Yesterday’s post focused on a report on Kastljós a couple of days ago, which raised questions about claims by Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson, the former owner of Landsbanki, concerning the Icesave debacle. The point of contention – whether British authorities had or had not offered to move the Icesave accounts into British jurisdiction – was seized upon by a freelance journalist, Friðrik Þór Guðmundsson, which I thought was rather unusual – should Björgólfur Thor’s claims not have been investigated by paid employees of the Icelandic media, I wondered?
I decided to ask him.
Friðrik Þór Guðmundsson is a journalist and reporter with 27 years’ experience, primarily in “hard news” or investigative journalism. He holds an MA in Journalism and BA in Political Science from the University of Iceland, and currently teaches part time at the U of I, as well as working as a freelance journalist. His enquiries and the responses he received from HM Treasury and the British FMA can be viewed in full on his blog.
IWR: What prompted you to start investigating Björgólfur Thór’s claims?
FÞG: I’d rather not call it an investigation. I’ve simply done my best to monitor closely all discussion and communication concerning Icesave and related issues, first and foremost out of personal interest, as I’m not a practicing journalist at this time. I just get dizzy trying to understand the sums that Icelandic taxpayers are obliged to take on as a result of the Icesave accounts and other consequences of the banking collapse. In my opinion, no stone must be left unturned. Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson made some very strong assertions in an interview with [news magazine] Kompás shortly after the collapse, maintaining that if Icelandic authorities had provided Landsbanki with GBP 200 million in liquid funds they could have prevented the massive blow and colossal obligations that we’ve had to take on. It was a stunning assertion, and unfortunately it was not followed up with an independent investigation by the media. The way I looked at it, either those claims were correct, in which case the Icelandic authorities had squandered an opportunity and brought a major calamity down on us, the citizens of this country, or those assertions were false and/or unwarranted. What you, in your question, refer to as an investigation was simply one citizen taking it upon himself on his own initiative to send an enquiry to two separate institutions in the UK with reference to the Freedom of Information Act, and to follow them up. It is pretty easy to do for someone who is keeping reasonably good track, is aware of his or her rights and – in this instance – is adequately proficient in English.
What prompted me more than anything else was the desire to know the truth. We now have official statements from HM Treasury and the British Financial Supervisory Authority that no documents, either hard copy or electronic, can be found to support Björgólfur Thor’s claims. His spokesman, Ásgeir Friðgeirsson, has publicly declared, however, that documents exist to prove the legitimacy of the claims. The Freedom of Information Act does not extend to private individuals, but I would assume that they would now want to present documents to back up the claims, since Björgólfur Thor made some very serious accusations against elected and appointed public officials. It really does not matter to me on which side the truth lies, I just want to be given the facts about why present and future generations of Icelanders should have to shoulder this massive burden.
IWR: Were you surprised by the answers you received from the UK?
FÞG: No, I can’t say that I was. The Brits respect their Freedom of Information Act and skirting it is a serious matter. I received the answers and this is what they were. Sceptics could certainly point out that the wording is vague, along the lines of white lies or omissions of the truth. In other words, there is a possibility that the wording does not exclude an informal, verbal agreement that the replies [from the Brits] do not incorporate. However, I asked about an “understanding” and thus anything remotely tangible. But there was not even a hint of that. Neither “understanding” nor “agreement”.
It is possible that some sort of informal talks took place, by phone or in person, but they are undocumented and thus not binding and most certainly inadequate when someone is requesting GBP 200 million, instantly, from public funds.
IWR: How do you interpret the information that has now surfaced?
FÞG: Until the former owners and directors of Landsbanki present proof or very strong indications to the contrary, my interpretation remains that British authorities are to be believed and that no agreement of this sort existed. If, on the other hand, they are able prove otherwise, we are up against something just as unsightly: that British authorities are skirting reality by splitting hairs and that Icelandic cabinet ministers and the [former] director of the Central Bank are guilty of a massive and monumental cockup. At the moment, that cockup appears to be on Landsbanki’s side, although the others I mentioned are by no means innocent.
IWR: Why do you think that no other Icelandic reporters followed up on this issue in the way you did?
