NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

joylikes2shop

Thank you to the editor of The Presbyterian Herald this month for publishing the following letter,from a PMS saver, ...


Herald unfair to PMS savers

Dear sir

Extensive coverage was provided in the July/ August edition of the Herald to remarks by the moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, regarding the Presbyterian Mutual Society, now in administration, however not a single word was evident from any savers - the people most affected by this serious matter. Nor was there a single, direct quote from a politician, though it is they who have been trying to solve this problem.

This lack of balance and fairness by the Herald is a serious issue.

People had gathered by the dozens, in public, outside the general assembley in June to accuse their church of abandonment and betrayal.

That,sir, was a rare, and embarrassing incident. But nowhere in the Herald did we see a single contribution from any of those protesters to explain their concern and their need to display it in such a radial manner.

This, despite the extensive coverage of the protest by the mainline news media, which included interviews with the protesters and/ or savers.

Where was the Herald? Where were the demonstrators' opinions and anxiety reflected in our publication of record? Nowhere.
That is reprehensible. No wonder they feel betrayed - by the pms, the church, and now the Herald.

S.R.
Templepartick

Lester_F

joylikes2shop wrote: »

Thank you to the editor of The Presbyterian Herald this month for publishing the following letter,from a PMS saver, ...


Herald unfair to PMS savers

Dear sir

Extensive coverage was provided in the July/ August edition of the Herald to remarks by the moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, regarding the Presbyterian Mutual Society, now in adminsteration, however not a single word was evident from any savers - the people most affected by this serious matter. Nor was there a single, direct quote from a politicion, though it is they who have been trying to solve this problem.

This lack of balance and fairness by the Herald is a serious issue.

People had gathered by the dozens, in public, outside the general assembley in June to accuse their church of abandonment and betrayal.

That,sir, was a rare, and embarressing incident. But nowhere in the Herald did we see a single contribution from any of those protesters to explain their concern and their need to display it in such a radial manner.

This, despite the extensive coverage of the protest by the mainline news media, which included interviews with the protesters and/ or savers.

Where was the Herald? Where were the demonstrators' opinions and anxiety reflected in our publication of record? Nowhere.
That is reprehensible. No wonder they feel betrayed - by the pms, the church, and now the Herald.

S.R.

Templepartick

Am I right in thinking that the editor of the Presbyterian Herald is Stephen Lynas and that he also has responsibility for PR within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland?

It is my understanding that the PR office at Church house together with the clerk of the General Assembly, the then Moderator, the General Assembly's solicitor, and the secretary and directors of the PMS worked together back in the Autumn of 2008 on what the church's response would be on the mismanagement and subsequent run on the PMS.

They made a real mess of that!

I am not surprised that the Herald's coverage is perceived as one sided. The Editor is a Church House insider.

Toastandbutter

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Hmmm.

Wasnt this an interesting article back in August, when the forum was pretty quiet?

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Minister-regulated-PMS-before.5536130.jp


THE minister leading HM Treasury's response to the troubled Presbyterian Mutual Society, ie Ian Pearson, was once in charge of a review of its regulation in Northern Ireland as Enterprise Minister. And indeed a number of Labour ministers after him also sat in the seat, overseeing the PMS as registrar.

Irony of ironies. Mr Pearson is now the Treasury minister with responsibility for the PMS issue....and the Treasury has been giving lectures on where everything went wrong over here with the PMS...

TUV leader Jim Allister QC took issue with the Treasury minister.

"Ian Pearson was charged in 2003 as DETINI Minister with reviewing the legislation to see if it was adequate," he said.

"But now in 2009 as Treasury minister he says it is not adequate and must be reviewed.

" In 2003 he ought to have been looking to see if the legislation was adequate.
[SIZE=+0]"I believe the Government has been at fault with regards to the plight of the PMS and the majority of that blame lies pre-devolution.”[/SIZE]



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

ballyblack

todays newsletter

PMS report will go to Brown 'on schedule'



http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-report-will-go-to.5638715.jp

Dr._Who_2

No doubt we could all theorize on who knew what and when they knew it!!
I happen to strongly believe that Church House folk knew a lot at an early stage in all of this - I always feel that "coming clean" when you've been caught out is a good thing to do. However, "coming cleaning" before you are caught out is an even better thing to do. Whole thing disastrously handled!!
Too late now to explain anything - but I would still like to know what legal advice the Clerk of the General Assembly was given in light of the fact that, for years, the General Assembly had passed resolutions on PMS - if the PMS resolutions can be so easily explained away why, then, should people like me listen to anything that is passed by the General Assembly.
Conspiracy theories abound where there is no hard information - and that was the problem all along. Hopefully we'll get some hard information soon - this next report should be out in a few weeks time, shouldn't it.

totallyletdown

I think the coalation and all its secrecy has begun to kill this forum. Its a pity because i know of a lot of people who drew a lot of comfort from this forum.

BETRAYED

totallyletdown wrote: »

I think the coalation and all its secrecy has begun to kill this forum. Its a pity because i know of a lot of people who drew a lot of comfort from this forum.

I fully understand your comments regarding this forum.
It has been a lifeline of information for people over the past year.
Please understand that the PMS Savers' Coalition is not a group of people acting in secrecy.
I am one who attends their meetings. I also am chairperson of my local Community Assn. and of our community's Senior Citizens' Assn. Several of our members are members of PMS. I am very aware of the hardship, uncertainty and anxiety that prevailed over the past year.
The Coalition is working for every member of PMS.
We have been asked not to post certain information on this forum in case we in any way damage the Working Party's attempt to bring forward a resolution.
We (the Coalition) have met with different people to find out what is going on.
I do not want to state that we have been told lies but it is my opinion some of those we met were very ' economical with the truth' .
Personally I think that there may be some announcement re. Working Party this week or next. Please be patient.

joylikes2shop

totallyletdown wrote: »

I think the coalation and all its secrecy has begun to kill this forum. Its a pity because i know of a lot of people who drew a lot of comfort from this forum.

