Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!
Posted on 25 Mar 2009 11:22 pm
No Mr Pearson. You are wrong. It is not a matter for the IoM Government for two reasons;
1. The UK Citizens who banked there were forced to do so. 2007 legislation regarding identity verification meant that UK citizens without onshore addresses found it impossible to open (or indeed continue to hold) UK bank accounts.
2. It was on the advice of the UK FSC (via the now discredited IoM FSA) that Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander was coerced into putting a huge deposit of £553M into Kaupthing UK.
3. It was the actions of the UK Treasury (Mr Darling's department, I beleive) on the 7th of October that resulted in the fall of the IoM bank.
4. The UK Government have the authority to trigger the return of the £550M to the IoM which they are now using as some form of ransom to the IoM Government. The UK Government could do this with no cost to the tax payer - as evidenced by the return of Dave Whelans £40M (it will be interesting to see the records of his political donations).
So Mr Pearson, as i stated above; you are entirly wrong and continue to mislead the UK Parliament. With so many peoples lives and livelyhoods at stake that is disgusting.
Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.
Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates – simply and clearly.
Get insights on TheyWorkForYou and other mySociety sites, in our popular newsletter
Your donations keep this site and others like it running
mySociety is a registered charity in England and Wales (1076346) and a limited company (03277032). We provide commercial services through our wholly owned subsidiary SocietyWorks Ltd (05798215).