³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

At last someone from the Presbyterian church is talking some sense. He is quite correct and if large numbers of investors hadn't withdrawn huge sums of money the PMS would still be solvent. I forget who it was that said last week that certain members seemed to be aware of this lack of gaurantees for mutual societies, hence the run on the PMS. The majority unfortunately didn't.

I for one have signed the on line petition. I strongly feel that the PMS problem should have cross party support.

However, there is a strong feeling out there (in cetain quarters) that this was an investment oppurtunity only open to Presbyterians and some of those outside the church are commenting (to me anyway) "slap it into them" and lacking any sympathy at all for the society's members.

Still, by the same token you could argue the same for over fifties savings accounts or car insurance companies that only insure women.

He is right. The run was caused by unfair competition instigated by Governments. If a government guarantees specific named banks then others are clearly more at risk.

There will always be a sectarian element who chuckle at Presybterians being affected - I recall someone singing "no jobs for the prods" to the tune of Brown Girl in the Ring" when the shipyard closed.

Patton makes sense.

A good interview from the Moderator. Will pressed him hard and he stood his ground well. He's a decent man, very human, and that comes across. If I were PCI, I'd get him to do more interviews because they could do with a human face for the church right now. Well done, Moderator.

And ... how bizarre, that so many leading Presbyterians are not signed-up on the petition yet. Conflicting signals or what?

I can see why the Moderator would be nervous about a possible legal case. That all hangs on whether the resolution passed at the General Assembly can be called "financial advice". That's why the Clerk of the Assembly is so careful to say the resolution is NOT financial advice.

Should the government give protection to all those lottery players, those who frequent the bookies or who gamble online every time they lose their stake money, I don’t think so, so then why should the government give protection to those that have gambled with investments in mutual societies hoping to make a profit but ignoring the fact that they could incur a loss. There is no difference between gambling with bookies, the lottery or with mutual societies or the stock market, they are all playing the chance game, there’s no point rubbing your hands with glee when you’re a winner but crying when you’re a loser, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

I’m surprised that a church should use their pulpits on the Lord’s Day in support of signing a petition to lobby the PM, for the protection of the funds of a sectarian society, exclusive to Presbyterians, if he gives protection to one mutual society he opens the flood gates to all other similar societies whose investments are running at a loss, those investors that gambled with their money in a mutual society must realise that they were not banking their money with a bank, but were taking a calculated chance hoping to make a profit.

Mutual societies are not banks and it is about time those that use such societies become conscious of this fact and that they took a chance with their funds, their investments can either go up or they can go down, you either become a winner or a loser, there’s no point trying to stop the horse after it has bolted.

I wonder how man Presbyterian ministers who have signed the e-petition have actually preached against gambling from the same pulpits that they used to lobby the PM, for the protection of the investments of Presbyterians who took a chance with the PMS hoping to make a gain. There’s no point hair splitting between gambling with a bookmaker or a mutual society to spilt hairs is the leaven of the Pharisees. Rather than preach hypocrisy from the pulpit, Presbyterian ministers would be better employed preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, setting their pulpits on fire with the Glory of God. When was the last time in Ulster that a pulpit was on fire.

Here’s some food for Presbyterian Ministers who has the tendency for a flutter.

The Bible says nothing about gambling, but that doesn’t mean that it is O.K. to gamble, but it does violates biblical principles, covetousness greed and stealing, there may be those who argue it is by mutual consent but that does not absolve the argument of stealing because your neighbour loses winning in gambling is the equivalent to stealing, it is sinful to create wealth without working for it, the spirit of Christianity is to work for wealth and to give to those in need (Christian charity) there are four righteous biblical principles to gain wealth.