FÞG: I could write volumes about this. It is certainly tempting to conclude that journalism as a profession is in a bad state. But I’m not going to not jump to such a conclusion. There are many things preventing the pro-active, independent working practices of Icelandic journalists and reporters and many opportunities for gathering information are undoubtedly lost in hectic day-to-day activities. Icelandic journalists and reporters are faced with work pressures, time pressures, staff shortages, lack of specialist knowledge, sparse conditions, lack of support, having to juggle too many projects at once, downsizing, lay-offs, lack of job security, owner intervention, the problems caused by living a small community, and finally the encroachment of the entertainment industry (as are journalists in most countries).
Such circumstances weigh on journalists and reporters like the plague. Usually there is very little time to do something substantial or time-consuming. Or perhaps people are not spotting the opportunities that should be there. In that way the Freedom of Information Act has been under-utilized in terms of gathering information. Which is strange, because it is not very troublesome to send out such enquiries while working on other projects. Perhaps it is a matter of being pro-active and organized. Or perhaps the fault lies with editors and news directors who do not call for such work. Unfortunately, editorial meetings usually revolve around filling the daily quota, things that can be done quickly with a minimum of fuss, as opposed to delving deeper for information. Sad but true.
And I don’t see the situation improving in the near future, as we are now seeing cutbacks like never before and some of the strongest and most experienced people in the business being laid off. Yet despite that, Icelandic journalists and reporters should do what I know they can do: shake off the mediocrity and start using the only weapon at their disposal – the pen.
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
One question.
Yesterday it was GBP 200.000.000
Today it is IKR 200.000.000
Quite a difference. Which is which?
Oops! Entirely my mistake.
It’s fixed now. Thanks for alerting me.
Mér finnst þú líka stinga fjölmiðlana af með því að tala beint við Friðrik og fá hans sjónarmið. Mjög áhugavert, takk.
Takk fyrir það.
Good on Friðrik for using the FoI Act. But it is not as revered by the British government as it might seem – whilst in this case they were only two happy to confirm the absence of documents there have been many worrying cases in the UK where documents do exist and FoI request for them have been deliberately stonewalled.
In other news no doubt Michael Lewis’ excellent VF piece on Iceland is doing the rounds in Niceland but thought your readers might also be interested. It’s a fabulous article.
only “too” happy. I’m embarrassingly illiterate!
All governments try to stonewall things at one time or another. Icelandic Authorities as well and perhaps more than many others. But I do not think for one moment that the treasury or FSA are lying in this instance. I cannot see what could be so embarrassing for UK to aknowledge discussions, an understand or an agreement of this sort.
It seems Landsbanki acted as all bankrupt and soon to be found out companies do: they claim they have very nearly secured additional funds to keep them afloat. “It just depends on a technicality but next week I assure you we will have X amount provided to us by investor Y.”
It’s a classic. And while the British authorities may have been inclined to cut landsbanki some slack if funds would have materialized, being found out triggers the inevitable.
I am certain the owner of Landsbanki honestly believes everything would have developed differently if he had gotten the support of the CB. But it’s another thing altogether to present that as a done deal and certainty.
What’s Alda’s take on the Michael Lewis article in Vanity Fair (see Clement’s link, above)? From Vanity Fair’s supplementary Q&A:
V.F.:
How do you think this story will be received in Iceland?
M.L.:
I don’t really have a sense of how the story will read to an Icelander. I wouldn’t be surprised if it triggered a debate about just how much responsibility they bore. Because I think they’re letting themselves off the hook in a big way. I think the problem is that the whole society got enmeshed in this. Everybody was speculating. So everybody has a financial incentive to basically say, “Oh, it wasn’t our fault,” to be forgiving about it, because they want themselves to be forgiven. And at some point, as I say in the story, “catch and release” is sort of the humane policy. They’re so on the hook, that if they were actually held to their obligations, it would destroy the country. I sort of think they should be given a mulligan. They deserve one do-over. If they do it again then they lose their country. But I don’t think they’re going to do it again. I think it will be met with a mixture of defensiveness, humility, and extreme interest. And the interest will come mainly from women. The men will like it less than the women.
I wonder what Darling was referring to when he asked Mathiesen about “the promise Landsbanki gave to us that it was going to get £200 million of liquidity”. Perhaps they were talking in a scrambled secret code and he was actually asking whether Liverpool had a chance of beating Man Utd in the Premiere League this year.
