BBC Blog Network

User Profile

IceCrunch

Listed below are comments made by IceCrunch between Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 and Saturday, 11th April 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Note from the news diary for today: 9:00pm on 11 Apr 2009 Thank you for continuing to report this lamentable story - but when are you going to get off the pot and investigate and expose this scandal?

The TSC pulled the facts together very succinctly; loaded the gun with bullets of solid evidence; and aimed it most accurately at the instigators and perpetrators of this despicable debacle, but jerked the trigger and the shot went wide. No one person, or group - not even the Opposition itself - will bring this Government to task over these scandalous events because ultimately the UK perceives a self-interested gain in this affair and could not see itself righting wrongs for the sake of people whom the Chancellor has maliciously and incorrectly accused of avoiding contribution to the UK economy.

This false sense of self-rightousness has permeated the Kingdom and provides the only excuse necessary for the UK Treasury to retain the power in Clause 27 and prevent the savings of ten thousand people from being returned to them. It also means that few can escape the collective psychology of blaming the victim engendered by Darling's first remarks, and even fewer feel inclined to stand up and be counted - including the mouthpiece of the establishment, the BBC. You report selected comments, but in 6 months have only nibbled around this issue without taking a bite and getting involved.

If this Government had brought 10,000 French or German people to fiscal ruin and desperate deprivation in the autumn of their lives there would be a public outcry and this Government would be in dire straights, but you have all turned a blind eye to your fellow British citizens because of their perceived status and accepted those unproven lies used against them to keep their life-long savings to be returned to the UK Treasury coffers in nothing less than orchestrated theft. Shame on you all for being so blind, so smug, so shallow and so weak.
IceCrusher
A twist in the expat tale. 3:24pm on 21 Dec 2008 What we need is inside information as to when HMG first made arrangements with ING to set-up the transfer of Edge accounts. Some 170,000 accounts do not get moved within hours of someone calling 'we will seize all Icelandic assets' without pre-arrangement.

Why ING? Did the Dutch also turn down the Icelandic request for assistance earlier in the year?

If pre-arrangements for the transfer of accounts were undertaken weeks in advance of Oct 8th, then HMG could be viewed as waiting/instigating the appropriate time to initiate the plan - which might have included encouragement to place Channel Island and Isle of Man monies into UK banks.

If, as the Chancellor asserted during the TSC meeting that HMT has no business in the
A twist in the expat tale. 07:43am on 20 Dec 2008 Herewith copy of original letter to the Chair of the Justice Committee following meeting December 10th 2008.

Dear Sir Alan Beith,

May I extend my sincere thanks to the Justice Committee convened on
the 10th December 2008, and most especially to you and Mr David Heath
CBE MP for the incisive questioning of Lord Bach with concern to the
activities of the Justice Ministry and the Treasury in their dealings
with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

Having viewed a videotape of the proceedings, I doubt that Lord Bach
persuaded too many committee members of his truth and transparency in
matters relating to the interests of UK depositors banking in the Isle
of Man or the Channel Islands. If body language provides observable
evidence of a person's discomfiture, then in the case of Lord Bach it
appeared highly discernible.

Your questions to Lord Bach were clearly weighed and astute, and I
have no doubt that you readily perceived any elliptical responses of
the Justice Minister. Even given faith in your interpretations, I must
on behalf of my fellow depositors comment on Lord Bach's final
assurance to a question posed by David Heath that the interests of
depositors in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were looked
after as well as any other UK depositor. This is inexact; the offshore
depositors were not protected from the first actions of the Treasury
as follows:

•Peace of mind was given to all UK depositors within hours by
assurances given by HMG that no British depositor would lose their
money.

•All UK savers deposits were declared safe and underwritten by the
Treasury using billions of taxpayer's money.

•All IceSave accounts were frozen and vouched for by the Treasury.

•All UK Kaupthing Edge Deposits were moved seamlessly to ING with
barely any inconvenience to depositors.

In comparison, offshore depositors received no assurance from any
source as to the safety of their life-savings. Access to their
accounts was suddenly denied them and even two months later there are
still depositors' who have just discovered that their bank has
collapsed; there will be others yet to discover this awful truth.

No entity bailed-out the offshore depositors, and we have been left in
morbid anxiety as to the return of our savings and who will represent
us in holding to account those who have acted most callously towards
an unrepresented group of British subjects.

Not only are we subject to a 'blame the victim' mentality prevalent in
UK society, but we have also been subjected to misleading comments by
ministers, including the Chancellor, using cheap unapprised shots at
the Isle of Man being a tax haven and thereby inferring that KSFIoM
depositors are tax evaders.

