Psychic News, SNU Spiritualist National Union and Liquidator

[quote]The committee is not new: I was a member for six years, with my close friend Barry Oates. We were both,with another colleague, co-authors of 'Philosophy of Spiritualism.'
It was me, in my capacity as a member of the NEC (not as a member of the P&E committee), who made the complaint relating to the article in PN concerning statements made by some AFC tutors. The then-President's response was a personal attack on me and an attack on the P&E Committee. This attack on the committee led to Mr Oates' resignation as Chair. He remained on the committee, as did the other members of the committee. I was appointed by the NEC to the position of Chair.

Presumably, deejayhop, you complained about the publication of the tutors' article because you were not happy with its content. Perhaps PN were not entirely happy with it either since the editor allowed considerable "Comment, debate and discussion" on the topic, something you say has been "the hall-mark of the Union during my fifty years of membership." Isn't that a good thing and a sign of a vibrant journal? If memory serves me right, some months before the tutors' debacle, the paper also carried out a detailed interview with the excellent Barry Oates, a clear sign of the importance in which it held what you term "my religious philosophy of Spiritualism."


[quote]Subsequent to the AGM, the committee members were not reappointed. They did not resign. No names of members of the committee currently appear on the SNU website; this appears to indicate that the NEC has not appointed members to this committee. [quote]


This is puzzling. Surely the new president recognises the core importance of philosophy to the movement as a whole? Why would he not appoint members to the committee? Has a reason been given?

Dan wrote:
Since the meeting takes place on 15 September faxing proxy forms is going to be the only option for many overseas subscribers and creditors. I am not aware what time that meeting will take place."

[/b]

I am missing something here? This guy is a senior person at Berley's but doesn't know what time the meeting will take place? Does he not have a secretary? Or an intercom which he might press to speak to a colleague who has the time info? It's extraordinary. Add to this the previously posted embarrassing date gaffe from Psychic Press's executive director and it's clear that the ongoing farce entitled Carry On Up the SNU is going as well as ever!

Hi Dan,

I think you may have misunderstood. The last part of the quote from Paranormal Review was Roy Stemmans' remark. He was saying he did not know the time of the meeting. So it wasn't the man from Berley who was ignorant of the time.

Lis

Today is the day of the liquidator's meeting.

I wonder how many creditors will physically turn up or will it mainly be SNU representatives?

Good question Z and how many SNU members will dare turn up and risk having their cards marked for future action if they step out of line.

I wonder if deejayhop, above i.e. David Hopkins will go as he was a part of the NEC when the decisioon was made in June. After all the error of judgement and poor morality in thie way the whole thing has been conducted is the collective responsibilty of all the then committee, unless there were matters they were not made aware of.

Big day, I hope enough Creditors turn up to voice their concerns to make life uncomfortable for the NEC and Liquidator. Maybe even force some investigation of the antics that they very well seem to have got up to.

Our Proxy is attending, I hope everyone on here who is owed money ensured they are represented when questions are asked on their behalf and the votes counted.

As everyone knows I feel this liquidator is too close to the NEC to be independent. If enough Creditors were in place then a different firm could be appointed. Its no wonder they did their utmost to ensure the dissmissed staff could not vote as a Creditor.

I would assume that the SNU had set themselves up to be the largest creditor and would have outvoted any move by small creditors that would not be in the SNU's best interests.

But one thing they cannot do is silence any criticism of their actions and I hope there were some very erudite and knowledgeable critics there!

I trust there will be too Wes, however, I suspect that your first point is right and in value terms they will have made sure they control the majority of the debt.

The latest News!!

Liquidation frozen

Leslie Price reports from London

Plans to appoint a liquidator for Psychic Press were abandoned by the SNU shareholders minutes before a creditors’ meeting in London on Wednesday.

The SNU told creditors at an informal meeting that instead it was intended to wind down the company gradually. There would be no general resumption of trading, but the Psychic News web site would be re-activated for the limited sale of books. It was hoped to gradually repay a proportion of the money owing to creditors, firstly trade, then subscribers. The SNU had already voluntarily repaid money paid for fund raising events (any one accidentally omitted should contact Psychic Press again).

