Gladys

Why? I can't figure out if he is spoofing or not.

Would enough diverse plants thrive there? It can be very windswept in the winter

Yes Gladys, you've got 'M' dead-on. I've gotten to think of those lads whose actions led to the disaster and wonder how their lives've panned-out. They were eventually charged with criminal damage, to the padlock on the kiosk that served the 'Crazy Golf', if i remember correctly. I was having a drink in the 'Legion', this TT week, and noticed the copper who'd been 'very handy' with me and 'M'. Sat and wondered what his memories were. I guess feelings ran pretty high with the cops at the time and they were looking for a result. Other stuff i recall is that my sister, who'd only just passed her driving-test was busy running some of the less-injured to Nobles and then picking-up blood-donors and ferrying them to the hospital. Weren't some of the local cabbies also involved with this? Maybe Lonan3 could shed light on this...? You should have asked him.

A sorry tale, Quilp. However, that story has stirred some memories. I think there was some chit chat at school about the fair haired lad, surname beginning with 'M (?)', at the time - mainly, how he had been wrongly accused of some involvement but quickly dispelled when the real hapless lads were identified. Absolutely terrible for you and for the real perpetrators - they only set in train a sequence of events they had no idea where or how it would end. Not like many others who set up the dominoes just ready for any minor event to start the topple.

These pieces are edited, so no local input or 'interpretation'.

Don't ever remember kittens or puppies there, and the parrot was a Mynah Bird - 'what's your name?' 'Mary Jane'. ' Where do you live?' 'Down the grid.'

But have you seen a house fly?

Wow, you're older than I thought.

Don't know Miss Bees, she was said to be around Farmhill a few years ago. She was a really scary woman. I was taught domestic sciece (as it then was) by Mrs Gardener, Scottish lady, still a bit scary, but she was OK really and reminded us of the Flash ad ('Cleans floors without scratching' in a Glaswegian accent, for those that remember it). That was back in the early 70s though. I can't remember many of our teachers; Mrs Musgrove our form mistress and English teacher; an RE teacher who used to bounce up and down when we didn't agree that God was real (her brother had the chemists in Granville Street) and Gareth Jones the PE teacher who was a push over on the 'can't do PE/swimming/athletics/cross country today sir, just can't' then blush gag. We should have been terminally anaemic!

When I were a lass, anything ending in F was changed to 'ves' in the plural ( a simple rule, but one that probably has more exceptions). That was what we were taught, but it seems it is now incorrect, despite:- Sheaf - sheaves Shelf - shelves Loaf - loaves Self - selves Elf - elves The only other deviation is leaf - leaves, which seems wrong now, but was right back then. Thank God the OP didn't have a problem with leaves on rooves!

Yes, that is one aspect of AML, but the other is receiving and dealing in the proceeds of crime and that is a whole spectrum of potential follies. But has this ever prevented the originating crime? Sad to say, I don't think so. Organised crime is, well, so organised, it will always find a way. Meanwhile, we do our best, we tie ourselves up in knots meeting international standards, we regulate ourselves very well and still we don't come up to scratch. Yet I see on a daily basis, entirely questionnable activities and approaches from those in a place that severely criticises us! Let alone the complete misunderstanding of what we do, nominee directors for one. Perhaps those that want some money laundering scalps could look nearer to home, cheaper, more easily found and hugely more culpable.

Yes, it is. I make no apologies for the likes of TB, but as I said above, has any of this actually prevented any crimes or terrorist activity?

Quite so. I fully support AML inititaives and legislation, what I would hope to see is fairness and also leadership from the top on who people are prepared to do business with. You also have to question whether AML is actually working to dissuade the perpetrators of the originating crimes to commit those crimes. Or, for that matter, the terrorists from obtaining their funding. Fairness in terms of jurisdictional risks too. Can you imagine the size of the crap storm if THIS would have happened offshore: The Bank for Gangsters: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362561/Bank-gangsters-Police-open-7k-safety-deposit-boxes-discover-50m.html I'd suggest the UK needs to get its own house in order before it starts thinking that grubby money laundering operations only happen offshore. Try Googling 'Isle of Man VAT registration' to see one of the first hits and the kind of savoury UK based operation that exists. Then have a look at 'bank', licences offered within 24 hours on that site. You can also look at how they view the IOM; difficult and so much better to operate through Seychelles or Belize. Well, they are probably right, if you want limited money laundering questions asked. This is a company which seems to be based in the UK and is allowed to operate in this way? Please remind me who are the money launderers' friends? The whole thing grows more and more astonishing, and more and more depressing.

