to DST, and subsequently called for proxy votes on its own behalf, it effectively declared UDI from DAG.

Have I again lost the plot - or is it now being suggested that the majority who remained supportive of the DST as the effective leadership of DAG should now also undergo a name change? If so, I wish to protest strongly. Those who were unhappy with the leadership of DST had every right to choose to leave and to form their own 'party'. But, as the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it. Short of attracting majority support (which has never happened) and overthrowing the existing leadership, the right to the original name must surely remain with the main body of DAG - something all dissident or break-away groups have to accept as part of the deal.

Just to put this debate in perspective, it should be noted that many of the supporters of the DST-lead DAG are also partially protected depositors: at the time of the SoA vote, DST held 722 PPD proxies, compared with 143 held by the then HNW group. Over 300 depositors have already registered on the new KSFIOMDAG website and are thus members of the company KSFIOM DAG Ltd.

I personally have no objection to this site remaining open if that is what depositors want (though the 90 odd 'yes' votes so far seems few), but if it continues to be used for internal bickering I for one will not be inclined to participate further. I voted no to this poll because it seemed it would become unnecessary: those who wish to work with the DST can do so on the new site and those who prefer to work within the PPD group can continue to keep in contact via their newsletters - or in any other way the PPD leadership may decide.

I regret the rift that has lead to the present situation, with two distinct groups now representing KSFIOM depositors, but it was always on the cards and probably inevitable with such a disparate group of individuals. So that's the way it is and I guess we just have to make the best of it, hoping that neither group will deliberately thwart the actions of the other. It's time for everyone to see sense and re-concentrate our efforts on the job in hand : fighting to recover 100% of our money. Surely that is something we can all agree about?

Posted by anrigaut on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 07:58
Quite right nixi: "All we

Quite right nixi:
"All we need is evidence that you are a depositor or a bondholder.. and the ONLY person who will see that information is Robert Coates who has already recieved such information from many depositors before when dealing with proxy votes. Adrienne is simply scare mongering."

Exactly the same information was collected by Gavin Brake when dealing with proxy votes collected by the then HNW group. I don't recollect Adrienne having any problem with asking for it then.

Posted by anrigaut on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 06:51
Expat: "Haven't you migrated

Expat: "Haven't you migrated yet?"

If you mean "emigrated", no.

Expat: "You fool nobody elgee"

Like Kipling said, I have learnt on this forum how very hard it is to hear the truth I've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools. I need hardly spell out which I think you are.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 04:17
ng: 'I am quite willing to

ng: 'I am quite willing to ignore the fact that so far in this thread you have referred to my having "lost the plot" and that my concept of DAG's structure is "my imagination". '

I later also described your arguments as "disingenuous", but that posting of mine seems to have vanished.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 03:06
dodot: "I am very reluctant

dodot: "I am very reluctant to let them have a right to claim to represent me, particularly if they have been fully compensated and I still have a six figure exposure"

Personally I have no problems with your abstinence, and the choice is obviously entirely yours. No-one is begging you to join DAG. I am certainly much happier working for the benefit of depositors who appear to appreciate the efforts of the DST than for those who just want to criticise, especially when the critics subsequently turn out to have been completely wrong.

The new DAG site already has several hundred members and it is growing rapidly. While I am suitably humbled by your exposure, I would prefer if you did not point it at me (as you have done above). I am perhaps less impressed by size than you seem to be, and I think DAG can survive without the tiny band of High Net Worthies and "six figure" flashers who consider that small depositors, especially those so small that they have been fully compensated, to be beneath them or otherwise unworthy of representing them. We have plenty of large depositors in DAG and in the DST itself who do not believe that they should be accorded special status.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 04:01
Adrienne: "...knowing I can

Adrienne: "...knowing I can speak openly without censorship".

Really? You claim that this site is without censorship. I have in the past been banned from this site (July 2009 - membership intentionally disabled by Andy(ng) without warning or notice and on querying with him was commanded not to re-register under a different username). While my membership was later reinstated by Andy, it appears today that it has once again been disabled.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 02:26
I agree with Nick. The HNW

I agree with Nick. The HNW group's offers to "work together" with DST have always been transparently insincere and in fact contradicted by contemporaneous communications to DST from the same group. HNW's only achievements have been to undermine the efforts of the DST on behalf of depositors.