James –
Leonardo – like Sigvaldi said in the comments to the last post, I was about halfway through the second page when I stopped reading. I found it like most of the myriad pieces being written about Iceland these days – patronizing, self-important, and full of inaccuracies – I found about three in that first page and a half. The tone of these pieces is all the same – and it’s annoying that the writers all seem to think they’ve got the lowdown on life in Iceland because they’ve spent a few days here.
That said, I did chuckle at the description of the “moose” on the plane. THAT was pretty accurate.
Alda,
Yesterday I wrote in about the transcribed conversation between the two highest financial ministers of Iceland and the UK. In that conversation the two discuss the failed attempt of Landsbanki securing liquidity for the sum of 200 million pounds. This is the exact same amount that Björgólfur talks about in his interview with Kompás. Keep in mind the transcripts were released after the Kompás interview so the only way Björgólfur could have know the amount was by having contact with the British authorities. Why was this information not brought up by you in the interview? I know why Friðrik doesn’t mention it; because it blows a huge hole in his story that Björgólfur is lying. Has Friðrik sent a letter to the Central Bank of Iceland asking if they denied Landsbanki the loan? Has he talked to the former finance minister, Mathiesen, about what 200 million pounds he and Darling were talking about? No Friðrik has only sent a letter to the British FSA asking if there was an “understanding” for a deal between the British authorities and Landsbanki in which they reply there was no understanding so we have no information.
There was no understanding because Landsbanki did not get the money. Government authorities don’t write understandings for failed deals down on paper and then file them away for investigative reporters to then ask for. Friðrik is naive if he thinks this is how the system works. And I can think of several reasons why the British would not want this information revealed. One- they knew the Icelandic banks were in trouble and didn’t warn their citizens and -two- then they tried and stick their own taxpayers with the debt.
Until there is some investigation into what 200 million Mathiesen and Darling are referring to, Björgólfur’s story holds some credibility. Too bad you didn’t see the need to ask Friðrik the hard questions.
GTB
I provided a much too long follow-up, to attempt to provide some explanation of my previous references, to the yesterday topic. It notes the article Gregg Thomas Batson references above, which he provided a link to in the comments there. I won’t add another 90 pages here… I hope the explanation there helps any who are attempting to sort the “truth” (always an elusive bird).
GTB – Friðrik Þór vill have to respond to the questions you direct at him. As for me not asking the hard questions, well, this is a personal blog, not a news magazine. Generally a personal blog serves one primary purpose: to be a venue of expression for the person writing the blog. I was curious about certain aspects of FÞG’s story, so I sent him those questions via email and he responded. You, meanwhile, are curious about other aspects of his story, so you write them in the comments. Everyone wins.
Well, Alda, I have a very limited interest in engaging in a discussion with Mr. Batson. He seems to have developed a personal dislike toward me after a lengthy discussion on my blog regarding Iceland´s whaling decision (see: http://lillo.blog.is/blog/lillo/entry/816346/ ) and I am afraid discussing with him in general will remain fruitless. This I will say, though:
Mr. Batson is gravely mistaken if he thinks that I have been saying that Björgólfur is lying. This in itself throws away most of his attempts to strike at me. I have repeatedly said that there may well have been some informal contact between persons of a kind that is not put on paper or emailed about, that I would welcome any prove or even strong indication that Iceland´s huge bill might have been made much lower, that it is at least equally important information if, indeed, it can be established that the Icelandic Sedlabanki, the FME and the Icelandic Government squandered a golden opportunity. Why this has escaped mr. Batson is beyond me.
The UK Treasury and FSA proclaim that there is nothing in their records showing an understanding and/or agreement to this effect. The query is wide and clear. They refer to the time period, the relevant players, the proposed amount etc. I have no trouble deducting that when Björgólfur came to Icelandic Authorities asking for 200 million GBP he did not have any written understanding or agreement in hand. Any working system would require such for the record.
Bjorgolfur does seem to propose that perhaps mr. Oddsson or mr. Haarde call FSA´s Hector Sands, who had been summoned (by god knows who) to work on that given Sunday. And if, indeed, a way out of the mess was at hand, only a phone call away, but not taken by Icelandic Sedlabanki and Government, then an opportunity was lost and this truth has been brought forward.
But I can at least equally imagine that people like mr. Oddsson and mr. Haarde simply chose to not believe and trust Björgólfur, man bringing no papers, that the bank was without hope – and that the „foreign debts“ of (óreiðumenn) would simply not be payed.
