Guest blackstoneisland Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 are you still a board member Brahim? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 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. Neither do I wish to get into a public spat with you, Christine, and I won't. All I said was "we also had monies owing to the Student Loan Company" which is a fact as per the auditors analysis. I don't recollect the explanation but if you say you told me then I won't argue nor will I argue with the explanation itself. However, I am sure you will agree that you were unhappy with the use and lack of use of our credit card machine. I have read comment about this on another site but I am not qualified to give an opinion. I would also point out that I put this in the general context of "the Trust received and paid income on behalf of other third parties". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share Posted September 28, 2010 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. In my opinion this kind of personal attack is not only uncalled for but does the poster no credit. Christine is not and has never claimed to be an accountant or a lawyer or a financial expert. I believe that she did her best with the cards that she was dealt and suffered intolerable pressures in the process. As can be seen on this thread Christine and I disagree on a number of issues but we do not resort to personal attacks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share Posted September 28, 2010 are you still a board member Brahim? Yes. "Yes" was all I wanted to say but apparently you have to use at least 10 characters in a reply! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share Posted September 28, 2010 It would be helpful if the exact dates of amounts becoming due and the exact dates of repayments of said amounts were clarified to allow a proper assessment of the facts of the case. . I agree with you entirely. However until RST release that information, I can say from the contemporaneous notes that I have of the meeting with the auditors summarised in my OP above that Christine stated that the two cheques totalling �£2690 bounced some time between September and November 2008 and that �£2660 thereof was repaid between November 2009 and March 2010. I this is correct then it would be fair to say that all of the debt was outstanding for a year and some of the debt was outstanding for up to 18 months. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share Posted September 28, 2010 What surprises me more is that no one appears to be interested in what the OP is alleging, again, is he alleging criminal actions by parties, why haven't SD taken any action as the OP has stated they are fully in agreement with his actions. . Perhaps you will allow me to answer this question and make another couple of points at the same time. I have not made any allegation of criminal wrongdoing. What I said in my correspondence with the auditors was that "The debt from unpaid cheques last year ..... means that there were breaches of Rule 6, 74 & 75 at least until the debt(s) were cleared this year."" The auditorââ?¬â?¢s response was that "The Society's Rules that determine its objects do not include making loans to third parties". So to be 100% clear, I called the amount of the unpaid cheques a debt, the auditors called it a loan and did so again (twice) when RST put my AGM statement to them last week. I stand by my opinion that whether the amount of the unpaid cheques was a debt or a loan there were breaches of Rules 74 and 75 of the Society's Constitution which state that "no person is allowed to serve on the Board who has ââ?¬Å?any material financial interest personally or as member of a firm or company....trading for profit or in any way whatsoever in any contract or other transaction with the Society.ââ?¬Â AND ââ?¬Å?Any member of the Board who discloses a financial interest ..... must vacate their office." Of course the person who owed the money did not declare the financial interest nor did the Chair or Vice Chair who had been informed by the Treasurer report the matter to the Board. I did not say that SD ââ?¬Å?are fully in agreement with my actionsââ?¬Â. What I said was that SD ââ?¬Å?have indicated that they feel I have acted with proprietyââ?¬Â. SD is a membership organisation, they are not regulators. However, they do have a Code of Conduct and any member Trust may be excluded for bringing the Trust movement into disrepute. I am sure that you will appreciate that as a Director of SD I cannot say any more than that. I would also like to clarify that whilst I was nominated by RST and seconded by Hamilton Accies, I do not represent any particular Trust, rather I represent the Trust movement as a whole and Scottish Trusts in particular. I hope this fully answers your questions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 Yes. "Yes" was all I wanted to say but apparently you have to use at least 10 characters in a reply! Press the tab bar 7 times. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 Originally Posted by maineflyer View PostBy 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. In my opinion this kind of personal attack is not only uncalled for but does the poster no credit. Christine is not and has never claimed to be an accountant or a lawyer or a financial expert. I believe that she did her best with the cards that she was dealt and suffered intolerable pressures in the process. As can be seen on this thread Christine and I disagree on a number of issues but we do not resort to personal attacks. Have to agree MF you have been asking for these people to open up and debate since you came on here. Now they have done so all you have to offer is a stupid personal attack. Most disappointing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 Perhaps you will allow me to answer this question and make another couple of points at the same time. I have not made any allegation of criminal wrongdoing. What I said in my correspondence with the auditors was that "The debt from unpaid cheques last year ..... means that there were breaches of Rule 6, 74 & 75 at least until the debt(s) were cleared this year."" The auditorââ?¬â?¢s response was that "The Society's Rules that determine its objects do not include making loans to third parties". So to be 100% clear, I called the amount of the unpaid cheques a debt, the auditors called it a loan and did so again (twice) when RST put my AGM statement to them last week. I stand by my opinion that whether the amount of the unpaid cheques was a debt or a loan there were breaches of Rules 74 and 75 of the Society's Constitution which state that "no person is allowed to serve on the Board who has ââ?¬Å?any material financial interest personally or as member of a firm or company....trading for profit or in any way whatsoever in any contract or other transaction with the Society.ââ?¬Â AND ââ?¬Å?Any member of the Board who discloses a financial interest ..... must vacate their office." Of course the person who owed the money did not declare the financial interest nor did the Chair or Vice Chair who had been informed by the Treasurer report the matter to the Board. I did not say that SD ââ?¬Å?are fully in agreement with my actionsââ?¬Â. What I said was that SD ââ?¬Å?have indicated that they feel I have acted with proprietyââ?¬Â. SD is a membership organisation, they are not regulators. However, they do have a Code of Conduct and any member Trust may be excluded for bringing the Trust movement into disrepute. I am sure that you will appreciate that as a Director of SD I cannot say any more than that. I would also like to clarify that whilst I was nominated by RST and seconded by Hamilton Accies, I do not represent any particular Trust, rather I represent the Trust movement as a whole and Scottish Trusts in particular. I hope this fully answers your questions. Thank you BH. I still think it is a storm in a teacup, but of course many teacups can add up to a Tsunami. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blackstoneisland Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 Yes. "Yes" was all I wanted to say but apparently you have to use at least 10 characters in a reply! thanks. do you think this has gone too far? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.