Presbyterian Mutual Society asks for help!!!!

[nifan]

it 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.

[T Fearon]

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.

[nifan]

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

[nifan]

Must have been someone using your computer who said:

Inisceithleann 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.

[milltown row]

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

whats Fearon on about???

[Lecale2]

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

[MW]

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?

[MW]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

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!

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

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....?

[Lar Naparka]

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.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

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!

[NAG1]

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.

[Roger]

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.

[tyronefan]

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