gaaboard.com

Moderators in appeal over society 

The Presbyterian Mutual Society went into administration in November


Twenty-three former Presbyterian moderators have written to the British and Irish governments.

They have asked them to help the Presbyterian Mutual Society, after it went into administration in November.

The moderators said this was partly caused by the government not extending its savings guarantee scheme to the society.

The Very Reverend John Dunlop has said the prime minister has a moral obligation to help.

"Whenever Gordon Brown became prime minister he said he would be guided by the ethics and morals of his father," he said.

"Now Gordon Brown was raised in a Presbyterian manse, his father was a Presbyterian minister.

"So Gordon Brown understands what moral and ethical obligations are.

"It may be that there is no technical legal obligation to help the mutual society but we believe that there is a moral obligation to help the mutual society."

Earlier this month, the PMS administrator, Arthur Boyd, wrote to 9,500 investors recommending that they accept a proposal, which he said would give them some of their money back.

He recommended an "orderly run down" of its business over time.

If this plan is to go ahead, more than 50% of investors must vote to back it by the deadline of noon on Friday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7859869.stm

Morals don't figure all that highly in high office. Are these societies, credit unions etc not covered by the same bailout as the banks etc?

Was the PMS not regulated like other banks/financial institutions?

I am glad to see this money pot go to the wall as I believe it was more or less used by prod's to buy land and property and to stop Catholics gaining any advantage over them.

Sure the Pressers have a big building in Belfast City Centre on Great Victoria Street, sell it and all the financial woes would be solved in one fell swoop!

http://www.spiresbelfast.co.uk

They use that building for loads of conferences etc so they may actually make some profit with it anyway GDA.

Quote from: Hereiam on January 30, 2009, 10:51:11 AM
I am glad to see this money pot go to the wall as I believe it was more or less used by prod's to buy land and property and to stop Catholics gaining any advantage over them.

:o Some of you lot are unreal with how bitter you are .

Quote from: Hereiam on January 30, 2009, 10:51:11 AM
I am glad to see this money pot go to the wall as I believe it was more or less used by prod's to buy land and property and to stop Catholics gaining any advantage over them.

Thats a ridiculous statement to come out with

Quote from: Gnevin on January 30, 2009, 11:13:52 AM

Quote from: Hereiam on January 30, 2009, 10:51:11 AM
I am glad to see this money pot go to the wall as I believe it was more or less used by prod's to buy land and property and to stop Catholics gaining any advantage over them.

:o Some of you lot are unreal with how bitter you are .

I thought he was taking the piss, no?

Not sure if there is a connection with the Presbyterians but there is an organisation that provides finance to keep land out of Fenian hands - their slogan is "Ulster is being sold, help us buy it" (really):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2897169.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2897169.stm)

There is an irony however, that as an organisation they dont allow catholics to join/invest, yet are appealing to the irish government ( amoung others) to bail them out.

I note that the cult followers actually have the gall to ask the 26 county government for help, yet burn the Irish Flag on the 11th of July bonfires,and proclaim the free state to eb a foreign country etc.

Credit Unions (those affiliated to the Irish League of Credit Unions in Dublin, and which many prods refuse to join because of this), are among the most regulated institutions, regulated and auditted by the FSA, ILCU And North of Ireland Registrar. Those in the North (which means all except those set up by prods because they wouldn't join so called taog ones) affiliated t the ILCU has members savings insured up to £15,000 indivually, and could not invest in property etc.

If the banks and building societies had been as well regulated we wouldn't be in the current mess

Sometimes reading this board depresses me.

Nothing to do with bitterness I am just tellin it as it is. Its not my fault some people think that this is not going on. Tony makes a good point with the credit unions I know prods who will not go near it for money or savings because it is seen as a place for Catholics. Answer me this, who here knew the Presbyterian Mutual Society existed before they went bust.

It always has to be insidious doesnt it ::)
If you listened to some people nobody would ever do anything except to stick it to the other side.

Most of the people who have money in this sort of thing would be the usual people with some small savings, probably a good few elderly people and the like too.
The gloating because you think these peoples motivation was to keep the catholics down is tragic, and if reciprocated by the other side would of course be used as proof of their bigotry.

how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

They ask which way you say 'H' first

Quote from: nifan on January 30, 2009, 12:18:24 PM
It always has to be insidious doesnt it ::)
If you listened to some people nobody would ever do anything except to stick it to the other side.

Most of the people who have money in this sort of thing would be the usual people with some small savings, probably a good few elderly people and the like too.
The gloating because you think these peoples motivation was to keep the catholics down is tragic, and if reciprocated by the other side would of course be used as proof of their bigotry.

Sorry NI fan that doesn't wash my son, any one I know that have money in this are property developers/contractors who have went bust, yes there is probably people who have saving in this but I can bet you they knnew what there savings were been used for.

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

Presumably because it's a society and not a bank. The clue being in the name.

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:46:49 PM

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

Presumably because it's a society and not a bank. The clue being in the name.

Don't think they would have had to turn too many Catholic's away.

Quote from: Hereiam on January 30, 2009, 12:41:49 PM

Quote from: nifan on January 30, 2009, 12:18:24 PM
It always has to be insidious doesnt it ::)
If you listened to some people nobody would ever do anything except to stick it to the other side.

Most of the people who have money in this sort of thing would be the usual people with some small savings, probably a good few elderly people and the like too.
The gloating because you think these peoples motivation was to keep the catholics down is tragic, and if reciprocated by the other side would of course be used as proof of their bigotry.

Sorry NI fan that doesn't wash my son, any one I know that have money in this are property developers/contractors who have went bust, yes there is probably people who have saving in this but I can bet you they knnew what there savings were been used for.

A lot of people stuck their money in here as they were given an excellent rate of return on their savings and were able to get mortgages that didn't cripple them til the day the went to the grave. I know people who will lose money if they go bust - this money is their long-term savings as well as short-term savings needed to pay suppliers etc. so they'll be out of pocket twice.

I am aware there is an organisation that wants to buy up lands from Catholics but I'd say they are closely affiliated with the OO rather than the PMS.

Quote from: Maiden1 on January 30, 2009, 12:49:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:46:49 PM

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

Presumably because it's a society and not a bank. The clue being in the name.

Don't think they would have had to turn too many Catholic's away.

Probably a safe enough assumption!

Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?
Although i'm sure if there was a Catholic Mutual Society, we'd have the same number of people in trouble now if it went to the wall.

Quote from: Jimmy Joe on January 30, 2009, 12:35:10 PM

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

They ask which way you say 'H' first

:D or how they say maghera, magherafelt

Catholics - ma-her-a / ma-her-a-felt

Prods - mack-er-a / mack-er-a-felt

PMS paid handsome dividends from their property investments in the recent past and the membership lapped it up. They got greedy and put all of their eggs in the one property basket. That's tough sh*t IMO.

What's the H thing?

Ziggy do you say:

Harold or 'arold

Heaven or 'eaven

House or 'ouse

Quote from: SidelineKick on January 30, 2009, 01:05:20 PM
Ziggy do you say:

Harold or 'arold

Heaven or 'eaven

House or 'ouse

It's Hay-ch or Aa-ch.

Yeah I couldn't think phonetically for them  :-\

I know prods that say "haitch" and catholics that say "aitch". What are we to do about them?!

I've never heard anyone say Mack-er-a! Is this a myth?!

Presbyterians allegedly believe in the Bible and its denunciation of wealth.

Therefore they should fear not as the good book says the Lord will provide, and they are better off spiritually without riches or money in any event. ;D

Quote from: nifan on January 30, 2009, 11:05:28 AM
They use that building for loads of conferences etc so they may actually make some profit with it anyway GDA.

Hmm wanting cake and eating it come to mind!


