NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

no_more_f.w.o

D.A. wrote: »

Err, I think you'll find you're referring to a different Moderator. You do realise they changed last week?

Err
Norman Hamilton, who despite having £200 in PMS told William Crawley back in March (interview no longer online) that he had little knowledge of PMS. He presumably received all correspondence from A. Boyd, had spoken to some of his colleagues/congregation, and had read the newspapers?

Thanks for your input

Toastandbutter

Joy Likes to Shop

I too thank Ink for his comments to date and hope he continues to contribute to the forum.

The problem is when he comes out with defamatory claims against a newspaper in claiming that it published an "inaccurate" report of the General Assembly and then fails to justify his claims, well, I dont think that can go unchallenged.

T&B

Toastandbutter

fyi the General Assembly also heard this year that ministers had agreed by consultation to retain their defined benefits pensions in preference to the defined contribution alternatives.

Flinflon

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Joy Likes to Shop

I too thank Ink for his comments to date and hope he continues to contribute to the forum.

The problem is when he comes out with defamatory claims against a newspaper in claiming that it published an "inaccurate" report of the General Assembly and then fails to justify his claims, well, I dont think that can go unchallenged.

T&B

Some interesting points raised by T & B in postings 4004 and 4005. I have a passing interest in seeing Ink's reply to T & B's quite specific questions but...
Let's not get into side issues re "defamatory." It's a legal term (like libel), and any news organisation knows its reports are open to comment, analysis and--yes--misinterpretation or inaccurate quoting, if such there be. But it's rare, extremely rare, in this part of the world for a media operation to go to the wall against such claims. Seems to me that T & B's allegation re "defamatory" is somewhat petty, given the interesting points raised. Besides, talk of defamation and the like can have a chilling effect upon those who have little experience or knowledge of the creature. Let's move on, folks.
By the way, I've just received the administrator's six-month report in the post. Anyone read it yet? Any surprises?

joylikes2shop

Flinflon wrote: »

Let's move on, folks.

By the way, I've just received the administrator's six-month report in the post. Anyone read it yet? Any surprises?

http://www.presbyterianmutualsociety.co.uk/files/Administrator's_Progress_Report_June_2010.pdf

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-savers-opposed-to-hardship.6372540.jp

expat68

joylikes2shop wrote: »

http://www.presbyterianmutualsociety.co.uk/files/Administrator's_Progress_Report_June_2010.pdf

Is anyone co-ordinating nominations for the creditors committee - risk may be that Howie and co. dominate the proceedings and force an early wind up ?

I still calculate a £70-80m shortfall on the current valuation numbers which would take up to 10 years to recover from rental income and lease property value increases.

Toastandbutter

ink wrote: »

I'm not sure what Presbyterian General Assembly the writer of the News Letter story was at yesterday, but it certainly seems to have been one in a parallel universe to the one I was at.

It's disappointing when the News Letter has so often given good, factual coverage to the PMS situation, that they should be inaccurate with today's story.

Let me give you the shortened version of what I saw happen.
An amendment asking ministers to contribute their CMF bonus "as long as necessary" to any future hardship fund instead of issuing a general appeal (which was the original resolution) was put forward.

A few elders (not ministers) spoke to oppose it, believing that it was wasn't right for ministers exclusively to take the hit when 'we are all in this together'. One or two ministers did express reservations that the resolution might pressurise ministers who were finding things tough financially, to feel they had to contribute even though it would have put them under unacceptable financial strain.

Everyone was in agreement that we did not want to send a message that the ministers weren't willing to be first to put their money into a hardship fund. If the elders had voted against the amendment, it might have looked that way.

There was some to-ing and fro-ing to find a form of words which might be acceptable to overcome these genuine reservations.

The proposer of the amendment withdrew his specific proposal to leave the way open for a more general proposal, which read,

"That the General Assembly authorise the General Board when and if appropriate to ask ministers to contribute voluntarily what they judge they can afford to give a lead in raising the promised contribution agreed at the Special Assembly."

It was hoped that those ruling elders who had problems with the first amendment, could accept this because it was still allowing for an appeal to the wider church and allowing others to contribute to a hardship fund.

As for the 'clergy being divided' as the headline in the News Letter says-
First, we don't have 'clergy' in the PCI- we have teaching elders (usually called ministers) and ruling elders, each with a vote. The vote was taken on this resolution by secret ballot. There were 274 'for' and 164 'against'. How many for or against were teaching elders or ruling elders, no-one knows! Anyone who suggests they know is merely speculating.

This was only a vote on whether this amendment should become the Assembly's resolution. When it had been carried and was put to the Assembly as the 'substantive resolution' (i.e. what the Assembly definitely wanted to say) it was agreed with no-one voting against.

I know this all sounds convoluted and you are already dropping off by now but like it, loathe it, understand it or not (I fall into this last category on many occasions) that's the procedure.

What PMS savers should take away from that part of the General Assembly is that there are many ministers in PCI, who are willing to pray and pastor and to give what they can to a hardship fund. The fact a hardship fund wasn't set up by PCI right at the beginning of the crisis or since, isn't because ministers won't support it.

The other important thing to remember, is that this was a vote on a hypothetical situation which may never happen. The General Assembly called on the new government "to consider the situation of the PMS savers as a matter of utmost urgency and to ensure that, as for all other savers in the United Kingdom, their savings are returned in full."

With the positive sounds coming from the new Westminster Government, the delegates at the Assembly were urged to continue to support the ongoing lobbying, which I know many ministers will do.

Any of you who've read my previous posts will know that I haven't been shy at having a go at PCI when I think they've messed up. But this is one occasion when the phrase 'getting a bad press' is justified. Many ministers are very aware of their responsibilities and will be continuing to support PMS savers, whatever the cost to us personally.

Flinflon

Thanks for your comments ~4013

I am happy to close the issue now with this comment.

Despite repeated requests over the past 10 days, Rev Ink has failed to even attempt to back up his claim that the newspaper report of the General Assembly debate on the PMS was "inaccurate" and from "a parallel universe".

I note the paper in question is still running the report unaltered and without apology;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Clergy-divided-on-PMS-bonus.6353046.jp

T&B

Toastandbutter

Oh and Rev Ink

The News Letter report makes it clear that the opposition to donating bonuses was led by the ministers and supported by the elders.

Not the other way round.

I am not taking a position on what ministers should or should not do. Not my place to say.

But I am saying your version of events is factually wrong and misleading, as you can see from the hyperlink in my previous post.

It was not the elders who led the objections, it was the ministers.

T&B

waitinginhope

I have decided to contribute to this forum in the hope that my comments will cause offence to no one.

I have been off line for several months and looked forward to getting back to the forum as I had found it a source of support and
and information. I have been surprised to fnd that contributors to the forum have dropped which is sad.

This P.M.S. debacle has continued now for way too long and the suffering goes on - in saying this I make no distinction between Shareholders and Loan Holders we are all suffering some more than others and as John McFall said we are in this mess through no fault of our own.

We all have received the Administrators Report with the nominating form. I feel the procedure for nominating will certainly put a lot of people off

I want to say I have read some comments on the forum about the Court Case and feel I would like to make a few points.