PDA

View Full Version : Iceland sees red over RAF mission


Lyneham Lad
14th Nov 2008, 08:20
In today's FT, news of another fine mess our wonderful Government has got us into:- Full article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4608ceea-b1da-11dd-b97a-0000779fd18c.html)

Extract:-
A planned Royal Air Force mission to Iceland is providing the latest flash point in the island’s increasingly strained relationship with Britain after the collapse of its banking system. The Icelandic government is under intense political and public pressure to turn away the RAF aircraft due to be deployed to a base outside Reykjavik in December on a Nato mission to defend the island’s airspace. Politicians of all persuasions and members of the public see the prospect of RAF jets flying over Iceland as unthinkable after Britain used an anti-terror act to freeze some Icelandic bank assets.

tonker
14th Nov 2008, 09:03
So they want to get revenge by turning away RAF aircraft there to defend their airspace.

Can't think why they above all are in such a mess:hmm:

Fg Off Max Stout
14th Nov 2008, 09:46
Riiiiiight. So Iceland steal (sorry, I mean writes off) billions of pounds invested by Brits and then gets all w@nky when Brits get a tad peeved. Then they get a stress on about British aircraft defending their airspace as part of NATO.

Sounds like the only aircraft we should be sending to Iceland should be cluster bombing the place back to magma. Let the mighty Ielandic Air Force defend its own airspace against the the Rusky hordes.:mad: Dickheads.:\

hunterboy
14th Nov 2008, 10:07
I can't really believe that the Russkies are deterred by a few RAF aircraft based in Iceland, or even the UK for that matter.Let's face it, we would run out of missiles before they ran out of aircraft.

VinRouge
14th Nov 2008, 12:06
How does this place us divving into KEF/REK across the pond then I wonder....

ASCOT Ops Retd
14th Nov 2008, 12:19
I was wondering that. Well, would be wondering that if I was still at work...

spheroid
14th Nov 2008, 18:52
Why would Britain send military aircraft to a country that we have just financially plundered.... It all seems a bit strange that 3 weeks ago we essentially robbed the entire banking system of Iceland on the basis that they were terrorists.....and then just a few days later we decide to send millitary fighter aircraft to their airbases under the illusion that we are defending them..... Is this another example of the strange but wierd world of the RAF command ?

merlinxx
14th Nov 2008, 19:01
sheroid by name, just think how much the Fish Heads plundered from the Brits:ugh:

ASCOT Ops Retd
14th Nov 2008, 19:01
Strictly speaking, I think you've got it a bit arse about face. Icelandic banks made British funds disappear because of dodgy investments, which made Iceland fatally attractive to investors. When the wheel came off, all the UK did was invoke (albeit the wrong) legislation to get ahead of the queue of debtors - chasing our own cash is hardly plundering!

I would also suggest that the location for the coming NATO exercises might be a fairly recent choice, in view of Russia's offer to bail Iceland out financially. Ivan is not just doing this because they're nice. Overtly, it does look odd, but your take on the UK plundering Iceland is somewhat polarised the wrong way round.

helo425
14th Nov 2008, 19:27
Anyone tried to refuel in KEF this week. They appear to be a bit short of gas!
Can't pay bills it appears.

davejb
14th Nov 2008, 20:09
The wrong legislation (due, primarily, to there not being any RIGHT legislation) was invoked to jump the creditors queue to ensure that our own councils etc were not caught out by investing in dodgy assets -
it's a basic tenet of investment that the higher the interest rate being paid, the riskier the investment.

I doubt the tax man, for example, will accept the same moral arguments if somebody goes bust owing you money, and you go and empty their bank account prior to the tax man getting his traditional first dibs on the assets.

Iceland's fault is to have gone into the never never land of repackaging unsustainable mortgae loans, along with virtually every financial institution in the western world - and a good few kenyans who have been emailing me over the years asking for help claiming large sums of money.

I imagine the icelandic people feel a bit aggreived about it, is it any surprise to find relations still a bit on the touchy side? Were things the other way about would we be any more welcoming?

We SHOULD, obviously, have sunk them all during the Cod wars, and taken the whole mass of clinker over as a huge outdoor spa, but I don't think it's fair to get so annoyed at them this time round - if you want to blame anyone then blame the spams...they're the gits who decided to sell mortgages to thousands of people who couldn't afford a pot to pi$$ in, in rebundled packages that hid the risk from greedy salespeople.

Spurlash2
14th Nov 2008, 20:18
Points to ponder.

