NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Toastandbutter

ps Jon-groovy - perhaps you could/should step up the lobbying ahead of the meeting between ofmdfm and the pm on 17 June?

fivealive_2

There is an excellent letter in today's Newsletter entitled "PMS savings differ from stockmarket"; a balanced piece giving a good overview of the situation.

crazymess

Toastandbutter

Would be keen to follow up your suggestion.

I too have written numerous letter to the powers that be in Stormont - sadly its the same one reply ........ takes approximately 7 weeks to get them as well. "The Officers and Directors should have applied for regulation".

How come Lord Trimble and Jim Allister can find flaws and have concerns re regulation?

They seem a little annoyed re yesterday's election - well quite honestly I rarely see our FM on TV -

I ask the question - 10,000 and more presbyterian savers have been struggling for the last 7 months - why have they not come onto our screens and talked about this openly???

Perhaps the European Election may have been a different result. - We talk of Labour not doing anything because there are no votes in it!!!!

ink

I’ve been following the comments on this forum now for a couple of weeks, since a few days before the General Assembly.

As a PCI minister I felt it was important to post a couple of comments publicly. I’m not into online discussion but if anyone wants to send me a private message, I’ll be happy to pass on my contact details and you can get in touch if you think it might be helpful.

First, I believe PCI’s handling of the PMS issue has been a disaster. Yes, there have been a lot of individuals doing things to try to help but no co-ordinated church-wide response, which was and still is essential.

Second, I was as disappointed as any of you at the way the PMS issue was handled at the General Assembly. I was amazed that while it was admitted that we had got some things wrong, there was no mention of the word ‘Sorry’. It should have been the first word used. I also found the way things were handled over people getting into Church House on the Tuesday for the PMS debate frustrating and at times, simply illogical.

Third, in general Derek McKelvey was right in what he said that within the church, people should not have to sue one another. But the reason people felt the need to send solicitor’s letters to PMS directors was because of the corporate failure of those of us who are the church’s leaders.
Because there has been no co-ordinated response from the leaders within the church, many people have been left to do their own thing and to do what they feel is right and best. I completely understand why many people feel betrayed and abandoned. The failure of leadership within PCI over this issue is a serious sin which should have been acknowledged at the General Assembly.

Fourth, if there was or is a conspiracy within PCI to cover stuff up about the PMS- I am not aware of it. Unfortunately, what I see is an inability to do things right at a church-wide level, which I’ve experienced on a number of other occasions in recent years. There were no letters or other information that I'm aware of coming from Church House or anywhere else saying the PMS was in trouble and giving us the chance to remove any savings before it went into administration.

Last, please don’t think that because the official pronouncements from ‘Church House’ aren’t all that helpful, that none of us care. At any General Assembly, there is often a lot more left unsaid than is actually said from the front. I can only speak for myself but I do believe that there is a clear-cut biblical responsibility for the leaders of PCI (not just those ‘in Church House’) to resolve this, whatever it takes..

Although I have been critical here publicly because I think it needs to be said, I prefer to be quietly constructive. I am therefore happy to answer any questions or give any information or help I can privately- not because I have anything to hide but because I believe that is usually the best way to resolve most things.

freddiemae

ink wrote: »

I’ve been following the comments on this forum now for a couple of weeks, since a few days before the General Assembly.

As a PCI minister I felt it was important to post a couple of comments publicly. I’m not into online discussion but if anyone wants to send me a private message, I’ll be happy to pass on my contact details and you can get in touch if you think it might be helpful.

First, I believe PCI’s handling of the PMS issue has been a disaster. Yes, there have been a lot of individuals doing things to try to help but no co-ordinated church-wide response, which was and still is essential.

Second, I was as disappointed as any of you at the way the PMS issue was handled at the General Assembly. I was amazed that while it was admitted that we had got some things wrong, there was no mention of the word ‘Sorry’. It should have been the first word used. I also found the way things were handled over people getting into Church House on the Tuesday for the PMS debate frustrating and at times, simply illogical.

Third, in general Derek McKelvey was right in what he said that within the church, people should not have to sue one another. But the reason people felt the need to send solicitor’s letters to PMS directors was because of the corporate failure of those of us who are the church’s leaders.
Because there has been no co-ordinated response from the leaders within the church, many people have been left to do their own thing and to do what they feel is right and best. I completely understand why many people feel betrayed and abandoned. The failure of leadership within PCI over this issue is a serious sin which should have been acknowledged at the General Assembly.

Fourth, if there was or is a conspiracy within PCI to cover stuff up about the PMS- I am not aware of it. Unfortunately, what I see is an inability to do things right at a church-wide level, which I’ve experienced on a number of other occasions in recent years. There were no letters or other information that I'm aware of coming from Church House or anywhere else saying the PMS was in trouble and giving us the chance to remove any savings before it went into administration.

Last, please don’t think that because the official pronouncements from ‘Church House’ aren’t all that helpful, that none of us care. At any General Assembly, there is often a lot more left unsaid than is actually said from the front. I can only speak for myself but I do believe that there is a clear-cut biblical responsibility for the leaders of PCI (not just those ‘in Church House’) to resolve this, whatever it takes..

Although I have been critical here publicly because I think it needs to be said, I prefer to be quietly constructive. I am therefore happy to answer any questions or give any information or help I can privately- not because I have anything to hide but because I believe that is usually the best way to resolve most things.

I only wish there was another 100 like you and this disaster could have been at least mitigated if not avoided. Most posters on here only wanted to hear a sympathetic word and a genuine helping hand. Few found it and that's why they came on here. I admire your courage at putting your head above the parapet - I hope other ministers find the courage to do the same.

yamis21

I hope other ministers have courage to do the same!

Ballygal

The fact that 13 other users as well as myself have thanked you INK says how we admire your courage in your post. Please stay on here and keep posting!

fivealive_2

freddiemae wrote: »

I only wish there was another 100 like you and this disaster could have been at least mitigated if not avoided. Most posters on here only wanted to hear a sympathetic word and a genuine helping hand. Few found it and that's why they came on here. I admire your courage at putting your head above the parapet - I hope other ministers find the courage to do the same.

And all the people said "amen". :grouphug:

Lester_F

The Fraud Act provides for the offence of fraud by abuse of position of trust and is very relevant to PMS shareholders.

In a nutshell, this particular offence relates to those who hold a position; which carries with it legal and, or, fudiciary duties. I would suggest that this includes the secretary / directors of the PMS.

I would argue that the secretary / directors of the PMS abused their position of trust by carrying out their business in a manner that contradicted their own rules and objectives.

This is criminal legislation. The average solicitor has no experience of it. However, it should also be remembered that the Fraud Act is a poorly drafted piece of legislation and parts of it are relatively untested.

Invoking this legislation in these circumstances would involve a shareholder making a complaint to the PSNI's Fraud Unit. They in turn would be duty bound to investigate and would probably make recommendations to the Public Prosecution Service. The PPS would decide who if anybody would be prosecuted.

ballyblack

There were no letters or other information that I'm aware of coming from Church House or anywhere else saying the PMS was in trouble and giving us the chance to remove any savings before it went into administration.

I don't think that would have helped either. The mere fact of releasing news that the PMS was in trouble would have caused a immediate run on funds and would have been 'fait accompli'

Thanks anyway 'INK' for you helpful comments




.