³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Today (14/2/2010) on Sunday Sequence Stafford Carson urged christians
"to consider others better than yourselves"

This must be a bit rich from a man who refused to allow a colleague preach from his pulpit, because this colleague was a woman, in his eyes not even his equal to preach, never mind "better"

"cosider others better than yourselves" Yet Stafford Carson and his church say "the Popish sacrifices of the Mass, is most abominably injurious to Christs one sacfifice" westminster Confession Of Faith chap29pt2

Stafford Carson and his church also say "the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of christs body and blood....is repugnent, not to sripture alone, but even to commonsense and reason"chap29pt6


How dare Stafford Carson say "consider putting others above yourselves"

Ths day he allows a woman to preach in his pulpit, and calls Roman Catholics his brothers and sisters in Christ, is the day he can talk about considering others better than ourselves.

No wonder the great Mohandas Gandhi said " Jesus Christ and his teachings I can understand, its the followers of Jesus Christ I cannot understand, for they do not follow Christs teachings"

As far as the Presbyterian Mutual Society is concerned. The Presbyterians keep telling us the reason the society had problems was due to Gordon Brown, giving an assurance to investors in regulated Banks etc that their money was safe, and that he would compensate any losses any saver had in one of these institutions. The Presbyterians say this caused a run on their society, with people wanting to withdraw their money from PMS, so therefore it is Gordon Browns fault

What the Presbyterians fail to point out is that the adminstators review and report say the reason why PMS collapsed was due to the collapse in valuations of development land, and the loss of rental income to the PMS.

The PMS was involved in deals it should never had anything to do with.
These are the reasons the PMS failed.

The Presbyterian Church say that their savers etc did not understand what the law etc was, and should be compensated. Not knowing is a defence
which does not work in any other walk of life.
Stafford Carson says that PMS savers are the only ones not to be compensated, not true, savers of Equitable Life have never been compensated, even though every report, including the Parliamentary Ombudsman in a very detailed report says the loss suffered by Equitable Life savers is unjust, and called on Gordon Brown to compensate. The PMS and Presbyterian Church have had no such report in their favour.
Of course there is one big difference, PMS was NOT a regulated society, unlike Equitable Life, does Stafford Carson care about that? Does he want to consider others above himself?

On the usual overseas visit Stafford Carson talked of the great need and poverty he had seen and how we should be more thankful, yet in the next sentance, he say we want our money, indeed we want ALL our money now! and we want Gordon Brown to pay up!

Stafford Carson has now even used politics to advance his cause.

It is very clear tha if PMS savers/shareholders are compensated it will be due to politics, and will have nothing to do with what is right or just.

PMS savers were misled to believe that their savings were safe in this institution. The association with the Church and the assurances that their money would not be "speculated" with points to the fact that the majority of those with their money in the PMS were not shrewd, calculating investors, but in fact people who wanted their money looked after in a safe place, who were NOT interested in making money, who believed that if anything the PMS would be safer than a 'typical' Bank. It is a sad fact that a large proportion of PMS savers are pensioners, people who probably did not even stop to imagine/were totally unaware, that their money was not covered by a government guarantee. These people are tax-payers, they are suffering, some have lost EVERYTHING they ever worked and saved for... I am baffled at some of the negative and heartless comments that have been left on many of these blogs. Would these people leave these same comments if they had lost money in a similar situation? I think not. What about the Icelandic Banks that were bailed out with the help of the UK government? What was the 'difference' in this case that meant they deserved help but a much smaller institution in the UK does not? There are some unimaginable hardship stories out there and I believe that the government AND the people of this country have a duty to stand up for and protect INNOCENT savers who were MISLED and let down by a multitude of regulatory and management failures. Please let this all be sorted out soon and may mistakes be learnt from so that nothing like this ever happens again.