BBC NEWS | Business | Russia's role in rescuing Iceland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7720614.stm)

KeepItTidy
14th Nov 2008, 21:26
Maybe its back to Lajes now for the Trans Atlantic hops \o/

FE Hoppy
14th Nov 2008, 22:52
Russia couldn't afford it then and with crude down to just over $50 a barrel and russian having budgeted at $70 for 2009 they are deep in the pooh so expect some serious distractions in the near future.

iccarus
15th Nov 2008, 11:24
8 posts?? Isn't it about time that this thread degenerated into a Typhooon bashing exercise............

merlinxx
15th Nov 2008, 11:40
If you read, I said the "Fish Heads" plundered from the Brits, not what the Brits plundered from them. Believe me I've in/through REK/KEF since the mid 60s, I don't like the place, used Loftlieder yes, but never wanted to stay more than a few work days.

ASCOT Ops Retd
15th Nov 2008, 11:49
merlin,

My comment was directed at spheroid, although you weren't to know! My fault.

phil gollin
15th Nov 2008, 12:31
The problem with the freezing of Icelandic Bank assets in the UK was because the Icelandic GOVERNMENT was seeking to try to take assets out of the UK branches of the Icelandic banks to take bake to Iceland and PREFERRENTIALLY pay off Icelandic creditors, whilst leaving insufficient funds in the UK to even pay off the statutory minimum payouts and KNOWINGLY pretending to rely on an insurance fund which ALSO had INSUFFICIENT funds to pay off the STATUTORY mimimum payouts.

In other words, they were taking UK held assets to unfairly pay-back Icelandic creditors whilst KNOWINGLY leaving insufficient funds in the UK (including an insufficient insurance fund) to pay off the legal minimum.

As the Icelandic government were acting in basic contravention of the legal requirements of this country the UK government stepped in to try to stop the transfer.

The Icelandic government's manufactured cry of outrage at the UK using an anti-terrorism law is merely a smokescreen to hide the fact that it had been found out acting both illegally and (more important if anyone ever wants to bank with an Icelandic firm in the distant future) in a partial manner, favouring Icelandic creditors over foreigners.

.

Aeronut
15th Nov 2008, 13:05
As one that faced losing one years net wages in savings, ie many years savings effort, I thought the UK government's action was terrific. I still wouldn't vote for them though, but on this issue they reacted properly. Iceland was playing dirty and they stopped them in their tracks. Iceland was acting as a financial terrorist so can expect to be treated as such.

LFFC
15th Nov 2008, 14:31
From the Press Association (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h1j4LuJW1UCg0zXOKKjMDaBPavIg) - 15 Nov 08

A planned RAF mission to police Iceland's airspace has been called off amid the continuing row about cash locked in failed Icelandic banks.

HWRobinson
15th Nov 2008, 14:53
I was on the planned deployment, however it now looks like I've got yet another stash of kit to store in my unfit-for-purpose MQ.

Step forward the Yanks? :(

SirToppamHat
15th Nov 2008, 15:07
Step forward the Yanks?

Shouldn't that be 'Step backward the Yanks?'? :)

It's not all that long that they left.

STH

KeepItTidy
15th Nov 2008, 23:04
OK RN Merlin is pish


What does Merlin do

Merlin is there to make the RN look like they have a job, i know in Seeb they sit all day and do **** all. A waste of F******* space and arses. Yet they decide if a Nimrod can park within 20 metres of there ****ty helos yet they contribute **** all to the world. Navy you are hated nobody like you , go home you do nothing to help the World

Gargleblaster
16th Nov 2008, 00:18
There has been gross incompetence from the Icelandic authorities, combined with the greed and megalomania of the Icelandic banks. At the same time, there's been a lack of international regulations on these matters.

The UK authorities have been aware of the problem since early this year.

In case anyone cares, here's the average Icelander's side of the story:

1. In October, Mr. Darling misunderstands his Icelandic counterpart in a phone meeting. Thankfully the conversation was recorded and is now published.

2. Mr. Darling panics and uses UK terror legislation (!) to seize all assets + debts of Landsbanki Íslands in the UK, bringing the Icelandic banks, economy and society down.

3. The value of Landsbanki Ísland's assets (now Mr. Darling's) in the UK is (still) large enough to cover people's deposits. The assets are in the hands of Mr. Darling.

4. Due to Mr. Darling's actions, said values and debts are now his problem.

5. Mr. Darling blocks loans from IMF and EU to Iceland. Iceland has beeen a paying member of IMF for 60 years, and is refused help when needed for the first time. Even relatively friendly like Denmark and Sweden play along.

6. An European country is being left to bleed to death. Even former Nordic friends like Denmark and Sweden won't help.

And this is why the average Icelander doesn't want the RAF to "protect" Iceland in December.

If the police by mistake shot your husband on the porch, you wouldn't be really keen on having them patrolling your property, would you ?

