大象传媒

The performance of the Presbyterian Church to date and their efforts at washing their hands of any responsibility is lamentable.

The FSA needs to become involved as not only the Church, individual ministers and elders have quite clearly encouraged their fellow Presbyterians to invest even though most were not qualified to give such advice.

Also I look forward to the Administrator publishing details of the names of investors whose actions brought about the collapse.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.....do the government's gaurentees on savings not apply here ???????????? or am I missing something ?????

Surely the NI assembly should be pressing the PM to make sure that all those with savings in the PMS shouldn't be out of pocket ??????? The government was able to do this with those who had investments in Icelandic banks for example. Surely the same should apply in this case, irrispective of where the PMS had invested it's money ?????? Those who deposited savings in the PMS should not be having sleepless nights.

Or maybe it's because of the fact that it's Norn Iron, nobody across the water gives a damn.

Bushmill_1608-

You say:

"The performance of the Presbyterian Church to date and their efforts at washing their hands of any responsibility is lamentable."

Could you please set out what exactly you think the PCI is responsible FOR?

Peter-

Those who deposited savings in the PMS should not be having sleepless nights."

I'm not sure anybody is entitled to a good nights' sleep. All investments carry risks, and sometimes the result is some sleepless nights. If you don't want sleepless nights, don't invest. :-)

John re comment number 3
To answer your question above with the facts that I am aware of.......
The PCI has actively encouraged Presbyterians to invest in PMS, through their magazine, advice from ministers (there have been several examples), links to its website and an original shared office. I am sure you are aware of the resolutions at the last two General Assemblys congratulating the work of the PMS and encouraging congregations and individuals to avail themselves of its services.
Despite their trying to debate the meaning of the words "avail" and "encourage" the two Donald's cannot deny that Presbyterians were actively encouraged to save with the PMS.
It was a good system........a good interest rate for savers, ethical investment, and the PCI had the advantages of their own "bank", and I am careful not to use that word in any legal way!
Congregations and individuals could borrow at very good rates of interest, so it really was of mutual benefit, just like it says on the tin.
The problem has been that since the run on the PMS the PCI has definitely sought to distance itself from the Society which it was pleased to be associated with in the past.
This is the point which has troubled investors more than anything.

Why was the link to the PMS removed from the PCI Board of Home Mission website last Friday?
It was listed on the Board of Home Mission website alongside the PWA, Shankhill Mission and many other agencies. The PCI has to act with integrity and open-ness, not sneakily tamper with their website.
Why are the two Donald's not offering any practical help?.......it is obvious that the denomination has funds which could be utilised as an emergency fund.
Most mysterious of all, why was the run allowed to happen?
I spoke to the secretary of PMS 2 months ago and he admitted at that time that he was getting a lot of calls from anxious savers.
So why didn't the PMS and PCI get together at that point to put measures in place in case of a run.
First of all by lobbying the government to include PMS in the FSA scheme.
Next by setting up an emergency fund
Invoking the 21 day rule for withdrawals
By writing to all members explaining the above measures and reassuring them of the safety of their funds.

I feel this is a situation which need never have happened.
In answer to your question the PCI has responsibility and the ability to assist in rescuing the agency which it has endorsed and used for 26 years.
The worrying reality is that the PCI does not seem to be prepared to do so and there has been a definite "hand washing"since.
Offers of "pastoral care" and to "stand alongside" are no good to pensioners who need their money.
The whole thing smells really really bad.
That is why people are so concerned.
I hope this answers some of your questions.

John

These first thoughts are just comments not opinions.

Sometimes it seems that people do not realise that saving actually is investing.

And maybe some people feel that PCI, by way of making 'recommendations', passing resolutions and placing ads in church magazines, is responsible for encouraging church members to use PMS without providing wider financial advice.


And now an opinion.

It is a pity that in the present circumstances Presbyterians can speak of PCI as if it were something other than them.

Peter
Please see my comment no 5
Right now it seems as if PCI is something completely different to what I have been a part of for years.
The statement of Donald Watts a week ago was simply shocking, a real eye opener. I'm afraid disillusionment is now spreading through the church like a cancer.

Peter says: "I've said this before and I'll say it again.....do the government's gaurentees on savings not apply here ???????????? or am I missing something ?????"

No, the government's protection scheme does not apply to PMS. PMS has written to the Prime Minister asking that they be covered by the scheme, and that appeal is supported in writing by the Presbyterian Church. The Administrator has also supported that request. Under the current rules, PMS is not covered; we wait t see what response the UK government will make to the Society's request.

goodbyepci

If what you say about disillusionment in the church is correct that is sad indeed.

I am a member of PCI, but not of PMS and I have my own pretty strong views about a 'church bank'. However in the present circumstances I am perfectly willing to contribute to a fund which might be used to help those most in need and provide some necessary stability. However an action like this can only be of benefit if it is coordinated at a church wide level; my 'hundred pounds or so' would not be enough, but a few hundred pounds donated by a few hundred people might make a significant difference.

For me, to be part of church means that I am able to help those who need it. But individuals cannot do it on their own.

goodbyepci-

I understand most of what you're saying. But the implication of a lot of those criticising the PCI/PMS in hindsight (in America this is called being a 'Monday morning quarterback'!) is that if the PCI did not 'distance themselves' from the PMS afterwards then this would not have happened. That's untrue. This is happening to countless financial institutions all across the globe: it's a global crisis, not an isolated event.