Sorry but if that building is an asset then surely they should sell it to help out the poor old Holywood dears - it would be the Christian thing to do.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 30, 2009, 01:10:22 PM
I know prods that say "haitch" and catholics that say "aitch". What are we to do about them?!

I've never heard anyone say Mack-er-a! Is this a myth?!

Indeed it is not! Mackera and Mackerafelt! Only "they" would say it though, and not all of them.

Quote from: T Fearon on January 30, 2009, 01:12:14 PM
Presbyterians allegedly believe in the Bible and its denunciation of wealth.

Therefore they should fear not as the good book says the Lord will provide, and they are better off spiritually without riches or money in any event. ;D

Tony you really are a hateful piece of work, who can't see beyond their blinkered point of view. If this place goes under the ripples which it will spread out in to the economy will not ask your religion .

Quote from: Gnevin on January 30, 2009, 01:17:24 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on January 30, 2009, 01:12:14 PM
Presbyterians allegedly believe in the Bible and its denunciation of wealth.

Therefore they should fear not as the good book says the Lord will provide, and they are better off spiritually without riches or money in any event. ;D

Tony you really are a hateful peace of work, who can't see beyond their blinkered point of view. If this place goes under the ripples which it will spread out in to the economy will not ask your religion .

Well spotted!

Quote from: Gnevin on January 30, 2009, 01:17:24 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on January 30, 2009, 01:12:14 PM
Presbyterians allegedly believe in the Bible and its denunciation of wealth.

Therefore they should fear not as the good book says the Lord will provide, and they are better off spiritually without riches or money in any event. ;D

Tony you really are a hateful peace of work, who can't see beyond their blinkered point of view. If this place goes under the ripples which it will spread out in to the economy will not ask your religion .

Indeed.

His earlier reference to 'cult followers' wasn't in best taste either, but unfortunately you come to expect it.

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:46:49 PM

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

Presumably because it's a society and not a bank. The clue being in the name.

apologies maguire, not all as bright as yourself, does this mean a building society could refuse deposit on account of race religion sex etc?

The compensation scheme only applies to organisations regulated by the FSA, this wasn't.

While not wishing to find humour in the misfortune of others (honest...), it was a little amusing to see one interview with a family affected - they'd been faithful and staunch presbyterians all their lives, but now this presbyterian organisation had lost their money, they were strongly considering converting!  :o

Mebbe its Gods way of making sure they all get into heaven - eye of a needle and all that. :P

I still think there should be a bailout of some sort, even as a gesture, and I'd love it if help came from the south and not gordon brown. That could do more for a united ireland than anything else - its funny what money can do!

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 01:26:11 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:46:49 PM

Quote from: lfdown2 on January 30, 2009, 12:21:06 PM
how does a bank refuse deposits because of a persons religious beliefs??

Presumably because it's a society and not a bank. The clue being in the name.

apologies maguire, not all as bright as yourself, does this mean a building society could refuse deposit on account of race religion sex etc?

It wasn't my intention to be rude - maybe i should have had one of these  :P as sarcasm doesn't always come across.

I think this probably answers your other query:

Quote from: haranguerer on January 30, 2009, 01:31:30 PM
The compensation scheme only applies to organisations regulated by the FSA, this wasn't.

High street banks and building societies are regulated.

Quote from: Hereiam on January 30, 2009, 12:41:49 PM
Sorry NI fan that doesn't wash my son, any one I know that have money in this are property developers/contractors who have went bust, yes there is probably people who have saving in this but I can bet you they knnew what there savings were been used for.

How many do you know? How many private investors was there.

"they knnew what there savings were been used for."

and what was that - that story you told us earlier about keeping the catholics down? Where did you hear that one?

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Quote from: nifan on January 30, 2009, 01:50:30 PM
Where did you hear that one?

Auntie Annie's- 11.30 last night

Did some laughing when I first heard the Presbyterian Mutual Society was gone bust and am still laughing, God works in mysterious ways but they shouldnt worry read the bible and they will be grand.

Quoteany one I know that have money in this are property developers/contractors who have went bust,

I read it has 10,000 investors, I am sure they where not all evil property developers/contractors

Ha! I never realised there was protestant only banks. 
I say f**k them.  Why weren't the regulated by the FSA like any other finnancial institution?

Was it Presby only, or protestant only?

Quote from: nifan on January 31, 2009, 11:57:40 AM
Was it Presby only, or protestant only?

Good queston, I wonder did they allow non pres protestants deposit money.

Actually a bit of searching I found:

"Membership is confined to members of the Presbyterian Church "

Should I also now gloat as I, and my family, where excluded from investing?

The report also claims the average investment to be several thousand pounds, hardly the evil developers being talked about earlier.

"Membership is confined to members of the Presbyterian Church "

This is the idea of a mutual society, a group that help themselves. There are plenty of credit unions open only to people in a particular job or a particular area. This was a credit union that lost its way in getting too big and getting involved in risky ventures that are beyond its original mission.

QuoteShould I also now gloat as I, and my family, where excluded from investing?

I wouldnt say I was gloating, but I do think "f**k them"

There is a strong rumour round where I live that a local developer ( Pres) who became very big very quicklly was being heavily backed by this society. He is now in serious financial trouble but you would not believe it if you read his press releases. Rumour is he is the man who broke the bank. Unsure if this is any more than a rumour.

Quote from: slow corner back on January 31, 2009, 12:59:47 PM
There is a strong rumour round where I live that a local developer ( Pres) who became very big very quicklly was being heavily backed by this society. He is now in serious financial trouble but you would not believe it if you read his press releases. Rumour is he is the man who broke the bank. Unsure if this is any more than a rumour.

I heard he was buying up land to keep the catholics away from it.

Not sure if that was meant to be a joke pints but this guy is more into houses than land.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 30, 2009, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

Out of interest, does anyone know just how favourable the rates were with this institution?

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 01:11:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 30, 2009, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

why wouldnt I
would nationalists not be allowed - judging by your comments?
if it was a great interest rate my answer would be yes, I would possibly invest.
why not ?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 02:57:14 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 01:11:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 30, 2009, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

why wouldnt I
would nationalists not be allowed - judging by your comments?
if it was a great interest rate my answer would be yes, I would possibly invest.
why not ?

Good for you - go for it!
Personally, i wouldn't take the risk when there's a regulated option.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 02:57:14 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 01:11:20 PM
Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

why wouldnt I
would nationalists not be allowed - judging by your comments?
if it was a great interest rate my answer would be yes, I would possibly invest.
why not ?

If there was a OOMS I would assume that only members of the OO would be allowed to invest - as only presbys may invest in the PMS, police officers in the PMAS etc etc.

As maguire says I would not take the risk either, though I have sympathy for those who did not appreciate the risks they where taken - I am sure plenty of people just assumed they could rely on their church to keep them right.

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 03:21:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 02:57:14 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 01:11:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 30, 2009, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

why wouldnt I
would nationalists not be allowed - judging by your comments?
if it was a great interest rate my answer would be yes, I would possibly invest.
why not ?

Good for you - go for it!
Personally, i wouldn't take the risk when there's a regulated option.

ok
that dosnt answer the question, prior to all this credit crunch etc when we werent concerned about the ass falling out of the banks
why wouldnt I take up this option, would I not be allowed - why
you seem to have a problem with it?

whoever nation/religion etc owns the banks shouldnt be a consideration. eg I used bank of islam over in dubai ....

Quote from: Gnevin on January 30, 2009, 11:13:52 AM

Quote from: Hereiam on January 30, 2009, 10:51:11 AM
I am glad to see this money pot go to the wall as I believe it was more or less used by prod's to buy land and property and to stop Catholics gaining any advantage over them.

:o Some of you lot are unreal with how bitter you are .

