NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

Now I think one of the resolutions was:

That the General Board can make decisions for the General Assembly on issues relating to the PMS.


Maybe Dr Who you can clarifiy? In fact where have you gone to?

BETRAYED

goodbyepci wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that lawyers were consulted by Church House, at least 2 weeks before the savers were aware that there was anything wrong. So that they could decide on their story, and the necessary tactics to distance themselves from the PMS savers their "brothers and sisters in Christ"

So I don't see how we can now be condemned for following the lead of PCI hierarchy and consulting lawyers?

Also was it honourable to denounce the savers in the gallery when we had no right of reply?

The fact is clear. A third party were given inside information before members. This led to the big withdrawals.
In the city this would be a crime.
Do PCI understand what a Mutual Society is.

freddiemae

BETRAYED wrote: »

The fact is clear. A third party were given inside information before members. This led to the big withdrawals.
In the city this would be a crime.
Do PCI understand what a Mutual Society is.

Now Betrayed - next point. Newsletter were informed of the third party insider information and given proof of it in the assembly papers. Yet there has been nothing in the press about it. Why? Does the Newsletter value its pages of religious reports each week? Did their lawyers warn them that this case would blow open if it was published.? They printed about the other info from the FSA that had been removed from the press release --- if they had printed that all these people had the info before the savers even the mildest saver would feel some anger and want justice.

This piece of info is vital to your civil action. Perhaps the Newsletter should be approached and asked why they did not run with it?
Again I stress I only seek justice for the disadvantaged - I have no monetary interest in the PMS.

crazymess

Sunday Sequence very interesting:

So something can be promoted, in, around and through the Church - and the PCI can still have their legal differences and yet we the Savers are told that its not christianlike to sue through the civil courts -

PCI it looks as if this is terribly one sided - we are told to save within our church, we pay for insurance for the Directors, then we are told not to sue for compensation and of course we have to sit silent in the gallery and watch and listen to all of this - and we are not allowed to say a word!!!!!! What century are you living in?

My question is Rev McKelvey - why did the Directors pay for insurance out of our savings then?

How Rev McKelvey - do you know how much the insurance is valued at?

Interesting - again the PCI know before the savers.

freddiemae

You are all doing the right thing now. Stand back from the pain of losing your trust in church and state and your hard earned savings and look at it clinically.

You can only depend on yourself and fellow sufferers - keep lobbying and keep asking awkward questions. Don't let Arlene Foster and DETI off the hook. They were asleep at the wheel.
Keep the Newsletter interested in printing stories to keep it fresh in people's minds. The assembly want you to disappear quietly. Don't give in to them.
Gordon Brown is a straw man now - don't hope for much there.

Focus on lobbying and consult a lawyer if you can afford it. Form small groups who can send a representative to a larger group. Keep in touch with each other and don't lose faith in justice. You have been wronged and are not guilty of going against the Bible or the church.

presbyteriannomore

Well done to Will Crawley on his interview with Derek McKelvey who was really stumbling around struggling to defend himself. In a nutshell Derek McKelvey's argument was that a literal interpretation of scripture only applies if it protects the assets and leaders of PCI. Sadly, as a result, he should now be well on course to be the next moderator.

no_more_f.w.o

presbyteriannomore wrote: »

Well done to Will Crawley on his interview with Derek McKelvey who was really stumbling around struggling to defend himself. In a nutshell Derek McKelvey's argument was that a literal interpretation of scripture only applies if it protects the assets and leaders of PCI. Sadly, as a result, he should now be well on course to be the next moderator.

Clearly Derek McKelvey cannot put together a consistent argument from Scripture to back up his outrageous statements at the General Assembly

But he obviously told the Assembly what they wanted to hear.

He's now the obvious choice for Moderator!

sickasaparrot

A BIG THANK YOU TO JOY WHO SPOKE EXTREMELY WELL ON SUNDAY SEQUENCE THIS MORNING. :T :T :T


IT IS A PITY REV. JOHN DUNLOP (AFTER 7 MONTHS) DID NOT KNOW THAT THE SHARE VALUE DID NOT GO UP AND DOWN OR THAT THERE WAS NO SMALL PRINT !!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

BETRAYED

Here is something I think Shareholders should Know.

I have been told one builder/developer, who recently went into creditors' administration, had borrowed from PMS 11% of PMS's total assets.
I think the amount was 35 million.
Because the High Court gave our administrator permission not to disclose the name of members, borrowers or people lending money to the society I may be in contempt of court if I give any more details.
The figure I quote was, through the builder's administration process, available to be seen in the administrator's office two days before the creditors' meeting. That was about a month ago.

freddiemae

BETRAYED wrote: »

Here is something I think Shareholders should Know.

I have been told one builder/developer, who recently went into creditors' administration, had borrowed from PMS 11% of PMS's total assets.
I think the amount was 35 million.
Because the High Court gave our administrator permission not to disclose the name of members, borrowers or people lending money to the society I may be in contempt of court if I give any more details.
The figure I quote was, through the builder's administration process, available to be seen in the administrator's office two days before the creditors' meeting. That was about a month ago.

Question 1. Is the builder Presbyterian?
2. Did he give collateral equal to the amount of the loan?
Both items were "essential" in the alleged rule book of the PMS

Question 3. Why did Arlene Foster act so quickly to gag the PMS administrator - who is she hiding from public view? They don't usually get themselves busy about anything in short time as far as I have seen.