Stitchbitch
16th Nov 2008, 09:13
HWRobinson, perhaps you'd like to donate it to JHC? :ok:
As for the det t-shirt, perhaps E-bay?:}

M609
16th Nov 2008, 10:18
6. An European country is being left to bleed to death. Even former Nordic friends like Denmark and Sweden won't help.

Gargleblaster, if your icelandic you can maybe read this article, if not it's about the 8.4 billion NOK loan you guys are getting from the Norwegian National Reserve.

http:
//www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/11/03/552586.html (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/11/03/552586.html)

Norway not helping my @rse.....you are getting more than 10 times the budget increase that the Norwegian MOD says is needed to get the armed forces somewhat back on it's feet. (They probably wont get it, after all we have left wing socialist among the government nowadays.)

The minister of finance says it's a loan.........any bets on the chance of ever getting the cash back???? :*

phil gollin
16th Nov 2008, 10:32
Gargleblaster stated ;

"In case anyone cares, here's the average Icelander's side of the story:

1. In October, Mr. Darling misunderstands his Icelandic counterpart in a phone meeting. Thankfully the conversation was recorded and is now published.

2. Mr. Darling panics and uses UK terror legislation (!) to seize all assets + debts of Landsbanki Íslands in the UK, bringing the Icelandic banks, economy and society down.

3. The value of Landsbanki Ísland's assets (now Mr. Darling's) in the UK is (still) large enough to cover people's deposits. The assets are in the hands of Mr. Darling.

4. Due to Mr. Darling's actions, said values and debts are now his problem.

5. Mr. Darling blocks loans from IMF and EU to Iceland. Iceland has beeen a paying member of IMF for 60 years, and is refused help when needed for the first time. Even relatively friendly like Denmark and Sweden play along.

6. An European country is being left to bleed to death. Even former Nordic friends like Denmark and Sweden won't help.

And this is why the average Icelander doesn't want the RAF to "protect" Iceland in December.

If the police by mistake shot your husband on the porch, you wouldn't be really keen on having them patrolling your property, would you ?"


I don't know if you really believe that or are just being contentious, a more accurate representation would be;

Re. 1 - No, Darling challenged the Icelandic PM who tried to con him that it didn't matter about returning the funds because the insurance would cover the legal requirements. When challenged the Icelandic PM had to acknowledge that the wasn't enough money in the insurance fund. There was no "misunderstanding", merely the Icelandic PM being caught out trying to con the money to Iceland.

Re. 2 - no "panic" - he merely stopped the Icelandic government taking money away to avoid their legal responsibilities. The use of anti-terrorism legislation is merely a smokescreen. And Iceland's/Icelandic banks and financial assets had already failed (and been nationalised).

Re. 3 - No. There are insudfficient funds despite the UK's actions (see note at end)

Re. 4 - No, why ? The banks were nationalised by the Icelandic government.

Re. 5 - er ...... Talks had been going on for a long time. What the problem is that the Icelandic banks have left devestation in many countries and their governments are not happy about giving loans to Iceland at knock-down prices to halp out a country that had almost gone "rogue" on the world's financial markets. (again see note below).

Re. 6 - And this merely demonstrates how much respect the Icelandic financial institutions have left around the world.

A bit of honesty (notably lacking in the Icelandic PM's attempt to con Darling in the phone call) would go a long way to repair Iceland's reputation.

NOTE :- A piece in yesterday's (Saturday's) online Financial Times showed that both the UK and Holland (who did the same thing, but as they didn't use anti-terrorism laws to stop the transfer the Icelandic government hasn't been able to put up a similar smokescreen to cover its embarressment) are trying to arrange loans to cover the Icelandic Banks/Government commitments to their countries. This means that the UK (and Dutch) account holders get THE LEGAL MIMIMUM from UK (and Dutch) government monies which, eventually, the Icelandic government will repay. The UK still has to make up the rest of the monies to cover Iceland's disasterous foray into international finance.

Anyone (be they Icelandic or not) who thinks that Iceland (or their banks) have been hard done by has no sense of financial probity or honour.

.

hunterboy
16th Nov 2008, 10:43
The sad thing is, even if the above poster has the true version of events, many of the long suffering Uk population simply don't believe anything that comes from NuLabour. A case of the boy crying wolf perhaps?

circle kay
16th Nov 2008, 11:25
KeepItTidy,

OK RN Merlin is pish


What does Merlin do

Merlin is there to make the RN look like they have a job, i know in Seeb they sit all day and do **** all. A waste of F******* space and arses. Yet they decide if a Nimrod can park within 20 metres of there ****ty helos yet they contribute **** all to the world. Navy you are hated nobody like you , go home you do nothing to help the World

Your description of the RN Maritime Patrol Helicopter detachment’s contribution to Airpower in the region is, without doubt, very near the truth; but it is a little off topic, unless you had one too many Savannas in the Drunken Duck and woke up thinking you were in the NATO block at Kef.:ok:

happyjack
16th Nov 2008, 11:36
What is also being missed is the thousands of depositors (mainly British) being left out of ANY compensation because they banked offshore. And before anyone starts rabbiting on about tax evasion etc etc do your homework. Even idiot Darling hasn't a clue of the status of island banking and HE caused this situation.