It does of course happen G, There was a big estate being sold beside me a few years back and the local
prods were falling over themselves to buy it up quickly.... one did and of course with the fact that he was unable
to afford it proceeded to cut down most all of the 2 or 3 hundred year old trees that lined the drive in to it (probably about 3/4 mile)
to sell for fire wood >:( made a complete balls of what was once a beautiful place,
still couldn't afford it and had to put it back on the market and this is the best part... sold it to a man from down around Moira i believe
thinking he was a prod..turns out he was a catholic with a prod sounding name :D
Bitter, G.......... I think you could say that!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 03:33:10 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 03:21:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 02:57:14 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 01:11:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 30, 2009, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

why wouldnt I
would nationalists not be allowed - judging by your comments?
if it was a great interest rate my answer would be yes, I would possibly invest.
why not ?

Good for you - go for it!
Personally, i wouldn't take the risk when there's a regulated option.

ok
that dosnt answer the question, prior to all this credit crunch etc when we werent concerned about the ass falling out of the banks
why wouldnt I take up this option, would I not be allowed - why
you seem to have a problem with it?

whoever nation/religion etc owns the banks shouldnt be a consideration. eg I used bank of islam over in dubai ....

But this isn't a bank! That's the point! It's a private unregulated organisation and that's why it's in the shit now! But yes, you definitely should have been allowed to invest all of your money in it.

(I don't know why you think i have a problem with it though.)

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 03:43:49 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 03:33:10 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 03:21:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 02:57:14 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 31, 2009, 01:11:20 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 30, 2009, 02:27:26 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on January 30, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Why would any Catholic choose to deposit money in a specifically Protestant institution when there are numerous secular banks and credit unions?

Why wouldnt they if the interest rate was very enticing ?
Would it be that they were not allowed ?

Would you invest money in the 'Orange Order Mutual Society' (if there was one), rather than the Ulster Bank if there was a difference of 1 or 2% in interest rates? This was a 'private' institution - as an outsider, i wouldn't invest money where i didn't know exactly what was happening, or where there was no sign of regulation.

why wouldnt I
would nationalists not be allowed - judging by your comments?
if it was a great interest rate my answer would be yes, I would possibly invest.
why not ?

Good for you - go for it!
Personally, i wouldn't take the risk when there's a regulated option.

ok
that dosnt answer the question, prior to all this credit crunch etc when we werent concerned about the ass falling out of the banks
why wouldnt I take up this option, would I not be allowed - why
you seem to have a problem with it?

whoever nation/religion etc owns the banks shouldnt be a consideration. eg I used bank of islam over in dubai ....

But this isn't a bank! That's the point! It's a private unregulated organisation and that's why it's in the shit now! But yes, you definitely should have been allowed to invest all of your money in it.

(I don't know why you think i have a problem with it though.)

obv would check out the place before investing, but I have savings in a mutual society in dublin that is safe and a great return on investment.

just your continued question of why invest in an OO 'bank' and this institution had me wondering what was your resoning for this repeated focus

Quote from: YogiBear on January 30, 2009, 02:33:14 PM
Did some laughing when I first heard the Presbyterian Mutual Society was gone bust and am still laughing, God works in mysterious ways but they shouldnt worry read the bible and they will be grand.

There is nothing funny about anybody losing money, this hurts people and there is simply nothing funny about it.

Whoever said that the board was depressing at times was right. :'(

Quote from: stew on January 31, 2009, 04:40:31 PM

Quote from: YogiBear on January 30, 2009, 02:33:14 PM
Did some laughing when I first heard the Presbyterian Mutual Society was gone bust and am still laughing, God works in mysterious ways but they shouldnt worry read the bible and they will be grand.

There is nothing funny about anybody losing money, this hurts people and there is simply nothing funny about it.

Whoever said that the board was depressing at times was right. :'(

Have to agree. Idiots here are so jealous of people actually having a few quid to put aside they can't help themselves when people lose out. If they're prods then it's doubly exciting. I'm starting to think fivetimes had a point! People losing their life savings is no laughing matter.

That's well and fine but why use a quote from Yogi as a stick to bate Pints with ???

**ah you fixed it... well half, you left 5ivetimes in there ;)

QuoteI'm starting to think fivetimes had a point!

He'd a point about what?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:13:20 PM

QuoteI'm starting to think fivetimes had a point!

He'd a point about what?

being a good judge of character. I don.t know if it is your time of the month but the past few days have opened my eyes to you as a whiny, sad, bitter man with a bag of chips on each shoulder.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 31, 2009, 05:21:14 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:13:20 PM

QuoteI'm starting to think fivetimes had a point!

He'd a point about what?

being a good judge of character. I don.t know if it is your time of the month but the past few days have opened my eyes to you as a whiny, sad, bitter man with a bag of chips on each shoulder.

What did I do?

Btw Tony, I was the fifth poster that said f**k them (though the others didnt use those words) so why am I the lucky one to get your abuse?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 31, 2009, 05:21:14 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:13:20 PM

QuoteI'm starting to think fivetimes had a point!

He'd a point about what?

being a good judge of character. I don.t know if it is your time of the month but the past few days have opened my eyes to you as a whiny, sad, bitter man with a bag of chips on each shoulder.

What did I do?

Your general revelry in the misfortune of others sickens my shite. Presbyterians or not, I don't think it's funny anyone losing their life savings. Not even if it was you ;)

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 31, 2009, 05:29:12 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 31, 2009, 05:21:14 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:13:20 PM

QuoteI'm starting to think fivetimes had a point!

He'd a point about what?

being a good judge of character. I don.t know if it is your time of the month but the past few days have opened my eyes to you as a whiny, sad, bitter man with a bag of chips on each shoulder.

What did I do?

Your general revelry in the misfortune of others sickens my shite. Presbyterians or not, I don't think it's funny anyone losing their life savings. Not even if it was you ;)

Can you provide me with some incidents of this because I cant recall any.

I don.t have time to trawl thru your entire history but lets just agree that I'm right and move on. Although you're doing some whining on the other thread about how the south didn't help you fight the brits. Whom you've now adopted as your brethren by living amongst them.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 31, 2009, 05:37:39 PM
I don.t have time to trawl thru your entire history but lets just agree that I'm right and move on. Although you're doing some whining on the other thread about how the south didn't help you fight the brits. Whom you've now adopted as your brethren by living amongst them.

Great reason,  ::) I'm a lot of things but someone who normally enjoys the misfortune of others is certainly not one of them. 

It is a private loans and savings institution, strictly for members of the presbyterian church.

6% £12m loaned  to churches,
9% £17m to commercial property developers,
13% £26m to private landlords for 'buy to let'
42% £85m to developers for building sites and development land.

Looks like the society rules favour the repayment of the depositer who have over 20k as against the depositer who have less than 20k. The societies own rules are arseways inclined.
Their investment portfolio is very suspect considering the way they used the  'thrift for presbyterians'  manifesto to suck in savers.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on January 31, 2009, 03:54:04 PM
just your continued question of why invest in an OO 'bank' and this institution had me wondering what was your resoning for this repeated focus

Eh? I said it once (and not directed towards you at all) - any other references were responding to your questions as to why you couldn't invest in a private institution.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:40:51 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 31, 2009, 05:37:39 PM
I don.t have time to trawl thru your entire history but lets just agree that I'm right and move on. Although you're doing some whining on the other thread about how the south didn't help you fight the brits. Whom you've now adopted as your brethren by living amongst them.

Great reason,  ::) I'm a lot of things but someone who normally enjoys the misfortune of others is certainly not one of them. 

Correct, that you are not.

You are a pessimistic sort of ballix though, I blame that on your diet of sausages and chips.  :P

I'm a realist stew.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 07:51:16 PM
I'm a realist stew.

