The financial affairs of the RST

[Frankie 8,186]

Whilst I disagree with most of that Alan, I'm not prepared to get into a spat with you on an internet forum. What I would like to clarify for people is your reference to the Student Loan Company as I've seen that on another site people putting two and two together and coming out with 356. If you didn't understand at the time why didn't you say so as I clearly remember explaining it to you. Simply, an ex-Board member worked for this company and was responsible for running a charity fundraiser. He simply borrowed our credit card machine for the evening to enable credit cards to be taken at their auction. We took in the money on their behalf and when the statement came in we gave them the money back, less the transaction charges that were incurred. Nobody lost, nobody gained but suddenly people are implying that we are paying off student loans.

 

Thanks for explaining.

 

Again, I'm no expert on financial stuff such as this but is it ethical for rented Trust equipment to be sub-let out to other organisations; especially the financial costs involved?

[boss 0]

Whilst I disagree with most of that Alan, I'm not prepared to get into a spat with you on an internet forum. What I would like to clarify for people is your reference to the Student Loan Company as I've seen that on another site people putting two and two together and coming out with 356. If you didn't understand at the time why didn't you say so as I clearly remember explaining it to you. Simply, an ex-Board member worked for this company and was responsible for running a charity fundraiser. He simply borrowed our credit card machine for the evening to enable credit cards to be taken at their auction. We took in the money on their behalf and when the statement came in we gave them the money back, less the transaction charges that were incurred. Nobody lost, nobody gained but suddenly people are implying that we are paying off student loans.

 

As Frankie says, the RST seems to be paying for a credit card machine (usually about �£25 pm) then letting others use it for functions where the RST is not receiving the benefit. Apart from unethical, it is also completely against the agreement the RST has with the credit card company. But PLG doesn't seem to care about the legalities of breaking contractual agreements.

Edited September 27, 2010 by boss

[maineflyer 0]

As Frankie says, the RST seems to be paying for a credit card machine (usually about �£25 pm) then letting others use it for functions where the RST is not receiving the benefit. Apart from unethical, it is also completely against the agreement the RST has with the credit card company. But PLG doesn't seem to care about the legalities of breaking contractual agreements.

By this stage I think it must be abundantly clear to everyone that PLG (aka Christine Somerville) is unfit for any office, having neither the intellect nor experience to make sound judgement on issues of legality or finance. For years I've read her evasive brand of RST propaganda and silly politicking on various websites. She's far from the only one but she seems particularly keen to combine stupidity with self-publicity and deserves all criticism coming her way. If she had a fraction of the ability she claims, she would have disappeared from view long ago.

 

The only constructive thing she has contributed is to show a wider audience exactly why I've been evangelising against these dangerous clowns for years.

[plgsarmy 111]

By this stage I think it must be abundantly clear to everyone that PLG (aka Christine Somerville) is unfit for any office, having neither the intellect nor experience to make sound judgement on issues of legality or finance. For years I've read her evasive brand of RST propaganda and silly politicking on various websites. She's far from the only one but she seems particularly keen to combine stupidity with self-publicity and deserves all criticism coming her way. If she had a fraction of the ability she claims, she would have disappeared from view long ago.

 

The only constructive thing she has contributed is to show a wider audience exactly why I've been evangelising against these dangerous clowns for years.

 

You know Maineflyer, you can resort to personal abuse all you want. It says much more about you than it says about me.

[Guest Dylanger]

By this stage I think it must be abundantly clear to everyone that PLG (aka Christine Somerville) is unfit for any office, having neither the intellect nor experience to make sound judgement on issues of legality or finance. For years I've read her evasive brand of RST propaganda and silly politicking on various websites. She's far from the only one but she seems particularly keen to combine stupidity with self-publicity and deserves all criticism coming her way. If she had a fraction of the ability she claims, she would have disappeared from view long ago.

 

The only constructive thing she has contributed is to show a wider audience exactly why I've been evangelising against these dangerous clowns for years.

 

That to be frank is a pile of shite and I say that safe in the knowledge I have full understanding of the era where it unfolded. I call it straight I think Christine would reflect that mistakes were made particularly on the transparency issue at the time. She has moved on from that position and she would be the first to go if she thought it benefitted the RST.

 

During my time on the board she was constantly looking for ways to move the RST on, she didn't get the glamour gigs and was a selfless worker-she and Joanne in particular did a lot of the donkey work. She's not stupid and she's no self-publicist.

 

Now I do think this is something of a mess and I think serious mistakes were made. It would appear however the auditors have accepted there was no wrong doing-the books were passed.In a football analogy you might argue Christine had a poor game but won the match. Last time I checked nobody in life was perfect.

 

As I said if it came to it, internally or externally if she felt the opinion was her mistakes meant that the RST would benefit from her leaving she would go.

 

A lot of what you've posted is personal and a generalisation without understanding the limitations,context and details of the era and what was involved.

[maineflyer 0]

That to be frank is a pile of shite and I say that safe in the knowledge I have full understanding of the era where it unfolded. I call it straight I think Christine would reflect that mistakes were made particularly on the transparency issue at the time. She has moved on from that position and she would be the first to go if she thought it benefitted the RST.

 

During my time on the board she was constantly looking for ways to move the RST on, she didn't get the glamour gigs and was a selfless worker-she and Joanne in particular did a lot of the donkey work. She's not stupid and she's no self-publicist.

 

Now I do think this is something of a mess and I think serious mistakes were made. It would appear however the auditors have accepted there was no wrong doing-the books were passed.In a football analogy you might argue Christine had a poor game but won the match. Last time I checked nobody in life was perfect.

 

As I said if it came to it, internally or externally if she felt the opinion was her mistakes meant that the RST would benefit from her leaving she would go.

 

A lot of what you've posted is personal and a generalisation without understanding the limitations,context and details of the era and what was involved.

 

I think you're the one talking shite "mate". Putting gloss on mince won't turn it into steak. Why you feel obligated to write such tosh is you're own affair but, please, don't try pulling the wool over the eyes of people who know far more than you realize.

[bmck 117]

that mistakes were made

 

I think serious mistakes were made

.

 

Who were the mistakes made by?

[Guest Dylanger]

I think you're the one talking shite "mate". Putting gloss on mince won't turn it into steak. Why you feel obligated to write such tosh is you're own affair but, please, don't try pulling the wool over the eyes of people who know far more than you realize.

 

You should have stuck to the details then because you dragged your debate/opinion into areas that are factually incorrect regarding the person-if you left that out you may have had a valid stance on the specifics of what unfolded but it seems you wanted to personalise it instead.

[Guest Dylanger]

.

 

Who were the mistakes made by?

 

Those who made them at the time-I would think 4 were involved.

 

Currently I would say the whole board have botched the last 6 weeks although to be fair we won't know the detail of the debates behind the scenes.

[bmck 117]

Thanks for replying.

 

Those who made them at the time-I would think 4 were involved.

 

As a member, but someone who isn't party to any insider knowledge or behind the scenes info - who are these people? I can guess plgsarmy and the person to whom the money was loaned.