Posted by Anonymous on Mon, 05/10/2009 - 02:20
Adrienne is quite right in

Adrienne is quite right in one respect: "it is ENTIRELY possible that giving your personal banking details to a group of unnamed individuals who will have access to that information could expose you to all sorts of horrors."
So it's a good thing no-one is asking anyone to do so! All we need is evidence that you are a depositor or a bondholder.. and the ONLY person who will see that information is Robert Coates who has already recieved such information from many depositors before when dealing with proxy votes. Adrienne is simply scare mongering.

Adrienne also says "Gavin, myself and steve could not reconcile with the approach that sleeplessnight was taking". Actually this rift began before that by some time. I clearly recall Diver's wrath at the way Adrienne's group undermined his leadership of the then named "London Team" especially in our attempt to scupper the SoA. The experience helped to drive Diver out. Any "offers to work together" are, in my view, a sham since there is no intention from those making the offer to compromise.. and, therefore, an assumption that DST must make all the compromises.. Realistically, it's like David Cameron standing up in Parliament and calling for the government to stand with the Conservative party in their policies to rescue the British economy.. it ain't going to happen and he really doesn't expect it to.. it's just politics. He can say "we offered and they refused".
Me, I've had the politics of KSFIOM up to the back teeth.
It's very important that the depositors on the Committee of Inspection from both DST and HNW work together to get the best possible return from the liquidation.. now we finally have it. I believe they are doing.
DST also have a sharp focus on getting back the remaining 20 odd percent for ALL depositors and bondholders (who are, incidently, not even partially protected). You all, dear readers, must decide if you are going to join the new members only site and be privy to more communication from us than was ever possible on this site. I would urge you to do so but; it's up to you.
I had not voted on this poll.. but having read down this page, I am now going to place a vote to close the site. As I say, I find the politics unsavoury.

PS. These are my own thoughts and do not necessarily represent all those on the DST.. I haven't asked them.

Posted by Nixi on Sun, 04/10/2009 - 21:46
Changed my vote. Initially, I

Changed my vote.

Initially, I voted for closing this site. Having followed the postings on the issue, I changed my mind. I am very uncomfortable with the postings of those whom I believe are part of DAG DST. As a consequence, I am very reluctant to let them have a right to claim to represent me, particularly if they have been fully compensated and I still have a six figure exposure. Hence I will regretably not register on KSFIOMDAG. All the more important to me therefore that this site stays open. I am also a grateful recipient of the PPD Newsletter.

Posted by dodot on Sun, 04/10/2009 - 20:48
Absolutely spot on Conned.

Absolutely spot on Conned. Couldn't have put it any better myself. This constant bickering is just what the IOM wants. Please can those who feel the need to argue constantly like children, just grow up!

Posted by tsunamivictim on Sun, 04/10/2009 - 14:34

Somebody had to say it. It really is unbelievable!

Posted by sabi Star on Sun, 04/10/2009 - 14:17
Ng: I'm sorry but your

Ng: I'm sorry but your posting is simply too disingenuous to merit a reply.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 19:56
Adrienne: yours is a

Adrienne: yours is a remarkably incorrect account of DAG history and the emergence of your HNW group, but I will leave it to the individuals to whom you have referred to correct you.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 19:56
@elgee I am quite willing to


I am quite willing to ignore the fact that so far in this thread you have referred to my having "lost the plot" and that my concept of DAG's structure is "my imagination". However, I draw the line at your deliberately misquoting me, however subtly, to suit your own purposes:

My words: "It would seem that along the way they gradually changed from indicating that they represented the DAG to indicating that they were the DAG."

Your reference to those words: "...your statement that DST changed from claiming to represent DAG to claiming to be DAG."

Did you notice my words "it would seem that..." and "indicating" (not "claiming")?

claim: state as being the case, without being able to give proof
indicate: state briefly or indirectly

In everyday communication, the word claim has strong overtones of accusation. I was not accusing, simply documenting, hence I did not use the word claim. My use of the word indicate being to state indirectly or to give the impression that. In other words I suspect that many depositors and probably various external individuals and bodies gained the impression that DAG as a whole and that part of DAG "led" by DST were effectively one and the same. I accept that this may have been an unintentional side-effect of DST's activities - I was certainly not claiming that DST might have misrepresented themselves. My apologies if that was unclear.