So in your view a realist is automatically a pessimist?????

For god sake these poor people who invested for what they thought were the right reasons no matter what their religion is here.You have to feel for them most of these people have lost all their savings. Terrible state of affairs am sure they probaly are honest good hard working people.

Quote from: stew on January 31, 2009, 11:06:19 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 07:51:16 PM
I'm a realist stew.

So in your view a realist is automatically a pessimist?????

Yes, life is a bitch, the sooner people realise it and stop living in cloud cuckoo land the better.

there's a credit union on the doagh road in a Orange Hall right beside the local Pub in Rathfern (rathcoole area)

who woulld use that

does the Catholic Church have a bank? would they not give them a few pound?

Personally I'm not sure that these people should get a bailout or gov't help; simply because I don't know a thing about it and I suspect that most people on here wouldn't be fully tuned into the complexities of the economy, the recession or important things for the gov't to invest in.

However, and I'm just guessing here, you can tell me whether or not you disagree; but I reckon that had this been the Catholic Mutual Society, the usual bitters on here would have been ranting about how the "big, bad Bruddish government" were being sectarian for not saving them...

Just a thought.

Quote
However, and I'm just guessing here, you can tell me whether or not you disagree; but I reckon that had this been the Catholic Mutual Society, the usual bitters on here would have been ranting about how the "big, bad Bruddish government" were being sectarian for not saving them...

I dont think so.  There's your paranoia again.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 11:41:23 PM

Quote
However, and I'm just guessing here, you can tell me whether or not you disagree; but I reckon that had this been the Catholic Mutual Society, the usual bitters on here would have been ranting about how the "big, bad Bruddish government" were being sectarian for not saving them...

I dont think so.  There's your paranoia again.

???

If something similar happened to a  catholic mutual society they would be marching up and down the falls rd with the white buckets stopping the traffic

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 11:41:23 PM

Quote
However, and I'm just guessing here, you can tell me whether or not you disagree; but I reckon that had this been the Catholic Mutual Society, the usual bitters on here would have been ranting about how the "big, bad Bruddish government" were being sectarian for not saving them...

I dont think so.  There's your paranoia again.

Pints at least be honest. The reason you say "f**k them" is not because of their poor investment choices but because they are prods. At least some of the other numbskulls are honest enough to admit their own bigotry.

Milltown that Credit Union is behind the Cloughfern Arms in a loyalist heartland so it doesn't really conform to the theory that prods don.t use the credit union. Not unless the residents of Bawnmore are the only users!

tony

QuotePints at least be honest. The reason you say "f**k them" is not because of their poor investment choices but because they are prods. At least some of the other numbskulls are honest enough to admit their own bigotry.

No, I say f**k them because it's an odd pres only credit union like joint and I'd suspect their motives. 
If it was a similar catholic organisation Id say the same.

You can believe me if you want but have you ever known me to hold back on what I think on any subject?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 12:00:21 AM
tony

QuotePints at least be honest. The reason you say "f**k them" is not because of their poor investment choices but because they are prods. At least some of the other numbskulls are honest enough to admit their own bigotry.

No, I say f**k them because it's an odd pres only credit union like joint and I'd suspect their motives. 
If it was a similar catholic organisation Id say the same.

You can believe me if you want but have you ever known me to hold back on what I think on any subject?

You'd suspect the motives of the organisation or the people investing the money?

Motives of the organisation.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 11:33:13 PM
Yes, life is a bitch, the sooner people realise it and stop living in cloud cuckoo land the better.

Life is what you make it.

Totally agree. It's old people with retirement savings that will suffer the most here and that's nothing to be laughed at. I can guarantee that if the Catholic Church had a similar Society, the parents or grandparents of a large proportion of people on here (including some of those sneering) would be in the same situation.

However, rather than a government bailout, i think the Church should bail it out, as i'm sure it was the trust in the Church that would have been a primary motivation for such people investing there in the first place.

Quote from: Main Street on January 31, 2009, 06:55:37 PM
It is a private loans and savings institution, strictly for members of the presbyterian church.

6% £12m loaned  to churches,
9% £17m to commercial property developers,
13% £26m to private landlords for 'buy to let'
42% £85m to developers for building sites and development land.

Looks like the society rules favour the repayment of the depositer who have over 20k as against the depositer who have less than 20k. The societies own rules are arseways inclined.
Their investment portfolio is very suspect considering the way they used the  'thrift for presbyterians'  manifesto to suck in savers.

Ah at last , presumably the answer?
I expect that they must hav methods to ensure this is the case?

Either way, whatever about their religion (and the 'whataboutery' regarding if this was a catholic institution doesnt surprise me)
these guys from what was said on here and what I have heard elsewhere to back it up , WOULDNT join the regulatory bodies that would have secured their institution in the event of crash/failure/bankrupcy etc.
This seemed to be based on a religious/sectarian/bigoted rational, so they are suffering now for their bigotry etc.
Pity the poor ordinary sods that lost out their savings though.

Quote from: Double Cross on February 01, 2009, 12:58:57 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 11:33:13 PM
Yes, life is a bitch, the sooner people realise it and stop living in cloud cuckoo land the better.

Life is what you make it.

Because everything that happens in life is in our control?

Thats one financiial institution I will be delighted to see go under...and take as many of them with it as possible :D

Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 01, 2009, 11:41:18 AM

Quote from: Main Street on January 31, 2009, 06:55:37 PM
It is a private loans and savings institution, strictly for members of the presbyterian church.

6% £12m loaned  to churches,
9% £17m to commercial property developers,
13% £26m to private landlords for 'buy to let'
42% £85m to developers for building sites and development land.

Looks like the society rules favour the repayment of the depositer who have over 20k as against the depositer who have less than 20k. The societies own rules are arseways inclined.
Their investment portfolio is very suspect considering the way they used the  'thrift for presbyterians'  manifesto to suck in savers.

Ah at last , presumably the answer?
I expect that they must hav methods to ensure this is the case?

Either way, whatever about their religion (and the 'whataboutery' regarding if this was a catholic institution doesnt surprise me)
these guys from what was said on here and what I have heard elsewhere to back it up , WOULDNT join the regulatory bodies that would have secured their institution in the event of crash/failure/bankrupcy etc.
This seemed to be based on a religious/sectarian/bigoted rational, so they are suffering now for their bigotry etc.
Pity the poor ordinary sods that lost out their savings though.

"At last"?
I thought we had established that ages ago?

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 01, 2009, 09:36:31 AM
Totally agree. It's old people with retirement savings that will suffer the most here and that's nothing to be laughed at. I can guarantee that if the Catholic Church had a similar Society, the parents or grandparents of a large proportion of people on here (including some of those sneering) would be in the same situation.

However, rather than a government bailout, i think the Church should bail it out, as i'm sure it was the trust in the Church that would have been a primary motivation for such people investing there in the first place.

I agree with you on this point, which again brings me back to the big shopping centre/conference hall on Gt Victoria st/Fisherwick Pl. (currently being renovated at the Belfast rate payers expense) sell it and they could repay all the old dears their money and still have some left over for tea and scones.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 02, 2009, 11:41:44 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 01, 2009, 09:36:31 AM
Totally agree. It's old people with retirement savings that will suffer the most here and that's nothing to be laughed at. I can guarantee that if the Catholic Church had a similar Society, the parents or grandparents of a large proportion of people on here (including some of those sneering) would be in the same situation.

However, rather than a government bailout, i think the Church should bail it out, as i'm sure it was the trust in the Church that would have been a primary motivation for such people investing there in the first place.

I agree with you on this point, which again brings me back to the big shopping centre/conference hall on Gt Victoria st/Fisherwick Pl. (currently being renovated at the Belfast rate payers expense) sell it and they could repay all the old dears their money and still have some left over for tea and scones.