Public enquiry NOW!

We won't get it though. Hopefully in time we will see just what a HUGE cover up this has been by HMG and all the city boys. Yes and Iceland is part of it but it is not purely an Icelandic problem. This is the result of years of vastly over-inflated house prices all over the world. Money being lent but not produced. Who was earning it? Nobody!
I've been saying it for years. What I got wrong was the timing and the scale of the disaster.

Rafair7643
16th Nov 2008, 12:28
Why the hell should we be sending RAF aircraft and personnel to defend Kerry Katona? ...............................oh, wait I minute :O

Stew

Green Flash
16th Nov 2008, 20:31
Defend Iceland? Ha, easy! Strap a load of missiles under the Trooper and Capn Bruce could do it with one arm behind his back!:ok:

thunderbird7
17th Nov 2008, 10:24
More importantly, the financial viability of West Ham United is under threat here. Forget the Russians hyping up the cold war, we can't buy players with smoked fish! Give us back our cash you Bjorkers, or we won't send the RAF.

BOAC
17th Nov 2008, 14:41
Now that Uncle Bruce is not going there any more, you'll have to rely on me as the only ex Mil pilot currently deployed there. CV reads:

Lots of intercepts on big bad turbo-proppy things
Dab hand at SNEB
(Cwap at strafe)
Flies a mean scissors in the 737 and my yo-yo's..................................:rolleyes:

I'll watch it for you - rest easy in your bunks.

Lyneham Lad
25th Nov 2008, 20:49
The details emerge:-
UK cancels Typhoon's Icelandic air policing duty (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/25/319322/uk-cancels-typhoons-icelandic-air-policing-duty.html)

In Flight International:-
An ongoing political spat between the British and Icelandic governments has put paid to the planned first overseas deployment of the Royal Air Force's Eurofighter Typhoon for NATO.

"The deployment of four Typhoons was scheduled to take place in December. Following discussions within NATO, the deployment will not now take place," minister for international defence and security Baroness Taylor said on 24 November.

strontium.dog74
26th Nov 2008, 10:01
The legislation invoked to freeze Icelandic assets wasn't actually related to terrorism. The particular legislation relates to terrorism and international finance, it is actually called the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act and it was a part of the securities act relating to international financing that was invoke.

PURPLE PITOT
26th Nov 2008, 11:32
The prawn farmers can pay for their own air defence.

Oh, they can't.

PurplePitot
27th Nov 2008, 02:23
PURPLE PITOT eh..... Handbags at dawn...:hmm:

BIRD2008
10th Jan 2009, 02:21
From Icelandic point of view I say the British government wasn't very helpful in solving the situation. When the terrorist laws were invoked just one bank had been taken over by the Icelandic government but the terrorists law saw to that the biggest bank and the biggest company in Iceland went down-under. The amounts we are talking about here are huge for a country with population of 314.000 but rather small compared to when Northern Rock went under.

I would say that this act by Gordon Brown and Darling was not neccessery. Of course something had to been done to protect the interest of common people, both in Iceland and other countries were the banks had branches. But one Nato country should not use this kind of legislation to another Nato member. In fact it could be interpreted as an economic attack and would therefore trigger article five of the Nato convention.

Don't forget that the people that are worst off are living in Iceland. Older people that had there savings in trust funds lost lots of it.

I was very glad when it was "mutually" decided that the raf wouldn't come over to "protect" us. Who needs them anyway, we won the royal navy in the Cod Wars and we can do very well without the friendship of the british government. Most brits are just fine lads and gals but it's the same with the politicians everywhere, they are all wankers. :O

Shannon volmet
10th Jan 2009, 05:57
Aah yes, the cod wars. Revenge is a dish best served cold.........:E

phil gollin
10th Jan 2009, 12:28
Quote :

From Icelandic point of view I say the British government wasn't very helpful in solving the situation. When the terrorist laws were invoked just one bank had been taken over by the Icelandic government but the terrorists law saw to that the biggest bank and the biggest company in Iceland went down-under. The amounts we are talking about here are huge for a country with population of 314.000 but rather small compared to when Northern Rock went under.

