NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

Presbyterian Mutual Society question

3 June 2009
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Is the Secretary of State aware that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is very grateful to the Treasury Committee for the initiative that it has taken? We would have liked to look into the matter, but as the Secretary of State says, it is devolved. Every member of the Committee has received representations that underline the severity of the situation, so will he please take up the suggestion just made by the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, and convene a meeting of all the interested parties to try to reach a solution?

Mr. Woodward: As always, I welcome the advice of the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who always has a considered approach to these matters. I am prepared to work to bring people together. Equally, however—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my view—I am very conscious of the fact that if government is devolved, that must be recognised, and we cannot suddenly be seen to be trying to take control of an issue through the back door simply because we are not quite sure whether it is being handled in the way we might have wanted. This is an issue on which I do not think the 9,500 investors will thank Members of this House or of the Assembly for simply saying, “Bureaucracy means that we cannot help.” I am prepared to break the bureaucracy, and if that is taken in which it is meant, I am prepared to work with the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to help those investors.

Toastandbutter

Thanks Rev Ink

But why are ministers so afraid to have an open respectful debate at the GA?

What is the big threat? Isnt PCI renowned for its democracy?



Crazymess
Looks like we might be headed for a general election.... you may get your chance to put PMS properly on DUP's manifesto???


I dont agree with suing in church - the passage says "rather let yourselves be defrauded". Seems clear it was talking about money.

However..... solicitors letters do not constitute litigation at all and may have helped focus minds at church house... which will doubtless have helped lobbying efforts!!!

That is not to minimize the stress and hurt of any minister or saver btw.

brick

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Thanks Rev Ink

I hope it is permanent ink - we could do with him/her hanging around here.

ink

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Thanks Rev Ink

But why are ministers so afraid to have an open respectful debate at the GA?

What is the big threat? Isnt PCI renowned for its democracy?

It's not about being afraid to speak at the General Assembly. It's more a realisation from experience that speaking at the Assembly doesn't get much done. It might get you heard for a minute or two but that's about it- five minutes later, it's usually forgotten- unless people start to discuss it online!!

I've always believed that respectful discussion in private is the best way to sort things out. Hence why I haven't any plans to post too much but I'm available for private messages.

BETRAYED

Toastandbutter wrote: »

BETRAYED - You say you have asked for meeting with administrator and got no reply.

I dont have any special knowledge on this, but for the sake of balance and context, we should remember that there are some 9500 shareholders involved.

- I wonder how many are asking for such meetings? No doubt a reply would be nice though.

Toastandbutter......... I take your point.
How I see it is that of the 9500 members a lot are couples or family members. Not all will write to the administrator.
For the same reasons I think that the argument for the administrator not having a meeting of shareholders is not a valid one. He opted to conduct business by correspondence. Some say there is not a hall big enough to accommodate those who would want to attend and it would be costly.
Everytime the administrator writes to shareholders postage costs circa £3000.
Better if we had a shareholders' meeting and appoint a creditors' committee of up to five people. Possibly these people could serve on an interim basis as directors of any possible restructured PMS.
The administrator in the penultimate paragraph of his last letter wrote 'It is my view that before members are asked to vote for an arrangement for an orderly wind-down of the Society it would be beneficial, if at all possible, to know whether the government is prepared to offer some form of assistance to savers. While it is not the administrator's role to actively lobby government for assistance, I am doing everything I can to assist those who are making representations to them and will continue to monitor progress'.
When I asked to meet the administrator I pointed out that I could have with me leaders of at least three active lobbying groups yet I got no response.

crazymess

This is an extremely difficult and stressful time for everyone.

I understand why many want to speak to the Administrator - but what really do you want to know? Surely we know enough - there is a deficit - granted we do not know the exact figure - but we can assume its in the region of £80 million to £100 million.

Firstly we want Government intervention and help financially -

I therefore suggest it is important to speak to the First Minister Peter Robinson, Minister Foster, Nigel Dodds OBE MP and those that are making representations on 17th June to Government. They are our priority at present - now we can't even get a meeting with those Ministers nor do we know if they are aware of the full facts given the secrecy to this whole affair.

I understand the following Lords are on this case every other day:

Lord Magennis
Lord Rogan
Lord Trimble

I am unable to get email address and therefore suggest you write urgently by snail mail - Whitehall, SW1 London

THE SALIENT POINT HERE IS THAT OUR CAPITAL DID NOT INCREASE - YOU HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE £1 IN £1 OUT WITH INTEREST - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SAVINGS ACCOUNT ON THE HIGH STREET.

THE STRUCTURE WAS FLAWED -

THERE WAS NO REGULATION AND A FINANCIAL INST IN NORTHERN IRELAND WAS ALLOWED TO OPERATE TO THE TUNE OF £315 MILLION WITHOUT ANYONE, ANYWHERE NOTICING.

THE SAVERS ARE NOT AT FAULT HERE.

AND IN THE EVENT OF A NORMAL WIND-UP OF THE PMS - THE PCI RECEIVED THE SURPLUS NOT THE SAVERS.

We have six days before the important meeting -

Lester_F

I've always believed that respectful discussion in private is the best way to sort things out. Hence why I haven't any plans to post too much but I'm available for private messages.[/QUOTE FROM INK]

Ink, I strongly disagree. The best way to sort things out is to prevent them happening in the first place. This was the responsibility that the Secretary / Directors of the PMS were entrusted with in law and what the shareholders trusted them to do.

Getting on to the problem in hand. When the Roman Catholic church in Ireland attempted to sort out allegations of abuse in private, things were not sorted out. This is too big an issue involving too many people to be sorted out in private. Too many details are already in the public domain.

The unfortunate truth is that things will not be sorted out. Shareholders will not get all their money back, many people will lose savings. Some people's health will suffer, relationships will fracture and others will die before any progress is made.

Holding the directors / secretary responsible for their actions is the necessary and correct thing to do. This will not sort things out but it will encourage at least some of the truth to surface and may prevent a similar reoccurrence for others.

freddiemae

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Thanks Rev Ink




I dont agree with suing in church - the passage says "rather let yourselves be defrauded". Seems clear it was talking about money.


quote end


Can I ask how it would have been received if a minister had stood up at the assembly and quoted scripture:

It is Shameful for a Woman to Speak in Church

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized" (1 Corinthians 14:33-38).


Would all the assembly members have applauded? Some might -- but if you believe all scripture is totally and unequivocally correct then there should be no women ministers or indeed women speaking in church. Scripture and context.

freddiemae

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/DUP-MPs-vote-for-general.5355132.jp


DUP vote with Tories and others for early general election- Gordon will not like it.

crazymess

oops

So near and yet so far!

Surely Gordon won't be keen to help us now!