If i'm not mistaken that's because of its listed status rather than a handout to the Church as such. And just right that such buildings should be preserved.

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 02, 2009, 12:08:05 PM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 02, 2009, 11:41:44 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 01, 2009, 09:36:31 AM
Totally agree. It's old people with retirement savings that will suffer the most here and that's nothing to be laughed at. I can guarantee that if the Catholic Church had a similar Society, the parents or grandparents of a large proportion of people on here (including some of those sneering) would be in the same situation.

However, rather than a government bailout, i think the Church should bail it out, as i'm sure it was the trust in the Church that would have been a primary motivation for such people investing there in the first place.

I agree with you on this point, which again brings me back to the big shopping centre/conference hall on Gt Victoria st/Fisherwick Pl. (currently being renovated at the Belfast rate payers expense) sell it and they could repay all the old dears their money and still have some left over for tea and scones.

If i'm not mistaken that's because of its listed status rather than a handout to the Church as such. And just right that such buildings should be preserved.

Still doesn't take away from my main point, sell the building, it probably has a preservation order on it anyway, therefore would be saved from destruction.

Report on bbc news on Friday showing the property this sect owns in Glasgow City centre, which is breathtaking. If the freestate government is stupid enough to bail out a sectarian sect then I hope it has the sense to commandeer some of these assets. >:(

Looks like this cult was in contravention of its own beliefs, helping the rich get richer etc. Feel sorry for the people it has deluded, then again I feel sorry for people deluded by protestantism and its false beliefs generally

Quotebail out a sectarian sect

Your own sectarianism is quite tragic.

Quote
I feel sorry for people deluded by protestantism and its false beliefs generally

I feel sorry for people deluded by religion, especially those deluded enough to dislike other people who have a remarkably similar set of beliefs to be almost the same fecking religion.

I don't dislike any people (though 5 Sams and Hardy do put that assertion to the test frequently) I dislike protestantism, not protestants, and I am quite entitled to hold that opinion.

Quote from: T Fearon on February 02, 2009, 01:35:54 PM
I don't dislike any people (though 5 Sams and Hardy do put that assertion to the test frequently) I dislike protestantism, not protestants, and I am quite entitled to hold that opinion.

You're a bit like Iris and Ian Jr then? Hate the sinner, not the sin?

Can you not see your own hypocrisy every time you use the word 'sectarian'?

Actually no I can't. Now if the PMS admitted members to join regardless of their religious affiliation then it would be non sectarian.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 03:06:55 PM

Quote from: Double Cross on February 01, 2009, 12:58:57 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 11:33:13 PM
Yes, life is a bitch, the sooner people realise it and stop living in cloud cuckoo land the better.

Life is what you make it.

Because everything that happens in life is in our control?

Have another happy meal bubba  ::) Maybe a few prozac for desert  :D

Quote from: T Fearon on February 02, 2009, 01:35:54 PM
I don't dislike any people (though 5 Sams and Hardy do put that assertion to the test frequently) I dislike protestantism, not protestants, and I am quite entitled to hold that opinion.

Is this the same way you dislike the IFA not Ni fans (then openly attack ni fans often anyway)

Disliking protestantism is not sectarian, but an organization supporting Presbyterians is?

If the catholicism was talked about int he same way as you talk about protestantism youd be one of the first to cry sectarian.

Wrong again. I have criticised the behaviour of North of Ireland fans but my main gripe has always been with the IFA for its pandering to unionism and loyalism and its consequent failure to create a genuine cross community side.

Quoteit stops short of identifying the North Of Ireland soccer bigots as being essentially responsible.

is just one of your more recent comments, but you have continually made comments about ni fans in general. you even rang up a radio show to claim you heard something you hadn't.

I see your anti protestantism in the same manner, and your reaction on any attack on catholicism by muppets in the DUP for example would be markedly different.

Are you saying there are no bigots amind the North of Ireland support?

I did not attack any group or individual on the basis of a label (ie because he or she was a North of Ireland fan). I have attacked them communally when they deserve to be.

youve slandered the entire lot in your time Tony. Youve referred to us en masse as bigots etc etc.

Must have been someone using your computer who said:

QuoteInisceithleann your argument would hold water if indeed North of Ireland "fans" were indeed football fans. They are first and foremost staunch unionists/loyalists who use a so called international football team as a badge of political identity. Therein lies the crux of the problem

Better get the cops on to it when they are done with the bards case.

whats this north of ireland stuff. surely they are the northern ireland fans.

whats Fearon on about???

According to Will Crawley of BBC the Moderator is now blaming the Devil!  ::)

"Last night, the new Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, pictured, told a packed opening session of his church's General Assembly that the Presbyterian Mutual Society crisis was a satanic attack on the unity of their church."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html)

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 02, 2009, 11:41:44 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 01, 2009, 09:36:31 AM
Totally agree. It's old people with retirement savings that will suffer the most here and that's nothing to be laughed at. I can guarantee that if the Catholic Church had a similar Society, the parents or grandparents of a large proportion of people on here (including some of those sneering) would be in the same situation.

However, rather than a government bailout, i think the Church should bail it out, as i'm sure it was the trust in the Church that would have been a primary motivation for such people investing there in the first place.

I agree with you on this point, which again brings me back to the big shopping centre/conference hall on Gt Victoria st/Fisherwick Pl. (currently being renovated at the Belfast rate payers expense) sell it and they could repay all the old dears their money and still have some left over for tea and scones.

Surely you understand that a large part of the whole problem is that with property prices falling, a firesale would mean that the financial return wouldn't be close to savers' investments? :-\

I have to say the attitude of some commenters on here, going from gloating to lunatic paranoia, is appalling, but sadly not surprising.

I speak as someone of Presbterian background, though as I'm not a member of the Presbyterian Church I wouldn't have been eligible to invest in the PMS. My parents, as it happens, are among those who invested in the PMS - not all of their savings by any stretch, but still fairly significant amounts of money. They're not property magnates, just a normal retired couple, and they sure as hell weren't motivated by any thought of keeping property out of anyone's hands.

From my view, the PMS seems to have been very poorly managed (by people who were supposed to be experts) - since its management let its cash reserves fall to 5% of the value of investments, where something along the lines of 20% is seen as more advisable. It also seems that the Church, having encouraged Presbyterians to invest in the PMS, has washed its hands of the issue - pointing out that the Church and the PMS are not linked in any organisational way.

Quote from: MW on June 03, 2009, 12:05:39 AM
I have to say the attitude of some commenters on here, going from gloating to lunatic paranoia, is appalling, but sadly not surprising.

I speak as someone of Presbterian background, though as I'm not a member of the Presbyterian Church I wouldn't have been eligible to invest in the PMS. My parents, as it happens, are among those who invested in the PMS - not all of their savings by any stretch, but still fairly significant amounts of money. They're not property magnates, just a normal retired couple, and they sure as hell weren't motivated by any thought of keeping property out of anyone's hands.

From my view, the PMS seems to have been very poorly managed (by people who were supposed to be experts) - since its management let its cash reserves fall to 5% of the value of investments, where something along the lines of 20% is seen as more advisable. It also seems that the Church, having encouraged Presbyterians to invest in the PMS, has washed its hands of the issue - pointing out that the Church and the PMS are not linked in any organisational way.

You could only be referring to Pints!

Quote from: MW on June 03, 2009, 12:05:39 AM
I have to say the attitude of some commenters on here, going from gloating to lunatic paranoia, is appalling, but sadly not surprising.

I speak as someone of Presbterian background, though as I'm not a member of the Presbyterian Church I wouldn't have been eligible to invest in the PMS. My parents, as it happens, are among those who invested in the PMS - not all of their savings by any stretch, but still fairly significant amounts of money. They're not property magnates, just a normal retired couple, and they sure as hell weren't motivated by any thought of keeping property out of anyone's hands.