Posted by ng on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 16:34
Elgee, For the record - if


For the record - if you read our submission to the Tynwald enquiry, you will see we describe the PPD (partial protected depositors) as

"a group of partially protected depositors in Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander
Isle of Man (KSFIOM). We are members of the KSFIOM Depositors Action Group
(DAG) and were formally known as the HNW Group. We have approximately 250
direct retail and indirect bond holder supporters. At the KSFIOM First Meeting of
Creditors on 7 July 2009 we held 143 proxies for deposits to the value of
approximately £70 million in KSFIOM (representing an average deposit balance of

A copy of this, and our latest newsletter can be found in the recently posted blog 'Partial Protected depositors update'

We changed the name after soliciting input from all those who previously provided us their proxy votes. Its just silly to go on and on about changing names, really - who cares? personally I am more focussed on pursuing actions to get our money back than word-smithing endlessly.

Ng's potted history is spot on. I recently sent you privately a copy of the original emails establishing the working teams - which included myself, hopper (gavin), expat (steve), sleeplessnight, teapot, ng, matt walker and ziggy. at that time Steve had flown to the island for the first six weeks of this debacle in an attempt to help resolve our collective problem. frog independently took the initiative to set up the conference calls with PWC - one of the most valuable initiativesto many depositors. And gavin was leading the in-flight action.

I would note that gavin, myself, steve, frog, ng and sleeplessnight are still highly active in driving various initiatives forward. Sleeplessnight being the only remaining original member of what you are calling 'DAG'. Ziggy, teapot and Matt have since stopped working on KSF topics for various reasons.

Ng is correct - Gavin, myself and steve could not reconcile with the approach that sleeplessnight was taking, together with the general lack of communication and felt that the needs of the protected depositors and higher value / partially protected depositors were best served in another way. The three of us then progressed forward with what is now PPD, (with Matt walker exiting the action, but giving us his proxies). Ng became a neutral party in his role as website owner and Frog (nigel) who had been leading the relationship independently with PWC joined us, as did Peter Wakeham who had spent several months as an indpendent party trying to bring the DAG into a cohesive whole. Hilde (a huge depositor) and Mira (a hard hitting lawyer) then joined us along with, Dipika (a CA), and Alistair (BC) who is also a lawyer, and who has been extremely active since last october.

Sleepless night and Teapot separated to continue their chosen course, and I believe Teapot is no longer involved. Nixi and Alex then joined sleepless, and at the request of HNW (at the time), Podather joined them to try help communications between the two groups (again I have the emails on this). Simon Bessant then joined them, again with a discussion between myself and himself that it would be a brilliant idea - as having Simon helping anyone of us would only be good for the whole.

I have never been entirely sure who the other members are. Although Elgee and Lucky Jim have been very active, elgee had his money paid out through the EPS and Lucy Jim was never a depositor.

At some point Sleeplessnight and co began to represent themselves as the only real 'DAG', although we have all been in it from the beginning. And with Elgee leading the charge, repeatedly claimed that we are a splinter group. I would say no more so than Sleepless (and DST co). As Alistair keeps saying we have repeatedly offered to work together in the past couple of months without any takeup on the offer.

Anyway, as history has shown these are pointless debates - perhaps it all could have been better and we could always all have acted as one - and perhaps thats the impossible dream. So it is what it is.

I would like this website to remain open, as it is a good source of information. I personally like the impartiality, and would be concerned about a site where if you disagree, you are censored (and you dont know who is going to be doing the censoring). I have personally had attempts here at having my posts censored because DST did not like the content, where Ng stepped in impartially. I will never agree with censorship as a general approach. Although this site is occassionally unmanageable, it does allow open debate and progress to be made in many different ways. IN NO WAY ARE WE ASKING FOR OWNERSHIP OF THIS SITE. Just participation. And yes, many of us continue to contribute on a personal basis to its funding (and more of us should do so more often!)

In addition - this is my personal view - it is ENTIRELY possible that giving your personal banking details to a group of unnamed individuals who will have access to that information could expose you to all sorts of horrors. I do not know where that information will be kept and who will have access to that information and how you can insure at some point it will not be used against you. I dont understand how we are going to keep the site secret from the 'bad guys' - the security is not good enough, the connection between actual depositor lists does not exist with PWC and entities like the IOMg (and who knows else) are depositors themselves, so in principle will have access.

So, for now I will definitely continue posting our updates here, and coming here regularly to look for information and participate, safe in the sense that my personal security is not compromised, and knowing I can speak openly without censorship.

Posted by adrienne on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 14:56
NG: I am afraid I do not

NG: I am afraid I do not agree with your version of the history of DAG in several respects and I too was a part of that history. One matter about which I particularly take issue is your statement that DST changed from claiming to represent DAG to claiming to be DAG. That is simply not true - the DST has only ever claimed to represent DAG and still does. The HNW group has only recently claimed to represent DAG, because it suits their present purposes, and prior to that was careful in its output to distinguish itself from DAG.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 12:30
You seem to have lost the

You seem to have lost the plot completely. At no time was the DST ever a "sub-group" of DAG except evidently in your imagination...

