bishbashbosh Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=34149 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Not only that, but they'll be a Ltd soon it seems. Some of their latest DAG email newsletters, obtained by Hans & Fritz, my well trained online spies: Dear KSFIOM DAG Member, Please respond to the poll at: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/poll/how-...tion-be-handled Here is a copy of the background to this poll: Background As most people here know, the DAG is in the process of forming as a legal entity. Thereafter, the IT function could logically be part of that. Whilst I stress that I have every confidence in the members of the DAG Strategy Team, I can nonetheless envisage some reasons why the IT/web function should perhaps be kept separate. Some important functions of the IT/web role are: * Take decisions affecting the web-sites, content and functionality, try to plan for future needs. * Control access to privileged information such as email addresses and data from registration forms, etc. * Decide (very occasionally) whether content should be "censored", a member "blocked", etc. Currently these things are done by me on a best effort basis, in communication with DAG Strategy Team members, and where relevant getting input from all site members via a poll etc. I also try to respond appropriately to input made directly to me via email from members, etc. So, what are the options? For simplicity, I am referring to the new formal entity below as simply DAG Ltd. The two fundamental options are: * DAG Ltd is in charge of IT/web. Funding comes from the DAG Ltd "pot" which in turn is funded by members and goes towards legal and other costs. The IT function reports to the DAG Ltd "management" and that team therefore ultimately controls the web sites and related data. * IT/web is independent - funding is provided directly by members, probably via a monthly or quarterly subscription. Ultimate control of the web-sites remains (as currently) with me or perhaps some other provider who might take over. So really the choice is one of (a) control of web-sites and corresponding data and (b) funding process and simplicity or lack thereof. And can see positive and negatives to both approaches both from the DAG perspective and my personal perspective. There is potentially a third option which would be some combination of the two routes. Who should take the decisions? Another question might be who in the DAG as a whole would be the best person to take strategic decisions for the group's IT needs. For those who have never looked, you can find information about me here http://www.netgenius.co.uk/about and here http://www.linkedin.com/in/ainman Unfortunately I am not in a position to be involved here on a purely voluntary basis, and that factor alone might be considered positive or negative (I would personally not like to be operated on by a volunteer heart surgeon.) Example A real-life and recent example is that there is a sub group on the site (non-divisive) who wanted to have a private area here to continue their discussions. If the DAG Ltd were in charge of the site, then presumably they would be allowed to access that private area or indeed decide that such a private area should not be allowed. Whilst I (if still involved) would make input, it would not be my decision. In summary The DAG as a whole (or at least those members who are likely to contribute to IT/web funding) need to decide which approach is best. I don't feel that this decision should be taken without consulting the DAG membership as a whole, hence I'm posting this poll. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear KSFIOM DAG Member, Some time ago DAG members provided details of their plight. Time has moved on and we want to make sure everyone knows about the continued suffering this debacle has entailed. If you have a story, would you please provide a start to finish outline of your situation and name/contact numbers with agreement or otherwise as to whether you will speak to the press. Please do provide the information you sent before plus an update if you already have sent your story. Some, we know have been used very effectively on the DAG website front page and for those, we thank you! We would appreciate a quick response. This would be a huge help to us all and enable us to move quickly when opportunities arise over the next few weeks in the media. A useful outline is: Background to your personal story Citizenship, place of residence, amount invested and vehicle used (direct, Derbyshire, bond etc) Why was your money deposited with KSFIOM in the first place - what led you to make the decision to choose KSFIOM? What effect has the KSFIOM crisis had on you? Who do you believe is responsible for the situation? What do you want to happen? Any other information that is relevant - effect on your health, your family, your business, your contribution to society etc. etc Name and contact details, email and telephone and willingness to speak to the press. Email the case study information to KSFIOMCaseStudies(?)googlemail [dot] com Many thanks, DAG Strategy Team ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear KSFIOM DAG Member, The DAG lawyers, Edwin Coe, have made it crystal clear to us that it is essential that, where possible, we have the names of depositors to attach to any affidavit that we submit for the hearing on 9 April. The length of this list will be a clear demonstration of our strength and, therefore, a strong message to the proposers of the Scheme of Arrangement to alter the Scheme in our favour. In essence, we have to demonstrate that we can affect the vote should we wish to. Since we emailed our request for depositor registrations about a week ago, the response has been tremendous and now nearly half of those who have ever registered on the DAG site have registered as depositors. CONFIDENTIALITY: We understand that some depositors, for various reasons of privacy, would not wish their names to be added to a list which might be shown in court. Whilst it is