From my view, the PMS seems to have been very poorly managed (by people who were supposed to be experts) - since its management let its cash reserves fall to 5% of the value of investments, where something along the lines of 20% is seen as more advisable. It also seems that the Church, having encouraged Presbyterians to invest in the PMS, has washed its hands of the issue - pointing out that the Church and the PMS are not linked in any organisational way.

MW sorry to hear that your parents sufferred under this company, but I still couldn't condone the taxpayer having to bail out what was basically an exclusive investment company through which the investors had hoped to make substantial returns.
Say we did bail out the PMS, where does the money come from? Hospitals, elderly benefits, education etc....?

I have a lot of sincere sympathy for the elderly people affect by the collapse of the PMS. I'd feel the same way about any group of trusting, vulnerable people who see their savings disappear because they were let down by both Church and State.
If what that nutter :(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html) has to say is the official policy of  his church, even Old Nick himself must feel a bit upset. He gets the blame for a lot of things but this takes the biscuit!
If I get caught robbing, say, my local bank, can I expect to get off the hook by saying the devil led me astray?
"Throw the book at him but I am totally free of all responsibility," mightn't be the best defence to advance!
The church definitely has a moral obligation to come to the aid of those who invested in the PMS. Of that, I have no doubt. To say it's not linked to the society in any organisational way doesn't hide the fact that there are lots of other ways including the moral one.
I can understand MW's concern for his parents. I accept that every pound they invested was not being used to help keep property out of Catholics' hands.
I note the comments of the FSA; as a non-legal observer, I would think there are lots of reasons why the society's activities should land the officials concerned in court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8081315.stm


IMO a disgrace, can I get the money back that I lost when the value of my shares dropped? Not damn f**king likely!

So now let me get this right. Catholics and Non Presby's are now having to bail out an organisation that they are banned from entering and gaining any benefit from, using our taxes.

We are already paying for the banks and building soceties which is fair enough because they are open to everyone but now we have to bail out a scheme designed to make one set of our soceity that little bit richer.

It is the people who invested faults, they should have known they werent covered if it went bust before they put money in it. They should have been asking questions as to why they were bankrolling developers to the extent they were and to why the were over stretched when the inevitable down turn came.

To me this is total and utter disgrace, they should have to sell anything with any value to help themselves.

Yet again we see the colour of this stormont assembly and lack of bottle to stand up to a soceity who rejected the majority of the rest of the community.

Quote from: NAG1 on June 03, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Yet again we see the colour of this stormont assembly and lack of bottle to stand up to a soceity who rejected the majority of the rest of the community.

I don't think that is relevant at all.

I am not a member of the Presbyterian or any other church and I am not in favour of bailing the PMS out.  However, the PMS argument has a degree of merit given since they argue that it was HMG's  actions to underwrite the banks that caused the PMS collapse as it started a run on the PMS which they couldn't fund.  That only has some degree of merit as the PMS invested money in property raking in large returns during the boom but now their balance sheet needs revalued and it's pretty much banjaxed. Personally I wouldn't bail the PMS out but to insinuate that this is a religious discrimination issue is inaccurate.

I would say that the PMS made it a religious discrimination issue when they refused to let other religions deposit money

Roger your living in a different world if you dont think this is a discrimination case.

They discriminated against which money they would take as an investor so we now should have the right to do the same back as tax payers.

Also instead of offending the Presby this goverment is doing all it can to keep them onside, they should be saying private money private problem and leave the tax payers money to fund schools or hospitals which it is intended to do.

Quote from: tyronefan on June 03, 2009, 04:02:00 PM
I would say that the PMS made it a religious discrimination issue when they refused to let other religions deposit money

Any decision to support the collapsed PMS is not a religious discrimination issue. As I said there is some merit in their argument that HMGs completely unprecedented actions adversely affected them (and other investment clubs) and therefore damaged the level playing field that should have been expected and that responsible government should promote not destroy.

Quote from: NAG1 on June 03, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
Roger your living in a different world if you dont think this is a discrimination case.

It is a private members' investment club. I suppose every religious organisation is discriminatory so fair point, however I quoted the bit about future support for the PMS by government, not about the club entry criteria.

QuoteAlso instead of offending the Presby this goverment is doing all it can to keep them onside, they should be saying private money private problem and leave the tax payers money to fund schools or hospitals which it is intended to do.

I tend to agree however societies wrecked by unprecedented government actions in the financial sector have a case which would include any private investment club regardless of their membership criteria. The difficulty is how to value how much HMG contributed to the collapse or how much PMS did so themselves ie by having a risky liquidity situation and a balance sheet which relied far too heavily on estimated valuations of future property sales.

So even though you not and me not being able to gain any benefit from the organisation during the good times means we should bail it out in the bad when it was clearly their own fault for over stretching themselves.

Don't members of the Presbyterian cult claim to be bible believers? Does it not say in the Bible to worry not, the Lord will provide? Therefore waht are they moaning about?

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on January 30, 2009, 11:02:00 AM
Sure the Pressers have a big building in Belfast City Centre on Great Victoria Street, sell it and all the financial woes would be solved in one fell swoop!

http://www.spiresbelfast.co.uk

Reading this for the first time and I simply could not believe this post from you GDA.

Quote from: Roger on June 03, 2009, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: tyronefan on June 03, 2009, 04:02:00 PM
I would say that the PMS made it a religious discrimination issue when they refused to let other religions deposit money

Any decision to support the collapsed PMS is not a religious discrimination issue. As I said there is some merit in their argument that HMGs completely unprecedented actions adversely affected them (and other investment clubs) and therefore damaged the level playing field that should have been expected and that responsible government should promote not destroy.

Hey Roger,  I own a property that I bought as an investment and it is rented out. It is now worth about 70 % of what I paid for it as a result of the property crash. Should I recieve assistance?

Quote from: NAG1 on June 03, 2009, 03:00:20 PM
Yet again we see the colour of this stormont assembly and lack of bottle to stand up to a soceity who rejected the majority of the rest of the community.

Read the article again - Stormont is being bypassed on this one.

Quote from: NAG1 on June 03, 2009, 04:50:20 PM
So even though you not and me not being able to gain any benefit from the organisation during the good times means we should bail it out in the bad when it was clearly their own fault for over stretching themselves.

There are plenty of cases where I am not eligible for public assistance so it isn't the issue.  I'm not for bailing the PMS out due to it being a private investment club and they made investment decisions which were effectively a gamble that didn't pay off.  Where I have some sympathy is that because HMG took actions in the financial system they contributed to collapse of this society's fund in an unfair manner that the PMS could not have predicted.  Therefore some compensatory payment could be due.  That said, this would set a dangerous precedent and open the flood gates to other societies and credit unions potentially claiming which I don't think the country can afford to go down that route however right it might be to do so.

I don't see any bailout for PMS as being fueled by any religious favouritism by the state towards Presbyterianism though.

Quote from: EC Unique on June 03, 2009, 05:24:46 PM
Hey Roger,  I own a property that I bought as an investment and it is rented out. It is now worth about 70 % of what I paid for it as a result of the property crash. Should I recieve assistance?

No, the money should be given to me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8081315.stm

This story has changed again!
No sign of a bail-out as things stand.

Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

Have to agree with that.

Quote from: Lecale2 on June 02, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
According to Will Crawley of BBC the Moderator is now blaming the Devil!  ::)

"Last night, the new Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, pictured, told a packed opening session of his church's General Assembly that the Presbyterian Mutual Society crisis was a satanic attack on the unity of their church."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html)

That's a good one.
If the PMS took action to sue Satan for compensation in the courts, Satan could  counter quite effectively with a "what do they expect, they sold their soul to Satan" defense.

