The website Shelter Offshore says here : "The Isle of Man as a jurisdiction has taken a battering in recent months because of the collapse of the offshore arm of the Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander on the island. The investor protection scheme in place in the Isle of Man has been criticised for not offering enough protection to those who choose to place their money with institutions within the jurisdiction for example.What’s more, the Isle of Man financial authorities have been called to account by many as they feel that they were not tough enough in terms of the regulations they had in place to prevent financial institutions from collapse. So, are Isle of Man savings accounts worth taking a risk on..?"
The article goes on to say: "So, is the Isle of Man a poor jurisdiction that has sold out those who have lost out from a single bank’s collapse? Or is it just the unlucky jurisdiction that had to deal with a collapsed bank? The truth is certainly in there somewhere – but it depends on who you speak to. We fully, wholeheartedly support the KSFIOM Depositors’ Action Group – who wouldn’t. These are people whose financial losses have devastated their lives in many instances – one cannot ignore these people. Yet at the same time, we support the Isle of Man as a jurisdiction because they have done and are continuing to do what they can to protect those who place money within financial institutions on the island."
What a dichotomy! It is explained by Shelter Offshore having a vested financial interest in promoting investment & deposits on the Isle of Man & other offshore financial centres. Therefore it has a clear bias towards defending the offshore centres themselves, whilst acknowledging that there are risks involved in putting one's trust in them. So it conveniently passes the buck back to the depositor (or investor) by concluding: "When it comes to your money however, you have to make the judgement call for yourself. You need to look at any recommendations you’re given and see whether you agree and feel that yes, the jurisdiction favoured and the financial institution chosen for the enhancement of your wealth is appropriate for not only your risk profile but for your future financial security."
Depositors in Kaupthing have been criticised as fools by Manx people for not fully assessing the risks they were taking in depositing on the Isle of Man. Some have gone so far as to say that they deserved to lose their life savings for not being more circumspect.
The message dispossessed depositors are saying loud & clear to expats and others throughout the world is 'DON'T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN as you are at serious risk of losing your wealth.' There's over 30 videos on www.youtube.com making that message clear to all. view here
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Foot treads around the IoM wearing slippers
The IoMToday online journal [report here] was upbeat in reporting on Tony Brown's fulsome praise of the Foot Review. The Chief Minister will have known in advance that Sir.Michael Foot was not going to kick any goose that lays golden eggs for the benefit of both the IoM & UK economy.
Right from the start of the report there was recognition that offshore financial centres are intended to offer bait to suck in money from around the world which gets upstreamed promptly to the City & elsewhere to make lots of money for banks, corporations, & ultra-rich people. This financial industry is the heartbeat of the IoM's economy & the review had to tailor its comments to fit around that fact.
Of course Tony Brown was utterly predictable in pronouncing fulsome praise of the review. He's not going to focus on any of the critical elements of the report, even though they were penned in the soft language of diplomatic Whitehall scribes. Contrary to what was reported by the IoMToday journal the Review was in fact critical of the way the depositors' compensation scheme operated (see pages 50, 51 & 52), and he said that there was room for improvement in handling criminal activity.
The reality is that Foot could afford to be 'nice' to the Crown dependencies because he knows others in the world's financial hierarchy are ready in the wings to press hard for opacity in the way some offshore agencies operate.
The IoM trumpets that it is going to introduce automatic exchange of information in 2011, but why wait until then to do so? Because instant transparency would be sure to expose very many transgressors! Despite protests of being squeeky clean the powers that be in the IoM know that though they have shed the pejorative label 'tax haven' they have still to get rid of the equally damaging one of 'secrecy jurisdiction'.
The Foot Review addressed the subject in very general terms. Others are looking at it in detail and the government will have to use its new 'mindset' to work out how the island is to rid itself of that label as well. Very challenging times lay ahead for the IoM.
Right from the start of the report there was recognition that offshore financial centres are intended to offer bait to suck in money from around the world which gets upstreamed promptly to the City & elsewhere to make lots of money for banks, corporations, & ultra-rich people. This financial industry is the heartbeat of the IoM's economy & the review had to tailor its comments to fit around that fact.
