NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Lester_F

Grrrandad wrote: »

I understood at the outset that the main purpose of this site was to advise, inform and generally support all those who were caught up in the PMS downfall - for whatever reason, Lester F seems to be more concerned with 'baiting' and having a go at Silent Witness ( I notice that there are no messages of Thanks after this most recent post).

I am neither a legal boffin or well educated in legal matters, but it would appear to me that the recent court ruling, that savers with under £20,000 would not benefit from the £20 million carve up, seems to have focussed the First/Deputy First Ministers on those very savers much more than would have been the case before - in that sense a result of sorts surely??

We still do not know the final details but at least it gives us a glimmer of hope - as Lester F seems to know the identity of SW could I suggest that he has the courage of his convictions and makes direct contact with him in relation to answers he so desperately seeks.

It would be nice if Grandad was right. However, I don't put much faith in either Mr. Robinson or Mr. McGuinness, not to mention Mr. Brown to sort out the PMS crisis.

No one cares as much about PMS savers as Irish Presbyterians do; or should do. That is what is so disappointing about Silent Witness's actions as a trustee of the Howie Christian Charitable Trust. I have no issue with his actions as a lawyer and trustee of the HCCT. The issue for me is that he occupies the highest position in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland; elder. Silent Witness is a "bishop" of the church and he also occupies the symbolic and priviliged postion of Trustee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. He has in my opinion shown a lack of moral leadership on this issue.

It is possible to act according with the civil law and at the same also fail to show moral leadership.

I knew only one other trustee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland; T.S. Mooney. T.S. loved the church and I don't believe that T.S. would have condoned Silent Witness's actions in the context of the leadership position he occupies in the PCI as an elder and Trustee of the G.A. of PCI.

The solution I would suggest, is for Silent Witness to resign as an elder and trustee of the G.A. of PCI and continue to pursue the legal interests of Ernest Howie and the HCCT. Then there would be no conflict of interest.

Like you Grandad I choose to maintain my anonimity. To Silent Witness's credit he has revealed his identity. Joylikestoshop and Betrayed have also also done so and this takes some courage.

goodbyepci

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100331/tuk-church-to-discuss-investors-help-f858358.html

ink

I'm a PCI minister who has just been catching up on the latest posts after receiving my notification of the Special Meeting of the General Assembly.
While I understand why our Moderator may have written what he did in the article for the Belfast Telegraph, I have to disagree with him on one point.
I don't think it is the 'members in the pews' who should pay any share of compensation coming from PCI. I have always believed that if this needed to happen, it should be the ministers (retired and currently serving) who should provide the finance. We are the ones who included the PMS in our resolutions without fully looking into how it was being run. Some of the directors of PMS were ministers. We are the ones who should pay, not the 'average person in the pew'.
At the very least, it might go some way to showing that we are genuinely sorry for our past mistakes and the lack of strong leadership we should have collectively shown on this issue from the start.
I don't know the sums involved and it might be that PCI as a whole would have to provide the money 'up-front'. But it could be repaid by ministers taking a pay cut (or a reduction in pension for retired ministers) until the money was back in church funds.
I hope someone else thinks of this and proposes it because the very thought of standing at the front of the General Assembly, even if I was saying nothing, gives me the shakes!!

D.A.

jon_groovy wrote: »

You my friend are in the minority among PCI ministers, but I welcome you honesty and integrity which is lacking among most PCI ministers.

Any chance you could shake up Church House and put strong managers with real business experience in there while you're at it? ;-)

P.S. Am I just overly-cynical, or is it just a remarkable coincidence that this 'rescue package' has emerged just in time for the election?

Lester_F

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/76AA33F0-AC87-45F8-97C3-CDCD4353F151/0/j_j_DEE7734final.htm

Lester_F

Silent_Witness wrote: »

The sole purpose of the involvement by The Howie Christian Charitable Trust in the Chancery Court Proceedings is to enable the issue of whether the Administrator can lawfully treat both shareholders and creditors alike in the distribution of the assets of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

Below is how the Judge described Ernest Howie's legal action taken from the link attached to my last post.