Quote from: Main Street on June 04, 2009, 12:17:16 AM

Quote from: Lecale2 on June 02, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
According to Will Crawley of BBC the Moderator is now blaming the Devil!  ::)

"Last night, the new Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Stafford Carson, pictured, told a packed opening session of his church's General Assembly that the Presbyterian Mutual Society crisis was a satanic attack on the unity of their church."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/pms_crisis_is_a_satanic_attack.html)

That's a good one.
If the PMS took action to sue Satan for compensation in the courts, Satan could  counter quite effectively with a "what do they expect, they sold their soul to Satan" defense.

I heard on Radio Ulster that one of the ministers was giving out about those who were taking legal action against the PMS or the Church, because "Christians don't sue Christiams" apparently.

They should just remember the one about the camel, the needle, the rich man and heaven.

As has been said over and over, the country is coming down with people who have lost everything due to bad investments (or good investments that turned bad). No one is riding to their rescue. Suck it up.

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

Quote from: tyronefan on June 04, 2009, 09:36:03 AM

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.   ::)

I feel sorry for the people who invested, but really their is a responsibility on individuals to know the story with where they place their investments.
I am aware of the liability with regards to my savings by the government, and if lucky enough to have over the limit would ensure to spread the load across multiple institutions to ensure the safety of it.

That said, those ministers who encouraged people to invest, and are now claiming it is nothing to do with them are a disgrace.

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 10:24:53 AM

Quote from: tyronefan on June 04, 2009, 09:36:03 AM

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.   ::)

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Quote from: Franko on June 04, 2009, 10:54:45 AM

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 10:24:53 AM

Quote from: tyronefan on June 04, 2009, 09:36:03 AM

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.   ::)

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Do you think the Dunfermline Mutual assistance has created precedent for PMS?

I think ALL of the banks bailouts in Ireland/Britain have caused precedent.

IMO NONE of them should have received money to bail them out from their own crass incompetence or ineptitude.

the presb mutual society are simply another bank that has fraternal/slightly sectarian auspices/membership

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 11:23:25 AM
IMO NONE of them should have received money to bail them out from their own crass incompetence or ineptitude.

The economic devastation caused by government inaction would have been much greater than the cost of intervening. The "do nothing option" wasn't appropriate and wasn't really a realistic option at all. The problem now is how to deal with these other institutions that have been adversely affected by the necessary actions.

The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 11:01:43 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 04, 2009, 10:54:45 AM

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 10:24:53 AM

Quote from: tyronefan on June 04, 2009, 09:36:03 AM

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.   ::)

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Do you think the Dunfermline Mutual assistance has created precedent for PMS?

According to Alex Salmond the Duinfermline Building Society was not helped out its profitable parts were bought out by the nationwide http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/31/dunfermline-takeover-nationwide. Hope that link works. Anyway Alex got all bothered that Gordon would not bail out the society like he did the banks and was selling one of Scotlands instituitions on the cheap. By the way the Dunfermline was a building society open to all customers anywhere in the UK unlike the PMS. The Dunfermline was regulated by the FSA.

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

All investments carry a risk. Even the regulated insured major Bank saver deposit accounts carried a big enough risk before the banks crashed.

The fine print, in basic major Bank savings accounts, stated in all probability according to Euro regulations,  that the Bank was regulated and  passed fit for purpose. That the bank contributed some miniscule % to an insurance fund and the savers account was gaurenteed up to the first  €20k.
Should a bank crash then the insurance fund was the only fund to be used to compensate savers.
If this insurance fund was properly set up then the Government was not obliged to make up any differences.
If the insurance fund was not adequately set up then the Gov were obliged to step in and fulfil the limited guarentees.

In all respects, this private savers club, the PMS, did not fulfill any of these standards.

Quote from: Main Street on June 04, 2009, 12:58:45 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

All investments carry a risk. Even the regulated insured major Bank saver deposit accounts carried a big enough risk before the banks crashed.

The fine print, in basic major Bank savings accounts, stated in all probability according to Euro regulations,  that the Bank was regulated and  passed fit for purpose. That the bank contributed some miniscule % to an insurance fund and the savers account was gaurenteed up to the first  €20k.
Should a bank crash then the insurance fund was the only fund to be used to compensate savers.
If this insurance fund was properly set up then the Government was not obliged to make up any differences.
If the insurance fund was not adequately set up then the Gov were obliged to step in and fulfil the limited guarentees.

In all respects, this private savers club, the PMS, did not fulfill any of these standards.

If the government do bale them out are they leaving themselves open for bale outs from other unregulated clubs or private individuals? My mate is in a shares club - could he reasonably compare their club to that of the PMS?

very true tony - the PMS simply cannot be bailed out, otherwise as you say any unregulated group could simply demand so.

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 11:01:43 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 04, 2009, 10:54:45 AM

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 10:24:53 AM

Quote from: tyronefan on June 04, 2009, 09:36:03 AM

Quote from: stew on June 03, 2009, 09:13:54 PM
Some of the gloating going on here is really disgusting and should be beneath some of you.

So what if a Church wants to do business strictly with its own members? why would anyone else give a shite. This is not sectarian it is called fraternalism and the Presbyterians are entitled to do it under the law so fair fecks to them.

That said, they should not receive one penny in bailout, sorry MW but I just lost $124.500 in my house and over 90k in the holiday home in florida and nobody is sending me any bailout money.

I think the problem is that they are looking for the tax payers to bail them out, not that they only allow Presbyterians to deposit although I would have thought that it was against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion

The problem is that public intervention in the financial market caused their collapse and they are therefore seeking compensation from the public purse.  Dunfermline Mutual got assistance (where is Gordon from?) and there is an argument that the PMS should too.  My understanding is that PMS is technically an investment club ie gambled on the market (even though to all intents and purposes the members used it as a savings plan but that's really tough luck) whereas Dunfermline is more of a savings club.  That said I don't see one should receive assistance if the other one does not.  The problem is that this puts the public purse at serious risk from other claims from clubs and unions seeking compensation and therefore I am not really in favour of support.  It is the downside of the actions of HMG in the financial sector and I have a lot of sympathy for the PMS and any other club or union adversely effected by those actions.

It is not illegal religious discrimination for a society to be formed exclusively from a religious organisation.   ::)

I agree that the society can include/exclude whosoever they wish but the argument that they should in any way recieve compensation from the Government because they 'caused' their collapsed does not hold water.  They were not regulated by the FSA therefore they are not the responsibility of the Government/Taxpayer.  End of.

Do you think the Dunfermline Mutual assistance has created precedent for PMS?

Certainly not, it was FSA regulated.

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 11:30:56 AM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 11:23:25 AM
IMO NONE of them should have received money to bail them out from their own crass incompetence or ineptitude.

The economic devastation caused by government inaction would have been much greater than the cost of intervening. The "do nothing option" wasn't appropriate and wasn't really a realistic option at all. The problem now is how to deal with these other institutions that have been adversely affected by the necessary actions.

as far as I am aware, there is no cost required by any of the existing banks
the bail out for most was the state guarantee in case of any probems (obv not for anglo irish bank here who are getting funded as they were 'taken over' by the state)
so apart from one or two banks/financial institutions that went to the wall there was no action actually required.
The problems were that peole woul dhave reacted like the northern rock situation and the run on banks liqudity/cash could crash them, otherwise witout consumer panic, banks have been fine.
the 'do nothing option' would have been better imo (apart from the scare issue for consumers as above) as at least then no taxpayers money would have been wasted or pledged towards commercial organisations that shoul dhave been able to stand on their own two feet in the first place.
So I am afraid that I cannot agree with your assessment of the situation.
Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

the precedent is there, but if someone/anyone challenges the dunfermiline scenario, it could very well be overturned !
But down here we have precedent with mutual org 'EBS' that was also part of the gov guarantee with taxpayers money.