It has been formally stated that the staff/heads of FSA and FME were indeed engaged in telephone discussions on the particular fateful Sunday (October 5). Iceland´s then PM Haarde and Minister of Commerce Sigurdsson have both openly stated in Alþingi that before taking over Landsbanki they had no knowledge of an offer of fast-tracking Landsbanki into UK jurisdiction. (see Alþingi documents: http://www.althingi.is/dba-bin/unds.pl?txti=/wwwtext/html/136/s/0460.html&leito=Icesave#word1 and http://www.althingi.is/dba-bin/unds.pl?txti=/wwwtext/html/136/s/0504.html&leito=Icesave#word1.). In these answers to an MP´s questions it is noted that FME will not comment on the transactions between FSA and them. Mr. Oddsson, formerly of the Sedlabanki, has made no comment on these matters to my knowledge and did not engage in answering people of the Media on anything he didn´t want to, but of course Sedlabanki will be asked now that the staff has changed. I am also certain that journalists on a payroll will seek further information. In a statement from Sedlabanki in late October the bank did not recognize any offer of fast-tracking re. Landsbanki and Icesave.
In the interview, Alda I clearly stated: . I have also remained entirely open to the possibility that the “blame” is to be found at the hands of Icelandic civil and/or political officials.
I do not plan to comment any further on anything originating from mr. Batson.
The next to last paragraph is missing a quote and should go like this:
In the interview, Alda I clearly stated: “It is possible that some sort of informal talks took place, by phone or in person, but they are undocumented and thus not binding and most certainly inadequate when someone is requesting GBP 200 million, instantly, from public funds”. I have also remained entirely open to the possibility that the “blame” is to be found at the hands of Icelandic civil and/or political officials.
Alda,
I have no personal dislike towards Friðrik. I have never met him so any dislike could not be “personal”.
Friðrik writes-
“Mr. Batson is gravely mistaken if he thinks that I have been saying that Björgólfur is lying.”
But continues to post blog entries like-
Kannast ekki við drauma-pakkann sem Björgólfur sagði frá
and
Fráleitur fyrirsláttur – komið með gögnin!
What is he implying here other that Björgólfur is not telling the truth?
He also doesn’t clearly state anything remotely close to- “I have also remained entirely open to the possibility that the “blame” is to be found at the hands of Icelandic civil and/or political officials.” Friðrik actually says-
“Until the former owners and directors of Landsbanki present proof or very strong indications to the contrary, my interpretation remains that British authorities are to be believed and that no agreement of this sort existed.”
Strong indications to the contrary? If the conversation between Mathiesen and Darling is not a strong indication, I don’t know what is.
At any rate I will not longer clog your blog with anymore of this debate as it seems Friðrik is not willing to his duty as a reporter to be fair and unbiased. And I suppose I’ll now have to resort to using my pseudonym and hotmail address.
Sincerely,
Davið Björgólfur Mathiesen
kreppa@hotmail.com
Given the Darling-Mathiesen transcript, it’s obvious there’s something to Björgólfur’s assertions. But Björgólfur can’t disclose the bank’s confidential documents without breaching his ongoing legal duty of confidentiality to his former employer and so exposing himself to civil damages. Given the FSA’s declaration that the UK doesn’t hold any such documents, it’s possible the documents/correspondence are internal to or between Landsbanki and the Central Bank. So, what next? Perhaps a legal compulsion (such as part of court proceedings) which automatically overrides confidentiality and would allow Björgólfur to disclose…
James: Who is Björgólfur´s “former employer”? Such a person or firm is not to be found. There was no-one “above” him and his father, the owners of Landsbanki.
Björgólfur has indeed presented a letter and an email that suggest discussions were going on about SOME ARRANGEMENT (see: http://visir.is/article/20090304/VIDSKIPTI06/83079011 ). This material on the other hand proves nothing other than ideas being sent. It confirms no understanding/agreement, especially re. the fast-tracking.
James; it has NOT been established that the 200 M GBP mentioned in the Mathiesen-Darling phone call and the 200 M GBP Björgólfur speaks of are the same. It is notable that the Icelandic Minister of Finance (chancellor) Mathiesen may not even have had a clue as to what 200 M GBP Darling was asking about! See: http://www.althingi.is/dba-bin/unds.pl?txti=/wwwtext/html/136/s/0270.html&leito=Icesave#word1.
