NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

fivealive_2

sickasaparrot wrote: »

The date of the No.10 petition has been extended to 20th May !

Is the time extension really an advantage to us or is it just a way of putting things on the long finger so that they lose momentum?
:think:

Sorry, I don't have Alzheimers but my computer froze and I did not realise that the post had actually gone through.

fivealive_2

jon_groovy wrote: »

By all means pursue the legal avenues for all this, but continue to write to your politicans calling on them to publicially say that PCI should be standing up to their moral duty.

Forgive me for asking what I am about to ask as perhaps I have misunderstood you?
Jon-groovy is all this about people getting their money back or is it about you wanting to have a go at the PCI?
I agree entirely that the PMS need to account for their actions and that the PCI need to shoulder their responsibilities but some-times when I read your posts I wonder if there is more than this in it for you.
Has the PCI hurt you in some other way and you now see this PMS debacle as a way of getting your pound of flesh?

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Nomad25

PCI should be standing up to their moral duty

I have no quarrel/axe to grind with any of church bodies, but I have to agree with this statement. Currently the only claim that can be made is that PCI are 'guilty by association'.

The longer this goes on [as it would appear to have to do by necessity] and the more the issue gets deflected to other bodies, the easier the duplicitious PCI will get off the hook and this should not be allowed.

Either legally or morally, they should as an organisation make some effort to help.

sickasaparrot

A few details that I picked up on during the Mark Orr interview with Will Leitch .

When asked “why haven’t you spoken publicly until now?

Mr Orr answered “On advice Will. As you know the Administrator sent out ballot papers some time ago, following his appointment and we were advised from London that we should not seek to influence or be seen to influence that vote in any way and therefore none of us have appeared on the media pending the result of that vote".

Advised by” London” I take it that means the British Government! Why are Government advising the Directors how to conduct themselves and yet apparently don’t have time to meet our local politicians to discuss the matter?

As I have said before I was told by PMS staff including Colin Ferguson that PMS had a portfolio of property for which it received rental income and loans to congregations and individuals which were secured against property. (I know from previous posts that many other posters on this forum were told the same thing). However I note that Mark Orr when talking about security against loans stated ”generally that security is in the form of land”. During his interview he also stated ”We did business openly “ and “if people wanted to know what the Mutual Society was doing, they only need to have asked”. He even stated “I don’t wish to criticise our investors but if they had asked they would have found out. Our average attendance out of 9500 shareholders at Annual General Meetings was about 50. Full sets of accounts were available. Last year 9 investors asked for full sets of accounts out of 9500“. He forgot to mention that 2008 was the first year that members had to request a copy of the accounts as they had previously been printed in the Annual Report. Looking back through old copies of these I do not see any mention of buy-to-let or loans to developers. There are however references to “mortgage interest”. – I note that Mark Orr only refers to loans during the interview.

Why did Mark Orr and his fellow Directors not ask the appropriate questions about the legislation they were operating under? I am sure if they had been in touch with DETI or the FSA their questions would have received full and accurate answers (unlike the answers we were given by PMS when we asked) and this whole mess would have been avoided. To use his own words “if they had asked they would have found out”. How dare he try to blame investors for the incompetence of the Directors.

As a colleague I used to work with would say:
“The wool he’s trying to pull over our eyes is 50% nylon and I can see through it”.

Just one last thing did anybody out there know about the loans to developers before it was disclosed in the Administrators report?

Sorry this is so long.

For anyone who wants to hear the interview again here is the link, just click on “Listen again” on the right hand side.
www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/radioulster/sunday_sequence/

john2009

I suspect what he means by being "advised by London" is that the directors are being advised by some clever lawyer in London, probably a QC.

mootercat

First post but faithfully following the forum - is not Mark Orr himself a QC? see annual report 2008 where the Chairman Rev Sidlow McFarland said "it was a real pleasure when Mark Orr agreed to become Vice-Chairman.

sickasaparrot

Welcome Mootercat,
Yes Mark Orr is a Q.C.

Nomad25

mootercat - thank you for posting and joining the thread.

sickasaparrot

I also noticed that throughout the interview Mark Orr referred to PMS as “Mutual Society” and only once referred to Presbyterian Mutual Society.

When asked:

“Does it look more Presbyterian to be more mutual?”

He replied:

“It is mutual-
the Presbyterian Mutual Society is what, what, eh, eh , it’s a mutual society, eh, it is for the benefit of all of its members, its Presbyterian members and eh, I think that if there were equality in distribution between shareholders and loan holders , that would be evidenceof the mutuality and the goodwill amongst Presbyterians.”

Note the stuttering and stammering once he realised he had included Presbyterian in the name!!!!

Any thoughts on why he would be reluctant to call it the Presbyterian Mutual society?

fivealive_2

sickasaparrot wrote: »

I also noticed that throughout the interview Mark Orr referred to PMS as “Mutual Society” and only once referred to Presbyterian Mutual Society.

When asked:

“Does it look more Presbyterian to be more mutual?”

He replied:

“It is mutual-
the Presbyterian Mutual Society is what, what, eh, eh , it’s a mutual society, eh, it is for the benefit of all of its members, its Presbyterian members and eh, I think that if there were equality in distribution between shareholders and loan holders , that would be evidenceof the mutuality and the goodwill amongst Presbyterians.”

Note the stuttering and stammering once he realised he had included Presbyterian in the name!!!!

Any thoughts on why he would be reluctant to call it the Presbyterian Mutual society?

DWS
i.e. Donald Watts Syndrome :eek: