Will you vote for SoA

70 pages and same as the DCS but better?
25% (65 votes)
75% (192 votes)
Total votes: 257
    Login to post comments
Expatfrance - still think

Expatfrance - still think the SoA is a good idea?

Posted by nr8209 on Tue, 12/05/2009 - 02:44
why has this OLD, though

why has this OLD, though evidently not 'closed', poll (which conveniently showed a larger number of those who bothered to vote being not for SoA) suddenly replaced the 'London Demonstration' one as current poll in the left hand column ?

If somebody wants another poll re SoA / DCS / 100% it should be a NEW ONE.

(Suspicious ?)

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 18/04/2009 - 12:17
Hopefully other depositor

Hopefully other depositor groups will have access to the DCS/SoA calculator so we can all see the impact of the two options!

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 17:31
@scottr Did you download the

Did you download the SoA.DCS Calculator in the £250K and up groups? It compares payouts based on the examples given in David Lovett's examples of his 3rd affidavit. It may be however, that the IoMG are moving the goalposts, the SoA 24th month payment has reduced from 35% to 30% and it seems that they've also changed the DCS percentage returns from those figures given in Mr Lovett's affidavit. (They do not appear in the latest offering from Mr Gough.) The Calc will give you an idea of the returns for a single depositor from £1 to £7M + and show the returns at the alloted repayment periods. You can also vary the initial % return just to see the effect.

Posted by IceCrusher on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 16:45
Noting exchanges ref merits

Noting exchanges ref merits of SOA / Liquidation, but in the meantime could I ask ALL to keep badgering the Ministry of Justice (pick a high level person) to take action after TSC report. FYI my last message below. Called them again today and was told that position should be known on 15/04 - I was told that they are awaiting responses from Treasury (not surprising) and also many staff on Easter Break!

If this can be made to progress then they can bin the SOA. Worth a try, hence strongly suggest that, in parallel, we should be pulling out all stops to pressure them on this.

Text of last email:

¨ Further to our exchange of emails below and our brief telephone conversation last week, I understand that you had referred the matter to the relevant people in the Justice Department and were awaiting their feedback.

You may have already been made aware of the recommendations made by the TSC in their recently published report. They clearly recommend that the UK Government should work with the Isle of Man to resolve the issue.

I had drawn attention to the Prime Minister´s statement "as a matter of policy all governments should vouchsafe the savings & deposits in the banks in their jurisdiction" , and requested that an official statement be issued in order that KSF IOM DAG members and the general public could understand quite how the Government considers the position of the Isle of Man, as a Crown Dependency in this respect.

Given the Prime Minister´s statement, and considering the recommendations of the TSC, I sincerely hope that immediate action will be taken to ensure that and as necessary assist the Isle of Man in meeting its obligations. Perhaps you would confirm that this is the case and advise when we (KSF IOM DAG) can expect an official statement regarding this.¨

Yours sincerely,

Posted by icdbrazil on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 14:37
Will there really be enough

Will there really be enough money to immediately repay all the <50k depositors full compensation in the case of the DCS? I don't think so - because most of the IOM-G's 150m is being distributed as 10k EPS payments (20% of 50k). Under the DCS the available funds with the liquidator will presumably be distributed pro-rata to all depositors. If these funds total about 20% of what is owed to depositors and the IoM-G deducts the EPS payment from this initial distribution there will be nothing left. So a 50k depositor will only get the 20% EPS payment until more funds become available.

We really need a comparison between the SoA and the DCS before voting. As things stand at the moment, <50k depositors ought to favour the SoA because they would get all their money back in 3 quantified payments within 2 years. Also, the IoM-G is enthusiastic about the SoA but not the DCS so if we vote against the SoA they may drag their heels with the DCS.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 14:20
As a £20K bondholder, I'm

As a £20K bondholder, I'm unsure whether we will even get a vote. Does anyone know?
Under EPS 1& 2 I've achieved a 50% return automatically through the Insurance Company's claim. I may in the passing of time (at minimum 2 years) receive a further £2K - (up to 60% return).
Yes, I do feel I've got off lightly compared to HVD and bondholders but I've still potentially lost 40-50% of my deposit plus interest, as has my partner. We are inelligible for DCS, so I can't see that SOA gives us any more than liquidation.

