NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Whatnow?_3

Thanks Hope.

So it could go on for a good while yet then?

Getting harder to cope with it all.

Grrrandad

Whatnow? wrote: »

Thanks Hope.

So it could go on for a good while yet then?

Getting harder to cope with it all.

I don't think there is any question that this is going to drag on for a long time yet.

Quite honestly, if the PM was going to step in and solve our problem I would have thought he would have done it by now - not convinced he isn't stalling by setting up a working party which could eventually say 'sorry but can't help' - particularly with big Shaun a part of it.

goodbyepci

HOPE wrote: »

Only my view but, this point has been argued over a period of months and I see no merit in highlighting it again. Every member of the working party is well aware of the situation re savers/investors Do we really want to detract them from doing the job in hand by taking up their time to answer letters and deflect from the real issue here when they have heard it all before? I think not.
.

I agree with all the points made by readyforaction.

We all know that the terms "saver" and "investor" are interchangable in financial products - as has been highlighted

But the terminology in the terms of reference of the working group is vitally important - as it is the stick which HMG and the Secretary of State has used in the past to beat us with.

Investors = risk capital = hard luck!

So we have to establish from the start just what they mean by the term "investor". Or they may turn round and use it once again to brush us off.

The terms of reference have been published.
If necessary we have to challenge them - remember we are the victims in this situation, and we have played the victim for too long.

The Treasury report has acknowledged that PMS savers had no idea that their money was at risk. To quote "Their impression was that the PMS was in effect a bank, an impression which may have been underlined by the fact that the society offered financial products for which it should have sought authorisation"

Now this fact needs to be be highlighted to the working group. We cannot assume that they have understood it. People are still saying "you were investors - you lost out - tough luck"

Maybe the run up to the meeting of the Down and Antrim group with Arlene Foster would be a good time to make sure that they understand this fact and present all the evidence of promotional literature, church endorsement etc etc.

Otherwise politicians are there to be lobbied.

It's part of the job for them - I'm sure they can cope with it.

HOPE

I agree with GranDad that it will not drag on.

The government got their fingers burnt with Dunfermline and other financical institutions that they bailed out - too quickly! Now they are trying to offload them.

The PMS situation is unique - No legislative framework - No FSA so no compensation scheme. The others were FSA regulated.

Big Shaun no longer Chairman, thank goodness.

BETRAYED

Daily Star 25 July

Savings shake-up.

Most savers who are held high and dry by a failed bank will get their money back within a week.
Under new plans, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which protects deposits of up to £50,000, will aim to pay savers quickly.
Financial Services Authority supremo Hector Sants said "Individuals and small businesses must feel confident their money is well protected."

If only our mutual society had been brought under the FSA Compensation scheme by proper legislation.

HOPE

I know where you are coming from and we all have been treated very badly.

We are not going to get anywhere worrying whether or not we are savers or investors. This is only a play with words and the interpretation that the government is using. We say we are savers. There is no legal definition. Our interpretation is as good as theirs. I cannot see them backing down on this. Government never does when they are wrong and I believe they are. Ordained has explained it in simple terms. Shaun Woodward has already said that he is prepared to cut through the bureaucracy. We need to bear in mind the Prime Minister's words "moral" not "legal". The first issue on the terms of reference of the working party is to investigate the circumstances surrounding the collapse. In fairness PCI did not cause this despite the fact that they promoted it and are inextricably linked although not legally. They are investigating the collapse not PCI. During the course of the HM Treasury review and a debate in the House of Commons on 12 June 2009 the need for Societies (the PMS was named)to make absolutely clear to their members the "nature of their investment" was highlighted. I believe that tells us that the Politicans are well aware that PMS savers were kept in the dark as to what was being done with their money without being consulted.

Lester_F

KingVardas wrote: »

Some people do talk a lot of rot. Toast and Butter, I suggest, has got it spot on. If a newspaper critcises someone such as an Administrator for failing to disclose something which in law he is not allowed to disclose, then that is defamatory of the Administrator. It's not press censorship. Everyone, including forum members, are entitled to an opinion - but only opinions based on the facts are worth a damn. I note this forum is not moderated so, as I've advised before, if you don't know the facts or don't understand the law in this regard, you'd be advised not to say anything. No doubt the Administrator's smart lawyers read the forum too. I haven't seen what the Telegraph wrote but if they apologised, you can bet they got it wrong. And the reason you probably can't find the orginal article on line is that the paper will have pulled it. If you do have the article and you POST IN ON THIS FORUM, be warned - by knowingly repeating a libel you, too, are liable.

None of our opinions are "worth a damn" to use one of your angry little phrases King Vardas. However, in the context of this forum, everyone's opinion is worthy.

I laughed out loud when I read your warning on libel. This is the Internet, we can post on this forum from any country on earth. We can register without using our names and addresses. The internet cannot be policed.

If someone posted the article referred to it would be pulled by the site on receipt of a complaint. No further action would be taken. NOBODY GETS SUED FOR WHAT THEY SAY ON THIS SITE in these circumstances.

D.A.

Lester_F wrote: »

NOBODY GETS SUED FOR WHAT THEY SAY ON THIS SITE in these circumstances.

I think if you look, you'll find exactly that scenario has happened on other sites...

HOPE

D.A. wrote: »

I think if you look, you'll find exactly that scenario has happened on other sites...

D.A and KingVardas are quite right and libel on the internet includes forums. I do not believe that KingVardas means or indeed even suggested that none of our opinions are worth a damn but is merely advising to stick to the facts and act within the law. We should be grateful not critical.

Toastandbutter

What is perhaps more important than how much libel you can get away with on this site is the fact that committing libel, as a rule of thumb, is an excercise in disinformation/defamation or "lies".

Why would you want to test how much disininformation you can get away with in front of folks who are looking for the truth ref PMS?

If you can prove factually in court that what you have written is truth, any libel action falls flat. They generally stand quite opposed to each other.

What it boils down to in this case is that the administrator is legally prevented from publishing his report on the PMS directors. To contradict this is factually wrong and potentially defaming his character.

Aside from the threat of libel, why would anyone want to avoid these facts?