A quick potted history of the DAG

DAG is an abbreviation for KSFIOM Depositors Action Group. The DAG is the collective members of the ksfiomdepositors site. This is and has always been the case, right from the start. If you are in doubt please check with Mat Walker, who was the guy who set the site up (with assistance from one other) and chose the name "KSFIOM Depositors Action Group" and the domain name (10-Oct-2008). For various reasons and with Mat's support, the site was later moved to the address and shortly afterwards was split to become the public and forum (chat) sites that we know today.

Not long after the DAG's creation, individual members began to establish "teams" (or sub-groups) within the DAG. One early attempt was the so-called Core group, set up by Mat and myself around 17-Oct-2008. We identified a number of potential key-players and invited them to join a hidden discussion area on the site (the content of which still exists today but is not accessible by anyone other than me.)

To cut a long story short, the original Core sub-group split to eventually become what are now the DST and PPD sub-groups. The reasons for the split were primarily: (a) Incompatible needs due to deposit size and situation (e.g. in-flight funds) and (b) Considerable mis-trust of one or more individuals who had been allowed to join the Core group, based on their publicly documented history. Essentially, Diver went off in one direction and Hopper in another.

Sleeplessnight (a member of Diver's "London Team") and others put in a huge amount of work in establishing press contacts, and in doing so frequently indicated that they represented the DAG. The London Team later became the Legal Team and eventually DST (with actual membership changing to some extent.) It would seem that along the way they gradually changed from indicating that they represented the DAG to indicating that they were the DAG.

As an aside, Mat Walker is occasionally still active on this site (most recently around mid August this year.)

Posted by ng on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 11:33
I have no interest in

I have no interest in bandying words with you elgee, you're not worth the trouble. Anyway nobody needs your approval to do as they see fit, far from it. You've got your money, try getting on with your life, or do you prefer urinating glass?
You fool nobody elgee.
Haven't you migrated yet?

Posted by expat on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 11:29
Can YOU answer my

Can YOU answer my question?

You are clearly such a legal expert, clearly so eloquent, why didn't YOU appear on the TV instead of Steve?

Have you ever been on the TV before?

I think we deserve to be told.

Posted by DAKON on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 10:35
Expat: You fool almost

Expat: You fool almost no-one except perhaps yourself.

In reply to your denial, set out below just some of the actions of your group that have been against the interests of depositors. There are many more. You have studiously ignored them, so I'll set them out again:

Well, just from memory:
(1). The letters and calls made to FSC opposing liquidation, encouraged by members of what is now the PPDG, calling on the FSC to avoid winding up the bank, and used by the FSC in their affidavit to persuade the court that depositors were against winding up;

(2). The letters written by you and your friends, exhibited to IoMT's affidavit, vigorously supporting the proposed SoA without having seen it, which encouraged the court to give the IoMT the extensions of time and facilities they sought to develop the proposed SoA and led directly to the very long delays and huge costs wasted on the SoA;

(3). The affidavit from your group, put into a later court hearing, supporting further time to be given to development of the SoA;

(4). Opposing the introduction of a conflict liquidator, which has meant that PWC has continued to act unreasonably, notwithstanding the existence of the CC.

All of these acts by your group harmed the position of depositors. (2) and (3) had a major impact on allowing the long delays before liquidation and DCS got underway. They were indeed against "the needs of DAG" (your words) - I would say that they were clearly harmful to the interests of depositors. In hindsight, you should at least admit that they were at best misguided. At worst, they (not the allegations that they were done) were "preposterous" (again using your words). In any event, no-one in their right mind could claim that they assisted depositors or that they did not assist the IoM government.

Of course "PPDG/MTFK/HNW/>500k/>300k" etc etc is a splinter group. It campaigned against DST for proxy votes in the SoA and for the CC. It voted for NONE, I repeat NONE, of the DST CC candidates (whereas DST voted for one of HNW's candidates), but only for its own and the Life cos and the pension fund candidates. What is it if it is not a "splinter" group - it could only be a "breakaway" group (my words)?

Now, can you address these matters instead of merely posturing?

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 09:03
Elgee, Oh you are funny, I

Elgee, Oh you are funny, I suggest you take a long look in the mirror.

Posted by expat on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 05:31
Do you want him "assisting"?

Do you want him "assisting"? I'd rather he scurry off and enjoy his new reclaimed wealth.