If we bondholders do a get a vote (I don't expect we will) then I shall happily vote for whatever benefits the majority, as that's what we are still fighting for isn't it? None of us should have been subjected to this treatment, all I can say is "don't cut your nose off to spite your face" and "a bird in the hand may be worth two in the bush".
Personally, I don't trust any of it, I have no confidence in the manufacturers of the SOA, D. Deemster and the courts, LP, HMG or any post SoA / Liquidation court actions. Everything is geared up to suck as much out of our funds as they can and fleece the unfortunate depositors again and again.

My sympathies are with everyone, whether you have lost life savings or not, it is all our hard earned money which has been purloined by pirates and sharks in the Irish sea; in both IoM and UK waters!
Sorry to sound negative but unless a very large %age of the money frozen in the UK is returned I cannot see how 100% recovery can happen whichever route we eventually take.

Posted by cypheath on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 14:04
dj it does seem that way, I

dj it does seem that way, I have a lot of reservations and have let IoM know that. They could do better. But rememebr this hearing is actually only meant for requesting leave/sanction to call a creditors’ meeting. The merits of the Scheme are normally debated after the formal circular has been sent out and at the meetings thereafter and subsequent Court hearings. LPs have indicated that the proper period to explain things in detail and to engage with depositors will be after the 9 April hearing and before the creditors meeting. So this is far from over, if we get to a vote then yes there will be a dog fight with Alix over the detail of an SOA WITH ME AT LEAST!!!! I like the principle I don't like the detail as it stands, but recognise this is far from a done deal..

As Carol Singer posted, there is no legal recourse to 100% return, so don't throw the baby out with the bath water! As Ally posted its not much of an effort after 6 moinths is it, I agree with both thse comments.

And I just spent 2 hours with a journalist from Russia's biggest TV station, NTV, talking about this, I wonder if he'll follow up?!

Posted by expat on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 12:59
SOAScheme of Arrangement

SOA proposal

Thanks Undone. I had a moment of horror when I read that!!! Could you provide me with a link to the original proposal? I can't track it down anywhere ...

Posted by AJM UAE on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 12:38
Each Joint holder of an

Each Joint holder of an account(s) is covered by the £50,000 guarantee under both the DCS and SOA.

Part of Section 12.5.4 of the SOA affidavit refers to Trusts. Perhaps it was to these that DJ was referring.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 12:31
so will I, its the best of

so will I, its the best of the rubbish... the soa

Posted by hippychickrobbed on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 12:20
SoAScheme of Arrangement

SoA for humans - clarification requested

Can I check something with you, DJ? I have read your posting "SoA for humans" (thanks for doing this), and noticed that you mention under 12.5.4:

'Groups of people holding a single account will only get up to GBP50,000 from the Treasury fund, rather than 50k each.'

Is this right? My understanding was that joint account holders were each entitled to 50k. Or do you just mean that this is the level of funding that will be provided by IoM g'ment rather than the compensation limit itself?

Any clarification would be welcome.


Posted by AJM UAE on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 12:01
The Depositors' Compensation

The Depositors' Compensation Scheme (DCS) is vague regarding refunds. There is no stipulated commitment when or how monies will be returned to depositors. The 150 million from the IOMG will only be available after October 2009 providing no other bank goes bust. While other banks are expected to contribute to funding the DCS, the amount of contribution each year is so small it will have little impact on refunds. In fact, there is some talk that the contribution by the banks has still not been resolved. I believe we will not gain anything through the DCS that can't be achieved through the SOA which in my opinion is much clearer than the DCS. The SOA has certainly been screened far more by all concerned. Having examined both schemes many times, I have decided to vote for the SOA.

