Martin Lewis apologies thread

Lokolo

Just to point out, if you knew anything about IT you would know that systems can't handle large amounts of data coming in at once. So when everyone logged into internet banking to withdraw money it could have actually crashed the servers....

Now unless you have proof that they did it on purpose. Ssh.

edwinac_2

Hello! How nice to see you back! How did the soccer go? Did you win? I love subbuteo, too! It's a great chance to yell obscenities at people, and we all know you're fond of doing that!

Lokolo wrote: »

Just to point out, if you knew anything about IT you would know that systems can't handle large amounts of data coming in at once. So when everyone logged into internet banking to withdraw money it could have actually crashed the servers...Now unless you have proof that they did it on purpose. Ssh.

I'll put the ball back in your court...

Do you have any corroborative proof that it was a rush of depositors all desperate to withdraw their money that caused a "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) failure in Icesave's system?

I thought not!

And we should ask: why didn't Icesave put forward that simple explanation, if it were true. "The server is busy, please try later".

And if that is true, (which it isn't), then why didn't the system use a queuing server, that handed each request in an ordered fashion to the back office server?

Instead, Icesave gave us the convoluted and distinctly implausible explanation that "random" faults affecting "random groups" of people, at "random" times, was preventing customers from withdrawing their funds.

Ironically, I was just listening to the chair of one of Britain's most respected CS departments talking about funny business in the banking sector today. He was surprisingly candid.. You should have a go at that sometime.

ThrobsBlackHat

If Martin said "pull your money" out of any bank then that in itself would start a bigger run on the bank than a front page story in the Financial Times.

Split the risk, split the risk, split the risk - it has been the same message for months.

meher

innovate wrote: »

I too have money in Icesave. A lot. I too am nervous but hopeful about getting it back.

I didn't start this thread for people who didn't accuse Martin, but for those who did. And I still believe they should apologise - whether they will be big enough to admit their errors remains to be seen.

you started in good faith may be but frankly it highlights the apology part apart from it being used by people to vent their feelings and fears and a thread that by no means constructive, specially when there are several others running where Martin and the team are engaging anyway

I was doing a google search on some information and got here - it looks pitiful, sorry to say so.

Edit: my abject apologies, I hadn't seen the forum team response when I made this post, nonethless I stand by my observation

Lokolo

edwinac wrote: »

Hello! How nice to see you back! How did the soccer go? Did you win? I love subbuteo, too! It's a great chance to yell obscenities at people, and we all know you're fond of doing that!

Won 3-0. They were first years so they didn't really know how to play 5-a-side so was a nice match. However they were quite fit and a lot of the time I couldn't keep up ahhh!

Anyway, the main point is. You have no proof that the banks were being illegal. I have no proof that the servers crashed. So stop accusing the banks when there could be other possibilities?

And the fact of that matter is, Glastonbury, Party in the Park, when they open their offices the servers always crashed because of being under immense pressure, so I was actually you thinking of the most obvious answer rather than 'oh they did it on purpose'.

Also another point, Icesave later on then stated that they were not allowing deposits or withdrawals. Now, if the case of earlier when people couldn't do anything and they said technical fault - why would they not have just said it then rather than wait til later?

maypole

edwinac wrote: »

For what it's worth, I don't Martin Lewis remotely responsible for the mess people find themselves in with Icesave. However, this fellow......



...better moderation to prevent....the use of multiple identities to create the impression of greater support?

..better moderation to prevent...the use of disinformation tactics which saw perfectly rational worries over Icesave, and its future, dismissed as ridiculous "scaremongering"?

And we should single you out, in particular, isofa, since you personally were responsible for many of the ad hominem attacks on those expressing their concerns about Icesave over these past weeks and months.

I have no doubt people have lost money because of you, and your desire to safeguard your own (inaccessible) funds at Icesave.

You were actively encouraging others to invest their own money in Icesave, in the hope that the extra funds would prop it up to your own advantage.