better if we can show the names (and you will be just an initial and family name), we have added a “Keep my name confidential button” to the registration form so that we can keep these names off the list but be able to quote a total number. We also, with your permission, intend to send depositors registered as “involved with the legal actions of the DAG” some specific information from time to time regarding actions the lawyers are taking on all our behalfs. We would ask you NOT to then post this information on the very public forum where it can be picked up by all and sundry. If you are a bona fide depositor/bondholder with KSFIOM and you are relying on the actions of the DAG to get you 100% return of your savings, PLEASE REGISTER HERE NOW. With best wishes Nick and Peter DAG Strategy Team PS. If you have already registered.. thanks and sorry to disturb! Appears well organised and they're sure not letting off - mind you, neither would I if it had been my cash... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 A lot of these people are really quite wealthy indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Yes indeed some are. So they deserve to have their money took off them? In my personal experience, the Isle of Man is just the very place to take people's money off them 'legally'. Have their house arrested and shag 'em up the arse (metaphorically speaking anyway) into the bargain too. The KSF depositors and indeed the rest of the world have a lot, a damned lot, to learn about our beautiful Island and its establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 My reply was in response to the query as to how the deppies could afford a PR company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 A lot of these people are really quite wealthy indeed. Well they were until recently ..... In my personal experience, the Isle of Man is just the very place to take people's money off them 'legally'. Have their house arrested and shag 'em up the arse (metaphorically speaking anyway) into the bargain too. The KSF depositors and indeed the rest of the world have a lot, a damned lot, to learn about our beautiful Island and its establishment. It never ceases to amaze me how much that die hard manx labour f**k the rich mentality pervades manx society. Perhaps you might consider that the Island offers them some sort of duty of care for their money what with having spent the last 20 years telling them how well regulated we were and how safe their money would be. More to the point: Are you going to pay extra in back taxes to compensate for how the activeities of these banks and the employment they have generated have been subsidising the manx taxpayers for years? Thought not ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 My reply was in response to the query as to how the deppies could afford a PR company Max Clifford will have a vacancy any day soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 More to the point: Are you going to pay extra in back taxes to compensate for how the activeities of these banks and the employment they have generated have been subsidising the manx taxpayers for years? Thought not ....... That doesn't make a lick of sense. These institutions and their clients have used the Isle of Man's obviously competitive platform to benefit them. If there wasn't a net gain for the Island's customers that it clearly would not have a financial services sector. Perhaps you will be writing to Spain claiming it should raise taxes to compensate for the 'subsidies' paid by tourists? Or that Norway should do the same as a result of its oil industry 'subsidising' the rest of the country? Conversely, perhaps you will be composing a petition to have the economic migrants to the Island compensate the natives for the massive inflation of house prices and the destruction of countryside in order to enable the construction of hideous housing estates ala Farmhill and Governor's Hill? Then of course there's the incinerator to burn all their Tesco's food packaging... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Let's get something dead straight here. People invested/deposited money in the Isle of Man. That money has been taken from them. Irrespective of the dos, whys and howfors of this whole matter the salient point: The Isle of Man Whether it was a bigger country that took the money, or some scheming greedy lawyer in Athol Street took the money or whatever-the-hell was involved.......it is not the point. People invested money in the Isle of Man and now they can't access it. It really is that simple. If this forum wants to contribute a 50 page thread about it fair enough. But please, stand back and look at the simple fact. The Isle of Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 More to the point: Are you going to pay extra in back taxes to compensate for how the activeities of these banks and the employment they have generated have been subsidising the manx taxpayers for years? Thought not ....... That doesn't make a lick of sense. These institutions and their clients have used the Isle of Man's obviously competitive platform to benefit them. If there wasn't a net gain for the Island's customers that it clearly would not have a financial services sector. Perhaps you will be writing to Spain claiming it should raise taxes to compensate for the 'subsidies' paid by tourists? Or that Norway should do the same as a result of its oil industry 'subsidising' the rest of the country? Conversely, perhaps you will be composing a petition to have the economic migrants to the Island compensate the natives for the massive inflation of house prices and the destruction of countryside in order to enable the construction of hideous housing estates ala Farmhill and Governor's Hill? Then of course there's the incinerator to burn all their Tesco's food packaging... I don't care what you think. The salient point that most people are missing in this backlash against paying for this mess is this - life has been bloody well easy in the IOM for the last 20 years. We've paid