NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Toastandbutter

sorry I meant Ian McGimpsey has been doing great lobbying, dont know who ian gibson is! apologies

sickasaparrot

jon_groovy wrote: »

will part of the administrators role not be to look at all the withdrawals in the month or 2 before the collapse ?

I don't know what the remit of the administrator's enquiry will be but if you have evidence to back up what you have been stating in posts, I would suggest you forward it to the administrator to make sure it is included in his enquiry.

KingVardas

justme12 wrote: »

Does anyone know when did the presbyterian mutual society actually stop paying savers withdrawals requests?

Hi, your administrator's report says:
An emergency meeting of the Society’s Board of Directors was convened on 25th October 2008 and it was resolved that: no further payments be made to members until the Society received advice. So you have to assume nothing was paid out after that date. Hope that helps

by the way, your lobbying seems to be getting more attention and even a suggestion of some movement from the Secy of State. Suggest you keep it up.

crazymess

So the Directors had a meeting on the Saturday - told Church House on the Monday and we weren't told until two weeks after that officially!

KingVardas

crazymess wrote: »

So the Directors had a meeting on the Saturday - told Church House on the Monday and we weren't told until two weeks after that officially!

Fraid so. The crucial point is the directors decided to allow no more withdrawals. In company speak, they suspended trading in their shares. That then enabled them to get professional/legal advice, inform others etc etc without any danger of releasing market sensitive information that would allow others to gain. No matter who was told when, no one could remove money - that's my reading of it from a business point of view. It's not for me to comment on church links etc as I have no interest or knowledge in those matters.

freddiemae

KingVardas wrote: »

Fraid so. The crucial point is the directors decided to allow no more withdrawals. In company speak, they suspended trading in their shares. That then enabled them to get professional/legal advice, inform others etc etc without any danger of releasing market sensitive information that would allow others to gain. No matter who was told when, no one could remove money - that's my reading of it from a business point of view. It's not for me to comment on church links etc as I have no interest or knowledge in those matters.

Thank you for clarifying that point KV - I re-read that report on the general assembly and it says that the Directors decided to invoke the 21 day rule for on demand payments then discussed it with the church. Does this not mean they were still officially trading on 27th October since they had not called in an administrator or receiver at that point. I would have thought that the DETI, or an administrator would have been a better entity to have discussed it with rather than a church which had allegedly no legal ties with it.

I am just trying to understand why they consulted people with no legal ties to them.

BETRAYED

If one reads the Report to the General Assembly one will see that the events surrounding the PMS affair are not in chronological order ie
not in order of occurrence. I imagine that this was mischievously done by the writer.
PSI Information Officer at our protest outside Church House confrimed to me that the secretary and two directors of PMS came to Church House with a copy of the undated letter which later went to shareholders.
Clerk of Assembly definitely contacted Clerks of Presbytery to warn them to prepare for counselling their congregation members before I received my letter stating that there was the invoking of the 21 day rule on withdrawals.
Some intelligent Clerks of Presbyteries made use of this information and those people who did not understand what a mutual society was were able to make withdrawals.
I also have good reason to suspect that at least one trustee of Church House, whom I know advises some people on investments was also able to tell them to withdraw their money.

This is all very disappointing. But let's not labour on this.
More important to get a solution for the situation.

I have correspondence from Ian Paisley Jnr. and with it was a letter from Arlene Foster. It says to put my proposals to the administrator.
Have asked for a meeting twice from him and got no reply.

Surley the clique in Church House should be putting proposals to him to get their once very successful mutual society salvaged.
All we get from them is applause when Derek McKelvey takes us back to the first century when Paul told the church at Corinth that Christians should not sue oneanother.

silentpci

Is it true that they are proposing to spend 11 million pounds on a conference centre in Church House!!!!!!!!!!

goodbyepci

silentpci wrote: »

Is it true that they are proposing to spend 11 million pounds on a conference centre in Church House!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/NEWS/news2008/news0629.html

No costs in the press release

fivealive_2

BETRAYED wrote: »

All we get from them is applause when Derek McKelvey takes us back to the first century when Paul told the church at Corinth that Christians should not sue oneanother.

As an evangelical Christian I believe that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" 2 Timothy 3:16
HOWEVER I also believe that a text without a context is a pretext!
I have no theological training but my personal understanding of the context of the text that Rev McKelvey uses is that problems that arise within the church should in the first instance be sorted out within the church. However in the PMS situation it was PCI that prevented this from happening in the very beginning by saying that the PMS problem is not an "inhouse" problem and therefore PMS savers were never allowed the opportunity to sort this out as an in-house problem or even allowed to treat it as an in-house problem.
To me, Dr McKelvey's stance and the encouragement he received from Assembly delegates smacks of wanting to run with the hare and hunt with the hound.