As for aggressive - well that is the tip of the iceberg (puts me in mind of that old "Titanic" joke).

Posted by DAKON on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 00:23
Quick question, why didn't

Quick question, why didn't YOU go on the idiot box instead of Steve?

You have done just so much for us all, and I for one would have loved to see that cuddly mush on my telly.

I can just imagine the insurance company costs as about 500,000 TV's were thrown out of the window simultaneously.

Away, away with you and haunt your new forum.

Posted by DAKON on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 00:18
My daughter considers that

My daughter considers that sticking her horrible little fingers into the mixing bowl while mother is making a cake is also "of some value" - however her sister thinks that she is nothing short of being a pain in the arse whose ultimate end is to ruin the cake.

Good lord, how the courgette talks like a cucumber.

Posted by DAKON on Sat, 03/10/2009 - 00:13
"frog: There was a good

"frog: There was a good reason" - must have been about you then...

Posted by frog on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 22:13
Expat: I don't mind your

Expat: I don't mind your uncouth postings. It is your evading the issues that I find disturbing.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 22:10
frog: There was a good reason

frog: There was a good reason

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 22:07
Elgee, I thought you were off


I thought you were off to your site to leave us true depositors alone - I quote you:

"I think this will be the last posting a make on unless there is a good reason"

(although I think you mean "I make"...)


ng, please keep the site going for the rest of us - it is the only impartial site for information.

Posted by frog on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 21:54
Oh that's not a very

Oh that's not a very dignified response now is it. A little decorum please. I thought you were into giving lectures about being polite, or was that a passing moment? Pots calling kettles black springs to mind.
By the way are you the DST pr rep? Just wondering given the amount of time you seem to spend posting.

Posted by expat on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 21:06
ng: "not really a sub-group

ng: "not really a sub-group in the same way as DST"

You seem to have lost the plot completely. At no time was the DST ever a "sub-group" of DAG except evidently in your imagination and in the drivel emanating recently from the HNW group.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 19:55
Then no, PPD as an entity are

Then no, PPD as an entity are not financing it in any way. This is to the best of my knowledge - I would have no way of knowing if an incoming donation were on behalf of PPD as an entity unless they told me that, which they haven't done. PPD have the same opportunities here as DST, no more and no less. The same goes for Derbyshire (not really a sub-group in the same way as DST and PPD, but a relevant example I think.)

Posted by ng on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 18:51
The following Websters

The following Websters definition should surffice:

Function: transitive verb
1 : to endure bravely or quietly : bear
2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate (3) : to argue or vote for b (1) : assist, help (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for c : to provide with substantiation : corroborate
3 a : to pay the costs of : maintain b : to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of

Why I should need to define words in common use in English is beyond me but it at least helps demonstrate why this site has value.

Therefore by definition (2) above - PPD group is upholding the right of DAG members to have free access to this site without censorship irrespective of their views. I have contributed to this costs of this site and some other PPD supporters have also (as have several other members) but no suggestion further than this should be read into the word "support", no privilege is sought or received by us over and above any other member of DAG.

Personally I'm glad to see the DST continuing to post on this site and to post press releases here it is not important if I agree with them but all members should have access to them. I'm sure there are other words that some people might want defining in this post but to save my time to work on things that might help us get our money back can ask them to use a dictionary first.

Please everybody call me Alastair - (I will be changing my user id to my name later today)

Posted by Alastair on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 18:48
In case it was not obvious, I

In case it was not obvious, I asked if he meant that PPD as an entity was partly financing, not if there were individual contributors who also belonged to PPD (which I know anyway is likely to be the case).

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 17:37
@elgee What do you mean by


What do you mean by "PPD ... supports this site"? Are you now saying that this site is now financed partly or wholly by PPD? Or are you saying that PPD regards this site as its website? Or something else?

I imagine BC will reply, but in the meantime: This site and the site have been partially financed by member contributions. There are probably some PPD members/affiliates among those who have contributed (I haven't actually checked) so the answer to your question is probably partly and certainly not wholly.


  • Nobody has had nor will have any special privileges granted here simply by virtue of having made a financial contribution.
  • Nobody has had nor will have any privileges removed or withheld simply by virtue of having not made a financial contribution.
Posted by ng on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 16:19
BC: "Elgee please call

BC: "Elgee please call me"

No. I have things to do that I consider to be of some value. Arguing with someone who represents a group whose only function is to disrupt and frustrate the efforts of the DAG is not in my view remotely valuable, even if they do consider themselves high net worthies.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/10/2009 - 15:58