Iceland sees red over RAF mission
Thread Starter
Iceland sees red over RAF mission
In today's FT, news of another fine mess our wonderful Government has got us into:- Full article
Extract:-
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Dickheads.
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.
Dickheads.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 55
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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$$ in, in rebundled packages that hid the risk from greedy salespeople.
it's a basic tenet of investment that the higher the interest rate being paid, the riskier the investment.
I doubt the tax man, for example, will accept the same moral arguments if somebody goes bust owing you money, and you go and empty their bank account prior to the tax man getting his traditional first dibs on the assets.
Iceland's fault is to have gone into the never never land of repackaging unsustainable mortgae loans, along with virtually every financial institution in the western world - and a good few kenyans who have been emailing me over the years asking for help claiming large sums of money.
I imagine the icelandic people feel a bit aggreived about it, is it any surprise to find relations still a bit on the touchy side? Were things the other way about would we be any more welcoming?
We SHOULD, obviously, have sunk them all during the Cod wars, and taken the whole mass of clinker over as a huge outdoor spa, but I don't think it's fair to get so annoyed at them this time round - if you want to blame anyone then blame the spams...they're the gits who decided to sell mortgages to thousands of people who couldn't afford a pot to pi$$ in, in rebundled packages that hid the risk from greedy salespeople.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASCOT ops
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF abandons Iceland amid banks row
From the Press Association - 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.