I find it passing strange that this board is suddenly full of self appointed political experts, arguing about the right way to play the politics of the Equitable Losses, just when EMAG has achieved the most remarkable political successes in the whole long drama.

It is fine to job backwards about what should have been done back in 2000 and 2001, but the only ones with legitimate comments to make are those who went public at the time with a different strategy.

Personally, I was aghast that EMAG were trying to operate without a large fighting fund, and told them so, but that, it seems, represented the attitude of the day. In retrospect we see that much of the tone was set by fellow travellers and quislings, but it took a long time for people to realise that we were in a war with no holds barred. How they must have laughed at the FSA when they read the pathetic letters that we sent in, assuming that if only they understood, they would do what was right.

The issue of 'fraud' or rather dishonesty, remains of central concern, even if it is hard to show the connections between a fraudulent insurance treaty first taken out in 1998 and dishonest bonus allocations a decade earlier. But when you realise that the fraudulent treaty was essential to cover up the consequences of the dishonest bonuses, the connection becomes a great deal clearer.

Even today the Government continues to argue that policyholders willingly accepted a high risk business strategy and therefore should themselves shoulder much of the loss. [See Chadwick's Interim Report.] Is this so, or were we deliberately deceived about the financial strength of the WP Fund? I say that we were deliberately deceived and that the story we were told was a dishonest one.

Those who deny dishonesty and fraud do so to deny or minimise compensation.

Is that your stance 0870, and yours Peoples?

MJ