The use of terrorist laws against Iceland has been criticised by a UK Parliament committee that is looking into how the British government reacted, using controversial terrorist laws against Iceland.
“If this is as is being reported, then it’s the one positive aspect of the whole affair,” Says Arni Mathiesen former Icelandic Finance Minister. “This however helps us (Iceland) very little as the action has been taken,” he continues. Mr. Mathiesen says that this is a strong indication that the British Government played a greater role in the fall of the Icelandic banks than earlier assumed.
Some in Iceland feel it is striking that in the report nothing is said about the strong words used by the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he talked about and explained his government’s actions. When the report is looked at in whole, it is interesting to note that criticism seems to fall mainly on Alistair Darling and the British Government, without mentioning Gordon Brown.
The report also criticises the FSA for allowing Kaputhing to buy a British bank (in 2006) as they were obviously unsuitable. FSA had no ability to interfere with a bank regulated by Iceland.
Thats the problem, when you have a criminal bank in collusion with its government its possible.
Fraud is being investigated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5111136/Iceland-investigators-turn-to-SFO.html
I notice how the Icelandic media cherry picks the answers it wants to hear from this report.
What the report concludes is that Uk government used the law it had, hurt Iceland’s feelings but that’s tough as it was necessary. And that the Icelandic banks should not have been allowed to operate in the UK.
You’re right about it being 8/14.
Regarding being critical of using the ATCSA, they do not say or imply that, in the situation faced in Oct 2008, it should not have been used. They do say that something else should have been in place for the Treasury to use.
Again you state that the UK government lied about the intention of the Bill. We’ve had this discussion before, so all I can do is link to it:
https://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/03/16/kaupthing-uk-legal-case-makes-high-court-progress/#comment-69159
A sloppy point? get over yourself.
A government majority in an investigation of aspects of its own actions is a sloppy point?
8 out of 14 by my reckoning including the chair.
Yet still it was somewhat critical over the use of the ATA in these circumstances.
Whether you are convinced or not about the Governments deceit is irrelevant. Who knows what your agenda is or what your criteria is for judging these cases.
Whether the people in the UK were concerned about their own Government lying about their stated intent of the wording of the Anti terrorism Act is a moot point. Could reflect a state of absolute apathetic weariness over years of Labour Gov spin.
Sloppy, but not appalling :) .
There may be a majority of Labour MPs, but that’s a sloppy point in itself. i.e. true, but only just (8/15).
In the full report, they suggest that the asset freezing legislation is uncoupled from the anti-terror legislation, but they accept the need for both.
Not convinced that anyone lied about the original Bill – it was discussed out in the open in the HoL and an ammendment tabled and then dropped. Frankly, in the UK, people were simply not concerned about this aspect of the Bill. All public scrutiny was focussed on the domestic civil liberties aspects.
, Bromley86 said:
“Appalling reporting, made worse by the failure to link to source.
I’m still looking for detail on this, but the Guardian gives a summary”
—————————————————–
But you give a link to the Telegraph – how appalling and sloppy :)
The relevant thing to note is that this is a parliamentary committee with the majority composed from Labour Government mps.
They shed crocodile tears for the Guernsey islanders.
Despite the presence of a government majority in the committee, it is very critical of the use of the Anti terrorism laws and suggests that other legal action would have been more appropriate.
It does not state what other legal action.
Pity they didn’t criticise the Labour Gov for lying through their their teeth to the British people about the intent of the Anti Terrorism act all those years ago :)
Axel, totally agree with your comment.
Here we go. The main focus of the committee was recommending which of those not covered by guarantees should be compensated. Regarding the Chancellor’s actions/statements, this is from the press release:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/treasury_committee/tc0809pn28.cfm
Loads more detail in the full report:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtreasy/402/40206.htm
Appalling reporting, made worse by the failure to link to source.
I’m still looking for detail on this, but the Guardian gives a summary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5102000/MPs-blame-impotent-FSA-over-Icelandic-banks.html
Hehehe, why am i not surprized,
this way to do busyness, make decisions like this after a phonecall with someone to barely speaks English is very unprofessional, unlikely too
that leads me to believe this has deeper roots and has little or nothing to do with Darling,
the reason lies in politics and busyness.