The Union once more asserted its ownership of the title, archives and other PN assets, but said they were open to offers about PN’s future.

Berley, the accountants who were intended to act as liquidator, are now ending their involvement, and any queries about Psychic Press should be addressed to the Executive Director, Mark Bradley.

The SNU were represented at the meeting by David Bruton, Charles Coulston, Mark Bradley and Graham Hewitt.

This is very curious news indeed.

A company that was insolvent by December 2009, whose Directors agreed on 22 May 2010 was insolvent and therefore must be wound up and placed in liquidation, which despite this decision continued to operate, taking money for subscriptions, advertising and for future events until at least June 2010, and possibly in the case of some suppliers of books to Psychic Press receiving books and invoices as late as mid-July 2010, is now suddenly going back into "limited" trading!!!!???

It is claimed that it is hoped to gradually repay a proportion of the money owed to creditors? Now just how can the company only pay a proportion of its debts if it is still in business? It is either capable of paying its creditors and supplying subscribers with what they have paid for or it isn't, and if it isn't then it is trading insolvently.

As for the SNU "voluntarily" repaying money to those who paid for future events - I rather think that was a self-serving exercise to protect the SNU from legal action for fraudulently taking the money after the date on which they decided to place the company in liquidation. Certainly there is no high moral or ethical ground for the SNU by that action, however much the executives of the SNU might try to claim it.

The Union asserted its ownership of the title, archives and other PN assets - well technically those assets belong to Psychic Press (1995) Ltd, and not the SNU despite the fact that the SNU own Psychic Press. Until Psychic Press (1995) Ltd is either put into liquidation to allow the assets to be sold to cover the debts, or the SNU sells Psychic Press to an interested trust, those assets should, must, remain part of Psychic Press and not devolve to the SNU.

It is suggested that the SNU might be open to offers about PN's future - yet, unless the assets of PN, namely the masthead, archives and other assets are part of the deal there can be no future for Psychic News.

If I thought the SNU had acted immorally in this matter up to now, their action today not only confirmed it, it went further still, and highlights just how spiritually and ethically moribund those SNU executives involved in what has been done actually are.

Somehow I am not surprised that Berley's are no longer to be involved. Whether that was at the request of the SNU or Berley's themselves recognised they really did not want to be a party to the actions of the SNU will probably not be revealed. A pity as I am sure that there are many who would really like to know the truth about what was decided and why.

You can be sure though that no SNU member will ever be told the truth. So much for Mr. Bruton's claim of being a supporter of open communication within the SNU.

This just gets worse and worse, they want to re-commence trading and ignore the fact they are insolvent. To trade in books they will have to buy some more, who would give Credit to them for this operation. Indeed if they use cash then they are defrauding creditors to do so. If they sell existing stock they will be selling books they have not paid for and even now indicate may only pay a proportion of.

What they are about to do is totally illegal as well as continuing their unethical and immoral behaviour.

By the way they continue to deny their ex employees any rights they can only get the Government Money once the liquidator provides forms proving insolvency. I doubt any of teh documents they issued to staff on their dissmissal have any relevance now in the face of this latest act. I am sure if it starts trading again they all have an action against the SNU.

What a farce, at the least as Company Secretary of Psychic Press and an officer of the Company Charles Coulston should bring it to an end by calling in an Administrator.

I bet the two independent directors have no idea to what a level of insolvent trading they are now being dragged into without full Psychic Press Board discussion.

Worse on worse its time the other NEC members knocked on the doors of those responsible and said enough. Indeed its time the SNU members presented a vote of no confidence in the NEC for the damage it is causing to the SNU's reputation in the broad Spiritualist Community.

Just sell to the JV Trust if you can Bruton and get out with what little of the SNU's reputation you can salvage from the train wreck you are creating.

I do have an idea but it requires coordination.