Subsequent to the first actions above, the interests of offshore
depositors have clearly been neglected by those charged with the
Constitutional obligation to represent the Isle of Man in
International affairs:

•A UK delegation had already visited Iceland and begun talks there
before the UK even agreed to represent the Isle of Man. Almost a week
had passed before formal acknowledgement of this critical requirement
was announced. A week too late.

•Hundreds of depositors in the Isle of Man deluged the IMF with emails
asking that consideration be given to satisfy the requirements of the
parental guarantee for savers in Kaupthing IoM before an IMF loan was
granted. How many UK depositors felt the need to do something similar?

•What reward came to the IoM depositors for these efforts? The UK
Government ignored their needs in discussions with the Icelandic
authorities, HMT sought only to secure the monies it had expended in
underwriting nearly 300,000 IceSave accounts and supporting the move
of 170,000 KSF EDGE accounts to ING. The Justice Committee noted the
conflict of interests in this regard. The IMF loan was granted to
Iceland with due consideration of every other depositor's guarantees
bar those of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands – lamentably left
out of the bargaining process by a UK Government concerned only with
its own self-interests.

•Lord Bach asserted that the Ministry looked after the Isle of Man's
interests 'where appropriate'. Does he suppose that such a catch-all
phrase excuses his department from providing international assistance
to the Isle of Man's Government at a time of great need? How much more
'appropriate' could that need have been? If the UK delegation to
Iceland were confident enough to secure the interests of a country of
60 million citizens, how much of a challenge was it to do likewise for
an Island population of 80 thousand?

•The colleague of Lord Bach (the one to his left and most frequently
looked to for support) stated that it was only right for adjoining
regulatory jurisdictions to discuss their mutual interests. Of course
fellow British regulators should be expected to discuss matters of
common interest between them at the highest level. How could it be
then, that HMG used a power within the Anti Terrorism Crime and
Security Act bringing both immediate and far-reaching financial
adversity upon depositors with offshore institutions without so much
as a word passing between the respective regulators?

•Lord Bach used almost the same terminology as Lord Turner did during
the TSC meeting to assert that the FSA neither advised nor required
KSFIoM to move its deposits to the Kaupthing UK branch. What then was
the point of these discussions? Were they chatting about the weather?
If the FSA felt obliged to discuss such a serious matter as the
possible collapse of the Icelandic banking system, it would surely
have been open to the probable consequences and prospects of such an
outcome? Kaupthing IoM would hardly deposit its monies in a
non-affiliated entity without questions emanating from the parent bank
in Iceland. The FSC and directors of KSFIoM did what was likely
expected of them and used their sister bank in the UK. HMG/HMT/FSA
failed in their Constitutional duty to advise the Isle of Man of their
impending action and allowed the Administration of the UK branch to go
ahead appropriating some £550M of IoM depositor's monies in the
process. Lord Bach is at liberty to assert what he will but it is
clear that 'By their fruits ye shall know them'.

The Justice Ministry is taking a self-righteous and spiteful attitude
in its control of assets belonging to the depositors of the IoM
Kaupthing bank. Thousands of life-time savers are denied access to
their monies; many of these folk are retired and completely dependent
upon this income; many more are located far from home with no means of
return. No one has yet asked why the Justice Ministry and the Treasury
are so rigorously arguing for the IoM's asset to be kept in the UK
bank – who will be the benefactor of this hardened stance, where does
the money-trail lead? The whole point of Government action in this
affair was stated to protect depositors and the UK economy – why then
is HMG determined to deny retail depositors of KSFIoM their assets and
lay stress upon pernicious legal details when eight thousand real
people are sorely and seriously affected by the severe action taken by
their Government in the first instance, and by its politically pompous
position since. Saving the World indeed.

We have been set adrift in mid Atlantic and denied safe passage
because the captain failed to load the fuel bought and paid in advance
by the passengers. Everyone involved denies responsibility, but the
fuel is locked in the depot and the passengers are marooned on the
high seas without power and in imminent danger of capsizing whilst
others deliberate as to whether the 'fuel' by which they could be
saved should be returned to them.

This shameful state of affairs is beyond the understanding of mortal
compassion; it is high-minded legality gone awry – and is evident to
all who look upon it.

Sir Alan, please help bring a resolution to this crisis and ensure
that 8,000 mainly British citizens, are not unjustly penalised in such
a cavalier fashion when an obvious, sensible, and civilized solution
requiring no public money is available – return unto the depositors
that which belongs to the depositors.

Yours sincerely,
A twist in the expat tale. 1:44pm on 08 Dec 2008 HMG could not have arranged with ING to take-over 170,000 Kaupthing Edge accounts within hours of declaring the default; this could only have been set-up beforehand, maybe just days, maybe longer.