very little tax, our houses have grown in value massively, we've had full employment, better standards of healthcare, great facilities like the hospital, the NSC, the power station built etc, etc. NONE of this would have happened without the wealth and the taxes generated by the banks, insurance companies, and other businesses in the finance sector. We can't therefore just turn around to these people and say "Thanks for the money and the brilliant lifestyle, but you can fuck off because this is your problem and we are not paying for it" I think people have very short memories about how shit the IOM was before the late 80s when the economy bounced because of the finance sector, and like it or not its these depositors and all the other depositors with other Manx banks around the world that have made lives incredibly better for a whole generation of Manx people. It is, therefore, our problem and we do have a large degree of responsibility to these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Conversely, perhaps you will be composing a petition to have the economic migrants to the Island compensate the natives for the massive inflation of house prices and the destruction of countryside in order to enable the construction of hideous housing estates ala Farmhill and Governor's Hill? Then of course there's the incinerator to burn all their Tesco's food packaging... If you want to start playing the blame game maybe you should wag your finger at the people who sold the land for building. The KSFIOM depositors were customers of IOM financial services as a whole. It is in the best interests of the IOM financial services as a whole to ensure that the depositors are seen to be treated properly ( - despite a few of them sending out stupid or badly worded letters - according to the local media). We have to have confidence that Mr Bell and the IOM govt are working towards the best solution for the depositors. IIRC he has said that he expects the majority of them to be repaid in full. That should go a long way towards settling the matter - although I can also see how that might have the potential to create divisions amongst the depositors and possibly raise the temperature of some of them - since some would obviously be inclined to accept that whilst others would not. Some sort of independent investigation / report might go a good way towards being seen to be completely open with respect to any questions about regulation, management etc. Although I have no idea who could independently appoint an investigation. The Governor maybe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 "...independently appoint an investigation." That is the difficulty, isn't it. The Isle of Man is unable to do anything other than navel gaze. It doesn't take much before you are touching the very surface of our rather small bubble. It is time that Westminster took a long hard look at the Isle of Man, and not only our glorious Finance Industry. There have been many on the receiving end of the Isle of Man establishment sport of Shit on and Shaft 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 NONE of this would have happened without the wealth and the taxes generated by the banks, insurance companies, and other businesses in the finance sector. We can't therefore just turn around to these people and say "Thanks for the money and the brilliant lifestyle, but you can fuck off because this is your problem and we are not paying for it" But the island made it clear that it had a limited compensation scheme - maximum payout of 15K, and has subsequently upped that to 50K. They can demand a full payout but they've already been gifted 35K of compensation over and above what they were entitled to expect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 My private pension fund went from £35k to £16k pa due to the markets, I want what I paid for but cant have it so why should the depositors of KPF be expecting to be paid out in full, they played the markets and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 My private pension fund went from £35k to £16k pa due to the markets, I want what I paid for but cant have it so why should the depositors of KPF be expecting to be paid out in full, they played the markets and lost. Because they put money in a BANK not on the stock market or in an investment where there is a chance that values might fall. It was a BANK; a regulated deposit taker in a jurisdiction with a reputation as a highly regulated banking sector. FFS you must be unbelievably goddam stupid not to spot the difference between their position as deposiitors in a BANK and your position holding higher risk equities in your pension. Unit values may fall as well as rise, you may not get back what you put in ...... etc, etc, etc.. You knew that there was a reasonable chance of a loss from outset, they didn't. But the island made it clear that it had a limited compensation scheme - maximum payout of 15K, and has subsequently upped that to 50K. They can demand a full payout but they've already been gifted 35K of compensation over and above what they were entitled to expect Tynwald voted that increased scheme through and you and I elected the members of Tynwald into power. Now perhaps there is evidence to suggest that Tynwald unilaterally made the promise to the depositors against the wishes of the people who voted them in. But they are our elected representatives and they had the power to pass the legislation which they did in our name. That's our problem really - they deliberately and without consultation (and against the wishes of the banking industry that had already said it would not pay for any increased scheme) voted through a scheme as a huge knee-jerk reaction that will cost us £150m and really we're all going to be paying for this decision for a generation. I accept what you are saying but its maybe time to get our own back at the next general election because there is nothing we can do about that has been agreed by Tynwald in relation to KSFIOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.