If each Creditor raises a statement of demand upon Psychic Presss and lodges it the Company has 28 days to pay the debt or else the creditor can put it into liquidation.

The demand includes the legal costs involved and has to be paid in full say the debt plus possible 100 pounds in fees. In my case the claims would be 106 pounds 50 then. An extra 100 pounds to find or else a liquidator steps in. Now I reckon that the SNU would pay this out.

However if we coordinated statements of claim set on the same day for a large number of creditors then the SNU has to find an extra 100 pounds for each one.

Say we coordinated 200 statements of demand. Then they would need to find the individual debts plus 20000 pounds.

I am sure we could get this much and I am prepared to pay out my 100 pound to bring this to fruition if it cannot be recovered from the SNU.

If they did not pay out this body would be the largest creditor in value and could appoint a liquidator and the Committee of Inspection. If necessary I would add to that 100 pounds to fund a pursuit of the directors and officers for insolvent trading. I believe this is a matter of conscience to bring the issue to completion.

Of course they could just sell out and quit while they were a little more ahead.

I am sure we could coordinate this so that by the end of October PP would be in liquidation

From May onward the tale of Psychic News, PP (1995) Ltd, and the SNU seems to have been forming itself into a sort of two-plot play by Tom Stoppard, with loopy twists and turns courtesy of the Monty Python team. Wednesday's "Act" sounds the most Pythonesque yet.

The play bears more than a passing resemblance to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" -- the staff of PN taking the R and G roles, being allowed only baffling little glimpses of some bigger drama from which they, the victims, are of course excluded.

Well, good folk of PN, singalong with Eric Idle -- "Always look on the bright side of life"....

(I'm being cynical, not frivolous -- just shaken awake by the thunder of guns from the other side of the world. Keep firing, Lis and Admin!)

Eilis

PS Just seen Admin's suggestion. I'm no arithmetician, but think I understand. I'd be willing to chip in 100 quid. Thunder on!!

Eilis

However, I understand the SNU claim documentary evidence that they own the Masthead and Archives, so just when did this transaction occur? If it is in the last 9 months a liquidator would set it aside. Indeed, hunting value any liquidator would want to know the when and why that an asset, purchased by PP when it acquired the business with the guarantee of independence, which is the only item of value within the company, moved to the SNU. Hmm it would have to be documented in the minutes of Psychic Press (1995) Ltd and the consideration received from it shown fully.

Any transaction which took place after the directors knew the Business was insolvent would be invalid as it would preference one Creditor.

The burning question is also why are Berley's no longer included? Were they about to take on the role of Liquidation in a serious manner which may have put unexpected pressure upon the SNU?

In the absence of any reasonable explanation it could be that the SNU became concerned so refused to appoint them. The problem is that the company has, at some stage, to go into liquidation.

Oh well more information to pass onto the Companies House Investigations Bureau. The reality is that the Company is not being run by the Directors I doubt the full board has met in ages. The SNU are running a business insolvently now.

I reckon documentary evidence or no they should hand the Masthead and Archives back to PP and sell it to the JV Trust as best they can. Once a liquidator is appointed they will pursue that single transaction and if at all possible take over possesion of those assets. They may also look at the way the transaction was engineered and see whether other action arises from an attempt to defraud other creditors.

By not bringing on the liquidation the SNU know the story and our pursuit will run and run and run until it takes up all of Bruton's first year as President.

The SNU are proposing to run a reduced Bookshop while insolvent and have no experienced staff to do so? The shop stock is no longer theirs to sell, either.

Now what is this REALLY all about?

Indeed Hiorta, what is this latest action REALLY all about?

If I understand the situation correctly, while Psychic News was not making money, was almost certainly resulting in such a level of expenses over income that the overall effect on Psychic Press was insolvency, the book sales side of things was more profitable.

I believe that the 'Working Party,' that is David Bruton, Mark Bradley, Andrew Hadley, and Charles Coulson as Secretary, may have been of the view that the book sales side of PP could be a thriving and profitable part of the business, which I feel sure, back in May 2010 they thought would be also incorporated into the SNU, hence saving in accountancy fees.

