NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

crazymess wrote: »

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.

This calculation of deficit, I imagine, is made on estimated valuations of PMS owned property in the present low property market.
Builder/developers may have lost us something but wasn't there collateral security.
With 50K gaurantee on savings lots of us who understand what a mutual society is would still keep our savings with a restructured PMS and allow them to trade out of these difficulties.
Does the PCI deserve it?

Toastandbutter

Freddie May

I dont have the time or inclination to start debating hermeneutics with you.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you come across as a humanist / athiest who has an axe to grind with God and the bible.

You could at least have done me the respect of finishing my quote and not cutting it off before the punchline ie that solicitors letters are not litigation and will doubtless have focussed minds at Church House.

Please dont pick a fight with me - keep focussed on the real problem and real solutions.


Thanks Rev Ink

I am still left with the impression that most ministers are afraid to put their head above the parapet and take a public stand because they fear being out of step with non existent guidance from church house.

Tony Davidson did hold his hands up completely at the GA, to be fair.

Toastandbutter

Freddie May

I dont have the time or inclination to start debating hermeneutics with you.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you come across as a humanist / athiest who has an axe to grind with God and the bible.

You could at least have done me the respect of finishing my quote and not cutting it off before the punchline ie that solicitors letters are not litigation and will doubtless have focussed minds at Church House.

Please dont pick a fight with me - keep focussed on the real problem and real solutions.


Thanks Rev Ink

I am still left with the impression that most ministers are afraid to put their head above the parapet and take a public stand because they fear being out of step with non existent guidance from church house.

Tony Davidson did hold his hands up completely at the GA, to be fair.


Betrayed - I would be pretty annoyed if I had written to the administrator and got not even an acknowledgement. Perhaps you could call in?

But in all this I would be careful not to easily assume the worst of people's motives.

freddiemae

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Freddie May

I dont have the time or inclination to start debating hermeneutics with you.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you come across as a humanist / athiest who has an axe to grind with God and the bible.

You could at least have done me the respect of finishing my quote and not cutting it off before the punchline ie that solicitors letters are not litigation and will doubtless have focussed minds at Church House.

Please dont pick a fight with me - keep focussed on the real problem and real solutions.


Thanks Rev Ink

I am still left with the impression that most ministers are afraid to put their head above the parapet and take a public stand because they fear being out of step with non existent guidance from church house.

Tony Davidson did hold his hands up completely at the GA, to be fair.

Sorry if I appeared to be picking a fight. I only wanted to say that ministers can quote scriptures at assemby and unless they are taken in context then they don't add anything to the debate.

I am a lapsed Presbyterian not an atheist or a humanist but the more I see Churches who preach as Christians ducking out of their responsibilities to their people who have been abused in one way or another the less I am attracted to organised religion.

ballyblack

but the more i see churches who preach as christians ducking out of their responsibilities to their people who have been abused in one way or another the less i am attracted to organised religion.

Hear! Hear! :T

BETRAYED

If anybody wants to read up on the legislation that PMS operated under
see this link for Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=industrial+and+provident&Year=1969&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=2904396&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0

You will also have to type in search for Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1976 It should be a much smaller document.

Happy reading

ink

Lester_F wrote: »

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Lester F,
Sorry if you misunderstood what I meant.
I agree that the best way to prevent this would have been not to have let it happen in the first place.
I'm not trying to suggest that the church should ever cover up wrongdoing or sweep it under the carpet.
I was only referring in this case to working to get the whole church to take action to help shareholders- nothing more.


I will be doing what I can to make sure that this is sorted out and people do get their money. I don't think it is a 'lost cause'.

silentpci

I want to thank and congratulate the Ren. Davidson and the gentleman from Castlecaulfield who spoke up for the savers.
As far as the other directors were concerned they were trying to justify their actions and cover their own backs.Also to Ink for supporting us and helping to restore some faith in the Christian Witness of them Presbyterian church, thank you ink. Where do we go from here.I am glad you think there is some light at the end of a dark tunnel

ordained

Dr Who / Betrayed

Whilst I agree that legal action should be our last option, we must be prepared and have the mechanism set in place if all other efforts fail. However I do believe that we must wait until the meeting with the Prine Minister next week. If a satisfactory result no further action will be needed. Never the less we must be prepared to go forward with a united front. To this end I believe we must take action now and form a steering group consisting of a maximum of six professional people ie. 2 Lawyers, 2 Accountants, 2 Property Valuers, from within savers of PMS ( this would ensure a second opinion)
They would meet with the Administrator and report back back by way of an extraordinary general meeting, or to regional groups, to answer questions and keep members advised as to the best way to approach any run down that may be proposed and get agreement as to the division of resulting funds.

We must act now !!

crazymess

For those that would like a Creditors Committee arranged -

My understanding is that you need £22 million worth of savers - surely together this can be gathered given the different groupings - but in order for this to happen a meeting of all Savers would need to be arranged and then they vote the Creditors on!!

Correct me if wrong! -

Do we really want to spend big money on a meeting place for 10,000?

Perhaps A. Boyd would allow a creditors committee to be formed without a big meeting!