I would say that this act by Gordon Brown and Darling was not neccessery. Of course something had to been done to protect the interest of common people, both in Iceland and other countries were the banks had branches. But one Nato country should not use this kind of legislation to another Nato member. In fact it could be interpreted as an economic attack and would therefore trigger article five of the Nato convention.

Don't forget that the people that are worst off are living in Iceland. Older people that had there savings in trust funds lost lots of it.

unquote

This is just a smokescreen (see above). The law was used because the Icelandic government was going to nick British investors' money to (illegally) preferentially pay off Icelandic investors. The Icelandic Prime Minister was found out trying to mislead the British over the amount of money available to pay-off British investors !

As has been stated other countries also froze these illegal Icelandic activities. It is only the Icelandic authorities trying desparately to avoid their own responsibilities by trying to cast mud around instead of facing up to the stupidities of their own banks.

The British government "wasn't very helpful in solving the situation" in as much as it stopped an illegal act by the Icelandic government - that solved a worse situation from occurring (the British government having to pay out for Icelandic debts). The Icelandic banks shouldn't have to steal investors' money just to survive. The fact that the Icelandic banks overextended themselves is down to them (and the Icelandic regulators) not the British (or any other) government.

You SEEm to have a strange idea that somehow this illegal stopping of the transfer of British (and other nationalities) investors' money to Iceland actually caused the banks' failure - WHY ?

The banks had basically already failed - all the banks were doing was trying to get as much money back to Iceland to illegally preferentially pay-off Icelandic investors. They did not have anywhere near-enough money to stand-by their commitments. Just in the UK the British Government had to not only pay-out the difference between the money left and the £35,000 bank guarantee (which the Icelandic banks SHOULD have covered) but also covered the rest of private depositors debts.

I do not know where the idea comes from that the Icelandic banks were anywhere near solvent it is WRONG. Likewise, I do not know where the idea comes from that there was anything legal in trying to take British (and other investors') money to preferentially pay-off Icelandic investors. Indeed, I am somewhat confused as to where all these misleading "facts" are coming from - I suggest you ask a few questions of your Icelandic contacts and ask them why they think they deserve other investors money preferentially and why it isn't the Icelandic banks and regulators' responsibility. As ever "responsibility" seems not to be a term understood.

PLEASE get your basic facts right before wasting peoples' time by posting misleading ideas.

.

B Fraser
10th Jan 2009, 12:43
Watch out, they might get really @rsey and take Björk back :uhoh:

BIRD2008
10th Jan 2009, 13:02
Dear (Dr.) Phil

Don't take me wrong. I am not saying that the bankers and investors here in Iceland behaved as well as they could. The first mistake the Icelandic government did was not to set law on how big the banks could get and still have their "financial security" based on the Icelandic economy. Many other mistakes were made along the line. The government always believed the bankers when they said that the banks were secure. That was maybe in hindsight the biggest mistake, to trust people. :(

But lets look at the situation when the terrorist laws was set.
Glitnir had sold the government 75% of the stocks for cash inflow, he was still working. Landsbankinn went under but Kaupthing had secured finance for the next year.

When it came to financing the investments of british investors because of Landsbankinn it was a bit problematic. Landsbankinn had lots of assets both in Britain and in Iceland. If that would be sold that would cover the money invested in the bank according what we are told here. But selling them at the moment was very difficult, not to say the least. There was so little cash flowing in the system and it would not be in any interest to sell them for 20% of their value, then nobody would get their money back.

The Icelandic government was trying hard to solve this problem. What I'm pointing out is that the British government did not help. Od course they were trying to secure the investment of their people, BUT was what they did really neccessery. Your point of view is I guess mostly based on what you read in Britain and what the government tell you there. Mine is of course mostly based on what I read here. :confused:

This act of freezing the assets in Britain let to the fall of Kaupthing. I have that from pretty secure source working in Kaupthing. Friend of mine is working there and he told me that the bank could have survived. The freezing of all the money cancelled short time loans the bank had which were going to be used to get him out of the mess. Kaupthing has actually charged the British government for the freezing of its assets because it was not bankrupt when the laws were set, the laws let to the fall of the bank.

There is also ongoing investigation of the behaviour of the bankers, if they were trying to move money out of Britain to Iceland. We will see what comes out of that.

My main point is that when your friend is in trouble you help him is he is your friend, you do not stap him in the back. No smokescreen, no bull****, thats what civilized people do. But then again we can look back in time and try to find when the British government have really cared about anybody except themselves. I find it hard to find those cases.:oh:

JJflyer would of course count me as an arrogant ill-behaved uneducated bad Icelander for saying that but what does he know.