I understand there are drastic things they could have done beforehand to lessen the damage, but nobody foresaw that it would reach this stage. That's why I find it annoyingly disingenuous for so many people to be so 'outraged', as though if they'd been in charge they could have prevented this outcome! It seems to me that the extent to which one can validly criticise the PCI is to the extent they mismanaged the publicity etc. afterwards. But to act as though they caused the situation is frankly to jump on a mindless bandwagon.

With regard to that, Peter Morrow's comment was:

"And maybe some people feel that PCI, by way of making 'recommendations', passing resolutions and placing ads in church magazines, is responsible for encouraging church members to use PMS without providing wider financial advice."

I ask a few questions in response:

1) Was the PCI, by encouraging people to invest in the PMS, asking for unthinking allegiance to the PMS?

2) Was the PCI - either implicitly or explicitly - discouraging or even addressing the subject of independent financial advice?

3) Would independent financial advisers have discouraged investment in the PMS even if the answers to both (1) and (2) were 'Yes'?

Peter
I used the word "bank" carefully, I know it was not a church bank in the legal sense. But it was a good system........ truly a mutual society.
My take on it is that savers were glad of somewhere to put their savings where they were not gambled on the stock exchange, and were used to benefit other members of the denomination, in an ethical way.
Congregations and individuals could borrow at competitive rates. The office was accessible, the phones were answered by nice people (until recently, now you can't get through!). It was far preferable to a High St bank with a call centre in India. (I am not being racist!)

Most people have "rainy day" money, and this was a good place to put it.
It is really sad that things have worked out the way they have, but I feel there will be recriminations ahead unless communication from PMS improves, and practical help from PCI materialises.
There has been no official word from PCI for PMS savers, just what has been written in the media and on William's show. The PMS have sent 2 very cold legalistic letters, the first was not even dated.
It is not a good situation.

goodbyepci

I do not think it would be helpful for me to repeat my comments here about my view of 'churches', 'loans' and 'interest', they are on another thread for all to read.

I am trying to suggest that maybe, if all of us together, PCI, could see our way to putting some money in a pot to help others then we might be able to do something (maybe not much, but something) for those in need. Any money I would contribute would be a gift, I would not need it to be returned and it should be made available immediately to those in most need.

As I said, I am not a member of the Mutual, but as a member of PCI I am willing to help. In the end, and I know it's a difficult thing to say, PCI cannot really do anything, unless we all do something. We are PCI.

To my mind this would be the definition of 'Presbyterian', 'Church', 'Mutual' and 'Society'.


John (post 10)

Answers to your questions.

(1) No idea

(2) No idea

(3) No idea

Maybe that is one of the problems.

John
Sorry I can't answer your questions, too many big words and concepts for me, and I don't understand them!

But a few facts which I think are plain
1. PCI encouraged Presbyterians to put their savings in the PMS for the mutual benefit of the denomination.
2. PCI/PMS were linked via website, email address, magazine, office accommodation, directors, general assembly reports, the list goes on.
3. The PMS was a good thing and it worked.
4. Since the run PCI has offered no practical help and is perceived by many people to be distancing itself from the situation.

Now some facts of which I have first hand knowledge (I have been told this recently, sorry cannot give more details)
Despite their denials PCI were aware of the potential situation with PMS ......BEFORE THE RUN
PCI were warned, and advised to take measures such as I have outlined in post 5

Sorry cannot give any more detail than this, but hairsplitting about whether financial advice was being given implicitly or explicitly is no longer relevant.
PCI knew what could happen
PCI could have done something
PCI did nothing

Since the run PCI have sought to distance themselves from the situation.

Now why do you think that is?

goodbyepci-

I don't know enough about the situation, but it seems to me that your allegation that the PCI could have seen it coming and did nothing is breeding the very anger that's scaring PCI off from dealing with shareholders and helping them through it. (That's not an excuse but a reason.)

I agree with you that they should communicate better, perhaps by setting up a web forum (or actual forum) for sharing about it. I also think Peter Morrow's suggestion is a great way forward. But you need to stop slinging blame around at the PCI, because it's basless and counterproductive to your situation.

Peter-

The answers to my questions are:


1) Was the PCI, by encouraging people to invest in the PMS, asking for unthinking allegiance to the PMS?

NO.

2) Was the PCI - either implicitly or explicitly - discouraging or even addressing the subject of independent financial advice?

NO.

3) Would independent financial advisers have discouraged investment in the PMS even if the answers to both (1) and (2) were 'Yes'?

NO.

John on comment 15 ... gives a simple NO answer to the question Was the PCI, by encouraging people to invest in the PMS, asking for unthinking allegiance to the PMS?

John how can you answer no when the church's resolution encourging people to get involved in PMS even uses the word ENCOURAGE. Of course they encouraged people to invest in PMS.

This whole thing has shook the PCI to the core of its foundation, and i doubt that Donald or anyone else involved really has a clue as to what level.

This is not a rash statement, but it really could be the beginning of the end of PCI.......the amount of peopel stopping paying to PCI and have already or going to leave is staggering.