Mr Stephen Shaw Q.C. led Mr Jonathan Dunlop for the administrator. Thomas Ernest Howie is a gentleman who had transferred a sum in excess of £600,000 to the benefit of a charitable trust. I was informed from the Bar that this trust was for the purposes of providing orphanages and schools in Africa. Early in 2009 Mr Howie became aware that Mr Boyd wished to distribute monies, when he was in a position to pay a dividend, to two classes of persons. The class to which Mr Howie’s trust belonged were those who had lent money to the Society as loan capital and who received interest upon those monies. The Society was not entitled to take deposits like a bank but interest was paid in a way similar to that of a bank or building society. There is no dispute that people in that capacity, who together have invested about £200m in the Society, are entitled to participate in a dividend as creditors. However, Mr Howie was unhappy with the administrator’s proposal that the dividends should be distributed pari passu not only to the loan capital holders but to those with withdrawable share capital in the company, the value of whose investments totals some £100m.

Yes, that's right Ernest Howie was UNHAPPY with the Administrator's proposal to treat shareholders and loan holders equally.

Will getting 12% of his precious money make him happy? Will getting it all back over time make him happy?

goodbyepci

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/viewpoint/from-the-darkness-into-the-easter-light-14754027.html

Lester_F

jon_groovy wrote: »

...
So what if Ernest Howie has a position within PCI, he is only doing what PCI have done from day one. He is taken his lead from the very top within PCI by acting in his own interests...

If you have problems with ernest, then you should have problems with the heirarchy of pci.

Ernest Howie is not a Presbyterian.

Ballygal

Can we not focus back folk on what we can do at the moment!!
While my recent relationship with PCI has been limited to complaining by post to the Moderator,as i was at my mum's yesterday i felt obliged to go with her to church! There was information from the pulpit on the PMS. All were asked to pray between now and next week when the 'extraordinary assembly meeting' takes place in Church House. No change there then I hear you say!!
But I now know that each minister plus the representative elder is to attend the meeting (which is what happens at the General Assembly) but plus 1 other member of session-- So that is 3 people per church.
Apparently there will be more detailed information regarding the FM &DFM's recent proposal given out on Wednesday this week.
So I propose to look at some of my old letters that would be relevant and print off 3 copies (or ammend them to bring them up to date with my emotions!) and send them to the minister, one for each rep. I want to remind the local reps what i am owed, the impact the PMS saga has had on me personally and to my family's life and how important it is that the church takes on it's responsibility to us PMSers. Hopefully this may influence their attitude at the proceedings --i feel it can do no harm. I suggest you do the same or can you think of anything else we can do? Anybody going to watch from the gallery?

Grrrandad

Lester_F wrote: »

It would be nice if Grandad was right. However, I don't put much faith in either Mr. Robinson or Mr. McGuinness, not to mention Mr. Brown to sort out the PMS crisis.

No one cares as much about PMS savers as Irish Presbyterians do; or should do. That is what is so disappointing about Silent Witness's actions as a trustee of the Howie Christian Charitable Trust. I have no issue with his actions as a lawyer and trustee of the HCCT. The issue for me is that he occupies the highest position in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland; elder. Silent Witness is a "bishop" of the church and he also occupies the symbolic and priviliged postion of Trustee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. He has in my opinion shown a lack of moral leadership on this issue.

It is possible to act according with the civil law and at the same also fail to show moral leadership.

I knew only one other trustee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland; T.S. Mooney. T.S. loved the church and I don't believe that T.S. would have condoned Silent Witness's actions in the context of the leadership position he occupies in the PCI as an elder and Trustee of the G.A. of PCI.

The solution I would suggest, is for Silent Witness to resign as an elder and trustee of the G.A. of PCI and continue to pursue the legal interests of Ernest Howie and the HCCT. Then there would be no conflict of interest.

Like you Grandad I choose to maintain my anonimity. To Silent Witness's credit he has revealed his identity. Joylikestoshop and Betrayed have also also done so and this takes some courage.

It is not my intention to become entangled in something which I feel is becoming a personal vendetta, and I may be totally wrong, but I honestly think ( and sincerely hope) that the smaller savers are beginning to move centre stage in the struggle to reach a solution to our problems.

Like Lester F, I am familiar with and had the greatest respect for T.S. Mooney, having listened to him speaking on many occasions. Furthermore, I am pretty sure had he been a PMS saver and got a 'tip off' about the impending trouble, he would have cared enough about others not to rush in and take his money out (as obviously many other caring Irish Presbyterians did) leaving the rest of us stranded.

I am not aware of having read a post in which Silent Witness 'revealed' his identity, however, I have read posts in which Lester F has allegedly 'uncovered' SW's identity. From a personal point of view, names mean nothing, being a saver in the PMS is a private decision I took - I wouldn't want close members of my family to know, and worry, about the fact that I stand to lose all of the benefits I accrued from working for over 40 years.

My hope is that we will receive good news soon that will not only bring an end to our worries but also put a stop to 'all finger pointing' and bad feeling