Iceland Again

[Albert Tatlock]

I think we know 'King Dave' is a bit of a dick, but why are IoM Newspapers giving this coverage? IMO it's not responsible journalism.

'King Dave' belongs in the nuthouse, not in the news. It's not even journalism. Someone needs their arse severely kicking at IOM Newspapers, it'll just give outsiders the opportunity to laugh at us.

 

FFS.

[John]

Agreed, he (David) should really just keep his royal nasal passages out off Manx business and stick to his own second hand car dealership or was it car windscreen glazing..?

[pongo]

It's not even journalism. Someone needs their arse severely kicking at IOM Newspapers, it'll just give outsiders the opportunity to laugh at us.

 

I like the ironic way in which IOM Newspapers have reported it. I like the way they have written it. It works. Maybe they should get King David to write a regular column.

[Skeddan]

I think Dave may be feeling the credit crunch and this talk of 'total national independence' may be his angling to see if he might be able to set himself up as a real king.

 

Even so his analysis and comment on KSF have about as much merit as the same from Chris Evans or Jonathan Ross. Give him his own comic strip maybe, but for IoM Newspapers to put this in 'News' is pretty dire.

[jimbms]

Even so his analysis and comment on KSF

I would have said his interests lay more with KFC looking at old porky there

[bluemonday]

On the subject of tit heads, the one across, Broon has just said on the Politics show re the KSF IOM affair that ' we will have to look at the relationship between the UK and the IOM as it's not under our jurisdiction.'

 

That in reply to a question about what the UK was doing to assist IOM KSF depositors.

 

Basically FA and it doesn't look like Darlings little rant was a one off.

 

ETA More to come on IOM - Politics show Beeb 1 now.

[Addie]

On the subject of tit heads, the one across, Broon has just said on the Politics show re the KSF IOM affair that ' we will have to look at the relationship between the UK and the IOM as it's not under our jurisdiction.'

 

That in reply to a question about what the UK was doing to assist IOM KSF depositors.

 

Basically FA and it doesn't look like Darlings little rant was a one off.

There will be further discussion on the Isle of Man in a few moments on The Politics Show BBC1

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/poli...how/default.stm

[jaybs]

On the subject of tit heads, the one across, Broon has just said on the Politics show re the KSF IOM affair that ' we will have to look at the relationship between the UK and the IOM as it's not under our jurisdiction.'

 

That in reply to a question about what the UK was doing to assist IOM KSF depositors.

 

Basically FA and it doesn't look like Darlings little rant was a one off.

There will be further discussion on the Isle of Man in a few moments on The Politics Show BBC1

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/poli...how/default.stm

 

 

Typical PM Brown response, every day he looks and seems more like a John McCain figure, anyway this is how Bloomberg cover his comments this morning.

 

 

U.K. May Review Its Relationship With Isle of Man, Brown Says

By Kitty Donaldson

 

Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the U.K. may review its relationship with its offshore neighbor the Isle of Man after savers with accounts on the island were affected by the collapse of Icelandic banks.

 

Savers who had invested in Icelandic institutions including Kaupthing Bank hf and Landsbanki Islands hf which collapsed in October did not have the same guarantees on deposits as mainland Britons because the Isle of Man is constitutionally not part of the U.K.; it is self-governing, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. The island regulates its own banks and sets its own taxes.

 

``I'm obviously very concerned about this. The Isle of Man is not within our jurisdiction for regulation,'' Brown told the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Politics Show today. ``This is something that we'll have to pursue internationally and I think we may have to look at the relationship between the Isle of Man and Britain in this respect.''

 

In October Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling stepped in to protect deposits made by U.K. residents in Reykjavik-based Landsbanki. About 300,000 U.K. account holders held deposits at Landsbanki's Internet bank, Icesave.

 

The U.K. Treasury said then it will guarantee all customer deposits at Icesave, even those above Britain's 50,000-pound ($74,000) deposit protection plan, but no such provision exists for residents on the Isle of Man.

[bluemonday]

Point being that the 'securing' action on behalf of UK depositors grabbed Manx deposits.

They seem to be ignoring that.

Paying off UK depositors partially with manx depositors money.

 

Immoral.

[John]

is it not also illegal?

[Albert Tatlock]

If the money goes into a large collective pot, some of it is lent out and replaced by interest from third party's, as well as all the other banking complications including banking money with someone else overnight etc. - how can you tell who's is who's money? It's not as simple as that without a monster audit.

[pongo]

is it not also illegal?

 

No. Quite obviously, no.

[bluemonday]

is it not also illegal?

 

I'd call it (state sanctioned) theft but I'm not an advocate.

 

I suspect if it had been american depositors funds, the UK wouldn't have tried it on.

 

If the money goes into a large collective pot, some of it is lent out and replaced by interest from third party's, as well as all the other banking complications including banking money with someone else overnight etc. - how can you tell who's is who's money? It's not as simple as that without a monster audit.

 

So why hasn't there been one? Or has there?

Would have thought that was a prime requirement when banks go tits up.

 

If (as has been said several times elsewhere on this forum) manx gov don't fight this to the last legal challenge available anywhere, we've lost all credibility as a financial option for people.

[pongo]

If (as has been said several times elsewhere on this forum) manx gov don't fight this to the last legal challenge available anywhere, we've lost all credibility as a financial option for people.

 

If all of the money from the IOM subsidiary was tied up in the UK subsidiary then why would the IOM depositors have been guaranteed by the Icelandic parent rather than by the UK subsidiary - in an agreement approved by IOM directors, regulators, govt etc ?

[Slim]

If the money goes into a large collective pot, some of it is lent out and replaced by interest from third party's, as well as all the other banking complications including banking money with someone else overnight etc. - how can you tell who's is who's money? It's not as simple as that without a monster audit.

 

I expect the iom branch was just a depositor in the UK branch. I expect though that the UK protection scheme, like the IOM scheme only applies to private depositors, so the iom branch is stuffed. 50 mil wouldn't even touch the sides anyway even if they were eligable.