Of course Tony Brown was utterly predictable in pronouncing fulsome praise of the review. He's not going to focus on any of the critical elements of the report, even though they were penned in the soft language of diplomatic Whitehall scribes. Contrary to what was reported by the IoMToday journal the Review was in fact critical of the way the depositors' compensation scheme operated (see pages 50, 51 & 52), and he said that there was room for improvement in handling criminal activity.
The reality is that Foot could afford to be 'nice' to the Crown dependencies because he knows others in the world's financial hierarchy are ready in the wings to press hard for opacity in the way some offshore agencies operate.
The IoM trumpets that it is going to introduce automatic exchange of information in 2011, but why wait until then to do so? Because instant transparency would be sure to expose very many transgressors! Despite protests of being squeeky clean the powers that be in the IoM know that though they have shed the pejorative label 'tax haven' they have still to get rid of the equally damaging one of 'secrecy jurisdiction'.
The Foot Review addressed the subject in very general terms. Others are looking at it in detail and the government will have to use its new 'mindset' to work out how the island is to rid itself of that label as well. Very challenging times lay ahead for the IoM.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Foot said nothing that we didn't know already
Sir Michael Foot said nothing that we didn't know already. In acknowledging the role played by the Crown dependencies in attracting money from across the world & funneling it into the City he could only focus on making recommendations that would make that activity conform with total transparency to mandatory international standards.
However, reading between the lines Foot made observations that would make a wise & prudent person think twice before being lured by higher interest rates into depositing offshore. Depositing on the Isle of Man can not be considered safe & secure until there is a new & credible compensation scheme in place that delivers quickly what it promises should the deposit taker be in trouble.
Until then the message is clear, don't bank on the Isle of Man to look after your life savings in a manner that gives you total peace of mind through an unambiguous assurance that your money is in safe hands. As FTAdviser.com said in its article 'Taking a closer look' "do not be seduced by offers of higher rates or guaranteed returns without a healthily cynical view of the small print."
Foot Review Report here
However, reading between the lines Foot made observations that would make a wise & prudent person think twice before being lured by higher interest rates into depositing offshore. Depositing on the Isle of Man can not be considered safe & secure until there is a new & credible compensation scheme in place that delivers quickly what it promises should the deposit taker be in trouble.
Until then the message is clear, don't bank on the Isle of Man to look after your life savings in a manner that gives you total peace of mind through an unambiguous assurance that your money is in safe hands. As FTAdviser.com said in its article 'Taking a closer look' "do not be seduced by offers of higher rates or guaranteed returns without a healthily cynical view of the small print."
Foot Review Report here
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Alleged corruption in the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading
The following letter speaks for itself:
Open letter to Mr. P. Gelling – Acting Chief Officer of the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
Copies to: The Chief Officer of the OFT: Mr. N. Black – The Chairmen of the OFT: Mr. W. Henderson The Chief Minister: Mr. A. Brown and other interested parties.
28th October 2009
Dear Mr. Gelling
Open Letter - Corruption in the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading
The OFT has deprived pensioners of their legal rights by rejecting complaints that the directors of the Premier Low Risk Fund plc (the Fund) dispensed misleading advice in the course of marketing the Fund to the public.
Your office is in receipt of evidence – upheld by a High Court ruling and Financial Services Authority (FSA) adjudications – in support of allegations that the Fund’s directors obtained bank transfers by deception. Yet the OFT continues to reject the pensioner’s complaints.
The ‘ombudsman office’ does not employ an ‘ombudsman’, and on matters concerning the misselling of financial products the office relies on FSA rulings/adjudications as a guiding reference.
To facilitate this process, and as a service to the consumer advice sector, the FSA regularly display their rulings in the ‘Ombudsman News’. A publication which is known to the OFT.
To demonstrate a case against the Fund’s directors – a case which the OFT refuses to address – please find attached extracts from the FSA publication relating to dispensing misleading advice and the unfair imposition of MVAs.
Complaints about the Fund director’s advice include:-
- Advising pensioners that the fund provided capital security and guarantees. Untrue advice
- Advising pensioners that the Fund could provide a regular quarterly income. Untrue advice
- Advising pensioners that the Fund’s investment strategy is low-risk. The FSA and a High Court confirm that the investment strategy is high-risk. Untrue advice
- Failing to advise pensioners that a MVA, without limited in size and duration, may be applied when the pensioners attempt to rescue their savings.