I must agree with most of your comments....and I am part of the 'PMS Savers Coalition !!!
I've been worried recently that in my attempt to try to explain how the coalition came about,and to share information, I have actually caused more suspicion and ill feeling than transparency.If this is the case I am so sorry.

All I would ask anyone still following this forum to know , and judging by the daily number of 'views',there are still quite a number, is that any 'secrecy' is not intentional.
The group,who until a few months ago,did not know each other, have been brought together purely because of the current PMS crisis.
The members of the Coalition have not elected by anyone and have not ever tried to suggest that we represent anyone other than ourselves or our family members....I have purely shared 'our' news on the forum to let others know what we have found out ......
Some people work full time and fit it what PMS stuff we can in addition to work and family commitments and some are more computer literate than others.None of us have the 'know how' to set up a web site which could be used to bring savers together.
Please also remember that we cannot put our personal contact details on this forum...I've tried twice before to give out my joylikes2shop hotmail address in order to try to make getting in contact with me more easy, but on both occasions the posts were removed by the MSE administrators for 'breach of the forum rules'.I've even contacted the local MSE forum guide to see if there's any way around this under the circumstances....but there's not.

Must do school run now..will post more on my return....

joylikes2shop

totallyletdown wrote: »

I think the coalation and all its secrecy has begun to kill this forum. Its a pity because i know of a lot of people who drew a lot of comfort from this forum.

Last week I received an email from one of my PMS friends who in the course of the email made the following forthright comments on the coalition!

"I must admit i feel since the coalition came into being there seems to be a lack of cohesion within our so called community of savers. With nothing on the forum --AND i think that may be because the forum members feel the coalition have taken over the cause it leaves us ordinary forum members without a voice and low morale!

I am speaking very honestly to you Joy in the hope that you will take it back to your coalition meeting.
If the coalition don't have a open meeting soon where others can attend and actually hear what they are doing, the coalition run the risk of alienating the very people they are working so hard for!
The coalition need to know they are speaking (and can speak to the press, or the administator, or the PCI) from a position of power as the official representatives of the savers.
At the moment we ordinary folk don't know who are the members of the coalition. I know you are and i know the names of a few others from a photograph in the News Letter but people could say ''why do they think they can speak on behalf of us when they haven't been elected. We don't know who they represent, we don't know how they are accountable to the savers , or how they intend to report back to the savers.'' All these things need to be clear and transparent to everyone before you can speak on camera or TV as representing the savers!

People have been asking for a meeting for many months. I know people are scared of the possible numbers that could attend but i think as most of the savers are elderly there would not be as many as people think.
It could be that people would have to register their interest before they attend and that way there could be control of those attending"


My reply to the above email included the following.....

It's really good to see all your comments and thoughts...I'm sure they are typical of many people.

'Everyone' has been wanting a meeting since November...Since the Administrator hasn't organised one, if we - the PMS savers - were now to try to organise it between ourselves,to do it in even a semi-organised way, we'd need some idea of numbers of people likely to attend and some idea of what locations would be needed in order to locate suitable venues....

Unless suitable venues are available free of charge, the organisers would left footing the bill - hardly fair bearing in mind they've all a lot of money tied up in the PMS at the moment....

How would such a meeting be advertised anyhow ??? - MSE forum ( as long as this doesn't go against forum rules !!) would be free, but in reality would only reach a small percentage of those people affected.

To place an advert in paper would costs £??'s.... Who should pay for this ?.....

The Newsletter MIGHT be able to do an article promoting meetings. This presumably wouldn't cost anything...but would the paper even be able to include this type of thing in its reporting ??

Finance for any meetings would be needed,and some sort of committee or group would need to be set up to help with organising and the preparations....

A flyer would need to be available for everyone at the meeting, including the aim of the meeting, and including contact phone numbers and e-mail address etc

Another committee or group - would be needed to be available for media interviews before and after the meeting.

And finally,in order to prepare a list of all contacts, and a list of all the congregations we should contact etc another committee or group would be needed.



I'm disapointed that the PMS savers coalition (or maybe just my posts ...) seem to have 'killed' this forum and have been viewed in such a negative way. Remember,we are a small group of people who only came together for the first time in August.We have been doing what we can for ourselves and family with money in the PMS. I thought that by sharing what information we came across on either the forum or by email would be a viewed in positive way.Seems I was being very nieve.

irishjohn

Please also remember that we cannot put our personal contact details on this forum...I've tried twice before to give out my joylikes2shop hotmail address in order to try to make getting in contact with me more easy, but on both occasions the posts were removed by the MSE administrators for 'breach of the forum rules'.I've even contacted the local MSE forum guide to see if there's any way around this under the circumstances....but there's not.

Must do school run now..will post more on my return....[/QUOTE]

Joy

Is there anyone in the Coalition or reading the forum who could perhaps point the way to setting up a website to complement this forum, on which email addresses and so on could be posted. If not that then maybe a Facebook group or something. Its important to respect the terms and conditions of this forum and this does prevent some detaiils being posted but if there were another place on the Net where information could be placed then that could help you with setting up a public meeting.

Perhaps there are some people who could get a sympathetic church to offer their hall for a meeting? A vote could be set up on this thread to ask for possible numbers etc - there can be ways round the problems which seem insurmountable at the moment.

John