• Inheritance Hebrews 11 v 8
• Labour Ephesians 4 v 28
• Charity Acts 4 v 35

For every winner there are more losers, winning at the expense of others should be avoided in all forms as it causes suffering in some shape or form, to gamble is to live by chance as it negates the divine providence of GOD, GOD is sovereign and controls all even the shake of dice, Proverbs 16 v 33 but that doesn’t mean that we have to test GOD, for to test GOD is sin, Jesus said unto him,(the Devil) It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the
Lord thy God. Matthew 4 v 7 When government sponsors gambling it goes against the biblical principles of government because it works against the poor and needy the vulnerable of our society whom government should be directly helping not by putting spin on lotteries by saying we are helping good causes because this argument doesn’t morally legitimize gambling, gambling is economic fraud and is a dishonest way to seek wealth.

In America alone the equivalent of $4000 is spent on gambling for every man woman and child, is this not obscene why should the poor give their income to the rich.

As a Presbyterian voice crying in the wilderness I have written to the PM, lobbying him not to offer protection to mutual societies, for in doing so he would only open a can of worms.

Puritan

There is a difference between gambling and investment. All investment carries a risk. Every business venture carries a risk. And the second you lodge an account with a bank, 90% of your funds (at the very least) will be invested by that bank. And you are taking a risk - there is a chance, however small, that the bank will fold.

Furthermore if you take any loan, including a mortgage the bank is "betting" that you can repay with interest.

Your heart is in the right place, but unless you have converted to Islam since we last interacted, I think you need to reflect a little more on the issue.

Graham Veale
(a reluctant Presbyterian)

In Puritan's defence I've heard many ministers get very confused over the difference between casinos and the stock market. Business Ethics rarely comes up in Pastoral Training, and I think this underlies the Churches weak response to the Credit Crunch. Other than mentioning that greed isn't nice and that money isn't everything, we haven't really mentioned anything about civil society, freedom and free markets.
I find the lack of thought disturbing.

GV

Commenting on the PMS debacle has got me in trouble, so here's a slightly tangential remark.

I find the lack of thought in our churches disturbing, full stop.

BTW, The Puritan has a point, in fact he has a number of them!

The moral difference between gambling and investing? Uh, I would have thought it's barely discernible; shades of gray. Unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise...

So Puritan how do we make money?
If you are a business man for example and buy a load of stock say "jeans" or "shoes" is he not taking a risk and hoping that they will sell for the price he wants them to what happens if they do not sell and he make a loss is he a gambler or a trader?
As far as I know the PMS invested in property and not the stock market.
Here are a few verses from the bible about making money if you are interested
Matthew Chapter 25 verses 15-30
Remember a lot of good people have been hurt and been devastated by the fall of the PMS. For what it is worth I would be careful who I write to and remember real lives of honest people are involved here.

Ultimately the high street banks whom the government have bailed out through the collective of the taxpayer are open to all taxpayers who can prove their identity, whereas the majority of taxpayers were excluded from being PMS members, because they were not Presbyterians, so why should those non-Presbyterian taxpayers be held responsible for bailing out the PMS because some of their members broke the mutuality towards their brothers and sisters, by withdrawing their investment before the PMS was frozen leaving the remainder of their fellow Presbyterians in a state of uncertainty.

Strange providence does visit good people, such as in the life of Joseph whose brothers sold him for twenty pieces of silver, but God meant it for good.

Although the PMS was a mutual society, I would imagine that most investors would not have viewed it as gambling. As has been shown recently, all investments carry a risk, even putting your money in the bank. Don't forget that banks also reinvest your savings in the stockmarket, even in the futures market which in my opinion is no different from gambling. No matter where you invest your money you are going to be prone to "gambling". The only sure way you can be imune is to keep you savings under the bed.

In fact, given the derisery interest rates for savers at the moment it's probably far better to put at least some of your savings into shares. Even if they don't rise by that much they still pay out a dividend which will probably be greater than most savings rates at the moment.

I still feel that the PMS wasn't some small credit union like outfit. Given the number of people affected and the huge amount of money involved, it was one of the larger financial institutions in NI.

John

You can't see the difference between a wealth creation and trying to beat a casino at roulette?

I suppose you may have a point - "gambling" isn't a helpful term. Risk is part of business. I think that Puritan and I have a problem with games that cause more social harm than social good.

GV