- Enhancing the Fund’s market appeal by disclosing minor ‘exit charges’ in a highly visible, self-explanatory tabulation - and failing to similarly disclose any other charge.
Because passports were required in the application process the directors knew that pensioners were amongst those receiving this misleading advice and this resulted in them being unwittingly deceived into transferring their life savings to a long term, high-risk fund, not capable of providing regular income and liable to an MVA unlimited in amount and duration. All features not fit for pensioners.
Despite this the OFT have used a variety of devices to trick pensioners into believing that the directors conduct was legally acceptable. The OFT’s denials are now exposed and after delaying matters six years the office is now resorting to another tactic by quoting the Financial Services Act 2008 which states:
“The OFT shall decline or cease to act under paragraph 1(3) where it appears to it that the dispute was referred to it under paragraph 1(2) in any case, more than 6 years after that act or omission”.
A statute of limitations cannot apply to the matter of obtaining pensioner’s life savings by deception.
The OFT’s handling of this case is dishonest and apparently a calculated attempt to protect the Fund’s directors.
Someone in your department should summon the courage to report this matter to an authority with the competence to investigate allegations of corruption in the OFT ombudsman’s office.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?
signed: PREMIER SHAREHOLDERS GROUP
Pensioners Campaigning for Truth and Justice
Contact us: e-mail: PSA350@orange.es or telephone (0034) 950 39 20 38
Open letter to Mr. P. Gelling – Acting Chief Officer of the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
Copies to: The Chief Officer of the OFT: Mr. N. Black – The Chairmen of the OFT: Mr. W. Henderson The Chief Minister: Mr. A. Brown and other interested parties.
28th October 2009
Dear Mr. Gelling
Open Letter - Corruption in the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading
The OFT has deprived pensioners of their legal rights by rejecting complaints that the directors of the Premier Low Risk Fund plc (the Fund) dispensed misleading advice in the course of marketing the Fund to the public.
Your office is in receipt of evidence – upheld by a High Court ruling and Financial Services Authority (FSA) adjudications – in support of allegations that the Fund’s directors obtained bank transfers by deception. Yet the OFT continues to reject the pensioner’s complaints.
The ‘ombudsman office’ does not employ an ‘ombudsman’, and on matters concerning the misselling of financial products the office relies on FSA rulings/adjudications as a guiding reference.
To facilitate this process, and as a service to the consumer advice sector, the FSA regularly display their rulings in the ‘Ombudsman News’. A publication which is known to the OFT.
To demonstrate a case against the Fund’s directors – a case which the OFT refuses to address – please find attached extracts from the FSA publication relating to dispensing misleading advice and the unfair imposition of MVAs.
Complaints about the Fund director’s advice include:-
- Advising pensioners that the fund provided capital security and guarantees. Untrue advice
- Advising pensioners that the Fund could provide a regular quarterly income. Untrue advice
- Advising pensioners that the Fund’s investment strategy is low-risk. The FSA and a High Court confirm that the investment strategy is high-risk. Untrue advice
- Failing to advise pensioners that a MVA, without limited in size and duration, may be applied when the pensioners attempt to rescue their savings.
- Enhancing the Fund’s market appeal by disclosing minor ‘exit charges’ in a highly visible, self-explanatory tabulation - and failing to similarly disclose any other charge.
Because passports were required in the application process the directors knew that pensioners were amongst those receiving this misleading advice and this resulted in them being unwittingly deceived into transferring their life savings to a long term, high-risk fund, not capable of providing regular income and liable to an MVA unlimited in amount and duration. All features not fit for pensioners.
Despite this the OFT have used a variety of devices to trick pensioners into believing that the directors conduct was legally acceptable. The OFT’s denials are now exposed and after delaying matters six years the office is now resorting to another tactic by quoting the Financial Services Act 2008 which states:
“The OFT shall decline or cease to act under paragraph 1(3) where it appears to it that the dispute was referred to it under paragraph 1(2) in any case, more than 6 years after that act or omission”.
A statute of limitations cannot apply to the matter of obtaining pensioner’s life savings by deception.
The OFT’s handling of this case is dishonest and apparently a calculated attempt to protect the Fund’s directors.