Quite frankly i am embarrassed of the PCI and lets face it, i doubt Donald will be in a job come the end of this.

I'm not a financial expert but from what I understand I think there are 2 reasons why the government can't guarantee PMS savings. The first is that much has been made of the fact that PMS is not bankrupt but has assets to cover most of the savings, it just can't release the money easily in the short term. Therefore, if the government bailed them out PMS would have to sell these assets to repay the government, which is, as I understand it, what PMS is trying to avoid in the first place. The second issue is the PMS limit of 拢20,000 for savings. This means that amounts in excess of this figure are not deposits, but loans made voluntarily by "savers" to the PMS.

Referring to previous entries on this and other blogs, I feel that Presbyterians who are relying on Presbyterian democracy will be seriously disappointed. PCI is only "democratic" until something happens to its members. I know from personal experience, and from hearing the experiences of other members, that, at that point, the PCI hierarchy close ranks to protect the institution at all costs.

If you need proof of this listen again to Donald Watts as he tries to reinvent the meaning of PCI's own words. His best attempt so far was last night when he said the encouragement to members to "avail" of PMS services could have meant encouraging church members to borrow rather than save. Good try, Donald, but before you could borrow from PMS you have to save with them first! I also listened in amazement to the bit where he tried to make it appear that the PMS had just taken the name "Presbyterian" and there was nothing the Church could do about it as the name "Presbyterian" isn't copyright. That would be fine if the word "Presbyterian" was the only link, but, as we all know, there are many other very definite links that even Donald Watts would find hard to wriggle out of.

presbyteriannomore...

Donald watts is an embarrassment, as if PCI weren't a big enough laughing stock, they let this man open his mouth.

The church has been rumbled.....as my non christian colleagues have said to me......."how can you take anything your ministers say on morals, sin etc seriously, when you listen to all this going on"

This whole situation is getting more sinister. I cannot understand why there was only 4 million available for withdrawal this year when several years ago there was 42 million in the pot for withdrawal. Have I represented this correctly? If so, then there was what I would call 'mismanagement' on the part of PMS. It would not take long for several withdrawals to deplete this fund. Think about it - 4 million across 10,000 investors = 拢400!!! per investor per year withdrawal. No wonder the fund ran froze so quickly.
We are totally exasperated by it all. Perhaps there will be more then DW out of a job before this debacle is sorted (if ever).
Help me to understand - if the government were to gaurantee 50K per person does this mean that those with more than 50K are out off pocket indefinitely? Sorry to show my ignorance but we are panicking big style!!!!
Thank you for any light you can shed on the above.

Hi Rainbowmisspiggy, good to see you back.
Last night's Spotlight programme certainly did nothing to offer any comfort, just more wriggling and jiggling from Donald Duck, ducking the issues and his responsibilities.
According the the radio this morning the 拢50k bank guarantee wouldn't work for the PMS because the banks themselves fund it from a levy, and the PMS would not qualify.
Not looking good after that programme.

Spotlight really did raise some very uncomfortable issues. But will these "issues" end with PMS? Suggestion... instead of rattling on with redevelopement of "church house" why not sell it and use the money received to address the hardships of those devastated by PMS. What would happen if congregations decide not to pay the forthcoming levy to cover church house?? Bible is clear... the church is people!!!

I'm not sure anybody is entitled to a good nights' sleep. All investments carry risks, and sometimes the result is some sleepless nights. If you don't want sleepless nights, don't invest

Surely John, placing your money in a bank is not really investing ? It's different from buying shares for example although, given today's economic climate shares are probably a safer investment than a bank deposit, providing you buy at the right time (now is probably a good time to invest in the stock market with shares being so low).

You expect your money to be safe in a bank account though (hence the measly interest rates for savers nowadays). The PMS was, in effect, a building society for savers in the Presbyterian church. Unforunately it's investors weren't covered by the government's protection scheme (as William has said). This situation was spotted by a few canny savers who withdrew large sums of money from the society thus causing the shortfall in funds.

Personally, I thought the Presbyterian church was portrayed as having a somewhat flippant/couldn't care less attitude towards very ordinary people (many elderly) who had,in some cases, life savings deposited in the PMS. Some of those in authority who were interviewed appeared to be very naive as to the implications of the whole affair.

I really did feel for the investors who were featured on the programme.

1) It's clear that PCI has a publicity problem right now. I have a feeling that they were blindsided by the whole situation and don't know exactly how to react.

2) PCI didn't CAUSE IT.

3) jovialPTL says they encouraged investment in the PMS. Absolutely they did. But they didn't ask for unthinking allegiance to the society, and the shareholders of the society didn't give unthinking allegiance to the society.

4) Can anybody name me a single financial adviser who discouraged anybody from investing in the PMS when everything was running smoothly? If not, all the talk above is irrelevant, since the situation would have occurred whether:

- the PMS was the PCI
- the PMS was not the PCI
- they shared a webpage
- they shared email
- they are all ministers
- blah blah blah.

This is an unfortunate result of an economic crisis - if you haven't noticed, guys, it's happening all over the world - and if there wasn't so much unfounded blame and pitchfork waving, you might actually have a chance of getting together and helping each other!