BIRD2008
10th Jan 2009, 13:12
Dear B frazer

We wouldn't take Bjork back, It would be rude. We might stop selling you fish for your fish and chips but taking Bjork back, no way! :}

gone_fishing
10th Jan 2009, 13:15
I was very glad when it was "mutually" decided that the raf wouldn't come over to "protect" us. Who needs them anyway, we won the royal navy in the Cod Wars and we can do very well without the friendship of the british government. Most brits are just fine lads and gals but it's the same with the politicians everywhere, they are all wankers.

Actually, you beat us because you started crying that you wouldn't allow us to remain in Iceland (i.e. defending you to defend our own asses from a potential Russian base to the North Atlantic) and that you would leave NATO. Seeing as the US has left and you've started to not allow us to Iceland then I think your playing card has just been ripped in to tiny pieces. A similar incident in today's climate I would think would involve Britian entirely ignoring your threats. Please bear in mind that your country has no standing armed forces, just a 100 man strong ICRU and a Icelandic Coast Guard numbering 4 bearly armed OPVs. I may be entirely wrong in this, but I'd suspect that just one of our Type 23 Frigate's on a skeleton crew could easily defeat the ICG and make it back in time for tea.

As for doing well without our freindship, I wouldn't be to sure if Iceland really does want to join the EU. They don't exactly look like the best candidate.

All the above aside, I will agree on your last comment.:E

exscribbler
10th Jan 2009, 15:23
gone_fishing; Are there any T23s available for deployment to such Northern climes? As far as Iceland joining the EU is concerned, I think I might prefer Turkey... :}

Don't forget that not too long ago Wee Alex held up the Icelandic and Irish financial models to us as how Jockistan would finance its independence. Shame he didn't get the chance. :E

ShyTorque
10th Jan 2009, 15:54
Bird2008,

No, no - PLEASE take her back. Surely that's what this is all really about.. ;)

Gainesy
10th Jan 2009, 15:56
We might stop selling you fish

Keep it, we have plenty fish fingers, er...:)

Double Zero
10th Jan 2009, 16:01
That guy has the nerve to say we could have helped Iceland more !

While it is a universal truth that banker, anywhere, is rhyming slang, I can't help feeling that the 'cod wars' are due again for a re-match, how would they like it if the gloves were off or they tried that against Russian warships ?

The only Icelander I knew, and unfortunately it was one way or another over 5 years +, was a lazy, thieving, treacherous bastard - he even stole my father's computer, and just before that when I bought a mobile phone for him on returning to the UK so he could find work, his first reaction was to sell it for a few pints of beer in the local pub ( and I was not exactly overflowing with money at the time, out of a job myself briefly ).

I thought he was an exception, but now I'm beginning to wonder - as said, let's see how they like it under Russian rule !

If it's so bloody strategic, well I'm sure there's a way round that,

A, I don't think even Putin is daft enough to start WWIII,

B, It might kick our politicians - of any flavour, the tories are just as bad - into funding things like a decent amount of Type 45 ships & Astute class subs, and keeping to their promises re. CVF & JSF, also Typhooon tranche 3.

Yours not particularly optimistically,

DZ

BIRD2008
10th Jan 2009, 16:02
There is no question about it if it came to hard war Iceland would be f..:mad:! That much is true. But Iceland did not offer the NATO base to Russia. Never has and probably never will. Iceland is still part of Nato and we have active defence agreement with the US. What that agreement actually says nobody knows except the wankers :O

Actually during the Cod wars Iceland and Britain were in a real battle. Then the Icelandic ambassador to UK was pulled home and we expelled the UK ambassador. Then british frigates ran into the small Icelandic Coast Guard vessels and we had couple of casualties.:( Hopefully it will not come to that this time. I doubt it actually because the protests that have been going on here in Iceland the are all against the Government and the bankers, non against the British consulate.

Mind you guys, we are not happy with this situation. We are not happy with being lied too and soon if nothing changes here people will make things change.

But to the brighter side of the situation. I was last year in a seminar in the University of Iceland were lots of professors and investors from Iceland, UK, Ireland and continental Europe were saying how great the Irish and Icelandic model of economic expansion was. Today it is rather funny to read what was said there. The Icelandic president was there saying how great Iceland was, lots of golden moments :D

gone_fishing
10th Jan 2009, 16:17
I certainly hope it wouldn't come to conflict either. However, if it did, I suspect it would be a little more than some barging this time around.

As for the T23's that are availble for operations anywhere, let alone just to the North, most probably not very many :ugh:

Double Zero
10th Jan 2009, 16:18
If the 'Cod wars' was a real battle, you would have found yourselves on the wrong end of 4.5" shells, let alone missiles and close in weapons ( in those days I suppose Marines with a GPMG ).

