NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

abeliever

freddiemae

FYI ...since the start of this sorry saga, Dr John Dunlop has been constantly in the front line working as an advocate for PMS savers.

crazymess

Today's General Assembly was well choreographed!

Interesting speakers - especially the one who referred to greed!! or did I misunderstand that one?

There is no doubt that the PCI seem to be trying now - long may they continue - we need to pray for Government help!! - in the event of lack of government help - hopefully the Church will come to the rescue!

brick

crazymess wrote: »

There is no doubt that the PCI seem to be trying

I agree - that was the broad sense I had.

pensiongone

jon_groovy wrote: »

Just back from the general assembly
What a farce that was

That guy Poots...........what qualifications did you have to be a director in the PMS ? He hadn't even a response the the gentleman who pointed out that 'buy to lets' and development land was a big big mistake.

And as for the guy quoting scripture.....why don't the ministers do something constructive and maybe take a paycut from their large salaries and help the people in distress.

2 of the Directors should have been at home working on their allotments, not managing £300M of our savings. The other one all tired and emotional 'cos he got 367 threats to sue him.
WHAT DID HE EXPECT!!
Also he didn't answer the question about why the lending policy changed, just said all the loans were being called in. (incidentally probably causing yet more hardship and heartache for the small borrowers who were meant to be the ones getting funds from PMS~or so we were told)

Good on the person who shouted from the gallery about insurance!!
:T

I was NOT impressed by being patronisingly told how well we had behaved!!

Do you honestly think if we had not been campaigning and lobbying and complaining and protesting outside we would have had the response we had today from PCI?
This is not the time to slacken off!!
Do not be lulled into a false sense of security because of nice Mr Dunlop


Words are cheap!!

Remember

We still don't have our money!!

chunter

pensiongone wrote: »

As for that sanctimonious !*>*! who called us all sinners for suing..

Now there's one for youtube.

We're the greedy idiots who've lost all your money, but you're the bad people!!!!

Anybody got this meeting on video / audio ?
This would be the way to get at them...

brick

chunter wrote: »

We're the greedy idiots who've lost all your money

I don't believe the individual in question was on PMS Board, so he couldn't be legitimately accused of losing anyone's money.

Nor have I seen anything to suggest Board members stood to benefit personally (setting aside whatever personal deposits they might have had), so don't see how greed comes into play either.

Prepared to be corrected.

Ballygal

I only managed to get to Belfast to hear the last 15 minutes of the PMS so called ‘debate’, though I did have my 'representative' there a little earlier and who heard a little more.
How reassuring it is to read hear that our views mirror what has been posted on this site tonight!
We too thought it has been very cleverly orchestrated. This afternoon must have taken some planning. I reckon there are some very happy Church House people tonight!
No big uncomfortable scenes! No embarrassing heckling to have to warrant throwing people out! And all those resolutions passed unanimously! A successful afternoon for PCI.
And we too felt it patronising to be thanked for being so well behaved!!

I thought I would share the reply I got today from Arthur Boyd – to my question posed in a letter dated 10th April! Again call me cynical but the timing seems rather well planned!!:rolleyes:


‘Any voting on the terms of the Voluntary Arrangement will be based on the value of each members investment i.e. £1 – one vote (i.e. £10,000 - ten thousand votes) Shareholders and Loan certificate holders will vote in two separate groups and each group will require to approve the resolution put.’

John Dunlop today had explained the complex ethical dilemma that a vote could pose to some Church trustee groups. Judging from the reaction of the people beside me some people in the gallery were unaware that if mutuality was not agreed in a vote, the shareholders with £20,000 or less could end up with nothing!

Now could any of you wise owls out there tell me if Arthur Boyd’s reply confirms that or conflicts with it? If the 2 groups of a) shareholders and b) creditors vote differently will that just not negate each other????

freddiemae

Ballygal wrote: »

I only managed to get to Belfast to hear the last 15 minutes of the PMS so called ‘debate’, though I did have my 'representative' there a little earlier and who heard a little more.
How reassuring it is to read hear that our views mirror what has been posted on this site tonight!
We too thought it has been very cleverly orchestrated. This afternoon must have taken some planning. I reckon there are some very happy Church House people tonight!
No big uncomfortable scenes! No embarrassing heckling to have to warrant throwing people out! And all those resolutions passed unanimously! A successful afternoon for PCI.
And we too felt it patronising to be thanked for being so well behaved!!

I thought I would share the reply I got today from Arthur Boyd – to my question posed in a letter dated 10th April! Again call me cynical but the timing seems rather well planned!!:rolleyes:


‘Any voting on the terms of the Voluntary Arrangement will be based on the value of each members investment i.e. £1 – one vote (i.e. £10,000 - ten thousand votes) Shareholders and Loan certificate holders will vote in two separate groups and each group will require to approve the resolution put.’

John Dunlop today had explained the complex ethical dilemma that a vote could pose to some Church trustee groups. Judging from the reaction of the people beside me some people in the gallery were unaware that if mutuality was not agreed in a vote, the shareholders with £20,000 or less could end up with nothing!

Now could any of you wise owls out there tell me if Arthur Boyd’s reply confirms that or conflicts with it? If the 2 groups of a) shareholders and b) creditors vote differently will that just not negate each other????

As far as I know if the Loan holders do not vote for mutuality (equal shares) then indeed the shareholders will be lucky to see anything back at all. The Loan holders have a much greater percentage of the vote and could easily out vote the share holders. This would mean that a congregation with funds in the loan section could vote to preserve their money and at the same time destroy the chances of individual members of the same congregation ever getting a return. This is a big moral dilemma.

freddiemae

abeliever wrote: »

freddiemae

FYI ...since the start of this sorry saga, Dr John Dunlop has been constantly in the front line working as an advocate for PMS savers.

I did not mean to insult DR Dunlop merely pointing out that it would suit the church to sidestep the compensation issue. If the PMS was winding up just now with a big surplus left over I think the PCI would be waiting with open arms to receive it. You can't have it both ways in this life.

BETRAYED

"Extraordinary means were found to rescue banks and building societies and to protect savers in all other institutions."....Rev Stafford Carson.
The Irish News Wed June 3 2009