Thanks - some really good points being made. Nice to see that you missed me. I was out of action doing an assignment that had to be handed in last night.

21. goodbyepci - DW offered no comfort and told us nothing that we did not already know. I have listened constantly about PMS from my husband over the last 2 weeks and he is utterly distraught. We have a lot of money there, a third of which was to pay for our new house, the rest we were prepared to keep in the society when we were made aware of the situation.
Hopefully the builder will be more understanding than the PCI.
We are both in our forties. If we were advised that we would eventually get our money returned even if it took 5 years I think we could live with that.We feel really sorry for older people who were using this as a top-up for their retirement or who really need it to get over Christmas.
It was very difficult to accept the findings of the Spotlight programme but I fear that it may be even more difficult to accept the ultimate result of the administrator's findings.
I feel empathy for everyone involved but are there no consciences up in Church House?
Perhaps those involved will have to vote with their feet but will that even matter to PCI?
Will PCI relegate this to a black spot in their history?
Some might say we were foolish to invest so much there (I can understand that point too but my husband would never trust a bank and so PMS seemed like an honourable establishment for Presb. to help other Presb. How wrong we were?), others might say that if you couldn't trust your church, who could you trust? (Sorry, it bore the Presb. logo, but had nothing to do with the church - Misbranding, could it be????)
As always, 2 sides to every argument but still doesn't take away from the fact that all our hard earned cash has been 'stolen' from us? Maybe, 'stolen' is too strong a word, 'confiscated' might be better - we'll get it when we're told so, not a moment sooner - good definition for confiscating I think. If it had been under the mattress and someone had stolen it could we feel any worse? In our house, NO!

rainbowmisspiggy says-

"are there no consciences up in Church House?
Perhaps those involved will have to vote with their feet but will that even matter to PCI?"

"all our hard earned cash has been 'stolen' from us ... Maybe, 'stolen' is too strong a word, 'confiscated' might be better - we'll get it when we're told so, not a moment sooner - good definition for confiscating I think."

You're absolutely right. PCI has stolen your money under the auspices of a 'mutual society. Where are the handcuffs, that's what I want to know? Not only have they no consciences (after all, they're thieves); they aren't even being arrested for it. Disgrace. Presbyterian? More like Gangsterian!

It was great getting all that off my mind.

Now home to dinner and more PMS talk I have no doubt.

I am going to have to ban this acronym at mealtimes at least.

Just thought - could PMS now stand for 'Poor Me Society'?

Hope you have a laugh.
We can't weep all of the time.

saddendedwithitall

If church members and congregations (which isPCI) whether they be members of the Mutual or nor do not response in a way similar to that which you have suggested then not only it the financial problem going to be more difficult to solve, but from a biblical/Christian point of view there is going to be even more to be sad about.

John

Bottom line, with regard to the so called 'fault' of PCI, is, you are right. There are NO guarantees with regard to ANY kind of investment, in banks, in Credit Unions, in Mutuals, in property, in currency or in Government bonds, that however is not something which seems to be generally recognised.

However what we are dealing with is a perception which is meandering and complex and which at times borders on a kind of folklore within the church. People seemed to think that somehow church investments (and let's be crystal clear, money put in the PMS was an investment) were safe, in a way other investments were not. Somehow there is the idea that because a minister says something it has a kind of Midas touch. Unfortunately I live in a country in which the myth of a clery/laity distinction has been perpetuated. Fine when everything runs smoothly, but always someone to blame when it goes wrong.

Second, PCI legally (please note the 'legally') is not PMS and could never have been allowed to be PMS as PCI could never have afforded to bail out investors if or when something went wrong. This legal distinction was necessary. Why, quite simply because PMS in whatever it did with the money was taking a risk. However the reality of this distinction never appeared to be clear enough, partly, I suspect, for the reasons suggested above.

And so we have this complex set of circumstances regarding, money, members, ministers, church and legal definitions. No single person is to blame. Maybe the money was badly invested, maybe amateur advice was given, maybe too many presumptions were made regarding 'church money' but we need to get our heads around the fact that (1) this is a global financial problem and (2) that while a legal distinction has been made, there is no PCI other than people, who like me, are members of PCI. And now is the time for all members of PCI, depositors in the Mutual or not, to act like a church, stop looking to assign blame and do something practical to help those who need it.

I hate with a passion the idea of the church lending for gain, but whatever one's view, now is a time for generosity.

All-

Read Peter Morrow's post #28 above. It's the single most sensible thing written on this blog on this subject.

#28"And now is the time for all members of PCI, depositors in the Mutual or not, to act like a church, stop looking to assign blame and do something practical to help those who need it."

Well said Peter.. as a member of the PCI I agree 100%. We now need to give practical help to the investors who are finding it difficult to pay their bills etc through no fault of their own.
I also agree 100% when you say
"now is a time for generosity"

Clearly the Presbyterians have angered god and this is his warning and revenge. I don't see what other possible conclusion can be drawn from this. If I were a Presbyterian and saw this happen, I'd switch religions immediately and hope it wasn't too late to save my soul from hell and damnation by having offended the almighty.

Marcus

How is it that you are always right?

Clearly the God you believe doesn't exist is angry and wants revenge.

