NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

russdaan

Never posted here before but have followed things for a while.

There does seem to me to be confusion about whether the problems are Westminster or local. The Northern ireland Act (1998?) lists regulation of financial services as reserved but the Industrial and Provident Act (NI)(1969?) as transferred.

A UK wide delegated piece of legislation in 2001 changed registration for organisations similar to PMS in GB to the FSA. This was done by amending the legislation under which they were set up. Most are not authorised by FSA but the Annual return lets the fsa know what is happening. Friendly Societies are run under UK wide legislation and all seem to need to be registered with FSA. This leads to a strange quirk that East Belfast constitutional club seems to be registered with FSA.



The FSA has a duty to basically ensure activity which should be regulated in all UK is. So is it the "fault" of Stormont not to change our (1969?) so that PMS registered with FSA or is it the "fault" of FSA not to ask the companies office for copies of PMS returns.

The Issue of repayable shares by Industrial societies does not require FSA authorisation so the issue of authorisation only applies to the "deposits" Repayable shares were dealt with by another piece of uk wide delegated legislation in 2001 and in this the (1969?) NI act was included.

I am still confused about what all this means and I do not think it is simple.

BETRAYED

freddiemae wrote: »

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.

I understand the builder is Presbyterian.
He has built a lot of good houses that are not selling at present and he has some unfinished sites.
I hear his assets have been valued at 26 million.
I think it was our admistrator that went to court for the 'gagging' order.

russdaan

I got a private message and cannot read it . something about a pop up blocker. Will consult the children. Sorry

BETRAYED

russdaan wrote: »

I got a private message and cannot read it . something about a pop up blocker. Will consult the children. Sorry

Also ask them if they could sort this mess out.
Stormont, Westminster and PCI aren't having much success.

russdaan

Regarding my first post.

I doubt if Stormont has power to require the FSA to accept registration responsibility for the PMS. Stormont considered this regarding credit unions and I think they felt such a change would require Westminster to legislate.

Dr._Who_2

Have been "ruminating" over the Assembly debate - am a member of the Assembly but didn't know what to think at various points.
On the issue of "suing" - I think that suing someone isn't the ideal route in any situation - for most of us it's a last resort if we can't get satisfaction any other way. The Bible lays down methods of operating within the Church and between Christians e.g. making personal contact, two people going to see the offending party etc etc. Suing isn't the ideal thing within the Church - but I'd still defend the right of other people to do this if all else fails. I think that, in law, it is important that people, even Christians, feel they have a legal remedy should they wish to take it. We do have a system of Church courts - people can appeal a Kirk Session decision to Presbytery and higher up if need be - it's something the same idea and again not ideal, but people need to have that right.
I agree that Directors should have thought seriously before volunteering for this position - I said in a previous post some time ago that people need to think through the implications of volunteering in light of the possibility of legal action.
There was a resolution agreed as follows "That the General Assembly authorise the General Board to take all the appropriate decisions which need to be made before the next General Assembly in support of savers in the Presbyterian Mutual Society" I think this "half opens" a door of hope that something can be done to help if it is needed.
I myself feel a degree of disillusionment with the Assembly at times - in many areas we appear to be no longer a "listening Church". Too many things are already decided by Boards and Committees and nodded through the Assembly. Cynical perhaps!!

crazymess

I still want to know how certain ~Church Ministers know how much the Insurance is for!!!!!

You are right - Dr Who - better to work things through rather than go straight to legal proceedings - but people need to listen, discuss and work it to an agreeable resolution - But all that we have had for the last seven months is the PCI insisting their separate legal entity.

There was no direction from the top - and as I have said before - the Directors of the PMS took on this role - presumably signed off the insurance cheques and cannot query any one taking legal action for negligence if this is found to be the case. My goodness the links between the two PMS/PCI - what biblical term will they find if one takes legal action against the Trustees of the PCI!!!!!

Lets hope and pray the next two weeks bring us answers and more importantly a financial resolution this.

OldJohn

How dare they tell us they knew nothing about all of this and that the paid employees in the office knew it all

I respectfully suggest that there was only ONE paid employee who knew what was going on - and had the responsibility/authority to have done something about it.

Action_Now

Listening to the Rev McKelvey at the General Assembly and on Sunday Sequence (7th June) quoting 1 Corinthians 6v1 ("Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?") out of context and the applause he got from his colleagues was utterly disgraceful. We ought to look at the meaning and context of this verse a little deeper. In chapter 5 Paul explains how the Church should deal with open immorality. In chapter 6 Paul teaches how the Church should deal with smaller problems between Christians, however the PMS issue is no small problem. He says that Christians should not go to "unrighteous" courts because in Paul's day, as William Crawley pointed out there was "...idolatry...public theatre..."etc. this is why Paul robustly declared that Christians should not go to the secular courts. As Christians we have the Holy Spirit and mind of Christ to direct us and so we ought to be able to communicate with each other and solve our differences.

PCI initially attempted to disassociate themselves from the PMS and its members. Many ministers still refuse to mention, let alone discuss, the crisis. The General Assembly "discussion" was one sided and they have yet to openly discuss it with PMS savers. This shows just how much PCI ministers (with the exception of a few) are out of touch with reality never mind Christianity. How hypocritical of Rev McKelvey to criticise savers for considering the judicial route to recover our savings when the Church have left us little option but to.

Have they no compassion when 9500 individuals and their families are facing financial disaster and the emotional distress it entails? Rev McKelvey rightly said that many others are facing similar circumstances in this global recession. So does he mean that we should do nothing and accept our fate? PCI have an obligation and still have an opportunity to help 9500 of their own flock find a successful solution to this crisis. To the Rev McKelvey I would say “..if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.” Romans 12v8. Should Church ministers not lead their flock rather than ignore their plight?
Little wonder the Presbyterian Church is in rapid decline and so few souls are being saved when its leaders fail to interpret and follow Scripture in its proper context.

While the turnout of PMS savers/protestors on Monday and Tuesday may have been smaller than the number of delegates who attended the General Assembly, we certainly got our point across. We will no longer take this lying down.

I would remind PCI that there is not always safety in numbers!

freddiemae

Quote from Dr Who
""There was a resolution agreed as follows "That the General Assembly authorise the General Board to take all the appropriate decisions which need to be made before the next General Assembly in support of savers in the Presbyterian Mutual Society" I think this "half opens" a door of hope that something can be done to help if it is needed.""

The arrogance displayed by the assembly members towards the intentionally voiceless savers in the balcony when they applauded Rev McKelvey more than demonstrates that there is no half open door at the PCI -- that was shut firmly in the faces of the savers in November last year when the PCI washed their hands of PMS.

The "something can be done to help if it is needed" is an insult to the savers who freely gave their savings to help their church. How many of those elderly people cringed with shame on hearing what their ministers thought of them. The time of need has come and gone and been ignored for fear of legal repercussions. The time is for action now not humbly queuing for grudged assistance. I have never felt so ashamed of the Presbyterian church (of which I am a lapsed member) as I do now.