For the record I have much more than £50,000 at stake.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 11:53
Sorry Mr Lynton you are

Sorry Mr Lynton you are wrong. The 150 million from IOMG is guaranteed under the SOA but under the DCS it will go towards ALL bank failures, therefore if another bank goes under here the money will be split and there will be less for KSFIOM

The SOA therefore benefits smaller depositors as well as having a defined pay out timetable that the DCS does not have. I for one will be voting for it

Posted by Ramsey resident on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 11:32
mr lynton, Like many other

mr lynton,

Like many other posters on this web site you are wrong. The funds already under the liquidators control would, it has been estimated, allow for an immediate payout of a 10% dividend. For those that have received payment under the EPS I would imagine that would go straight back to the IOM Treasury.

The 150 million from IOM is to cover all bank failures up until October 2009, so no payout from what might be left of that until after that date.

Not as immediate as you make out then! So now tell me when I can expect to see a return of my money?

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 11:29
to all ,50k depositors:

to all ,50k depositors:
the comment by scottr is i'm afraid totally inaccurate,as with the 150million from IOMG and the funds already under liquidators control there is enough money to repay the 50k depositors already.
There is consequently no benefit in voting for SOA

Posted by mr lynton on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 11:03
Well, after spending a whole

Well, after spending a whole day reading the SoA I have changed my vote to 'For' rather than against. Not because the SoA is a fantastic document but because there is not a lot else the IoM can do.

Not happy that it goes to great pains to ensure I cant go after the Treasury, who I consider complicit in taking my money and I have grave reservations about some other areas. But it does still allow us to go after the real goal and go for the £552Million in London. It also allows the £552Million to be paid back to us if/when Darling comes to his senses and realises what he has done.

So there we go, u-turn done.

Posted by dj on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 10:55
Well, after spending a whole

Well, after spending a whole day reading the SoA I have changed my vote to 'For' rather than against. Not because the SoA is a fantastic document but because there is not a lot else the IoM can do.

Not happy that it goes to great pains to ensure I cant go after the Treasury, who I consider complicit in taking my money and I have grave reservations about some other areas. But it does still allow us to go after the real goal and go for the £552Million in London. It also allows the £552Million to be paid back to us if/when Darling comes to his senses and realises what he has done.

So there we go, u-turn done.

Posted by dj on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 10:55
Tricky, I understand what


I understand what you are saying regarding Scottish Equitable but the following information is required before making comparisons:-

What was the detail of the Scottish Equitable Compromise Scheme?
Have all commitments of the Compromise Scheme been met?
Would Scottish Equitable depositors have been any better off without the compromise scheme?

WIth regards the DCS. Whichever one you want to go with the fact remains that at the moment the current balace of the fund is a big fat zero! It may get 10 million from bank contributions for 2008 and another 10 million from contributions in 2009. On top of that it may receive upto 150 million from the IOM after October 2009 and if no other financial institutions go tits up between now and then.

It really does not matter what limit the IOM cover with the DCS 15k, 50k or 500k, if there is no money in the kitty it is worthless.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 08:40
DCSDepositors Compensation

DCS is funded by IoMG ( I think i recall £150m mentioned by IoMG) and banks. IoMG have stated they will put in the banks part for 2008/09. According to Bell at TSC the DCS has served the IoM well. Could he be lying? surely not.

Posted by thesunnysouth on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 08:36
For all members Hi scottr -

For all members

Hi scottr - I understand your sentiments, however even under a 'Compromise Scheme' or SoA under another guise, Equitable Life members are still trying to be reimbursed their money after 9 years

Hi expatfrance1 - you are correct about the old DCS - however we are currently working within the revised one, which is in force until Oct 2009, and we need to work with what is in front of us and not what is in the bin. In light of recent developments in limits of Compensation Schemes, and IOMG statements that they adhere to trends, they could be following the UK's lead in lifting limits still further.

Posted by Tricky Dicky on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 07:51
To all <50k depositors: If

To all <50k depositors:

If you vote for liquidation you could wait 10 years for compensation as there is no money in the Depositors Compensation Fund.

If you vote for the SOA you'll get your money back in 3 definite payments within 2 years.