Mind you, if I were God and wanted revenge on my fellow Presbyterians, I'd have robbed them of their austere disposition and inflicted them with happiness!!

It was a test of faith...to a believer. You see it over and over again. Some Moslems clerics said that the tsunami showed god was angry at Moslems and that was his punishment. It was god's will. I talked to neighbors of the Amish little girl who was killed in Pennsylvania a couple of years ago by a crazed man who then shot himself. They said it was god's will, she is in heaven now, and they took it rather matter of factly. They were true believers. Yesterday, I saw Hassidic Jews in Brooklyn angry at what happened to one of their own Rabiis and his wife in India, they were killed by terrorists. They couldn't accept it. They are not true believers. And wherever else I look, I see people who aren't. This includes people angry over the loss of the money they love so much. Looks like a lot of Methodists are lovers of money and expect a Methodist bank to make more of it for them or at least protect what they have. If they are believers then they must examine their own reactions, what they feel in their hearts at the loss of their precious money and judge it the way they say god would. By that standard they are going to hell. For me as an atheist, there is no heaven, no hell, and no god so there is nothing to fear. But for them there is and they will have time to think about it for the rest of their lives. I just felt it would be a nice idea to remind them of what they say they value. Perhaps if they repent. I see a real business opportunity emerging here. I wonder if any of them have any money left to buy their only chance for salvation from me :-)

I would like to know why some ministers went to the PMS in the weeks before its collapse and took out their money ?

If anyone wants i can name names.

Please do name the names
The PCI has a lot of questions to answer

"I can name names"


Well so much for any hopes of generosity!


groovyjon and goodbyepci,

I take it you are still members of PCI? If so then you are part of the very PCI which has 'questions to answer.'


groovyjon

Did anyone other than ministers withdraw money from PMS in the weeks before the collapse? Do you know any of their names? Do you plan to publish them, or is this an 'out ministers only' thing?

Might I ask how you came across the names? Are you privy to PMS documents or is it hearsay? Anyway if you know who they are why don't you ask them about the withdrawals?


goodbyepci

In your opinion who are PCI and what questions do they have to answer?


Do either of you accept that all investments are a risk?

Name names, yeah, yeah, very helpful. In fact why don't you begin with your own names?

Hear, hear and hear.

Yes hear, hear and hear
let's hear the information!
I've been watching this blog for weeks to look for information, but not posted before now because of the negativity and frankly nasty "serves you right" smart comments.
But if there is some real information here....bring it on!

I left the PCI years ago.
The PCI has a lot to answer for in their reaction to this debacle.
It will be amazing if there is a PCI left when this is over.
My dearest friend has all his savings in the PMS, I'm trying to find out anything I can for him, he's not internet savvy.
So I add my request to groovyjon, please name the names.

Hi guys

I know this Puritan in Salem, has a profitable sideline... want his number?

another

It might be helpful if you would quote, what in your opinion, are the nasty 'serves you right' comments posted on the blog so we could discuss them.

I think there is a difference between 'investment is a risk' and 'serves you right'.

"I know this Puritan in Salem, has a profitable sideline... want his number?"


John Wright?

John

What is your Thanksgiving dress code?

Peter,

Anything you want, come on over.

Lets get one thing straight and most people in church house probably don't realise it yet, PCI is in big trouble.
The amount of people i know who have not given a penny to PCI and will not again until this is sorted is staggering............its actually worked out well as their money is now going towards organisations which actually need it.

I know of one guy who cannot now pay his workforce, so not only is this hitting PCI, it has wider implications to the community. Imagine him trying to invite some of his workforce to this years carol service to witness to him.........."GO to your church........you got to be joking, because of it you can't pay our wages and we are in dire need"

As for naming names......i've had an idea. I think i might start my on blog regarding PMS/PCI which would serve as a central point for people to talk to each other about whats happening......because lets face it, if we were waiting on support from PCI, then we'd be waiting long time.

Excellent idea, please post the link on here if you do.
and on the "moneysaving" website which joy sent the link to.
Did you see the article in today's Newsletter?
If it is true then the implications are very serious indeed.
We are talking about seriously bad stewardship of PMS funds.
link below

Groovyjon

When you set up your blog, please post the link on all the threads on the PMS on William's blog, because there are several which are still being added too.

This is the website which joyloves2shop uses.




Thanks!

something practical to share information at last!!

groovyjon

Good news at last!
It would be great if someone with the expertise would set up a blog to share information among PMS savers.

Then we wouldn't have to keep checking this blog out ;-)

Go for it groovyjon!

Yes, please, for the love of God, a great idea, love the idea, yes please.

Also, anotherDonald, what information provided to you by the Newsletter article you linked to constitutes "seriously bad stewardship" by PCI?

Your wish is my command - a blog for those concerned by the PMS situation. I'm working away at the moment I'll post something myself both here and on it soon.



Abuse it and I'll remove it!!

anothergroovygoodbye

Hi guys.

First of all, as for naming names, I see we're still waiting. Maybe that's a good thing as (seriously) taking legal advice before you do might be a good idea.

Second, any thoughts on who PCI is yet? Or other people who withdrew money?

Third, so people have withdrawn money from PCI and are giving it to organizations who need it. Had they not worked that out before?