Of course at that time it was also clear that Psychic Press (1995) Ltd was operating insolvently and rather than try to siphon off parts of the company into the SNU, the Board of Psychic Press should have called in an Adminstrator.

I feel certain that at that time the assets of Psychic News, that is the masthead and archives were not owned separately by the SNU but formed part of the assets of Psychic Press. Of course, for those members of the SNU that wanted to 'keep' Psychic News that reality would not have been conducive to what they wanted to achieve. Equally, if there is now documentation that supports the view that the SNU owns the masthead and archives of PN, the obvious question must be, when did that 'ownership' take place?

If it occurred after 22 May 2010, one might well argue that their action in transferring the assets of PN to the SNU is not only immoral, but also illegal.

As for the book sales that they suggest may now take place other significant questions arise. If they sell existing stock, assuming they can put in place some staff to do the paperwork (no doubt there are some poor b'rs who can be put upon within the SNU administration), in reality any money achieved should go to the existing creditors to repay the debt owed to them by Psychic Press. Equally, if the SNU orders new books for sale, those new creditors are at great risk because the existing creditors should surely have priority over them in terms of payment of pre-existing debt.

One cannot but wonder whether the SNU were suddenly confronted with the reality of their actions and the potential for the liquidators actually calling them to account for their appalling mis-management of the situation with Psychic Press. To suddenly remove the company from the imminent liquidation and suggest that over time some creditors might get some of their money back is literally astounding as a claim.

As I have said previously, either there is money to pay the creditors or there is not - if not - this company is still attempting to operate when insolvent.

Whatever the SNU thinks it is doing, or trying to achieve by this latest ploy, one can be sure that in the process its reputations is sinking ever lower below the horizen. Those involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves. They should resign, they are not worthy of calling themselves Spiritualists.

Graham Hewitt, spokesman for the SNU shareholders, said that the title, archives etc of PN had passed to the SNU in 1995, as confirmed by a 1995 STF letter to them. We shall doubtless hear more on this point.

This is very interesting new information and I am sure that the STF will dispute this. Now why would the SNU decide to challenge one of their major benefactors, one that has ensured the AFC and the SNU could flourish. I am certain the STF will disagree upon this point.

It also makes a nonsense of why this has also become such a big issue. If they already owned the assets why stop the liquidation when they still make it clear people will not be paid out in full?

I believe an investigation of the minutes of the 22nd may may reveal that they believed they could buy the assets at a knock down price. This is in keeping of what we know the liquidators tell people about how they can control the movement of assets in liquidation. Why if they already owned the assets, would this be a big deal, I believe we have yet another attempt to obsure reality being presented today at this meeting.

Once again, sadly I doubt anyone will believe the NEC.

Again remember the STF offered to purchase the Company to avoid liquidation but the SNU refused. The Company will still have to be liquidated and we will all be watching. Just sell everything to the STF at last please Bruton you and the NEC know this will track you forever.

Now the SNU have refused to allow Berleys to act as liquidators and decided to continue to trade insolvently. I note that Berleys admit annoyance from the thunder down under, us in Australia. By no way have we finished, apart from my qualifications I will back them up by the fact that when I apply for work I have 3 Order of Australia references and one extra who was an ex Myers Department Stores Managing Director. My references come for my ability and ethical behaviour in the Business World of Australia. The behaviour of the NEC disgusts me as a Business man and horrifies me as a Medium and Leader of a Spiritualist Centre. I will pursue this as long as I have to.

For myself. now that the liquidator has withdrawn, I believe the SNU, instead of facing facts, are trying to create new ones. It was a painless cheap buy out of assets that has now gone wrong.

It is time the NEC ADMITTED IT - say sorry to the members of the SNU and to all Spiritualists.

I understand that David Bruton is attending a questions and answers session at the Westbury Park (Bristol) Spiritualist Church this Saturday., Details on the church's website
http://www.swndc.org.uk/event_bristolwest.htm

Surely this is too good an opportunity to ask some questions about this matter. Please everyone go, also, even so respect what the Church is trying to do. Ask the tough questions.