The choice is obvious - vote SoA.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 07:33
Whilst not trying to defend

Whilst not trying to defend the IOM it should still be remembered that the old DCS was limited to something like 15k. The IOM increased this to 50k after KSF IOM called in the LP. They did not have to do that. If the old DCS was still in force the IOM would have already nearly paid off all depositors under the scheme by way of the EPS payments that have been made and that would have been that. End of story.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 07:33
This may be correct but at

This may be correct but at what cost. As it looks some of the liquidator’s powers are eroded and the IOM government gets a say in how the bank is administrated and a veto over some of the options we have in the future. From the experience I have had so far with IOM I would rather have the uncertainty with regards to the timing of return than introduce a new (and in my opinion even greater) uncertainty with regards to IOM’s integrity to put the depositors first when it comes to the administration of our remaining funds and any future action we might want to undertake

Posted by klauseriksen on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 07:02
I cannot see why the return

I cannot see why the return of the money frozen in KSFUK would influence whether to vote for or against the SoA. As far as I understand it returns from the SoA are not capped at 60%. If the various administrators manage to gain a 100% return of assets then so will depositors regardless of whether the DCS or SoA route is chosen. If the money is returned from the UK it will be paid out to depositors, SoA or DCS.

The possible benefit from the SoA, is that the first 3 distibutions will be made at a known amount and on a know date rather than under liquidation, not knowing when payments might be made and for how much.
I would have thought that for many this would be quite an advantage.

Some people really need to get real. The Isle Of Man on its own is not going to compensate 100% of our deposits, not under the SoA or liquidation/DCS. As many others have indicated, this is only going to happen by putting more pressure on the UK and IOM governments to jointly do the right thing.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 05:52
Jam jar, we should make a

Jam jar, we should make a declaration that to vote for an asoa a declaration is made from the administators of ksfuk defining the return of the frozen assets, basically the 550million.. Basically this is where our money is and it should be returned unleashing clause 27. This is where direct action helps, demos and protests

Posted by hippychickrobbed on Wed, 08/04/2009 - 05:02
We arrived in the IOM today

We arrived in the IOM today in readiness for the court hearing on 9th April. While walking along the promenade we stopped to watch the BBC filming the waterfront for what was a travel news item, we started talking to the interviewer who we told the reason for our visit and the court hearing, he showed much interest and asked if they could film an interview. After ten minutes of filming we we were told that the edited piece will be on the BBC Northwest website under the heading IOM on 8th/9th April, he also said he would be covering the court hearing on Thursday.

Look forward to seeing as many of you as possible. Don' forget your umberella and winter coats!

Posted by Chairman2 on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 21:46
Liquidations can be a mess.

Liquidations can be a mess. They can also prove costly. As Manager of Finance with a large multi- national corporation I have also been involved with several liquidations and they can take a long time to resolve. This is what bothers me with the Isle of Man's Depositors' Compensation Scheme (DSC) as it lacks any firm commitments, especially in respect of payout. While the Scheme of Arrangement doesn't ensure depositors 100% recovery of their funds, we must realize that neither does the DCS and, while I am not a lawyer, I'm not sure that the DCS will provide any better rights to further our cause. We must be careful not to bite off our nose to spite our face. Let's not let our anger with the IOM government hinder our judgement if the choice of a scheme comes to a vote.

For the record, I am in the over £50,000 category.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 21:04
Thanks Ally, that is an

Thanks Ally, that is an interesting point. I am still crawling through the SoA!

Interesting point about the legal process and one I need to consider. However, if the SoA was voted down AND (this is the big 'and'!) the UK saw sense and returned the £557Million, would we be in a completely different ballpark?

Posted by dj on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 20:23
Although not worded that way

Although not worded that way I have already done just that personally last week, pointing out that until E&Y figures are released its frankly impossible to decide for many. Its my view as well, but each to their own. I've also sent a message to IoM saying that they need to address a few issues on the SoA such as the costs, interest and clarify the rights situation,althoiugh I think you can't sue a compnay in liquidation and the FSC are still an open target. I sent that emial today, I believe others are doing the same.

As I understand it if the UK Administrators feel it appropriate its is within their remit to approach HM Treasury for a transfer of assets, in other words its clause 27 again. Maybe worth a few letters and emails to the UK admistrators then?

