The financial affairs of the RST

[craig 5,199]

Would the fact that Mr. Harris complaints would have been answered by both the auditor and the independant legal advice not have seen his statement almost redundant? Would the 35 people present have voted to not pass the accounts in the face of 2 independant sources saying that it was all fine? Cant see it.

 

The fact that both the auditors and the independant legal advice passed the accounts means that the accounts were de facto 'passable' and nothing Mr. Harris could say would be material to that decision. His concerns are more on the prudency of practices and his decision to step down was based on a lack of procedural formality and personal grievance rather than legalise. that would put it firmly into the 'AOB' sphere.

 

in my most humble opinion, of course.

 

1. The legal advice did NOT pass the accounts. It passed opinion on the transaction in question. A law firm is in no position to pass financial statements.

2. Auditors "passing" accounts does not make them correct. Just ask anyone who invested in Enron.

3. If Mr Harris was aware of something that he perceived to be inaccuracies within the financial statements it should probably have been dealt with prior to the AGM. It seems that the Trust (in total) and the auditors didnt do this - or at least they did not provide satisfactory responses to Mr Harris. The time to highlight supposed discrepancies is not after the financials are approved.

 

Personally I believe it should have formed part of the discussion on the financial statements - AOB is far removed from the business end of the meeting and would have rendered his opinion irrelevant.

[rbr 1,247]

Think that'll probably be the first time in a while DylanGer has been described as an RST evangelist.

 

Once again, you open your mouth and let your belly rumble about someone you know absolutely nothing about

 

 

Sorry mate but how exactly does that help with any meaningful debate , the guys been asking questions of the RST ever since I started on here and has never been given answers , this continual " it's ok we know what were doing routine " doesn't do any one any good and the continual praise and refusal to accept that MD has been up to no good is staggering , this guy is the most unfortunate individual I haver ever heard of , ever since the late 80's when he first started getting a reputation it's is always been someone else's fault , someone else's problem never his . Wake up !!!

[boss 0]

Would the fact that Mr. Harris complaints would have been answered by both the auditor and the independant legal advice not have seen his statement almost redundant? Would the 35 people present have voted to not pass the accounts in the face of 2 independant sources saying that it was all fine? Cant see it.

 

The fact that both the auditors and the independant legal advice passed the accounts means that the accounts were de facto 'passable' and nothing Mr. Harris could say would be material to that decision. His concerns are more on the prudency of practices and his decision to step down was based on a lack of procedural formality and personal grievance rather than legalise. that would put it firmly into the 'AOB' sphere.

 

in my most humble opinion, of course.

 

The logical extension of what you say is that all Accounts presented to any AGM should be nodded through by members if the auditors are present. Which is just daft.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Sorry mate but how exactly does that help with any meaningful debate , the guys been asking questions of the RST ever since I started on here and has never been given answers , this continual " it's ok we know what were doing routine " doesn't do any one any good and the continual praise and refusal to accept that MD has been up to no good is staggering , this guy is the most unfortunate individual I haver ever heard of , ever since the late 80's when he first started getting a reputation it's is always been someone else's fault , someone else's problem never his . Wake up !!!

 

What have I to wake up to?

 

I'm merely pointing out that MF is on the defensive regarding Dylanger and lumping him in with people who come over here and deflect flak from the Trust. Dylan isn't one of those people and anyone who remotely followed his recent postings would be perfectly well aware of that.

[rbr 1,247]

What have I to wake up to?

 

Oh come on mate , the paranoia that's being spread about the internet , they are all after us , it's a conspiracy , nothing to see here move along .

 

There are a lot of good people in the Rst but MD is not one of them , why he was allowed to get to where he is baffles me , if this had been the previous board there would be that many disciplinary committees set up it would be like mother Russia under Stalin , that's all I am saying

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Oh come on mate , the paranoia that's being spread about the internet , they are all after us , it's a conspiracy , nothing to see here move along .

 

There are a lot of good people in the Rst but MD is not one of them , why he was allowed to get to where he is baffles me , if this had been the previous board there would be that many disciplinary committees set up it would be like mother Russia under Stalin , that's all I am saying

 

You missed my edit but I'm not sure why I've to wake up? Where have I defended anyone within the Trust during the last 6-9 months?

 

I don't know anything about this or any other meaningful parts of the organisation and that seems to be the way the Trust likes it.

[Guest Pokeherface]

1. The legal advice did NOT pass the accounts. It passed opinion on the transaction in question. A law firm is in no position to pass financial statements.

2. Auditors "passing" accounts does not make them correct. Just ask anyone who invested in Enron.

3. If Mr Harris was aware of something that he perceived to be inaccuracies within the financial statements it should probably have been dealt with prior to the AGM. It seems that the Trust (in total) and the auditors didnt do this - or at least they did not provide satisfactory responses to Mr Harris. The time to highlight supposed discrepancies is not after the financials are approved.

 

Personally I believe it should have formed part of the discussion on the financial statements - AOB is far removed from the business end of the meeting and would have rendered his opinion irrelevant.

 

1, absolutely. I meant that the whole set of circumstances that lead up to Mr. Harris' statement were cleared by independant solicitors as not breaching legal 'limits'. those circumstances impacted upon the accounts and the fact they were cleared is reason to think that a solitary individual, however well placed, would be pissing against the wind trying to get the accounts stopped.

 

2, Indeed, however, the people at the meeting, unless they all had a background in accounts are very likely (I would say certain, personally) to take both the considered opinion of independant legal officer and the auditor over an individual.

 

3, Mr. Harris raised his complaints prior to the meeting, both with the people who checked the legality of the situation and with the auditors. His concerns are absolutely valid buit in terms of these specific accounts, almost immaterial. The incident was dealt with in the books to the satisfaction of all concerned, related party or otherwise, with the exception of Mr. Harris. His complaints, however valid, were not specifical to do with the accounts but to do with practices employed by the trust in several areas, taking them out of the discussion on these specific accounts.

 

 

Understand that this is purely opinion and based on hard and fast definitions rather than this actual occurance. Perhaps in hindsight and because of the furore caused, dealing with the statement early would have been the wisest option and I am certain that the rst board would today, if they could have a do-over, choose that option. Allowing Mr. Harris to walk out with an un-read statement has added fuel to this particular fire, there can be no doubt over that.

[Guest Pokeherface]

The logical extension of what you say is that all Accounts presented to any AGM should be nodded through by members if the auditors are present. Which is just daft.

 

How is a punter supposed to decide how to vote without the independant auditor? if the independant auditor has 'passed' the accounts, along with all bar one member of the board, how is a punter with no accounting background supposed to ever vote against the passing of the accounts? You have 17 board members and an independant body say 'yes' and one lone man saying 'no'.

 

bringing it up as AOB would have allowed Mr. Harris a platform to lodge his displeasure IMO.

[rbr 1,247]

You missed my edit but I'm not sure why I've to wake up? Where have I defended anyone within the Trust during the last 6-9 months?

 

I don't know anything about this or any other meaningful parts of the organisation and that seems to be the way the Trust likes it.

 

Point taken , responded before you wrote your edit

[rbr 1,247]

I know I shouldn't laff, but this is turning into something of a spectator sport, had a look on RM, hillheadbear is handing out a singular and severe lesson to the lightweights taking him on, laff I couldn't stop...... what a fekin david essex... :fish:

 

 

That has to go down as one of the biggest skelpings ever dished out in any thread ever ,absolute genius and why I stay away from clever people