NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Flinflon

Donaghadee meeting is Tuesday, Oct. 6 at 8 pm at same location - Shore Street Presbyterian Church. See you there!

joylikes2shop

Thanks to a 'heads up' from Belfastgran,I've just found the following iplayer link to this mornings 'Good Morning Ulster' programme where Lionel Barber -editor of the Financial Times - is interviewed at about 1-55 into the programme.

At around 1-59 he is asked about the PMS issue....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n48r7/Good_Morning_Ulster_05_10_2009/

Time to start writing to Mr Barber to get his correspondent 'onto it' ASAP ???

thanks Belfastgran :T

Lester_F

HOPE wrote: »

I think luck will have a lot to do with it!! We are lucky that the government have stepped in at all to even consider helping us all bearing in mind that the PMS was not properly regulated and as a result has left us with no access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. By doing so the government is setting a precedence in that all the other financial institutions bailed out were covered but not us.

Also since 2000 the Accountants responsible for the PMS must have been paid in the region of £60,000 out of our money and for what? Yes the Directors had a responsibility and must take share of the blame but what of the Accountants who had a legal duty to ensure that the rules and objectives of the PMS were adherred to and why did they fail to ensure that the PMS was properly regulated? One must ask exactly what were the accountants doing? Lest we forget, they remain under investigation, the result of which has not yet been published. As for suing Directors - it would be like trying to take blood from a stone. Even with insurance I do not think there would be near enough money to go round.

Our best option is government help.

Moore Stephens accountants audited the PMS books. This job was done professionally and at a reasonable price.

Hope is out of order in his comments about Moore Stephens. He has, without any evidence accused them or failing in their legal / fudicary duty towards the PMS.

Toastandbutter

new story about meeting with Pearson;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-savers-to-meet-working.5705587.jp

HOPE

LESTER F

Simply stating legal requirements of Accountants.

You will note I have not made specific allegations of wrong doing.

We have to await the outcome of the ongoing investigation to confirm that or otherwise.

ballyblack

Belfast tele today

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/little-hope-offered-to-pms-savers-14523185.html

joylikes2shop

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Churchs-PMS-report-submitted-to.5709666.jp

ballyblack

NEWS LETTER today

Treasury tells PMS savers of obstacles


http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Treasury-tells-PMS-savers-of.5714483.jp

BelfastGran

Thank You to the two people who went the Treasury to see Ian Pearson in their own time and at their own expence.

I know these two people are also thinking of those elderly people who are at their wits end and do not know where to turn to get information about their very hard earned savings.

Flinflon

Despite nearly a year of remaining hopeful, I must say I now share the doubt expressed by jon_groovy. Since early summer we rested our innocent hopes on the idea that September would bring some answer to this whole mess. In reality, though, September never was an ironclad promise. In fact, with what we should know (from our own experience with the slow movement of government in so many cases), many of us were naive to pin our hopes on a quick and satisfying settlement. Now we read in the press that the EU has a direct interest in what the government may propose. Why weren’t we informed of this earlier? Again, another instance of non-communication with us by the people who knew—or should have known. I suspect, in fact, that Brussels may even have some veto power if the government’s proposal is not to its liking. So yet another level of bureaucracy (for which, read “delay”) imposes itself in the process. And will the proposal set a precedent? Savers... meet the government solicitors: It will take them considerable research (for which, read “delay”) to determine that risk of precedent, if any. And as for the Presbyterian Church itself? Don’t make me laugh! The News Letter story says the PCI’s own representatives have made “strong recommendations” to the PM’s working group, but it won’t tell us what those recommendations are. Why not? How secretive, how cosy this has become among those people in power, religious or political. Wake up, savers: Stop sitting on your hands and instead take some initiative at your congregation, presbytery and local political level. Your lack of initiative is helping nobody at all. And remember: There’s an election coming. It may well suit the Labour government to keep postponing action on the PMS and instead leave the whole mess to be sorted (and, guess what: delayed) by the Tories, assuming they win. As for the losers in this...dust off your mirrors.