jimbms Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 80% 0f fuck all is still fuck all Stop reading the Daily Mail. It is easy to do and your mind will not get filled with the propaganda and crap the uk government want you to think is happening. The bank "bail outs" are a massive cover up for the really bad state the uk is in. What the fuck is stating these banks have fuck all got to do with the daily mail and where did i say anything about the uk govt? In fact it must be over 3 yrs since I actually read a UK newspaper and to be quite frank I do not give a toss about what situation the uk is in. Please do try to keep to what is stated and not try to falsly second guess the meaning of what was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 KSF: Moving funds was 'not an error of judgement' This article (published tomorrow ?) is an account of the Tynwald select committee at which the important questions do seem to be being asked. There is another meeting of the Tynwald Select Committee on the 13th November at which Mr Bell .Mr Gelling and the other directors will be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khunbaan Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Belly Up im sorry you lost some of your money BUT. In the Isle of Man no one will accept responsibility mate, we have incompetant civil servants at the highest level and all sorts of dodgy deals awash in the private and public sector. Trust me you are banging your head against a wall, its going to get you nowhere, as usual no one will be found to be to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 From IoM Today Isle of Man Newspapers Website Jeez, a lorra, lorra money. I thought this was 'only' going to cost "in the tens of thousands". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I thought this was 'only' going to cost "in the tens of thousands". It did. 170 of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget But it delayed liquidation thereby denying depositors many of whom needed the money accessto their funds for over a year - indeed some depositors who have applied for the DCS are STILL waiting. Yes it would have looked really good to have asked for costs from the liquidator- take peoples money , deny them access and make them pay for a scheme they didnt want with the money they no longer have. Great advert for the Isle of Man financial business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 From IoM Today Isle of Man Newspapers Website Jeez, a lorra, lorra money. I thought this was 'only' going to cost "in the tens of thousands". In fact I will revise this. In fact more latterly the Treasury Minister suggested that it will cost several hundred thousands of pounds.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 On the other hand, the liquidation and DCS looks set to cost the Island £30 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 On the other hand, the liquidation and DCS looks set to cost the Island £30 million. What liquidation has cost the Island is its good name in its tardiness and mishandling of the situation. It desire to avoid liquidation at all cost has proved expensive . The DSC may eventually cost the Island something if there is not 100% recovery. However there is supposedly a good chance of 75% recovery if not more. The question to ask is was it worth it? Would it have not been better to support the depositors in the first place and maintained the integrity of the IOM banking industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget But it delayed liquidation thereby denying depositors many of whom needed the money accessto their funds for over a year - indeed some depositors who have applied for the DCS are STILL waiting. Yes it would have looked really good to have asked for costs from the liquidator- take peoples money , deny them access and make them pay for a scheme they didnt want with the money they no longer have. Great advert for the Isle of Man financial business. The majority of depositors voted for continuing to support the SoA. It didnt receive the support by the requisite majority at the time of the sanction vote. Did you appear in the proceedings? If not why not as a depositor it was your right. You would have had an ample chance to let the deemster know your views. In fact there was an open offer for anyone who contacted me for the appearance application papers to be prepared by an advocate at no charge - no one seemed interested though. If the depositors hadn't supported it in the early stages there would have been no delay. Have you read the Judicial Review judgement yet, or are you still guessing what the FSA did and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget But it delayed liquidation thereby denying depositors many of whom needed the money accessto their funds for over a year - indeed some depositors who have applied for the DCS are STILL waiting. Yes it would have looked really good to have asked for costs from the liquidator- take peoples money , deny them access and make them pay for a scheme they didnt want with the money they no longer have. Great advert for the Isle of Man financial business. The majority of depositors voted for continuing to support the SoA. It didnt receive the support by the requisite majority at the time of the sanction vote. Did you appear in the proceedings? If not why not as a depositor it was your right. You would have had an ample chance to let the deemster know your views. In fact there was an open offer for anyone who contacted me for the appearance application papers to be prepared by an advocate at no charge - no one seemed interested though. If the depositors hadn't supported it in the early stages there would have been no delay. Have you read the Judicial Review judgement yet, or are you still guessing what the FSA did and why? I didnt vote for the SOA and neither did hundreds of others . I was not there like many other depositors I dont have the wherewithall to be running back and forth to the IOM ( lost all my savings remember) However we - the depositors had representation. I know of no such offer such as you describe - this is not sayings that you didnt make one it just means that I dont know about it. As i dont know you -are only a poster on a forum after all this is hardly surprising The depositors did not bring in Alix partners - the IOMG did this on the advice of John Spellman Trying to blame the victims is coming a bit strong! It does seem extraordinary why a team of experts took 8 months and 1.7 million ( three times the original figure that was quoted in th MHK ) to produce such an unsatisfactory arrangement . Anyhow the SOA was DEAD in the WATER the minute that E&Y gave out that they were expecting a minimum 50p in the pound return from KSFUK. After this even the SOAs own advocates couldnt make a credible case for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Only 20% of the entire DCS levy then. Bargain! It's just so easy when it's not your money... Isnt it just. Alix Partners must be happy though nice little earner in these hard times. Who was it who recommended them to be brought in? Well its the Isle of Man's money that was spent, not the depositors. Its a shame the IoM didn't ask for costs from the liquidator. Would have help balance our budget But it delayed liquidation thereby denying depositors many of whom needed the money accessto their funds for over a year - indeed some depositors who have applied for the DCS are STILL waiting. Yes it would have looked really good to have asked for costs from the liquidator- take peoples money , deny them access and make them pay for a scheme they didnt want with the money they no longer have. Great advert for the Isle of Man financial business. The majority of depositors voted for continuing to support the SoA. It didnt receive the support by the requisite majority at the time of the sanction vote. Did you appear in the proceedings? If not why not as a depositor it was your right. You would have had an ample chance to let the deemster know your views. In fact there was an open offer for anyone who contacted me for the appearance application papers to be prepared by an advocate at no charge - no one seemed interested though. If the depositors hadn't supported it in the early stages there would have been no delay. Have you read the Judicial Review judgement yet, or are you still guessing what the FSA did and why? I didnt vote for the SOA and neither did hundreds of others . I was not there like many other depositors I dont have the wherewithall to be running back and forth to the IOM ( lost all my savings remember) However we - the depositors had representation. I know of no such offer such as you describe - this is not sayings that you didnt make one it just means that I dont know about it. As i dont know you -are only a poster on a forum after all this is hardly surprising The depositors did not bring in Alix partners - the IOMG did this on the advice of John Spellman Trying to blame the victims is coming a bit strong! It does seem extraordinary why a team of experts took 8 months and 1.7 million ( three times the original figure that was quoted in th MHK ) to produce such an unsatisfactory arrangement . Anyhow the SOA was DEAD in the WATER the minute that E&Y gave out that they were expecting a minimum 50p in the pound return from KSFUK. After this even the SOAs own advocates couldnt make a credible case for it. Well of course not everyone voted for the SoA. Who said anything about travelling (You could have been a party to proceedings but not attended, jsut submitted your representations in writing) Did you see how the "representation" worked in the early stages? Has the 50p been realised yet? Of course at the time the SoA was started the forecast returns were unknown. Have you read the judicial review yet? Please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.