As for the Newletter article it says this:

"It is understood that the society was more conservative in its loans than typical banks, with all loans being well secured by such standards."

and this

"Normally any bank would have a percentage of "bad debt" and it is understood that the PMS, while not a bank, might eventually be seen to have a proportion of loans in this category."



As for bad stewardship... interesting biblical term... I have argued elsewhere that churches loaning money for interest is bad stewardship full stop. So a question, is everything OK in the church as long as we're making money?


Wages remaining unpaid is dreadful, no other word to describe it, but I am really interested in exactly how PCI is to blame for this. Step by step would be good.

I'm sorry that people are in the position they are in, I'm not interested in 'told you so', I know what working to a tight budget is, I wish I could do something helpful, I tried to suggest PCI members showing generosity through local congregations, but the markets have no mercy, maybe that's how the church could be different.

Peter

Looking at the PMS' accounts the provision for bad debts up until the year ending March 2008 was incredibly tiny. In that year it suddenly rose by half a million pounds but even then is still utterly insignificant in comparison with the provisions of other lending institutions. Assuming a diligent audit and a correct statement by the directors of the lending position this suggests excellent debt management. I think, however, there are probably questions shareholders will want to ask the directors when the full facts are know but this is not the time.

The perhaps uncharacteristically decisive distancing of itself from the PMS by the PCI, more than anything else, suggests to me the possibility of a quite unmanageable deficit. The chances of the administrator pulling a rescue out of the hat must be exceeding slim and I believe it would be irresponsible of caring Christians not to be prepared for the considerable hardship many of their fellows may face in the months and years to come.

I rather suspect financial generosity on an unprecedented scale might be necessary to stave off liquidation - if that is not available (and we are in a situation where even those not directly affected by the PMS are facing financial stresses) then the demands on Christians will be as much on our time and our talents as on our pockets.

The two or three people with whom I have been working have now everything in place to host a meeting before Christmas (for those interested) to discuss ways of supporting those who need it in a context where there will be available input from outside organisations with relevant experience. Offers have been made of facilities and training in useful skills for people to take back to their congregations - it will be interesting to see when contact details are published tomorrow if there is any uptake.

It is my firm belief that people who care need to plan for the worst - if it does not happen we can all be thankful but, if it does, we are ready to meet the challenges.

I fear that in the weeks and months ahead people will have to change their lifestyles, people will have to manage money in a way that is perhaps unfamiliar to them, people will face bills they will be unable to pay, people will be unable to achieve cherished aims and ambitions, some people will feel a sense of personal failure, and some people (I speak whereof I know) may even end their lives by suicide.

This is not scare-scaremongering; it is a very real possibility if the nettle is not grasped.

pete,

how are pci connected with guys not getting their wages..........I didn't say they were, but try you explaining that to someone who has never been inside a place of worship before........All they know is they can't get their wages because of the PRESBYTERIAN mutual society.

As for naming names you are correct, but i do want to let people know that minister DID go up to PMS in the weeks leading up to their collapse and withdraw their money. It may come in useful for them whenever PCI come to counting their money for which to pay their ministers i guess as it will be WEL WELL down.

Groovyjon

Are you going to set up your blog?

Maybe every sentence won't have to be debated there!

Looking forward to hearing from you

Donald

Further to some of my earlier posts and thanks largely to the efforts of someone on whom thanks here would be wasted (he has no time for the Internet), some bloggers might be interested to know that the charity Rural Support has agreed to host a meeting (to be held in Loughry College, Cookstown before Christmas) where those who are interested in helping themselves and others can meet to exchange ideas.

The meeting would not be confined to those affected by the PMS but to anyone struggling with the effects of the current economic situation.

Rural Support will speak about signposting to sources of help in cash management and benefit entitlements.

The Samaritans will send one of the Irish Regional Training team to speak on dealing with the emotional impact of hardship, suicide awareness and how to support those going through a crisis or in danger of suicide.

Someone professionally involved with Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies will submit a general explanation of what Administration involves, the kind of solutions at which an Administrator might be looking in a similar situation, and some possible outcomes.

Two other organisations, one specifically Christian, are still considering sending a speaker to explain their services.

The aim of the meeting is to allow people to come to a better understanding of the general situation and to begin to take action on their own behalf and on behalf of others.

The purpose is constructive and the Chair will not permit focus to stray into unproductive criticism of government or institutions.

I am not sure if I can post contact information here for those interested in attending - that information is available on:

Portwyne

You ought to be thanked, publicly, for your efforts, I'm sure that many will find them to be of benefit. I agree to with your post 52 but find myself wondering (with a degree of concern) how things will work out 'on the ground'.

On the specific issue of some of the comments on this blog, mine included, I have found myself to be in something of a dilemma. Where I able to offer more substantial and practical help my feelings may not be as marked, unfortunately all I have at the moment are words, and sometimes I fear using them. I have, I think, said sometime ago on this website that we do not know the circumstances of most others writing here and therefore cannot always be sure of the impact of what we say either for good or ill. Maybe on occasions I have over stepped the mark, however I have also more recently found myself in the curious position of sounding as if I am defending the institutions PCI and PMS, this is not the case. Indeed like others here, with whom I disagree, I fear for the future of the church.

