bellyup Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Everywhere else took good care of the people who trusted them them with their savings. Everywhere? What about America? By falling back as usual on personal abuse it shows that you have no argument (as usual.) Personal abuse? No. Just an accurate description of a very unsavoury character. Imprudent? Yes, you were certainly that. Greedy? You put all your money where the interest rate was highest. Grasping? You are trying to force others to bail you out. Spongeing? You want to live off IOM tax-payers. Lying? You never stop. Little shyster? You are deliberately trying to falsify the facts to try to force other people to come to your rescue. You have done huge damage to your cause, and that of other KSF depositors. S yet more personal abuse - a sure sign that a nerve has been touched. I am unlike yourself always 100% polite I am not greedy I have saved my money little by little for years with the Derbyshire Building Society IOM I have asked no one to bail me out i have asked for action to be taken by the IOMG in order to recover my life savings. I most certainly do not want to sponge off the IOM taxpayers on the contrary they have profited from my deposits with them for over three decades. By the way anyone looking in I am sure will be encouraged to deposit their money in the IOM you may as well shout to the heavens DON'T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN I never lie The facts speak for themselves The are a cause of shame and a disgrace. BY YOUR RESPONSES ON THIS THREAD YOU MAY HAVE DONE UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE ISLE OF MAN AS A FINANCIAL CENTRE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 BY YOUR RESPONSES ON THIS THREAD YOU HAVE DONE UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE ISLE OF MAN AS A FINANCIAL CENTRE. Any evidence of this bold claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 You have done huge damage to your cause, and that of other KSF depositors. Not really. Nothing on any of these threads is really of any great consequence. Nothing that Bellyup has posted has changed anything. And certainly nothing significant. I very much doubt that anything here has had any impact at any level. On the one hand there are the people who want the IOM to take 100% responsibility for everything. On the other hand there are the people who would say that the IOM is in no way responsible. Those two positions more or less, and rather pointlessly, cancel each other out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 You have done huge damage to your cause, and that of other KSF depositors. Not really. Nothing on any of these threads is really of any great consequence. Nothing that Bellyup has posted has changed anything. And certainly nothing significant. I very much doubt that anything here has had any impact at any level. On the one hand there are the people who want the IOM to take 100% responsibility for everything. On the other hand there are the people who would say that the IOM is in no way responsible. Those two positions more or less, and rather pointlessly, cancel each other out. It may be pointless but at least things come up to the surface . So that the truth may be heard and is not swept under the carpet There is no more possible damage that can be done as far as the depositors are concerned. They have already been dispossessed of their life savings through no fault of their own. They have been insulted and treated with contempt by three governments . However the right of freedom of speech is still standing I believe. And no one is obliged to read it is a personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 You have done huge damage to your cause, and that of other KSF depositors. Not really. Nothing on any of these threads is really of any great consequence. Nothing that Bellyup has posted has changed anything. And certainly nothing significant. I very much doubt that anything here has had any impact at any level. On the one hand there are the people who want the IOM to take 100% responsibility for everything. On the other hand there are the people who would say that the IOM is in no way responsible. Those two positions more or less, and rather pointlessly, cancel each other out. You are entitled to your views, Pongo... S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The Islands Future As a Finance Centre? Its all a matter of MORAL INTEGRITY You either have it or you dont. You are a trustworthy and honourable place to do business or you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Moral integrity has been the subject of quite some debate in a different context on here. Don't expect morals and money to happily co-exist in just about any context. Bellyup, I really do sympathise with anyone who has lost their life savings through a bank collapse, be it here or anywhere else. But I do not know what you are hoping to achieve by posting on here, we cannot help you, we do not appreciate the implication that the people of the IOM should bear some responsibility/contribution to your loss and it is becoming quite difficult to continue to look on your situation sympathetically. There are channels that can properly deal with your issues, those channels are not here. At the moment, what you seem to be doing is analogous to standing on the top of the Eiffel Tower and screaming about the injustice of the EU, when what you should be doing is taking your cause to your MEP instead of pissing off with your constant screaming the people who are wandering around the Eiffel Tower but have no means of helping you. Please pack it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Moral integrity has been the subject of quite some debate in a different context on here. Don't expect morals and money to happily co-exist in just about any context. Bellyup, I really do sympathise with anyone who has lost their life savings through a bank collapse, be it here or anywhere else. But I do not know what you are hoping to achieve by posting on here, we cannot help you, we do not appreciate