Posted by expat on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 19:49

I have read all the comments regarding SOA or DCS , but could not understand what to do. After so many comments and diffirents suggestions I am totaly puzzle. IT would be much batter if there are guidence and clear comments from the DAG and Legal support.

Posted by steelwood on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 17:46
To date no explanation as to

To date no explanation as to basis of Whelan´s release of KSF UK funds. Just send request under freedom of information as follows. Others might like to do similar with different wording. Link: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Dear Sir or Madam,

Deposits (non retail) in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander UK have
been frozen.

I would like to have precise details of the basis upon which Dave
Whelan was refunded his considerable deposit with KSF UK. If a
claim was made for compensation and payment was made through the
FSCS, on what basis precisely.

Yours faithfully,

Posted by icdbrazil on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 17:35
Frozen Deposits in KSF-UK.

Frozen Deposits in KSF-UK. Voting for SOA,is something which is extremley difficult,since this proposal gets inceasingly worse for depositors,as each version is lodged with the high court,and is not definative in terms of payouts to all depositors.I cannot see how the Deemster can decide,one way or another,on how to proceed,other than simply,leaving depositors to vote for something that they dont understand,and with so many assumptions involved as well,that is not justice,and does not protect anyones democratic rights.I would suggest to DAG strategy team,that we submit an affadavit to the court before the hearing,stating that the depositors are unable to vote on an SOA,until a declaration is made,from the administrators of KSF-UK,defining the return of the frozen assetts,or part thereof.hopefully creating a shaft of light,into the current somewhat muddy waters.

Posted by jamjar on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 17:11
nr8209, On a purely personal


On a purely personal basis, as a <50k depositor, how do you see that liquidation will be better than the SoA?

As I understand it, the LP has has sufficient liquid funds to make a payment of approximately 10%. So a 50k depositor will get 5k, and if they have already applied for the EPS, that will go to the IOM Treasury. Thats it. The rest is dependent on the loan book maturing, the 500 million being returned from the UK and the much vaunted DCS kicking in. The small print of which has always stated that it is unfunded and could take many years to pay out.

I would be interested to hear how you think that liquidation is the way forward and what benefits it offers.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 16:59
Having read through the

Having read through the legal drivel/jargon in the SoA, I really cannot see any benefit in voting for it. I am a <50k depositor.

Bring on the liquidation. I'm not lining the pockets of IOMG.

Posted by nr8209 on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 16:22
I am not a lawyer, but on

I am not a lawyer, but on first read of the SOA docs it was not clear to me that the 60% figure is guaranteed by IOMG, isn't that just the point at which they start getting repaid funds advanced? If I'm right, the SOA is only better for >50K depositors if there is a poor level of recovery which means the IOMG doesn't get it's money back. It's not clear to me that this takes us up to 60% - isn't that just an estimate? Is there a press release somewhere stating exactly how much IOMG are putting in?

If I get this the critical factors are:

1.Is the minimum recovery effectively higher than 50k for large depositors or not?
2.What acceleration of payments takes place for any category of depositor?
3.How is the % of original currency deposit (including interest accrued) impacted by SOA vs Liquidation - I see the SOA ignores accrued interest until the end, and caps at 5% (I was in a bond supposedly paying 6.8%). Also not sure if the currency conversation date is different in SOA vs Lquidation at this point in the proceedings?
4.What exact legal writes are forgone?
5.Assume the chance of 100% recovery is not materially impacted either way, unless the SOA allows IOMG to sweep the problem under the carpet more easily...

There are quite a few moving parts to figure out.

