NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

goodbyepci

http://www.uup.org/newsrooms/latest-news/general/kennedy-challenges-sos-to-support-pms-savers.php

pensiongone

ordained wrote: »

Any resonable person, even a judge, must accept that the case has been proven in that the PCI and PMS are INEXTRICABLY linked!! However there is no point in tying an ocean liner to a blade of grass on the bank !!
What assets do the PCI have ? Church House and a few other properties but little money and what money it has is our money anyway. Indeed all the assets of PCI, large or small, already belong to us, the people of the Presbyterian Church. We are the PCI and ofcourse we are the PMS, legal entity or not.

Nice try ordained but the PCI is no blade of grass, and you can't shift the focus off them at this stage. As you rightly say the money already belongs to us and we would like it back please, to make up the shortfall for all the years of saving in a flawed financial institution. Which was so enthusiastically endorsed by PCI.

To quote Dr John Dunlop on Sunday Sequence in January “You are associated with but not responsible for-now- the Church, the General Assembly finds itself in this position- that you could have some smart lawyers out there who decide that if you are going to be associated with and it is deemed to be that you are accepting responsibility for-not only could the General Assembly be sued but every Presbyterian in Ireland could be sued”

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Businessman-urged-by-bank-over.5252487.jp

Toastandbutter

businessman urged to remove PMS cash by bank;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Businessman-urged-by-bank-over.5252487.jp

freddiemae

Toastandbutter wrote: »

businessman urged to remove PMS cash by bank;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Businessman-urged-by-bank-over.5252487.jp

All the vested interests are desperately trying to pin the blame on someone else. Meantime pensioners worry themselves to death. Its about time the administrator started putting the blame squarely where it lies - he's bound to know the score by now.

Toastandbutter

all very well pinning the blame, lots of people bear some responsibility

DETI, PCI, PMS Directors, HM Treasury, Gordon Brown..... but practically speaking, how many of them can actually come up with a £120m rescue package....

perhaps solutions are a better focus than scalps!

joylikes2shop

Toastandbutter wrote: »

perhaps solutions are a better focus than scalps!

I totally agree with you !!!

The trouble is that 'we' the investors can try and come up with solutions...and I've heard a number which sound feasible enough to me..... .but the only person that is in a position to actually do anything is the Administrator, and from what I can gather he's neither easy to contact nor interested in hearing our solutions. :mad:

Without any regular feed back or the opportunity to discuss any soultions with him, we're all left running around in circles.

Although Mr Boyd has no LEGAL need to keep us informed of his findings and thoughts, I think at this stage it would be of immense benefit if he could treat this situation in a more compassionate way. :A

Maybe I'm being very nieve here, but what about allowing us to have our say in a forum on the existing PMS website ??
We could make public any 'solutions' we think might work.....Mr Boyd could maybe even have a Q&A spot....

It's the lack of regular official information that has us all running around like headless chickens,panicking,clutching at straws,going off in all directions.
I know I've got to the stage where I'm having real difficulty differentiating between fact and fiction....

Maybe we should all start lobbying Mr Boyd to give us more information.....:rotfl:

BelfastGran

Yes Joylike2shop

Could not agree more with you.

There are many elderly people out there who do not know what is happening, worried sick about their savings and don't know where to turn.

Many in poor health and their security and independence gone.

crazymess

Its answers we need and more importantly the TRUTH

It needs to be done now - Savers have all ready spent too much time on the PMS - either worrying, sleepless nights, becoming sick or trying to find solutions.

The Administrator is there to get the best return of our money - he is not there to set up a blame game - that is not in his remit - of course he needs to inform DETI of the conduct of Directors - I'm sure most of us know exactly by now the conduct of the Directors and Comp Sec. FSA have already informed us.

I think most Savers know the answers to all of this and they know why they decided to put their savings in the Presbyterian Mutual Society -

I think the answer lies in the last paragraph.

fivealive_2

Dr._Who wrote: »

Offically, the General Assembly opens on the Monday night with the address of the outgoing Moderator, Dr. Patton, and the Installation of the present Moderator-designate Dr. Carson. Business doesn't start until Tuesday morning although the Assembly Communion Service involves some time then - I suppose we could say that things don't really get going until Tuesday afternnon. Assembly finishes on Thursday supposedly at 5 p.m. although last year there was so much lapsed business that the Thursday night ran very late.
Each Board Report/item of business has a starting time - if the Report isn't finished by the time the next item is due then it goes into lapsed business and is fitted in at some other time. You can see that if you look at the daily minutes on the website. Reports and daily minutes are available on PCI website and should be coming up soon for 2009 - I know people who follow the proceedings using an internet enabled mobile.

Does this mean that a small amount of time might be allocated to discussing the PMS and then they would turn around and say "Sorry folks, times up, you will all have to come back again on Thursday if you want to continue this discussion on the PMS"?

Secondly, there are 6 Ministers as Society Directors of the PMS. Did each of them just wake up one morning and think "I would really like to help out at the PMS" OR is this part of their official ministerial duties and recognised by the church as such, just like Ministers sit on the BMI, BMO, Church and Society Committee, Older People Services Committee, Board of Communications etc?

Thirdly, I have heard it said that neither the Administrator nor anyone else will either confirm or deny whether the Directors have Indemnity Insurance. Is it because they are afraid that if they confirm that the Directors do have Indemnity Insurance then it will open the flood-gates for law-suits? Some-one I know who works in Finance says that their Indemnity Insurance does not cover them for the first £5,000 of any claim; bit like the excess on your car insurance. If this is true, it would be pretty scarey for the Directors, I would imagine. I am no expert so if anyone else can shed more light on this, please do so.