Someone in your department should summon the courage to report this matter to an authority with the competence to investigate allegations of corruption in the OFT ombudsman’s office.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?
signed: PREMIER SHAREHOLDERS GROUP
Pensioners Campaigning for Truth and Justice
Contact us: e-mail: PSA350@orange.es or telephone (0034) 950 39 20 38
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A new IoM government 'mindset' offers real hope of a just & honourable settlement of the Kaupthing fiasco
Today Tony Brown, Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, made a statement to Tynwald on the serious situation in which the island finds itself after HM Treasury had reviewed & modified the Revenue Sharing Arrangement between the IoM & the UK. [full statement in pdf file here]
The decision made by HM Treasury was non-negotiable and means that the IoM will lose revenue of £90million next year & £140million in subsequent years. This equates to an annual loss of revenue in the order of a massive 24%.
The Chief Minister says: "there will without doubt need to be a change of mindset politically..", a statement that he repeated at least 3 times in answering subsequent questions from MHK's.
The financial services industry is the lifeblood of the IoM economy. The position that the Isle of Man now finds itself will have a marked affect on the way the world now views the island as an offshore financial services centre. An accelerating loss in confidence which started with the collapse of the Kaupthing bank could see a massive hemorrhage with money flowing out of the island and deposits & investments drying up. Rapid surgery is now needed.
Dare it be hoped then that this "change of mindset" will now include a courageous political decision to bring about a just & honorable settlement of the Kauthing bank fiasco by a government commitment to restore 100% all deposits lost when the bank went bust due to the actions of the directors, supported by the FSC?
Taxpayers need not be called upon to achieve this. The government with its new mindset must have the political courage to secure the money either through the banks or it should go to HM Treasury & obtain a loan, involving thr IMF if necessary. In either case the loan would be repaid progressively from recovery of the assets, estimated to be approx 83% gross. The shortfall could be made up from & commitment on the part of Iceland to honour the parental guarantee given by the Kaupthing parent bank. Properly negotiated, the IoM Treasury could end up quids in on such a settlement.
The Isle of Man government now has an urgent need to shore up confidence in its banks so as to maintain & sustain the financial services industry that makes up 37% of GDP. The benefits of resolving the festering Kaupthing debacle would far outweigh the cost of failing to do so.
It's time to put the Kaupthing debacle to bed so that depositors & the people of the IoM can all sleep better & look forward to a brighter tomorrow.
The decision made by HM Treasury was non-negotiable and means that the IoM will lose revenue of £90million next year & £140million in subsequent years. This equates to an annual loss of revenue in the order of a massive 24%.
The Chief Minister says: "there will without doubt need to be a change of mindset politically..", a statement that he repeated at least 3 times in answering subsequent questions from MHK's.
The financial services industry is the lifeblood of the IoM economy. The position that the Isle of Man now finds itself will have a marked affect on the way the world now views the island as an offshore financial services centre. An accelerating loss in confidence which started with the collapse of the Kaupthing bank could see a massive hemorrhage with money flowing out of the island and deposits & investments drying up. Rapid surgery is now needed.
Dare it be hoped then that this "change of mindset" will now include a courageous political decision to bring about a just & honorable settlement of the Kauthing bank fiasco by a government commitment to restore 100% all deposits lost when the bank went bust due to the actions of the directors, supported by the FSC?
Taxpayers need not be called upon to achieve this. The government with its new mindset must have the political courage to secure the money either through the banks or it should go to HM Treasury & obtain a loan, involving thr IMF if necessary. In either case the loan would be repaid progressively from recovery of the assets, estimated to be approx 83% gross. The shortfall could be made up from & commitment on the part of Iceland to honour the parental guarantee given by the Kaupthing parent bank. Properly negotiated, the IoM Treasury could end up quids in on such a settlement.
The Isle of Man government now has an urgent need to shore up confidence in its banks so as to maintain & sustain the financial services industry that makes up 37% of GDP. The benefits of resolving the festering Kaupthing debacle would far outweigh the cost of failing to do so.
It's time to put the Kaupthing debacle to bed so that depositors & the people of the IoM can all sleep better & look forward to a brighter tomorrow.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Tony Brown, IoM Chief Minister, conceals his contingency plans
Tony Brown, Chief Minister of the isle of Man, stated on Manx Radio [listen to short replay clip here] that a revision of the VAT sharing agreement will have a significant impact on the Isle of Man, but stressed that the government has contingency plans in place should this happen. Why does he keep them secret? Ooops! silly question — the IoM has been shown by research to be only 17% transparent, [pdf file here] so Tony Brown conveniently choses to keep secret those contingency plans.
Following the fallout of the international financial volcanic eruption of 2008, the offshore game play continues with unwary international depositors being the piggy in the middle. The offshore financial centres of the British Crown dependencies are no longer places that expats & others should trust with their life savings. If they are already ‘in’ on the Isle of Man they should get out quick before the illusionary IoM golden cookie crumbles into sand, as this youtube.com video warns view here
32 videos by dispossessed depositors are spreading this message throughout the world: DON'T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN as it could seriously damage your wealth, ruin your health, & take away everything for which you have worked. To view what they say see here
Following the fallout of the international financial volcanic eruption of 2008, the offshore game play continues with unwary international depositors being the piggy in the middle. The offshore financial centres of the British Crown dependencies are no longer places that expats & others should trust with their life savings. If they are already ‘in’ on the Isle of Man they should get out quick before the illusionary IoM golden cookie crumbles into sand, as this youtube.com video warns view here
32 videos by dispossessed depositors are spreading this message throughout the world: DON'T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN as it could seriously damage your wealth, ruin your health, & take away everything for which you have worked. To view what they say see here
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Isle of Man stands between the devil of its own creation and the deep blue Irish Sea
Allen Bell, Treasury Minister, does well to warn of tough times ahead for the Isle of Man. www.iomtoday.co.im Unfortunately he views it simplistically by saying without explaining that a new world order is determined to stop the drift of money from high to low tax jurisdictions. That situation is a small part of the larger picture which is about why this drift needs to be stopped in the first place.
Following the international financial tsunami of 2008 there is now increasing international pressure on offshore financial centres that operate as secrecy jurisdictions. The Isle of Man has been shown not to be as transparent as it has tried to make out in overtures to the OECD, the World Bank, the IMF, Washington & the Commonwealth. Voices of reason in the international financial arena are calling for morality to become the cornerstone of the way financial systems operate, & places like the IoM, Guernsey & Jersey are now being put under the microscope.
Has anyone in high places on the Isle of Man every used the word 'moral' to describe the way this offshore financial centre operates? It has demonstrated that it seriously lacks any sense of morality or keen sense of justice in its whole approach to the KSFIoM debacle in particular & the way it conducts its banking business in general.
What comes across so strongly is that the IoM government is hell bent on looking after & protecting its own interests, determined - even before the Select Committee inquiring into the reason for the failure of KSFIoM has completed its deliberations - to claim that the collapse of KSFIoM was not on account of any wrongdoing on the part of the directors or the FSC but on the actions of others elsewhere in Whitehall & Iceland.
This extraordinary immoral arrogance tells dispossessed depositors that they can sing for the return of all their money as the Isle of Man has chosen to stick solely to its defective compensation scheme & treat the fiasco as an unfortunate 'one off' that the government now wants to put behind it so as to carry on 'business as usual'. It was not a 'oneoff'; KSFIoM is the third bank to fail, & there is no reason to believe that others could not do likewise. Indeed the Chief of the FSC has said that non-core banks should be allowed to fail.
Business as usual is business that continues to threaten the livelyhood of anyone who puts their life savings in the trust of the Isle of Man, because the island does not have the infrastructure to respect & honour the trust of those who deposit in its banks. It is morally bankrupt because for all its protestations to the contrary its culture is still rooted in banking secrecy by which megga rich individuals & companies can evade their own social responsibilities to pay their fair share of tax in the places where it should be paid.
The IoM is morally bankrupt because it does not agree with the words of the UK Prime Minister when he said: "where there is unfairness we will act." It is morally bankrupt because it sees no reason to vouchsafe deposits in its banks. It is morally bankrupt because it uses high interest rates to suck in gullable people by telling them what the banks want them to know rather than what they should know about the risks to which they are exposed.
It is morally bankrupt because it has banking regulations that provide an outward cloak of responsibility & respectability whilst hiding the inner secrets of how business is done behind tightly closed doors that have locks but no keyholes. It is morally bankrupt because it has church leaders who do not stand up for righteousness in the financial affairs of the island. It is morally bankrupt because it conspires to increase its own wealth with scant regard for the poor of the world who lose out because of the gross injustices in the systems of taxation in the world's wealthiest nations, especially offshore jurisdictions.
