NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

anotherDonald

Toastandbutter wrote: »

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?

There is too much about this whole case which is being covered up and suppressed.
You have to ask yourself why that is?
It seems that the savers, who are the victims in all this, are going to be forever denied the right to know what exactly happened, who made the decisions, who received the loans. Whilst the authors of this crisis walk away unidentified. and unapologetic.
Tell me, where is the justice in that?

D.A.

anotherDonald wrote: »

There is too much about this whole case which is being covered up and suppressed.

You can't blame the administrator or anyone else for this though, except for whichever politicians made the law in the first place. If you don't agree with the law, then lobby to get it changed for the future.

I'm guessing though that the Administrator's reason for getting the court order was actually to protect the privacy of savers, rather than out of any real desire to cover anything up (what exactly would the administrator have to gain by covering anything up anyhow?).

warmhands.coldheart

jon_groovy wrote: »

This has all gone very quiet.
Where is the christian attitude in hiding away and saying nothing.

Not the Christian way but does seem to be the "Presbyterian Way"
Don't make a fuss, Don't speak out, Keep everything Private.......

KingVardas

D.A. wrote: »

You can't blame the administrator or anyone else for this though, except for whichever politicians made the law in the first place. If you don't agree with the law, then lobby to get it changed for the future.

I'm guessing though that the Administrator's reason for getting the court order was actually to protect the privacy of savers, rather than out of any real desire to cover anything up (what exactly would the administrator have to gain by covering anything up anyhow?).

Guys
I have some experience of administrations which is why I was trying to be helpful. An Adminsitrator is actually an Officer of the Court because his appointment is confirmed by the Highg Court and ultimately the Court oversees the Administration. You will see a Court case number on your documents. So claims of a cover up or supressing info are just plain daft, and a bit dangerous.
I am sure DA is right about the court order designed to ensure that financial details of all 10000 savers were not available for public and media scrutiny. Normally in a company administration the names of creditors are listed in an administration report along with how much they are owed etc. I guess most people would want to avoid that. The Court obviously agreed and granted the Order.
In England an Administrator or insolvency pracitioner has to make a report to the DTI on the conduct of directors prior to Administration so that DTI can decide if it needs to prosecute them for any breaches of company law - such as trading on when they knew they were involvent, or issuing dud cheques etc. I believe it is exactly the same in NI. The reason, I believe, that the Administrator's report cannot legally be disclosed to anyone other than the govt departement receiving it is actually to allow the administrator an element of protection so that he feels free to say what he wants to say. The whole point of insolvency legislation is to protect and help creditors - a point which a small minority on this forum seem not to understand.

anotherDonald

KingVardas wrote: »

Guys
So claims of a cover up or supressing info are just plain daft, and a bit dangerous.

There you go with the barely veiled threats again!

Are we not allowed to ask questions?

Thanks for the patronising info
But we are all aware of the reason for the High Court order to protect the identity of the savers.

But why is the identity of the borrowers being hidden?
Why no creditors committee?
It would appear that the rules of insolvency have been changed in our case.
Are we not allowed to ponder just where OUR money has gone, and why the loans criteria changed?

Or should we just sit on our hands like good little Presbyterians and keep quiet, while the great and good sort it out.

I don't think so!

irishjohn

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20164

Gordon Brown has responded to the petition, with a politician's answer - lots of words - no substance.

HOPE

Thank you for useful post. I would not want my finiancial details disclosed to all and sundry.

Toastandbutter

another Donald;-

All the PMS directors are identified in the first report.

I sympathise with your desire to know more. A creditors committee may yet happen. Have you explored what rights as a shareholder you have to see PMS records? Have you got a copy of all recent annual reports?

Having said that, isnt the big picture clear?

Money swamped into the PMS in vast volumes, up to £320 million. The directors had little experience in running a bank. Deposit guarantees for actual banks were ramped up to £50k. Banks exploited the weakness in the PMS and started a panic;- presto,a run and administration. The slump in the property market has perhaps doubled the size of the gap in finances.

I dont mean this in a derogatory fashion, but you could probably fill in the gaps by imagining the typical Presbyterian mood/values/attitudes seen at any Presbyterian committee, but that is just a personal opinion.

Toastandbutter

also another donald, I believe the identity of several key borrowers has already made it into public domain via the courts.

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-saver-forces-Treasury-climbdown.5507861.jp