the implication that the people of the IOM should bear some responsibility/contribution to your loss and it is becoming quite difficult to continue to look on your situation sympathetically. There are channels that can properly deal with your issues, those channels are not here. At the moment, what you seem to be doing is analogous to standing on the top of the Eiffel Tower and screaming about the injustice of the EU, when what you should be doing is taking your cause to your MEP instead of pissing off with your constant screaming the people who are wandering around the Eiffel Tower but have no means of helping you. Please pack it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Its all a matter of MORAL INTEGRITY Oh please, you haven't even mananged to demonstrate this yourself. At every turn you have refused to back up the statements you have made with actual evidence, misquoted people, invented regulation, piled responsibility on people who were helpless to intervene, or have poured scorn on those who have made genuine efforts to help. One wonders if you spend an equal amount of time on any Icelandic forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Its all a matter of MORAL INTEGRITY Oh please, you haven't even mananged to demonstrate this yourself. At every turn you have refused to back up the statements you have made with actual evidence, misquoted people, invented regulation, piled responsibility on people who were helpless to intervene, or have poured scorn on those who have made genuine efforts to help. One wonders if you spend an equal amount of time on any Icelandic forums. I'm beginning to think Bellyache is slightly off his rocker. His statements make little sense, and he never responds to a counter-argument. Indeed, even when the facts have been pointed out to him on numerous occasions, he will persist in repeating something that is wholly and obviously untrue. Whether he was always loopy, or whether it's a result of recent events, who can say. But no sane person would keep posting the way he does. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Since when has it been wrong to SAVE and be prudent? But you weren't prudent, were you, Bellyache? You stupidly put all your eggs in one basket, which is something that only complete idiots do. S Posts the man whose Equities have gone to complete and utter ratshit. Now let me see, how's gold doing just now... Probably the wrong thread but why did Tinpotwald make their compensation package so overly complicated and cumbersome? Sure the gowns got cashed up and it cost the depositors (nice trick, spend their dosh without their consent spooning up something unpalatable to them) but it seems it's only success was as a time-wasting exercise. Or have I got that wrong somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Probably the wrong thread but why did Tinpotwald make their compensation package so overly complicated and cumbersome? Sure the gowns got cashed up and it cost the depositors (nice trick, spend their dosh without their consent spooning up something unpalatable to them) but it seems it's only success was as a time-wasting exercise. Or have I got that wrong somehow? Its important not to confuse the Depositors Compensation Scheme with the Scheme of Arrangement. The Scheme of Arrangement would have been more beneficial to offshore bond holders who had linked or partially-linked the value of their bonds to KSF deposits. Ultimately it was actually the vote of one category 3 voter that stopped the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Since when has it been wrong to SAVE and be prudent? But you weren't prudent, were you, Bellyache? You stupidly put all your eggs in one basket, which is something that only complete idiots do. S Posts the man whose Equities have gone to complete and utter ratshit. Now let me see, how's gold doing just now... Probably the wrong thread but why did Tinpotwald make their compensation package so overly complicated and cumbersome? Sure the gowns got cashed up and it cost the depositors (nice trick, spend their dosh without their consent spooning up something unpalatable to them) but it seems it's only success was as a time-wasting exercise. You may well ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Probably the wrong thread but why did Tinpotwald make their compensation package so overly complicated and cumbersome? Sure the gowns got cashed up and it cost the depositors (nice trick, spend their dosh without their consent spooning up something unpalatable to them) but it seems it's only success was as a time-wasting exercise. Or have I got that wrong somehow? Its important not to confuse the Depositors Compensation Scheme with the Scheme of Arrangement. The Scheme of Arrangement would have been more beneficial to offshore bond holders who had linked or partially-linked the value of their bonds to KSF deposits. Ultimately it was actually the vote of one category 3 voter that stopped the scheme. This is correct. Its not the right thread but it will do. The SOA was more beneficial to bondholders who are in a very difficult position the huge insurance companies who issued these bonds are now denying responsibility for them ( yet still levy charges ) The SOA was defeated by one vote that of the Singer and Friedlander bank pension fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 The SOA was more beneficial to bondholders who are in a very difficult position the huge insurance companies who issued these bonds are now denying responsibility for them ( yet still levy charges ) The insurance companies who issue them are liable for one thing - the surrender value of the contract. They operate on an execution-only basis, which means that the policyholder is responsible for selecting the investments that the value of the policy is linked to. There simply is no responsibility for the insurance companies there. Some IFAs have tried to claim that insurance companies issue 'approved deposit-taker lists;' but this is mostly to try and divert blame away from themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.