Posted by fastcat1 on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 14:34
What to say? The legal

What to say? The legal situation appears to be that the hearing on the ninth will decide liquidation or SOA. If liquidation then a well defined legal process of realising the remaining assets cuts in, selling off the loan book to the highest bidder and receiving small beer as a creditor of Kaupthing UK along with everyone else and we all take a percentage based on the amount of our deposit. If and only if the courts agree to pursue SOA then there will be the voting process, 50% of voters with 75% of the assets to pass etc. If the vote approves the SOA then we are told that IoM gov/PwC will recover/return a minimum of 60% of our deposits. If the vote is against SOA then there is no legal alternative and the bank goes into liquidation which by all accounts (example Guernsey) will return 30%+ albeit perhaps sooner than SOA. Whilst obviously I share everyones desire for a full return of my deposits there appears to be no legal process for this to happen.. What does however seem clear is that a NO vote for SOA is actually a YES vote for liquidation and what that will bring. It is not clear to me that the Kaupthing UK funds of ours which are now with ING bank will be anything other than assets of a UK bank also in liquidation with KSF IoM, and ultimately us, nothing more than a creditor.

Posted by Carol Singer on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 13:32
Is it really the case that a

Is it really the case that a vote that is not cast is automatically then counted against the SOA? i.e. the 50% by numbers and 75% by value of votes that are required for the SOA are they counted as percentages of the total depositors or of the actual votes?

Posted by klauseriksen on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 12:48
That is roughly correct,

That is roughly correct, bearing in mind that the court still has before it the petition to wind up the bank, and it has to be persuaded that the SoA is a viable alternative and, notwithstanding whether a majority of creditors eventually indicate their acceptance by voting, that it does not disbenefit any creditors when compared with winding up. Therefore the court has to consider the objections, if any, of depositors to the SoA before deciding to give directions as to voting.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 11:22
If the SOAScheme of

If the SOA is accepted by the Courts on Thursday then a copy of the proposed scheme and proxy voting paper will be sent out by the LP to all depositors. Vote will take place on 19th May on the IOM

Posted by Ramsey resident on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 11:08
I'm still uncertain as to

I'm still uncertain as to precisely what our lawyers are doing in all this. Perhaps DAG can enlighten me?

Posted by barrona on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 10:52
How does one actually vote

How does one actually vote for anything ? I guess I've missed something but I don't see how one casts a vote.

Posted by BustedFlat on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 10:30
dj - Not to vote I tend to

dj - Not to vote

I tend to agree with you, in that to cast a vote for what is currently on the table is extremely hard. I am in all probability an abstainer, in that I could not vote for liquidation in that I have had a number of experience of lqiuidation through work and it is no solution at all, but to have 6 months and come up with the current SoA most certainly does not merit a vote. However it is the legal process that if the SoA is voted down then there will be no one to object to the original petition for winding up on 9th October so liquidation will automatically follow and therefore so will the DCS.

Posted by Ally on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 10:22
How can we vote on anything

How can we vote on anything till we get the 557m back? How can the court do anything till they know what is going to happen to the 557m? I.O.M.GOV are pushing us into a corner intead off pushing the UK for full return. The UK talk about Dave Wheelan saving jobs what about the jobs on this island. They ask us to spend money to save the world, give it back to us then we could spend it. Give us a proper intrest return on life savings instead of helping people that never help themselves.

Posted by Julie on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 08:47
Unless there is a political

Unless there is a political bail-out it is one or the other: ie SOA or Winding-up plus DCS. Winding up either way will TAKE TIME!
Even most of those with GBP 50k or less will not see their money for nearly 2.5 years, and the whole process does not EVEN BEGIN until there has been a vote of creditors [See Gough's affidavit Clause 7.2] and the LP has persuaded the Courts of England and Wales to recognise the IOM 9/10/2008 moratorium [See Gough's affidavit Clause 7.2] .

With GBP900m supposed depositors funds, and assets including GBP 416 m loans in the process of repayment, which will take up to 6 years with GBP 62m or so in the first year. Winding up gives the clearest an unequivocal legal power to the Liquidator to recover as many funds as possible. Although technically possible to revert to liquidation from the SOA , given the need for Creditor's Committee approval, that may not happen.

Posted by Wombat761 on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 08:39
By not voting for the

By not voting for the SoA I am not automatically voting for the DCS. If the IoM Government want to spin the line that it is one or the other then that is their problem. My vote firmly rests with getting the £557 Million back from London; until that happens the IoM can do little to help and it is wrong that they should pretend otherwise.

Posted by dj on Tue, 07/04/2009 - 08:25