Back in the 1980's the people of the Isle of Man rose up in angry protest at the way the island was being taken over by rich immigrants. Those wealthy invaders won the day and now 25 years on there is an acceptance of the island's status as a haven for rich people from the UK who relocate here to enjoy the benefits of living in a low tax regime.
There are clear signs that this is going to have to change, but instead of there being a revolt against the government it is more likely that the government will lead an orchestrated protest against the United Kingdom & the international community in the same way as it has ducked responsibility for the KSFIoM affair by blaming the bank's demise on Whitehall & Iceland.
The Isle of Man now stands between the devil of its own creation & the deep blue Irish Sea in which it will struggle to keep afloat. Tony Brown, Chief Minister, says the government has contingency plans. Now what sort of lifejackets will they be ?
Following the international financial tsunami of 2008 there is now increasing international pressure on offshore financial centres that operate as secrecy jurisdictions. The Isle of Man has been shown not to be as transparent as it has tried to make out in overtures to the OECD, the World Bank, the IMF, Washington & the Commonwealth. Voices of reason in the international financial arena are calling for morality to become the cornerstone of the way financial systems operate, & places like the IoM, Guernsey & Jersey are now being put under the microscope.
Has anyone in high places on the Isle of Man every used the word 'moral' to describe the way this offshore financial centre operates? It has demonstrated that it seriously lacks any sense of morality or keen sense of justice in its whole approach to the KSFIoM debacle in particular & the way it conducts its banking business in general.
What comes across so strongly is that the IoM government is hell bent on looking after & protecting its own interests, determined - even before the Select Committee inquiring into the reason for the failure of KSFIoM has completed its deliberations - to claim that the collapse of KSFIoM was not on account of any wrongdoing on the part of the directors or the FSC but on the actions of others elsewhere in Whitehall & Iceland.
This extraordinary immoral arrogance tells dispossessed depositors that they can sing for the return of all their money as the Isle of Man has chosen to stick solely to its defective compensation scheme & treat the fiasco as an unfortunate 'one off' that the government now wants to put behind it so as to carry on 'business as usual'. It was not a 'oneoff'; KSFIoM is the third bank to fail, & there is no reason to believe that others could not do likewise. Indeed the Chief of the FSC has said that non-core banks should be allowed to fail.
Business as usual is business that continues to threaten the livelyhood of anyone who puts their life savings in the trust of the Isle of Man, because the island does not have the infrastructure to respect & honour the trust of those who deposit in its banks. It is morally bankrupt because for all its protestations to the contrary its culture is still rooted in banking secrecy by which megga rich individuals & companies can evade their own social responsibilities to pay their fair share of tax in the places where it should be paid.
The IoM is morally bankrupt because it does not agree with the words of the UK Prime Minister when he said: "where there is unfairness we will act." It is morally bankrupt because it sees no reason to vouchsafe deposits in its banks. It is morally bankrupt because it uses high interest rates to suck in gullable people by telling them what the banks want them to know rather than what they should know about the risks to which they are exposed.
It is morally bankrupt because it has banking regulations that provide an outward cloak of responsibility & respectability whilst hiding the inner secrets of how business is done behind tightly closed doors that have locks but no keyholes. It is morally bankrupt because it has church leaders who do not stand up for righteousness in the financial affairs of the island. It is morally bankrupt because it conspires to increase its own wealth with scant regard for the poor of the world who lose out because of the gross injustices in the systems of taxation in the world's wealthiest nations, especially offshore jurisdictions.
Back in the 1980's the people of the Isle of Man rose up in angry protest at the way the island was being taken over by rich immigrants. Those wealthy invaders won the day and now 25 years on there is an acceptance of the island's status as a haven for rich people from the UK who relocate here to enjoy the benefits of living in a low tax regime.
There are clear signs that this is going to have to change, but instead of there being a revolt against the government it is more likely that the government will lead an orchestrated protest against the United Kingdom & the international community in the same way as it has ducked responsibility for the KSFIoM affair by blaming the bank's demise on Whitehall & Iceland.
The Isle of Man now stands between the devil of its own creation & the deep blue Irish Sea in which it will struggle to keep afloat. Tony Brown, Chief Minister, says the government has contingency plans. Now what sort of lifejackets will they be ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
