Iceland sees red over RAF mission
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Tabs please !
Watch out, they might get really @rsey and take Björk back 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
JJflyer would of course count me as an arrogant ill-behaved uneducated bad Icelander for saying that but what does he know.
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.
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.
JJflyer would of course count me as an arrogant ill-behaved uneducated bad Icelander for saying that but what does he know.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 438 Likes
on
231 Posts
Bird2008,
No, no - PLEASE take her back. Surely that's what this is all really about..
No, no - PLEASE take her back. Surely that's what this is all really about..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icelander Puffin-eating merchant bankers
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no question about it if it came to hard war Iceland would be f..
! 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 
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
! 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 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
Last edited by BIRD2008; 10th Jan 2009 at 16:13.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
As for the T23's that are availble for operations anywhere, let alone just to the North, most probably not very many
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Wasted catches hit Europe's cod
I know who I'd rather have running our fishing industry.
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
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Wasted catches hit Europe's cod
I know who I'd rather have running our fishing industry.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
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?
And haven't they just bought up Woolworths?