Icelanders don nonthreatening knitwear, insist they are not terrorists despite UK government's claims

Discuss

33 Responses to “Icelanders don nonthreatening knitwear, insist they are not terrorists despite UK government's claims”

  1. mattxb says:

    Here is the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in full. Covers quite a lot that isn’t necessarily terrorism related…

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_1

  2. Toadmeat says:

    It seems that a lot of people on this thread don´t fully realize the impact of freezing the assets of Iceland´s largest company (and subsequently bankrupting it) had on the country. It caused this tragedy to bloom into a full-scale catastrophe.
    The Icelandic government had not stated they would not guarantee the balance of UK savers. The decision was based on a misunderstanding/over-interpretation in a phone conversation between Alistair Darling and the Icelandic minister of finance.
    The country is now in financial ruins and the Icelandic people (and their unborn children) have now been sentenced to a lifetime of poverty.
    Also, I have it on good authority that the baby pictured in this news item is, in fact, a terrorist.

  3. Jenonymous says:

    Maybe the Brits are still considering the Icelanders “terrorists” for the Viking raids? Wasn’t the last Viking raid in the (now) UK something like a thousand years ago? Statute of limitations? Does that mean I can’t take a helmet with pointy horns on the plane?

  4. Viggo says:

    For those interested in learning more about this situation then I can suggest http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iceland as one starting point.

    I would also suggest all (UK residents)to sign here:
    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/IcelandTerror/

    and her: http://www.indefence.is/

  5. Anonymous says:

    Why does everyone keep repeating the lie that Iceland refused to honor their obligations? The only “evidence” for that claim was given by the British government: that some from Iceland had unofficially told them.

  6. Graham Anderson says:

    Icelandic banks were allowed to operate as deposit banks in the UK because – although not part of the EU – they were members of the EEA. Under European economic rules, they can operate here and their regulator has to act in such as way as to protect non Icelandic depositors as if they were there own.

    The British government acted as they did because the initial reaction from the Icelandic government was to renege on this guarantee – only the Icelanders would get protection from their regulator. That is clearly not the done thing.

    Personally, I don’t see why the EEA should be allowed to exist. Either join the EU, or stay outside it – your choice. The reaction of the Icelandic authorities shows that they are happy to take the benefits of membership (market high interest rates to UK depositors and rake in the cash) without taking on the responsibilities. Switzerland, Iceland and the micro-states – shit or get off the pot please.

    So our friends from the frozen seas should perhaps not be so whiny about the flavour of legislation used to stop the UK based assets being whisked away to Reykjavik to bail out depositors there. Checking Hansard, we have no “Anti-sneaky foreign government who likes taking British money without guaranteeing it Act”. And we are suing Lehmans US branch for the money it took from the UK branch the Friday before it collapsed, before everyone squeals about how we are bullying the cuddly wuddly puffin munchers and not our brutish American cousins.

    That said, anything our current government seeks to do under the veil of anti-terrorism legislation stinks.

  7. Faustus says:

    Icelanders who moan about this descision are morons. Damn right if you’d been a bigger country Brown wouldnt have frozen your assets, because if you were a bigger country (both in the literal sense and like “the bigger man”) you would never have refused to gaurentee the deposits of british savers in your collapsed bank anyway.

    Also @ #16 our memories don’t reach back that far, just to the last Cod war in 1975 where iceland were oh so nice in extending their territorial waters to 200 miles offshore causing the loss of some 8000 jobs in britain. Dicks.

  8. Takuan says:

    wrong thread! (no kidding)

  9. Erica Asahan says:

    Yes, I do agree with Cragesavage, : P for some reason that baby looks like he a rhinoplasty?!? he he he ~ he’s cute!

  10. Camp Freddie says:

    There was a great reader’s letter in a newspaper I read that pointed out that the number of Icesave customers affected by it’s collapse greatly exceeds the number of Icelanders.

    Furthermore, Iceland is famous for having no standing army.

    Rather than having Gordon Brown confiscate some assets as compensation, it may be easier to do things the old-fashioned way. Plus we get a long-overdue revenge for Lindisfarne (oh wait, was that the Danish? Was Iceland even colonised then?)

    I’m sure our dying shipyards could knock up a few longboats.

    I’ll admit to being conflicted by this case. On the one hand, the Icelanic government failed to deliver on their guarantees, so we should be entitled to freeze their assets as compensation/punishment.

    On the other hand, this sort of power should not have been granted under an anti-terrorism act (i.e. an act which no self-preserving politician can possibly vote against).

  11. Cragsavage says:

    Right…I’m supposed to trust a baby that can write? An Icelandic baby that can write in English?

    Bullcrap. That’s no baby. That’s some militant midget.

    Dangerous. Get an axe.

  12. Shrdlu says:

    I blame Bjork.