The point of tension continues though in terms of how we all ought to respond; and the question is raised, how does the church (collective noun) act justly and with generosity if certain of our current practices and thinking are not challenged, and how does one do this without accentuating the stress of another. These are difficult issues which bring mental, emotional and physical stress to others. I can understand anger and frustration, I can understand that it may be justified and need to be aired. I fully agree that the nettle must be grasped, but fear that there are many related nettles to be grasped in the process and I am not sure that many churches, given their/our contemporary outlook and public responses to date are really prepared.


Groovyjon

I agree, the perception that others will have of the church will not be good. I fear though that thinking and speaking of our ministers as if they were people other than us, will, in the long term, only heighten the problem. Yes the response has not been handled well, but I really do think that we in PCI must pull together. For example, in the specific case of the unpaid wages, why doesn't the church/ a local church say 'let's guarantee these pay packets for the immediate 2 months over Christmas and the new year'? That might have greater impact than a carol service. Sooner or later we have to get practical about something and for someone regardless of who is to blame.


anotherDonald

You ought to be glad that people are debating what is being said. It means your comments are being read and that means you have an audience and you are getting your message out. We might disagree, but the involvement of people in this blog has resulted in someone called portwyne adding to his workload and organising help.



and Portwyne again

A number of days back when I first read of your offer of help, I had a small but sharp intake of breath and thought, I hope he knows what he's doing. It seems you do.

The Last Post
First of all a bit of background. Whilst looking up information on the PMS situation for a friend, I found this blog by googling 鈥淧resbyterian Mutual Society鈥�. Will鈥檚 blog comes up on the first page.
This is probably the way all the people seeking information on the PMS found this site.
Sadly they all seem to have disappeared, probably like myself frustrated and annoyed by the constant requests to 鈥渄efine this鈥�, 鈥渨hat do you mean by that鈥�. Especially if they happened to stumble on the 84 comment long 鈥淧resbyterian Church asks PM to guarantee savings鈥� thread.
Are you all friends of Donald Watts?
He has great line in redefining 鈥渆ncourage鈥� and 鈥渁vail鈥�, whilst swivelling his eyes to avoid looking the interviewer in the face鈥︹��..great body language.

Petermorrow
Have you ever been at a party and noticed people frantically reversing away from you, looking anxiously for an escape route or someone normal to talk to, whilst trying not to spill their glass of wine in their haste?
But then you probably don鈥檛 go to parties?
I can imagine you sit in the evenings hunched over your keyboard, peering myopically at the screen whilst you exchange witty repartie with your mocking little online chums portwyne and John_Wright_in_Americay.

Debate debate debate
Define 鈥渋nvestment鈥�
Explain 鈥淧CI鈥�
Oops I just swallowed a dictionary
Blah blah blah

Well your nit picking and hair splitting negativity has succeeded in driving away anyone genuinely looking for information like myself鈥︹�︹�︹�ell done!!
And before you ask me to define 鈥渘egativity鈥� portwyne has mentioned suicide several times now.

Last night I sat my friend down to read the PMS threads on this blog
Big mistake!

He is elderly and I had forgotten just how unhelpful all your comments have been. Especially the 鈥淧resbyterian Church asks PM to guarantee savings鈥� thread.

He ended up feeling even more anxious, and I could kick myself for my foolishness.

You have done harm on this blog鈥︹�︹��.real harm.
I managed to talk my friend round, but what of those already in despair reading this dross.
It would be good if Will removed all this stuff, especially the thread mentioned above. I would be afraid of a self fulfilling prophecy. Portwyne has mentioned suicide enough times now to sow the seed.

As for portwyne, and his oh so helpful setting up of the PMS Concern blog.
Groovyjon was going to set up a blog to share real information. So portwyne jumped straight in uninvited and set one up. Putting his own restrictrions on it, the actions of a control freak. And yes we already know about Rural Support, it was in the farming press years ago.
Portwyne has an agenda.
I see there are only 3 comments on his blog, hopefully the believers are using their discernment and wisdom.
As for me, it鈥檚 back to the Newsletter for information without the hidden agenda.

Portwyne
This was a particularly illumininating comment on 1st Nov
On the 鈥淭here is probably no God鈥� thread
68. At 12:26pm on 01 Nov 2008, portwyne wrote:
鈥淚 am sure you would wish your readers to know that we post-modernists think there are much more interesting things to do with an anus than cover it up and wipe it frequently. Men from Northern Ireland really need a male-oriented version of the 'Vagina Monologues' to help them get in touch with their holes - if I ever have time perhaps I will write the 'Digital to Analogue Broadcasts'...鈥�

Enjoy your blog darlings Mwah mwah

Missing you already!

Donald

Hi Donald

Yes there are a lot of words on this blog perhaps too many, and yes I have some pretty passionate views on this subject which many don't seem to like.

What I have been trying to suggest on this thread however is that all of us in PCI work together to help those most in need. I have suggested generosity, local churches contributing to a fund to help others in the community affected by this, but it is not something I can organise. I wish it were.

Donald - if you've bothered to read my posts you will know I don't suffer fools gladly and have no evangelical reticence holding me back from telling it like I see it.