Ramming frigates with their hands tied behind their back, with little more than tug -boats, is not a 'war' and at least on our side we were very restrained -I was not involved myself but know someone who was, and his main job was damage control !

I don't doubt your President or whatever said nice things about Iceland; but what exactly do you contribute from there to Europe or the world ?

Lots of fish I suppose, ( let's ignore the over-fishing & dwindling stock ) as you have unreasonably large fishing grounds, but what else?

A test place for 'Top Gear' to try out daft cars.

Have you ever read 'Red Storm Rising' by Tom Clancy ?

BIRD2008
10th Jan 2009, 16:36
Double Zero

Yes, I actually read Red storm Rising, very interesting book. Good story of what could have happened if it came to war during the cold war. But a fiction none the less.:ok:

Cod wars was of course not proper war, but the British fishermen wanted more action from the frigates than they got. I think that only the strategic importance of Iceland for the USA and Nato stood in the way for it to become war where shells were used. Lucky for us I would say.

I'm not going to be saying what Iceland could, have or will contribute to the world. That's beside the matter. What I just wanted to point out was that how everyone was blind to what was going to happen. Professors from Europe and Iceland alike. Those who tried to warn us about it were thought to be little bit paranoid.

About unreasonably large fishing grounds, then we just have the fishing grounds that international law secure us. Just like UK, Norway and all coastal states. I would guess that we are doing something right in trying to tackle over-fishing because EU asks Icelandic specialists to give input into EU fishing matters. Why would multi-million people Union ask nation of 314.000 for advice if we were doing things wrong. But as I'm Icelandic I guess you would say I was wrong. :ooh:

KeepItTidy
11th Jan 2009, 02:25
Might explain why the Burns supper night at Kef is no longer there and been moved to Brunswick.

If only the tax payer knew hehehehe

Thelma Viaduct
11th Jan 2009, 04:54
I'm from a fishing town that's been heavily affected by the cod wars and EU regulation. Having said that, I'd say the Icelandic fisheries were spot on. They've employed a system of 'crop rotation' around their island and as a result have thriving fish stocks. They're able to implement fishing bans without the bureaucracy of the EU's CFP and all that entails.

We on the other hand continue to discard thousands of tonnes of perfectly good fish in order to tick EU boxes.

WWF UK- No disguising the issue of discards (http://www.wwf.org.uk/article_search_results.cfm?uNewsID=2349)
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Wasted catches hit Europe's cod (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6992938.stm)

I know who I'd rather have running our fishing industry.

phil gollin
11th Jan 2009, 13:18
BIRD2008

Your reply is full of internal contradictions - you claim they had enough money for ALL their commitments, but the money frozen in the UK was only a miniscule amout of the money of British investors and did not even cover the minimum amounts required by law !

Quote :

When it came to financing the investments of british investors because of Landsbankinn it was a bit problematic. Landsbankinn had lots of assets both in Britain and in Iceland. If that would be sold that would cover the money invested in the bank according what we are told here. But selling them at the moment was very difficult, not to say the least. There was so little cash flowing in the system and it would not be in any interest to sell them for 20% of their value, then nobody would get their money back.

The Icelandic government was trying hard to solve this problem. What I'm pointing out is that the British government did not help. Od course they were trying to secure the investment of their people, BUT was what they did really neccessery. Your point of view is I guess mostly based on what you read in Britain and what the government tell you there. Mine is of course mostly based on what I read here. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

This act of freezing the assets in Britain let to the fall of Kaupthing. I have that from pretty secure source working in Kaupthing. Friend of mine is working there and he told me that the bank could have survived. The freezing of all the money cancelled short time loans the bank had which were going to be used to get him out of the mess. Kaupthing has actually charged the British government for the freezing of its assets because it was not bankrupt when the laws were set, the laws let to the fall of the bank.

unquote

Look at what you have written and the basic fact that there isn't enough money to pay off the basic legal requirements in the UK, let alone elsewhere. Your friend is carefully ignoring the fact that inter-bank lending had gone into crisis mode and that NO ONE was lending to Icelandic banks. All the Icelandic banks and Government was doing was trying to repatriate funds to Iceland to ILLEGALLY preferentially pay-off Icelandic investors.

It is no good trying to say "oh ! are investments are really worth 5 times more than we can get for them" - that ISN'T how things work ! and really shows how badly ALL banks have been behaving (not just Icelandic). This is the way children talk - not financiers.

The facts are out in the open, especially the way the Icelandic Prime Minister tried to mislead Darling in the phone call !

It really should be for the Icelandic people and media to call-out their government and Banks on the facts that have beenpresented rather than hide behind a game of blaming others when illegal acts have been uncovered.