“Fjármálaráðherra taldi að fjármálaráðherra Breta væri að vísa til fyrirgreiðslu sem Landsbankinn hefði farið fram á í Seðlabanka Íslands en ekki fengið”.
In this same answer to an mp´s question he says NO asked if he knew of an offer from FSA to move Icesave into UK jurisdiction (tilboð breska fjármálaeftirlitsins (FSA) um að gegn 200 milljóna punda fyrirgreiðslu væri FSA tilbúið að færa reikninga Icesave yfir í breska lögsögu). PM Haarde and Minister of Commerce said the same. This is obviously very conflicting but strongly suggests that Mathiesen was NOT speaking of the supposed “fast-tracking” money Darling may or may not have been referring to!
Friðrik – I just assumed that, as well as owning 45% of that bank, he would inevitably have also held at least one position binding him with confidentiality restrictions, eg as an employee/director/officer of that bank or a legally-related company, such as his holding company. Just an assumption…
Yep, more conflicting than the JFK single-bullet theory
>James; it has NOT been established that the 200 M GBP mentioned in the Mathiesen-Darling phone call and the 200 M GBP Björgólfur speaks of are the same.
And, indeed, the first letter on that visir link talks of the reason for the £200m – “to meet potential further Icesave outflows”. That’s an operational decision, not a payment into the FSCS. It fits perfectly with what Darling said, “that is was going to get 200 million pounds of liquidity back into it”, with no need for any conspiracy theory stuff.
Not that I’m calling Bjorgolfur a liar, especially as I’ve no idea whether that letter is authentic or not. Still, if it is, it removes the Mathiesen/Darling transcript as evidence of such an agreement.
http://www.vb.is/frett/1/53309/sigurjon-sagdi-tryggva-thor-fra-tilbodinu
Unfortunately this story is not available in English. Its basically another story backing up BTB’s claim.
On the whole Icesave fast track thing, I think Friðrik deserves a praise for opening this can of worms again. However I share Batsons feeling that the reporting is biased, and I think that’s unfortunate because I think its really important to try to find the truth in this matter. I also
have the feeling that the truth is somewhere in the very gray area and I hate to say that I actually believe BTB.
I can think of quite a few reasons why the UK Treasury and FMA would be reluctant to disclose information. The first that comes to mind is that they dont want the word to get out that there even is such thing as a fast track. Secondly, its a sensitive matter given the not-so-great relationship between UK and Iceland right now. And thirdly – the wording of Friðriks question or inquiry is, well, wordy. Its not so much a question as a combo of questions and statements in a paragraph. I think when you ask short, concise and perfectly clear questions you get a clear answer. When you approach these people with loaded questions like this it becomes in a way a legal matter, so you have to adjust your approach accordingly. I’m sure everyone in the above mentioned institutions are fully aware of the gravity of the matter and that this has a huge meaning to the Icelandic nation (although that doesn’t seem to be the sentiment in the Icelandic media at all).
Alda I couldn’t agree more on that VF article. Although I think I can somewhat put myself in his shoes and viewed the culture and the crash with foreigners eyes, I think it was a pretty superficial insta-analysis with a dash of obnoxiousness thrown in here and there. I had some serious problems with how he described interactions between Icelandic men and women for example. I also didn’t like it at all when he said that he thought Icelanders deserved another chance but would lose their country if they messed up again. It sounded a bit arrogant to me. Makes me think of throwing rocks from glass houses.
I’ll put in a word for Lewis here – I found his characterizations of Iceland to be superficial, but his background in finance (having worked at Solomon Brothers) and subsequent books about picking apart the structures and, for lack of a better word, political economy of Silicon Valley, baseball, and college (American football) show that he’s usually pretty good at grasping the underlying themes even when some of the personal portraits and cultural descriptions are a bit, ah, broad brush.
So, even though my knowledge of Iceland is pretty limited, I was cringing through parts of that article, but those weren’t the useful part. A consistent question about the last year or so is “how did this happen,” and he answers a part of that.
As for arrogance, he’s making the explicit case that pursuing an American-style approach to leveraged buy-outs with even less experience than Americans was a path to disaster. When he makes the point about Icelanders deserving another chance, it’s not arrogance, it’s sympathy – but the “one more chance” is just reality.
This is a writer who is still blamed by a former head of Solomons Brothers for costing him his job. Lewis may be patronizing in the fashion of someone whose spent his professional life in major financial centers, but he’s not stupid, and he’s not blind to or an apologist for the failings of the US financial sector.