HMG had no control over the regulation of IceSave accounts; it could only achieve the aim of 'freezing' all IceSave assets by using a power within the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act. The stated intention was to protect the depositors and the UK economy.

How did the Chancellor imagine this was going to play out? The IceSave accounts were frozen until HMG cut a deal with the Icelandics over the IMF loan - could Mr Darling have accurately forecast this outcome; was it a high risk strategy or was the result assured?

We have only HMT/FSA's finding that KSFUK was found unable to meet its commitments; yet the freezing of IceSave accounts and KSFUK going into Administration look decidely like an orchestrated two-pronged near-simulataneous action. It would have been preferable to make this move when the KSFUK contained more, rather than less money, that is, to plan the moment...

Mr Darling initiated the telephone call to Arnie Mathiesen on the 7th Oct and asked leading questions throughout the exchange. His interpretation from the entire conversation was that Iceland was not able to provide depositor protection outside of its borders. As Mr Darling lead the exchange, and Mr Mathiesen generally confirmed the Chancellors leading questions, it's not surprising that Mr Darling could assert his understanding of the conversation - it went the way he had directed it.

Having achieved enough to claim the Icelandics were not going to guarantee UK depositors, the rest of the spin machine fell into place and action quickly followed suit. Everything happened so fast it surprised most people and left so much fog around that it is still difficult to unravel and determine the truth behind it all.

Amidst all of this, the KSFIoM asset in the UK bank had been growing over the previous few months from transfers made from the IoM and was now worth a massive ?550M. It was taken into Administration, claimed to be unsecured, and retained for distribution. If HMG did not plan this outcome, then it must be an Act of God in their favour. This sum will go a long way towards paying all those councils, charities, police forces, London Transport etc etc, which would likely have received very little without this windfall. We will get the short end of the stick, and if we were to take legal action, the Govt. has it's share of ?550M at stake and could outspend the depositors in any legal fight - and prolong the case indefinetly...
An update on Kaupthing. 1:19pm on 08 Dec 2008 HMG could not have arranged with ING to take-over 170,000 Kaupthing Edge accounts within hours of declaring the default; this could only have been set-up beforehand, maybe just days, maybe longer.

HMG had no control over the regulation of IceSave accounts; it could only achieve the aim of 'freezing' all IceSave assets by using a power within the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act. The stated intention was to protect the depositors and the UK economy.

How did the Chancellor imagine this was going to play out? The IceSave accounts were frozen until HMG cut a deal with the Icelandics over the IMF loan - could Mr Darling have accurately forecast this outcome; was it a high risk strategy or was the result assured?

We have only HMT/FSA's finding that KSFUK was found unable to meet its commitments; yet the freezing of IceSave accounts and KSFUK going into Administration look decidely like an orchestrated two-pronged near-simulataneous action. It would have been preferable to make this move when the KSFUK contained more, rather than less money, that is, to plan the moment...

Mr Darling initiated the telephone call to Arnie Mathiesen on the 7th Oct and asked leading questions throughout the exchange. His interpretation from the entire conversation was that Iceland was not able to provide depositor protection outside of its borders. As Mr Darling lead the exchange, and Mr Mathiesen generally confirmed the Chancellors leading questions, it's not surprising that Mr Darling could assert his understanding of the conversation - it went the way he had directed it.

Having achieved enough to claim the Icelandics were not going to guarantee UK depositors, the rest of the spin machine fell into place and the action followed suit. Everything happened so quickly it surprised most people and left some much fog around that it is still difficult to unravel and determine the truth behind it all.

Amidst all of this, the KSFIoM asset in the UK bank had been growing over the past few months from transfers made from the IoM and was now worth a massive £550M. It was taken into Administration, claimed to be unsecured, and retained for distribution. If HMG did not plan this outcome, then it must be an Act of God in their favour. This sum will go a long way in paying all those councils, charities, police forces, London Transport etc etc, which would likely have received very little without this windfall. We will get the short end of the stick. If we were to take legal action, the Govt. has it's share of £550M at stake and could outspend the depositors in any legal action - and prolong the action indefinitly
An update on Kaupthing. 12:25pm on 08 Dec 2008 Many thanks to the BBC for keeping this fateful story alive.

There is one thing that every single depositor dearly needs answering: Why does the IoM deposit of ?550M have to stay in the KSFUK bank for dividing up between UK depositors (including the Treasury?)

Mr Darling wants nothing to do with the IoM, but also does nothing to encourage the return of IoM monies to its rightful owners.

The deposit represents thousands of savers hard won diligent efforts to secure their respective futures. Why can the money saved in the IoM not be returned to the IoM? The retail depositors never had a say in our funds being put there, the bank did this supposedly on our behalf to 'safe-keep' them.