  13. SamSam says:

    I notice that baby’s wearing prison stripes. Recently broke out of jail..?

  14. bovril says:

    Sure they’re not terrorists..

    That’s exactly what I’d expect a terrorist to say!

  15. Mac says:

    Do the Icelanders seriously believe that the UK actions have anything to do with terrorism? Are they that naive?

    An Icelandic bank with major deposits by UK citizens was guaranteed by the Icelandic government – but collapsed. So the UK government used powers under the Securities Act 2001 to seize Icelandic assets.

    So what does this have to do with terrorism? It seems that the only connection is that the full title of the Securities Act 2001 is ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001′?

    There are THREE things in the title of that law.

    Clearly banking is covered by Securities!

    Mac

  16. Takuan says:

    this new scotch tape-in-a-vacuum x-ray generator tech must offer some way to fry their sensors

  17. franklyimshocked says:

    I’ve got to fully agree with the Icelanders.

    Now we are seeing the full scope and power of the new “terror” laws.

    Yes, in these uncertain times we have to look after our own country first but browns actions against Iceland are almost war like.

  18. Anonymous says:

    ‘Icelandics have nothing against the English, just those two guys, Brown and Darling. Bring them to us…’

    Niether of whom are English ;)

    and yes some of us are still a bit bitter about the vikings raping & pillaging our land.

  19. Bundercup says:

    Mac, by using that law the UK government destroyed the last remaining faith in the Icelandic banking system and Icelandic companies, for example Baugur. And by some accounts it is hindering money transfers into Iceland thus further destabilizing the situation here. And the pathetic bullying aspect of this by using this law against a small country. I doubt they would have the balls to try this against a larger nation.

  20. pauldrye says:

    Security =/= Securities, Mac. No more than having a beef involves a cow, anyway.

  21. sammich says:

    Antinous @ 21 – I know a couple of people who invested a bit in Landsbanki (a few months ago), and they knew nothing of Iceland “jacking up interest rates to deal with inflation”, the advice they acted on was 3rd or 4th party info or more – and 15% was certainly not what they were offered – more like 6-6.25%

    • Antinous says:

      more like 6-6.25%

      Getting screwed in a get-rich-quick scheme is bad enough; getting screwed in a get-slightly-less-poor-slowly scheme is a bit degrading.

  22. sammich says:

    Andthat baby ~knows~ what it’s doing…
    Make no mistake.

  23. Takuan says:

    what is Iceland pissing around for? Go the North Korea route: start a nuclear weapons program, provide neighbours with cheap methamphetamines, run guns, counterfeit money,do contract kidnapping and murder…. hell, why not just become a haven for rich thieves to duck taxes?

  24. Bundercup says:

    Faustus, nice trolling. The Icelandic government said it would follow its obligations but nothing more. Perhaps Landsbanki assets will cover the rest.

    And Camp Freddie it would be very interesting what would happen if one NATO nation would attack another NATO nation.

  25. sammich says:

    antinous @ 31 – Hey! In the UK thats a WIN!

  26. AtliVidar says:

    Mac, I took this screenshot last week.
    Maybe it clears things up –
    http://www.longboard.is/terror.png
    “Landsbanki” is the icelandic name for Bank of Iceland, fits snugly there in between Lebanon & Syria and the Ivory Coast.

    Icelandics have nothing against the English, just those two guys, Brown and Darling. Bring them to us…

  27. Phanx says:

    The kid’s sign should say:

    I’ve got your cod
    I’ve got your life savings
    Fuck off

  28. Takuan says:

    Send the Pedofinder General!

  29. Antinous says:

    Iceland, which is admittedly not very well run, jacked up interest rates to try to deal with inflation. Brits saw the high interest rates and said, “Oooh, isn’t that lovely, we can make 15%!” The whole thing falls apart and now it’s the Icelanders’ fault. Greedy UK investors took advantage of Iceland’s attempt to stabilize its economy. And that makes them innocent victims?

  30. rlancefield says:

    “I’m not a terrorist”: it’s not only Icelanders who have had cause to protest the use of such legislation and powers:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584713/Poole-council-spies-on-family-over-school-claim.html

  31. Cool Products says:

    I haven’t heard anything about this in the news in the States. Does anybody know of a link that could fill me in on what is going on?

  32. tw15 says:

    Some infilling for our American cousins:

    An Icelandic bank, which had promoted themselves to UK customers and local authorities, went bust. The deposits were guaranteed by the Icelandic state, but following the Icelandic banking collapse, the Icelandic government couldn’t/wouldn’t do anything to deliver on this guarantee.

    In response, the UK government has promised to pay the depositors their lost money and has frozen various Icelandic assets in the UK. The Icelanders are angry because they believe the UK government used anti-terrorism laws to do this. They also believe this freezing led to another Icelandic bank collapsing.

    I blame that Osama Bear Lehman myself.

Leave a Reply