“I think Friðrik deserves a praise for opening this can of worms again. However I share Batsons feeling that the reporting is biased, and I think that’s unfortunate because I think its really important to try to find the truth in this matter”.
RK in Los Angeles; I thank you for the praise, but as for “the reporting” being biased I feel I have to correct you. I have not done any reporting on this. Again: I have not done any reporting on this. So I am innocent of biased reporting!
What I did was send queries to British entities and receive answers. I then offered news magazine show Kastljós the material and it reported it totally without input from me and of course sought opinions and material from former owners of Landsbanki. I, on the other hand, wrote on my personal blog my personal opinion – after the Kastljós reporting. And, again; I have not claimed that BTB is lying about discussions of some sort taking place and have repeatedly said that if he is right then the focus and blame for the huge blunder goes to elected and hired officials. I really don´t care on which side the truth lies: I just want the truth.
Have any of you English-speaking guys a clue as to the content and “tone” of the Kastljós report? Do any of you have a clue as to the debate and information that has been told and published here in Icelandic? Are you aware of the answers and info Ministers have given? Can you guys imagine that perhaps the language barrier precludes you from knowing well enough f. ex. what I have written and said? Are you guys not worried that there may be a factor or two that you are missing? I must wonder about this.
Apologies for reposting that link, just seen Sigvaldi’s similar dismissal. That said, although it’s long, it’s probably worth struggling past page 2. Despite the fact he may have made a couple of generalisations by way of descriptive introduction, re the observations of putting the top fishermen into the banks without training I’m reminded of the saying “Glöggt er gests augað”
Colin, yes, Lewis’ article was excellent, as are his other pieces (for instance an article last month on private equity firms). Sure, he’s no expert on Iceland and the piece has some factual errors and a few too many generalizations, but he’s got a great “bullsh*t detector” and cuts right to the heart of the problem. Iceland had no business trying to get into the banking and investing game, which is full of sharks, and they got eaten alive, not surprisingly. The stupidity of the bankers and the politicians who supported them was mind-boggling. And overconfidence, naivete, bluster, whatever you want to call it, was a big part of this stupidity.
And yes, there were some Icelanders who saw through the BS all along but nobody paid any attention to them. Much like Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini and Doug Noland the bond guy who for years wrote that the American economy made no sense and warned that it would end very badly. And so it has.
Friðrik:
Já ég hef nokkuð góða hugmynd um tóninn í Kastljós fréttinni þar sem ég horfði á hana nánast í beinni útsendingu á netinu, og hef annars þokkalega gott yfirlit um hvað er í fréttum. Ég hef eytt að meðaltali amk kosti 2 klst á dag í íslensku fréttirnar síðan hrunið varð. Ég veit ekki hvort það er eitthvað til að segja frá – það gerir mann hálf truflaðan að lesa um þetta rugl.
Ég skil ekki alveg hvernig fyrirkomulag var á milli þín og Kastljós manna þá, sendir þú bara bréf til Bretlands í eigin nafni, fékkst svar og sagðir Kastljósi frá því? Finnst það kannski ekki mjög traustvekjandi fréttamennska þá af hálfu Kastljós manna en eins og ég sagði áður þá finnst mér gott af þér að opna þetta mál aftur, ég vildi sjálf bíða með að fella dóma þangað til allt er komið í ljós. Ég trúi BTB, en ég trúi líka að aðrir hafi ekki trúað þeirra sögu um fast track, hvorki fyrir né eftir fallið. Kannski er þetta bara ein risa tragísk “úlfur úlfur” saga. Hver veit?
I’m switching over to English for those who cant read Icelandic.
Regarding your reporting, or not. You submit an inquiry to the British FMA and Treasury. The results of that inquiry is then reported in the biggest News Magazine on Icelandic tv. You then continue to write about the issue on your blog, which is not a news paper or a magazine, but is still considered to be a publication of sorts. Sounds like reporting to me, but if you want to find another word for it then please go ahead and let us know what to call it.
If I was at all interested in defending BTB I would go on to say that what he describes in his defense letter published on your blog is something of a cultural difference, not necessarily just between two countries but also of institutions. I find your comment on “language barrier” slightly ironic in that context. I however have no desire to defend BTB so I’m going to stop.
Once again I sing your praise for starting this whole thing. Cant say that often enough.