Go back to your friend and ask him how, and from whom, did the banks think they were going to get more loans when they were taking their foreign investors' funds away from them to stockpile in Iceland ?

I think you, and your friend need to ask some very simple questions as to how the Icelandic banks intended to operate when they had insufficient assets and noone willing to loan to them.

The Icelandic banks and government should take responsibility for their actions and not try to blame others.

.

BIRD2008
11th Jan 2009, 15:12
Dear Phil

I will point this out one more time: my information is based mainly on what I read here in Iceland. Yours is based on what you are told by your government. So there must always be some different in view. You can see if you read my posts again that I say "according to what we are told here". This id maybe the main thing, we are told some things and not other, if the government and the banks are hiding anything I don't know. I guess that the British government is not telling you all.

Also if you would have contionued to quote/read my post you would see that there is ongoing investigation here in Iceland that I hope will cast a clearer light on what happened. I'm not trying to defend the banks and the investors, I'm also not trying to defend the government and what they did. But I stand fast on my opinion that a friend does not stap another friend in the back when he needs help. I think that the situation could have been solved without freezing the assets and that it did more damage than good. But I could be wrong on that, I guess we will never know what would have happened if another road was travelled in this matter.

However I must point out that there is always two sides on each coin. And also that the general public did not take part in what happened. Most of us have lost money on what happened. Either through savings or stocks that we will not get back but in limited amount. We are trying to get answers here, both from the bankers and the government, but it is going way to slow.

knowitall
11th Jan 2009, 15:33
"But I stand fast on my opinion that a friend does not stap another friend in the back when he needs help."


that depends friend A might less inclined to help if he's just found friend B with his hand in his (friend A's) wallet

BIRD2008
11th Jan 2009, 15:39
Knowitall

HAHAHAHA! true, so very true....:D

BEagle
11th Jan 2009, 16:14
Iceland. Brilliant place - in summer there is fishing and f*cking; in winter there is no fishing. So go in winter!

And haven't they just bought up Woolworths?

microlight AV8R
11th Jan 2009, 16:53
Real battle ? Shirley thou dost jest !
The modern Royal Navy does not engage its opponents by ramming. That went out in the days of muskets.
I can recall a damaged frigate coming into the Tyne after being rammed by one of the Icelandic gunboats. Big hand to the lads onboard for their superb repairs made at sea. That was a Rothsay or Whitby class ASW type.
The truth is as previously said.. The usual hands (4.5in)tied scenario with very lightly skinned frigates against very heavily built trawler hulls. No contest if ramming.
The best the RN could do was race to get between the Icelandic gunboats and our trawlers to protect them. I seem to recall 'Odin' and 'Thor' being particularly notorious.
It was nasty and unfortunate as there ought not to be any quarrel between our countries. I for one, wanted to see an example made of the Odin, but in retrospect I feel that the Icelanders had a point about conserving stocks. They were ahead of their time it seems.

phil gollin
11th Jan 2009, 22:08
Bird2008,

You are trying to muddy the waters. The information in the public domain is not different. It is on open record that the Icelandic Prime Minister got caught out trying to mislead Darling. It is om open record that the Icelandic governemt was trying to take British Investors' money out of the Uk when there wasn't even enough to pay off the legally required minimum, let alone actually what the banks owed. Those are facts, not opinion and not open to discussion. If you read any differently in Iceland then please ask them why they are not telling the truth, it's very simple.

The telephone conversation transcript has been released showing that the Icelandic Prime Minister was caught out, and the short-fall in Icelandic banks in the Uk has been detailed. WHere are there any different facts to refute these ?

Your idea that ".... a friend does not stap another friend in the back when he needs help ...." applies to both parties - does a "friend" (Iceland steal money from its friend (the UK) to illegally preferentially pay of its own people ! I think you need to look at what a "friend" means in such circumstances.

The assets had to be frozen because they were being moved illegally to the detriment of the UK investors and to favour the Icelandic investors - what is "friendly" about that ? The problem was that the icelandic banks had over-extended themselves and did not have enough money - they were acting illegally in trying to favour one set of investors over others.

I think you need to have yourself and your friends to have more conversations with your bankers, regulators and government and get some real answers and stop them playing PR games trying to blame others.

.

Wader2
12th Jan 2009, 11:38
I have a nice photgraph in my log book of rht Baldur, no tug I assure you, but she had a very crumpled flight deck. :}

Not long after I remember a dark taxi-ride to somewhere not far from kef with the route marked with the very same Cod we had been fighting over. About every 20 yards, in the middle of the road, was a Cod, fallen of the back of a truck yr honour, honest.