Taxpayers money imo that coul dhave been used to better effect to retain jobs, bolster unemployed/redundancies etc !

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:37:28 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:37:28 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

btw, dont mention 'financial regulator' they were a fecking joke/mess disgrace down here !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:36:31 PM
Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor  ::)

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 03:34:05 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:36:31 PM
Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor  ::)

well neither of us agree with bailing the banks(and financial institutions) out then !

however the pms are at best guilty of negligence by not having sufficient failsafe measures and also not investing their investors money wisely.
Neither did the banks, but thats the point, they are all like a shower of lemmings and couldnt see the woods from the trees etc.
Gross negligence should not be bailed out  (or worse still 'rewarded'  - as top brass down here have received large bonus/pay offs etc ! ! ! !)

How on Earth could the Financial Regulator be expected to deal with a Statanic attack on this organisation?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 03:49:39 PM

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 03:34:05 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:36:31 PM
Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor  ::)

well neither of us agree with bailing the banks(and financial institutions) out then !

however the pms are at best guilty of negligence by not having sufficient failsafe measures and also not investing their investors money wisely.
Neither did the banks, but thats the point, they are all like a shower of lemmings and couldnt see the woods from the trees etc.
Gross negligence should not be bailed out  (or worse still 'rewarded'  - as top brass down here have received large bonus/pay offs etc ! ! ! !)

I think HMG needed to get involved in the financial sector.  Not bail them out but there needed some intervention as the economic devastation would have been horrendous.

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 03:55:08 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 03:49:39 PM

Quote from: Roger on June 04, 2009, 03:34:05 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:36:31 PM
Sounds like you have money invested in this organisation, because you are going a bit to try to justify this institution being 'rescued' !

If you read my posts you will see I don't want it bailed out.  I just have some sympathy for the PMS situation as it was adversely effected by government actions.  I am not a member of PMS and have been a victim of the most blatant religious sectarianism by this corrupt cultist oppressor  ::)

well neither of us agree with bailing the banks(and financial institutions) out then !

however the pms are at best guilty of negligence by not having sufficient failsafe measures and also not investing their investors money wisely.
Neither did the banks, but thats the point, they are all like a shower of lemmings and couldnt see the woods from the trees etc.
Gross negligence should not be bailed out  (or worse still 'rewarded'  - as top brass down here have received large bonus/pay offs etc ! ! ! !)

I think HMG needed to get involved in the financial sector.  Not bail them out but there needed some intervention as the economic devastation would have been horrendous.

I dont necessarily agree, apart from the public fear causing a 'run' on savings/deposit accounts , nothing untoward has actually happened the banks.

I'd hope hmg's gov would have a better go and grasp of proper deeper legislation and policy/procedure than the Dail had.
Our legislation didnt go beyond the top line of documentation !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 03:24:40 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:37:28 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 04:15:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 03:24:40 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:37:28 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

one that didnt protect themselves or their investors money.....sure they may as well have been that 'christmas club' that went broke an stung all those poor sods a year and a half ago ! (or was it older than that ?)


at least the banks (and other mutual societies) attempted to do something by adhering to some kind of regulatory affiliation and acreditation/protection.


I'll ask that question again but in more detail to allow you grasp the concept...

what kind of an institution was that pms anyhow that it didnt look into protecting their own and their customers money in the event of something going wrong. Obv Due dilligence not bothered with here !

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 04:43:38 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 04:15:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 03:24:40 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:37:28 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

one that didnt protect themselves or their investors money.....sure they may as well have been that 'christmas club' that went broke an stung all those poor sods a year and a half ago ! (or was it older than that ?)


at least the banks (and other mutual societies) attempted to do something by adhering to some kind of regulatory affiliation and acreditation/protection.


I'll ask that question again but in more detail to allow you grasp the concept...

what kind of an institution was that pms anyhow that it didnt look into protecting their own and their customers money in the event of something going wrong. Obv Due dilligence not bothered with here !

Here, hold up a minute - I'm not sure what your change in tone is about - I wasn't actually disagreeing with you!

All I was saying was that it was a private institution - and yes, apparently one that was badly managed. If it had been publically selling itself as a bank, it would have been subject to FSA oversight, and would therefore be eligible for bailout, you'd have to imagine.

I don't think the government should bail it out. I do think that the Presbyterian Church has an obligation to those who poured their life savings into it, thinking it was a savings account - you have to feel sympathy for such people. It may have been stupidity, but more likely naivety on their part - or maybe the PMS didn't actually explain the nature of the institution and therefore, the risk.

Was government intervention in line with FSA regulation or did the government change the level of playing field for the PMS by its actions? 

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 06:55:05 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 04:43:38 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 04:15:58 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 03:24:40 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 04, 2009, 02:37:28 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
The critical difference is that it wasn't a bank or a regulated institution. All of the banks are subject to regulation - i'm assuming the Dunfermline was as well.

maybe the six counties are different but down here mutual organisations have the same rating /status as banks - eg the EBS building society !

Yes, presumably because they're regulated by the Financial Regulator. The PMS wasn't regulated by the FSA.

fair enough
would have expected all institutions that deal with money were bound by law to be affiliated and adhere to financial regulations !
AFAIK its only the loan sharks that are not !
It begs the question, what sort of an 'institution' was that pms anyhow ! ! !

A private one, for private investment.

one that didnt protect themselves or their investors money.....sure they may as well have been that 'christmas club' that went broke an stung all those poor sods a year and a half ago ! (or was it older than that ?)


at least the banks (and other mutual societies) attempted to do something by adhering to some kind of regulatory affiliation and acreditation/protection.


I'll ask that question again but in more detail to allow you grasp the concept...

what kind of an institution was that pms anyhow that it didnt look into protecting their own and their customers money in the event of something going wrong. Obv Due dilligence not bothered with here !

Here, hold up a minute - I'm not sure what your change in tone is about - I wasn't actually disagreeing with you!

All I was saying was that it was a private institution - and yes, apparently one that was badly managed. If it had been publically selling itself as a bank, it would have been subject to FSA oversight, and would therefore be eligible for bailout, you'd have to imagine.

I don't think the government should bail it out. I do think that the Presbyterian Church has an obligation to those who poured their life savings into it, thinking it was a savings account - you have to feel sympathy for such people. It may have been stupidity, but more likely naivety on their part - or maybe the PMS didn't actually explain the nature of the institution and therefore, the risk.

I'm with you on this one, Maguire.
The church has to face up to a huge responsibility because of their association with the PMS.
Blaming the quare fella isn't an option.

looks like the they will be getin there money back. Oh the joys of being a prod

just thought of it - the pms should have asked the Irish gov for a handout/bailout !
sure all the other financial institutions in Ireland got this once they asked !!

worse now that the 'guarantee' has moved into actual funding now !

Quote from: Bensars on January 30, 2009, 11:49:05 AM
There is an irony however, that as an organisation they dont allow catholics to join/invest, yet are appealing to the irish government ( amoung others) to bail them out.

Didn't realise that the Irish Government was a Catholic organisation, I thought it was a Republic.

This organisation should not be bailed out by the taxpayer. They were not a mutual fund. Ostensibly they began as a savings society for members of the Presbyterian Church, and that was fine. But they then began to speculate heavily in property, seeking bigger profits, and that is where they incurred their losses. You take the risk you suffer the consequences. The taxpayer was never  going to profit from their possible gains, so why should we fund their losses. What we are asked to underwrite is greed

The majority of the bailout is actually a loan to the administrator who has to make repayments from the assets of the PMS; this element won't cost the taxpayer. It's £25m in cash and £175m for the loan.