Já, ég sendi fyrirspurnirnar í eigin nafni. Það þýðir þó aldeilis ekki að Kastljós hafi lítið hvað þá ekkert gert. Það góða fólk fylgist með, er upplýst, fékk að vita af brölti mínu og talaði við heimildarmenn og safnaði öðrum upplýsingum. Og ritstýrði afurðinni auðvitað – ég hafði engin ítök í það, hvernig afurðin mín yrði hagnýtt.
My blog is clearly marked as a personal opinion blog and I clearly note for all to see that it is neither a news outlet nor an academic one. I may be a free-lance journalist but my blog is not a professional venue.
My enqueries have led to information gathering, reporting and statements by Björgólfur and crew and others. Hence, we are closer to the truth. That is the only thing worth thanking for.
Fridrik Thor Gudmundsson
free-lance journalist
Midstraeti 8A
101-Reykjavik
Iceland
Iceland March 6, 2009.
To: FSA Information Access Team
c/o Mrs. Sandra Colllins or her representative.
Dear Mrs. Collins.
I refer to my earlier FOI Query, your ref. FOI1152. This is a follow-up query with ongoing reference to the Freedom of Information Act of 2000.
There has been a heated public discussion in Iceland as to the content of the FSA answer to my earlier query. In this discussion allegations have been made that my query was not clear or specific enough and that the FSA had indulged in “beating around the bush” and not giving a fair answer. I find these proclamations unfair but feel it necessary to make things clear and therefor send you these FOI follow-up questions. In light of the aforementioned heated discussion I ask of you to speed up your answers as much as possible.
My follow-up questions, with FOI reference, are the following:
1. Please confirm or deny that ANY discussions and/or negotiations went on between either or both FSA and Icelandic Counterpart FME and/or FSA and Landsbanki (under former ownership), via actual meetings, via telephone, via email or in any other manner, on sunday October 6th 2008 and in the week prior to that (including the Saturday), on either or both subjects:
a) Fast-tracking Landsbanki status as branch/fast-tracking Icesave into UK guarantee-jurisdiction (meaning such a change in 5 working days or about), against a GBP 200 Million transfer into the relevant Deposit Insurance Fund and/or
b) Fast-tracking Landsbanki status as branch/fast-tracking Icesave into UK guarantee-jurisdiction (meaning such a change in 5 working days or about), against a GBP 200 Million transfer into the Landsbanki in UK as liquidity funds against the potential further outflows of customer deposits.
2. Landsbanki former owners/CEO´s have produced (to one Media in Iceland, see: http://visir.is/article/20090304/VIDSKIPTI06/83079011) an email from Landsbanki to FSA (see attachment “Landsbanki email”), dated October 6, time: 01:45 Icelandic time, subject: “Transfer of GBP”. In this email (with names being blocked) a Landsbanki staff-member seems to be referring the FSA to a GBP 200 Million transfer into Landsbanki Branch the morning after “to meet potential further Icesave outflows”, plus further GBP 53 Million into Heritable bank by the end of the day after. This email mentions earlier discussions on these matters, with the recieving person (name blocked) and Mr. Hector Sants.
a) Please confirm or deny that the FSA did get and knows of this particular email.
b) Please explain the reason for this email being sent to the FSA, providing me with emails from the FSA to Landsbanki that have the same reference subject, in the working week and week-end prior to getting the aforementioned email from Landsbanki, as well as providing me with email responses of FSA to Landsbanki because of the aforementioned email.
c) Please explain to me your earlier answer to my FOI query, stating no paper or electronic records found, in light of this Landsbanki email.
3. Please confirm or deny the status of any discussions, negotiations, understanding or agreement concerning the above as FORMAL AND BINDING and/or INFORMAL AND NOT BINDING.
Please confirm forthwith that FSA has recieved this FOI query.
Please answer ASAP in light of heated discussions with accusations that your FOI1152 answer was inaccurate and beating around the bush.
With kindest regards,
Fridrik Thor Gudmundsson (sign)
free-lance journalist, Iceland
tel: +354 552 6365 or +354 864 6365
It’ll be interesting to see what info the FSA provides later this month to those very specific questions. Good stuff
I guess there isn’t a similar FOI Act in Iceland?…
Yes, there is a similiar FOI Act in Iceland. Questions have been asked (FOI or otherwise) in Iceland with very conflicting responses. So I turn to the UK.