A lady has posted here only this morning, worried sick that she has lost access to £500,000 of her funds. Even if she gets all her capital back, just imagine what interest she should have been earning every day on that. You can shoulder some of the blame for her loss.

AND! here we go again, this blame culture we live in is intolerable. How on earth could you possibly blame a poster on this site for people ( possibly ) losing their money?
Only we! us! ourselves! are responsible for the actions we take. Some people who cannot take responsibility for themselves, find it easier to lay the blame on someone else.

dkmax_2

leviathan wrote: »

I'm rather annoyed that we are going to bale out all these fools who took the risks.
We should give them back their 50K but nothing more. If they didn't know what they were getting into then they deserve to loose it frankly

Here! Here! No one wants to take responsibility for their own decisions any more. There is always someone else to blame and someone else to pick up the tab.

poppy10_2

Poor Martin got a roasting from Jon Snow on C4 news yesterday.

DocMartin

edwinac wrote: »

At last we see the truth! You actually admit you had an unstated agenda!

For your own pecuniary advantage, you figured it a "good thing" to "prevent a run" by posting falsely positive messages about Icesave, a bank which you knew was in grave danger of collapse.

Since you've decided to gravitate on this thread, I want to bring across a message about the mysterious "IT failure" at Icesave on Monday night, which you seem reticent to address.

Previously, you wouldn't let us explore your claims that nothing sinister had occurred with the Icesave web service. Perhaps we can have another look at that now.

For 12 hours or more, Icesave claimed that "random" "faults" at "random intervals" prevented "random" groups of savers from withdrawing their funds from the stricken bank.

You claim there was no conspiracy to stem the flow of capital from Icesave.

But then you claim elsewhere that freezing customer accounts for purely commercial reasons, even without a Court Order, was a perfectly legitimate banking practice.

Either there was a conspiracy in which the bank froze accounts to stop withdrawals, or there was no conspiracy, and these were genuine faults that lasted an astonishing twelve hours!

I say the bank's action was anything but legitimate. In fact I would hazard that blocking access to customer accounts, given the extent of the crisis, could be criminal in nature, too.

However, if you have proof that this is all wrong, then please furnish it now.

I'm sorry but I think Edwinac has a point here. Maybe "Shill" is not wholly acurate but it has certainly become clear that some of the Icesave Collapse deniers were acting out of self-interest without owning up to that fact and some of them were actually quite rude about people who were expressing their anxiety using terms like "lemmings" "headless chickens" etc. As a worried saver and a newbie on this forum I am quite surprised by what I have witnessed here - I have learned much.

1mmortal1s

The British government is under absolutely no obligation to come to the rescue of all of us foolish Icesavers. We are astoundingly lucky if they do in fact take pity on us and refund our money, since it's completely clear that by rights we should be at the mercy of the Icelandic government for the first 20,000 euros.

So, once again, I ask how many of the investors in Icesave were there because they saw Martin's recommendation? (has anyone done a poll on this? If not someone should, because I for one had never heard of it until I saw it recommended here).

And, once again, I point out that in Martin's April 1st blog where he clearly endorsed Icesave, he failed to give any indication that the Icelandic compensation scheme never had any chance of being able to cover the liabilities of its banking sector, which had grown bigger than the country's GDP. Therefore, it was ENTIRELY MISLEADING to suggest that to invest in Icesave was basically no less safe than investing in a bank that was fully covered by the FSA in the UK - and whatever the disclaimers, that's what Martin was implying in his April 1st blog.

And now it is abundantly clear how much safer it is to be in the UK, since Darling's announcement demonstrates that the UK government has the money to protect its savers, while Iceland does not.

So, Martin should be thanking Alistair Darling from the bottom of his heart, continuing to apologise profusely to investors he directed towards Icesave, and reassessing what kind of advice (because advice is what his readers think it is, even if he doesn't) he is actually qualified to offer on his website. In the case of overseas savings accounts, he clearly did not know enough about the banks involved or the larger economic picture surrounding Icesave to be in a position to offer responsible advice.