The UK depositors seeking a share-out of the total assets are not retail depositors, they chose to make wholesale deposits in that UK bank. Why can their deposits not be conglomerated and shared amongst them, and the IoM asset returned to the Island's bank for division between IoM depositors? Why does this seem so alien to the powers in charge of 'our' money? Was there not a biblical passage that says 'give unto Rome that which belongs to Rome'?

KSFIoM depositors will join with me in saying give unto the IoM that which belongs to the IoM.
We didn't get looked after in the UK bail-out so why should our money be included in the UK divvy up? It is has nothing to do with legal requirements, this is people's livelihoods we are talking about here - some people's lives even. You don't talk about people's entire life-savings as though they are a figure of legal speech.

We know who saved that money, and we all know why it was in that UK bank and how it got there.
What we don't understand/know/comprehend/ or accept is why it is still there and why it has not been returned to those who paid for it.

The Treasury should underwrite its return pending liquidation of the UK bank - just like it's done for ever other retail depositor, otherwise the pretence of the money being placed in the UK bank for safe-keeping (for depositors) is exposed as a blatant lie and strengthens the case that manipulations got the money into that bank for one reason only - and it had nothing to do with 'safe-keeping' for the intended beneficiaries.
A twist in the expat tale. 2:39pm on 05 Dec 2008 To UK MPs'
Would you please join other mindful MPs’ to sanction the only possible solution to this awful situation which has brought needless dread and fearful anxiety to so many ill fated savers with KSFIOM? Their very life-savings are denied them; they cannot pay their bills; many are far from home without any means of return – and remedy is beyond their reach.

Messrs Darling and Brown brought this calamity upon thousands of ordinary British subjects and though this disastrous outcome occured without alleged intent, it was still of their doing; they are responsible and need to own this liability and make amends. It must be said that if these gentlemen had no intention of bringing harm to the Isle of Man or the KSFIoM customers, then an immediate move to return the latter’s property would make such assertions believable, whereas their very reluctance to let-by the imposition of the Transfer Order makes their complicity in this event appear ever more likely.

The monies required to resolve this situation reside within Kaupthing UK and are identified as belonging to the Isle of Man. It is the constitutional duty of HMG to accept this sovereign debt and return that asset in kind to the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man pending liquidation of the UK bank. Inherently we all know this to be the only honourable and equitable remedy to effect a timely solution and provide immediate aid to people who desperately need reassurance and help right now. The Government simply has no recourse but to accept responsibility for the consequences it has inflicted upon hapless citizens who were quite properly using a regulated banking institution within a Crown Dependency until UK action brought about this unprecedented and abhorent situation. HMG must be compelled to act in a manner befitting a Government of the British people - and soon.
Ice
A twist in the expat tale. 2:36pm on 02 Dec 2008 Many thanks to the BBC for keeping this fateful story alive.
There is one thing that every single depositor dearly needs answering: Why does the IoM deposit of £550M have to stay in the KSFUK bank for dividing up between UK depositors (including the Treasury?) Mr Darling wants nothing to do with the IoM, but also does nothing to encourage the return of IoM monies to its rightful owners.
The deposit represents thousands of savers hard won diligent efforts to secure their respective futures. Why can the money saved in the IoM not be returned to the IoM? The retail depositors never had a say in our funds being put there, the bank did this supposedly on our behalf to 'safe-keep' them.
The UK depositors seeking a share-out of the total assets are not retail depositors, they chose to make wholesale deposits in that UK bank. Why can their deposits not be conglomerated and shared amongst them, and the IoM asset returned to the Island's bank for division between IoM depositors? Why does this seem so alien to the powers in charge of 'our' money? Was there not a biblical passage that says 'give unto Rome that which belongs to Rome'? KSFIoM depositors will join with me in saying give unto the IoM that which belongs to the IoM.
We didn't get looked after in the UK bail-out so why should our money be included in the UK divvy up? It is has nothing to do with legal requirements, this is people's livelihoods we are talking about here - some people's lives even. You don't talk about people's entire life-savings as though they are a figure of legal speech. We know who saved that money, and we all know why it was in that UK bank and how it got there.
What we don't understand/know/comprehend/ or accept is why it is still there and why it has not been returned to those who paid for it. The Treasury should underwrite its return pending liquidation of the UK bank - just like it's done for ever other retail depositor, otherwise the pretence of the money being placed in the UK bank for safe-keeping (for depositors) is exposed as a blatant lie and strengthens the case that manipulations got the money into that bank for one reason only - and it had nothing to do with 'safe-keeping' for the intended beneficiaries.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

IceCrunch