Gladys You seem to echo a number of members who have this, 'oh how sad for the dears'. IMHO this is pathetic. Clever Trevor has been found guilty of two serious crimes and rightly deserves to be in prison. His age is neither here nor there. Isn't anyone asking if a person with such a blind-eyed approach to business governance may have done this before??? As for young Jenny, stupidity isn't much of a defence at law, is it? No, you have me wrong. I don't have any particular feelings either way for either individual. My main argument is at the fairness of lynching those some way down the food chain because they may be easy targets, meanwhile the real perpetrator gets a plea bargain and the large institutions involved also get off without any penalty. Then, when we look at how the world has taken another sudden lurch; individuals, who any man in the street wouldn't trust their cat with, have been hitherto feted, are now where they should be. But again, do you think Blair is ever going to be in the frame for handling the proceeds of crime (let alone any accusations of corruption which may or may not be justified), or the banks that house the Gaddafi family money? Evil Goblin has summed up my feelings and I would add that I doubt there are any reliable studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the current global AML regime in countering the originating crimes, ditto terrorist funding which is almost unstoppable given the very small amounts involved. That is not to say that AML efforts are wrong, but there has to be recognition that pilloring the end of the chain is not conducive to that end of the chain doing what it should do and that is report suspicious activity into a well integrated and resourced international database that will have the intelligence to then root out the criminals. That, I think, is FATF's nirvana, but the internationally patchy ability to deliver to that standard has meant that the objective is now to get a few ML convictions and job is done. As for JH, ignorance of the law is no defence, but naivity may indicate the degree of criminal intent and also boost the defence of lack of training. But I would defer to the lawyers, of course.

Quite so. I fully support AML inititaives and legislation, what I would hope to see is fairness and also leadership from the top on who people are prepared to do business with. You also have to question whether AML is actually working to dissuade the perpetrators of the originating crimes to commit those crimes. Or, for that matter, the terrorists from obtaining their funding.

Whose sentence was light, a man in his 70s who has led a very fine life, but now seems destined to languish in a high security prison for the major part of his remaining life, or a young lawyer whose career is now in tatters? Is either humane, or really proportionate? Meanwhile, we have our Tone dismally failing in trying to make his new best mate in Libya see sense and then some embarrassed shuffling in the Cameron camp, let alone the rescue debacle. Libya was good for a while, now it is bad again, and sanctions rain down. Let's face it, no sane person would have thought snuggling up to Gaddafi was either sensible or ethical. But that is what happened and has anyone faced money laundering charges because money has moved. But that is given the cloak of respectibility as 'diplomacy'. The same diplomacy that has led to countless deaths in many other countries, ignored because of 'sovereignty' but actually the motivator is money. So, how can the international community take the moral high ground in this without even blushing at the things they have ignored? And which poor fucker is going to end up with a Libyan connection taken on when they were great chaps the other week, but now seem to be pariahs? I commend anyone interested in this to read Misha Glenny, 'McMafia', it certainly makes you think about not only the nuts and bolts of money laundering, but also how the global economy has fostered it without taking any meaningful steps to control it other than seeking a few exemplars.

Suspect you are right Rhumsaa.

Is there a full report of this case anywhere? You know, one that sets out the facts, arguments and thinking that led to the decision rather than some soundbites. On the face of it, the defendant has been a scalp, but on deeper reading there may well be useful stuff. Does the IOM have a formal court reporting process? By the by, I think there should have been two threads on this as, although related, there are very different considerations in each situation.

They have got to be the funniest clips I have seen for ages, love the sleeping kittens snd the dog's new boots.

For someone involved in this sort of business for so long, seems odd that he thought a loan would be OK. Did Mr Taylor agree (although hard to see how he owned the company, given it was owned by a trust if CB has it right)?

Sounds like one of those technical charges where something dodgy has gone on but there isn't a suitable crime to fit; how do you 'steal' a credit balance in reality? Could it be super-charged false accounting?

Beautiful blog as always Barbara, welcome back!

There's no need to be such a twat... 'Fraid there is, because PK is really missing the point, which is a little arcane in this debate but salient. He is also quoting cases that stimulated a complete re-think of attitudes towards directors' obligations and if any director treads down the same road now, they will be hung out to dry. I worry for PK, because from his posts he has made incorrect judgements, but seems unwilling to take the reality and cover his own behind. Aw well, you can lead a horse to water etc.

Please never, ever take up a company directorship; companies are prohibited by law from giving unlimited indemnities to their directors. I have just finished scanning the rest of the thread and would seriously advise you to check your personal position as regards any obligations you may have entered into without full and clear advice from lawyers advising you and not the company. Directors' guarantees are personal guarantees so the creditor has a direct call on your personal assets if the subject company should fail to meet its obligations and, usually, these are only given when the company is also owned by the directors. If what you are really talking about is directors giving warranties, they are doing so in their capacity as directors of the company. However, they could still find themselves personally exposed if the warranties are untrue. Again, you should be seeking independent advice. Yay Gods, the example of a little knowledge being dangerous.