I have no agenda beyond demonstrating that on any issue people can get up and do things for themselves if they want to. Of-course if they would rather moan, blame and complain then that is entirely up to them - to be frank, however, I have no time for such people and no regard for their opinions.

Those who might not like my Theology but have an interest in self-help and helping others should know that my personal involvement in setting-up the event which I recently advertised did not extend beyond motivating a couple of individuals to do some organising and that I have no intention of gracing (or sullying if you prefer) the meeting with my presence.

I must counter one of your ignorant and dangerous assertions, however. The psychological consensus is that it is not possible to implant the idea of suicide in someone's mind and indeed giving someone possessed of those thoughts a chance to talk about the extent of their despair has a very powerful therapeutic effect.

Donald - if you've bothered to read my posts you will know I don't suffer fools gladly and have no evangelical reticence holding me back from telling it like I see it.

I have no agenda beyond demonstrating that on any issue people can get up and do things for themselves if they want to. Of-course if they would rather moan, blame and complain then that is entirely up to them - to be frank, however, I have no time for such people and no regard for their opinions.

Those who might not like my Theology but have an interest in self-help and helping others should know that my personal involvement in setting-up the event which I recently advertised did not extend beyond motivating a couple of individuals to do some organising and that I have no intention of gracing (or sullying if you prefer) the meeting with my presence.

I must counter one of your ignorant and dangerous assertions, however. The psychological consensus is that it is not possible to implant the idea of suicide in someone's mind and, indeed, giving someone possessed of those thoughts a chance to talk about the extent of their despair has a very powerful therapeutic effect.

anotherDonald-

It's a shame your friend was upset.

But it is a fascinating arrogance with which you stumble upon a years-long discussion forum on the internet like this one and then proceed to exact your moralising scruples upon the conversation and people here. No regular commenter here can help how people find this site or where Google decides to place it on the index of any given search term, "PMS" or not.

We are accustomed to "unpacking" a wide range of topics through frank and imperfect discussion about them on a daily basis and have done for probably close to half a decade now. Most of us do so because we have an interest in issues of ethics, morality, science, religion, and we come here to debate them. I'm not sure any of us should have to apologise for that. This is not a help centre or charity: it's a blog encompassing a lively debate culture.

Frankly, to bring your elderly friend to this thread knowing fully that it isn't what he was looking for and then to blame us regular contributors for his reaction is moronic.

That said, there are other threads here where people have attempted to be helpful: Portwyne, who was the subject of your anger above, has even gone so far as to establish a separate blog to help people like your friend exchange information on it. That's more than you've done, as far as I know.

And by the way, Donald, for someone who condemns the "mockery" on this blog, you seem to have had no problem joining in with your own insults:

"I can imagine you sit in the evenings hunched over your keyboard, peering myopically at the screen whilst you exchange witty repartie with your mocking little online chums portwyne and John_Wright_in_Americay.

Debate debate debate
Define ?investment?
Explain ?PCI?
Oops I just swallowed a dictionary
Blah blah blah"

You, sir, are a rank hypocrite.

John - excellent points.

I am sure you are aware that sometimes when people are affected by a sudden shock or trauma they undergo a process of infantilisation. Actually I quite enjoyed Donald's post on one level - it is a classic text-book example of that behaviour pattern.

This analogy may interest you.

Imagine a group of adults are having a conversation in a room. A child comes in with a nasty cut; he is shocked and surprised that the adults don't all stop their chatting and pay attention to his cut; somebody notices his problem and says 'That looks serious, we'll have to get you a doctor, if it gets infected you could lose the arm, gosh it might even kill you'. This wasn't what the child wanted to hear - he was looking for comfort, not truth, he was looking for Daddy and he wanted Daddy to say 'There There, it's going to be all right. Don't worry we'll get Mummy to kiss it make it better'. What does the child do? As Por's favourite Uncle Hugo would say, he throws the dummy out of the pram, lashes out at all around him, falls into a tantrum and storms out.

Truth is not the same as comfort but sometimes Truth is what is needed. The PMS situation will have dire short term consequences for many investors - there are some of us who still want to do our best for people on whom those consequences will impact deeply. I think, however, I can be fairly confident in saying that if somebody just wants an audience for their hissy fit they have come to the wrong place in Will and Testament.

Yes, they've showed up to a debate club looking for a therapist. That isn't the fault of the debate club for existing, or for taking on the topic!

I am still willing to setup a blog if anyone is interested.

I am looking for answers why ministers took their money out in the weeks leading up to the collapse........how can they then pastor people who have money in it ?

Also has Watts not resigned yet...if not not, why not, he is an embarrassment to PCI

groovyjon- please set up your blog. It will then validate your comments: if people join the blog then there are enough people who agree with you, if they don't then there aren't.

Just a reminder....never forget who your friends are

As published by the newsletter on 19th November

""Dr Watts states there is no connection between the Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Mutual Society," said the reader. "

Groovyjon

Wow didn't think anyone was still posting on this thread, I haven't checked it for a week!

In answer to your question........yes, please do set up a blog.
I think it would be very useful to share information.

And please post the link on Martin Lewis's moneysaving website where there is a thread dealing with the PMS.

below

Where's that blog?!

Up and running ages ago John....pity you weren't invited to the party