Jim

Now why would the SNU decide to challenge one of their major benefactors, one that has ensured the AFC and the SNU could flourish. I am certain the STF will disagree upon this point.

I am sure the STF will dispute that they were one of the major benefactors. The STF did not offer to purchase the company.

Again remember the STF offered to purchase the Company to avoid liquidation but the SNU refused.

The STF is the Spiritual Truth Foundation. They are the ones who Roy Stemman admitted handed PN over to the SNU.

This must be the farce to end all farces!

Half a dozen people turn up to a liquidators meeting only to be told there is no meeting after all.

I was told that hardly anyone would be bothered to turn up with the result that the SNU would got their own way. The only ones to profit from this debacle are the firm advising the SNU who will get their fees guaranteed.

What a shambles.

This is very interesting new information and I am sure that the STF will dispute this. Now why would the SNU decide to challenge one of their major benefactors, one that has ensured the AFC and the SNU could flourish. I am certain the STF will disagree upon this point.

Again remember the STF offered to purchase the Company to avoid liquidation but the SNU refused. The Company will still have to be liquidated and we will all be watching. Just sell everything to the STF at last please Bruton you and the NEC know this will track you forever.

Is the STF being confused with the JVTrust who have been major benefactors to the College and the SNU?

Its no wonder they did their utmost to ensure the dissmissed staff could not vote as a Creditor.

There have been quite a few references saying that the PN staff would not be allowed to attend the creditors' meeting yet I see that Sue Farrow and Paul Brett (PN staff) were at the meeting.

Ann Harrison wrote:

This is very interesting new information and I am sure that the STF will dispute this. Now why would the SNU decide to challenge one of their major benefactors, one that has ensured the AFC and the SNU could flourish. I am certain the STF will disagree upon this point.

Again remember the STF offered to purchase the Company to avoid liquidation but the SNU refused. The Company will still have to be liquidated and we will all be watching. Just sell everything to the STF at last please Bruton you and the NEC know this will track you forever.

Is the STF being confused with the JVTrust who have been major benefactors to the College and the SNU?

Most probably. As I have stated on here a number of times the JV Trust has millions at their disposal and have been very generous to the AFC and thereby the SNU.

Here is the latest report from Roy Stemman on paranormalreview.com:

http://paranormalreview.com/articles/20100916
or

https://web.archive.org/web/20110711191621/http://paranormalreview.com/articles/20101116

I am at a loss to understand what is going on. My mind is truly boggled. If the Psychic Press don’t own the archives or masthead and all the staff have been sacked, just what do they own that’s worth buying and the SNU think would interest a potential buyer?

If the liquidation has been halted and the company is continuing to fail to honour its contractual obligation such as running adverts and supplying weekly newspapers to subscribers surely it is operating illegally. I am sure the tax man won’t stand for any nonsense.

I can’t even ascertain what I am actually owed because I paid for postal subscriptions annually by credit card and my sums don’t even add up! So I am not really in a position to substantiate any claim. The cover price is 70p and if you times that by say 51 weeks it comes to £35.70. According to my credit card statement I paid £62.55 to Psychic News last November which equates to £1.22 per copy. Were they really charging 52p postage per copy? I must admit I just paid up every year without bothering to do the sums. Does anyone know what the correct price was for postal subscription in the UK?

zerdini wrote:

Its no wonder they did their utmost to ensure the dissmissed staff could not vote as a Creditor.

There have been quite a few references saying that the PN staff would not be allowed to attend the creditors' meeting yet I see that Sue Farrow and Paul Brett (PN staff) were at the meeting.

To clarify the situation re the creditors' meeting:

Paul and I were not permitted to attend the meeting as creditors in our own right. He attended as a proxy for the International Spiritualist Federation; I attended as a proxy for one of the directors of Psychic Press (1995) Ltd, Cissie Shaw, who was owed a debt by the company.

Susan Farrow